Defense of Sola Scriptura

[JacobG]

The death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ are all about salvation, PR. Maybe this is new revelation to you, but if you would study the Scriptures you’ll see this to be a major theme in the N.T. Epistles, especialy Pauline.
PR, do you consider Augustine a “Catholic?” “In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; and in all things charity,” are his words.Salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, is the thread that connects many Protestant churches, regardless of denomination.What I’ve seen on this forum are Protestants who have never met each other and attend different churches in various parts of the country all express the same essential Biblical doctrine of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone - a true spiritual unity, not simply religious conformity.

One of the problems in Catholicism is that if any of their beliefs/doctrines are not found in the Scriptures, or even contradicts what God has revealed in His word, it doesn’t faze the catholic because he will resort to “Tradition” for support. You know as well as I do that most catholics place tradition on par or even above God’s Word. This has been a stumbling block. Many cults like mormons resort to other books/writings to support unscriptual teachings. Catholics, mormons, JW’s, etc, do not usually “study” the Holy Bible. They allow church leaders to tell them what the Bible says or what to believe. Satan has clearly deceived millions away from the only source of Gods Truth: the Holy Scriptures.

This is why in these latter days we are seeing extensive attacks on the Holy Scriptures; God’s word has been diluted and even leaders of many churches are preaching lukewarm sermons.

 

[PRmerger]

One of the problems in Catholicism is that if any of their beliefs/doctrines are not found in the Scriptures, or even contradicts what God has revealed in His word, it doesn’t faze the catholic because he will resort to “Tradition” for support.

Jacob, did you know that you have resorted to “Tradition” to support your views also?

It would behoove you not to disparage Tradition, else you would not have the Sacred Scriptures–[SIGN]no Tradition, no Scriptures. [/SIGN] It’s that simple.

Incidentally, I am willing to guess that you have professed at least one of these things below, none of which is in Scripture.

1. There will be no more Apostles.
2. Public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.
3. The canon of scripture is closed.
4. The NT needed to be written by an Apostle

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Joe,

Thank you.

Hey Tom ,you said:

This was my problem as a former Christian belonging to the Lutheran church. I stubbornly saw the CC as nothing more than another (chip) - man-made church, (as opposed to the church of Matthew 16 - the Rock on which Jesus built His church) - that is, until I came to my senses and removed those pesky myopic glasses, and in no way am I calling into question the love and charity of any PC, just in case a fellow protestant brother or sister in Christ, reads this post; just stating the facts. But I digress, back to the defense of SS.

Still hoping to have my questions answered, the very questions that I could not answer as a former protestant. Just trying to understand SS as opposed to being the cause of acrimony. That is absolutely the very last thing I want…

As I appreciate the situation, a simple historic time line would answer all initial questions - and real Faith is needed! Christ came to earth, as foretold by God through the Prophets (OK…Faith needed here…) He performed miracles, said He was the Son of God, founded His Church on weak men like Peter, rose from the dead, sent the Holy Spirit (hmmmmmmm… looks like more Faith, eh? ), the Apostles continued His Mission - and these men ordained others to continue on with this Mission. These successors, initially this group was known as the Early Church Fathers - and today they are known as the Catholic Priests, Bishops and the Pope. There is an unbroken line from Peter to Benedict XVI.

Now, this is just looking at people who all ultimately trace their position to Christ. When you look at doctrine it is a similar process. Look how Baptism began: Christ submitted to the Baptim of John to set an example, later He proclaimed that it was necessary and commissioned His Apostles to baptize and this is taught to this day as necessary for salvation. Look at the Eucharist. Christ proclaimed the necessity of eating the Flesh of the Son of Man in John 6, gave us the Way to do This in the Synoptic accounts of the Last Supper and this is taught to this day as necessary for salvation.

The very idea of consistent movement from a starting point shows undeniable stability in an area where PC are constatntly changing their belief structures. These are simple facts - but, when combined with our belief that Christ did not leave us orphans - and that His Holy Spirit is continuing to care for his Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church) - the evidence is right before our eyes. Like Christ said, (John 10:37-38) **If I do not perform my Father’s works, do not believe me; but if I perform them, even if you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may realize (and understand) that the Father is in me and I am in the Father." **

The evidence is there for anyone will to look. And, as I see it, you looked and you found!

God bless

 

[moondweller]

For the simple fact that there can be only one truth regarding the teachings of Jesus Christ. The holy spirit, the spirit of truth, is not guiding Jesus’ church into conflicting truths; the HS is guiding the church of Matthew 16 (I didn’t say the CC) - into all truth.

Been through this with you already, Joe. Where is it said that the H.S. is leading any church into ALL truth? It is recorded in Scripture that it was told to certain men that when He (the H.S.) would come He would lead them into all truth (no church is mentioned), and disclose to them what is to come (Jn. 16:13). That same H.S. preserved that truth in * theopneustos* (God-breathed) N.T. Scriptures for all subsequent generations - just as He has done since Moses.

And, yes, you did claim the church of Matt. 16 is the CC:

joe370:

This was my problem as a former Christian belonging to the Lutheran church. I stubbornly saw the CC as nothing more than another (chip) - man-made church, (as opposed to the church of Matthew 16 - the Rock on which Jesus built His church)

There is only one correct teaching regarding Baptism or the the Eucharist. Either Jesus was speaking in metaphor or He wasn’t. I am simply asking you to use sola scriptura, with the aid of hermeneutics and exegesis to accurately interpret the Scriptures, by arbitrating evaluating and finally resolving the question for everyone.

The issue of SS isn’t about resolving your pet doctrinal question. It pertains only to the authority of Scripture. You’re either not intelligent enough to grasp this or you’re simply being intellectually dishonest.

If I am wrong, then simply resolve this doctrinal dispute once, and for all, and I will believe you, regarding sola scriptura via hermeneutics and exegesis, as the Christians final authority?

More dishonesty, Joe? As a Catholic only your “infallible” Magisterium has the authority to interpret Scripture. “Private interpretation” (which involves hermeneutics and exegesis) is not allowed and you, as a Catholic, can accept only the interpretation sanctioned by the hierarchy of your Church - with docility.

 

[PRmerger]

As a Catholic only your “infallible” Magisterium has the authority to interpret Scripture. “Private interpretation” (which involves hermeneutics and exegesis) is not allowed and you, as a Catholic, can accept only the interpretation sanctioned by the hierarchy of your Church - with docility.

That is absolutely, ga-ga nonsense, moon.

Originally posted by Catholic Answers (bold mine)
Q:“
Are Catholics free to interpret Bible verses without the Church’s approval?
”
A:
So far as the interpretations of individual scriptural passages go, keep in mind that the Church does not, as a rule, define how specific verses are to be taken. Instead, it defines doctrine, and that definition may eliminate some interpretations of particular verses. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma should answer most of your questions in these areas about the Church’s teaching office.

Only seven passages of Scripture have had their senses partially—but not fully—defined by the extraordinary magisterium. These definitions were made by the Council of Trent (see “The Limits of Scriptural Interpretation” in the January 2001 issue of This Rock):
• The reference to being “born of water and the Spirit” in John 3:5 includes the idea of baptism.
• In telling the apostles, “Do this [the Eucharist] in memory of me” in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24, Jesus appointed the apostles priests.
• In Matthew 18:18 and John 20:22–23, Jesus conferred on the apostles the power to forgive sins; everyone does not share this power.
• Romans 5:12 refers to the reality of original sin.
• The presbyters referred to in James 5:14 are ordained, not merely elder members of the Christian community.

 

[moondweller]

What was it that Jesus said, to the Leaders of the Jewish church when they said his works were of the devil… ? He said… “judge me by my works”… what is it in the catholic church’s works that you find going against God?

To begin with, did you ever read Luther’s 95 Theses?

 

[moondweller]

That is absolutely, ga-ga nonsense, moon.

"Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles, “He who hears you, hears me,” the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms" (quoted from the CCC on The Magisterium)Are you denying the fact that a Catholic cannot interpret the Scriptures in any way contrary to what the Magisterium has “infallibly” taught?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Just trying to understand SS…

Let me see if I can help…

1. The Rule of Scripture (aka Sola Scriptura) is the practice of embracing Scripture as the rule (“straight edge”), canon (“measuring stick”) or *norma normans *as it is called in epistemology (“norm that norms”) in the evaluation of positions (norming) - especially Christian doctrine.
2. Of course, it flows from an embrace of accountability. A position would not NEED norming if it is INCAPABLE for it to be wrong but MUST be infallibly, dogmatically correct. The Catholic Church (as well as all the cults) rejects the Rule of Scripture for that reason. It alone exempts it alone from accountability (and thus norming) because it alone declares that it alone is INCAPABLE for it alone to be errant (in certain issues under certain conditions), for it alone declares that it alone is infallible - and thus unaccountable. The issue of whether it’s teachings are correct is laid aside by itself alone for it’s teachings alone, and this is replaced by the insistence of itself alone that what it alone teaches be rather just accepted “with docility.”
3. Non-catholics reject the soundless of itself alone simply circumventing accountability for itself alone in the evaluation of the teachings of itself alone. The Catholic Church does too - actually ridiculing this practice, but it defends this as “infallible” when it alone does it (infallible for self alone, absurd for any and all others). Non-catholics point out that God repeatedly and boldly warned us of false teachers, antichrists, those that lead many astray - and He never exempted The Catholic Church from that. Jesus praised the Ephesian Christians for doing the very thing The Catholic Church forbids, regarding teachers as accountable, testing them, arbitrating the issue, and finding them to be false. There is NOTHING to support that there is one - and exclusively one - exception to accountability, and that one is The Catholic Church. It is simply self alone exempting self alone from accountability, from norming, and from the whole issue of whether that one is correct, replacing all that with the demand of self alone that whatever self alone says rather just be accepted “with docility.” The reaction of non-catholics to this is exactly the same as the reaction of Catholics if any other does exactly as The Catholic Church does.
4. If one believes what God said - and thus is beware of teachers, and if one agrees with Jesus (and thus disagrees with The Catholic Church) as He praised those that held their teachers as accountable, then the teachings of The Catholic Church are accountable. We have just entered the realm of norming (the evaluation of doctrines). The first issue thus is this: WHAT will serve as the rule/canon for this evaluation? In epistemology, the most sound rule/canon is the most objective, the most knowable by all and alterable by none, the most universally embraced by all parties as reliable for this purpose. Many hold that Scripture best qualifies. The Catholic Church has no alternative to Scripture for this purpose, it has no alternative at all. It simply rejects that it is accountable, insisting - foundationally - that there is ONE (but only one) that is exempt from norming, and that one is… (you guessed it) itself. Alone. Exclusively. “I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right so I’m right, thus I don’t need no norming cuz I’m right - just accept whatever I alone say with docility.” Others have not found that a sound rubric, a sound way of determining correctness. My study of the LDS and of the cults - as well as life - lead me to agree.

.

 

[PRmerger]

"Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles, “He who hears you, hears me,” the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms" (quoted from the CCC on The Magisterium)Are you denying the fact that a Catholic cannot interpret the Scriptures in any way contrary to what the Magisterium has "infallibly" taught?

That, moon, is quite different than what you claimed here:

Originally Posted by moondweller
As a Catholic only your “infallible” Magisterium has the authority to interpret Scripture. “Private interpretation” (which involves hermeneutics and exegesis) is not allowed and you, as a Catholic, can accept only the interpretation sanctioned by the hierarchy of your Church - with docility.

You are claiming that Catholics are not allowed “private interpretation.”

That’s ga-ga, la-la nonsense.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JacobG.,

You have presented some gratuitous criticism that really needs to critically assessed. So, let’s take a look at what has been obviously been an issue that has caused you to leave the Church founded by Christ on Peter.

One of the problems in Catholicism is that if any of their beliefs/doctrines are not found in the Scriptures…
If you read the last Chapter of the Gospel of John, you see that not everything that Christ did is recorded. The fact that something is not in Scripture proves nothing, JacobG.,

…or even contradicts what God has revealed in His word…
OK, you’re on: identify an item from Scripture and then actual teaching from the Catholic Church (sorry, no protestant interpretation of the CC’s teaching - going to the heart of the matter is really quite necessary) and then identify why you think it is a contradiction, JacobG.,

…it doesn’t faze the catholic because he will resort to “Tradition” for support. This was already brought to your attention - that you are using the foundation of Tradition to criticize Tradition… You realize that God did not hand man the completed Bible and said,“Here it is. Everything you need is clearly explained so just read it and interpret it as you will because the Holy Spirit will keep you from error!” No, God did not chose that way to bring us His Word.

You know as well as I do that most catholics place tradition on par or even above God’s Word.
You’re half right, JacobG, Sacred Tradition is on a par with Sacred Scripture. So, stop and think about this: if the last book of the NT was not written until about 100AD - and then it was not until about 400AD was the Canon established. So, how do you think Christ’s Words were transmitted to these first Catholics? The answer is Oral Tradition. (2Thes 2:14-15) **To this end he has (also) called you through our gospel to possess the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours **

This has been a stumbling block. What an apt statement! Like the stumbling block the Jews had in Christ when they refused to believe His Word. Refusing to believe that Christ established His Church in Matt 16 on Peter - not on Luther or Calvin or Henry VIII. A stumbling block, indeed!

Many cults like mormons resort to other books/writings to support unscriptual teachings.
This analogy fails to address the point of when the Catholic Church came into being (try Matt 16) PC and Mormons came much later - as any history book will tell you. So, you still have the issue of just how did we get the Bible that you want to use for SS? The answer to that is that the Bible (even your abridged version) came from the Catholic Church. This, too, is a historic fact.

Catholics, mormons, JW’s, etc, do not usually “study” the Holy Bible. They allow church leaders to tell them what the Bible says or what to believe. Satan has clearly deceived millions away from the only source of Gods Truth: the Holy Scriptures.
This is where, I think, you make your biggest mistake. Scripture tells us that private interpretation is not of God (2Pet 1:20)
**Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God. **

If anyone needs to be concerned about the work of Satan in what they believe - it looks like you jumped ship (and that would be the Barque of Peter) and, my I suggest that you look in your own backyard. Ultimately SS not only allows but encourages “personal interpretation” and the proof of this is the 20,000+ various PC that all claim SS as their authority - yet all have conflicting and contradictory doctrines. Can God be divided?

This is why in these latter days we are seeing extensive attacks on the Holy Scriptures; God’s word has been diluted and even leaders of many churches are preaching lukewarm sermons.
I can not speak to your problem with “lukewarm sermons” but, if you want to see “…attacks on the Holy Scriptures…” just stay wherever you are! Ultimately, Christ said that one must be baptized, one must eat His Flesh, that His special ministers (and their successors) had His Power to forgive sins and that He had founded His Church of frail and sinful Peter (and his successor). There isn’t a PC out there that believe these four items - all contained in the Scripture you now must not read and understand -but rationalize away! This honestly must create a major credibility problem for anyone who honestly looks at this situation.

God bless

 

[PRmerger]

You’re half right, JacobG, Sacred Tradition is on a par with Sacred Scripture. So, stop and think about this: if the last book of the NT was not written until about 100AD - and then it was not until about 400AD was the Canon established. So, how do you think Christ’s Words were transmitted to these first Catholics? The answer is Oral Tradition. (2Thes 2:14-15)

'zactly!

For 400 years there was no Bible that the early Christians could refer to and say, “Hey, that’s not in the Bible!”

400 years.

That is like the period of time from when the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock to present times. Imagine–all of American history (no insult intended to Native American culture, which predates the Pilgrims) without a Bible! Staggering to imagine, huh!

 

[AmericanJosiah]

'zactly!

For 400 years there was no Bible that the early Christians could refer to and say, “Hey, that’s not in the Bible!”

1. So, when the Hebrews referenced the Law and The Ten Commandments, they were wrong because Scripture didn’t exist? When Jesus used Scripture normatively over 50 times (several of those specifically referring to such as SCRIPTURE), He was wrong because such didn’t exist?
2. I find your point moot. You seem to be confusing the embraced corpus of Scripture as such being “complete” with the validity of using Scripture as the rule/canon. You seem to not be aware that the Rule of Scripture embraces Scripture that IS - not that is not. If a friendly policeman pulled you over, noting that you were driving 60 MPH and directing your attention to the big, white, square sign next to you, the one with big, black, bold numerals and letter proclaiming, “MAX SPEED LIMIT: 45 MPH” then THAT sign is the rule/canon under the Rule of Law. I’d like to see his reaction if you said, "But officier, how do you know that 2,734 years from now, this road won’t be here and that sign won’t be here and instead, there will be rocket cars here and the sign will say, “MAX SPEED LIMIT: 450 MPH?” I wonder how he would respond to that position? No, the law that IS is the law that is normative in the Rule of Law. So it is with the Rule of Scripture. Which is why Jesus could use Sola Scriptura those 50 times even though - as you point out- the corpus of Scripture was smaller then than it would be 70 years later.

The fundamental issue here is accountability. IF the doctrines of The Catholic Church are accountable - then we have embraced norming (the evaluation of positions) and have before us the first issue: WHAT will serve as the rule/canon for such. The Catholic Church rejects that position, insisting that there is exclusively one alone that is exempt from accountability (and thus norming and ANY rule/canon for such) and that exclusive one is… (you guessed it) itself. RATHER, whatever it says is simply to be accepted “with docility.” It rejects the Rule of Scripture NOT because it has an alternative rule/canon for the evaluation of its doctrines (it doesn’t), but because it rejects accountability - but only, exclusively, singularly - for itself. It INSISTS on it (right here, right now) for any and all OTHERS but circumvents it for itself alone - replacing it with the demand of self for self that self is infallible/unaccountable, simply to be accepted with docility, as Jesus speaking.

.

 

[moondweller]

That, moon, is quite different than what you claimed here:

No, PR, it’s not. To come up with an interpretation of Scripture contrary to what is “infallibly” taught by your Magisterium is called “private interpretation.” And this is not accepted in Catholicism. And that’s why Joe370 cannot honestly accept any interpretation of John chapter six other than what is already sanctioned, doctrinally, by the Magisterium. Nor can you.

Oh yeah, and BTW, you do realize that the “Bible” contains the N.T. Scriptures, right? And you do realize that the N.T. Scriptures were in existence since the first century, right? Ponder on that a while.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, AJ,

Under usual practice, one address the topic presented and does not try to divert it off course. Arguing a posiiton is not a problem - but please, just argue it and don’t evade it. The issue is dealing with the NT - not the OT. And, this defense of SS really hinges on how the NT is addressed. I am not aware of anyone arguing against the 10 Commandments. Stick with the topic if you want to criticize it.

1. So, when the Hebrews referenced the Law and The Ten Commandments, they were wrong because Scripture didn’t exist? When Jesus used Scripture normatively over 50 times (several of those specifically referring to such as SCRIPTURE), He was wrong because such didn’t exist?

Obviously not, AJ, and this of course was not what anyone has intended, meant, stated or wrote. This is strictly the product of your own imagination and desire to derail a topic that is addressing the serious and fatal flaws in SS.

1. I find your point moot. “Moot” is to debate - and that is what I and others are trying to do. You seem to think this term means meaningless or useless. Now, it appears as though you are approaching this topic in this manner, but, really you have not addressed the topic which is strictly and scripturally presented: NO NT Scripture was written before about 60AD and the NT was not completed until 100AD. If Christ died in about 33AD, that would mean that there was over 60 years when there was no written Scripture (forget about anything else written that may be bogus). So, what were these early Cathoics to do for the Word fo God. The answer is Sacred Tradition. Having read your repititive posts, you have consistently ignored the presentations made by others - as though “Norma Norm” answers everything. The approach taken simply takes the obvious meaning of clearly written words and turns them upside down.

You seem to be confusing the embraced corpus of Scripture as such being “complete” with the validity of using Scripture as the rule/canon.

AJ, Scripture is closed. Under the direction of the Holy Spirit guiding the Catholic Church there is no new work that would be admitted to the Canon. Now, this is a major issue - and one that almost all take on Faith, that the Catholic Church was correct in about 400AD when it effectively said the Scriptures are complete.

You seem to not be aware that the Rule of Scripture embraces Scripture that IS - not that is not. If a friendly policeman pulled you over, noting that you were driving 60 MPH and directing your attention to the big, white, square sign next to you, the one with big, black, bold numerals and letter proclaiming, “MAX SPEED LIMIT: 45 MPH” then THAT sign is the rule/canon under the Rule of Law. I’d like to see his reaction if you said, "But officier, how do you know that 2,734 years from now, this road won’t be here and that sign won’t be here and instead, there will be rocket cars here and the sign will say, “MAX SPEED LIMIT: 450 MPH?” I wonder how he would respond to that position? No, the law that IS is the law that is normative in the Rule of Law. So it is with the Rule of Scripture. Which is why Jesus could use Sola Scriptura those 50 times even though - as you point out- the corpus of Scripture was smaller then than it would be 70 years later.

AJ, how long are you going to use this thread bare analogy that proves nothing. If we are going to be honest and use SS with your analogy, just what do you think this policeman would say if you were to tell him that there were 20,000+ other groups that interpret this as they please. Some say this and some say that and all say that the Church founded by Christ on Peter - and, that would be the Catholic Church,(Matt 16) is not the Church founded by Christ. There is nothing in Scripture to say Christ came back and said, “Those Catholics are such a disappointment, Marty, I am ‘re-founding’ my church on you! Go ahead and do whatever you want.” But, you know what - that just isn’t Scriptural - and, more to the point, it never happened.

The fundamental issue here is accountability. if you are really interested in accountability, then, AJ, you will need to look in your own backyard. Peter tells us that private interpretation is not of God (2Pet 1: 18-20)
We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven while we were with him on the holy mountain. Moreover, we possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable. You will do well to be attentive to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.

Notice all of this “…personal interpretation…” is not only permitted but actively encouraged by SS. Since this is, in no small measure, an aid in helping to explain why there are 20,000+ groups, assemblies, sects, cults and the like - all claiming to be a church - and all failing to unite in doctrine (necessity for baptism, requirement to eat the Flesh of Christ, confessing one’s sins to a consecrated minister and, of course, accepting the Church that Christ gave to us - the Catholic Church). Truly, how do you propose to be accountable for rejecting what Christ has so clearly commanded? Did Christ get it wrong?

.

 

[PRmerger]

No, PR, it’s not. To come up with an interpretation of Scripture contrary to what is “infallibly” taught by your Magisterium is called “private interpretation.” And this is not accepted in Catholicism. And that’s why Joe370 cannot honestly accept any interpretation of John chapter six other than what is already sanctioned, doctrinally, by the Magisterium. Nor can you.

Well, if that’s what you mean, then you agree with the Catholic church regarding “private interpretation”!

For you’re not free to read the Scriptures and come up with your own private interpretation, such as “There are many gods” Or, you are not free to read the Scriptures and then proclaim, “Jesus died for nothing!” Right, moon?

 

[PRmerger]

Oh yeah, and BTW, you do realize that the “Bible” contains the N.T. Scriptures, right? And you do realize that the N.T. Scriptures were in existence since the first century, right? Ponder on that a while.

Here’s a (nonexhaustive) list of what “Scriptures” were in existence since the first century, moon:

New Testament Apocrypha
Dead Sea Scrolls
Community Rule
The ‘Zadokite’ Document
Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea
Epistle of the Apostles
Report of Pilate the Procurator
History of Joseph the Carpenter
Apocryphon of James (Another version)
The Letter of Peter to Philip
Book of John the Evangelist
Ptolemy’s Commentary on the Gospel of John Prologue
Avenging of the Saviour
The Apocryphon of John (Long Version)
The Sentances of Sextus
Book of Thomas the Contender
Lost Books of the Bible
The GOSPEL of the BIRTH OF MARY
The PROTEVANGELION (Another version)
The first Gospel of the INFANCY of JESUS CHRIST
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas Composit
Greek (A)
Greek (B)
Latin
Infancy Compilation (all)
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew
THE EPISTLES of JESUS CHRIST and ABGARUS KING of EDESSA (Another version)
The GOSPEL of NICODEMUS (or ACTS of PONTIUS PILATE) (Another Version)
Letters of HEROD and PILATE
The APOSTLES’ CREED
THE EPISTLE of PAUL the APOSTLE to the LAODICEANS
The EPISTLES of PAUL the APOSTLE to SENECA (w/SENECA’s to PAUL)
The ACTS of PAUL and THECLA
The FIRST EPISTLE of CLEMENT to the CORINTHIANS
The SECOND EPISTLE of CLEMENT to the CORINTHIANS
The GENERAL EPISTLE OF BARNABAS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the EPHESIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the MAGNESIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the TRALLIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the ROMANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the PHILADELPHIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the SMYRNAEANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to POLYCARP
The EPISTLE of POLYCARP to the PHILIPPIANS
HERMAS
The First Book of HERMAS (or VISIONS)
The Second Book of HERMAS (or COMMANDS)
LETTERS OF HEROD AND PILATE
THE LOST GOSPEL ACCORDING TO PETER
THE GOSPEL of PETER - LAST
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the PHILIPPIANS
The MARTYRDOM of IGNATIUS
The MARTYRDOM of POLYCARP
TERTULLIAN on SPECTICALS
TERTULLIAN on PRAYER
TERTULLIAN on PATIENCE
TERTULLIAN on MARTYRS
The Report of Pilate to Caesar
(taken from here)

So who was it that decided, [SIGN]400 years later[/SIGN] (remember, it’s the period of time from the Pilgrims to present day–without any Bible!) that the Gospel of Peter was not inspired but that the Gospel of Mark was?

<drum roll, please!>

Yep…

[SIGN]It was the Catholic Church![/SIGN]

 

[ncgolf]

Well, if that’s what you mean, then you agree with the Catholic church regarding “private interpretation”!

For you’re not free to read the Scriptures and come up with your own private interpretation, such as “There are many gods” Or, you are not free to read the Scriptures and then proclaim, “Jesus died for nothing!” Right, moon?

PR … Moon allows private interpretation … so long as you agree with him.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, MD,

I really think that PR has made several **valid **observations here.

No, PR, it’s not. To come up with an interpretation of Scripture contrary to what is “infallibly” taught by your Magisterium is called “private interpretation.” I think we need to take a look at your statement in light of Scripture. So, let’s look at 2Pet 1:18-20
We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven while we were with him on the holy mountain. Moreover, we possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable. You will do well to be attentive to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.

The very first thing to recognize is this is the same Peter who we find in Matt 16 - the person God the Father chose to reveal the answer to Christ’s question on Who He is… and Christ then acknowledges God the Father’s intervention and Christ then builds His Church on Christ. Now, when you read what Peter has written you see that SS - which actively encourages “private interpretation”. When Peter talks of “we”, he is presenting to us that he has the authority of the Holy Spirit. He (and his successors as leader of the Catholic Church) condemn those who go off on their own road and leave the road established by Christ for us to take - the direction given by His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church - and that would be the Catholic Church. This is no private interpretation - but, the diretion of God Himself - as He promised.

And this is not accepted in Catholicism. And that’s why Joe370 cannot honestly accept any interpretation of John chapter six other than what is already sanctioned, doctrinally, by the Magisterium. Nor can you.

MD, are you saying that the 20,000+ various private interpretations out there are what we should be accepting? If so, which one of the 20,000+ should we be carefully looking at? And, if it is yours, for example, tell me why we should disregard the clearly spoken words of Christ in favor of a someone who came along 1500 years later?

Oh yeah, and BTW, you do realize that the “Bible” contains the N.T. Scriptures, right? And you do realize that the N.T. Scriptures were in existence since the first century, right? Ponder on that a while.

I think we are all aware of this… But, MD, were you aware that SS did not exist before 1500? Now, if one is contemplating validity of any fact - proximity to the source is very compelling… unless you think Christ, the Apostles, and the Early Church Fathers have not been truthful. Ponder on that for a while.

God bless

I really think that PR has made several observations here.

 

[PRmerger]

PR … Moon allows private interpretation … so long as you agree with him.

'zactly!

(Incidentally, he also believes in Purgatory, despite his protestations to the contrary–he just doesn’t call it that. He simply understands that our sinful souls cannot meet the Eternal Godhead face to face without a purification–whether it’s instantaneous, or temporal, or spiritual–it’s still purification; it’s still Purgatory. )

 

[jlhargus]

Oh, I’ve read them OFTEN. Every single word in them. But, nope - no mention of The Catholic Church. It’s all the claim of self alone for self alone. All to justify the exemption of self alone for self alone of accountability.

JL: Then what Church is it? Give me scripture and historic evidence for anyother. Catholics have the scriptures and historic writings of the fathers for evidence. What do you have but SELF ALONE? To justify the exemption of self alone of accountability for rejecting the pillar and ground of truth the Church, which Christ himself established and is builing on the ROCK.

The foundational question here is this: Are teachers ACCOUNTABLE for what they teach, especially as doctrine? Is something correct simply because the one exclusively so teaching exclusively so insists? Can a teacher simply circumvent the issue of whether his teaching is correct, and replace that issue with the demand of self that whatever self alone says simply must be accepted with docility?

JL: Yes teachers are accountabe for what they teach, especially as doctrine. Those teachings cannot contradict the deposit of faith, Tranditioned by the apostles, whether BY word OR epistle.

Is that a sound rubric, a sound epistemology? Especially considering that God repeatedly and boldly warned us of FALSE teachers, antichrists, and those that lead many astray? Especially considering, for example, Jesus’ praise of the Ephesian Christians for regarding teachers as potentially errant and accountable, for testing them, for arbitrating the issue, and for finding them false (Rev. 2:2)? Is it a sound rubric for a defendant to simply exempt self exclusively from accountablility for the issue under review, self instead demanding that self alone be excluded from accountability - and rather whatever he did or said simply be accepted “with docility” as correct? OR should all teachers be regarded as accountable?

JL: False teachers in the Catholic Church are usually easy to recognize, especially if one knows their faith or has a CCC. How? If what they teach contradicts official Church teaching they are either mistaken or a false teacher.

IMHO, not only should teachers of Christian doctrine be accountable, but the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light - confident the light will reveal God’s truth. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield his teaching from examination, exempt himself exclusively from accountability, lay aside the issue of whether he is correct, and replace all that with the insistence of self alone that whatever self alone says just be accepted “with docility.” My study of the cults confirms this rather strongly.

I agree teachers of Christian doctrine should be accountable. In the Chruch they are accountabe, foremost to God himself to whom they must give an account. And to that deposit of faith taught from the beginning.

I also agree it is a false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield his teaching from examination, exempt himself exclusively from accountability, etc., and whatever self alone says just be accepted “with docility.” That would be a false teacher and cult to which I would NOT belong.