Challenge for the Protestants

[SolaScriptura]

Uh huh. Are you just trolling now, Sola? You know better than to make a statement that directly conflicts with the Word of God.

“if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” (1 Timothy 3:15)

Do you have reading comprehension problems? “Pillar and Ground” are not exactly the same thing as “Pillar and Foundation” Futhermore, I was quoting your rule of faith to you. So the question is do you believe it?

So now, in addition to declaring:

1. the doctrine of sola scriptura to be infallible
2. the doctrine of sola scriptura is not taught in the Bible

we can add

1. the Bible is the pillar and foundation in direct contradiction to Scripture.

You really are losing all credibility, aren’t you?

LOL … you’ve never had any credibility.

Really? Tell me:

Should we baptize infants or not? What did Paul say?

You tell me the correct teaching on predistination. Is Thomas or Molina correct?

Why should you accept our “fallible” attempts to prove something you reject in advance?

I don’t reject them in advance. You get it right sometimes.

I mean, we could show you what an infallible Church teaches, but you wouldn’t accept it anyway.

Is that an infallible statement? How do you know the church is infallible?

Just like you won’t engage in a discussion on Apostolic Succession. Some truths you just don’t want to hear.

Now you are starting to lie. Your desperation is starting to get the best of you. For the 4th time. Let’s go. Start the thread or I mean start you cut-n-paste

 

[Rhonda_Renee]

And that same “Catholic” Church still exists today.

Either you are part of the one Church that is headed by the successor of Peter or you aren’t. It’s really that simple.

Ahhh… and this is the proverbial rub. Does that same “Catholic” church truely exist? I’m having a hard enough time trying to find out what the Catholic Church believes today let alone putting the last 2000 years under scrutiny (and that includes Limbo, indulgences etc…) There’s enough change that one HAS to ask the question if it’s the same church. Sure, it has Peter as it’s foundation… but the beliefs may not be Peters. With so many corrupt Popes and Priests in the past I could find it hard to believe that direct succession means the Church is heading in the right direction.

 

[runandsew]

newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htm
IRENAUES
And Manny, respectfully, do not get on to anyone about spelling or such things. You frequently leave off the endings on words and no one ever says anything to you about it.

I disagrree, spelin is very importent whin writin yer meseges.

 

[Randy_Carson]

For the 4th time. Let’s go. Start the thread or I mean start you cut-n-paste

The thread “Apostolic Succession in the Catholic Church” has been active for days. I’ve invited you to engage there…haven’t seen anything from you, yet.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ahhh… and this is the proverbial rub. Does that same “Catholic” church truely exist? I’m having a hard enough time trying to find out what the Catholic Church believes today let alone putting the last 2000 years under scrutiny (and that includes Limbo, indulgences etc…) There’s enough change that one HAS to ask the question if it’s the same church. Sure, it has Peter as it’s foundation… but the beliefs may not be Peters. With so many corrupt Popes and Priests in the past I could find it hard to believe that direct succession means the Church is heading in the right direction.

Does the corruption or personal sin of Pope mean that he no longer holds any authority?

 

[Rhonda_Renee]

And that same “Catholic” Church still exists today.

Either you are part of the one Church that is headed by the successor of Peter or you aren’t. It’s really that simple.

Does the corruption or personal sin of Pope mean that he no longer holds any authority?

I don’t know, I’m inclined to believe that something is amiss when there are gross abuses. I know we all sin and, I don’t expect a perfect Pope. But, I do expect some evidence that he is a successor of Peter. And, if there’s not evidence. If he’s more a puppet of the authorities or has worldly ambitions of his own… I just wonder where the succession has gone? Can it be a mistake that a Pope has been elected? We are humans.

(by the way, I’m not Catholic but have been attending a Catholic church for about 6 months now…seeking)

 

[Taliesin]

And the instruction to follow the “Bible Alone” is found where? Which verse is that?
…“Okay, Timothy, I’ll be dead soon. When I’m gone, I want you to forget everything you’ve ever heard me say, and focus exclusively on these two brief letters that I have sent to you.”

That’s a pretty big paradigm shift and I find it hard to believe that the Apostles forgot to warn us it was about to take place…it must be in the Bible somewhere.

Thoughts?

Your question’s off-topic, but I’m a sucker–I’ll take the bait.

The “two letters?” No. That’s a straw man. All 13 or 14. And the Gospels. And Acts. And Peter’s Letters. And John’s. And Jude’s. And Revelation.

You’re missing the forest for the trees. Sola Scriptura is written into the fabric of the New Testament.
I just did a search on net.bible.org on “it is written”. It found 65 verses, on that exact string. Look up “written” or “it was written” or some other related variant and it will find many more. When did Jesus say to Satan, “Hillel and all the scribes have passed on the following …”? Paul and Peter and Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. When Paul said follow the traditions that were handed over to you he’s not arguing for an orthogonal revelation stream, equally valid to Scripture. He’s saying, obey your leaders because we know the best way (since God raised us up for this purpose) to order your worship according to Scripture (OT and the emerging NT). Times vary, cultures and languages and sensibilities vary, so new forms of worship need to be innovated. But not new doctrines or dogmas. Paul urged Timothy “15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.” (2 Tim. 2:15). He didn’t mention Tradition. Okay, here’s the verse you’ve no doubt been waiting for: 2 Tim 3:15-17: “and how from infancy you have known the holy writings, which are able to give you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 3:16 Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 3:17 that the person dedicated to God may be capable and equipped for every good work.” You think Paul would mention Tradition here, if it were that important. I don’t see it.

Here are some more verses that don’t mention Tradition:
“For this reason, take up the full armor of God so that you may be able to stand your ground 27 on the evil day, and having done everything, to stand. 6:14 Stand firm therefore, by fastening 28 the belt of truth around your waist, 29 by putting on the breastplate of righteousness, 6:15 by fitting your 30 feet with the preparation that comes from the good news 31 of peace, 32 6:16 and in all of this, 33 by taking up the shield 34 of faith with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation 35 and the sword 36 of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” You’d think something so important as Tradition would be catalogued here.

 

[Mannyfit75]

newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htm

 

[SolaScriptura]

The thread “Apostolic Succession in the Catholic Church” has been active for days. I’ve invited you to engage there…haven’t seen anything from you, yet.

No you never invited me to specific thread. You first mentioned the discussion in a private message after I challenged you to a debate. You mentioned it again in a post and I told you to start it. You mentioned it again in a post. Once again I told you to start it. You mentioned it again in a post. Again I told you to start it. One would think if you already had a thread going you should have pointed me to it. Anyhow, I will check it out and respond to what you think is your silver bullet. As I said before you will quickly find out that you think to highly of yourself or should I say your favorite apologetic sites that you liberally cut-n-paste from.

 

[runandsew]

You’re missing the forest for the trees. Sola Scriptura is written into the fabric of the New Testament.
I just did a search on net.bible.org on “it is written”. It found 65 verses, on that exact string. Look up “written” or “it was written” or some other related variant and it will find many more.

Wow, you are right, it did show “It is written” 65 times, I never knew that before, and I did another search and found that the New Testament says “But I say” only 10 times, so I guess by a majority vote you win. I guess that all fabrics have some minor flaws in them.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Show me a document not from the Bible that support Faith Alone, and Bible Alone was practice by Early Christians in the 1st to 5th Century A.D, and also show me the description of Worship service by Early Christians.

Do not use the Scripture. You must use historical references to include non-believers.

I state my claim that the Early Church is indeed Catholic Church. It’s Eucharistic Liturgy, which is the center of Catholic worship.

This is a possible reading of the texts & archaeological evidence.​

But - there is a difference between ancient Christian statements about the Eucharist (say):

• being positively compatible with modern “RCism”
• not being positively incompatible with a “RC” interpretation
• being incompatible with any other type of Christianity than “RCism”
• positively requiring a “RC” interpretation
  Nothing in Justin Martyr’s description of the Eucharist (say) at Rome in 150 or so, prevents its use being quoted by Anglicans. It can be seen as an early form of the Roman Mass of modern times - it can also be seen as an early form of the Holy Communion described in the Book of Common Prayer. Even though the two later forms of Christianity are not in communion.

So it is unsound reasoning to say that because the Eucharist in Rome in 150 or so can be seen as an early form of the Roman Mass, it therefore follows that any other form of the Eucharist than the Roman Mass is illegitimate. It may or may not be the case that the Roman Mass (rather than the Anglican Holy Communion, for instance) is a legitimate form of the Eucharist as it was in Rome in 150: but the question (assuming it to be appropriate) cannot be decided from reading a description of so early a stage of the Eucharist. There is too much theological-canonical-doctrinal development between 150 and (say) 1550 for the question to be decided so readily: the 1400 years in between have a bearing on what happened after them, too. Which is why it’s not possible to go from the Eucharist of 150, to the Mass as it is in 2000, as though the life of the CC in 2000 were not affected by anything after 150.

The description in Justin Martyr does not address the question of the legitimacy of the two forms of the Eucharist - the Fathers can’t be expected to address questions which had not arisen, in the forms in which later generations asked them. ##

To my fellow Catholics, feel free to join in the discussion.

 

[runandsew]

I will use scripture. I am offended you would ask us not too.
Interesting…and not in a good way!
Here are three things I know for sure that Paul said:

1. There was a meal and everyone was supposed to start at the same time. Where do you get your liturgy out of that?
   BH

 

[exiled]

I don’t know, I’m inclined to believe that something is amiss when there are gross abuses. I know we all sin and, I don’t expect a perfect Pope. But, I do expect some evidence that he is a successor of Peter. And, if there’s not evidence. If he’s more a puppet of the authorities or has worldly ambitions of his own… I just wonder where the succession has gone? Can it be a mistake that a Pope has been elected? We are humans.

(by the way, I’m not Catholic but have been attending a Catholic church for about 6 months now…seeking)

I’ve said this in another thread. The percentage of popes who have been outright abusive/personally abomidable is <1%, which is a better number than the Apostles themselves. Does Judas’ betrayal or Peter’s denial negate the Truth Jesus preached?
The institution is protected.

 

[BrianH]

You have Luke describing the last supper (Luke 22:14-20), and also the road to Emmaus where the two disciples explained “how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread” (Luke 24:25-35)

Yes

You have the bread of life discourse in John (John 6)

Ok

You have Paul describing the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians, explaining they need to eat the agape meal before they come for the Eucharist. (I Corinthians 10:1-22; 11:17-34)

Wrong.
Show me where they are different things. It does not say that.
It does not make that distinction. only one predisposed to that would think they are talking about two seperate things.

You have the book of Acts describing the new Christians breaking bread. (Acts 2:41-47)

Yes they broke bread at the agape mal

In Hebrews the Christian worship is described as an awesome communion of heaven and earth. (Hebrews 12:18-29)
IN Revelation you have the heavenly worship described (Revelation 4:6-11) and the Marriage supper of the Lamb (Revelation 19:4-9)

Nothing to do with the agape meal BUT the marriage supper sounds like what I am talking about.

You have the Didache written around 70 AD describing the Eucharist as a liturgy.

No you do not. “when they are filled”. Unless you think that is symbolic…
And the date for the Didache is unknown. Could be 70 AD, could be 100 AD.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I don’t know, I’m inclined to believe that something is amiss when there are gross abuses. I know we all sin and, I don’t expect a perfect Pope. But, I do expect some evidence that he is a successor of Peter. And, if there’s not evidence. If he’s more a puppet of the authorities or has worldly ambitions of his own… I just wonder where the succession has gone? Can it be a mistake that a Pope has been elected? We are humans.

(by the way, I’m not Catholic but have been attending a Catholic church for about 6 months now…seeking)

Hey, cool!

Hopefully, we’ll be able to find the answers that will help you come on home!

So, as I understand it, you’re saying that when a religious leader falls into sin, the hypocrisy creates a scandal that causes you to question his authority. Is that a fair summation?

 

[BrianH]

But now when I mention this next issue, I cannot praise you. For it sounds as if more harm than good is done when you meet together. 18 First of all, I hear that there are divisions among you when you meet as a church, and to some extent I believe it. 19 But, of course, there must be divisions among you so that those of you who are right will be recognized!
20 It’s not the Lord’s Supper you are concerned about when you come together. 21 For I am told that some of you hurry to eat your own meal without sharing with others. As a result, some go hungry while others get drunk. 22 What? Is this really true? Don’t you have your own homes for eating and drinking? Or do you really want to disgrace the church of God and shame the poor? What am I supposed to say about these things? Do you want me to praise you? Well, I certainly do not!
23 For this is what the Lord himself said, and I pass it on to you just as I received it. On the night when he was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took a loaf of bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is given* for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, he took the cup of wine after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant between God and you, sealed by the shedding of my blood. Do this in remembrance of me as often as you drink it.” 26 For every time you eat this bread and drink this cup, you are announcing the Lord’s death until he comes again.
27 So if anyone eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily, that person is guilty of sinning against the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 That is why you should examine yourself before eating the bread and drinking from the cup. 29 For if you eat the bread or drink the cup unworthily, not honoring the body of Christ,* you are eating and drinking God’s judgment upon yourself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and sick and some have even died.
31 But if we examine ourselves, we will not be examined by God and judged in this way. 32 But when we are judged and disciplined by the Lord, we will not be condemned with the world. 33 So, dear brothers and sisters,* when you gather for the Lord’s Supper, wait for each other. 34 If you are really hungry, eat at home so you won’t bring judgment upon yourselves when you meet together.
I’ll give you instructions about the other matters after I arrive.

 

[Randy_Carson]

No you never invited me to specific thread. You first mentioned the discussion in a private message after I challenged you to a debate. You mentioned it again in a post and I told you to start it. You mentioned it again in a post. Once again I told you to start it. You mentioned it again in a post. Again I told you to start it. One would think if you already had a thread going you should have pointed me to it. Anyhow, I will check it out and respond to what you think is your silver bullet. As I said before you will quickly find out that you think to highly of yourself or should I say your favorite apologetic sites that you liberally cut-n-paste from.

Boy, this is kinda embarassing…

January 15, 2007
As for the doctrines concerning “apostolic succession” and “prayers for the dead”, I would be happy to provide the scriptural and traditional basis for them. Actually, I think you already know them since they have been presented repeatedly in this forum and elsewhere.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1818820&highlight=Apostolic+Succession+Catholic+Church#post1818820

January 25, 2007
I would be happy to give you a detailed biblical explanation of how Jesus established a Church that exercises Apostolic Authority and maintains Apostolic****Succession if you feel it would be helpful. Or would this be a “rabbit trail”?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1849755&highlight=Apostolic+Succession+Catholic+Church#post1849755

January 25, 2007
Whoops. Now you’ve taken the Apostles and their successors right out of the equation again. We were doing so well before. Now, when you say, “accept it” do you mean that if I demonstrate to your satisfaction that God continues to speak to his Church through Apostles, that you would be willing to become a Catholic?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1852168&highlight=Apostolic+Succession+Catholic+Church#post1852168

January 29, 2007
The Catholic****Church does claim infallibility by virtue of its Apostolic****Succession from the original Apostles.

(This was a material invitation, not a formal invitation!)

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1861455&highlight=Apostolic+Succession+Catholic+Church#post1861455

January, 29, 2007
Just to be sure that I don’t go off on another one of my lengthy posts , you are (for the moment at least) willing to consider an argument that includes Apostolic Succesion. You understand that the original Apostles were “inspired” or “God-breathed” but you don’t see that this was transferred to those that succeeded them. So even if Apostolic****Succession is a historical fact, infallibility does not necessarily come as part of a package deal. Is that your point fairly understood?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1861989&highlight=Apostolic+Succession+Catholic+Church#post1861989

(continued)

 

[Randy_Carson]

January 30, 2007
Several scriptures would be used to paint to full picture just as an artist uses more than one color to complete his masterpiece. Here’s one:

“And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things.” (1 Peter 1:15)

Tell us, Sola Scriptura, using the Bible Alone, what does this passage mean?

Is Peter speaking of Apostolic****Succession? That fits.
Is Peter speaking of the Communion of Saints? That fits.

How do you read it?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1864974&highlight=Apostolic+Succession+Catholic+Church#post1864974

January 30, 2007
Therefore, all that is left is for you to grasp Apostolic****Succession, and behold, a new Catholic!

My work in this thread is done!
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1867127&highlight=Apostolic+Succession+Catholic+Church#post1867127

January 30, 2007
Quote:

LOL!! Admit to it? OK, show it to me.

Love to. Follow me to the thread entitled “Apostolic Authority in the Catholic Church”. It’s a couple days old now.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1867157&highlight=Apostolic+Succession+Catholic+Church#post1867157

February 2, 2007
I have to stop and remind you, Sola, that you have acknowledged that Jesus gave infallibility to the original Apostles.

Apostolic****Succession is the next link in the chain.

I can understand if it scares the bejeebers out of you, because if the Bible teaches Apostolic****Succession, you are left facing the very real possibility that the Catholic****Church really is the one true Church.

Can you bring yourself to hear the Word of God on Apostolic****Succession?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1874694&highlight=Apostolic+Succession+Catholic+Church#post1874694

+++

Multiple invitations, at least one explicit reference to the thread, and the PM that you acknowledge receiving. Not to mention the fact that you are all over this forum and the thread on Apostolic Succession has been active every day so you could easily see it.

I think you got the message.

 

[Bishopite]

[Taliesin;1884002]
You’re missing the forest for the trees. Sola Scriptura is written into the fabric of the New Testament.

Where does Scripture say sola Scriptura is “written into the fabric of the New Testament?”
Since it doesn’t that argument is self refuting since you believe all truth is necessarily found in Scripture.
And if sola Scriptura is there (which it’s not) show me any early Church or any Church father for that matter who advocated “Scripture alone” as their final authority?

I just did a search on net.bible.org on “it is written”. It found 65 verses, on that exact string. Look up “written” or “it was written” or some other related variant and it will find many more. When did Jesus say to Satan, “Hillel and all the scribes have passed on the following …”? Paul and Peter and Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. When Paul said follow the traditions that were handed over to you he’s not arguing for an orthogonal revelation stream, equally valid to Scripture.

You obviously don’t know what the word Traditions (Greek paradosis) means. It means to hand on or hand down which is what Paul is doing in 2 Tim 2:2 for example by passing on the faith by letter or word of mouth, 2 Thes 2:15, 3:6, 1Cor 11:2

He’s saying, obey your leaders because we know the best way (since God raised us up for this purpose) to order your worship according to Scripture (OT and the emerging NT).

Right obey your leaders and who were the leaders in the early Church? Not Protestants, not preachers of every denomination with every doctrinal position one can conjure up. They were as James 5:14-16 says presbyteros and priest are synonyms.

That’s why early Church fathers like Irenaeus could say…

“With this church [at Rome], because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies, 3:3:1–2).

Times vary, cultures and languages and sensibilities vary, so new forms of worship need to be innovated.

What? Times vary but the Echaristic liturgy doesn’t. The early Church new nothing of changing into new forms of worship. Worship, the liturgy was always centered around the Eucharist. They knew nothing of a worship service centered around a preachers sermon.

Ignatius of Antioch specifically dealt with this when he said…

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (*Letter to the Romans *7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . **They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. **They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (*Letter to the Smyrnaeans *6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110])."

Here are some more verses that don’t mention Tradition:
“For this reason, take up the full armor of God so that you may be able to stand your ground 27 on the evil day, and having done everything, to stand. 6:14 Stand firm therefore, by fastening 28 the belt of truth around your waist, 29 by putting on the breastplate of righteousness, 6:15 by fitting your 30 feet with the preparation that comes from the good news 31 of peace, 32 6:16 and in all of this, 33 by taking up the shield 34 of faith with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation 35 and the sword 36 of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” You’d think something so important as Tradition would be catalogued here.

Oh boy. First of all your argument is an argument of silence the weakest form or argumentation. Secondly, just because the Apostle Paul didn’t mention Tradition in one verse doesn’t mean you have to proof text the Bible. All of Scripture is one cohesive whole so you look at Scripture and Tradition you have to look at both of them not just Scripture, for the bible itself mentions Tradition

 

[SolaScriptura]

Randy,

I’m sorry you wasted so much time gathering all those quotes, because none of them contradicts what I said. I said you never invited me to a specific thread. The only thing those posts shows is that you mentioned apostolic succession a number of times. As a matter of fact there have been a number of posts after this point when I specifically told you to start the thread and you never responded that you had started it. Furthermore, I have the private message you sent me and if you check it the date was on Jan 31, 2007 which is later than everything you just posted except for one link. And that was the first time you officially asked me to discuss the topic.

So quit the grandstanding as if I’m afraid to discuss this issue with you. As a matter of fact I was planning on responding to that thread of yours at some point today. However, we can make it even more interesting since you are under the allusion that I fear this topic. We can set up a more formal debate between you and I. Each side would have openings, cross-examinations, and closings. I’m sure we could arrange something so that you can demonstrate how strong your arguments are.

Love to. Follow me to the thread entitled “Apostolic Authority in the Catholic Church”. It’s a couple days old now.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1867157&highlight=Apostolic+Succe ssion+Catholic+Church#post1867157

February 2, 2007
I have to stop and remind you, Sola, that you have acknowledged that Jesus gave infallibility to the original Apostles.

ApostolicSuccession is the next link in the chain.

I can understand if it scares the bejeebers out of you, because if the Bible teaches ApostolicSuccession, you are left facing the very real possibility that the CatholicChurch really is the one true Church.

Can you bring yourself to hear the Word of God on ApostolicSuccession?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1874694&highlight=Apostolic+Succe ssion+Catholic+Church#post1874694

+++

Actually, I read your first post and it is not even an argument. It is a mess of begged questions. So my response will be short to demonstrate that you haven’t even made an effective argument to repy to.

Multiple invitations, at least one explicit reference to the thread, and the PM that you acknowledge receiving. Not to mention the fact that you are all over this forum and the thread on Apostolic Succession has been active every day so you could easily see it.

I think you got the message.

There are many things that have been said many times in threads, but that doesn’t classify them as”invitations”. The explicit one only came after the PM. And in each except for the PM I responded and told you to start the thread. You never informed me that you did. As a matter of fact you had started that thread on Jan. 27 and you first invitation to discuss the issue with me was on Jan 30.

Anyway all of that is irrelevant. I gladly accept to discuss it in a thread or in a more formal debate if you desire. You pick your poison