Do we really want another 500 years of division between Catholics and Protestants?

[guanophore]

   Gosh... you are very agressive... the point is not to put people down in this fourm but to encourage each other to find the truth in love.

I did not mean to be. Perhaps you can point out what I said that came across as “aggressive” so that I can learn from my interactions.

ANYWAY....

Firstly… are you trying to tell me that the Catholic Church made the Bible? I’m pretty sure God did that. He may have used the authority of the Church at that time… the Church many have discovered the Bible (and then added a few extra books here and there to suit their changing theology (purgatory etc…)) but sorry… the Bible was all God.

Yes, the Bible comes through the CC. Catholic men, moved by the HS, wrote from God. Catholics copied, promulgated, protected and canonized the Bible. Yes, the CC “added” all 27 books of the NT to the Septuagint, which is the OT collection used by Jesus and the Apostles. Scripture itself testifies that it was NOT “all God”. God used men. Catholic men.

NO... Mark's authority came from GOD. Man isn't authorised to give the authority of God... only God has that authority.

Can you please show us from Scripture where Mark was given authority by God?

Can you please explain what kind of authority Jesus gave the Apostles?

In point of fact, Paul admonished the Pharasees over tradition AND Jesus was also admonished by the Pharasees for flouting tradition (Jesus then put them in their place...)

Yes, but these are traditions of men, as opposed to Sacred Tradition, which is the Word of God. St. Paul was not commending the disciples for keeping traditions of men (especially those opposed to God). He commanded that the Word of God be kept in BOTH of it’s forms, word of mouth, and in writing.

1Thes says nothing about that beingcarried on through apostolic succession...

Was there some other way you thought Sacred Tradition would be preserved?

Not sure about your next arguement.... Do you mean to try and tell me that the written wrod came before the apostles started sharing the good news?

The Word of God was whole and entire before a word of the NT had ever been written. The NT is a product of Sacred Tradtiion (the preaching of the Apostles). They never taught that we should “stop” following that which came through Sacred Tradition, just because some of it was written down.

That doesn't make sense... certainly not what the Catholic Church teaches.... How does it oppose the scriptures???

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture cannot oppose one another because both have the same divine Source. They compliment one another.

As for your next point.... ahhh like... through the whole of the epistles especially clear from Pauls letters....

Of course Sacred Tradition is represented all through the epistles. They are composed of the teaching of the Apsostles. But please show us where Scripture states that Scripture contains all of Sacred Tradition.

you are right AS THEY WERE COMMUNICATED BY THE APOSTLES... not as they were communicated through apostolic succession through a pope and a teaching magisterium...

The Apostles appointed successors (Bishops), and their teaching was preserved through the Bishops, and those who were consecrated after them. The Pope is the visible sign of unity on earth of the One Church Jesus founded. The teaching magesterium is the Bishops (successors of the Apostles) in unity with the successor of the one who was specially commissioned to feed and care for the flock.

There are kind of two arguements there… firstly about the authority of the bible and then about the authority of the apostolic successor (disputable).

I agree, but they are intertwined, because the authority of Scripture is based upon the authority of the Apostolic succession.

LASTLY... since NO... the Bible is not a product of the Catholic Sacred Tradition.... it's shouldn't be used to support Sacred Tradition... expecially since the Biblical text doesn't support it (actually you can make the text say anything you want.. but when taken in the context of the whole Bible and Jesus/apostles teachings then it doesn't say 'whatever' you want)

You did not respond to the verses I quoted for you, Niki. Are you avoiding them?

If you don’t believe that the Bible is a product of sacred tradition, then why can’t it be used to support it?

Why do the early Church Fathers accept apostolic succession, and Sacred Tradition? Do you think Jesus abandoned His Church so soon, and allowed them to get lost and misled?

 

[PRmerger]

Read what Paul says about it!

Could you please be more specific?

 

[guanophore]

I'm not sure you really understand how the Bible came to be...

Why don’t you give us a quick lesson?

a fresh reading from Pauls letters should be on your list of things to do.....

Absolutely! Paul was a Catholic, writing on the Catholic faith, to Catholics.

He is the main one encouraging us to keep the Sacred Tradition.

1 Thess 2:13-14

13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

What makes you think the Word of God is nto still at work in the Church, where God placed it?

1 Cor 11:2-3

2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

Where are we commanded to STOP maintaining these?

2 Thess 2:15
5 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Paul taught that the Word of God was equal in value, in both forms. Surely you don’t think He was commanding us to hold to traditions of men?

 As for the submission to the church... I think if you understood the earlier arguements, you wouldn't be even suggesting it...

It is more than just a suggestion, Niki, but a confident assertion. Every time to claim to beleive in the Trinity, open your Bible, and worship on Sunday you are submitting to the authority of the CC who established all these by the authority invested in her by Christ.

 we can agree to disagree! Afterall... we are to encourage one another in the faith

We cannot confirm you in your errors, Niki.

we ARE brothers and sisters in Christ and thus are commanded to love one another and respect one another and encourage one another.

That would include telling you the Truth.

 

[Patrick_GOC]

I do think that there are many common goals that Catholics and Protestants can work together to accomplish to make our society and our world a better place. However, a large part of being Catholic is obedience to the Church and its teachings; i.e. the Magisterium and the Pope. Disobedience is at the origin of Protestantism. So while I think most Catholics are open to working with peoples of all faiths, true unity can only come about with humility and obedience.

Disobedience, hmm. So unity will come when all those outside of the Roman Pontiff submit to his authority. Never mind the Patriarchs, Primates of various Eastern and Western Catholic and Orthodox Churches. In the age of the “reformation” there was so much corruption within the Church it was a mess!
In Vatican I Papal Infallibility was decreed, thus making unity impossible forevermore. The only way that there can be true unity is that all parties charged with the promulgation of Christendom humble themselves and a return to a counciliar form of ecclesial authority. As an Old Catholic (Conservative) it saddens me to not have communion with our mother church but the See of Utrecht did not separate from Rome it was Rome that refused conduct to the See and by declaration of Papal Infallibility imposed a very NEW doctrine upon the Church that was indigestible to the See.
Disobedience to who, the man that is enthrowned in Rome or the Man that is enthrowned on the Right Hand of the Father Almighty???
There is a marked difference that needs to be made in that there essentially are two broad churches–those that have Apostolic Lineage and those that do not,i.e., Sacramental Churches and those that are simply, what I refer to is half churches. They have the Liturgy of the Word but they lack the Liturgy of the Faithful. That being said Christian Unity needs to be based on the Apostolic traditions and the Church Fathers not on inventions of the 16th century not the 19th Century. A return to what the Apostles taught, a return to a healthy respect for the Church Fathers and a RETURN TO THE SACRAMENTS–all 7 of them!

 

[guanophore]

Read what Paul says about it!

I think you have really stuck your foot in it, Niki. You came to a Catholic forum and asserted that the faith that was handed down to us from the Apostles was not valid.

Since we are well educated and know our Scriptures well, we asked you do provide scriptural evidence for your assertions that the Word of God given to the Church is not really the Word of God. Up to this point, you have not been able to produce any such evidence, and are just directing us to read the same books you have read that convinces you.

Here is what we find Paul says about it:

2 Thess 2:14-15
15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

How do you keep the commandment of the Apostle?

Lets not stop at Paul, though. We know that Luke travelled with him, and wrote stories about his journeys. Here is what Luke has to say:

Acts 2:40-42
41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. 42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

Catholics know these things because they are preserved in Sacred Tradition. How do you devote yourself to the prayers taught by the Apostles?

 

[Nikicosier]

Here is a summary of how the Bible was cannonized.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=7tJBch5QtJk

You have said the Catholic Church “added a few extra books here and there to suit their changing theology.” I would appreciate further details on this. Which extra books were added, and when were they added?

The Scriptures were canonised long before the Catholic Church existed. See my other post!

 

[Nikicosier]

If I gave you a series of quotes would you be able to apply these “series of tests” to discern whether they are theopneustos or not (without, of course, googling)?

For example, what test does “My breath is offensive to my wife” pass to tell you that it’s inspired?

OK… Here goes…
The Greek word for inspiration in the Bible, theopnustos, literally means ‘God-breathed.’ Because Scripture is breathed out by God-because it originates from Him, it is true and inerrant.
Biblical instpiration may be defined as God’ssuperintending of the human authors so that, using their own individual personalities (and even their own writing styles), they composed and recorded without errer His revelation to humankindin the words of the original autographs. Second Peter 1:21 provides a key insight regarding the human-divine interchange in the process of inspiration. This verse informs us that “prophesy [or Scripture] never had its origin in the will of man, but by men spoke from God as they were carried along by the HS.” The phrase “carried along” in this verse literally means “forcefully bourne along.” Even though human beings were used in the process of writing down God’s Word, the human wills of the authors were not the originators of God’s message. God did not permit the will of sinful human beings to misdirect or erroneously record His message. Rather “God movedandthe prophet mouthed these truths; God revealed and man recorded His word.”
The HS of God is truely the divine author of Scripture. Though He used erring humans as penmen, He superintended them as they wrote, keeping them from all error and omission. The Scriptures, in the original autographs, possess the quality of freedom from error. In all their teachings they are in perfect accord with the truth.
Its fascinating to observe that many Old Testament passages auoted in the NT are saidto have the HS or God as their author, even though a human prophet actually uttered the words in the OT. The words spoken by the human prophets thus carried divine authority (i’ll get back to this in a minute…)
Acts 1:16 is highly significant in this respect , for we read: “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the HS spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus”. Though David (and the other writers) were used in the process of communicating God’s words, it is clear that the HS was inchargeof the process so that no human error or opinion entered into the picture (compare with Acts 4:24,25; Jeremiah 1:9; Zechariah 7:12).
In 2 Tim3:16, we read, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” The Greek form of “God-breathed” (or ‘inspired’) in this verse is passive. This means the Bible is the result of the “breath of God.” If the form were active, the verse would be saying that all the Bible breathes or exudes God. But here we are told that God breathed out something, namely, the Scriptures. THe origin of the Bible - both Old and New Testaments - is thus seen to be God.
The apostle Paul certainly understood that his own writings were inspired by God and therefore authoritative. In 1 Cor 2:13 Paul said he spoke “not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.” In this passage Paul affirmed that his words were not in fallible men but infallible God (the HS). The HS is the Spirit of truth who was promised to the apostles to teach and guide them into all the truth (John 16:13).
Later, in 1 Cor 14:37, Paul said, “if anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what i am writing to you is the Lord’s command.” In 1 Thess 2:13, Paul likewise said, “and we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.” Again, the reason why Paul’s words were authoratative is that they were rooted in God, not in man. God used Paul as His instrunment to communicate HIS word to man.
The Bible teaches that Scripture alone is the supreme and infallible authority for the church and the individual believer (1 Cor 2:13; 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Tim 3:16,17; 2 Peter 1:21). Again,this is not to say that creeds and traditions are unimportant, but the Bible alone is our final authority. Creeds and traditions are man-made.
Scripture has final authority because itis a direct revelation from God and carriesthe very authority of God Himself (Gal 1:12). What the Bible says, God says. The scriptures are the final court of appeal on all docrtinal and moral matters.

 

[Nikicosier]

Jesus said, “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). He never said “tradition cannot be broken.” Jesus also said, “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished” (Matt 5:18). He said, “it is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law” (Luke 16:17).
Jesus used Scripture as the final court of appeal in every matter under dispute (Matt 22:29; Mark 7:8; Mark 7:13; Matt 4:4-10). Following Jesus’ lead, Scripture must be our supreme and final authority (unless you think Jesus was wrong?).
In Colossians 2:8 we are warned not to be lead astray by the traditions of men… Indeed, Paul warns againstany tradition that conflicts with the absolute Word of God as contained in Scripture is to be rejected. The Bible says that Scripture is the final court of appeal thus also over tradition.
The arguement for tradition seems to be self validating… “we know that tradition is true and legitimate, because tradition tells us so.”

SO - Did the Roman Catholic Church give us the Bible?
The canon of Scripture was being established in the very days that the Bible was being written, before the Roman Catholic Church was even in existance. Luke’s Gospel was recognised as Scripture within 3 years of it’s writing (1 Tim 5:18; Luke 10:7; Deut 25:4). Paul’s writings were also recognised as Scripture (2 Peter 3:16; 1 Cor 14:37; 1 Thes 2:13). As F.F. Bruce puts it, the NT canon was not demarcated by the arbitrary decree of any Church council: “When at last a Church Council - The Synod of Carthage in AD397 - listed the 27 books of the NT, it did not confer upon them any authority which they did not already possess, but simply recorded their previously established canonicity.”

QU for you:

1. According to 2 Tim 3:15, were the Scriptures alone sufficient in providing Tim what he needed to know to be saved?
2. If the Scriptures alone were sufficient for Timothy, then aren’t the Scriptures alone sufficient for us?

I took most of this (and the paraphrasing) from Ron Rhodes book. He outlines his arguement very well and is also able to draw on Scripture much more easily than I can!

I think there was something I missed above… let me know and i’ll try to add. I think it was about how the canonicity is tested…?? Sorry this is carried on… the other exceeded the length of posts allowed!

 

[Nikicosier]

I think you have really stuck your foot in it, Niki. You came to a Catholic forum and asserted that the faith that was handed down to us from the Apostles was not valid.

Since we are well educated and know our Scriptures well, we asked you do provide scriptural evidence for your assertions that the Word of God given to the Church is not really the Word of God. Up to this point, you have not been able to produce any such evidence, and are just directing us to read the same books you have read that convinces you.

Here is what we find Paul says about it:

2 Thess 2:14-15
15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

How do you keep the commandment of the Apostle?

Lets not stop at Paul, though. We know that Luke travelled with him, and wrote stories about his journeys. Here is what Luke has to say:

Acts 2:40-42
41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. 42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

Catholics know these things because they are preserved in Sacred Tradition. How do you devote yourself to the prayers taught by the Apostles?

Can you read my other post and then decide what it doesn’t answer? Sorry, I have to go and feed my family now!

 

[CopticChristian]

The Scriptures were canonised long before the Catholic Church existed. See my other post!

Nick,

Ma dude or dudess…tell me when the Catholic Church came into existence and where did you get this information.

 

[benjohnson]

Jesus used Scripture as the final court of appeal in every matter under dispute (Matt 22:29; Mark 7:8; Mark 7:13; Matt 4:4-10).

As a Lutheran, of course I agree with this. The trouble comes when we individually try to interpret scripture - and even though I consider myself quite clever, I would never attempt to do so without the church.

If I could say two things:

The fundamental disagreements my church has with the Catholic church can be put on one sheet of paper - so from my viewpoint it would be folly to try to discount the entirety of the Catholic church, for I would be discounting the very bones of my own faith. I hope you take the opportunity here to see where your faith once came from and perhaps you will find value that you did not know about.

I would also snuggest that you pick one or two topics to discuss in depth - You may not like how the Catholic church interprets scripture and other authority, but I would put out of your mind any idea that the the Catholic church is not rigorous, learned, wise, and capable of mounting very serious and sound defenses to any attack you or I may bring. It is that deep exchange of ideas that one can learn. A whole raft of small argument is not nearly as satisfying.

 

[SeanIM]

Just seems like so much heated debate here.

Why can’t we just accept that we’re all on the path laid out for us.

Do you think Jesus would really argue over a brand name of faith?

Or would he be more interested that we had love for one another, acceptance and brotherhood?

I did not mean to be. Perhaps you can point out what I said that came across as “aggressive” so that I can learn from my interactions.

Yes, the Bible comes through the CC. Catholic men, moved by the HS, wrote from God. Catholics copied, promulgated, protected and canonized the Bible. Yes, the CC “added” all 27 books of the NT to the Septuagint, which is the OT collection used by Jesus and the Apostles. Scripture itself testifies that it was NOT “all God”. God used men. Catholic men.

Can you please show us from Scripture where Mark was given authority by God?

Can you please explain what kind of authority Jesus gave the Apostles?

Yes, but these are traditions of men, as opposed to Sacred Tradition, which is the Word of God. St. Paul was not commending the disciples for keeping traditions of men (especially those opposed to God). He commanded that the Word of God be kept in BOTH of it’s forms, word of mouth, and in writing.

Was there some other way you thought Sacred Tradition would be preserved?

The Word of God was whole and entire before a word of the NT had ever been written. The NT is a product of Sacred Tradtiion (the preaching of the Apostles). They never taught that we should “stop” following that which came through Sacred Tradition, just because some of it was written down.

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture cannot oppose one another because both have the same divine Source. They compliment one another.

Of course Sacred Tradition is represented all through the epistles. They are composed of the teaching of the Apsostles. But please show us where Scripture states that Scripture contains all of Sacred Tradition.

The Apostles appointed successors (Bishops), and their teaching was preserved through the Bishops, and those who were consecrated after them. The Pope is the visible sign of unity on earth of the One Church Jesus founded. The teaching magesterium is the Bishops (successors of the Apostles) in unity with the successor of the one who was specially commissioned to feed and care for the flock.

I agree, but they are intertwined, because the authority of Scripture is based upon the authority of the Apostolic succession.

You did not respond to the verses I quoted for you, Niki. Are you avoiding them?

If you don’t believe that the Bible is a product of sacred tradition, then why can’t it be used to support it?

Why do the early Church Fathers accept apostolic succession, and Sacred Tradition? Do you think Jesus abandoned His Church so soon, and allowed them to get lost and misled?

 

[Porknpie]

Read what Paul says about it!

Nikki,

Please respond to my earlier post, 428. You said if it is not in the bible it must be rejected.

• that one must be baptized to be saved. Do you believe this? Do you know if you were baptized?

Mark 16:16
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.

• Jesus tell us in John 6, multiple times, that we need to receive his body and blood in the Eucharist. Do you believe in the real presence?

53 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

• do you believe that you have to keep the commandments in order to be saved?

Matthew 19
17 He answered him, “Why do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good.* If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”​

 

[asd72]

The Scriptures were canonised long before the Catholic Church existed. See my other post!

1. When were the scriptures cannonized?
2. When did Catholics add books to suit their theology?
3. When did the Catholic Church start existing?

I have shared the video about how the cannon of scripture was formed according to the Catholic Church. And I will state now the Catholic Church came into existence at Pentecost. We can trace Apostolic succession from that date.

Since you seem to have different dates for both events it would be helpful if you could provide those dates.

 

[joe370]

Great Niki. Thank you for sharing. All Catholics agree with your bolded words above. So the bible says …

• that one must be baptized to be saved. Do you believe this? Do you know if you were baptized?Mark 16:16
  Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.
• Jesus tell us in John 6, multiple times, that we need to receive his body and blood in the Eucharist. Do you believe in the real presence?

53 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

• do you believe that you have to keep the commandments in order to be saved?

Matthew 19
17 He answered him, “Why do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good.* If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

Regarding the Eucharist I would also include the following; this passage had a major impact on me long ago:

“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord (v. 27). Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup (v. 28). For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself (v. 29). That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died (v. 30). But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged (v. 31). But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world (v. 32). So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another – (v. 33) – if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home – so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come (v. 34).”

 

[PRmerger]

The Scriptures were canonised long before the Catholic Church existed. See my other post!

When were they canonized, and please offer some sources for this? And by whom?

Either way, when you offer to us evidence of these folks who canonized the NT Scriptures for you, you are telling us that you submit to their authority.

That means you are not a Bible-Alone advocate.

And that also means that you believe that men have been infallible. (Unless, of course, you believe there is some error in the canon of the New Testament?)

 

[PRmerger]

OK… Here goes…
The Greek word for inspiration in the Bible, theopnustos, literally means ‘God-breathed.’ Because Scripture is breathed out by God-because it originates from Him, it is true and inerrant.
Biblical instpiration may be defined as God’ssuperintending of the human authors so that, using their own individual personalities (and even their own writing styles), they composed and recorded without errer His revelation to humankindin the words of the original autographs. Second Peter 1:21 provides a key insight regarding the human-divine interchange in the process of inspiration. This verse informs us that “prophesy [or Scripture] never had its origin in the will of man, but by men spoke from God as they were carried along by the HS.” The phrase “carried along” in this verse literally means “forcefully bourne along.” Even though human beings were used in the process of writing down God’s Word, the human wills of the authors were not the originators of God’s message. God did not permit the will of sinful human beings to misdirect or erroneously record His message. Rather “God movedandthe prophet mouthed these truths; God revealed and man recorded His word.”
The HS of God is truely the divine author of Scripture. Though He used erring humans as penmen, He superintended them as they wrote, keeping them from all error and omission. The Scriptures, in the original autographs, possess the quality of freedom from error. In all their teachings they are in perfect accord with the truth.
Its fascinating to observe that many Old Testament passages auoted in the NT are saidto have the HS or God as their author, even though a human prophet actually uttered the words in the OT. The words spoken by the human prophets thus carried divine authority (i’ll get back to this in a minute…)
Acts 1:16 is highly significant in this respect , for we read: “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the HS spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus”. Though David (and the other writers) were used in the process of communicating God’s words, it is clear that the HS was inchargeof the process so that no human error or opinion entered into the picture (compare with Acts 4:24,25; Jeremiah 1:9; Zechariah 7:12).
In 2 Tim3:16, we read, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” The Greek form of “God-breathed” (or ‘inspired’) in this verse is passive. This means the Bible is the result of the “breath of God.” If the form were active, the verse would be saying that all the Bible breathes or exudes God. But here we are told that God breathed out something, namely, the Scriptures. THe origin of the Bible - both Old and New Testaments - is thus seen to be God.

Everything you wrote is very Catholic, Niki.

It’s an interesting expository on how God used fallible humans to teach infallibly, but…

it still doesn’t answer the question of how you know that, say, the Gospel of Mark is inspired.

Could you please, please, please answer that?

 

[PRmerger]

The Bible teaches that Scripture alone is the supreme and infallible authority for the church and the individual believer (1 Cor 2:13; 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Tim 3:16,17; 2 Peter 1:21).

And this is where you are adding to the Bible, Niki. There is NO VERSE at all, from Genesis to Revelation that says that Scripture alone is the supreme and infallible authority fo the church.

That is a man-made tradition that you have been duped into believing.

You heard a man say it. Who heard another man say it Who heard another man say it. But no one ever read that Scripture alone is the supreme and infallible authority.

Scripture has final authority because itis a direct revelation from God and carriesthe very authority of God Himself (Gal 1:12). What the Bible says, God says. The scriptures are the final court of appeal on all docrtinal and moral matters.

It really *sounds *as if you are saying that the Scriptures are the pillar and foundation of truth, Niki.

Except, that contradicts the Bible. Oh, the irony, given that you keep telling us that Catholicism proclaims things contrary to the Bible!!

 

[guanophore]

The Scriptures were canonised long before the Catholic Church existed. See my other post!

LOL. Thanks for that, I needed to laugh this morning. Are you one of those who has been taught that the CC was started by Constantine?

Here is an interesting post I would like to get your response. Do you think this member is full of hooey?

What does “canonize” mean to you?

When do you think the CC started?

You will need to add a link or a post number so we can find which other post you are using to support your modern innovation that Catholics did not write the NT. I think I have read all your posts. The most relevant post I read on this point of yours seemed to claim that God authored the Bible, which seemed to indicate you believed it fell out of heaven fully assembled.

Can you read my other post and then decide what it doesn’t answer? Sorry, I have to go and feed my family now!

Dont’ be sorry! It is very important to keep one’s priorities in joining this board. It can be very addicting. Especially when you are being swarmed by “aggressive” Catholics.

You have not answered any of the questions, but I am happy to wait till after dinner.

 

[guanophore]

 OK... Here goes...

The Greek word for inspiration in the Bible, theopnustos, literally means ‘God-breathed.’ Because Scripture is breathed out by God-because it originates from Him, it is true and inerrant.

This is a Truth from Catholic Sacred Tradition to which you have submitted, unwittingly submitting to the Catholic Church, from whence it came.

Biblical instpiration may be defined as God’ssuperintending of the human authors so that, using their own individual personalities (and even their own writing styles), they composed and recorded without errer His revelation to humankindin the words of the original autographs. Second Peter 1:21 provides a key insight regarding the human-divine interchange in the process of inspiration. This verse informs us that “prophesy [or Scripture] never had its origin in the will of man, but by men spoke from God as they were carried along by the HS.” The phrase “carried along” in this verse literally means “forcefully bourne along.” Even though human beings were used in the process of writing down God’s Word, the human wills of the authors were not the originators of God’s message. God did not permit the will of sinful human beings to misdirect or erroneously record His message. Rather “God movedandthe prophet mouthed these truths; God revealed and man recorded His word.”

Excellent!

Those men who were carried along who wrote the books that became the NT were Catholic. They were writing Catholic doctrine to Catholics.

God also breathed upon His fledgling Church, and promised them that they would also be carried along by the same HS. He gave them His authority, and promised to gude them into all Truth. Using that authority, they assembled, promulgated, protected and canonized the theopneustos Scriptures.

The HS of God is truely the divine author of Scripture. Though He used erring humans as penmen, He superintended them as they wrote, keeping them from all error and omission.

Almost.

The NT was never intended to be a full compendium of the faith. No effort was made to write the NT without any “omission”. The Scriptures themselves attest to this fact. Jesus founded His Church, which contains the fulness of Him, so that there would be no omissions.

In 2 Tim3:16, we read, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” The Greek form of “God-breathed” (or ‘inspired’) in this verse is passive. This means the Bible is the result of the “breath of God.” If the form were active, the verse would be saying that all the Bible breathes or exudes God. But here we are told that God breathed out something, namely, the Scriptures.

This is all very Catholic of you!

We also believe He “breathed out” the Church, filling her with the Holy Spirit, just as He breathed into the first man.

THe origin of the Bible - both Old and New Testaments - is thus seen to be God.

Did you think Catholics did not believe this?

The HS is the Spirit of truth who was promised to the apostles to teach and guide them into all the truth (John 16:13).

I am glad we are in agreement on this point. But my question remains. Where and how did this Spirit depart from the Church founded by Christ, so that what He taught them became “lost”. Why do you think the Spirit of God became weak, and sickly, so that He could no longer fulfill the promise?

 Paul likewise said, "and we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe." Again, the reason why Paul's words were authoratative is that they were rooted in God, not in man. God used Paul as His instrunment to communicate HIS word to man.

So how did this authority get “lost”? Why do you believe that the Word of God, as placed in His Church, foundered? How did the weakness of men suddenly become stronger than the HS?

The Bible teaches that Scripture alone is the supreme and infallible authority for the church and the individual believer (1 Cor 2:13; 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Tim 3:16,17; 2 Peter 1:21). Again,this is not to say that creeds and traditions are unimportant, but the Bible alone is our final authority. Creeds and traditions are man-made.

No, Niki. None of these passages say what you are trying to make them say. In fact, Scripture is clear that Jesus’ authority was given to the Church.

The Scriptures cannot wield authority, since this is an activity that requires will, discernment,and the ability to take action in governance. Writings do not have these qualities. The Reformers tried to ascribe these qualites to Scripture, but it has caused much division because the result is whoever reads becomes their own authority.

Scripture has final authority because itis a direct revelation from God and carriesthe very authority of God Himself (Gal 1:12). What the Bible says, God says. The scriptures are the final court of appeal on all docrtinal and moral matters.

This statement is directly contrary to what the Scriptures say. It is a man made tradition created by the Reformers, 1500 years after Jesus gave His authority to His One Church.

Good job on the inspiration part though! :clapping: