If Protestantism Is True

[pablope]

I already provided quotes from Jerome and several chruch fathers and including the actual theologian who questioned Martin Luther on the issue of the Old Testament Canon.

Save yourself the trouble…they do have the authority to set what is canon for the whole church…only the Pope does.

And besides…by citing them…you just proved my earlier point…the canon of the Bible is the produce of Tradition…of what the ECFs wrote…and it is precisely because of this differing opinions that councils were called, starting in AD382.

And the main reason was to come up with a definite list of writings to be read during the Mass…the Catholic Mass.

This is where it all started, because of these differing opinions from the Fathers/bishops…the Pope saw a need to set the list…so as to have a standard set of readings to use during the Mass for the whole, universal church.

You did not deal with any of what I posted on that at all.You ignored it or played it off as it does not exist.

 

[Chafer_DTS]

But if the official meaning is wrong, then why would he give you that one?

I caught him practicing private interpretation of Scripture. The RCC has no offical dogamatically defined interpretation of that verse. And when he gave me his own interpretation he was giving his own private interpretation. Yet he argues againist protestants for doing that. Amazing.

 

[pablope]

I answered your questions. I ignored any questions that would basically misrepresents or misunderstand my position or assume your own conclusion of something that I reject. As far as double standars on private judgement. You provided me your own interpretation of 2 Tim 3:14-18 yet you claim to reject Sola Scripture. You gave me your own mere opinion of that passage and not the offical interpretation of the RCC on it. Enough said.

I do not have private interpretation…what I provided is the teaching of the Church…you can ask any catholic on here how they understand the verse.

Okay then…what is your understanding of V14?

 

[pablope]

I caught him practicing private interpretation of Scripture. The RCC has no offical dogamatically defined interpretation of that verse. And when he gave me his own interpretation he was giving his own private interpretation. Yet he argues againist protestants for doing that. Amazing.

As are other verses. Actually…you were caught in a conundrum…you cited v16 to prove a point…and I called your attention to v14…and asked you to now define or explain your point further including v14…and how the CC somehow contradicst Scripture with that v14.

And so far…you have accused me of private interpretation…resorting to adhominems and strawmen.

And besides…Do protestants have dogmatically defined understanding of that verse? If none…then why should your interpretation be superior than anybody else?

 

[YendisAgev]

I caught him practicing private interpretation of Scripture. The RCC has no offical dogamatically defined interpretation of that verse. And when he gave me his own interpretation he was giving his own private interpretation. Yet he argues againist protestants for doing that. Amazing.

If one was allowed to do that (freely interpret), then there would be no RCC.

 

[Chafer_DTS]

I do not have private interpretation…what I provided is the teaching of the Church…you can ask any catholic on here how they understand the verse.

Okay then…what is your understanding of V14?

Oh no it is not the offical RCC exegesis of that verse. There are no records of the interpretation of that verse being offically and infallibily interpreted at all. Dont make up stuff to me. The things Timothy learned were doctrines of which the apostle Paul had taught him based on verse 10 in that chapter. Paul taught him doctrines from Holy Scripture which is refering to the Old Testament. Whatever oral teaching that given were based on the Old Testament.

 

[pablope]

Oh no it is not the offical RCC exegesis of that verse. There are no records of the interpretation of that verse being offically and infallibily interpreted at all. Dont make up stuff to me. The things Timothy learned were doctrines of which the apostle Paul had taught him based on verse 10 in that chapter. Paul taught him doctrines from Holy Scripture which is refering to the Old Testament. Whatever oral teaching that given were based on the Old Testament.

Okay then…he was instructed orally by Paul…so in post 91…you said this…1 ) Scripture is sufficient for the man of God for his task…and cited only v16.

So let me ask again…can you now explain the point you made in your point 1…taking into account v14?

Is it Scripture alone for the man of God? Or taking into account v14…is it the oral instruction plus scripture?

 

[pablope]

If one was allowed to do that (freely interpret), then there would be no RCC.

We are allowed…with some latitude and boundaries.

And I would agree with you…if there was private interpretation since early on…there would be a million denominations now…

 

[Alfonsus]

The Catholic Church never said that you can’t read Scripture and every understanding of yours (interpretation) need to be acc by the authority.
That does not say that each verse, jot, period and comma have official interpretation.

We read Scripture, do lectio divina, and of course our understanding is private, it pertains to us, it is opinion based on my understanding.

But, we see the Church as arbiter. When several interpretations comes up from several theologians, it is the voice of the Church we seek to settle the dispute authoritatively, in area pertaining to faith and moral.

Otherwise, you disagree, I disagree, then the heck I will search a church that agree with me or create a new one. The term heresy and excommunication became an oxymoron.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Thread pruned.
Please, when we have anti-Catholic overnight trolls, report them.

 

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by benjohnson
Like I said, whatever reasoning that Catholic church has for the Scripture being the word of God, I accept.

But it could be logical to acknowledge the authority of the early Catholic church while doubting later Catholic church based on it’s subsequent behavior.

And even among both-lungs of the Catholic church, there’s no firm agreement on what books are in the bible - the East having more and different.

=PRmerger;9402388]Ah, then, so you’re not a Scripture alone advocate?

Lutherans absolutely are advocates of sola scriptura. That doesn’t mean a rejection of the role of the Church.

And you acknowledge the authority of the Catholic Church.

We acknowledge that the undivided Church had/has authority, an authority given to it by Christ himself, yes. Power of the keys, bind and loose sins, preach the word and administer the sacraments, call and ordain, etc. And we acknowledge the central and important role the Catholic Church, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, plays in that.

And that there exists in the Church, at least as it pertains to the canon of Scripture, the charism of infallibility?

Not exactly. With regards the canon of scripture, we take into account whether a particular book is universally attested, or disputed, and we’ll treat those books on matters of doctrine differently.
The problem with the charism of infallibility on this matter is that the Church has never had a universally accepted canon of scripture, never mind protestants. Is there a council that established a canon of scripture that both East and West participated in and agreed to, before the Schism or since? If there is, then ISTM clear that that is the canon we should all be using. If not, it is difficult to say that the Church has, at least exercised, a charism of infallibility in the matter.

Jon

 

[Chafer_DTS]

Thread pruned.
Please, when we have anti-Catholic overnight trolls, report them.

I hope that people get fair treatment regardless of their theological disfferences .Most of the exchanges has been alright.

 

[PRmerger]

Here is a listing of the Old Testament Canon of the Jewish people.

Chafer, there was no agreement by the Jewish people on the OT canon.

You know who the Sadducees were and the Pharisees? Why were they divided?

Well, for one: they couldn’t agree on what was the OT canon.

One group subscribed to only the Books of Moses. The other disagreed.

Not to mention all the other Jewish sects which also had their own ideas about canonicity.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes it is. Your question is that of which is asked by atheist and agnostics to christians. enough said on that.

Atheists and agnostics ask lots of questions, and we need to be able to respond to them with a better answer than, “Because I just know in my heart it’s true!”

That’s not any answer that’s going to evangelize them, Chafer.

So if an atheist asks you, “How do you know that the Book of Hebrews is inspired?” and you cannot answer him with any answer except, “Because I just know it is and how dare you ask that” you will never be able to convert the atheist.

Catholics, however, have a great leg to stand on because we have an answer for why we believe the Book of Hebrews is inspired.

 

[PRmerger]

My belief has nothing to do with Roman Catholicism nor do I accept the authority of Roman Catholic Church as you do.

Then you’ll have to tell me how you, without the authority of the Catholic Church, discerned that the Book of Hebrews is inspired but that the Shepherd of Hermas is not.

How do you know it’s inspired without someone else* telling you it was inspired?

*here, read: the Catholic Church

 

[Chafer_DTS]

Chafer, there was no agreement by the Jewish people on the OT canon.

You know who the Sadducees were and the Pharisees? Why were they divided?

Well, for one: they couldn’t agree on what was the OT canon.

One group subscribed to only the Books of Moses. The other disagreed.

Not to mention all the other Jewish sects which also had their own ideas about canonicity.

Jesus and the apostles knew what the OT Canon was. Their OT Canon had long since already been closed. While some individuals may have disregarded some books but as a whole no. Even during the middle ages we had some in the church who excluded or doubted some NT books such as Hebrews, James, Judge , 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John and the book of Revelation. Even this provided no reasonable basis for it’s exclusion from Scripture from a small minority. The Jewish Canon had the threefold division and the twofold division. We see this right in the 4 Gospels themselves. The word Scripture is also used. When we see the law, the prophets and the psalms and the law and the prophets and the word Scripture being used that is language which indicates they knew exactly what specific books were being used and affirmed within their contents. Otherwise Jesus would not have made mention of it. Now on the other hand if we accept the premise of what you say as true then we both would be incorrect on our claims on the OT Canon. Your argument works both ways. The general consent on the OT Canon was exactly what I had listed from a historical stand point. Also the two canon theory has long since been refuted long ago. We have records of the general listing of the Canon and it matches up with what I stated.

 

[PRmerger]

Intresting since the Roman See was uncertain of the Old Testament Canon until the council of Trent in 1546ad. That is when the RCC OT Canon was infallibly and dogmatically proclaim and settle the issue for the Roman See.

Do you know when the dogma of the Trinity was infallibly and dogmatically proclaimed, Chafer?

It wasn’t until centuries after the death of the last Apostle.

But, of course, you understand that even though it wasn’t dogmatically proclaimed until later, the dogma of the Trinity was proclaimed from the first days of Christianity.

[SIGN1]What was solemnly pronounced, declared and defined a certain point of time is not an indication that it only came to be believed at that point.[/SIGN1]

 

[PRmerger]

Jesus and the apostles knew what the OT Canon was.

Indeed! And they quoted from the Septuagint!

And, you are giving a great apologia for your belief in Sacred Tradition. You understand that what Jesus and the Apostles “knew” was delivered to their successors, who delivered it to their successors, who delivered it to their successors, ORALLY, until some of it was codified into what we now know as the Bible.

 

[PRmerger]

That is incorrect.

Then please correct me. Tell me your answer to how you know that the Book of Hebrews is inspired.

And I hope your answer is better than, “I know it’s inspired because it’s in the Bible! And I know it’s in the Bible because it’s inspired!”

Or the equally nonsensical, “I know Scripture because it is self-attesting!”

 

[PRmerger]

An empty claim that can never be proven . The chuch is a mere wittness to Scripture

Indeed. The Church proclaims that she is the servant of Scripture.

It does not claim to have authority over it.

Exactly. She has never claimed to have authority over Scripture.
**
But the Church does have authority over YOU.** And you acknowledge this each and every time you quote from, say, the Gospel of Mark.

Each and every time you quote from Mark you are saying, “I know this comes from God because the Catholic Church discerned this for me!”

You would not know it any other way, Chafer.