P
pete_29
Guest
I thought Sr. Ethel was after me for not doing my homework again. :coolinoff:
- Status
I thought Sr. Ethel was after me for not doing my homework again. :coolinoff:
W
William_C
Guest
I’m already a member of it.
W
William_C
Guest
Your argument about scripture proof as a novelty is refuted by the fact that Jesus and apostles proofed from Scripture.
inkaneer said:
And Jesus and apostles also offered proof from Scripture so your assertion remains refuted.
W
William_C
Guest
The KJV is wrong. It’s krima, judgment, and I pointed you to the judgments, and also demonstrated that judgment was given so that the believer wouldn’t be judged as the world, IOW, NOT BE CONDEMNED AS THE WORLD.
Paul nowhere says the bread is the body, but that the body isn’t being properly discerned. That’s probably the church (cf vv20-22), with some of the members of the body mistreating other members of the body.
Your uncertainty is showing. Krima judgment, as I said.
That’s what Paul says, it’s right there in the passage.
Your difficulty is that you are not reading the scripture, but are quoting to me the standard Catholic apologetic argument for that passage that you read somewhere.
Read the scripture.
W
William_C
Guest
I understand. That’s the danger of having to save yourself. Those of us who have Christ as a savior don’t have that concern.
That’s a very protestant position you hold, R_C, a very protestant position indeed.
As I said, the road to self-salvation is fraught with danger, but for those of those whose savior is Christ, the yoke is easy, and the burden is light (Mt 11:28-30).
Yes, preaching is tough. Thank God for Paul and every other preacher, preaching doesn’t determine salvation, but faith in Christ (2 Tim 3:15).
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Please don’t smack William C, Sister! We’ve actually grown fond of him, and think he’ll make a fine Catholic Christian one day!
I
inkaneer
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Aaah you make the classic protestant mistake. You assume that since Jesus and the NT writers quoted scripture then they must be sola scripturists and thus they provide a basis for that failed doctrine of man. But I will remind you that we Catholics will quote scripture also and we are not sola scripturists. To further rebuke your claim I will remind you that Jesus used Jewish tradition that was not written, let alone written in Jewish scripture. In Matthew 23:1-4, Jesus speaks of a source of authority that is not in scripture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
"1 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. 4 They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger.”
Look for this ‘Moses’ seat’ in the OT and you will not find it. Yet Jesus tells the crowd they are to practice and observe what the Pharisees tell them. Even in the Old Testament there was a source of authority comparable to the authority of the Church in the NT. But the fact that I want to make is that this disproves your ‘Jesus was a sola scripturist’ idea Now if you can come up with a Bible verse that says we should only accept scripture as authoritative then you will have something. But the wooden stake in the heart of sola scriptura was wriiten by Paul in his second letter to the Thessalonians in which he says:
“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” [2 Thess 2:15 RSV]
That is scripture and because it is scripture it is as valid today as it was when Paul first penned it almost 2,000 years ago.
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Aaah you make the classic protestant mistake. You assume that since Jesus and the NT writers quoted scripture then they must be sola scripturists and thus they provide a basis for that failed doctrine of man. But I will remind you that we Catholics will quote scripture also and we are not sola scripturists. To further rebuke your claim I will remind you that Jesus used Jewish tradition that was not written, let alone written in Jewish scripture. In Matthew 23:1-4, Jesus speaks of a source of authority that is not in scripture.
That is incorrect. I did not say that using scripture as proof was a novelty. What I said was using scripture ALONE was a novelty. Scripture is an entirely useful source but it is not the only source. Scripture calls the church the pillar and bulwark of truth. It makes no such claim about itself. Jesus established a church with authority because that church would be guided by the Holy Spirit into the truth. So that church cannot teach error. And it was that church that determined what was and what was not scripture. The canon of the Bible was no slam dunk affair. Took 400 years to arrive at just those 27 books of the New Testament. The Old Testam,ent was the opposite. It was a slam dunk. The church accepted the Septuagint version of the Jewish scriptures with its 46 books. Neither Jesus nor the Apostles were sola scripturists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
"1 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. 4 They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger.”
Look for this ‘Moses’ seat’ in the OT and you will not find it. Yet Jesus tells the crowd they are to practice and observe what the Pharisees tell them. Even in the Old Testament there was a source of authority comparable to the authority of the Church in the NT. But the fact that I want to make is that this disproves your ‘Jesus was a sola scripturist’ idea Now if you can come up with a Bible verse that says we should only accept scripture as authoritative then you will have something. But the wooden stake in the heart of sola scriptura was wriiten by Paul in his second letter to the Thessalonians in which he says:
“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” [2 Thess 2:15 RSV]
That is scripture and because it is scripture it is as valid today as it was when Paul first penned it almost 2,000 years ago.
Your logic is defective. Jesus acknowledges an authority other than the scriptures. The apostles in Acts 15 rejected the scripture proof offered by the Judiacizers. Instead they claimed a direct inspiration from the Holy Spirit. And 2 Thess 2:15 tells us to hold onto those teachings we receive from both the Oral Tradition as well as the Written Tradition. So scripture actually refutes yor assertion utterly and completely.
I
inkaneer
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
The KJV translates the Greek as damnation. Now this favorite version of protestants is hardly a Cathlic translation. In addition look at 1Co 11:29 where in Paul writes:
"For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. "
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Did you get that last part, …not discerning the Lord’s body"? Paul is saying that bread is actually the Lord’s Body. Consuming the Eucharist unworthily [with mortal sin on one’s soul] damns one to hell because it is a profanation of the Lord.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Furthermore Paul uses the Greek word krioma when he speaks of damnation or condemnation. But when speaking of righteous judgment he uses the word dikaiokrisiða [Romans 2:5 ] and for judgement in general the Greek word gnwñmh [1Co 1:10].
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
So according to you eating bread and drinking wine unworthily [whatever that means to you] causes you to be weak, sickly and die. Your position is preposterous for it means that Jesus told the apostles at the Last Supper to eat the bread and drink the wine because he wanted them to be weak, sleepy and dead.
Originally Posted by inkaneer
The KJV translates the Greek as damnation. Now this favorite version of protestants is hardly a Cathlic translation. In addition look at 1Co 11:29 where in Paul writes:
"For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. "
Paul only uses the Greek word krima for condemnation or damnation. He uses other Greek word for judgment. I posted this in my original response to you. And the KJV is wrong??? Please tell us by what authority do you make this proclamation. Are you a world class bible scholar with degrees to prove it? Are you an acknowledged expert in Koine Greek? Tell us sir. Enlightened us of the unwashed masses of that which makes you competent to utter this denigrating remark. We wait anxiously in anticipation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Did you get that last part, …not discerning the Lord’s body"? Paul is saying that bread is actually the Lord’s Body. Consuming the Eucharist unworthily [with mortal sin on one’s soul] damns one to hell because it is a profanation of the Lord.
Well that is wrong completely. Not only that but ludicrous would seem to be a more apt description.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Furthermore Paul uses the Greek word krioma when he speaks of damnation or condemnation. But when speaking of righteous judgment he uses the word dikaiokrisiða [Romans 2:5 ] and for judgement in general the Greek word gnwñmh [1Co 1:10].
I know what you said. I said you were wrong and showed evidentiary proof to substantiate it. You have not done anything of like kind. You just go on and on making allegations with no proof, no basis and by doing so insult the intelligence of others who are reading this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
So according to you eating bread and drinking wine unworthily [whatever that means to you] causes you to be weak, sickly and die. Your position is preposterous for it means that Jesus told the apostles at the Last Supper to eat the bread and drink the wine because he wanted them to be weak, sleepy and dead.
Really? Paul said that Jesus wanted the Apostles to be weak, sickly and die? Is that what you got out of that passage? Now, not only have you insulted others reading this thread you just insulted Christ. Not a good move I suspect.
Your difficulty is that while you read the scripture you pass it through your preconcieved ideas and what emerges is your opinion and nothing more. What you want to forget is that Jesus established one church and prayed that one church would remain one church. Jesus even promised that church that He would remain with it till the end of the age and that the Holy Spirit would guide it into all truth. All of that is scriptural and therefore true. What you want to believe is that somewhere the church got lost. How that could happen I don’t know because it isn’t scriptural. Maybe the Holy Spirit took a nap or something. Maybe Jesus decided to go get a coffee and the church went bonkers. Whatever your reasoning is, it is proved wrong by the history of the church. It can be and has been shown many, many times that the teachings of the Catholic Church today are the same as the early church. The so called "reformation’ reformed nothing. It was a revolt against the church led by a victim of child abuse whose treatment at the hands of his parents caused him to reject authority unless, of course, he was the one wielding it. Martin Luther lived to see the day when others, using Luther’s own methods, would disagree with him on doctrine and he would be enraged that anyone dared to disagree with him. That was your glorious source for your man made doctrine of sola scriptura. So you tell me to read the scriptures. I do that as evidenced by the scriptural quotes I have given you. But I tell you to discern the scriptures rightly, not by your opinion but by the church that was established by Christ and not some breakaway denomination founded by a man whose core doctrine emanated from the depths of hell.
W
William_C
Guest
No you didn’t. Go read your post 207. The word “alone” is nowhere in that post.
Your assertion that you were referring to scripture alone is refuted, and your assertion that scripture proof is a 16th century novelty remains refuted.
And your assertion that scripture as a proof is a 16th century novelty is refuted.
I
inkaneer
Guest
In post 207 I quoted you stating the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by William C
“The reason any of the reformed churches accept any of the major teachings of Catholic church is because they can be proven from scripture. The reason they reject others is because they can’t be proven from scripture.”
To which I posted this:
“This idea that something has to be be proven from scripture is both novel [a 16th century invention] as well as unscriptural.”
In your post you stated the essentials of sola scriptura [scripture alone or only scripture] by saying that teachings that are to be accepted are those that can be proven by scripture and those that cannot are to be rejected. That sets scripture as the only authority and is sola scriptura per se.
Then maybe you can give us a teacher from the early church who specifically taught sola scriptura. Because I can you several that didn’t. For instance, Basil the Great wrote this:
“Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term” (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]).
And Epiphanius of Salamis wrote this:
“It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6 [A.D. 375]).
John Chrysostom would cite the same verse I gave you, 2 Thess 2:15:
“[Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further” (Homilies on Second Thessalonians [A.D. 402]).
And finally [for this post] there is Vincent of Lerins who a full millenium before Luther pointed out the fallacy of sola scriptura. He bears listening to:
"With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how I might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way, distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity.
"I received almost always the same answer from all of them—that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and in sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority of divine law [Scripture] and then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.
"Here, perhaps, someone may ask: ‘If the canon of the scriptures be perfect and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?’ Because, quite plainly, sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning. . . .
“Thus, because of so many distortions of such various errors, it is highly necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed in accord with the norm of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning” (The Notebooks [A.D. 434]).
NOW, It is your turn to provide the evidence to support your claims. Show us the evidence where someone in the early church taught scripture as the only authority.
By the way you got almost 200 posts in about eight days. Some people would label you as a troll. We have had others who came on here all ablaze initially and then fizzle out. Some of them were ardent sola scripturists also. But there just is not any evidence for sola scriptura before Luther. At least no one has ever presented any. Maybe you can?
W
William_C
Guest
Please list all of the instances of Paul’s use of the words “condemnation,” and “damnation,” book, chapter and verse. After you’ve provided that list, I’ll list the Greek word used by Paul in each instance.
Generally, Paul uses katakrima for condemnation.
You provide the list of scripture, and I’ll tell you the Greek words used.
No, it’s not wrong. As I said, **“Paul nowhere [in the “eucharist” passage in 1 Cor 11] says the bread is the body of the Lord."
NOWHERE.**
Answered above.
You haven’t provided on iota of evidentiary proof, but have only made unsupported assertions.
FYI, simply asserting something isn’t proof of anything.
Here are Paul’s words, do with them what you will:
For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. (1 Cor 11:29-30)
W
William_C
Guest
So now you’re going to come to back and claim that what you said originally is not what you meant. You should’ve done that the second round, but you didn’t, and now you’re desperate.
Your assertion that scripture proof is a 16th century novelty is now, and will forever remain refuted.
And now come the red herrings.
You’ve taken too long to claim that YOU misspoke in the beginning.
Next time be more careful expressing yourself.
This is the last post I’ll address the issue of having soundly refuted your assertion that scripture proof is a 16th century novelty.
I
inkaneer
Guest
You are a trip, pal. Believe what you want. Like I said in my post you came on here all ablaze and now, presented with a challenge that you know you cannot win you get all puffy and proclaim victory. What’s the matter? Can’t find any early church teachers to support your sola scriptura fraudulent doctrine? Like I said almost 200 posts in eight days and now you want to fizzle out by proclaiming that was you last post on the subject when your last post should be to produce those early church teachers of sola scriptura. You have refuted nothing but your own misconstrued ideas. That being done I guess the moderators can close this thread.
W
William_C
Guest
See post #232.
P
pete_29
Guest
You’re Catholic! GREAT!!!
:extrahappy::clapping::dancing:
R
R_C
Guest
Christ cannot “force” us to be saved. Otherwise nobody would be condemned. It is totally up to us to do God’s will. Even the Lord says (and I bet you have heard this phrase a few times before…):
I do not have to save myself - I could never do that, for as far as I know I have been nothing but a sinner (Psalm 51:5) and if I started doing my will instead of that of the Father and following my thoughts that are not his thoughts, then I would be lost despite Christ’s eternal desire that I may be saved.
Christ, that I know, through grace gives his little ones all they need to do the Father’s will and be saved. To do the Father’s will is to help one another, and that is not a new doctrine of the reformed communities, but has been part of the Church doctrine almost forever.
The above is a rather extensive quote of an article by Dr. Taylor Marshall, who was an Episcopal priest who converted to Catholicism and is sharing not only the story of his conversion, but also clarifying many other aspects for the benefit of his protestant brothers. It may be for you - as it was for me - a new perspective for a greater understanding of how close to one another we are.
W
William_C
Guest
Christ is God. Therefore, He can force you to do whatever He wants. :yup:
But regarding salvation, He forces no one to be saved. :tsktsk:
Those who are saved, when enabled by God to understand (cf Php 1:29, Pet 1:1ff, etc.), choose to be saved. :yup:
In your last post, you said, “***I know that it is always a possibility for me to mess up and reject that salvation which the Lord has given me…” ***which demonstrates your belief your actions determine the outcome of salvation. If salvation is dependent upon your actions, it logically follows that you are your savior.
Those whose savior is the Lord, understand that there’s nothing they can do to be saved, and that their salvation is completely based upon what Jesus has done.
R
R_C
Guest
Of course He can, He is omnipotent
But He - and this is a great mystery - does not want to force us, because He has chosen so.If salvation depends upon my actions, it does not follow that I am my savior: my actions can neither earn nor grant salvation. But my actions may lead me to lose my salvation. Christ is my savior, but He has given me free will, and by my actions I can accept or reject His salvation.
Consider the sin of Moses. Amidst the desert, there was no water. Without water, death would be inexorable. In a context full of messianic references, God tells Moses: “Speak to that rock before their eyes and it will pour out its water. You will bring water out of the rock for the community so they and their livestock can drink”. Nothing they could have done could have brought them water. God grants them water, thus life and salvation - God is their savior. Moses would bring water out of the rock (for God did not say “I will bring”, but “you will bring”) yet the power to do so and the knowledge of the work to be performed came from God, their savior.
Moses, however did something that was erroneous and sinful in the eyes of God. He walked to the people with his brother Aaron and said:
By acting this way, Moses and Aaron appeared to be the saviors in the eyes of the people. It appeared that by their work they - and the people through them - had been saved.
Clearly it was not so. It was God that granted them salvation and the grace to do such work. And it was, of course, a fruit of faith. Because of his sin, Moses received the punishment we well know: he could not enter the promised land.
By now my point is made clear: I know well that Christ is my savior, and it is only by faith in Christ that I can perform the works that are necessary for my salvation. But if I were not to perform those works (or if I were to perform them but not with the intention of doing God’s will) then I may as well lose my chance of entering the promised land.
There is indeed nothing I can do to be saved. But there are many things I can do to be lost. Salvation is indeed dependent upon my actions.
W
William_C
Guest
Well, I wish you will in performing the works you need to perform to save yourself.Of course He can, He is omnipotent
If salvation depends upon my actions, it does not follow that I am my savior: my actions can neither earn nor grant salvation. But my actions may lead me to lose my salvation. Christ is my savior, but He has given me free will, and by my actions I can accept or reject His salvation.
Consider the sin of Moses. Amidst the desert, there was no water. Without water, death would be inexorable. In a context full of messianic references, God tells Moses: “Speak to that rock before their eyes and it will pour out its water. You will bring water out of the rock for the community so they and their livestock can drink”. Nothing they could have done could have brought them water. God grants them water, thus life and salvation - God is their savior. Moses would bring water out of the rock (for God did not say “I will bring”, but “you will bring”) yet the power to do so and the knowledge of the work to be performed came from God, their savior.
Moses, however did something that was erroneous and sinful in the eyes of God. He walked to the people with his brother Aaron and said:
By acting this way, Moses and Aaron appeared to be the saviors in the eyes of the people. It appeared that by their work they - and the people through them - had been saved.
Clearly it was not so. It was God that granted them salvation and the grace to do such work. And it was, of course, a fruit of faith. Because of his sin, Moses received the punishment we well know: he could not enter the promised land.
By now my point is made clear: I know well that Christ is my savior, and it is only by faith in Christ that I can perform the works that are necessary for my salvation. But if I were not to perform those works (or if I were to perform them but not with the intention of doing God’s will) then I may as well lose my chance of entering the promised land.
There is indeed nothing I can do to be saved. But there are many things I can do to be lost. Salvation is indeed dependent upon my actions.
R
R_C
Guest
There are no works I need to perform to save myself. I must only be very careful in not performing works that are contrary to God’s will and that would make me lose my salvation. I must try, in other words, to live in God’s grace.
Yet I do not know how to do that, and I can truly echo these words in my daily life:
Thus I try to focus on the present, on the right here, right now, and desire to abandon myself to God’s will, that I may be a mere instrument in His hands. Then I see that God accomplishes good works through me, works that a lowly sinner like me could never accomplish on his own, and I realize that truly, Christ is my savior. But often, when I resist the Lord and act contrary to His will, I find myself walking away from the Lord who not only waits with open arms, but in His humbleness keeps following me, calling me, sometimes even pulling my shoulder to call my attention, for regardless of how small and unworthy may the lost sheep be, the Good Shepherd always seeks it as if it were the most precious one.
See, I know that if I ever accomplish any work worthy of being called good, it is Christ who has accomplished it through me. This is why I say: there are no works I need to perform to save myself.
- Status