Defense of Sola Scriptura

[joe370]

Now, the question you evade is this:

The question I evade, says the pot to the kettle…

Do all people infallibly, consistently FOLLOW God’s lead - to such a degree that each person is infallible/unaccountable in this regard?

NO.

God infallibly lead Adam and Eve, did they ergo infallibly do His will - constantly, without accountability for whatever they did or said?

NO.

God infallibly lead the Jewish State during all that time we read about in the books of Kings in the OT, did all infallibly follow Him so that God held none of them accountable?

NO.

You seem to be assuming (with zero rationale or foundation) that if God infallibly leads, ergo all infallibly follow.

I have no idea where you got that - certainly not from the bible.

Your assumption about me is patently wrong and unfounded. I have no idea where you got that; certainly not from my posts. I simply said that God, as per the bible, will guide His church into all truth in spite of fallible Christians belonging to His church, that do not follow HIS lead.

What you are TRYING so very, very hard to do is “justify” The Catholic Church alone

What I am TRYING so very, very hard to do is get you to stop attacking the CC and stick to the topic at hand: the defense of SS.

…simply exempting The Catholic Church alone from accountability and the entire issue before us - norming. Self alone circumventing the entire issue of whether self alone is correct by self alone simply declaring that self alone is - and thus self alone is infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error - and exempt from norming. Your argument IS the Catholic position. It has no alternative normative process - better or worse, it alone just exempts it alone from any process and replaces it with self alone insisting that self alone is right cuz self alone so declares - and insisting that all just accept whatever “with docility.” This is entirely unrelated to self being correct, only that self won’t permit self from being held accountable or being examined. It alone won’t permit what it insists must be done with all others.

Bla bla bla is all I heard because it is off topic and because you have drilled this off topic mantra into my brain, to the point that I have become desensitized to it.

You said that I do not need to be ready and willing to defer or yield to the supervision and direction of the Lutheran Confessions with docility (yielding to supervision, direction, or management) - to be a member of the Lutheran church(es)? OK…I’ll test it and see if you are right! First I will ask Jon the same question to save me some time. After all, you both belong to the same church and defer to the same Lutheran Confessions.

For the very last time, help me use God’s inerrant, holy, written word, which is the final “Rule” (straight edge) or “Canon” (measuring stick) or “norma normans” that serves as the final Standard, Plumb-line for Christians to evaluate the position regarding the Eucharistic doctrine?

I know you said that this final standard “cannot arbitrate or determine anything,” (which begs the question: why is it the final standard) - but I am still asking you to use your norm (the final standard for all Christians) - to evaluate the accurate/correct position regarding the Eucharistic doctrine, so that you can help my niece (a Lutheran who believes in the symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist) - have a better understanding of this very important doctrine! Perhaps she will believe you since you are rabidly anti-Catholic, as she has become.

For the last time, you don’t need to keep sharing your diatribes of the CC with me; I get it! Plus, it is irrelevant to the thread. I can’t learn from you if you won’t answer this very important question about norming and the Eucharistic doctrine. You keep saying: I hope that helps; Aj, it never does; it never helps me to understand your defense of SS, especially if you won’t use your norm to resolve the issue of the Eucharistic doctrine.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I simply said that God, as per the bible, will guide His church into all truth in spite of fallible Christians belonging to His church, that do not follow HIS lead.

Yes, I agree, God infallibly leads Christians. Where I disagree with you is ergo, The Catholic Church is infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable. This continuing insistance of yours that IF God leads people infallibly (and we agree He does), ergo The Catholic Church is infallible. Where did you get the idea that 1) God leads denominations rather than people and 2) When God leads, people ergo infallibly follow? Certainly not from Scripture!

Aj, it never does; it never helps me to understand your defense of SS, especially if you won’t use your norm to resolve the issue of the Eucharistic doctrine.

We’ve been all over this, so many times…

You are confusing the rule/canon with the arbitration.
You are insisting on your rubric of individualism, which I’ve repeatedly told you is not accepted, you need to end this imposition of your model on others.

If there is a dispute, it would need to be arbitrated in some mutually agreed fashion - another issue for another day and thread. The issue here is this (and only this): WHAT is the most sound rule/canon for the evaluation of teachings? IF you had an alternative, one MORE inspired, MORE inerrant, MORE knowable by all and alterable by none, MORE above all parties (including The Catholic Church), MORE regarded as reliable by all parties - a better rule/canon, you would have suggested it. You haven’t. For the same reason The Catholic Church doesn’t - there is none. So, what you have done is exactly what The Catholic Church does (thus, you represent it well) - you have simply TRIED to argue with The Catholic Church that there is exclusively, solely, ONE who is simply exempt from the issue of whether its teachings are correct - and The Catholic Church alone insists that The Catholic Church alone is exclusively that one. Self alone declares that self alone is correct, thus self alone is exempt from all aspects of norming (including what might serve as the rule/canon in such) cuz self alone declares that self alone is just right so it is - accept it “with docility.” I think you can realize that is entirely irrelevant to whether that one is correct. It’s not a better approach to norming, it’s the evasion of such exclusively for one: self.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

The promise was given to the church, not to The Catholic Church.

Aj, does that include all PC’s and the CC - yes or no? Just say yes or no before you comment please. Aj, does that include all PC’s and the CC - yes or no? Just say yes or no before you comment please.

AGAIN, no, Jesus did NOT found ANY denomination: Not The Catholic Church. Not The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Not The United Methodist Church. Not The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Not ANY. By ANY name.

Matthew 16 never speaks of ANY denomination.

Matthew 16 never so much as even MENTIONS The Catholic Church. About anything. Concerning anything. This is simply an undeniable fact. I agree (AGAIN) it also says nothing about any other denomination.

And again, all you are continuing to do is to try to evade the whole subject of norming for one and exclusively one - The Catholic Church; taking up its position that it alone is exempt from norming and it just MUST be infallibly, unquestionably correct cuz it’s right and it says its right so ergo its right - and you must accept it with docility, as God speaking. Friend, you’ve TRIED to do that by insisting Jesus founded The Catholic Church but you have NOTHING that supports that, just The Catholic Church’s claim of that. You’ve tried to argue that it’s true because Jesus promises to lead The Catholic Church without ANYTHING that remotely states that - and ignoring what you now admit that that is entirely moot to The Catholic Church being infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable and exempt from norming.
.

The promise of Matthew 16 made to Peter (I will build my church) - was given 2 the CC and all of the PC’s? Just want to clarify for all!!!

No. It was not given to any denomination. Yours, mine, or any other.

And it’s moot to our discussion since building the corpus of Christians or leading Christians has nothing to do with any of them being able to exempt self from accountability.

You directed me to Matthew 16. I noted what everyone, undeniably, knows as they read the words there. In English or in Greek. Jesus never promised The Catholic Church anything, about anything, concerning anything, for anything - at any point. Jesus never authorized The Catholic Church for anything, about anything, concerning anything. Jesus never said The Catholic Church is infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error, exempt from accountability. Jesus never said that Peter was infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error, exempt from norming. Jesus never mentioned any successors to or of anyone - in any regard, concerning any issue. As we all know, the claims of The Catholic Church alone for The Catholic Church alone come from The Catholic Church alone - Matthew 16 says none of it. Obviously. What we have is the “spin” of The Catholic Church alone for The Catholic Church alone from the “Scripture” in the heart of itself alone (CCC 113) as interpreted by itself alone (CCC 85) which it exempts from accountablity or examination and insists that you accept “with docility” (CCC 87) which it seems you do. I understand all that, but clearly, obviously, Matthew 16 says no such thing.

.

Everyone does not undeniably believe that all the PC’s comprise the church of Matthew 16. Matthew 16 does not mention the CC or the myriad PC’s.

Right. Matthew 16 is irrelevant to our discussion. It says NOTHING about The Catholic Church or any other denomination. It says NOTHING about anyone or any organization being infallible or unaccountable or exempt from norming. It says NOTHING about any one or any organzation or any denomination being right cuz it alone says that it alone is.

However, the early church fathers (actual disciples of the apostles) - do mention the CC

You seem to be confusing the snippets that The Catholic Church chooses from the writings it chooses as it interprets - with what is stated in Matthew 16.

Actually, the earliest ones used the adjective “catholic” in the only way that existed - as an adjective. It’s sad (and misleading) when some translate their words and imploy a trick of modern English grammar by capitolizing the adjective and the word “church” so as to imply some connection to a denomination that much latter would use that moniker for itself. But again, it’s moot. Jesus said NOTHING about your denomination - or mine or any other. He promised it NOTHING. He authorized it for or about or concerning NOTHING. There’s NOTHING in Matthew 16 that indicates that The Catholic Church is infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable, exempt from norming - alone right cuz it alone so says that it alone is.

It just means that Jesus founded neither the CC or the LC

Yup.

**
Continues in the next post…**

.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

**
Continuing from the post above…**

Either the infallible holy spirit is guiding the church (not denomination) - of Matthew 16 into all truth, as per the bible, or the HS is not? If so, then the church (not denomination) - of Matthew 16 is incapable of doctrinal error, otherwise the HS is not guiding the church (not denomination) - of Matthew 16 into all truth.

If the promise doesn’t apply to The Catholic Church - specifically and exclusively - then your entire argument falls: there’s no justification, then, for The Catholic Church alone to exempt The Catholic Church alone from norming and accountability. It becomes as open to such as Joseph Smith or Martin Luther or me or you.

Again, you seem to be confusing the infallible leadership with infallible following. YES, I agree, God leads His people (just as He promised), no one is denying that. What I reject is that He is not leading all His PEOPLE but, rather, instead, He is leading one specific, particular, institutional, organizational, physical denomination: The Catholic Church. He never promised that! And I reject your whole premise that since God infallibly leads, ergo there MUST be infallibly following and with that, unaccountability. I have no idea where you got this foundational assumption from, certainly not the Bible! God infallibly lead Adam and Eve, did they infallibly follow? Did God regard them as unaccountable for anything they said and did? God infallibly lead the kings that we read about in the OT, did that mandate that they always infallibly followed Him, doing and saying infallible as He lead them? Where they unaccountable for what they did and said? Your attempts to connect God’s promise to lead His people with why The Catholic Church may exempt itself from accountability and instead simply require all to just accept “with docility” whatever it alone says (thus, the subject of this thread is moot for one, itself) is simply baseless.

1. Help me find the church (not denomination) - the assembly of people that Jesus always leads correctly?

I. Jesus leads no denomination.

1. Jesus leads ALL His people, and yes, infallibly.
2. Such is entirely moot to any one being infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error - and thus exempt from norming.

Can these people be found in the CC, as well as one of the Lutheran churches, one of the baptist churches, the pentecostal church, the 7th day Adventist church, the EOC, or all of the churches, regardless of affiliation? Please just answer the question; no need to censure the CC in the process.

Christians may be registered in congregations which may be legally affiliated with a denomination.
Yes, Jesus leads His people.
No, that has nothing to do with The Catholic Church being infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable, and we must accept whatever IT and it itself alone says “with docility.”

The Catholic Church has no alternative to norming (better or worse). It has no alternative rule/canon for such (better or worse). It’s rejection of Sola Scriptura is simply because it rejects accountablility and thus the whole issue of norming (and all aspects of it, including the embraced rule/canon for such), but only, exclusively, solely in the case of one: itself. This is not a better way to determine correctness, it simply and only is the evasion of the whole question by self alone for self alone; it is a circumvention of the issue by self for self. “Just accept whatever I alone say, with docility, cuz I alone an infallible and thus unaccountable; when I alone speak, God speaks.” Studied any of the cults? I have. Self simply exempting self from accountability and insisting all just accept whatever self says “with docility” as “God speaking” is not, IMHO, sound or good. And it’s certainly not an alternative approach to norming - it’s self excluding self from such.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[Monte1945]

.

There is ZERO evidence that The Catholic Church even existed in 1400 BC when the oldest Scripture was given, thus your statement that the Church gave it - and that would be The Catholic Church is simply impossible. You are off by AT LEAST fourteen centuries!

You seem to be over burdened with some kind of person past offensive received from some
one of the Catholic faith and you are being too emotional and it is hurting your arguments.

You are entitled to your opinions and most welcome to voice them… but your agurments are certainly being degraded by your style and choice of saying too much at one time.

I am going to apply some data here for you, and I am forced to only deal with one issue at a time because I am emotionaly drained from attempting to give you a fair ear as it really greives me to try and follow your reasoning from within your style of presenting your views.

I want to point out some facts which are historical and attempt to re-educate you from some of your views from what you have stated… in the above comment you have made in regards that the Catholic church was not establised or called the catholic church before the 15th century.

I shall refer you to the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch who was what the Catholics
call the second Pope who was the successor of Peter when Peter and his wife
was executed in A.D. 69. This information was recorded not by the catholic church
historians but by The Ancient historian Eusebius.

St. Ignatius was martyred in Rome in a.d. 107

While being enroute from Antioch to Rome for his trial and later excution he wrote
seven letters to christian communities. Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, Rome, Philadelphia,
and Smyrna The seventh letter was sent to St. Polycarp bishop of Smyrna.

The letter to the christian community of Smyrna has thirteen chapters and in the
eighth chapter he wrote in verse 2 :

“where the bishop appears, there let the people be, Just as where Jesus Christ
is there is the Catholic Church”

unquote.

And from within these seven letters alone… there are many mentions of the Mass and how it was conducted, and it is the same as the Mass is today.

This is a catholic forum… And you are a quest in our home. I do not know if you are familiar with the proper behavior expected from a host and a guest but I feel you are a guest here and you should act more like it. I believe all Catholics here who have attempted to discuss your views have treated you as well as a host as one expect
to be treated…

I will get into some more of your issues… in other posts… but I would ask you to just
calm down and present your views with less emotions and maybe you could
break up your comments some… The lenghts of each of your posts are a bit
much to deal with one at a time…

This is one of the reasons that I have not attempted to deal with your views… but
that is in no way an indication that I do not have any responses to what views you are
attempting to project.

 

[JonNC]

Jon, I said:

Jon, if you can give me the name of the man that established the RCC (just as I can give you the name of the man who established each and every PC, and when) - then I will agree that one of those 50 churches could be the Catholic Church.

To which you said:

Seriously, that was a good sleight of hand way of answering the question, and no doubt the way I would have answered the question as a former Lutheran, but, you really didn’t answer the question. At the risk of beating a dead horse: I can give you the name of the man who founded each and every respective Protestant church and when, and his name is not Jesus, (although I do consider these man-made churches part of the mystical Body of Christ to which Jesus is the head and savior). Will you give me the name of the man who founded the RCC, and if that name is not Jesus Christ, I will agree with you that one of those 50 churches among so many others, could be the Catholic Church.

It wasn’t a sleight of hand. What do you want me to say? Cardinal Humbert? Or perhaps Pope Leo IX?
You ask who founded the Roman Catholic Church. I frankly don’t know. Seems to me the RCC started with the mutual exommunications between Rome and Constantinople.
I do know who founded the individed Catholic Church - Christ at Pentecost, of which we are all a part. So, therefore, you and I are both members of the Church Christ started at Pentecost. We are both members of the Communion of Saints.

Jon

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Monte1945,

Let me commend you on an excellent post

God bless

You seem to be over burdened with some kind of person past offensive received from some
one of the Catholic faith and you are being too emotional and it is hurting your arguments.

You are entitled to your opinions and most welcome to voice them… but your agurments are certainly being degraded by your style and choice of saying too much at one time.

I am going to apply some data here for you, and I am forced to only deal with one issue at a time because I am emotionaly drained from attempting to give you a fair ear as it really greives me to try and follow your reasoning from within your style of presenting your views.

I want to point out some facts which are historical and attempt to re-educate you from some of your views from what you have stated… in the above comment you have made in regards that the Catholic church was not establised or called the catholic church before the 15th century.

I shall refer you to the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch who was what the Catholics
call the second Pope who was the successor of Peter when Peter and his wife
was executed in A.D. 69. This information was recorded not by the catholic church
historians but by The Ancient historian Eusebius.

St. Ignatius was martyred in Rome in a.d. 107

While being enroute from Antioch to Rome for his trial and later excution he wrote
seven letters to christian communities. Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, Rome, Philadelphia,
and Smyrna The seventh letter was sent to St. Polycarp bishop of Smyrna.

The letter to the christian community of Smyrna has thirteen chapters and in the
eighth chapter he wrote in verse 2 :

“where the bishop appears, there let the people be, Just as where Jesus Christ
is there is the Catholic Church”

unquote.

And from within these seven letters alone… there are many mentions of the Mass and how it was conducted, and it is the same as the Mass is today.

This is a catholic forum… And you are a quest in our home. I do not know if you are familiar with the proper behavior expected from a host and a guest but I feel you are a guest here and you should act more like it. I believe all Catholics here who have attempted to discuss your views have treated you as well as a host as one expect
to be treated…

I will get into some more of your issues… in other posts… but I would ask you to just
calm down and present your views with less emotions and maybe you could
break up your comments some… The lenghts of each of your posts are a bit
much to deal with one at a time…

This is one of the reasons that I have not attempted to deal with your views… but
that is in no way an indication that I do not have any responses to what views you are
attempting to project.

 

[Monte1945]

.

God wrote a book. I’ve always wondered why Catholics seem unimpressed by that; the only book that would matter is if JESUS wrote it. Why? Isn’t it good that the Holy Spirit wrote a book?

Because the Holy Ghost didn’t write a book… Men wrote it.
The scriptures states that the scriptures were “inspired”
by the Holy ghost… it does not say “Holy Ghost Dictated it”.

you seem to be under the impression that the scriptures were written
by God through the Holy Ghost… and you take men out of it. But
that is not the case… It was men, they are even named, and they
received some inspiration and they wrote through the best of their
writting skills.

The Holy Ghost does not have a mouth… He does not have a body
how can he tell anyone anything… He has to come to man and inspire
him to use his natural human abilities of writing to convey that inspiration.

In times past when God wanted to make a statement he sent Angels.
He sent them in the form of humans… and they spoke to the people of God’s
direct message i.e. Angel to Mary… Angel to John the baptist’s father.
Angel to Joseph to flee to Egypt… etc…

If we received the actual words of God and these words are the
infallible truths of God… And these words came from men then
one has to assume that these men and their words are infallable.

If the written words of these men are infallable then the words
they spoke must have been infallable also… as the words whether they came
from their pens or their mouths (traditions) must be words from God.

And we know that what each person wrote in the bible was not
always the words of God. Jesus saids to us, that in the beginning
God did not want divorce for any reason but Moses wrote a bill
of divorce… He also said “it is written, but I say unto you”…
and he gives us a new as you call “norm” to live by.

Now with that in mind, which words which were written by these
men is the correct norm from God and which ones are not.

From the scriptures… tell me whether I should take up a sword
or not take one up? Seems there are two norms there…

Of course the scriptures tell us exactly how to find the Salvation
of God and we can use it for many things but we can not limit
God to how he can communicate with us. Or indicate that
there isn’t any message for people since the last book of
the bible was accepted into the church… by the church.

The work of God did not cease with the last words of the
New Testement… God is and has always been. He not
only created the world he is keeping it created by his will
to this very second… From nothing he created this world
from his “will” and by the power of this same “will” he can
un-create it"

He is still sending his messages to us outside of the bible.
Each minister who stands up and preaches… is giving us
the word of God…it is as Jesus said…“he who hears you hears me”.
“What ever you bind on earth is bound in heaven, what ever you loose
on earth is loose in heaven’ " I give to you the keys to the kingdom
of god”… Give You! regardless of your personal view what church was
there at that time… it was still a church… and when he said, You he was
not talking about a building… he was talking to People who went out
baptising in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit Notice he didn’t say…
Go read them the book!

 

[Bill_Pick]

Scripture Alone Disproves “Scripture Alone”
Gen. to Rev. - Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God’s Word. Scripture also mandates the use of tradition. This fact alone disproves sola Scriptura.

Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15 - those that preached the Gospel to all creation but did not write the Gospel were not less obedient to Jesus, or their teachings less important.

Matt. 28:20 - “observe ALL I have commanded,” but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves “Bible alone” theology.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to “preach,” not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith.

John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.

Acts 15:1-14 – Peter resolves the Church’s first doctrinal issue regarding circumcision without referring to Scriptures.

Acts 17:28 – Paul quotes the writings of the pagan poets when he taught at the Aeropagus. Thus, Paul appeals to sources outside of Scripture to teach about God.

1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone.

Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. There is nothing ever about obeying Scripture alone.

Col. 4:16 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul once again appeals to a source outside of the Bible to teach about the Word of God.

1 Thess. 2:13 – Paul says, “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us…” How can the Bible be teaching first century Christians that only the Bible is their infallible source of teaching if, at the same time, oral revelation was being given to them as well? Protestants can’t claim that there is one authority (Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (Bible and oral revelation).

1 Thess. 3:10 - Paul wants to see the Thessalonians face to face and supply what is lacking. His letter is not enough.

2 Thess. 2:14 - Paul says that God has called us “through our Gospel.” What is the fullness of the Gospel?

2 Thess. 2:15 - the fullness of the Gospel is the apostolic tradition which includes either teaching by word of mouth or by letter. Scripture does not say “letter alone.” The Catholic Church has the fullness of the Christian faith through its rich traditions of Scripture, oral tradition and teaching authority (or Magisterium).

1 Tim. 3:14-15 - Paul prefers to speak and not write, and is writing only in the event that he is delayed and cannot be with Timothy.

2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations, but he says nothing about all apostolic traditions being eventually committed to the Bible.

2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it. Again, this refers to tradition which is found outside of the Bible.

James 4:5 - James even appeals to Scripture outside of the Old Testament canon (“He yearns jealously over the spirit which He has made…”)

2 Peter 1:20 - interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one’s own private interpretation. Therefore, it must be a matter of “public” interpretation of the Church. The Divine Word needs a Divine Interpreter. Private judgment leads to divisions, and this is why there are 30,000 different Protestant denominations.

2 Peter 3:15-16 - Peter says Paul’s letters are inspired, but not all his letters are in the New Testament canon. See, for example, 1 Cor. 5:9-10; Col. 4:16. Also, Peter’s use of the word “ignorant” means unschooled, which presupposes the requirement of oral apostolic instruction that comes from the Church.

2 Peter 3:16 - the Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction. God did not guarantee the Holy Spirit would lead each of us to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. But this is what Protestants must argue in order to support their doctrine of sola Scriptura. History and countless divisions in Protestantism disprove it.

1 John 4:1 - again, God instructs us to test all things, test all spirits. Notwithstanding what many Protestants argue, God’s Word is not always obvious.

1 Sam. 3:1-9 - for example, the Lord speaks to Samuel, but Samuel doesn’t recognize it is God. The Word of God is not self-attesting.

1 Kings 13:1-32 - in this story, we see that a man can’t discern between God’s word (the commandment “don’t eat”) and a prophet’s erroneous word (that God had rescinded his commandment “don’t eat”). The words of the Bible, in spite of what many Protestants must argue, are not always clear and understandable. This is why there are 30,000 different Protestant churches and one Holy Catholic Church.

Gen. to Rev. - Protestants must admit that knowing what books belong in the Bible is necessary for our salvation. However, because the Bible has no “inspired contents page,” you must look outside the Bible to see how its books were selected. This destroys the sola Scriptura theory. The canon of Scripture is a Revelation from God which is necessary for our salvation, and which comes from outside the Bible. Instead, this Revelation was given by God to the Catholic Church, the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).
A ll Bible verse are from Scriptur Cathloic

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JonNC,

Thank you for your response. Now, I do have a few questions…

It wasn’t a sleight of hand. What do you want me to say? Cardinal Humbert? Or perhaps Pope Leo IX? Why did you name these men? Hi, Monte1945,

You ask who founded the Roman Catholic Church. I frankly don’t know. Seems to me the RCC started with the mutual exommunications between Rome and Constantinople. Now, this is an interesting arrangement … for as you know, it is not called the ‘Roman’ Catholic Church… but, just the Catholic Church. So, without any mischief or slight of hand… what do you think took place from Matt 16 to the 12th Century? Was teh group that conducted councils, defined doctrine and dogma the Church founded by Christ? If so… where do you think the ruler of that group lived…? Based on what I have studied - I think the answer is Rome.

I do know who founded the individed Catholic Church - Christ at Pentecost, I had thought Christ had ascended into heaven prior to Pentecost - and the major event of Pentecost is more appropriately attributed to the Holy Spirit.

of which we are all a part. So, therefore, you and I are both members of the Church Christ started at Pentecost. We are both members of the Communion of Saints. Well…yes - but, this is more like saying that the people in the bleechers are the same as the team playing on the field.

For example, my understanding of the Team is that we have Christ’s Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity to strengthen us in body and soul. Now, quite clearly Christ told us (John 6) that His Flesh is to be eaten if we are to have life in us - in the Synoptic accounts of the Last Supper, Christ took Bread, blessed it, broke it and said, “Take and eat…” you know the rest… Now, everyone on the Team believes this - but, no one in the ‘bleechers’. So saying that we are all members of the Church of Christ really does brush over this major difference.

This distinction you are making between the EOC and the CC is interesting. But, I am confused as to your focus on protestantism having any relevance here. Seriously, if your concern is between the EOC and the CC why are you concerned about anything else?

God bless

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=tqualey;6174319]Hi, JonNC,

Originally Posted by JonNC
It wasn’t a sleight of hand. What do you want me to say? Cardinal Humbert? Or perhaps Pope Leo IX?

Why did you name these men?
Was not Cr. Humbert the one who issued the excommunication to Constantinople?
Maybe I have my dates wrong, but Pope Leo IX was pope at that time.

You ask who founded the Roman Catholic Church. I frankly don’t know. Seems to me the RCC started with the mutual exommunications between Rome and Constantinople.

Now, this is an interesting arrangement … for as you know, it is not called the ‘Roman’ Catholic Church… but, just the Catholic Church. So, without any mischief or slight of hand… what do you think took place from Matt 16 to the 12th Century? Was teh group that conducted councils, defined doctrine and dogma the Church founded by Christ? If so… where do you think the ruler of that group lived…? Based on what I have studied - I think the answer is Rome.
Wait, wait, wait, Tom. I was asked by Joe, “*Jon, if you can give me the name of the man that **established the RCC ***(just as I can give you the name of the man who established each and every PC, and when) - then I will agree that one of those 50 churches could be the Catholic Church.” I responded to that question. Check the record, I *never *use the term “Roman Catholic”, or even the initials RCC. I know the official name, and out of courtesy I use it - Catholic Church.
But I do not believe that the Catholic Church - in the modern sense of those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, is exclusively the Church Catholic, or exclusively the organization that Christ founded at Pentecost.

I do know who founded the individed Catholic Church - Christ at Pentecost, I had thought Christ had ascended into heaven prior to Pentecost - and the major event of Pentecost is more appropriately attributed to the Holy Spirit.

See above.

So, therefore, you and I are both members of the Church Christ started at Pentecost. We are both members of the Communion of Saints.

Well…yes - but, this is more like saying that the people in the bleechers are the same as the team playing on the field.

For example, my understanding of the Team is that we have Christ’s Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity to strengthen us in body and soul. Now, quite clearly Christ told us (John 6) that His Flesh is to be eaten if we are to have life in us - in the Synoptic accounts of the Last Supper, Christ took Bread, blessed it, broke it and said, “Take and eat…” you know the rest… Now, everyone on the Team believes this - but, no one in the ‘bleechers’.
From the Apology of the Augsbirg Confession

The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament.

This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, 57] but also by natural participation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article, **but in order that all who may read them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine. And we speak of the presence of the living Christ [living body]; for we know that death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom. 6:9. **
We are not in the bleachers!!

Continued

 

[JonNC]

continued

This distinction you are making between the EOC and the CC is interesting. But, I am confused as to your focus on protestantism having any relevance here. Seriously, if your concern is between the EOC and the CC why are you concerned about anything else?

My distinction brings two points:

1. We, as Lutherans (and others), are asked by Catholics to discern the one true Church, founded at Pentecost by Christ on the rock - the person of St. Peter, and recognize it as the Catholic Church, under the leadership of the Bishop of Rome. Orthodoxy asks us to do recognize them as this one, true, Church, founded on Pentecost by Christ. Because of schism, both cannot be the one, true, Church (unless we recognize the one, true, Church in many places, and not in any one organization). Without unity, neither, by itself, can claim with certainty that it is the one, true, Church.
2. Sola scriptura, by itself, cannot be simplistically charged as the sole cause of division within the Church, as the Great Schism is between bodies that claim scripture and Tradition.

Were Orthodoxy and Rome to achieve complete unity, I would see that as the undeniable movement of the Holy Spirit within HIs Church, and would seek to join that unity. Without that, I am steadfast in the belief that the Augsburg Confession rightly reflects scripture, and is, indeed, a catholic document.
I am coming to the belief that unity within the Church Catholic must occur through corporate reconciliation, that individual conversion, in any direction, does not end schism and division.
Jon

 

[Bill_Pick]

we must also note that not all Christian doctrines are explicit in Scripture (for example, the dogma of the Blessed Trinity). However, infallibility is strongly inferred from the foregoing passages. Non-Catholic Christians should ask themselves why they accept the Church’s teaching on the three persons of the Trinity, the two natures of Christ in one divine person, and the New Testament canon of Scripture (all defined by the Catholic Church), but not other teachings regarding the Eucharist, Mary, the saints, and purgatory?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JonNC,

Well… there is one thing we are certainly agreed upon…

Wait, wait, wait, Tom. I was asked by Joe, “*Jon, if you can give me the name of the man that **established the RCC ***(just as I can give you the name of the man who established each and every PC, and when) - then I will agree that one of those 50 churches could be the Catholic Church.” I responded to that question. Check the record, I *never *use the term “Roman Catholic”, or even the initials RCC. I know the official name, and out of courtesy I use it - Catholic Church.

We obviously have to keep our eyes on Joe!

But I do not believe that the Catholic Church - in the modern sense of those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, is exclusively the Church Catholic, or exclusively the organization that Christ founded at Pentecost.
Well, when you follow that time line out from Matt 16 to the 12th Century - what is the organization that is being persecuted by the Roman Empire for several hundred yerars? What is the name of the organization doing everyting in the name of Christ? It is the same Catholic Church with the Bishop of Rome as its leader.

From the Apology of the Augsbirg Confession

This is really a technical area Jon - and, I am not sure we are on the same page on this one. Basically the Confession seems to indicate a belief in the Real Presence as believed by Catholics. The issue, here, however, is not a belief as such - but, the ability of your ministers to validly perform the Holy Mass. This Power was delegated to Christ to His Apostles - and passed down from the Apostles to their Successors. To the best of my belief, Luther, Calvin and almost all of the other reformers specifically broke with the Bishop of Rome and the communion with all of the biships. (There may be an issue with the Anglicans shortly after the separation… but, that is no longer an issue.) Additionally, while some sects of the same denomination believe in one item (like the Real Presence) my understandig is that some Lutherans believe it is only a rememberance.

I guess the real focs of my comment is that we all can not be on the same Team if we all believe different things. If there is a problem with the way I explained Lutherans not having a priesthood directly traceable back to the Apostles - take a look at the way Catholics look at the Sacrament of Confession. The basis for this is John 20 - Christ breathed the Holy Spirit on them and gave them the Deligated Authority of God to forgive or not forgive the sins of men .I do not think Lutherans believe this requirement of Christ for men to go to Caholic Priests to have sins forgiven.

Is that a better example?

We are not in the bleachers!!

Continued

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JonNC,

This is where I get lost…

continued

My distinction brings two points:

1. We, as Lutherans (and others), are asked by Catholics to discern the one true Church, founded at Pentecost by Christ on the rock - the person of St. Peter, and recognize it as the Catholic Church, under the leadership of the Bishop of Rome. Orthodoxy asks us to do recognize them as this one, true, Church, founded on Pentecost by Christ. Because of schism, both cannot be the one, true, Church (unless we recognize the one, true, Church in many places, and not in any one organization). Without unity, neither, by itself, can claim with certainty that it is the one, true, Church.

Another way of expressing this question is that the issue is between position “A” or position “B” (but, I still do not follow you on this matter of Chrst founding the Church on Petecost - Christ had really already ascended into heaven…)

1. Sola scriptura, by itself, cannot be simplistically charged as the sole cause of division within the Church, as the Great Schism is between bodies that claim scripture and Tradition.
   As I understand it, Sola Scriptura - by definition - is simplistically charged (at least that would be the functinal defition of this heresy.)

Were Orthodoxy and Rome to achieve complete unity, I would see that as the undeniable movement of the Holy Spirit within HIs Church, and would seek to join that unity. In our own life times we can see the efforts of John Paul II and Benedict XVI trying to accomplish just that.

Without that, I am steadfast in the belief that the Augsburg Confession rightly reflects scripture, and is, indeed, a catholic document. And this is where I get lost - being convinced that either position “A” or “B” is valid - but can not distinguish between then - you apparently claim that position “C” is the one you are going with! … You know: Luther never claimed to be God, never performed miracles, and never rose from the dead. For 1500 years the Sacraments and doctrines of the Church were defined and defended - and then the reformaiton where most (and some cases all) of these beliefs - inspired by the Holy Spirit were just thrown out. After identifying validity in the Catholic Church and the Easter Orthodox Church… you go with neither. And, I do not understand your explanaiton based SS that you don’t seem to agree with!

God bless

I am coming to the belief that unity within the Church Catholic must occur through corporate reconciliation, that individual conversion, in any direction, does not end schism and division.
Jon

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

It wasn’t a sleight of hand.

I was just joking around.

What do you want me to say? Cardinal Humbert? Or perhaps Pope Leo IX?

Of course not, because that would not be the case.

You ask who founded the Roman Catholic Church. I frankly don’t know.

OK… Aren’t you curious?

Seems to me the RCC started with the mutual exommunications between Rome and Constantinople.

The RCC existed in the 2nd, 3rd century and 4th century, long before the mutual excommunications between Rome and Constantinople.

I do know who founded the individed Catholic Church - Christ at Pentecost of which we are all a part.

When you say we, are you referring to the EOC, the CC and all PC’s?

So, therefore, you and I are both members of the Church Christ started at Pentecost. We are both members of the Communion of Saints.

Agreed! We (Lutherans and Catholics) - are both members of the Church of Christ, and we are both members of the Communion of Saints, and we are both part of the Mystical Body of Christ to which Jesus is the head and savior, but, not one 16th century PC was founded by Jesus on Pentecost, in the 1st century; they were founded by men in the 16th, 17th…21st century. In no way am I attempting to mitigate the importance/rank or the edifying status of any PC; I am just trying to be historically accurate. Am I wrong to say that Jesus founded a church in the first century (gave his church no name) - and by the turn of the first century that church adopted the name Catholic for a couple of good reasons, and the CC founded by Jesus, eventually burgeoned across the expansive Roman Empire, establishing more and more CC’s in both minor and major ecclesiastical province’s such as Alexandria, Constantinople, Antioch and Rome etc. etc.?

By the 5th century the CC, (which was everywhere in the Roman empire) - which was the church that had received power (Acts 1) - when the Holy Spirit came upon the fledgling CC, (Acts 2) - were indeed Jesus’ witnesses starting in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and eventually to the ends of the expansive Roman Empire, in both the east and the west. We see the expansion of the CC from the center of Judaism to the center of the monolithic Roman Empire, from the mission to Palestinian Jews, to the mission to both Jews and Gentiles everywhere in the known world. If this is true then the church of Matthew 16 is in fact the CC founded by the man named Jesus - right or wrong?

 

[joe370]

Josiah…

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
I simply said that God, as per the bible, will guide His church into all truth in spite of fallible Christians belonging to His church, that do not follow HIS lead.

Yes, I agree, God infallibly leads Christians.

God infallibly leads Christians, regardless of church affiliation, into all truth? So, the church leaders that interpret the Eucharist, symbolically, are being guided into all truth???

Where did you get the idea that 1) God leads denominations rather than people

There you go again using that word as if I use it. If you want to use it, that’s cool! **Is God leading both your church leadership and my church leadership into all truth?
**

and 2) When God leads, people ergo infallibly follow? Certainly not from Scripture!

I already said: not all people infallibly follow.

 

[joe370]

Either the infallible holy spirit is guiding the church (not denomination) - of Matthew 16 into all truth, as per the bible, or the HS is not? If so, then the church (not denomination) - of Matthew 16 is incapable of doctrinal error, otherwise the HS is not guiding the church (not denomination) - of Matthew 16 into all truth.

If the promise doesn’t apply to The Catholic Church - specifically and exclusively - then your entire argument falls: there’s no justification, then, for The Catholic Church alone to exempt The Catholic Church alone from norming and accountability. It becomes as open to such as Joseph Smith or Martin Luther or me or you.

Let’s try it again since you did not answer the question:

Either the infallible holy spirit is guiding the church (not denomination) - of Matthew 16 into all truth, as per the bible, or the HS is not? If so, then the church (not denomination) - of Matthew 16 is incapable of doctrinal error, otherwise the HS is not guiding the church (not denomination) - of Matthew 16 into all truth.

I have no idea where you got this foundational assumption from, certainly not the Bible!

If for example, I got it from my interpretation of the bible, who are you to say that I am wrong? You have no authority - right?

1. Help me find the church (not denomination) - the assembly of people that Jesus always leads correctly?

I. Jesus leads no denomination.

I actually said: Help me find the church (not denomination), but you still said: Jesus leads no denomination. Wow…

1. Jesus leads ALL His people, and yes, infallibly.

Jon, what are your thoughts on this declaration???

1. Such is entirely moot to any one being infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error - and thus exempt from norming.

You still believe that the CC believes that their leaders are infallible? OK…

 

[joe370]

Josiah, give me one reason why I should belong to the Lutheran church, and why I should defer to the Lutheran Confessions as the accurate reflection of sacred scripture?

 

[joe370]

Jon, I said to Josiah:

It just means that Jesus founded neither the CC nor the LC

To which he said:

Yup.

This makes no sense to me. Jon, please help me understand what Aj is saying??? Aj, you just keep contradicting yourself, and that is why I am asking Jon. I want to belong to the church founded by GOD, as opposed to a mere man.