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

[JRRTFAN]

No. I was referring to:

Yep confetti cannons. Let’s say the ceiling was 25 feet high, it could have been more or less by a few. Along the perimiter of the joining of the walls and ceilings they had mounted air cannons filled with confetti. When the service reached its creshendo they blew the cannons and the crowd below was swathed in confetti. This is the kind of stuff that goes on in the mega church experience.

 

[JRRTFAN]

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

xcept I’m not talking about the Catholic church!

 

[louis91766]

xcept I’m not talking about the Catholic church!

Right. See post #855.

 

[kelman]

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

Not when the books are delineated and do not include the Apocrypha.

First, he was a local Bishop; he was not the Pope.

Being pope didn’t help Damasus at the council of Rome. He promulgated the NT and OT and apparently it still wasn’t “official” enough.

Second, he is writing before the canon of Scripture was finalized,

The point I was making is that many ECFs did not accept the Apocrypha as inspired. Instead they followed the Hebrew Bible and rightly so since it was to the Hebrews God gave His “oracles”.

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.

The single book of the minor prophets unpacks to 12 books, the single Ezra-Nehemiah becomes two books.hence the Hebrew Bible is said to contain 22 or sometimes 24 books and the contents matches exactly with the Protestant Bible of 39 OT books.

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.)

No, Athanasius doesn’t include llEsdras and neither does he exclude Daniel, Esther or Job.

4There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second i.e. Ezra and Nehemiah. are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.
6. These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these…

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxv.iii.iii.xxv.html

 

[kelman]

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,…

It might very well be claimed that this is precisely what Rome did - start its own church.

 

[kelman]

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.

For that matter, so is your church. There is no church, pastor or pope who knows all things perfectly at all times.

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.

Nope, I don’t assume they are wrong and my goodness it’s not as if God has left us without the Holy Spirit and His inspired Word. And in this inspired Word, He commands us to meditate day and night.

Now if my church was to come up with some doctrine…say, for instance, “purgatory”? I would know immediately they were in error. I know this because God is clear that the Lord Jesus alone has made payment for all the sins of those He came to save. He in fact removes these sins “as far as the east is from the west” so that not even the so-called “temporal” effects are imputed to me. Christ “…is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him,…”(Heb 7:25).

 

[kelman]

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.

Except you can’t find the church that Christ started unless you know what both teach. To find what Jesus teaches, we go to the Bible. To find out what the RCC teaches we go to its catechism.

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?

Nope, actually it just reeks of common sense. Why would anyone go to a church which teaches a theology he disagrees with?

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.

Sounds like you’re saying your views are in opposition to your church’s.

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

Rather, that Jones shall worship where he agrees ultimately means that Jones shall worship with like-minded Christians.

 

[kelman]

Originally Posted by kelman
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.

It was a disagreement about baptism. However, that’s beside the point for purpose of this discussion. The ensuing disagreement(put mildly) speaks to the fact that neither Cyprian or the 86 African bishops assembled at the council of Carthage had any concept of papal supremacy and would not tolerate Rome’s meddling. Cyprian’s view was that all bishops sat in Peter’s seat and expressed the unity of the church.

earlychurch.org.uk/cyprian.php

 

[GreggAlvarez]

For that matter, so is your church. There is no church, pastor or pope who knows all things perfectly at all times.

Nobody is claiming to know “all things perfectly at all times.” Well, at least, not the Catholics. I cannot speak for the rest of the world.

But, with your statement, it would be impossible to determine what the Word of God is trying to tell us.

Somebody has to teach Christ’s followers. That is why Christ built the Church in the first place. The Bible is there for us to learn from and NOT to make our interpretive theologies. The Church only teach what was taught from the beginning, nothing added or subtracted.

Of course, you will disagree and we can go around in circles. I will give reasons and your responses will be the equivalent of saying “whatever”.

Nope, I don’t assume they are wrong and my goodness it’s not as if God has left us without the Holy Spirit and His inspired Word. And in this inspired Word, He commands us to meditate day and night.

I agree. While I am not Christ’s greatest follower (far from it, the worst even), I can still say “the Holy Spirit taught me that the Church has the authority given by Christ to teach us.” You will disagree and claim the opposite.

Trivializing the Holy Spirit is exactly what doctrinal interpretation does. We believe that Christ and His Apostles taught everything we need to know. That knowledge (the words of God) is passed down orally and written. The Church just infallibly declares as official the beliefs as she learns more of what Christ and His Apostles taught. And NOT add to the original Deposit of Faith as some people wrongly assume.

And where do you find this in the Bible? I don’t know, but the other Catholics on here do. They make me look dumb.

Now if my church was to come up with some doctrine…say, for instance, “purgatory”? I would know immediately they were in error. I know this because God is clear that the Lord Jesus alone has made payment for all the sins of those He came to save. He in fact removes these sins “as far as the east is from the west” so that not even the so-called “temporal” effects are imputed to me. Christ “…is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him,…”(Heb 7:25).

Hmm… You quote those verses as if we are supposed to agree with your interpretation of it. That is, your interpretation that it negates the doctrine of Purgatory.

And of course, you assume that Purgatory negates Christ’s work for some reason. You only disagree with what you THINK the doctrine is.

Would you be so kind as to look up the doctrine of Purgatory on a legitimate Catholic site? Say… this one?

Then, once you find out that your prior assumptions about Purgatory and Christ’s work are wrong, we can have a reasonable debate. We don’t want to waste our time correcting you on what we believe. We want to have fruitful discussion about why it is or is not true, and not merely correcting anti-Catholic bias like your above statement.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Except you can’t find the church that Christ started unless you know what both teach. To find what Jesus teaches, we go to the Bible. To find out what the RCC teaches we go to its catechism.

Hmm… Anti-Catholic bias is exactly what this is. Why are you so mean? Probably because you don’t know what we believe, nor do you care to find out. That, my friend, is pretty obvious.

But, I will make an addendum to your statement that more corresponds with what is true.

To find out what the RCC teaches we go to Jesus.

Nope, actually it just reeks of common sense. Why would anyone go to a church which teaches a theology he disagrees with?

Apparently, common sense and arrogance are synonymous. I go to many churches. Sure, I play trumpet there, but your uncommon sense would tell you to not go based on prejudice.

A person would go to a church which he disagrees with for various reasons.

1. Curiosity
2. Friend or significant other
3. Family
4. Local celebration (picnic, fish fry, games, etc…)
5. Obligations (music, job, etc…) . (I say “job” because the organist and his wife at a Catholic Church in Louisville are actually Baptist.)
6. Other reasons which my brain couldn’t come up with at 5:00 a.m.

So, to say it “reeks of common sense” is to say that all those people (including Yours Truly) have little to no common sense. And that is mean.

Sounds like you’re saying your views are in opposition to your church’s.

Now, you are just being unreasonable.

Rather, that Jones shall worship where he agrees ultimately means that Jones shall worship with like-minded Christians.

Chesterton’s quote is much more realistic. The word ultimately works in his statement and not yours. The Jones you created probably goes to Westboro Baptist Church in Texas. They make their own interpretations and hate everybody else and will not give them the time of day hear them. They certainly are like-minded. Doctrine does not matter to those like-minded people.

 

[PRmerger]

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

And how is this an example of being contrary to Church teaching when the Church had not yet discerned the canon?

 

[PRmerger]

Rather, that Jones shall worship where he agrees ultimately means that Jones shall worship with like-minded Christians.

Now this is funny. Especially in light of your unsubstantiated statement that Sola Scriptura churches essentially agree with one another on doctrine.

Which is it, kelman: find the church that conforms to your own likings–and then worship with people who agree with you…

OR

Go to any SS church, because they all agree with you anyway in the basics.

 

[PRmerger]

.Now if my church was to come up with some doctrine…say, for instance, “purgatory”? I would know immediately they were in error. I know this because God is clear that the Lord Jesus alone has made payment for all the sins of those He came to save. He in fact removes these sins “as far as the east is from the west” so that not even the so-called “temporal” effects are imputed to me. Christ “…is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him,…”(Heb 7:25).

Ah. So I see where your problem lies in your objection to purgatory: you are uninformed about what it actually is.

Purgatory is possible ONLY because “the Lord Jesus alone has made payment for all of the sins of those He came to save.”

 

[PRmerger]

To find what Jesus teaches, we go to the Bible.

Except that the only way you know “what Jesus teaches” is because, well, another entity (read: the Catholic Church) told you what He said.

[SIGN]You would not know it any other way, except for the authority of the Catholic Church.[/SIGN]

 

[PRmerger]

Nope, I don’t assume they are wrong and my goodness it’s not as if God has left us without the Holy Spirit and His inspired Word. And in this inspired Word, He commands us to meditate day and night.

And which Holy Spirit do you mean, kelman? The one who tells Lutherans that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, or the one that tells Presbyterians that it’s merely a symbol?

That reminds me of something I read that I like to quote:

“But when he, the Spirit of Truth, has come, He will teach you all the truth.”
John 16:13

Most non-Catholic sects declare that the Holy Spirit is “teaching” them the truth. However, there can be only one truth. Since the advent of Sola Scriptura and individual interpretation of Scripture,** how can the Holy Spirit be in each of the thousands of sects, teaching all of them opposing viewpoints?** It is to be noted that all of the following denominations teach from the same Bible, so why the differences in teaching?

1. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Lutherans the Eucharist is the true presence of Christ, and then tell the Baptists it is only a symbol?
2. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Methodists it is alright to have female ministers, and then tell the Baptists it is unbiblical?
3. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Seventh-Day Adventists that Saturday is the day of worship, and then tell the Presbyterians the day of worship is Sunday and not Saturday?
4. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Lutherans that the Blessed Virgin Mary was and remains always virgin, and then tell the Baptists she had other children?
5. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Baptists, “once saved always saved”, and then tell the Church of Christ that Sola Fides is unscriptural?
6. How can the Holy Spirit tell Episcopalians to baptize infants and then tell Pentecostals infant baptism is invalid?
7. How can the Holy Spirit tell Mormons that the Holy Trinity is three separate persons, and then tell Methodists the Trinity is three persons in one GOD? home.inreach.com/bstanley/reform.htm

 

[joe370]

It might very well be claimed that this is precisely what Rome did - start its own church.

If you can prove it then I will most definitely believe you and therefore be forced to leave the CC, in pursuit of the church founded by Jesus. Can you prove it just as I can prove the same thing regarding every Protestant church, and I ask that question with the utmost sincerity?

You sort of forgot to address my question:

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,…

 

[pablope]

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

.

Actually, the Festal Letter of Athanasius is addressed only to Alexandria, of which Athanasius is Bishop, not the whole Church.

And you missed what he wrote in…part 7 of your link:

1. But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: **Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read; nor is there any place a mention of secret writings. **But such are the invention of heretics, who indeed write them whenever they wish, bestowing upon them their approval, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as if they were ancient writings, they find a means by which to lead astray the simple-minded.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Ah. So I see where your problem lies in your objection to purgatory: you are uninformed about what it actually is.

So far (as far as I read), that is two people telling him/her that he/she is uninformed. We shall see if it works. I trust that Kelman knows that us Catholics (more specifically, you) know more about Catholic doctrine that he/she does.

 

[PRmerger]

So far (as far as I read), that is two people telling him/her that he/she is uninformed. We shall see if it works. I trust that Kelman knows that us Catholics (more specifically, you) know more about Catholic doctrine that he/she does.

Yep. And I have found that there are none so uninformed about Catholicism as those who are ex-Catholics

NB: I am not making any assumption specifically about posters here who have made no mention about leaving the Church. It was just a generalized observation I am making.

 

[CMatt25]

Except that the only way you know “what Jesus teaches” is because, well, another entity (read: the Catholic Church) told you what He said.

[SIGN]You would not know it any other way, except for the authority of the Catholic Church.[/SIGN]

PR Yes but how many years was that after there were Christians? How do we know after all of that time that the entity got all of Her interpretations right? Other than by faith?