Foundation

  • Thread starter Thread starter awfulthings9
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Fredricks:
I am saying:

that Paul COULD not have appealed to a written gospel if that were not written yet.

that Paul was writing a letter.

that the early church collected these letters.

the early church throughout the world put together, with some differences, a general set of books they considered inspired.

I consider the words of these men to be authoratative by that which put them together, the Holy Spirit, as promised in scripture.
Click to expand...
Where in Scripture do you find that the Holy Spirit will lead us all to truth by the written word alone?

And historically speaking, which Biblical table of contents is inspired by the Holy Spirit? Was it the one that the Church recognized in the 4th century? Was it the one that the Church recognized in the 7th century? Was it the one that the Church recognized in the 16th century? Basically, which “general set of books” do you consider authoritative and why?
 
40.png
Fredricks:
Why do you capitalize your “C”. Is that scriptural?
Click to expand...
Once again, please show us where you find that all truth and everything we should believe is contained expressly in Scripture. This first burden of proof is on you. If you can prove this, then, we will be bound (as least by your doctrinal tradition) to answer the unending “where in Scripture” questions.
 
40.png
Fredricks:
Why do you capitalize your “C”. Is that scriptural?
Click to expand...
No, but neither is putting periods at the end of questions, but this didn’t stop you (if you want to be nit-picky about grammar).

Capitalization is a matter of modern usage, not theology. We are allowed, in the English language, to capitalize for emphasis. I did so to distinguish “the Church” from generic “a church”.

Can you tell me the verse in Scripture where it says I am not allowed to capitalize for emphasis?
 
Jane
I am a poor typist. I apologize for not being more careful. I meant to put “not” in there. Your patience in my error is appreciated.
Your request is reasonable. It is my contention and like high school forensics, I must make my case. If only their was a “sola scripture in a can program”. Alas, the work must be done and so I will retire for the evening and begin when rested.
 
40.png
awfulthings9:
No, but neither is putting periods at the end of questions, but this didn’t stop you (if you want to be nit-picky about grammar).

Capitalization is a matter of modern usage, not theology. We are allowed, in the English language, to capitalize for emphasis. I did so to distinguish “the Church” from generic “a church”.

Can you tell me the verse in Scripture where it says I am not allowed to capitalize for emphasis?
Click to expand...
It is not my intention to be the grammar police

It seems that Catholicism has a tendency to use the Capital C as a hammer against the more scriptural local church, and on some occasions, the collective body of believers also referred to as the church

I must disagree I do think it is part of Catholic tendency that has theological implications
 
Drat
One last statement hung over me and I wanted to share it.
A Protestant by definition can never use tradition, although you will see my try all the time, I cannot resist, against a Catholic apologist. Do you know why?
Everytime someone from the early church agrees with Catholicism, you can use their statement. Everytime they disagree, they are not official Catholic doctrine.
A Protestant who appeals to tradition becomes the stereotypical one legged man in a kicking contest. We cannot win. Not because we are wrong, but because Catholicism has defined the perimeters.
Good night.
 
40.png
Fredricks:
It is not my intention to be the grammar police

It seems that Catholicism has a tendency to use the Capital C as a hammer against the more scriptural local church, and on some occasions, the collective body of believers also referred to as the church

I must disagree I do think it is part of Catholic tendency that has theological implications
Click to expand...
I agree that we tend to put a capital C for emphasis, but not as a “hammer”. It is important to distinguish our belief in a visible, organized Church with the idea of a Protestant believers church. You read disrespect into that, which I resent. It is simply a matter of clarity. Again, by saying it is not a matter of theology, I mean to imply it isn’t dogma. This is a reaction to your insistance that it must be “in the Bible”. The word “Trinity” isn’t in the Bible either, but would you have jumped on me for using that word as you did for simply capitalizing a letter of a word which did appear there? I just felt you were grasping at straws. If you meant to ask about why I made the distinction, you could have done so without such a smart response as “Is that in the Bible?”, knowing that is one of our pet peives as a group that doesn’t accept the Bible-alone as an authority.
 
40.png
awfulthings9:
I agree that we tend to put a capital C for emphasis, but not as a “hammer”. It is important to distinguish our belief in a visible, organized Church with the idea of a Protestant believers church. You read disrespect into that, which I resent. It is simply a matter of clarity. Again, by saying it is not a matter of theology, I mean to imply it isn’t dogma. This is a reaction to your insistance that it must be “in the Bible”. The word “Trinity” isn’t in the Bible either, but would you have jumped on me for using that word as you did for simply capitalizing a letter of a word which did appear there? I just felt you were grasping at straws. If you meant to ask about why I made the distinction, you could have done so without such a smart response as “Is that in the Bible?”, knowing that is one of our pet peives as a group that doesn’t accept the Bible-alone as an authority.
Click to expand...
I do not do well with sensitive people. Lets just stick to the facts, shall we? I am merely pointing out the lack of scriptural support for your(collective your, Catholicism) use of the word church. I must go to several meetings today but will strive to answer what Ms. Frances requested as expeditiously as possible.
Good day Madame.
 
40.png
Fredricks:
Drat
One last statement hung over me and I wanted to share it.
A Protestant by definition can never use tradition, although you will see my try all the time, I cannot resist, against a Catholic apologist. Do you know why?
Everytime someone from the early church agrees with Catholicism, you can use their statement. Everytime they disagree, they are not official Catholic doctrine.
A Protestant who appeals to tradition becomes the stereotypical one legged man in a kicking contest. We cannot win. Not because we are wrong, but because Catholicism has defined the perimeters.
Good night.
Click to expand...
It’s not that…it’s that you people fail to offer it in context. The very same thing that you do to the Word of God in most of your teachings.

No…you cannot win…because from the basis of Sola Scriptura you have all err’d and all it does is snowball. That’s why there is a shaky “foundation” to non-Catholic Christianity.
Pax vobiscum,
 
40.png
Fredricks:
Drat
One last statement hung over me and I wanted to share it.
A Protestant by definition can never use tradition, although you will see my try all the time, I cannot resist, against a Catholic apologist. Do you know why?
Everytime someone from the early church agrees with Catholicism, you can use their statement. Everytime they disagree, they are not official Catholic doctrine.
A Protestant who appeals to tradition becomes the stereotypical one legged man in a kicking contest. We cannot win. Not because we are wrong, but because Catholicism has defined the perimeters.
Good night.
Click to expand...
I must disagree entirely with your observation.

All Christians throughout history have appealed to tradition. It is inescapable. The Catholic Church, by no means, has a corner on this market.

I disagree that “a Protestant by definition can never use tradition.” Protestantism IS a tradition. Every single Protestant sect and denomination is founded on the teaching tradition of a certain individual. The question is not a matter of whether tradition, in and of itself, is legitimate. The question is a matter of which tradition you choose to espouse and why.

Further, I think your perception of Christian apologetics is somehow skewed. The Catholic Church is not a legalistic institution which picks and chooses certain writings of the Early Church as “proof texts” to prove a doctrinal case. Instead, the Early Church Fathers serve as witnesses. They give us a picture that we can not see for ourselves. The disparities among some of these witnesses are important points for historical analysis and are in no way a skeleton in our closet.

It is a common tactic among many Protestant apologists to oppose the Catholic Church by raising the infamous “new inventions” flag. Often, the referencing of Early Church Fathers is merely an effort on the part of Catholic apologists to provide a clearer, more historical viewpoint of what our common faith tradition held from the beginning.

Do not allow yourself to be a victim of a stereotype–one legged and kicking or othewise! You have every freedom in the world to defend your position in any way you see fit.

And I would also argue that the Catholic Church, especially in modern dialogues, has not “defined the perimeters.” Sola Scriptura (Bible Alone) is quite a fortress perimeter itself, which is precisely why it is so important to this particular conversation.

Thank you for your work and responses!
 
40.png
Fredricks:
Jane
I am a poor typist. I apologize for not being more careful. I meant to put “not” in there. Your patience in my error is appreciated.
Your request is reasonable. It is my contention and like high school forensics, I must make my case. If only their was a “sola scripture in a can program”. Alas, the work must be done and so I will retire for the evening and begin when rested.
Click to expand...
Ah, I know too well the downfalls of poor typing skills! I sympathize. Thanks for the clarification.

Your “not” addition makes much more sense. It is good to know that you are in agreement with the Catholic Church that the Pope and the Magisterium are not the Word of God. Hopefully, more common ground can be obtained!
 
40.png
Fredricks:
I do not do well with sensitive people. Lets just stick to the facts, shall we? I am merely pointing out the lack of scriptural support for your(collective your, Catholicism) use of the word church. I must go to several meetings today but will strive to answer what Ms. Frances requested as expeditiously as possible.
Good day Madame.
Click to expand...
I am far from a “sensitive” person and very far from a “Madame”. However, if you would rather answer my objections (half of which your post ignored) by trying to discredit my post as the rant of a sensitive person, this is fine. You failed to answer my charge of the lack of scriptural support for your own terminology or also the charge of you starting with a false premise in your challenge to me. If the only way you can hold a conversation is be resorting to such fallacies (and with discrediting my argument with an attack on my character you have used three), then I can see that your mind is closed to even a factual conversation.

If you want to deal with facts, I will again ask:

It is a fact that Catholics don’t use Scripture as a formally sufficient authority, so why do you start with the false premise that we should?

It is a fact that your own beliefs are not supported by the same proof you ask of us (such as a belief in a clearly defined Trinity as three persons in one nature), so why do you ask the same proof of us?

If the best you can offer are fallacies to distract us from the main point, then there’s a problem.
 
Lunch break
It is a busy board. I have begun to compile my post and will work on it throughout the day but not on company time.

I have not stated my beliefs on any doctrine outside of that the Bible is superior over tradition, and yet some beliefs that I have not stated have been assigned to me. We do not use the word “Trinity” too much because it is extrabiblical.
When people are taken aback by this, it usually follows 10-15 questions about the nature of God and they usually leave satisfied. I remember a priest at a luncheon one time and we had this conversation. He thought the baptism would suffice but we never spoke again. I recall he was convinced we were “New Testament legalists”. The defintion did not offend me.

Regardless, I will continue to work on why scripture is a 'formally sufficient authority" ( I do like that wording).
Jane we will simply have to completely disagree about how Catholicism uses early church history. How any Catholic can read Eusebius and see the Catholic church is befuddling to me but I have a post to work on and I have rambled my lunch away!

My apologies to awfulthings. Off to work.
 
40.png
Fredricks:
Regardless, I will continue to work on why scripture is a 'formally sufficient authority" ( I do like that wording).

My apologies to awfulthings. Off to work.
Click to expand...
Apology accepted and I extend the same for reacting so harshly to what you wrote. Thanks for your clear and reasonable response - sometimes the problem with these message boards is that tone does not translate well into type and we tend to misinterpret one another’s intentions.

By the way, just for your information, while a Protestant believes in the “formally sufficiency” of Scripture (that is, that one can interpret Scripture based on its “plain sense”), to complement your understanding, the phrase “materially sufficient” describes the Catholic belief is that Scripture contains, either explicitely or implicitely (such as in the Trinity) everything pertaining to salvation, but that an interpretive authority is needed to understand. Not adding to the debate here, just throwing another term out for clarity in the discussion. Take care.
 
40.png
Fredricks:
Lunch break
It is a busy board. I have begun to compile my post and will work on it throughout the day but not on company time.

I have not stated my beliefs on any doctrine outside of that the Bible is superior over tradition, and yet some beliefs that I have not stated have been assigned to me. We do not use the word “Trinity” too much because it is extrabiblical.
When people are taken aback by this, it usually follows 10-15 questions about the nature of God and they usually leave satisfied. I remember a priest at a luncheon one time and we had this conversation. He thought the baptism would suffice but we never spoke again. I recall he was convinced we were “New Testament legalists”. The defintion did not offend me.

Regardless, I will continue to work on why scripture is a 'formally sufficient authority" ( I do like that wording).
Jane we will simply have to completely disagree about how Catholicism uses early church history. How any Catholic can read Eusebius and see the Catholic church is befuddling to me but I have a post to work on and I have rambled my lunch away!

My apologies to awfulthings. Off to work.
Click to expand...
A couple of things. . .
  1. Thanks for giving us a portion of your lunch break! I look forward to your response.
  2. Please do explain your basis for Scriptural superiority to Tradition! This is exactly the point in question.
  3. Eusebius (assuming we’re referring to the same Eusebius here–as there are several that come to mind) was a Bishop in the Roman Church AND he is widely considered one of our earliest historians. His actual writings and those attributed to him are important works that help us get a picture of many events and practices of the early Church. Have you really read all of the available texts attributed to Eusebius (there are MANY)? Or have you just been exposed to the seemingly anti-Catholic quotations that are rampant here on the internet?
Suffice it to say, one can pick and choose quotations from anywhere, from anyone to “prove” a particular point. However, it is always essential to consider the quotation within its full context. As Eusebius is not the subject of this thread and you have thoughtfully refrained from specific citations, I hope we can move on to the most pressing questions!

Having said that, I would urge you to go beyond Eusebius and read more early Church Fathers! It is not a contest of popularity or purality, but the overall picture of the early Church as painted by Eusebius and his contemporaries (3rd and 4th century) is undeniably Catholic.
  1. Just for my own curiosity sake. . .Are you a fan of Alexander Campbells’ camp? I’m trying to gain some perspective here!
Thanks for your response.
 
Jane
I am a reader. We are talking about one and the same. Break out a copy of your books because I would be willing to bet that sometime it will be addressed. Back to work.
 
My contention is the Bible is the only infallible rule for deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrines. Please read before you start breaking me into quotes and dissecting. Please.

The Bible
Or
The Bible, Sacred Tradition, the Pope, the Magisterium

Presuppostion:

There is no verse that says only use the Bible.

There are no verses that say use only the Bible, Sacred Tradition, the Pope, and the Magisterium.

So we must look at what we do have. It becomes by a preponderance of the evidence that scripture is superior(I can editoralize, it’s my post)

Who wrote the New Testament?
  1. New Testament gospels were written by two of the 12 (Matthew and John), one who relied on Peter (Mark), and Luke.
  2. Paul, who Jesus appeared to.
  3. Peter, no need to describe him around here.
  4. James, the brother of the Lord
  5. Jude, the brother of the Lord
  6. John also penned some letters and one whale of a book we put at the end.
We know, except for Jude and the author of Hebrews, quite a bit about these men.
We have the very words spoken by Jesus to guide us. Any church should look as close as humanly possible to what he taught. This is God himself in the flesh to teach us.

Who said what when it concerns Sacred Tradition? Do you have names for where Sacred Tradition originated? When they said it? The context? Were they three of the 12 like the NT?
Where are the examples, Thomas said the reason for the Immaculate Conception was _______. Example, John spoke about the Assumption of Mary, she was in his care, based upon what so and so wrote. You have early(that point being very relative, 400 years later only being early when one is inclined to support that view) Christians who very rarely say where this came from. Scripture is a primary source for you historians. What is Sacred Tradition?

So what does the Bible say about scripture and tradition

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

The gospels are being written still or are not available for everyone. Any tradition would have to be prior to Paul’s letter. He says nothing about developing tradition. In fact, this is a warning against it!

2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

Yes the tradition, because like I just said the gospels were still being written or are not available for everyone, must be directly from the Apostles. Unless it is directly from the Apostles it would be disorderly. Praise God that those who adhere to Sola Scripture alone are following the very words of Jesus and as recorded by two of the men who walked the earth with him and one who learned from the great Apostle Peter.

Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Yes, this foreshadows what sadly many would in his name.

Remember Protestants understand there was a period of delivery where the teachings had to be done orally. We also recognize that these wonderful men WROTE their words down for others realizing the inferiority of tradition that cannot be traced back to the teachings of Christ himself.

Many Catholics like to point out the few examples in the NT where sources that were not written in the OT are used. The Bible IS oral tradition, written. There is nothing wrong with oral tradition in and of itself. That is how we got the NT. That is the point. We have it in writing now from the Apostles themselves instead of unnamed sources that Catholicism uses.

Lastly, let us now clearly show how important scripture was to the Apostles and writers of the NT.

“*How many times do the writers of the New Testament quote the Old Testament? An index in the Jewish New Testament catalogs 695 separate quotations from the books of the Old Testament in the New (Jewish New Testament Publications, Jerusalem, 1989). There are many other passages where the Old Testament is referred to, as in cases where an Old Testament figure is mentioned, but no specific scripture is quoted. Depending on which scholar’s work you examine, the number of quotations and references in the New Testament to the Old may be as high as 4,105 * (Roger Nicole, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary,”

That should get us started. Thanks for reading. I know I did not include the usual NT verses but I do not want to post too much at a time.
 
i will be at a state basketball tournament the rest of the day in case someone thinks me rude if I cannot respond for awhile.
 
40.png
Fredricks:
My contention is the Bible is the only infallible rule for deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrines. Please read before you start breaking me into quotes and dissecting. Please.

The Bible
Or
The Bible, Sacred Tradition, the Pope, the Magisterium
Click to expand...
Good place to begin! I think the first weakness in your argument is in your very first presupposition that “Protestants” (referring to those Christians who do not accept the authority of the Catholic Church) recognize the Bible alone as “the only infallible rule for deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrine.” This may be your contention, but it is not the reality. The question, then, arises: If the Bible alone is authoritative, how do you know whose interpretation of it is correct as there are MANY, MANY varying opinions on doctrinal issues such as Baptism, Eucharist, etc.?

The reality of the matter is that no “Bible Alone” Christian actually relies on the “Bible Alone.” Inevitably, he relies on Scriptural sources to support his already accepted doctrinal traditions. These traditions may be self-generated based on his own personal experience, study, and sensitivities. These traditions may be acquired from another individual(s)’ teaching. And in some extreme and often indefensible cases, these traditions may even be claimed as a function of some private revelation by the Holy Spirit.

In any case, it is essential to realize that it is practically impossible to rely on the “Bible Alone.”

Now, a little historical perspective is pertinent here.

How did we come to know which books of the Bible were inspired?

With the dozens of epistles and gospel narratives that circulated among the early Church, how did the playing field get narrowed to the 27 books we now accept as the New Testament canon?

Who decided this?

The simple and straightforward, historical answer is: the Church.

The expanded version is: The canon of New Testament Scripture was developed after a long process of debate. The early Church leaders, the episcopacy (the bishops), were ultimately charged with the passing on of sound doctrine (2 Tim. 2:2, Ti. 1:9). It was their responsibility to guide their local churches by preaching and defending the authentic message of Jesus Christ and his apostles. The issue of tradition was of most importance here. The consensus among the bishops could only be reached by comparing and harmonizing each text received according to what they had been “handed on” (Gk. Paredosan) by oral doctrinal tradition.

One of our most valued and recognized products of this tradition is the New Testament canon. It would be very easy today, 2000 years later, for us to assume that this process was as simple a democratic vote or a direct instruction by the Holy Spirit, but historical texts and the writings the early Church Fathers prove otherwise.

We have numerous 1st and 2nd century writings which indicate the immense weight and importance of oral doctrinal tradition and the authority of the episcopacy in concert with the Roman bishop in the development and acceptance of the New Testament Canon. (I recommend reading Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus, and yes, Eusebius). Yet, for almost 400 years, the Church was essentially void of the modern Biblical text that some insist one must rely on for all doctrinal truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top