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

[gerhardc]

How do you think I was able to decipher the letter of Paul to the Romans…without spiritual wisdom and guidance?

Perhaps the deciphering happened in your own thinking only.

 

[joe370]

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.

Just another reason why I came home to the Catholic church. The CC never gets any credit for collecting, selecting and eventually codifying the holy canon, or for putting the table of contents in the Bible. I always used to believe TOC came with the bible, but it did not! Technically the holy Bible belongs to the CC.

I even have quotes of the early church fathers referring to the apostles as catholic.

No catholic church, no bible, and that’s a fact.

 

[CopticChristian]

Perhaps the deciphering happened in your own thinking only.

Then consider your impudence and reflect on the knoweldge that everything you write is subject to that same understanding. Everything you write is in your own thinking and has no value. Your ignorance is an embarrasment as a witness for Christ. I will pray for you.

It is time to dust my sandles.

 

[joe370]

How do you think I was able to decipher the letter of Paul to the Romans…without spiritual wisdom and guidance?

Every protestant who views scripture as their sole rule of faith via private interpretation believes that they have reached their conclusions via the same wisdom and spiritual guidance and just look at the present state Christendom because of that belief. Surely we can’t just blame sin for all the division within Christendom. We must recognize the obvious:

Scripture alone as the Christians sole rule of faith, via private interpretation, has caused a huge rift within Christendom, probably even beyond repair.It’s very sad considering what Jesus hoped for regarding the oneness of His church.

 

[PbloPicasso]

Repent (refer John the Baptist), accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior by believing this in your heart and confessing with your mouth (refer Romans 10:9-10). **Baptism completes the processes as you die to self and live to Christ. **If you have done this as an infant you were born again.

**Abuse “born again”: some Charismatics have preached faith without repentance, which has brought about ‘false salvations’ resulting in fruit contrary to the character of the Spirit. **Others have abused it by denying the need to be born again.

1st Bold: Will you please show me where the bible tells us that Baptism “completes the process?” I’m not sure where you are at intellectually biblically [scripturally] and spiritually. So I will on this begin and inquiry to further my understanding as to where you are coming from. My first guess is Baptist or Church of Christ. Am I even close? Many members of the Church of Christ will argue they are only Christian.

2nd Bold [forgot to add]: There have been many abuses. I agree on this. “false salvation” exists everywhere. I believe I can safely say that the majority of Catholics have a false sense of salvation. If you don’t believe me, then speak to them. Most don’t even have a sense of generalization, which by our baptism is required of all of us. Now, in what way does generalization manifest itself, that’s a different question. It could simply be living by example.

 

[jericho777]

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:

I don’t necessarily want you to believe anything except the truth.

1 Salvation is in Christ alone.

2 We are saved by grace apart from any works.

3 We are dead in our sin and unable to respond on our own to God.

4 God chooses those He wants to save.

5 We are justified by our faith in Christ’s finished work on the cross.

 

[JonNC]

Then why not remain (or become) joined with the only One. Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church on this earth whose priests can give it to you?

There is a priest nearby whith whom I have become friends. I pray for the day I can receive both from him, as I do from my pastor now.

Jon

 

[gerhardc]

Then consider your impudence and reflect on the knoweldge that everything you write is subject to that same understanding. Everything you write is in your own thinking and has no value. Your ignorance is an embarrasment as a witness for Christ. I will pray for you.

It is time to dust my sandles.

Considering the heart with which you speak I’d prefer for you not to pray for me please. I mean that. Thank you.

 

[CopticChristian]

I don’t necessarily want you to believe anything except the truth.

1 Salvation is in Christ alone.

2 We are saved by grace apart from any works.

3 We are dead in our sin and unable to respond on our own to God.

4 God chooses those He wants to save.

5 We are justified by our faith in Christ’s finished work on the cross.

Agree as follows

1. Salvation is through and by Christ alone and residing in the bosom of Christ and all his Creation including His Church.
2. We are saved by grace alone by Faith alone, working in love apart from works of the Law (Old Covenant works of the Law)
3. We are dead in sin and it is by God that moves us to respond, on our own we can do nothing.
4. God chooses and wills all be saved and insofar as God knows he in some mysterious way allows us to accept or reject grace, Predestination is not like we understand it and when we reach the source He will explain this mystery to us if it suits His purpose…residing in the bosom of God may be enough?
5. We are justified by grace and faith that is an ongoing justification to glorification because of Christ’s finished work on the cross that He allows us to participate in, in the mass and the Eucharist.

We do agree, you sound like you learned some Catholic thought, am I wrong?

 

[jericho777]

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?

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

Well, you do not cite the preceeding verses…

This the context…

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

You take what the cc has said without question. That’s your prerogative and I’m happy for you. I think some of their positions contradict scripture. Because I say or you say or anyone else says does not make it necessarily so. Unless fire comes down there will be disagreement rightly or wrongly. So in the mean time you and I must put forth reasoned cogent arguments to convince each other unless you want to burn me at the stake.

God only chose to actively save Israel apart from the rest of the world. What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

Luke 8:10 and Acts 13:48 are similar because it demonstrates God limiting the understanding of His word to those whom He has chosen.

 

[jericho777]

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?

This your quote “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)…”.My response. The cc is not monolithic. You have a lot of dissenters in your ranks. So to allege disunity is exclusive to non catholic churches is hypocritical.

Do you accept without any thought what the cc teaches? Do you have a right to ask to have their doctrines explained in a satisfactory manner?

Not evading just using precedence from the OT. The Jews were led by God but there were different beliefs between the sects.

I can’t say who is right but hopefully the church is correct but… Whomever has the correct interpretation is correct.

 

[jericho777]

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.

So you all claim to be led infallibly in faith and morals yet you admit you used non inspired works for faith and morals for 400 years. You can’t have it both ways so how is that possible?

 

[joe370]

So you all claim to be led infallibly in faith and morals yet you admit you used non inspired works for faith and morals for 400 years. You can’t have it both ways so how is that possible?

Only I am infallibly led… LOL…

Seriously though, up until the 4th century the CC had never made any infallible/official pronouncements regarding the canon so yes, some books that are not found in the bible today were considered authentic by some and some books found in our bible today were questioned as to their authenticity by some early on, but thanks to the CC, that is no longer an issue.

By the way, based on your statement I am assuming that you admit the church from Pentecost to the 4th century was in fact the Catholic church???

 

[joe370]

jericho777;8479407]

Jericho, when it comes to the interpretation of scripture who do you trust the most??? If you tell me it’s the Holy spirit or Jesus or God then I will take that as meaning:

I trust my (Jericho’s) - interpretation the most as the spirit guides me.

 

[pablope]

That is because it comes from Jesus…protected by an unbroken line of apostolic succession…from Peter to B16…

And one more thing…we follow the teachings of the Church…and conform to the teachings of the CC…and not the other way around…we do not shape the teachings of the CC to what we lay people want them to be.

I think some of their positions contradict scripture.

It is actually your understanding that is why you think there are contradictions…and how did you come to the thinking that there are contradictions?

Because somebody told you so…you are following someone’s teachings…that someone’s tradition…so trace that teaching, tradition…and you will not be able to trace it beyond the 1500s.

Keep in mind…Catholics wrote and put together the Bible to reflect the teachings of the CC, so can it contradict the Scripture, which it canonized?

Because I say or you say or anyone else says does not make it necessarily so.

Okay…so who would be that someone or entity that when it speaks, it is necessarily so?

Unless fire comes down there will be disagreement rightly or wrongly. So in the mean time you and I must put forth reasoned cogent arguments to convince each other unless you want to burn me at the stake.

Hence, my question…which you did not answer…here it is again below:

*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? *

Luke 8:10 and Acts 13:48 are similar because it demonstrates God limiting the understanding of His word to those whom He has chosen.

I would say you are out of context…on Luke 8:10…Jesus is speaking only to the Apostles.

And if God limits the understanding only to those chosen…then God is contradicting Jesus to what He told the Apostles…in Matthew 28…19 Therefore go and make disciples of** all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, **

Why would Jesus instruct to baptize all, if these are to be limited to some only?

Now…we have a conundrum…I will just repost the question…

Okay…here comes -](another christian brother)/-] both of us…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?

 

[pablope]

This your quote “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

)…”.

My response. The cc is not monolithic. You have a lot of dissenters in your ranks. So to allege disunity is exclusive to non catholic churches is hypocritical.

 

[pablope]

So you all claim to be led infallibly in faith and morals yet you admit you used non inspired works for faith and morals for 400 years. You can’t have it both ways so how is that possible?

We still are infallibly led…Jericho…with an unbroken line of successors going all the way from Peter…currently named Benedict XVI.

How do you think the Church was led prior to any writings…between AD 33 to about AD 55 or so?

By the Apostles…and their successors…the bishops…to this day. And who guided the early christians…prior to the canonization of the Bible canon? The bishops…and the teaching authority of the CC…the Magisterium…guided by Sacred Tradition. The Bible is actually part of Sacred Tradition…it is a subset of it.

Even without the Bible, there still would be the CC.

That is why, even with all those writings circulating, there were the bishops to guide the faithful…and are still to this day, guiding the faithful.

From St. Ignatius of Antioch (disciple of John, 3rd bishop of antioch)…writing around AD 110 or so, on his way to his martyrdom…Letter to Smyrneans…

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

Epistle of Clement of Rome to Corinth:

CHAPTER 42 – THE ORDER OF MINISTERS IN THE CHURCH.

The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done sol from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.”

CHAPTER 44 – THE ORDINANCES OF THE APOSTLES, THAT THERE MIGHT BE NO CONTENTION RESPECTING THE PRIESTLY OFFICE.

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.

 

[mwok]

So you all claim to be led infallibly in faith and morals yet you admit you used non inspired works for faith and morals for 400 years. You can’t have it both ways so how is that possible?

That’s not fair, some people use Joel Osteen’s books to be led in faith and morals. Is he infallible?

 

[joe370]

Jericho you said:

Whomever has the correct interpretation is correct.

Honestly, what in the heck does that even mean?

By the way I thought we agreed that the church possessed the God given authority to interpret scripture when folks cannot agree on certain doctrines found in scripture? Perhaps I misunderstood…

 

[jericho777]

Only I am infallibly led… LOL…

Seriously though, up until the 4th century the CC had never made any infallible/official pronouncements regarding the canon so yes, some books that are not found in the bible today were considered authentic by some and some books found in our bible today were questioned as to their authenticity by some early on, but thanks to the CC, that is no longer an issue.

You misunderstood what I said. Your claim is you are infallibly led by the Holy Spirit. Yet you used non inspired scriptures to lead people for faith and morals for 400 years. You were unable to discern the truth at that time. So the Holy Spirit (whom you claim is always leading you) led you astray with false scriptures?

By the way, based on your statement I am assuming that you admit the church from Pentecost to the 4th century was in fact the Catholic church???

NO! I am merely making an observation based on the information that you have put forth. That’s another debate for another time.