I respectfully ask evangelical, protestant and sola scriptura proponents...

[jmcrae]

Oh contraire the bible did exist as individual letters and books.

Along with thousands of others.

They were actually addressed to churches or individuals in existance at the time.

Along with many others.

It was copied and passed around to the churches for instruction doctrine and reproof. How or why would the ECF’s allow questionable material to be used by the church if it was not of God?

They discerned that it was “of God” by means of a very bureaucratic, ritualistic process.

In your paradigm you allege church leaders guided the church by ST apart from the word.

The Sacred Tradition is the well-spring from which the Bible came - the oral speaking that was (some of it, not all) later “enscripturated.”

The entire framework for Christianity is contained in scripture and was implemented from the beginning.

“The beginning” was the beginning of Christ’s ministry, in 30 AD. The first word of the New Testament was not written down until 64 AD. For 34 years, it existed only in oral form - Sacred Tradition. But we had a Church, with a Pope and Bishops, by June of 33 AD.

 

[jericho777]

If the Calvinists were really following all of St. Augustine’s teachings, they would all be celibate Catholic priests, nuns, and monks, since he believed that our sexuality is the source of concupiscence, and in order to avoid it, one must altogether avoid sex, including within marriage.

(Luckily for the human race, this was only his personal opinion; it was not a doctrine of the Church.)

The difference is total depravity is in the bible but sexless marriage denies what God declared in scripture for humans.

 

[CopticChristian]

pablope;8464603:

2Tim 3:16 Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

This is not a Protestant post. This is not a bunch of idiots where you point out one passage and everyone goes “wow, I didn’t see that”…I cannot believe the ignorance of Protestant teaching…every Protestant that comes trying to prove his point uses this verse to believe, as they were taught, that Scripture proves itself to be Scripture. Now if you read just before this verse…

14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

The verse you quoted verifies that whatever was read as a child, since there was no New Testament when Timothy was a child, was Scripture.

So now lets get on to the New Testament and see what your Protestant Bible studies, books, Pastors have taught you…Just understand that as you think and write that you are the 100-1000th or more Protestants that have come with this verse and lets see where you now go…check your move.

I wait.

 

[CopticChristian]

We both agree on the NT scriptures it is the OT where we disagree. The difference of seven books between the Catholic and Protestant canons stems from the fact that the early Christians used a Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures which differed from the one which came to be accepted by the Jews; the Protestant churches later dropped those books which were not accepted by the Jews.

I go to scripture to define who and what church is.

Simple logic dictates that God’s word is His instruction. The bible declares itself to be directly inspired by God.

I used these terms because they are a known set of doctrines not because they were of their own imaginations. Likewise Pauline doctrines were from God not Paul. Augustine got these doctrines from the bible yet the church of his day was not opposed to them, it was later on they were opposed.

Just two questions.

1. Do you believe and want me to believe that the Bible is sufficient for knowledge of Christian Doctrine?
2. List for me 10 or 5 Pauline Doctrines as you understand them?

Thanks:thumbsup:

 

[jericho777]

The Council of Trent, December 13, 1545, to December 4, 1563.

Are you really serious the cc teaches that? That is totally beyond the pale to think something Jesus called, used and defined as scripture was not until 550 years later.

You really need to reasses what you are saying.

 

[joe370]

ProdigalAnglicn;8466883]The seven “fringe” books (IIRC 2 Peter, Jude, James, Hebrews, the Johannine letters, and Revelation) were question but were never widely excluded AFAIK.

You do not concede that they were disputed in the early catholic church? The letter of James, of Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, the Apocalypse of John, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the letter of Barnabas and the Didache were all accepted and read in the early Catholic church. Agreed?

The disputes over the canon are exaggerated (ironically by Roman Catholics on one hand and skeptics of Christianity on the other). For the most part there was already widespread agreement.

Should I just take your word on it? How can I know that you are not the one exaggerating?

BTW, quick question on the RC view of the Deuterocanon: do you believe that the 66 book Protestant Bible “containeth all things necessary to salvation”? Or do the Deuterocanonical books HAVE to be included for this statement to be true?

The bible itself doesn’t claim that the bible “containeth all things necessary to salvation.” That is an article of your faith. If scripture did claim that scripture - “containeth all things necessary to salvation” then the following article is not necessary for it is found nowhere in scripture:

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Of course the Deuterocanonical books are part of the canon.

 

[jericho777]

Along with thousands of others.

Along with many others.

They discerned that it was “of God” by means of a very bureaucratic, ritualistic process.

The Sacred Tradition is the well-spring from which the Bible came - the oral speaking that was (some of it, not all) later “enscripturated.”

“The beginning” was the beginning of Christ’s ministry, in 30 AD. The first word of the New Testament was not written down until 64 AD. For 34 years, it existed only in oral form - Sacred Tradition. But we had a Church, with a Pope and Bishops, by June of 33 AD.

Let me be clearer How or why would the ECF’s allow questionable material to be used by the church if it was not yet canonized?” Since you are telling me there were many, many no inspired works being used by and circulated through the church pre 405AD for doctrine and reproof. Is that correct?

Sorry I have to disagree with your take on ST. It has no prominent role or mention in scripture itself. The whole focus in scripture is defining the world view around the written word.

The book of James is ca. 44 AD. Just as the OT was written over time so the NT was not written in a day. They still had the OT while the NT was being written. There always is sufficient scripture available to the body.

 

[joe370]

Yes, but what I’m asking is do you put these Books on the same level as the rest of the Old Testament? Are they just as authoritative as Exodus or Ezekiel? The Anglican view is that they should be included in our Bibles but are not on the same level. with regard to authority, as the rest of the OT. This is also the view held by the Eastern Orthodox.

Prodigal, who had and continues to have the authority to determine whether or not those deuterocanonical books should be included in the canon or excluded from the canon? It’s not me; it’s not you and it’s not anyone else here on this forum.

 

[gerhardc]

The tragedy is you don’t know enough to teach. You have learned that if you throw enough what you believe to be Scripture around people will think you know and understand something. This is what happens in Protestant Circles. The guy that throws verses around and tries to make sense sounds like the most learned. This is not going to work for you unless you address the questions directly.

What is it that you have difficulty in understanding?

 

[domandcarols]

 

[CopticChristian]

What is it that you have difficulty in understanding?

“Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.” (Jesus, John 17:17)

This was your answer to

Why doesn’t the bible tell us that the bible is the pillar and foundation of the truth?

You should have referenced your knowledge of 1Timothy 3:15

if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

And then discussed something. Instead you throw out a verse of your choosing and then try to explain it with a question.

What or who is the Word?

You then go on to answer your own questin.

The events concerning and the sayings of/about Jesus is the Word. Refer John 1, “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.”

While this may be true you then jump to the conclusion of the following that makes sense in your mind. This is a fallacy of logic. Your verse and the events may well be true as you say however to use that to make the following conculsion…

Thus, the Gospels and the Epistles and the revelation of John all form part of the Message about the Kingdom of God through Christ - it is the Good News, the Gospel, the Word of God. Like the Old Testament, the New Testament is the word of God. Christ makes the OT alive: “But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ.” (2 Corinthians 3:14). In the NT, Jesus fulfils God’s promise, His word. Like the promise of the Christ is the word of God, so the witness of the Christ is the word.

But how do you know that the New Testament is the word of God. Where in the New testament is that stated that all the books in the New Testament are the word of God? How could I possibly accept your assessment if you cannot prove to me that what you say is the word of God is truly the word of God. There are lots of people out there claiming to know what God teaches.

Those who preach the word preach Jesus.“But we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness nor handling the word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing,”

I am not quite sure what point you are making here?

“Handeling the word of God” and preaching the “gospel”, Paul says, is the same thing.

Now I really have no clue what you are saying here. I love Paul and “handeling” where in the world did you get that idea? and then comparing it to preaching and I would ask preaching what?

So this is what my simple mind cannot grasp and cannot understand and it boggles my simple mind that you cannot provide a simpler explanation. Try again.

 

[gerhardc]

And this is where many non-Catholics have a profound misunderstanding. No point in time has the CC denied God inspired men to write Sacred Scripture. It is not a question WHAT God did,but it is a question of…HOW did God canonize the OT and the NT. Through human instruments in His Church called Catholic bishops…a historical fact!

No amount of denials can erase a historical fact.

Great. Because the Bible contains the only writings we can be sure of as having been inspired by the Holy Spirit. Let us then place our reliance on words that are from the Spirit, not merely being the wisdom of men: (1 Corinthians 2:4-5) - “And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.”

 

[gerhardc]

So this is what my simple mind cannot grasp and cannot understand and it boggles my simple mind that you cannot provide a simpler explanation.

If you ask for a simple mind to be illuminated I cannot help with that.

 

[pablope]

Okay…here comes another christian brother, doing the same things as you do…reading and re-reading and references and all…and both you come to differing interpretation of a certain passage…so who is going to be right and who is going to be in the wrong?

Originally Posted by pablope
Or does God want us all to come into His light? And if we are all in God’s light…how come there is misinterpretation?

God only gives light to those He has chosen for salvation.

And why would God do this? What is the purpose for God doing this? Seems we do not have the same God for the God I know wills all to salvation.

Seems to me, for God to give light only for those He has chosen to salvation…is to make Satan happy? If that is the purpose, then God has given in to Satan.

Originally Posted by pablope
Isn’t God’s will to choose all, and not exclude anyone?

No.

And how do you know this?

Originally Posted by pablope
Do you really think that Jesus would leave earth and His Church without providing a mechanism to resolve such disagreements? Do you think He would not know that there would be disagreements? If you think so, then He did not do an adequate job of instructing the Apostles, isn’t it? He fails as a God, is what you are saying.

Paul was warning the flock that wolves were already in the church.

The mechanism is only as good as those in charge of implementing it. The religious leaders at the time of Jesus were exceedingly corrupt and God was still in charge of Israel.

Wait a minute…we are not talking of those ancient times, of Israel. Let us talk about after Pentecost…Do you really think that Jesus would leave earth and His Church without providing a mechanism to resolve such disagreements?

Did not Jesus leave instruction on how to resolve those disagreements? Let me go back to the question on top…

Okay…here comes another christian brother, doing the same things as you do…reading and re-reading and references and all…and both you come to differing interpretation of a certain passage…so who is going to be right and who is going to be in the wrong?

How are you going to resolve your differences?

Originally Posted by pablope
Actually, if I could solve such problems, I would be saint, not a wealthy man. I would not accept money for the Church of Christ…I would surrender my all.

You are to humble.

Actually, I think with my answer, all catholics would agree.

Originally Posted by pablope
Context, context…my friend…this is after the parable of the sower, and Jesus explains the parable to the Apostles alone, and not to the crowd…Jesus is preparing the Apostles for their leadership role…and speaks of those who will accept the gospel differently, who the Apostles will encounter when they go out to spread the Word.

This is why I (Jesus) speak to them in parables:
“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

Well, you do not cite the preceeding verses…

8 Still other seed fell on good soil. It came up and yielded a crop, a hundred times more than was sown.” When he said this, he called out, “Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear.”

9 His disciples asked him what this parable meant.

This the context…

It is in context but let’s try this one then. Acts 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.

What do you mean or what about it? It says “heard”…preached to…the gentiles here did not read.

[/QUOTE]

 

[pablope]

I hope mine is.

There are more dissenting catholics but who ever is interpreting scripture correctly. You are free to follow blindly without question or thinking if you prefer.

What is the issue at hand that is a problem? There were three major sects of Jews during the time of Jesus and their doctrines differed. Yet they still considered each other to be Jews. The Holy Spirit was leading Israel yet wht were differing doctrines?

Wait minute…

What does my question has to do with dissenting Catholics? How do you know we are following blindly?

Seems you are evading the question. The question has something to do with today…not at the time ancient time of the Jews.

The jews had Moses, the Judges, their kings, prophets…the High priest…

Let me repeat it below:

*Let me give you another real life example…

An individual Christian, baptized and all, very devout and faithful, and a church doing its duty diligently, do not interpret a passage the same way…there are very serious differences…(and I think this happens within protestant circles all the time)…

So, who do you think has the correct interpretation…the church or the individual?

Whose interpretation should prevail, the church or the individual?

How would the church and the individual resolve their differing interpretation? *

As I bolded above…I said “real life” example…is it the church or the individual?

 

[CopticChristian]

If you ask for a simple mind to be illuminated I cannot help with that.

Is it my simple mind you have a problem with or you inability to explain this in a simple way?

 

[pablope]

Simple logic dictates that God’s word is His instruction. The bible declares itself to be directly inspired by God.

And can you point where this chapter and verse is? (if you have not been asked and responded).

pablope;8464603:

2Tim 3:16 Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

Context…again, my friend…this are the words of St. Paul…and at the time this verse was written, there was no Bible as you know it.

This was referring to the Septuagint, which is now the OT of Catholics. But this is not to say that all the Bible today is not considered “inspired.”

But my question to you is…why do you now consider the whole Bible to be God-breathed?

Let me ask you another question…and this should be easy for you to answer.

Where or provide the chapter and verse where Mark claims authorship of the Gospel of Mark?

Once you locate this chapter and verse…why do you now believe the Gospel of Mark was written by St. Mark? Why do you believe it should part of the Bible and Why do you hold the gospel of Mark to be “inspired by God.”?

Where does the Bible say St. Mark’s gospel should be part of the Bible?

 

[JonNC]

The Council of Trent, December 13, 1545, to December 4, 1563.

Exactly. For those in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Jon

 

[pablope]

Oh contraire the bible did exist as individual letters and books. They were actually addressed to churches or individuals in existance at the time. It was copied and passed around to the churches for instruction doctrine and reproof. How or why would the ECF’s allow questionable material to be used by the church if it was not of God? In your paradigm you allege church leaders guided the church by ST apart from the word. The entire framework for Christianity is contained in scripture and was implemented from the beginning.

Here is a partial list of early Christian writings…

30-60 Passion Narrative
40-80 Lost Sayings Gospel Q
50-60 1 Thessalonians
50-60 Philippians
50-60 Galatians
50-60 1 Corinthians
50-60 2 Corinthians
50-60 Romans
50-60 Philemon
50-80 Colossians
50-90 Signs Gospel
50-95 Book of Hebrews
50-120 Didache
50-140 Gospel of Thomas
50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-100 Epistle of James
70-120 Egerton Gospel
70-160 Gospel of Peter
70-160 Secret Mark
70-200 Fayyum Fragment
70-200 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
73-200 Mara Bar Serapion
80-100 2 Thessalonians
80-100 Ephesians
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-110 1 Peter
80-120 Epistle of Barnabas
80-130 Gospel of Luke
80-130 Acts of the Apostles
80-140 1 Clement
80-150 Gospel of the Egyptians
80-150 Gospel of the Hebrews
80-250 Christian Sibyllines
90-95 Apocalypse of John
90-120 Gospel of John
90-120 1 John
90-120 2 John
90-120 3 John
90-120 Epistle of Jude
93 Flavius Josephus
100-150 1 Timothy
100-150 2 Timothy
100-150 Titus
100-150 Apocalypse of Peter
100-150 Secret Book of James

earlychristianwritings.com/

Question: How is one to know with certainly which should be Sripture or in the Bible versus what should not be from this list?

Here is a Table which lists different writings…and what various bishops considered as NT:

ntcanon.org/table.shtml

The Epistle of Clement of Rome was actually considered inspired and read in Mass for several decades, but did not make it into the final canon, same with the Didache and the Shepherd, among a few writings.

 

[JonNC]

It wasn’t officially canonized until after the Lutheran Rebellion, simply because that was the first time anyone in Christendom had ever questioned it. The Fathers of Trent were simply settling the question that had arisen from the Lutherans.

The first time? What about Jerome and Eusebius? What about Cardinal Cajetan? The DC’s and the disputed books of the NT have always been just that; disputed, long before Luther.

Jon