How does Marian devotion save?

[Fair_Lady]

Well, you can’t argue with history, moon. There was no Bible for 300 years.

That’s equivalent to the time that the Pilgrims arrived on Plymouth Rock until present day–no Bible. 300 years with no Bible!

The Church came first.

Absolutely, truthfully, undeniably a fact.

Not so fast there…they didn’t have the complete scipture as we do today, but they had scripture and it was valued:

Acts 17:11
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Jesus, at times, quoted from the Old Testament.

 

[PRmerger]

Not so fast there…they didn’t have the complete scipture as we do today, but they had scripture and it was valued:

Acts 17:11
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Jesus, at times, quoted from the Old Testament.

That’s a bit disingenous,Fair Lady. There were many texts being read during the 1st century gatherings of Christians–many were not inspired.

Without the CC you would not know whether this is inspired or not:

“If you produce what is within you, what is within you will save you.
If you do not produce what is within you, what is within you will destroy you.”

Is there something in the above quote’s essence that tells you it’s inspired or not inspired?

How would you know?

Because the CC told you so!

 

[crazzeto]

Not so fast there…they didn’t have the complete scipture as we do today, but they had scripture and it was valued:

Acts 17:11
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Jesus, at times, quoted from the Old Testament.

St. Polycarp didn’t have scriptures, and he was the Bishop of Smyrna taught by the Apostle John him self!

St. Polycarp Epistle to the Philipians:

For I trust that ye are well versed in the Sacred Scriptures, and that nothing is hid from you; but to me this privilege is not yet granted.

The fact is, if you lived in the time of the early Church, durring the pontificate of St. Peter you certainly would have never read the Gosple of John, nor Revelation. These weren’t written until well after you would have been dead. In fact you’d be lucky if you had even seen a single NT writing at all, many Churches had nothing but the direct teaching of the Apostles in their very midsts to go on, that oral tradition.

 

[crazzeto]

Not so fast there…they didn’t have the complete scipture as we do today, but they had scripture and it was valued:

Acts 17:11
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Jesus, at times, quoted from the Old Testament.

Jesus is the author of the Old Testament, he had no need to read it. This is why the Lamb, who was victorious but standing dead, was the only one who could open the scroll. Because he is both the author and subject of them.

 

[Tomster]

Ya know, moon, the way this discussion is heading I really can’t resist what I’m going to type right now:

I hearby declare that all of the Catholics’ writings on the CAFs to be thepneustos!

There!

Bingo

Thank you very much PR!

As we attempt, ever so slowly, to get this thread back on track, let’s review:

1. We have discredited Moondwellers belief, with the help of his Protestant counterpart Fair Lady, on the topic of OSAS.
2. We have shown that Moondweller, with the help of his own admission, is not the infallible interpreter of Scripture.
3. We have shown Moondweller, the true meaning of Theopneustos

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=473208&page=3 post #45

1. We have demonstrated to Moondweller the true meaning of Sacred Tradition compared to the false man made traditions of his sect.
2. We proven, beyond a doubt, that Moondweller’s skills regarding logic 101 are deficient.
3. We have shown Moondweller that we wouldn’t have a Bible as we know it today were it not for the Catholic Church.
4. We have shown Moondweller that his conception of some nebulous “invisible” Church is totally unbiblical.
5. We have shown Moondweller that his Incarnational theology and his conception of the Communion of Saints is a figment of the imagination of some preacher who sold Moondweller a bill of goods and that by swallowing this bill of goods proves that Moondweller depends on an erroneous, extra-biblical tradition of man which trashes his firmly held belief of Sola Scriptura.

Did I miss anything guys?

Feel free to add to this list.

 

[kepha1]

Originally Posted by kepha1 file:///C:/DOCUME~1/Owner/LOCALS~1/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_image001.gif
I don’t doubt Paul wrote God-breathed Scripture, but I am not sure about something…maybe you can help me out. Did Paul know his letters to Timothy were God-breathed Scripture, or was Paul refering to the Old Testament Scripture? Is Paul using the term “Scripture” to refer to the Bible that would not be compiled for another 350 years? If Paul is using the term “Scripture” to encompass the Old and New Testament whether all the books existed or not, then isn’t Paul being prophetic by refering to future books (as God-breathed Scripture?)?

I can’t speak for Paul, but Peter certainly recognized Paul’s writing as Scripture (and long before any Council convened, 2 Pet. 3:14-16). Paul is not being prophetic. He simply states the fact, via the Holy Spirit, that ALL

Scripture is theopneustos. Would not God Himself who breathed that Scripture know what Scriptures He would breathe?All SCRIPTURE is God-breathed (theopneustos), referring to its Divine origin. Theopneustos refer ONLY to the Scriptures. God breathed into Adam’s nostrils the breath of life. Not the same thing. Jesus breathed on the Apostles and said “Receive the Holy Spirit.” Not the same thing.

God’s breath has catagories?

I can’t speak for Paul, but Peter certainly recognized Paul’s writing as Scripture (and long before any Council convened, 2 Pet. 3:14-16).

But you were speaking for Paul, and Peter’s recognition of Paul’s writings as scripture only confirms the criteria needed for verifying inspiration, something that you just assume. Peter represents the Church, so I fail to understand why you would refute your own position by referring to Peter confirming Paul’s writings.

Councils did not make Scripture inspired, they proved what was inspired and what wasn’t. Assuming they are inspired because they claim they are inspired is insufficient proof they are inspired. It’s circular reasoning.

This is the crux of this whole miscommunication. Scripture cannot be God-breathed because it says it is. Inspiration must be proven, not assumed. With 12 “gospels” and 30+ “books of acts” floating around at the time, all with claims to be inspired, an authority had to prove which ones were inspired and which ones merely made the claim. That authority was the Church. The Church measured Scripture against Apostolic Teaching, not Scripture against Scripture. This is the historical record that you must deny. Inspiration came first, that is not what is being contested. But inspiration of a writing is meaningless unless it is recognized by the whole Church as inspired, and the Bible was the end result of this process.

It is totally impossible for Paul to be referring to the New Testament as inspired because it did not yet exist. “All scripture” in the context of 2 Tim 3 must be referring to the Old Testament.

Paul is not being prophetic. He simply states the fact, via the Holy Spirit, that ALL

Scripture is theopneustos. Would not God Himself who breathed that Scripture know what Scriptures He would breathe?

Again, you are evading the point. It is nonsensical for Paul to claim that future scriptures that did not yet exist as God breathed. He is referring to the Old Testament, and the fact that he exhorts Timothy to study the scriptures he learned as a child confirms what you refuse to accept. If not, then provide the evidence that Timothy, or anyone else at the time Paul wrote to Timothy, had a copy of the New Testament.
Furthermore, it says, “ALL Scripture is theopneustos”. It does not say , “ONLY Scripture…”

Yes, God knows what scripture He would breath into. But whom did God give these God-breathed Scriptures to? Who preserved them for 300 years before they were compiled into a Bible, and who compiled them? When was the first list of books of the New Testament approved for usage for the whole Church?

 

[Tomster]

IOW, God’s Word is subordinate to your church. It’s not theopneustos until your church says it is. And you call that “humble?”

I’ll answer that for you.

How does a Catholic come to faith in Jesus, the Son of God? When we answer this question there emerges to view a characteristic element of the Catholic mind, the overwhelming importance of the Church in the production of the certitude of faith. The Catholic does not come to Christ mediately and by literary channels, as by Scriptural records, but immediately through personal contact with Christ living in his community. How is this to be understood?

Certainly he regards the Bible as a Sacred Book, writtin by the hand of God and therefore infallible in its definite doctrinal statements. And certainly he accepts with joy and gratitude the luminous portrait of Jesus that is drawn by the Gospels. Yet the Catholic does not derive his faith in Jesus from the Scriptures. For he had this faith already, before the first Epistle and before the first Gospel was written. His faith dates back to St. Peter’s confession at Caesarea Phillippi: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

The supernatural, final, highest certitude came from the working of the Spirit. And since the Holy Spirit, since the divine of its nature communicates itself to ALL men, to the collective whole and is of its very creative and enkindling life, therefore the Holy Spirit of its nature works only in and through a comprehensive, living community, through the unity of love, through the unity of fullness. The catholicity and unity of the Pentacostal miracle were permanently embodied in the spirit of love and fellowship of the Christian communities, animated by Christ and gathered round the apostles and Peter especially. These communities were “one heart and one soul,” planted by one apostolic teaching, brought to interior growth by one Holy Spirit.

 

[Tomster]

I’m not talking about the teaching, I’m talking about the teaches.And why is that?Infallibility does not refer to teachings. Teachings are either true or false. Fallibility or infallibility resides with the teacher. If your Magisterium (which are men) are infallible when they teach, then they are accountable to no one. What they teach can never be questioned since infallibility cannot err. One does not question the teachings of the infallible. Infallibility requires no accountability.

Infalliblity resides with the teachers (the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him) because it is a gift from God. It is a gift that preserves the teacher from error. And since the gift is from God, it is God breathed. It is based on the most explicit promise of Lord (Luke 22:31-32).

 

[Tomster]

I’m not talking about the teaching, I’m talking about the teaches.And why is that?Infallibility does not refer to teachings. Teachings are either true or false. Fallibility or infallibility resides with the teacher. If your Magisterium (which are men) are infallible when they teach, then they are accountable to no one. What they teach can never be questioned since infallibility cannot err. One does not question the teachings of the infallible. Infallibility requires no accountability.

Moon,

Are you, again, trying to pass your teachings off as infallible?

Every time you quote Scripture passages on this thread, or anywhere else for that matter, whom may I ask are YOU accountable to? Are you saying that your interpretations of Scriptures are protected by the charism of infallibility? Haven’t we been through this with you time and time again?

 

[moondweller]

Furthermore, it says, “ALL Scripture is theopneustos”. It does not say , “ONLY Scripture…”

That’s all that IS God-breathed.* Theopneustos* refers only to the Scriptures.

Yes, God knows what scripture He would breath into.

Theopneustos doesn’t mean God breathed INTO them. They’re “God-breathed.”

But whom did God give these God-breathed Scriptures to?

He didn’t “give” them to anyone.

Who preserved them for 300 years before they were compiled into a Bible, and who compiled them

Scribes.

When was the first list of books of the New Testament approved for usage for the whole Church?

“Approved for usage?” The councils ratified what was was already accepted by the churches. You talk as if there was no recognition of Scripture for the first 300 years. That’s not the case, my friend.

 

[crazzeto]

Moondweller, how do you backup your position that scripture is the only thing inspired by God? Particularly when Scripture its self contradicts this very notion rather directly and poinently.

 

[Tomster]

Buddy, if scripture states it is infallible it does not make it so. I can write a book with a line that says ‘‘this book is infallible’’. It doesn’t make my book any more infallible. You are using circular logic.

Now you are not the only Christian who tries to use this type of argument but you should know it is logically flawed. These are the types of arguments atheist ridicule and quiet rightly so.

We believe in biblical infallibility since from TRADITION, we know that the scripture is the word of God. So the real question you should be asking, is whether TRADITION supports infallibility?

Secondly, infallibility is a necessity. The best experiment of a church without infallibility is a BIG failure as we can see from the Protestant church. Hardly any two Protestants can agree with what to believe in. But surely there is only one truth. Christ does not let such divisions happen to his church and distort the truth. That is why there is infallibility for the Pope (its leader) and the magestirium

God Bless

But, then again, we have already demonstrated that logic is not one of Moon’s strongpoints.

There are two Protestants posting on this thread who have proved our point for us. What is interesting about this fact is that they have both been quiet about the dilemma they are in.
Salvation, to them, must not be an “essential” they have to agree on.

 

[Tomster]

That’s all that IS God-breathed.* Theopneustos* refers only to the Scriptures.Theopneustos doesn’t mean God breathed INTO them. They’re "God-breathed."He didn’t “give” them to anyone.Scribes.“Approved for usage?” The councils ratified what was was already accepted by the churches. You talk as if there was no recognition of Scripture for the first 300 years. That’s not the case, my friend.

And it has already been mentioned to you that there were other books in circulation at that time which claimed to be Scriptural which were not added to the Canon by the Church.

. . . cver and over again.

 

[crazzeto]

2Ti 3:16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:

2Ti 3:16 -]All/-] scripture [alone], inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:

Which of these is correct?

 

[ddarko]

ddarko, could you provide me with the number of your post that I started on here so I can continue witho the rest of it? Sorry, but for the the life of me, I can’t find it.

Its POST # 704 I also replied to the post you made afterwards.

Also on your comment about us having scripture for 300 years. As someone pointed out, there were tons of other books in circulation at the time. Some even heretical by Protestant standards. So the question still arises. If you do not believe in the Infallibility of the Catholic Church, then you cannot believe that the Scripture is correct either.

I would like to hear an answer from you to this as well.

God Bless

 

[moondweller]

And it has already been mentioned to you that there were other books in circulation at that time which claimed to be Scriptural which were not added to the Canon by the Church.

. . . cver and over again.

Those writing didn’t claim to be Scriptural. They were not included in the “canon” of Scripture by those early Councils because they didn’t pass the criteria. But keep in mind, the Councils of Hippo and Carthage were provincial, not ecumenical. In fact, your church didn’t officially recognize its canon until Trent. And that was a Roman Catholic Council.

Councils don’t make Scripture. Scripture is “God-breathed.” Holy Writ is the way God has sovereignly preserved His Word in this world ever since Moses.

 

[Tomster]

Those writing didn’t claim to be Scriptural. They were not included in the “canon” of Scripture by those early Councils because they didn’t pass the criteria. But keep in mind, the Councils of Hippo and Carthage were provincial, not ecumenical. In fact, your church didn’t officially recognize its canon until Trent. And that was a Roman Catholic Council.

Councils don’t make Scripture. Scripture is “God-breathed.” Holy Writ is the way God has sovereignly preserved His Word in this world ever since Moses.

Wrong, but I’ll address this later.

 

[Tomster]

Moon,

Some time ago I asked you to literally interpret a few Scripture verses. Your best to reply to my request was that it would be too much work. O.K. fine.

Being the literalist that you have claimed to be, please interpret this ONE verse for us and you can leave your Scofield closed if you don’t mind.

Jesus breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven. Whose sins that you retain, they are retained.”

 

[Tomster]

Those writing didn’t claim to be Scriptural. They were not included in the “canon” of Scripture by those early Councils because they didn’t pass the criteria. But keep in mind, the Councils of Hippo and Carthage were provincial, not ecumenical. In fact, your church didn’t officially recognize its canon until Trent. And that was a Roman Catholic Council.

Councils don’t make Scripture. Scripture is “God-breathed.” Holy Writ is the way God has sovereignly preserved His Word in this world ever since Moses.

So, are you saying that the Councils had the authority to determine what criteria was to be used in determining what books were Scriptures and which books were not?

Your logic is really flawed.

 

[ddarko]

Those writing didn’t claim to be Scriptural. They were not included in the “canon” of Scripture by those early Councils because they didn’t pass the criteria. But keep in mind, the Councils of Hippo and Carthage were provincial, not ecumenical. In fact, your church didn’t officially recognize its canon until Trent. And that was a Roman Catholic Council.

Councils don’t make Scripture. Scripture is “God-breathed.” Holy Writ is the way God has sovereignly preserved His Word in this world ever since Moses.

Councils decided WHAT was Scripture. NOT MADE SCRIPTURE!

If a writing claimed it was scriptural, we accept it? What kind of logic is that my friend? I can write a book that claims it is scriptural. Is it acceptable?

I think the truth is that you have no grounding to believe that Scripture is in fact SCRIPTURE unless you accept the infallibility of the Catholic Church’s teaching. How can you still fail to see this?

God Bless