K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
“The Bible as you and I interpret it.”
One quantum leap going on there!
Not logical progression. Not proven by your argument!
- Status
One quantum leap going on there!
Not logical progression. Not proven by your argument!
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
Kevin, why would you say that? The CC is the church of Matthew 16, built on Peter (Kepha)./SIZE]
Joe, I agree with you. I’m attempted to highlight the lack of rationale in the (Protestant) argument. If not God, but man, founded Christianity, then my argument is valid. Upon re-reading your post I see I misunderstood your view. You are in the right.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, SyCarl,
It seems that you are relying on your private interpretation of these passages to accept infallibility. There is no mention of infallibility in this passage. The Apostles are sent to teach and baptize. That is no guarantee that those they teach, such as any successors, would not teach error.
Based on this line of reasoning, since the term “infallibility” is not specifically mentioned in Scripture, it does not exist. And, then for that matter, since the term, “Trinity” is not mentioned, it does not exist either.False teachers were a problem with the early church - just like today.
Jesus says He will be with them always. Again this does not mention infallibility.
You would have us think that while Christ will be always with us - He will allow His Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church) to teach error - to deviate from His Own Word? Does that make any sense?
Does this mean that where two or three people have gathered in His name that they cannot teach error because He is with them?
Obviously, this is an area of ‘private interpretation’ because with 20,000+ groups, assemblies, houses, bodies, and cults all claiming to follow Christ - and most with at least 3 members - but all teaching contradictory doctrine - this can not be what this passage means.
The promise to be with them does not apply to just the Apostles. Jesus will be with all believers.
So, you would have us believe that - even by your own understanding - Christ established His Chruch on the faith of Peter (as opposed to Peter, himself) yet when Peter died (and of course his faith died with him) that it ended there? Here we have Paul, commissioning both Timothy and Titus to carry on his work as an Apostle - making both of these men successors to the Apostles. And you obviously dispute this?
Again, there is nothing here that suggests ongoing infallibility. The Holy Spirit will guide the Apostles into all truth. It says nothing about successors nor does it guarantee that error will not be added to the truth by others later.
Finally, the essence of the argument. You are content with the ‘private interpretation’ condemned by Peter but claim that Church established by Christ was a one-generational event. With the death of St. John in 100AD - you are saying that Christ just turned His Church lose? While Christ could have chosen to do anything to effect our salvation - He chose to die on the cross. That is a lot of work for one generation - and everyone thereafter is not subject to the false teachers that would wreck havoc on the flock. To go along with your view, one would have to believe that being an ‘orphan’ (just what Christ told us that He would not leave us) is what we now have.
There has been so much debate on the meaning of this passage that I am surprised that you would put it forward as one that speaks for itself.
The issue with SS, at least as I interpret is that it is, very simpy, a tradition of man. It is a tradition that originated in the 16th Century and was devised specifically to replace the Catholic Church’s teaching authority with anything else. You will recall that it was the Catholic Church that gave the world the Canon.
With respect to the gates of the netherworld, gates are really a defensive measure, not offensive. They are meant to keep something out or something in. Here Jesus is saying is that the Church, through the spreading of the Gospel will set free those held captive by death. It doesn’t say anything about infallibility.
Just who do you think is attacking the Devil? Honest, SyCarl, the Devil is the one attacking every human soul in an effort to bring about their eternal damnation. So, while you may like to think that the Devil is hunkered down behind his gates in a defensive posture, the reality is quite different. David tells us he is a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour - that is no kitten cowering int he corner he is talking about.
Yes the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. However it is not the truth itself. God’s word is truth. This passage does not guarantee infallibility as pillars and foundations can crumble.
You apparently are limited God’s Word to the written word? Actually, since we did not have all of the Books that would become the Bible even in existence until 60AD when the first NT Bood was written and 100AD - when the last was penned - we have to wonder what those very early Christians did when it came to believe in Christ - with no Bible in print. And, since the Canon was not established until 400AD - what provided the Word of God to these Christians? It was Sacred Tradition - the oral instruction Paul identifies in addition to his writings - that was the very foundation of the Church.
You are also assuming that when Scripture refers to the Church that it means and is restricted to the Catholic Church as an institution. That is not something I accept.
And, that is your responsibility.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, SyCarl,
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Kevinl,
I do not think you answered Joe’s question. In fact, it sounded rather dismissive.
No religion EXCEPT Judiasm is mentioned. By your logic, the only recognized religion is Jewish. And then why do we need a ‘Christian sect’ of Judiasm?
The previous unanswered quesitons remain - and considering your previous posts, you may want to consider rising to the occasion rather then just playing with a response. There is no problem with honest and spirited dialogue over matters being debated - just the tepid responses of those who have neither interest or desire.
So, to repeat the questions: if the Catholic Church was not founed by Christ and is not the Church of Matt 16 - just Who did found the Catholic Church, when was the Catholic Church founded and just where is this Church founded by Christ identifed in Matt 16???
Looking forward to hearing from you.
God bless
I do not think you answered Joe’s question. In fact, it sounded rather dismissive.
This argument that the words “Catholic Church” is about as genuine as a $3-bill…
No religion EXCEPT Judiasm is mentioned. By your logic, the only recognized religion is Jewish. And then why do we need a ‘Christian sect’ of Judiasm?The previous unanswered quesitons remain - and considering your previous posts, you may want to consider rising to the occasion rather then just playing with a response. There is no problem with honest and spirited dialogue over matters being debated - just the tepid responses of those who have neither interest or desire.
So, to repeat the questions: if the Catholic Church was not founed by Christ and is not the Church of Matt 16 - just Who did found the Catholic Church, when was the Catholic Church founded and just where is this Church founded by Christ identifed in Matt 16???
Looking forward to hearing from you.
God bless
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
You make the WHOLE BASIS of the remarkable exemption of The Catholic Church for The Catholic Church regarding accountability dependent on Jesus specifically so stating. Then when you are asked the required question, “Where?” - you argue your point is unsubstantiated. Friend, you can’t found your whole position of “IT SAYS!” and then insist, “It needn’t say.” This should be obvious to you.
Let’s say I alone insist that I alone am smart. And I build the whole apologetic for such on the fact that God says that I alone am. OF COURSE, you would immediate ask the central, foundational questions: Where does God say that? I can hear you laughing now when I respond, “Well, actually, He never so much as mentioned me…”
All this continues to be the Catholic apologetic for WHY it is the most sound rubric for determining if The Catholic Church is correct for The Catholic Church to exempt itself from the question and accountability and norming, by itself alone insisting that itself alone is INCAPABLE of being wrong and thus is infallible/unaccountable, so the whole question of correctness is to be laid aside and rather all are to just accept whatever it alone says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.” SOMEHOW, it must TRY to justify that rubric for determining correctness. It must preserve that all OTHERS are accountable - right here, right now - but must argue that it itself alone is not.
Go ahead.
Show us that while God repeatedly warned us of false teachers, He exempted The Catholic Church exclusively from that possibility. Show us why Jesus was wrong to praise the Ephesian Christians for regarding their teachers as accountable, for testing/norming them, arbitrating the issue and declaring them false? Show us the verse where God (or Jesus or any Apostle) said that we are to accept whatever The Catholic Church alone says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking” but we are to hold as accountable the teachings of every other man, woman, child, group, organization, body, institution, congregation, denomination?
I agree. When self alone exempts self alone from accountability - then there is no accountability. When self alone declares instead that all must just accept whatever self alone says with docility, as Jesus speaking - then there is no accountability. Read your catechism # 87.
One of the basis defenses for Sola Scriptura.
So, when The Catholic Church designates The Catholic Church as the sole interpreter, sole authority and sole arbiter, looking to the teachings of itself as the “rule” for the teachings of itself, what OUTSIDE of itself is it accountable to (other than God)?
The Catholic Church IS The Catholic Church. Scripture is not me. Or you.
.
.
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
As Israel is the community of Jahweh, so His disciples are His community (Mt. 16:18)Hi, Kevinl,
I do not think you answered Joe’s question. In fact, it sounded rather dismissive.
This argument that the words “Catholic Church” is about as genuine as a $3-bill…
The previous unanswered quesitons remain - and considering your previous posts, you may want to consider rising to the occasion rather then just playing with a response. There is no problem with honest and spirited dialogue over matters being debated - just the tepid responses of those who have neither interest or desire.
So, to repeat the questions: if the Catholic Church was not founed by Christ and is not the Church of Matt 16 - just Who did found the Catholic Church, when was the Catholic Church founded and just where is this Church founded by Christ identifed in Matt 16???
Looking forward to hearing from you.
God bless
J
jake23
Guest
There is no real defense for scripure only. It is a foolish thaught and anyone who truely investigates the matter can only use personal opinion without evidence to believe in scripture alone. The catholic church is here for a reason, just the same as a teacher is needed along with the text, not a self proclaimed teacher but a certified one. A protestant minister is far from thye truth and bends historical facts. I know, I went to school to become a protestant minister however my heart and eyes where open to see the truth and became catholic! I feel that if one is honest they will find there way to the holy catholic church and will know you cannot live with scriputre alone and if anyone argues against this then they are guitly of not taking time to study or they are guilty of ignoring the truths. There is no TRUE defense
J
jake23
Guest
sorry for spelling, my wireless keyboards batteries are running out, atleast thats my excuse!
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Kevin,
I am sure that is very interesting, but you still have not answered the question. Would you like to try that again?
Now, if you don’t have an answer, that’s fine.
God bless
I am sure that is very interesting, but you still have not answered the question. Would you like to try that again?
Now, if you don’t have an answer, that’s fine.God bless
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Jake23,
Even with a ‘dying keyboard’ you made a lot of sense…
God bless
Even with a ‘dying keyboard’ you made a lot of sense…
Truly, Jake23, it is a tradition of men that can be dated to the 16th Century - sort of makes you wonder why anyone would go along with ‘private interpretation’ since Peter was quite condemning of it?
God bless
P
PJM
Guest
***My dear friend in Christ,
Why of course it does…
Began with Mt. 16: 15-19, thn follow it up with the plenitude of references for ONR CHURCH… fo example:
Eph. 2:19 "So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [singular]* built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; [singular] in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit. **
Logic supportd by hard historical evidence supports the FACT that only ONE Christian Church was in existence at the time of the completation of the Bible being written; therefore because history also Proves the line of Catholic Popes, Peter being the first, ANY AND ALL REFERENCES TO “CHURCH” MUST MEAN THE “Catholic Church”, even though it would be another 100 [consecutive] years before the term was applied to Her.
NOW to the OPQ…
Two issues seem to present evident questions on the Sola Scriptura position, neither of which seems ever to be adressed.
There is nothing in the Bible that supports this position and there is evidence that this position is unforunded Biblically.
Secondly, amoung those who hold this position, they do so selectively. Often ignoring verses like Mt. 16:15-19, Mt. 18:18: John 20:19-23 and John 6:40-69 which is further supported by Mt. 26:26-28, Mk. 14: 22-24, Lk. 22: 19-21 and 1 Cor. 11: 23-29.
So how can these issues be over-looked?
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, AJ, let me tell you what is obvious to me…
It would be interesting if you would read the numerous responses that have been addressed to you on your ‘accountability’ issue. But I must say, it is remarkable - actually it is more then that - it is genuine Grace from God that the Catholic Church has grown and developed in the Love of her Savior, Jesus Christ. During the 2,000 that the Catholic Church has been in existence - that is where Matt 16 comes in, AJ … really… read it again… it has never taught error.
It would be interesting if you would read the numerous responses that have been addressed to you on your ‘accountability’ issue. But I must say, it is remarkable - actually it is more then that - it is genuine Grace from God that the Catholic Church has grown and developed in the Love of her Savior, Jesus Christ. During the 2,000 that the Catholic Church has been in existence - that is where Matt 16 comes in, AJ … really… read it again…
it has never taught error.
N
ncgolf
Guest
What you propose is in reality no different.
Our “lens” into Scripture is what the Church teaches. We believe this “lens” is the same “lens” the Apostles used. It has continued and is sustained by Tradition through Apostolic succession. This “lens” is not dependent on agreement or majority of it’s members. We don’t get a vote in dogma. The Catholic Churches teachings would remain the same even if just 1 Catholic was left. There is no whim in the teaching … hence it’s unpopularity in some quarters.
You see Scripture through your “lens” … you gleamed it from somewhere else. I am sure you could quote me a few names that have influenced you. I really do not think all of what you believe came from yourself, soley. Even if you read all Scripture and came up with your belief … your “lens” then is what your perceive from the text.
The object of this “lens” is Scripture. The same Bible could sit in front of us and we would see it’s content differently. But even here … the starting point we could not agree on since we believe the fullness of God’s revelation is not exclusively found in Scripture and you do.
If you really want to respond … then respond to why your “lens” (the “lens” of sola scripture) is a better way to see the fullness of God’s revelation. Me thinks you waste too much ink just telling us we are wrong. I concede I believe the Catholic “lens” gives the clearest picture and if you can give a reasoned response without trashing Catholic beliefs … then we are in for some solid understanding. One can see why running a negative free political campaign is so difficult.
The choice then is what “lens” does one trust? Remember the “lens” should be able to not only discern what is in Scripture but what Scripture has to say about modern day life.
How does Scripture weave into modern day ethical problems given a sola scriptura stance? How does one proof-text … let’s say in-vitro ferilization (not debating the issue but how does Scripture speak on that issue and if so) … I guess I am asking you to put a living model of sola scriptura into action.
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
The Apostles were not sent to act idependently of one another, but to govern by their collective authority. Christ never spoke of more than one Church. He always spoke of His Church, not of His Churches (Mt. 16:18)
- A sheepfold
- A Kingdom
- A city
P
PJM
Guest
***My dear friend in Christ,
Properly understood here are three such Biblical evidences…***
Mt. 16:15-19 especially verse 19
18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19]I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever **you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." **BIND = TEACH as well as forgivensss of sins.
John 17: 14 "I [Jesus] have given them thy word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one. * 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. 18 As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth.
John 14: 25 "These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”
John 14: [16] And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, ] even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, SyCarl,
I thought this was a excellent set of scriptural quotes. You may want to re-read what was posted. You know, it really does not take much interpretation when the words clearly spell out the meaning. Seriously, with many PC groups saying that they take the literal meaning of Scripture - these just may present a problem. Unless, of course, you dance around them by saying these plain words do not mean what they say.
God bless
I thought this was a excellent set of scriptural quotes. You may want to re-read what was posted. You know, it really does not take much interpretation when the words clearly spell out the meaning. Seriously, with many PC groups saying that they take the literal meaning of Scripture - these just may present a problem. Unless, of course, you dance around them by saying these plain words do not mean what they say.
So, tell me - what is your ‘private interpretation’ of those same verses?
God bless
J
joe370
Guest
Josiah, regarding my questions below, please do not tell me that the church founded by God, in Jerusalem, circa AD 33, is the church of all true believers, because that simply brings us right back to the CC, founded by man, as opposed to God, comprised of true believers, as you insist, and all of the PC’s, as opposed to God, comprised of true believers, as I insist.
if the CC was not founded by God, as you insist, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, circa AD 33, and none of the PC’s were founded by God, as I insist, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, circa AD 33, then help me find the church founded by God, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, circa AD 33, for that church is the only church (hermeneutically/exegetically speaking) - that has the authority to resolve doctrinal differences and interpret scripture. If Sola Scriptura is to be the norm, yardstick, plumb-line for each and every Christian, then certainly the church founded by God, as opposed to the churches founded by men (including the CC if you are right, and all of the PC’s if I am right) - is the only church that can authoritatively implement that norm, yard stick, plumb-line, by arbitrating, evaluating and resolving doctrinal disputes, with the aid of Sola Scriptura?
if the CC was not founded by God, as you insist, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, circa AD 33, and none of the PC’s were founded by God, as I insist, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, circa AD 33, then help me find the church founded by God, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, circa AD 33, for that church is the only church (hermeneutically/exegetically speaking) - that has the authority to resolve doctrinal differences and interpret scripture. If Sola Scriptura is to be the norm, yardstick, plumb-line for each and every Christian, then certainly the church founded by God, as opposed to the churches founded by men (including the CC if you are right, and all of the PC’s if I am right) - is the only church that can authoritatively implement that norm, yard stick, plumb-line, by arbitrating, evaluating and resolving doctrinal disputes, with the aid of Sola Scriptura?
J
jlhargus
Guest
JL: Tell us how and to what Luther was accountalbe, that should settle the whole matter of accountablity.
- Status