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

[JonNC]

Every baptized Christian has been born again of water and the Spirit. That includes the original Christians: Catholics. The Protestant definition of “born again” is not found in the Bible.

Jim Dandy
Former Protestant

Hi Jim,
I was born again (baptized) one month and one day after my physical birth, so I would agree your definition of born again here.

Jon

 

[JRRTFAN]

This is a serious problem with the Catholic Church today. And it is not the only problem.

What? That people are leaving? That’s not new it’s been epidemic and problematic ever since the days of felt banners and macrame.

 

[louis91766]

What? That people are leaving? .

No. I was referring to:

…I have seen everything from confetti cannons to laser light shows to dancing girls …

 

[joe370]

My wife and children left the Church about 1995 and over the intervening years I have pondered this question incessantly. Intellectually I cannot come to a positive, “it’s all good”,conclusion. The Church tells us that those who have been baptized in the Trinitarian formula are, in some way, part of the Church which I take to be “part of the Chiurch even if they do not practice the faith.”

On the other hand the Church tells us that Protestantism (which I’ll call any communion which protests the Catholic Church and which, generally, adheres to the 3 “solas”) is a heresy. The practitioners are not counted as heretics but their teaching is heretical, So I have a hard time connecting those dots.

In the 16 years since my family left the Church I have, from time to time, visited their services (in multiple different communities essentially depending on how they liked the pastor). I have seen everything from confetti cannons to laser light shows to dancing girls to a Good Friday service on Easter to no service on Christmas (so the worship teams can enjoy the holiday with their families).

I was not there in 33 a.d. but I can not imagine that these stage shows have anything whatsoever to do with the thought process of the Founder. I find them a well meaning but disjointed effort to invent the wheel without the blueprint.

I agree with you. Thanks for the feedback friend.

 

[jmcrae]

The council at Rome with Damasus spoke to both the NT and the OT.

They may not have had a need because they had a relatively established canon as seen in the prologue of Jesus ben Sirach from the 2nd century BC who often speaks of the three-fold division of the Jewish Scriptures.

This three-fold division holds true whether one is speaking of 22, 39, 46, or 53 books of the Old Testament.

Because Athanasius did not include the Apocrypha, I thought that to be strong evidence that the Septuagint of that day did not contain it.

First, he was a local Bishop; he was not the Pope. Second, he is writing before the canon of Scripture was finalized, so he can have any canon he wants; it’s his Diocese, and no norm had yet been set for the whole Church. (That didn’t happen until 405 AD for the New Testament, and not until the Council of Trent in the 1500s for the Old Testament.)

Look to Rome for guidance - as you have already pointed out, Rome was going with a 46-book Old Testament.

In the spring of A.D. 367, Athanasius put forth a Festal Letter, in which he says,“Since we have spoken of the heretics as dead, and of ourselves as having the divine Scriptures for eternal life; and since some may be beguiled from their simplicity by the wiles of certain men, and may read other writings which are called Apocryphal and which ought not to be mingled with the Scripture which is inspired by God, it seems good to me to set down those Books which are known by us to be divine.”

He then specifies the books of the OT, twenty-two in number, and the books of the NT.

I hope I’m not just pointing out the obvious, but 22 is neither 39 nor 46, so he disagrees with both of us, as it turns out.

These are precisely the same as in the Hebrew canon of that day and today’s Protestant OTcanon.

Not really. He actually includes some things that both of us exclude (II Esdras, for example), and he excludes a great deal that we both include. (Daniel, Esther, Job, and others.)

 

[joe370]

kelman;8571197]Surely, you realize many do not believe that Rome is the only authority?

Which brings us back to post #1.

By whose authority do I have the right to start my own church and call my established church the church founded by Jesus Christ on Pentecost, as well as the right to claim that Rome is not the only authority, now that my new church has been established? Now that there’s a new sheriff in town…:newidea:

 

[jmcrae]

No. I was referring to:

He was talking about what goes on in Protestant churches these days; he did not encounter any of this in any Catholic Church.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, what we’ve been discussing for one thing - whether the Apocrypha is inspired Scripture and many ECFs wrote that it was not.

Could you please cite an ECF that proclaimed that the deuterocanon was not inspired, and then persisted in proclaiming such as a Christian?

Put another way - who discerned for me that Judith is not inspired Scripture?

And your answer is…?

:coffeeread:

Note: an intellectually honest answer does not include this phrase, “Well, it was NOT…” unless it accompanies the phrase, “and it was…”

And if it was the Holy Spirit, how did He fill you in on the fact that Judith was inspired? Did He use a dove? Or was it in a dream?

 

[PRmerger]

No, I was speaking about knowing perfect truth at all times.

Ah, so very good. You’re 100% certain that the NT canon is* theopneustos*.

So we are indeed agreed that you do know *some *perfect truth–that the Gospel of Thomas is not inspired, but that the Gospel of Mark is–at all times.

 

[louis91766]

He was talking about what goes on in Protestant churches these days; he did not encounter any of this in any Catholic Church.

My mistake.

 

[kelman]

Dear kelman,
Cordial greetings and a very warm welcome to the world of CAF.

Thanks, I appreciate the welcome.

There is indeed nothing prideful about the devout study of Sacred Scripture, but private interpretation only results in doctrinal chaos.

Churches which profess and actually practice sola Scriptura(unfortunately not as many as one would hope for) are considerably united in their theology.

If proof is required of this then one only needs to look the fragmented condition of Protestantism to observe the unhappy result of the uncertanties of private judgment.

I"m not going to pretend that the private judgment of Protestants is infallible, however, when exercised in a humble faithful manner it always leads to an adequate(albeit not perfect) knowledge of the essential truths.

Catholics quite rightly regard the multiplication of demoninations as a tragedy and a scandal in terms of our mission to the world and could never view them as part of the economy of God, supposedly ensuring that issues neglected by the mainstream are championed.

Otoh, surely you can understand that we feel the same with regard to the RCC?.. that much of what it presents to the world is not a part of God’s economy.

Protestant brethren fail to appreciate that the word of Scripture emerged from the Church and is the word spoken in the Church and by the Church for the Church.

I fully appreciate that God gave His Word to the universal church, after all, the Apostles and their contemporaries were the first Christians. Interestingly, we have Eusebius’ account in Ecclesiastical History 3.24.7 that it was John the Revelator who canonized the four Gospels – he “welcomed” and “received” the three previous Gospels and “testified to their truth”.

Further, the Church is, as it were, the Divinely given check against the intrusion of erroneous and novel teaching in faith and morals.

We don’t find God telling us that the church - any church - is infallible and cannot teach error. We need only look to the NT and history to see this is true.

It is surely inconceivable that our gracious God should have left His Church without a visible guide and authoritative voice. This is not merely a matter of biased Catholic opinion or taste, but a self-evident truth which emerges from the character of God.

I suggest that this is, in fact, a “biased Catholic opinion” because we do not have God informing us of a universal jurisdictional authority.

The notion of the perspicuity of Scripture, so extolled by the Protestants, simply cannot be sustained, especially in view of the multitude of denominations.

As I mentioned above, churches who not only profess but actually practice sola Scriptura are considerably in agreement.

Another clear problem that arises is what does one do when the bible does not present clear teaching on some issue of crucial importance? This is pivitol today since so many important moral questions are products of the modern age. The bible simply does not address things like* in vitro* fertilisation, human cloning, atomic warfare or even global warming. Thus when there are disagreements and when Sacred Scripture does not speak clearly, who decides?

The RCC is not the only church to speak about some of these issues and how Scripture might be applied to them. Still, God has given us our own consciences and we’re not to allow others to bind them where Scripture does not speak.

Finally a word about that II Timothy passage, which is the classic proof text for the sola scriptura theory. It is indeed a splendid text and Catholics would agree on the inspiration/usefulness of Sacred Scripture. However, the passage does not declare that Scripture is the only authority, nor does it inform us as to what is the foundational authority for our knowledge of the truth.

God has been clear to define only His written Word as inspired. He says this of nothing else. If something other than Scripture was inspired, one would think God would have mentioned that fact, however, He did not.

The N.T. actually points to the Church as that universal authority. Protestants assert that the bible alone is sufficient and is the final authority and court of appeal, however St. Paul states in the Ephesian epistle that “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God will be made known” (3: 10),

We assert that the Bible alone is sufficient because God say it is – the Bible is sufficient to bring men to faith, to salvation, to “perfect” them. When read in its context we see Paul is speaking about the Gospel – that he was made a minister of it(verse 7). Paul is saying that all men, both Jew and Gentile are now brought together in one “fellowship” – one church(verse 9) where can be observed the magnificence of God’s salvation through the Lord Jesus which was of great interest to the angels(verse 10).

and in I Tim. 3:15 he says it is the Church which is “the pillar and foundation of the truth”, not the bible. Thus St. Paul would certainly entrust us to God and Scripture, but would equally maintain that Scripture must be correctly interpreted by the Church, given that it and not the bible is “the pillar and foundation of truth”.

We find no suggestion in the Bible that a church can infallibly interpret Scripture. Of what is the church a pillar to?..what is the church to uphold?..the Bible which is the Truth …sadly not all churches do.

 

[kelman]

Fair enough.

I presume that your church and other leaders do not claim infallibility for themselves?

Yes, that would be true.

If they do not, then, by definition of fallibility, **they will be wrong **on any number of interpretations.

I don’t believe the opposite of infallibility means **they will be wrong **. It suggests only the possibility of being wrong.

And what do you do when they are wrong? To whom do you seek succor?

Well, naturally I don’t believe my church is wrong. However, if I did have a problem with a doctrine I would speak to the leadership to learn exactly how that conclusion was arrived at. Of course above all, I would go to God and His Word and pray for wisdom.

Just as the OT Jew knew the contents of his Bible without a universal authority so can we today.

Actually, the OT Jew had to be told what was Scripture. (Just like you do.) They simply didn’t have a secret gnosis that told them what was the word of God and what wasn’t, right?

What infallible authority told the Jews the content of their Bible?

 

[kelman]

Originally Posted by kelman
Individual disagreements?..sometimes they’re never solved. However, my church, as all others do, have their statement of beliefs. I would think one would agree with these beliefs before joining that particular church.

Are you saying you would join a church if you didn’t agree with its teaching? Well, I wouldn’t do that and I don’t think most people would either.

Doesn’t that seem like the height of arrogance? Doesn’t that seem backwards to you? Are you not then creating a church in one’s own image, rather than conforming one’s image to God?

You seem to be confusing church and God here in these sentences. I’m not “creating a church” in my image by attending one that I believe holds the truth. What would be very odd is if I attended a church I thought didn’t teach the truth.

It would seem to me that the correct paradigm is this: YOU, as a creature, conform yourself to that which has been revealed. YOU change your beliefs based on what God demands and commands.

Why would anyone want to conform themselves to what they know God has not revealed? God certainly doesn’t command and demand that I conform myself to what is not true…what He did not teach in Scripture.

Originally Posted by kelman
Before any council had met, we find in the writings of the ECFs the same Bible we have today…

Heh. And this is a great testament to the validity of Sacred Tradition. They received the paradosis and were able to proclaim the gospel, without the existence of the Bible.
That’s simply what Tradition is.

Of course, they had the Bible. They had all the individual books and listed them accordingly to form a canon of Scripture. Although, it is true that tradition doesn’t speak with one voice. There’s nothing wrong with tradition so long as it agrees with the written Word.

But you’re certain to notice that I asked for a Scripture verse that says to go to the Scriptures, but not to the church.
Where does Acts 20:32 state to not go to the Church?

Paul said to go to God and His Word with regard to dealing with false teachers. That’s either acceptable to people or it isn’t.

 

[kelman]

Kelman:

Yes, Rome had a primacy of honor, however, this didn’t translate into a universal jurisdictional authority. Cyprian is a good example of that. Clearly Cyprian had no concept of papal supremacy, in fact, he never yielded to Stephen, the bishop of Rome.

I would be interested in see where Cyprian writes that the Roman bishop had universal authority. Cyprian’s words regarding Stephen, the then bishop of Rome, certainly wouldn’t lead anyone to suppose he thought so.

Yes, and that Holy Tradition was the written inspired Scriptures.

Really? Only written scripture is Holy Tradition?

I beleive my point was that the Holy Tradition given to us by the Apostles is the written Word.

And what makes you believe God and His Church are two separate entities? Scripture teaches the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ.

Well, for one thing God is the Creator of the universe and the church is not.

The penman of Scripture were obviously church members, however, they weren’t Roman Catholic church members.

That is right,they belong to the Universal Church also known as Catholic. Roman is one rite out of many.

Yes, catholic is simply another word for universal.

And that is the difference between the ECF’s and the Protestant Reformers. The ECF succumb their wills for that of the church as oppose to men like Luther and Calvin were it was about their own agendas and wills.

The fact that the ECFs has disparate views indicates that there was no universal jurisdiction. Were Luther and Calvin to “succomb” to…well, let’s just say excessiveness? Attempts were made by many to reform the church from within but it came to nought until the Reformation. Even though his “agenda” was godly, Luther was excommunicated.

 

[kelman]

Could you please cite an ECF that proclaimed that the deuterocanon was not inspired, and then persisted in proclaiming such as a Christian?

I hope it’s acceptable to repeat the following…since you missed it the first time.

In the spring of A.D. 367, Athanasius put forth a Festal Letter, in which he says,“Since we have spoken of the heretics as dead, and of ourselves as having the divine Scriptures for eternal life; and since some may be beguiled from their simplicity by the wiles of certain men, and may read other writings which are called Apocryphal and which ought not to be mingled with the Scripture which is inspired by God, it seems good to me to set down those Books which are known by us to be divine.”

He then specifies the books of the OT, twenty-two in number, 4 and the books of the NT. These are precisely the same as in our own Canon of Scripture. He designates the Epistle to the Hebrews as an Epistle of Paul. “These,” he adds, “are the fountains of salvation, that he who thirsteth may be filled with their oracles. In these alone is the doctrine of piety preached; let no one add to them, or take anything from them.”
bible-researcher.com/athanasius.html

Put another way - who discerned for me that Judith is not inspired Scripture?

And your answer is…?

Since I haven’t read it, I’d have to say the writings of the ECFs, church historians and theologians. My understanding is it includes some rather notable errors.

Note: an intellectually honest answer does not include this phrase, “Well, it was NOT…” unless it accompanies the phrase, “and it was…”

Of course, you are entitled to your opinion. However, there’s nothing dishonest with using negative phraseology.

And if it was the Holy Spirit, how did He fill you in on the fact that Judith was inspired? Did He use a dove? Or was it in a dream?

I’m somewhat surprised at the discrediting of the Holy Spirit’s role in illuminating the Word of God. In any case, I am convinced that Judith is not inspired.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t believe the opposite of infallibility means **they will be wrong **. It suggests only the possibility of being wrong.

The opposite of infallibility is* fallibility.*

Which means, as it pertains to this discussion, that your church/pastor/elders at some point are GOING TO BE wrong.

And what will you do when you disagree with one of their particular theological points, knowing that they are fallible, and going to be wrong at some point? You will have to wonder: is this one of those times when they are wrong? Because, by definition, I know they are going to be wrong sometime.

 

[PRmerger]

Are you saying you would join a church if you didn’t agree with its teaching? Well, I wouldn’t do that and I don’t think most people would either.

I follow the model proferred in Scipture. Find the Church that was established by Christ, and then conform my beliefs to that which Christ and His Church proclaim.

Finding a church that agrees with all of my beliefs is the epitome of arrogance–it reeks of creating a god in one’s own image, does it not?

But, alas, this is the paradimg wrought by the Protestant reformation. Each advocate feels that he has the right to, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, determine what God has declared. And then, to find a church that agrees with all of my views.

That ends up to be, paraphrasing Chesterton, “That Jones shall worship where he agrees ultimately means that Jones shall worship Jones.”

 

[Nicea325]

I would be interested in see where Cyprian writes that the Roman bishop had universal authority. Cyprian’s words regarding Stephen, the then bishop of Rome, certainly wouldn’t lead anyone to suppose he thought so.

I beleive my point was that the Holy Tradition given to us by the Apostles is the written Word.

Well, for one thing God is the Creator of the universe and the church is not.

Yes, catholic is simply another word for universal.

The fact that the ECFs has disparate views indicates that there was no universal jurisdiction. Were Luther and Calvin to “succomb” to…well, let’s just say excessiveness? Attempts were made by many to reform the church from within but it came to nought until the Reformation. Even though his “agenda” was godly, Luther was excommunicated.

Cyprian did not yield to Stephen? In regards to what? Do you yield to the U.S. President all day or all the time in every aspect of your life and decision making? You gave no cases but a mere opinion. Whoever said God is not the Creator of the Universe? Again,the CHURCH is the Mystical Body of Christ who in case you forget is…GOD! This a common error of many Protestants to pit the Church verse God.

 

[PRmerger]

Churches which profess and actually practice sola Scriptura(unfortunately not as many as one would hope for) are considerably united in their theology.

:dts: Not quite.

They can’t even agree on what 1 Peter 3:21 means.
Does baptism save or not?
Some say yes.
Some say no.
Some say it’s a sacrament.
Some say it’s an ordinance.
Some say it should be proferred in infancy.
Some say not until adulthood.
Some say it should be done by immersion only.
Some say sprinkling is fine.
Some say that the only way is in a river.

And that’s just on one verse.

So, actually, most of these SS churches are decidedly NOT unified in their theology. :nope:

And don’t even get me started on salvation. You guys can’t get your theologies together on this most important of doctrines.

 

[PRmerger]

Since I haven’t read it, I’d have to say the writings of the ECFs, church historians and theologians.

So you go be the testimony of the early Christians? And not by Scripture to tell you what’s inspired and what’s inspired?

That doesn’t sound like Sola Scriptura to me.

My understanding is it includes some rather notable errors.

Fair enough.

And you use this criterion to discern whether something is theopneustos or not?

So if any book in the Bible contains “notable errors” you must dismiss it?

Yes or no?