Evangelicals, can you answer these questions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cranmer2010
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am a Presbyterian studying the Catholic Church, I have no degree in theology so this is simply my take on this argument. There is nowhere in the Bible that says the Bible is the sole rule of faith.
I must have missed the part of my post where I said that it is. Would you mind pointing it out to me?
I believed sola scriptura until I had to prove it to myself and it doesn’t hold water.
So what part of 2 Tim 3:15-17 do you think doesn’t hold water?
Also if you want to prove something about 1st century Christians you need to look in secular sources as well.
That’s the OP, not me.
The Bible is the word of God, it is error free
And yet, you believe that it isn’t authoritative?
Just as a side note, John 6:53-66 is proof of the real Presence.
If you say so. I’ve never seen any such “proof” in that passage.
 
But if you follow that line of thinking, just looking at Scripture for clues about worship, theology, truth, etc. you don’t give credit to the Church, united until 1054, that has given us so many things. First of all, the Catholic Church gave us the Bible that we have today, editing and assembling the canon. Secondly the Church gave us the official doctrine of the Holy Trinity without which we’d have a nice mix of Arianism, Nestorianism, and the bizarre misunderstandings of the JW’s and Mormons regarding the Trinity today. Without the Church we wouldn’t understand the homoousious nature of the Christ, we wouldn’t understand the sacraments, we wouldn’t even be decided upon who Christ really is. I think “Bible Christians” take for granted the first seven councils, great Catholics like Augustine, Ambrose, Ignatius of Antioch, Cyprian, etc. and just think one can look back to the Bible for all the answers. The Bible is the Word of God, no doubt, but the steward of the Bible must be an apostolically-descendent, visible, tradition-rich, tangiable Church, not someone who picked up a Bible and just started interpreting it 1900 or 2000 years after the fact. Re-creating the early church is unnecessary when it’s already visibly there. And the problem is, the Bible doesn’t really tell us “how to worship.” Have you read the Didache? It’s a very early first-second century church manual for worship and instruction, a manual of sorts. It’s widely respected and read by the Church and people interested in understanding the minds of early Christianity. Why is it any less valid or useful in seeing the lens of early Christendom than the Bible? Or read Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus of Lyons, Polycarp, etc. These men were the trail blazers. A few of them actually KNEW and learned from the apostles themselves! Talk about a great source to know how the Early Church worshipped and lived!

The early Church was out of the synagogue, possessed a priesthood, valued episcopal church polity, and was sacrificial. Vestments and so forth were developments, pious ones, and in no way are contrary to the faith or the love or respect we have for the liturgy or Christ.
You have to remember that we don’t base our worship on what other people do or did, but on how the Bible tells us to worship.

We have no altar because altars are for sacrifices and Christ has already been sacrificed on our behalf. We have no vestments or inscence because the Bible doesn’t instruct us to do those things.

In the Bible, the focus of the church is always on the preaching and proclamation of the Word of God so that’s why we spend most of our time focusing on that.
 
Warm and sunny :cool: I hope the weather out West (I assume you are not in the Arctic) is nice as well.
not so much
I did a quick Google search of those scholars, and must say I am sceptical….While I don’t have evidence that their position on St. Augustine’s belief in the Real Presence, they certainly show a bias toward the Catholic Church, and so I find it hard to trust them.
there is nothing wrong with a bit of skepticism…you are not prepared to simply accept the conclusions of these historians b/c they don’t endorse every position of the Catholic hierarchy. I hope that you also recognize that any historian that endorses every position of the Catholic hierarchy should also be suspected of allowing his bias to taint his conclusions and therefore, you should not simply accept his conclusions either. (If any thing, one should expect a greater tendency toward bias in the latter b/c one could easily conclude that Augustine endorsed a real bodily presence w/o needing to accept every position of the Catholic hierarchy. On the other hand, it would be more difficult to conclude that Augustine did not endorse a real bodily presence and still accept every position of the Catholic hierarchy.)
I think it’s should be noted that this sacrament is known to the author as the Body of Christ (a phrase synonymous with “the Lord’s Body”),…
It is also a term that is used for “the Church”. It is not a term that requires the contemplation of a real bodily presence. One, therefore, needs to ask ** how ** the bread can be the body of Christ. Augustine does just that in Sermon 272 and wrote:

*How can bread be his body? And the cup, or what the cup contains, how can it be his blood?” The reason these things, brothers and sisters, are called sacraments is that in them one thing is seen, another is to be understood. What can be seen has a bodily appearance, what is to be understood provides spiritual fruit. So if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the apostle telling the faithful, You, though, are the body of Christ and its members (1 Cor 12:27). So if it’s you that are the body of Christ and its members, it’s the mystery meaning you that has been placed on the Lord’s table; what you receive is the mystery that means you…. But what role does the bread play? We have no theory of our own to propose here; listen, instead, to what Paul says about this sacrament: “The bread is one, and we, though many, are one body.” [1 Cor. 10.17] Understand and rejoice: unity, truth, faithfulness, love. “One bread,” he says. What is this one bread? Is it not the “one body,” formed from many? Remember: bread doesn’t come from a single grain, but from many. When you received exorcism, you were “ground.” When you were baptized, you were “leavened.” When you received the fire of the Holy Spirit, you were “baked.” Be what you see; receive what you are. This is what Paul is saying about the bread. So too, what we are to understand about the cup is similar and requires little explanation. In the visible object of bread, many grains are gathered into one just as the faithful (so Scripture says) form “a single heart and mind in God” [Acts 4.32]. And thus it is with the wine. Remember, friends, how wine is made. Individual grapes hang together in a bunch, but the juice from them all is mingled to become a single brew. This is the image chosen by Christ our Lord to show how, at his own table, the mystery of our unity and peace is solemnly consecrated. *

Please note that Augustine’s answer to “HOW” has nothing to do with a real bodily presence. It has to do with the similarity between bread (which is produced by many grains coming together) and the church (which is produced by many people coming together)
 
But if you follow that line of thinking, just looking at Scripture for clues about worship, theology, truth, etc. you don’t give credit to the Church, united until 1054, that has given us so many things.
True, but we need to also determine what sort of things they should get credit for giving us. Is it:

a) proper and binding developments;

b) proper and optional developments;

c) improper developments that should be eliminated;

d) proper and binding innovations;

e) proper and optional innovations;

f) improper innovations that should be eliminated; or

g) some combination of two or more of the above?
 
So what part of 2 Tim 3:15-17 do you think doesn’t hold water?
Which translation of 2 Tim 3:15-17 contains the word only or sole in it? The passage you are quoting is a valuable passage but nowhere states that the Bible is all you need. BTW when this passage was written the only Scriptures it could have referenced was the OT as the NT hadn’t been collected yet. The NT was still being written and not part of the Scriptures until the Catholic Church put the NT together (I think it was the Council of Trent 382).
 
And yet, you believe that it isn’t authoritative?
My point was not that I think the Bible isn’t authoritative, my point is you can’t ask the Bible to do something it doesn’t claim to do. I believe the Bible and Tradition are the way the Church was handed to us. I am yet to find a passage that states the books of the Bible, but according to the rule of sola scriptura all we need is the Bible, so it must be there. It seems strange that so many denominations are standing on a foundation laid by the Catholic Church, yet claim that they are right and the Catholic Church is wrong.
 
Which translation of 2 Tim 3:15-17 contains the word only or sole in it?
Sola scriptura doesn’t mean that scripture is the only source of truth, only that it is the only divinely inspired source of truth and that it is authoritative above all other sources. Remember, we also view the historic creeds, confessions, and catechisms of Christianity as sources of truth, as well.
One refers to the pri The passage you are quoting is a valuable passage but nowhere states that the Bible is all you need.
Straw man. Nobody has claimed that the Bible is “all you need”.
BTW when this passage was written the only Scriptures it could have referenced was the OT as the NT hadn’t been collected yet.
Not true. Both Peter, who you claim was the first Catholic pope, and Paul declared that their writings and the writings of the Apostles were scripture.
The NT was still being written and not part of the Scriptures until the Catholic Church put the NT together (I think it was the Council of Trent 382).
Not true. This is a bit like saying that a song doesn’t exist until it appears on a “greatest hits” album. While they were not compiled into one common source, the letters that make up the NT were in circulation among the churches and regarded as scripture long before the Council of Trent.
 
40.png
Newsy:
according to the rule of sola scriptura all we need is the Bible
Not true. Sola scriptura teaches that the Bible is authoritative and that all other sources of truth and doctrine must defer to it, not that it is the only source of truth.
 
Not true. Sola scriptura teaches that the Bible is authoritative and that all other sources of truth and doctrine must defer to it, not that it is the only source of truth.
That’s funny, sola scriptura translates to scripture alone and I know of several churches that plainly and adamantly take this stand.
As for Peter and Paul claiming their writings to be scripture, I would need some evidence of that. Peter had inspired vision and I will not debate that both their writings were inspired, I have never heard that either one of then claimed their writing should be used with scripture.
Again I have never questioned the authority of the Bible, I just stated that it wasn’t the only rule of Faith.
 
Not true. This is a bit like saying that a song doesn’t exist until it appears on a “greatest hits” album. While they were not compiled into one common source, the letters that make up the NT were in circulation among the churches and regarded as scripture long before the Council of Trent.
There is a great difference between saying writings weren’t collected yet and saying they don’t exist. There were other documents also being passed around and those did not make it into the Bible, were those scripture also? Please reserve arguments for their proper time, now isn’t the time for that point because I didn’t say that they didn’t exist. The Catholic Church canonized the books of the Bible as part of a Church Council, I believe that is when the term scripture should be used. Also it can be noted that many believers had no copy of even OT text, their knowledge had to be passed on orally, thus Oral Tradition.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsy
Which translation of 2 Tim 3:15-17 contains the word only or sole in it?
Sola scriptura doesn’t mean that scripture is the only source of truth, only that it is the only divinely inspired source of truth and that it is authoritative above all other sources. Remember, we also view the historic creeds, confessions, and catechisms of Christianity as sources of truth, as well.
Fasle. Show me where scripture clearly states it is the ONLY divinely inspired source of truth and it is the authoritative above ALL other sources?

Quote:
One refers to the pri The passage you are quoting is a valuable passage but nowhere states that the Bible is all you need.
Straw man. Nobody has claimed that the Bible is “all you need”.
Not according to you. Read your above statements: It is the ONLY divinely inspired source of truth and is authorittaive above ALL other sources.

Quote:
BTW when this passage was written the only Scriptures it could have referenced was the OT as the NT hadn’t been collected yet.
Not true. Both Peter, who you claim was the first Catholic pope, and Paul declared that their writings and the writings of the Apostles were scripture.
Sources where Paul and Peter declared their writings as INSPIRED and that they were writing scripture?

Quote:
The NT was still being written and not part of the Scriptures until the Catholic Church put the NT together (I think it was the Council of Trent 382).
Not true. This is a bit like saying that a song doesn’t exist until it appears on a “greatest hits” album. While they were not compiled into one common source, the letters that make up the NT were in circulation among the churches and regarded as scripture long before the Council of Trent.
False prremise.Circulation of scripture and canonization are not the same thing.And circulation also included tons of other writings outside the current NT canon,so how did the churches truly know what they had were truly inspired?
 
=
Radical;7004408] If you are going to claim that “His physical properties are present”, you need the physical properties to actually be present. The physical properties that are present are those of bread and wine.
We don’t know what the physical properties of glorfied flesh are. How did Jesus eat after the resurrection yet walk through walls?
and you need to explain what is the substance of Christ’s body
. His substance is His body, soul and divinity in a glorified state.
The doctrine of the Trinity is the product of man’s reason…it isn’t inspired, it is merely reasonable
. There is no way you can describe the Trinity from mere reason.
So Christ had glorified flesh at the last supper too?
Why not? You want to limit the power of God. Christ was destined before the foundation of the world. His sacrifice is eternal.
I have reservations about Revelation…same as some of the early Christians. I am not sure that it is inspired
. Why do you accept Matthew, Mark, Hebrews etc? Do you feel you have the authority to reject the teaching that Revelation is not inspired?
Also, I think that you have greatly over-simplified the matter.
it means that the author of Revelation, in the vision saw something that had the appearance of a lamb that had been slain
That something he saw was Christ. In Rev 5: 6 John sees the Lamb standing as though slain. In verse 8 the twenty-four elders fell down and worshiped that Lamb. How could that not be Christ?
No, I believe that the blood of Christ was shed only once, but that the **benefits of that sacrifice are continuously offered **to those who believe for the forgiveness of their sins
…That exactly what we believe. In the Mass the benefits of that sacrifice are continuously offered.

Continued-------
 
Continued
Thank-you for this…if nothing else, you have nicely demonstrated the degree to which bias can distort one’s reading of a passage.
I’ve gone back and read Augustine and I will admit that my first interpretation of Him was wrong. I believe you are interpreting him incorrectly because you have taken his words out of context…He does not say that "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you " means the Eucharist is symbolic. Start at Chapter 10 In his work On Christian Doctrine

CHAP. 10.–HOW WE ARE TO DISCERN WHETHER A PHRASE IS FIGURATIVE.
14. But in addition to the foregoing rule, which guards us against taking a metaphorical form of speech as if it were literal, we must also pay heed to that which tells us not to take a literal form of speech as if it were figurative. In the first place, then, we must show the way to find out whether a phrase is literal or figurative. And the way is certainly as follows: Whatever there is in the word of God that cannot, when taken literally, **be referred either to purity of life or soundness of doctrine, you may set down as figurative. **Purity of life has reference to the love of God and one’s neighbor; soundness of doctrine to the knowledge of God and one’s neighbor. Every man, moreover, has hope in his own conscience, so far as he perceives that he has attained to the love and knowledge of God and his neighbor. Now all these matters have been spoken of in the first book.

CHAP. 15.–RULE FOR INTERPRETING FIGURATIVE EXPRESSIONS.
23. The tyranny of lust being thus over-thrown, charity reigns through its supremlly just laws of love to God for His own sake, and love to one’s self and one’s neighbor for God’s sake. Accordingly, in regard to figurative expressions, a rule such as the following will be observed, to carefully turn over in our minds and meditate upon what we read till an interpretation be found that tends to establish the reign of love. Now, if when taken literally it at once gives a meaning of this kind, the expression is not to be considered figurative

Now to the text in question:

CHAP. 16.–RULE FOR INTERPRETING COMMANDS AND PROHIBITIONS. +] 24. If the sentence is one of command, either** forbidding **a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us”

Augustine is saying that since the words “Except you eat my flesh…” seems to enjoin a crime ( cannibilism) it should not be interpreted as the Jews and his disciples did as but as meaning something else.

Augustine Gospel of John #11
For when the Lord Jesus had said, “Except a man eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he shall not have life in him,” some who followed Him were offended, and said among themselves, “This is a hard saying; who can hear it?” For they fancied that, in saying this, Jesus meant that they would be able to cook Him, after being cut up like a lamb, and eat Him: horrified at His words, they went back, and no more followed Him

The Jews and others interpreted “Except you eat my flesh and drink my blood” as cannibilism which was a crime. Scripture cannot enjoin a crime or vice. Those words are therefore figurative and mean something other than cannibilism. Augustine says they mean “enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.”

That does not mean he believed the Eucharist was symbolic just that the phrase does not refer to cannibilism.

What else did Augustine have to say?

“The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of bread. For not all bread but only that which receives the blessing of Christ **becomes Christ’s body.” **(Sermon 234. 2)

"For He received from the earth because flesh is from the earth and He gook flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation. But no one eats that flesh unless first he adores it and thus it is discovered how much a footstool of the Lord’s feet is adored and not only do we not sin by adoring it, we do sin by not adoring it" (Psalm 99).

“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10

“I promised you who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s table. . . . That bread that you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 )

“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (Sermons 227).
 
That’s funny, sola scriptura translates to scripture alone and I know of several churches that plainly and adamantly take this stand.
Then they are mistaken.
As for Peter and Paul claiming their writings to be scripture, I would need some evidence of that. Peter had inspired vision and I will not debate that both their writings were inspired, I have never heard that either one of then claimed their writing should be used with scripture.
2 Peter 3:15-16 is a good one to start with, where Peter equates Paul’s writings with “other” inspired scripture.
Again I have never questioned the authority of the Bible, I just stated that it wasn’t the only rule of Faith.
And no one here, as far as I know, has claimed that it is. However, you did say that you disagree with a doctrine that refers to the authority of scripture.
 
There is a great difference between saying writings weren’t collected yet and saying they don’t exist. There were other documents also being passed around and those did not make it into the Bible, were those scripture also? Please reserve arguments for their proper time, now isn’t the time for that point because I didn’t say that they didn’t exist. The Catholic Church canonized the books of the Bible as part of a Church Council, I believe that is when the term scripture should be used. Also it can be noted that many believers had no copy of even OT text, their knowledge had to be passed on orally, thus Oral Tradition.
Why do you call yourself a Protestant when you’re clearly a Catholic defending Catholic beliefs?
 
40.png
Nicea325:
You are certainly entitiled to your opinion.
Not according to you.
OK. Please feel free to show us where I’ve ever said that it is. And if we really believe that it is, as you falsely claim, then why do we put so much emphasis on the historic creeds, confessions, and catechisms of Christianity as a plumbline?
Sources where Paul and Peter declared their writings as INSPIRED and that they were writing scripture?
2 Peter 3:16
False prremise.Circulation of scripture and canonization are not the same thing.
Straw man. I never claimed, nor has anybody else that I’m aware of, that they are.
 
2 Peter 3:15-16 is a good one to start with, where Peter equates Paul’s writings with “other” inspired scripture.
All that Peter is stating is that people were taking Paul’s writings and twisting them. Not that they were scripture, you may want to re-read this passage.

BTW I am a Protestant, considering a change, but still Protestant.
 
All that Peter is stating is that people were taking Paul’s writings and twisting them. Not that they were scripture, you may want to re-read this passage.
Yes, Peter does make that point in this passage, but in so doing, he also calls Paul’s epistles inspired scripture.
BTW I am a Protestant, considering a change, but still Protestant.
And so I guess that’s why you’re arguing against Protestant doctrines in favor of Catholic doctrines.
 
Yes, Peter does make that point in this passage, but in so doing, he also calls Paul’s epistles inspired scripture.
I have to disagree with you, I can compare any book to scripture but it doesn’t mean that anyone calls it scripture. In effect that is what you are claiming, since Peter compares it to scripture then it is held as such. Where is the statement that the apostle’s writings are scripture also? You claimed a few posts back that " their writings and the writings of the Apostles were scripture". It seems to me that if this were stated, then Protestants would quote that to every Catholic they discuss scripture with. I have to believe that this is a misinterpretation on your part.

I have very much enjoyed this discussion, however we must agree that the answer isn’t a clear one. If the answer was simple, then we wouldn’t be discussing it 2000 years after the fact and wouldn’t have such passion if it weren’t a living faith.

Blessings:)
 
I have to disagree with you
I don’t know what else to tell you. It’s right there in the text.
I can compare any book to scripture but it doesn’t mean that anyone calls it scripture.
If I say, “I am an athelete, just like other baseball players”, does the word “other” indicate that I am a baseball player?
It seems to me that if this were stated, then Protestants would quote that to every Catholic they discuss scripture with. I have to believe that this is a misinterpretation on your part.
We do. The problem is that Catholics, such as yourself, usually respond by saying, “Nuh-uh!” or “That’s not what our church teaches” and refuse to examine the text on its own merits, so we are usually not very eager to waste our time, unless they show that they’re sincere.
I have very much enjoyed this discussion, however we must agree that the answer isn’t a clear one.
I don’t agree with that at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top