Early church fathers believed in sola scriptura?

[BRB]

Again I believe that you are relying on the Tradition of the Catholic church to base your interpretation of scripture in respect to the Trinity.

Tradition wasn’t essential to the Trinity … after first gospel, Matthew was written.

Christ in scriptures clearly differentiated the 3 aspects (persons) of God. In many scriptures Christ differentiates himself from the Father … even prays to the Father when he is in the Garden [Matt 26:39] and while on the Cross Matt 27:46 ]

And, differentiates himself from the H.S. in Matt 12:32 “And whoever says a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”

 

[sandusky]

Oh come on Sandusky - who are you kidding here?
The original Greek manuscripts for all the Bible translations comes from Greek written continuously with no punctuation. Punctuation is rare (but some accents and breathings have been added by later hands) except for some blank spaces, diaeresis on initial iotas and upsilons, abbreviations of the nomina sacra and markings of OT citations. So guess where translators even know how to translate the manuscripts? From Catholic Traditions.

So now you want us to believe that the Jews who were always willing to die for their faith all ran away from a metaphor about Jesus telling us we must eat His real flesh and drink his real blood in John 6?

James

James you can believe what you want. I’ve always encouraged you especially to do that…

 

[sandusky]

Read the rest of the CCC that also recognized the Jews as our brothers. Would you imply by the same reckoning that the Jews are the Antichrist? Me thinks you are being selective and a tad bit parochial on your scripture reads.

I’m just pointing out what the scripture says, and that your popes who teach that Jews and Muslims worship the same God as Christians, clearly, and without question, teach error.

 

[sandusky]

Sandusky,
Several days ago, we discussed that we could create a list of all the non-scriptual doctrines and I gave you a subset. I thought we agreed that it wasn’t about whether the list existed (it is afterall a subset of those Catholic Doctrines that you think are false because you can’t find them in scripture).

So we moved on to the real point of the discussion which is:

How do we justify those traditions not found in scripture.

It’s time to hold your feet to the fire on the list again.

I need to see that list, and so do many others.

Where’s the list?

 

[rmcbride77]

It’s time to hold your feet to the fire on the list again.

I need to see that list, and so do many others.

Where’s the list?

If you will, the list in its most accessible form is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Read it for yourself and see the sacred Tradition, the Life and practice of the Church as She lives and breathes the Sacred Scripture.

 

[rmcbride77]

Tradition wasn’t essential to the Trinity … after first gospel, Matthew was written.

Christ in scriptures clearly differentiated the 3 aspects (persons) of God. In many scriptures Christ differentiates himself from the Father … even prays to the Father when he is in the Garden [Matt 26:39] and while on the Cross Matt 27:46 ]

And, differentiates himself from the H.S. in Matt 12:32 “And whoever says a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”

Yes, you are reading it correctly, but there are whole groups of people out there that read something different entirely. How I don’t know but it illustrates the need for an Authority outside scripture, an Authority that has the same source of inspiration, i.e. The Holy Spirit. That is why Christ gave us His Church. You can see the parallel in our own system of government. We have the Constitution and that written document needs the Executive, Legislative and Judicial bodies of our government to be put to practice. This is not a perfect analogy, mind you but it maybe it will help you to get the idea. Our founding Fathers had the wisdom not just to lay a document down and say hey “you are on your own” They knew from the lessons of History that leaving a document alone would lead to chaos and many different interpretations. Again, this is not a perfect analogy but it contains the concept I am trying to relay about the Church in a form that is easy to grasp for your American minds.

 

[sandusky]

guanophore:

I cannot fathom, however, how this life of Christ in the Church can be reduced to a “list”.

If you could produce the list you could fathom it. Maybe that’s your problem.

guanophore:

I must agree with you that one who requests such a reduction has no understanding of Jesus’ intention for His Bride.

You call it a reduction because you can’t produce it.

guanophore:

Have you ever been in love? Did you ever try to reduce your Bride to a “list”? I bet if you did, your Bride would be grossly insulted by your reduction.

ISTM, you know as much about women as you know about the list—not much.

guanophore:

Where does it say THAT in scripture?

I wasn’t referring to scripture, but to the statement in your catechism.

guanophore:

If you think this paragraph says what you assert, then you are mistaken.

I know it says what I assert, it’s you that has the difficulty with RCC teaching on the subject.

guanophore:

The fact that everything that is in scripture is true does not equate to everything that is true is in scripture.

You are precious in your ambiguity and equivocation.

guanophore:

Again one has to wonder, why are you here? If you have all you need from the Sacred Catholic Writings, what would compel you to frequent a Catholic forum?

I love Catholics.

guanophore:

It is kept in the hearts of the faithful. Of couse you are demanding that we conform to your errant and carnal constructions by insisting that the life of God in Christ be reduced to a “list”. Pitiful.

The list is kept in the heart of every faithful Catholic, and yet, not one of them can produce the comprehensive list—Odd. Perhaps they’re deceived?

guanophore:

Because not everything was consigned to scripture.

I know; much is in an written list, kept in the hearts of faithful Catholics, and none of them can produce the list.

guanophore:

Have you forgotten that the majority of Scripture was already written at the time?

What’s your point?

guanophore:

This is a logical fallacy. None of the Catholic doctrines find their basis in the Scripture.

Agreed.

guanophore:

All of them come from Jesus Himself, and were whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. To say that the teachings were not complete before they were written consigns the whole NT to “conflict”.

What???

guanophore:

No, sandusky, there is no conflict between the two, except in your mind. Further, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture never “overrule, overide, or add”. they are two woven strands of the same immutable truth, once and for all delivered to the saints.

Sounds good, but that’s about it.

guanophore:

Indeed, your mind is definitely going in circles. Unproductive ones, I would say.

It’s a result of your shuckin’ and jivin’ me 'bout the list.

 

[cbbrown]

If you could produce the list you could fathom it. Maybe that’s your problem.

You call it a reduction because you can’t produce it.

ISTM, you know as much about women as you know about the list—not much.

I wasn’t referring to scripture, but to the statement in your catechism.

I know it says what I assert, it’s you that has the difficulty with RCC teaching on the subject.

You are precious in your ambiguity and equivocation.

I love Catholics.

The list is kept in the heart of every faithful Catholic, and yet, not one of them can produce the comprehensive list—Odd. Perhaps they’re deceived?

I know; much is in an written list, kept in the hearts of faithful Catholics, and none of them can produce the list.

What’s your point?

Agreed.
What???

Sounds good, but that’s about it.
It’s a result of your shuckin’ and jivin’ me 'bout the list.

Hmm, I have been following this thread with great interest for days now. I have finally decided to jump in with some observations.
First, we all worship the Truth, since Jesus said I am the Truth.
Second, we are all Christians, and as such we believe that we should all treat the next person as if they were “better” than ourselves.
Far be it from me to judge you, but your posts definitely seem to me to be a bit antagonistic.
You do not need to answer this, as I want you to ask yourself this.
When you post, what is your intention? Is it to enlighten? Or is it to ridicule anothers beliefs? Please do not resort to the childish “They did it first,” or “they do it too.” This shoud not alter the fact that mutual respect should be on the mind of all who post.
I have reached a state where I really and truly realize that to each person, their belief makes sense to them. Conversion comes from God, not from posters like you and me. Sure God can use us, but do you really think He wants us to converse disrespectfully and with snide comments?
Every human person has an infinite dignity before God, being made in His image and likeness. I really don’t believe that God condones derision towards another human person even if they’re “wrong.” I believe that God resists the proud, even when they’re right.

Now again, I am not presuming to judge you, but your posts definitely smack of flippancy and borderline contempt. Please remember, as should we all, that a persons beliefs are very personal, and should never be made fun of no matter how silly they seem to us “enlightened ones.” God is far more interested in your and my personal sanctity than on any “conversion” we perform (Conversions come from God! ). So let’s all try to be truly respectful of others, and maybe we’ll at least come to friendship, if not conversion of anothers mindset.

OK, off the soapbox I get, sorry to sound as if I was so much better than anyone, as this is not the case. As Fulton Sheen says Jesus entered Jerusalem on the back of a jackass, so ignore the fact that this message comes from a jackass like me, and determine whether Jesus enters your heart, notwithstanding His ride

P.S. Sorry to pick on you Sandusky, but your posts have threatened my peace on many occasions, though that may not have been your intention

Peace all

 

[cbbrown]

So those who don’t believe the Marian dogmas, and purgatory are heretics? Interesting.

You’re word-smithing and spinning things. Prove the IC and the assumption from scripture, guanophore.

You’re playing word games because you can’t deliver.

Word games.

Games.

More games.

Which, by your own admission, you can’t list, or describe—more games.

There are plenty of better posters here than myself, but I am going to attempt to answer this one because I did not see anyone do it yet (sorry if I missed it.) Maybe a smarter person can pick it up after me.

You seem to be fairly acquainted with our Church, Sandusky, so I am sure you have probably heard this, but The Immaculate Conception is fairly clearly implied from Scripture and from an understanding (albeit imperfect) of the heart of Jesus.

In Genesis we see God putting enmity between Satan and the woman. But the word “enmity” does not do the real word justice. In the original dialect, the word means something akin to the poles of a magnet, i.e. they can have nothing to do with each other. No contact is possible, no interaction whatsoever.
Now obviously, Catholics see Mary as the woman here spoken of, which is pretty logical considering Her Son is prophesied as the one to crush the serpents head, and who’s the Sons mother? Mary.

The other Old Testament type for Mary’s Immaculate Conception, is of course the Ark of the Covenant. Catholics also consider Mary to be the Ark of the New Covenant, since the old Ark held symbols of Jesus, whereas the New Ark held Jesus Himself, incarnate.
Now if we stop right there and meditate on this, we’ll come to an unfathomable mystery. There is an utter depth of “wow” in this reality. He whom the universe cannot contain, somehow contained in the womb of this woman. I realize that I am a biased witness here, but it honestly baffles me - except if I consider our tendency toward reading Sacred Scripture without always internalizing it - that anyone could not think this woman would NOT be something infinitely unique in creation.

The God of the Universe taking His human form over 9 months inside the womb of Mary, the woman.

Huge, unfathomable, awesome mysterious, mind boggling, etc.

I think we have de-sensitized ourselves to the Divine. We have a lowered sense of the Holy, so we pass over this reality in rather a cavalier fashion.

Somehow I think we also de-humanize Jesus in this case, especially protestants (sorry, judgemental perhaps.) Do we really think that the bond here between Jesus and His Mother is no big deal? Nothing special? Again I think we tend to dismiss this fact that there was a unique and special bond between God and His Mother. This mother that He spent 30 of his 33 years with.

Sorry for the digress there, some thoughts I have that had to be spoken (written? )

Now to continue with the Ark of the covenant, read in the OT how carefully it was constructed, and from the purest, most precious materials. The construction was done on the explicit direction of God. Seeing what care and reverence went into the construction of the box which “merely” held the symbols of Jesus: Aarons rod, the tablets, manna, etc. Does it not seem at least logical, that the same care would go into forming the New Ark? It was for this reason that the Angel called Mary “full of grace.” He who was the messenger of God, used the salutation as if it were her name, not a title. Indicating that it was her **being **(names meant something back then.) Moreover, he told her “the Lord is with thee.”
It is precisley for this reason that Catholics look to Mary. After all, if the Lord is with Mary, where else would Christians want to be?

Now believe it or not, this is a brief, and I might add, rather poorly worded glimpse of the Scripture behind the Immaculate Conception.

Realize, this is what Catholics believe and hold very precious. Mary, who Jesus gave to all His disciples as our Mother, was the most perfect creation of almighty God. Not only is this implied by Sacred Scripture, it also “makes sense” if you know Jesus.
This brings to mind a saying of Mother Theresa: No Mary, no Jesus; know Mary, know Jesus.

Sorry if I am repeating what you have already heard.

God bless, and peace to all

 

[Church_Militant]

So those who don’t believe the Marian dogmas, and purgatory are heretics? Interesting.

Yes it is. If you claim that the oral tradition of the apostles is different than the written position you’ll have to back that up.

You’re word-smithing and spinning things.

Prove the IC and the assumption from scripture, guanophore.

You’re playing word games because you can’t deliver.

Word games.

Games.

More games.

Which, by your own admission, you can’t list, or describe—more games.

No…actually he’s not, but perhaps you are.

What you have done is attempt to draw a Catholic into the errant theological position of your own argument by demanding a response from Sola Scriptura…a theology that you know

Though there has been more than ample scriptural support offered elsewhere (as linked below) there is no valid reason for Catholics to make their case for the Immaculate Conception and or the Assumption from scripture alone and it is specious of you to demand that a Catholic make his case from a theology that you know full well that we reject.

Immaculate Conception and Assumption

Mary: Full of Grace (Fathers Catholics reject. *)

**Reasons Why I Believe in The Blessed Virgin Mary’s Assumption
**

Until such time as Sola Scriptura itself can be proved to be a valid doctrine both in the Bible (which has not been done so far except by much more of the “Word games. ” that you have accused Catholics of.) and has been proved to be a Traditional teaching of the early church, then demands to try to prove any Catholic teachings from scripture alone need to be rejected out of hand.

There has been no good or conclusive evidence provided that the ECF believed in SS, and so your response is specious at best Sandusky.

 

[twb1621]

If you could produce the list you could fathom it. Maybe that’s your problem.

Sandusky, each topic listed below is actually a link to information if you go to the web site through the link below. knock yourself out.
It still doesn’t have all Sacred Tradition but it will serve to teach you that you can’t ask for a complete list of sacred tradition without studying the catechism and Catholicism.
When you are finished with that I have more information for you regarding the Church Fathers and sacred tradition.
fisheaters.com/beingcatholic.html

Devotions & Prayer

The Basics
Posture and Gesture
The Sign of the Cross
Veiling
Traditional Prayers, Creeds, & Ejaculations
Novenas
The 6 Approved Litanies
Morning Offering
The Rosary: Mary’s Psalter
Stations of the Cross
Eucharistic Adoration
Lectio Divina
Fasting & Abstinence

Specific Devotions
Devotion to the Holy Name
Devotion to the Child Jesus
Devotion to the Holy Face
Devotion to the Five Wounds
Devotion to the Divine Mercy
Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus
Devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary

Other
Consecration to Jesus through Mary
Little Crown of the Blessed Virgin
The Franciscan Crown (Seraphic Rosary)
Akathistos to the Mother of God
The Nine Ways of Prayer of St. Dominic
Pilgrimage
Votive Offerings
Labyrinths
St. Joseph: Real Estate Agent?

The Sacrifice of the Mass

Introduction
Mental & Spiritual Preparation
Attire & Etiquette
Order of the Mass
Video of the Mass
Missing Mass, & Spiritual Communion
Liturgical Vestments
Liturgical Vessels
Liturgical Colors
Gospel & Epistle Readings for Sundays & Holydays

Sacraments & Life Events

Birth & Rebirth
Circumcision?
Sacrament: Baptism
The Churching of Women

Sin, Reconciliation, & Penance
Nightly Examination of Conscience
Sacrament: Penance
Gaining Indulgences
Redemptive Suffering: “Offering it up”

Growing in Sanctity & Living Life
Sacrament: Holy Communion
Sacrament: Confirmation
Modesty
Catholics and the Animal World

Living your Vocation
Sacrament: Holy Matrimony
Sacrament: Holy Orders

Sickness and Death
Sick Calls
Sacrament: Unction
The Catholic Way of Dying
Burying the Dead: Catholic Funerals
Praying for the Dead

Sacred Time

The Liturgical Year
Seasonal Customs
Holy Years of Jubilee
The Catholic Day, Week, & Month
Keeping the Lord’s Day
Name Days
The Canonical Hours
The Angelus

Sacred Space

The Domestic Church: The Catholic Home
Mary Gardens
Roadside Shrines
Parishes, Dioceses, Archdioceses, Patriarchates
Types of Ecclesiastical Buildings
Inside your Church

Sacred Things

Introduction to Sacramentals
Water
Fire
Incense
Ashes
Salt
Holy Oils
Bells
Sacred Images: Statues & Other Icons
Crucifixes and Crosses
Palm Branches
Scapulars
St. Joseph’s Cinctures (Cords)
St. Benedict Medal
The Miraculous Medal
Relics and the Incorruptibles
Agnus Dei
Holy Cards
St. Anthony’s Brief
Sacrifice Beads

Other Things You Need to Know

Lists every Catholic should be familiar with
Lyrics and Melodies of Traditional Catholic Hymns
Latin
Learn to Chant the Pater Noster
Imprimi Potest, Nihil Obstat, & Imprimatur
Christian Symbols
Symbols of the Saints in Art
Phrases & Abbreviations Catholics Use
Marian Apparitions Deemed Worthy of Belief
Books of the Catholic Bible
The Davidic Psalter
The Parables of Lord Christ

Religious & the Hierarchy

Religious Life
Abbreviations of Religious Orders
Addressing and Greeting Clergy & Religious
Contacting Vatican Officials
List of Popes & Ecumenical Councils
How Popes are Elected
Basic Information About Vatican City
How to Receive a Papal Blessing

Miscellaneous

Maria Lactans: Mary as Nursing Mother
Precious Stones of the Bible
The Sibyls
The Four Temperaments
Catholic Movies
Archbishop Fulton Sheen in Real Audio
Fun Stuff
Downloads

The following link will attest to Sacred Scritpure AND Sacred Tradition by the Church Fathers.

cin.org/users/jgallegos/rule.htm

 

[cfrancis]

It’s a result of your shuckin’ and jivin’ me 'bout the list.

Perhaps you will provide the example of how not to “shuck and jive” and answer the questions I’ve posed to you several times in this thread

You stated:

Many, including me, would disagree with you on that. We would say that they were infallibly defined by Trent.

I asked:

That begs the question: when was the canon to which you subscribe infallibly defined?

And then asked:

Also, WRT to SS. When you declare “SS presumes a canon”, from what source does that statement come?
What is the source document/teacher for this definition of SS?
If that statement is a fundamental element of SS, it had to come from someone/some source.
Is it Apostolic in origin?
ECF?
Reformation?
Modern?

 

[sandusky]

No…actually he’s not, but perhaps you are.

What you have done is attempt to draw a Catholic into the errant theological position of your own argument by demanding a response from Sola Scriptura…a theology that you know

Though there has been more than ample scriptural support offered elsewhere (as linked below) there is no valid reason for Catholics to make their case for the Immaculate Conception and or the Assumption from scripture alone and it is specious of you to demand that a Catholic make his case from a theology that you know full well that we reject.

That’s the best Catholic argument made so far—different standards of authority and proof.

 

[paul_c]

Sandusky,

I think you are overplaying your hand here.

You are on a Catholic website trying to prove to us that the Protestant position of sola scriptura is the proper one. Through 567 posts so far, you are virtually alone in espousing this position.
It is clear that you are not trying to learn (because you’ve ignored the answers to your questions). So therefore, you must be trying to convert us all.

Just to back it up a second. The more I’ve read into this, the more I’ve become convinced that the driver of the Protestant reformation was the the concept of being Justified by faith alone, which on the most fundamental level, eliminates the personal responsibility for your actions that Catholicism teaches. Once Luther laid out that doctrine, he had no choice but to discredit the Catholic Church, which he did by claiming that the priesthood was not sacred (and by extension, the Pope) and that the Church had no authority to interpret Scripture or speak for the Apostolic tradition, thereby arriving at Sola Scriptura…

The problem with the three key Protestant doctrines is that they are self serving instead of God serving.

Justification by faith lays the responsibility of salvation on God and leaves no responsibility for the individual

the priesthood of the people advocated by the Protestants allows everyone to be their own authority, rather than follow God’s authority as passed down through St. Peter.

Sola Scriptura similarly allows anyone to interpret scripture as they see fit, rather than how God actually defined it.

The fact that Protestants end up serving themselves instead of God, should be a clear indication of the validity and source of their doctrines…

 

[CentralFLJames]

Sandusky,

I think you are overplaying your hand here.

You are on a Catholic website trying to prove to us that the Protestant position of sola scriptura is the proper one. Through 567 posts so far, you are virtually alone in espousing this position.
It is clear that you are not trying to learn (because you’ve ignored the answers to your questions). So therefore, you must be trying to convert us all.

Just to back it up a second. The more I’ve read into this, the more I’ve become convinced that the driver of the Protestant reformation was the the concept of being Justified by faith alone, which on the most fundamental level, eliminates the personal responsibility for your actions that Catholicism teaches. Once Luther laid out that doctrine, he had no choice but to discredit the Catholic Church, which he did by claiming that the priesthood was not sacred (and by extension, the Pope) and that the Church had no authority to interpret Scripture or speak for the Apostolic tradition, thereby arriving at Sola Scriptura…

The problem with the three key Protestant doctrines is that they are self serving instead of God serving.

Justification by faith lays the responsibility of salvation on God and leaves no responsibility for the individual

Excellent assessment and I concur with it.

But Protestantism is more than error - it is spiritual defiance to God’s will and to legitimate God given authority under a paper thin veneer of worship. It is a B-grade rerun of the same old pattern of competitive worship we see in the original story of Cain and Abel; and we know where that conflict leads.

Most shocking to me is that Protestants can accept their new secular theology (and that is really what it is without any legitimate priesthood) without one iota of evidence that a single Protestant has ever been “saved”.

I have yet to hear of a single credible case of miracles being associated with any departed Protestants like the Catholic Church has with its thousands of well documented cases for its many saints. Is there any wonder then why Protestants in general forbid praying for the intercessions of departed souls? Could it be that this topic is less a matter of theology dispute as it is Reformer’s fear that lack of intercessional performance would make the facts too conspicuously plain that few, if any, deceased Protestant will be in a position to listen to prayers and intercede? .

James

 

[sandusky]

paul c:

Sandusky,

I think you are overplaying your hand here.

You are on a Catholic website trying to prove to us that the Protestant position of sola scriptura is the proper one. Through 567 posts so far, you are virtually alone in espousing this position.
It is clear that you are not trying to learn (because you’ve ignored the answers to your questions). So therefore, you must be trying to convert us all.

I can’t convert anyone.
paul c:

Just to back it up a second. The more I’ve read into this, the more I’ve become convinced that the driver of the Protestant reformation was the the concept of being Justified by faith alone, which on the most fundamental level, eliminates the personal responsibility for your actions that Catholicism teaches.

You’re wrong. The clear statement of Scripture concerning God is that He is absolutely sovereign over all things, and the clear statement of Scripture concerning man is that he is responsible for all of his actions.
paul c:

The problem with the three key Protestant doctrines is that they are self serving instead of God serving.

> Justification by faith lays the responsibility of salvation on God and leaves no responsibility for the individual

The analogy used by God concerning His Messiah, and His sheep, is that His Messiah is responsible for His sheep:**John 6:39

“This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.**It’s clearly the Shepherd’s responsibility not to lose the sheep God’s given to Him. Do you think the Shepherd can keep the sheep perfectly?

> the priesthood of the people advocated by the Protestants allows everyone to be their own authority, rather than follow God’s authority as passed down through St. Peter.

That’s your perception.

> Sola Scriptura similarly allows anyone to interpret scripture as they see fit, rather than how God actually defined it.

While that can certainly happen in SS, it can happen in the set-up of your church as well. The command is for the believer “to accurately handle the word of God” (2 Tim 2:15).
paul c:

The fact that Protestants end up serving themselves instead of God, should be a clear indication of the validity and source of their doctrines.

You haven’t established that Protestants “serve themselves,” but simply make that assertion.

 

[Peter_J]

Sola Scriptura similarly allows anyone to interpret scripture as they see fit, rather than how God actually defined it.

Right. Being in the Church helps one to accurately interpret Scripture, but it doesn’t render one infallible.

Or to look at it another way, the Church (the Body of Christ) is infallible but the individual member is not.

 

[Church_Militant]

That’s the best Catholic argument made so far—different standards of authority and proof.

Yep…until and unless the proponents of SS can make a more viable case for their doctrine it’s a moot point.

But that will not happen so far as I can tell because the scriptures used as proof texts for SS simply do not offer the support needed.

At this point, the logical question to its proponents (IMO) is, if this is not supported by the scriptures as you have been taught, then why do you cling to it?

It seems to me that the Catholic position has greater support (both scripturally and in historical Tradition), and if that is the case, then why (again) do you cling to the errant doctrine?

To the objective thinker who loves truth, (namely me), that makes no sense at all.

 

[Church_Militant]

I can’t convert anyone.

Agreed, but I suspect that he meant your efforts at evangelism among Catholics here at CAF which (Thanks Be To God) have been low key enough to better be considered as dialog IMO.

You’re wrong. The clear statement of Scripture concerning God is that He is absolutely sovereign over all things, and the clear statement of Scripture concerning man is that he is responsible for all of his actions.

Here I suspect that you are misunderstanding his meaning, since you basically restate the Catholic teaching in a nutshell.

The analogy used by God concerning His Messiah, and His sheep, is that His Messiah is responsible for His sheep:John 6:39

“This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.It’s clearly the Shepherd’s responsibility not to lose the sheep God’s given to Him. Do you think the Shepherd can keep the sheep perfectly?

This is of course an allusion to another errant n-C doctrine. OSAS/Eternal Security and one best left to another thread. (One is probably in progress somewhere around here right now.) I would only point out that the same passage you are citing there also contains the following very much Eucharistic statement from Our Lord. *54 *Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. 56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.

While that can certainly happen in SS, it can happen in the set-up of your church as well. The command is for the believer “to accurately handle the word of God” (2 Tim 2:15).

I don’t think that is strictly true Sandusky. Was not Timothy already clergy and a young pastor? I think so. And it is best to see the whole context of the verse you are citing to insure correct interpretation. It reads as follows. 15 Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

It appears to me that this is actually being singularly addressed to Timothy in that capacity and not to believers in general, though it certainly might have that application as well, it does not appear from the context to have been addressed to all believers as you have inferred or as so many SS proponents tend to use it.

 

[BRB]

The problem with the three key Protestant doctrines is that they are self serving instead of God serving.

Justification by faith lays the responsibility of salvation on God and leaves no responsibility for the individual

Good description of the Protestant dilemma. Let them answer charges … using sacred scripture to refute.