Early Church Fathers and Sola Scriptura

[EricFilmer]

I (and Fr. Kilmartin) denied that Augustine believed in the “Literal” change

of substance in the consecration. I never denied that Augustine believed in ‘a’ Real Presence, just that he and Pope Gelasius I did not believe that there was a change in the substance. This was one of the points I presented as evidence that Trent ‘added’ to the Gospel in claiming that:
“Since Christ our Redeemer said that that which he offered under the appearance of bread was truly his body, it has therefore always been held in the Church of God, and this holy Synod now declares anew, that through consecration of the bread and wine there comes about a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. And this conversion is by the Holy Catholic Church conveniently and properly called transubstantiation.”
-Council of Trent, Session 13, Chapter 4

Actually I gave a very definitive point in history as one example. That being Trent’s declaring the necessity of belief in a “literal change in substance” as a dogma i.e Part Of The Gospel and in my words "an accretion"

No, actually I presented my third point which was profoundly received by an audience of crickets

I haven’t been following this aspect of the thread very closely, but are you suggesting that the Catholic Church fell into a state of apostasy at Trent in its statements concerning transubstantiation?

If that is the case then maybe the “audience of crickets” stems from the fact that this may be getting off-topic. If you want to discuss the idea of apostasy within the context of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation then I invite you to start a new thread discussion and I will be glad to participate. Or, if you believe that it is, indeed, relevant to this thread’s discussion then make a case for it, and I will consider discussing the topic herein.

Then you should have no trouble finding an early writer that describes Mary’s “Immaculate Conception” in the way described by Ineffabilis Deus. In fact, since this was “constantly believed” by the Church

This likewise may be getting off-topic. But Orthodox Christians, Old Catholics, certain groups within Anglicanism and even Muslims have historically taught the Immaculate Conception of Mary in some form or fashion. For example, note what is listed within Wikipedia under “Other Churches.”

 

[paul_c]

Actually what I said was

Quote:
→ Algo1 agreed that the Catholic Church was the true church but apostasized.

Actually I gave a very definitive point in history as one example. That being Trent’s declaring the necessity of belief in a “literal change in substance” as a dogma i.e Part Of The Gospel and in my words “an accretion” So on this basis, you believe that the Church abandonned Christ and Christ abandonned the Church? As we discussed for 900 posts, the Church always believed in the truth of the real presence of Christ in the eucharist but struggled in how to describe it. it chose this way to describe it in answer to the reformers who claimed the eucharist was only a memorial, thus abandonning the words of Jesus, " this is my body, which will be given up to you."

Quote:
He eventually gave up on trying to sow that the Church apostasized, since he had no evidence that this was so.

No, actually I presented my third point which was profoundly received by an audience of crickets:
Which third point is this ? You had 5-6 Catholics answering every post. I didn’t think we missed any.

Then you should have no trouble finding an early writer that describes Mary’s “Immaculate Conception” in the way described by Ineffabilis Deus. In fact, since this was “constantly believed” by the Church:

Quote:
The Decree of Pope Pius IX on the Immaculate Conception of Mary From the Bull Ineffabilis Deus (1854 A.D.).
Since we have never ceased in humility and fasting to offer up our prayers and those of the Church to God the Father through his Son, that he might deign to direct and confirm our mind by the power of the Holy Ghost, after imploring the protection of the whole celestial court, and after invoking on our knees the Holy Ghost the Paraclete, under his inspiration we PRONOUNCE, DECLARE, AND DEFINE, unto the glory of the Holy and Indivisible Trinity, the honor and ornament of the holy Virgin the Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic faith and increase of the Christian religion, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and in our own authority, that the doctrine which holds the blessed Virgin Mary to have been, from the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, in view of the merits of Christ Jesus the Saviour of mankind, preserved free from all stain of original sin, was revealed by God, and is, therefore, to be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful.

…you should be able to find at least one early “christian” writer who describes it in this same way. And alas, the thread was closed.
{my first point was regarding the fact that Cyprian and others never viewed the Bishop of Rome as having ‘universal jurisdiction’}
I get it, you are saying your third point was the one on the Immaculate Conception. Well, St Ephraim wrote a hymn in 370 AD (Nisibene hymn 27) that says in reference to Jesus:
" For there is no blemish in you nor any stains upon your mother ".

Like any Catholic Tradition, there was probably no reason to write about it until someone started questioning it in a real way. Luke says that the Archangel Gabriel addressed her as full of grace. You can’t be full of grace and also have sin.

As for your point that Cyprian didn’t view the Pope as having universal jurisdiction - well we showed you that Cyprian lost communication with Pope Stephen over this. It doesn’t prove that the Pope didn’t have universal jurisdiction, merely that Cyprian didn’t recognize it and was summarily disciplined.

In the end Algo, you were asked to show when the Church apostasized and over what. You threw out three possibilities, all of which were strongly rebutted. Let the lurkers choose between us.

 

[Ignatius33]

I’m having a somewhat difficult time following some of the posts here. It seems as if this thread is being conflated with another one – perhaps the “SPLIT” thread concerning whether the Catholic Church is the true Church, which was recently closed? I dunno, but questions about whether the Catholic Church apostatized at Trent seem rather far afield here.

 

[Kirk_O]

Parker

P.S.
You can check out my blog that I set up for my book.

This says it ALL, You will not believe the Truth because you are blinded by SELF

:sad_bye:

 

[PatrickSebast]

I’m having a somewhat difficult time following some of the posts here. It seems as if this thread is being conflated with another one – perhaps the “SPLIT” thread concerning whether the Catholic Church is the true Church, which was recently closed? I dunno, but questions about whether the Catholic Church apostatized at Trent seem rather far afield here.

I actually thought this was an interesting thread until long multi-part posts that consisted primarily of quotes were introduced. After that everything fell apart for me. It went from a discussion to a chore at that point.

 

[kepha1]

Parker’ OP:

While I believe there may be some legitimacy to honor the authority of oral tradition i.e., in the sense of scriptural teaching,

“some legitimacy”? Oral Tradition, properly defined, is legitimate or there would be no Bible.

I do not find either in Scriptures or the Early Church Fathers that this supersedes the authority of the Scriptures.

Your “this” is a false premise. The authority of Scriptures is a Tradition of the Church. All you have proven is your own reformist definition of Tradition, which is not the one we have been using for 2000 years.

As I continue to read these doctrines put forth by the fathers,

Fathers don’t put forth doctrines, they are members of a body with different functions in the Church as a whole. Doctrines are clarified by the Magisterium, usually to settle disputes or challenges. Only those writings that have been tested and proven to be without error are are used by the Church to meet the challenges of the day. Using quotes of the ECF’s to disprove the Catholic Church is an excercise in futility.

I am going to share a couple of interesting quotes suggest even they submitted to the authority of the scriptures, and not the church.

You have it backwards. The Church is the servant of the scriptures. The Church has always used scriptures as a primary source for doctrine, but not the only source. There is nothing in the Bible that says only doctrines found explicitly in scripture can be used. What you have to say is, “Only doctrines found explicitly in the Bible can be used except for this doctrine.” Your belief that everything must be explicity found in scripture in order to be trustworthy, is a self destructing doctrine, and a tradition of men.

In other words, whatever teaching the church proclaims her beliefs must be derived from the Scriptures.

You are reading into “what they are saying” something that isn’t there.
All of the Church’s beliefs are derived, either explicitly, or implicitly, from Scriptures. It’s a Catholic book.
Quote:
“On consideration, your Majesty, of the reason wherefore men have so far gone astray, or that many—alas!—should follow diverse ways of belief concerning the Son of God, the marvel seems to be, not at all that human knowledge has been baffled in dealing with superhuman things, but that it has not submitted to the authority of the Scriptures”
-St. Ambrose (Book Four, Chapter 1, verse 1).
He doesn’t say authority of the Scriptures alone, and he never pits Scripture against the Church.
Quote:
“Have thou ever in your mind this seal , which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning , but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.”
-Cyril of Jerusalem (Lecture 4, point 17)
He doesn’t say authority of the Scriptures alone, and he never pits Scripture against the Church.

 

[kepha1]

“Why then do you busy yourself about things which not even the Holy Ghost has written in the Scriptures? Thou that know not the things which are written, busiest you yourself about the things which are not written? There are many questions in the Divine Scriptures; what is written we comprehend not, why do we busy ourselves about what is not written? It is sufficient for us to know that God has begotten One Only Son.”
-Cyril of Jerusalem (Lecture 11, point 12)

He doesn’t say authority of the Scriptures alone, and he never pits Scripture against the Church.

“But that we may not appear to build our assertions on subjects of such importance and difficulty on the ground of inference alone, or to require the assent of our hearers to what is only conjectural, let us see whether we can obtain any declarations from holy Scripture, by the authority of which these positions may be more credibly maintained.”
-**Origen **(De Principiis Book I, Chapter 5, section 4)

He doesn’t say authority of the Scriptures alone, and he never pits Scripture against the Church.

Although I do think many will disagree… (message truncated)… Again, if this is not what the ECF’s assert, then provide some alternative.

OK. But you need to understand that Catholics do not read ECF’s the way you read the Bible. We give weight to their consensus, not their opinions. Quoting ECF’s out of the context of the Church as a whole will not do you any good as long as you misunderstand their role, and its very complex. None of your quotes show the authors were sola scripturists, but followed the authority of Scripture, which is a Catholic Tradition. I’ll try and spell it out. Declaring the Scriptures as authoritive is a Catholic Tradition as the Church was/is guided by the Holy Spirit. If you deny this, then we have to go in circles and talk about Who put the books of the Bible together in the first place. Whoever put the books together in the first place should know what they mean.

“Wherefore all other generations are strangers to truth; all the generations of heretics hold not the truth: the church alone, with pious affection, is in possession of the truth.” Ambrose, Commentary of Psalm 118,19 (A.D. 388).
"But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures…Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them and the table of your heart." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 5:12 (A.D. 350).
"

Learn also diligently, and from the Church,

what are the books of the Old Testaments, and what those of the New." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 4:33 (A.D. 350).

we must point out the ways (of interpreting them) which appear (correct) to us, who cling to the standard of the heavenly Church of Jesus Christ according to the succession of the apostles."
Origen, First Principles, 4,1:9 (A.D. 230).

“When heretics show us the canonical Scriptures, in which every Christian believes and trusts, they seem to be saying: 'Lo, he is in the inner rooms [the word of truth] ’ (Matt 24.6). But we must not believe them, nor leave the original tradition of the Church, nor believe otherwise than we have been taught by the succession in the Church of God.”

Origen, Homilies on Matthew, Homily 46, PG 13:1667 (ante A.D. 254).
St. Ambrose, Cyril of Jerusalem, or Origen held to the authority of Scripture, but not Scripture alone, and never apart from the Church. Arius, Sabellius, Nestorious, and Apollonarius did that.

 

[Ignatius33]

I actually thought this was an interesting thread until long multi-part posts that consisted primarily of quotes were introduced. After that everything fell apart for me. It went from a discussion to a chore at that point.

sorry, my bad.

 

[paul_c]

I’m having a somewhat difficult time following some of the posts here. It seems as if this thread is being conflated with another one – perhaps the “SPLIT” thread concerning whether the Catholic Church is the true Church, which was recently closed? I dunno, but questions about whether the Catholic Church apostatized at Trent seem rather far afield here.

Discussions about sola scriptura are always at their heart, about authority. The Reformers deny they authority of the church, and therefore devolve into “authority by scripture” as their only remaining link to God. This discussion is not tangential but the very heart of the discussion. Does the authority of the church come from scripture (the reformer’s view) or does the authority of scripture come from the church that wrote and compiled it (the Catholic view). Settling this point, settles the point of sola Scriptura.

 

[ivebeenshown]

I don’t know how else to say this, yet it falls on deaf ears just about every time.

The Church does not teach that it can ‘trump’, ‘supersede’, or ‘overpower’ the Scriptures!!!

I mean, are you kidding me? What church would ever think of saying “What we teach is in opposition to the Scriptures but that’s perfectly okay”? Last I checked, ALL churches claim to agree with the Scriptures.

 

[Kirk_O]

I’ve checked out this website before and even discussed the issues with the moderator. The essential problem is the same: insufficient. The irony of this website is that the conclusions come from the logical leaps the moderators insists from the alleged ‘proofs’ to show the doctrines of Catholicism are legit. For example, Peter being mentioned a thousand times in scripture (which the writer uses to ‘prove’ his papal role) is a logical leap because his importance in the NT does not necessarily prove his papal role.

Parker

P.S.
You can check out my blog that I set up for my book.

I don’t think Parker will be back. He has shown his true colors. So many Protestants (not all) are blind to the Truth for they would rather live in the lie because it feeds their Pride and in some cases their livelihood.

 

[Quatsch]

Church fathers were using the New Testament books long before any council or synod defined the canon.

Irenaeus tells us that the Apostles’ teachings that they had preached orally were now recorded in Scripture.

(Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 1. Paragraph 1.)

He was also aware that there were four gospels.

(Against Heresies, Book 3 Chapter 10)

Even more telling is that Peter recognized Paul’s letters as Scripture.

Those are all excellent quotes! I was wrong, they do use the word Scripture to refer to NT writings as well, though the canon had not been set in stone by the Church.

 

[onenow1]

This is really the nub of the issue, isn’t it. You reject Papal authority, so you have no other choice but to hang to scripture as the only link you have to Christ. But Jesus didn’t leave the scripture to teach the truth about salvation and administer the sacraments, he left a Church to do that. Have you read Matthew 28: 16-20?

Hi, Paul

I wonder>>>>>>>>Authority comes from the “Author of Life”, Acts 3:15. All authority comes from GOD, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.

And:
Oh My ! Martin, Zwingli, Calvin, did they disobey governing authorities ?:sad_yes:: Romans 13: 1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment

John 20: 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

I was just wondering if Jesus, handed them the OT, at the moment He gave them all authority SOLA, OT.

Peace

 

[Algo1]

Okay. So, God established the Church first…then after that Church had been up and running smoothly for awhile, He inspired some of the Church’s members to write down some historical accounts of the beginnings along with some letters of advice - just as Peter said.

Randy, are you claiming that the ‘content’ or ‘substance’ of what Paul delivered to the Thessalonians ‘orally’ was somehow different than that which he delivered ‘in writing’?

Not “different” since they both come from the same Source. Complimentary. Scripture is to be understood through the lens of Sacred Tradition (the Teaching of the Apostles)

So does this mean that you view God’s revelation in Scripture as materially sufficient as several other posters on this thread do?

"In Galatians 1:14, Paul makes reference to ‘the traditions of my fathers’ and in Colossians 2:8, ‘the tradition of men’. Charles Hodge notes that Galatians 1:14 and Colossians 2:8 are references ‘to what is human and untrustworthy…and frequently in the gospels of the elders.’

Yes.

Only in the remaining three instances (1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:6), where the noun (paradosis) appears, do we find binding Christian tradition in the New Testament. In each of these, the apostle makes reference to authoritative apostolic tradition which he had ‘delivered’ (1 Cor. 11:2), ‘taught’ (2 Thess. 2:15), or ‘commanded’ (2 Thess. 3:6).
In all three cases, the tradition(s) to which he referred could be objectively identified by his readers.
These traditions were not something awaiting the future development of a living voice because, firstly, they had already been ‘delivered’ to the Corinthians who were ‘keeping’ them (1 Cor. 11:2), and secondly, they had already been ‘taught’ to the Thessalonians who were commanded to ‘stand fast’ in them and ‘hold them’ (2 Thess. 2:15). Thirdly, they were commanded to ‘walk’ according to them, clearly indicating that the Thessalonians were already acquainted with them (2 Thess. 3:6).

Yes! This is very Catholic. What we do NOT have is any commandment that the paradosis becomes invalid at any point, or that we are at liberty to abandon it, as was done during the Reformation. Departure from the paradosis causes “a different gospel” than what was delivered.

Is papal infallibility something Paul taught to the Corinthians and Thessalonians?
Is Mary’s bodily assumption something he taught them?

This being the case, not one of these texts supports the modern Roman view that ‘tradition’ in the New Testament can refer to a future unfolding of doctrinal development, or unidentified dogma awaiting future definition.

I think you have a misunderstanding about Sacred Tradition and doctrinal development. Sacred Tradition cannot be changed, It is part of the “once for all” deposit of faith that was delivered to the Church. Doctrinal development is understanding and applying those teachings of Jesus. For example, the Trinity is an example of doctrinal development. It is a term not found in the NT, but coined two centuries later to defeat heresies that were rampant. However, none of us would say that it was an “new doctrine”, as it is from the once for all deposit of faith.

Do you think that Papal infallibility and the bodily assumption are just new names (“terms”) for a set of previously held views, as with the Trinity?

Why? Because the Church was already in possession of these traditions. They were already ‘keeping’ them, ‘holding’ them, and ‘walking’ in them.

Yes, and did not stop doing so just because the NT was canonized.

Can you show us where Scripture says that the bishop of Rome is infallible? Can you show us where any of the fathers from the first 4 centuries said that? Not places where they said complimentary things about Rome, or about her bishops, but where they actually said something that means the bishop of Rome is infallible.

The verbs used to describe the relationship of these traditions to Christian observance make no sense unless they had already been identified and defined. Every reference to ‘tradition’ in these passages has to do with doctrinal or moral rules already delivered."

Yes, however, some of the "rules’ can change (not the moral ones, of course) but how disciplines are practiced. Sacred Tradition cannot change. Customs (traditions with a small “T” can).

 

[Ignatius33]

Discussions about sola scriptura are always at their heart, about authority. The Reformers deny they authority of the church, and therefore devolve into “authority by scripture” as their only remaining link to God. This discussion is not tangential but the very heart of the discussion. Does the authority of the church come from scripture (the reformer’s view) or does the authority of scripture come from the church that wrote and compiled it (the Catholic view). Settling this point, settles the point of sola Scriptura.

okay, fair enough.

 

[paul_c]

So does this mean that you view God’s revelation in Scripture as materially sufficient as several other posters on this thread do?

Sure, God’s revelation is materially sufficient. But it must be properly and authoritatively interpreted.

Is papal infallibility something Paul taught to the Corinthians and Thessalonians?
Is Mary’s bodily assumption something he taught them?

The truth is we don’t know. He could have. He just didn’t happen to mention them in this letters.

Do you think that Papal infallibility and the bodily assumption are just new names (“terms”) for a set of previously held views, as with the Trinity?

I think the Pope’s teaching could always be trusted as true in areas of faith and morals and that from Apostolic times, it was known that Mary was assumed into heaven.

Can you show us where Scripture says that the bishop of Rome is infallible?

Why does it have to say this in scripture?. This is just a circular argument you are making in support of sola scriptura. What scripture DOES say is that Peter was in charge of the church, what he bound and loosed on earth would be bound and loosed in heaven and that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church founded on the rock of St. Peter.

Can you show us where any of the fathers from the first 4 centuries said that? Not places where they said complimentary things about Rome, or about her bishops, but where they actually said something that means the bishop of Rome is infallible.

Well Cyprian actually said this in his letter to Cornelius of Rome in 252 AD:
After such things as these, moreover, they still dare–a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics–to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic andprofane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access

discoverthefaith.com/2008/05/25/cyprian-of-carthage-letter-to-cornelius-of-rome/

 

[Algo1]

Hi, Paul

I wonder>>>>>>>>Authority comes from the “Author of Life”, Acts 3:15. All authority comes from GOD, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.

And:
Oh My ! Martin, Zwingli, Calvin, did they disobey governing authorities ?:sad_yes:: Romans 13: 1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment

John 20: 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

I was just wondering if Jesus, handed them the OT, at the moment He gave them all authority SOLA, OT.

Peace

Here’s another one worth considering:

Acts 5:29-33 29. And Peter and the apostles answering, said, We ought rather to obey God than men. 30. The God of our fathers hath raised up Jesus, whom ye slew, hanging him upon a tree. 31. Him God hath lifted up with his right hand, to be a Prince and a Savior, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins. 32. And we are his witnesses of these words [or things,] and the Holy Ghost also, whom God hath given to them that obey him. 33. And when they heard these things, they were cut in sunder, and would slay them.

And Calvin’s commentary:

1. This is the sum of their answer, It is lawful for them, nay, they ought to prefer God before men. God commandeth us to bear witness of Christ; therefore it is in vain for you to command us to keep silence. But I have declared before in the third chapter, when this sentence taketh place, that we ought rather to obey God than men. God doth set men over us in such sort with power, that he keepeth still his own authority safe and sound. Therefore, we must obey rulers so far, that the commandment of God be not broken. Whereas power and authority is lawfully used, then it is out of season to make comparison between God and man. If a faithful pastor do command or forbid out of the Word of God, it shall be in vain for men which are stubborn to object that we ought to obey God; for God will be heard by man. Yea, man is nothing else but an instrument of God. If a magistrate do his duty as he ought, a man shall in vain say that he is contrary to God, seeing that he dissenteth in nothing; yea, rather the contrary rule is then in force. We must obey God’s ministers and officers if we will obey him. “Eadem in parentibus et dominis ratio,” the same holds in parents and masters, omitted in the translation. But so soon as rulers do lead us away from the obedience of God, because they strive against God with sacrilegious boldness, their pride must be abated, that God may be above all in authority. Then all smokes of honor vanish away. For God doth not vouchsafe to bestow honorable titles upon men, to the end they may darken his glory. Therefore, if a father, being not content with his own estate, do essay to take from God the chief honor of a father, he is nothing else but a man. If a king, or ruler, or magistrate, do become so lofty that he diminisheth the honor and authority of God, he is but a man. We must thus think also of pastors. For he which goeth beyond his bounds in his office, (because he setteth himself against God) must be despoiled of his honor, lest, under a color or visor, he deceive. The office of a pastor is very excellent, the authority of the Church is great, yet so that no part of God’s power and Christ’s mastership be diminished. Whence we may easily gather that the pride of the Pope is ridiculous, who, when as he treadeth under foot the whole kingdom of Christ, and doth set himself openly against God, will yet, nevertheless, lie hid under the name of Christ. 270270 “Dei,” of God.

Calvin’s Commentaries: Acts 5

 

[haparker321]

Along with 400 + other writings also claiming to be scripture.

Oh, so St. Augustine counts as another source of the written Word of God?

What makes you think they did?

The epistles mentioned it.

So, you want the Church to reject their own definition in favor of yours?

I’m saying the church should prove (from Scriptures & ECF), that tradition is what the church defines it as.

The Catholic Church Teaches that the public revelation of God ended with the death of the last Apostle, not when the canon was closed.

Key word, public. When does private revelation count as an additional source?

Of course it is important for you to believe this. Who do you think preserved the Truth from Adam to Moses?

Certainly not the pharisees.

It appears you cherry picked the parts on Scripture and ignored those on the Sacred Tradition.

Prove it.

Parker

 

[haparker321]

Four rules for interpreting the Bible for the Catholic Church

You mean ‘four rules for biblical dictatorial interpretation for Catholics’, right?

1. Always pay attention to the Magisterium the authority of the Church

Because they’re the sole final, infallible authority, not Scripture.

1. Be guided by what the early fathers had to say about a particular passage.

Which the Church ignores.

1. Always to be guided by what the Bible has to say as a whole (not key phrases here and there for defining ones theology and ignoring passages which do not fit one’s theology, see opening quote). One must take into account all of Scripture which pertains to a given doctrinal truth.

Again something Catholics (especially those who adhere to rule #1 because it’s whatever the magesterium says it is). e.g. Mary = Refuge of Sinners.

1. Always take the Bible Literally unless it is reasonably unattainable

Again something the church ignores (e.g. John 6:51-53 & Genesis 1-3) go figure.

Most outside of the Catholic Church would ignore rule number one

.
Because we know better.

Rule “2” states to always be guided by what the early church fathers had to say.

Key Word: GUIDED.

The Early Church Fathers never claimed infallibility which the Catholics keep appealing to them as the final source.

Parker

 

[haparker321]

I don’t think Parker will be back. He has shown his true colors. So many Protestants (not all) are blind to the Truth for they would rather live in the lie because it feeds their Pride and in some cases their livelihood.

I’ve been working steadily on my book for a while and spending time setting up a blog to share with fellow people and entertaining a forum is not all that easy. Sure, it’s got some information about myself but it’s all in aims of getting my name out there and answering some questions.I could say the same thing for Catholics who endlessly cite spurious Scripture passages in an attempt to ‘prove’ the truth. The sad part is that most of these verses used are taken to support the logical leaps of Catholic Doctrine.

Parker