Infallability

[Irish_Polock]

Thank you for the link you posted. It was an interesting read. Perhaps there is a list of infallible statements if there is a list of grave sins (formerly known as mortal sins). It seems to me in my reading that there is a strong correlation between the two. Am I correct in this impression?

I am unclear of exactly what your asking, could you please articulate this question differently?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
v. 15 should be included
2Tim.3
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.

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

If “scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” What more is necessary?

Timothy, being in childhood when first introduced to the Scriptures, certainly could not grasp its deep truths by himself, especially since the Old Testament, to which this verse could only apply, contained only the obscure or veiled references to “faith in Jesus Christ” that Paul ascribes to the Old Testament Scriptures in 2 Timothy 3:15. Only a very astute and informed individual could explain the mysteries of “faith in Jesus Christ” from the Old Testament alone, thus proving that knowledgeable teachers are very important in making a fit man of God ( Colossians 1:26-27; Luke 24:27; Acts 8:30-35; 1 Peter 1:10-12). Timothy was dependent on his teachers (his grandmother Lois and his mother Eunice in his childhood (2 Timothy 1:5); Paul and other leaders in his adulthood), who could rightly divide the word of truth, to make him a fit man for every good work. In fact, Timothy’s use and interpretation of Scripture is dependent on the hermeneutical principles he learned from Paul and other his other teachers.

2Tim.3
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.

This verse is not talking about Timothy’s ability to understand scripture at any age. What it says is that scripture is **“able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” The question is who does the “thee” stand for in this verse? I believe it stands for all of us. ** The next verse says 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Now I’m sure that Paul when he wrote this was talking about the old testament, But because he was talking of the old testament does that make it untrue for the new testament? I think not.

 

[pablope]

Don’t think of me saying the Catholic Church is a branch of the church Jesus built as a negative it is simply a fact.* It is not necessarily the case that it was not needed***.

a Christian working by listening, learning, studying to be closer to GOD.
We know from Scripture that there is one mediator. Catholics believe there are co-mediators. Did/will it cause splintering in the Church?

No, just that the Catholic Church is a branch of the Church Jesus built. You could worship in a corn field if you needed to. Yes at different times the hierarchy was more interested in amasing wealth then saving souls.

Actually 2 Timothy 3 does not prove that the Bible is GOD’s Word. It tells us that Scripture, not tradition is sufficient to: completely equipe a servant of God for every good work:****
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good . Why would GOD need to tell us HIS Word is infallible? That is just a given either HE is a being

of pure truth and love wanting a good relationship with us or HIS Word is a mean trick. So the question is how do we know it is GOD’s Word?

Prophecies fufilled combine with miracles performed by Jesus in front of many eyewitnesses. The Bible tells a truthful story of man sinning- things done way back then still being done by man today. Seeing the effect of lifestyle changes occuring in people on hearing or reading the message.

Moreover, your statement belies the claim, made by Jesus, that He would be with His church forever, guiding His church into all truth until the end of time,

There you go again thinking only concretely again. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit. I have actually had contact with the Holy Spirit-very cool experience.

We have the truth of what we need for our salvation in GOD’s Word, there is no secret tradition that needed or needs to be revealed to us - that is gnostism.

Infallibility - We all agree the office of clergy is to lead us, teach us, guide us to truth - they have the keys. The keys do not allow requirements to be added that has no proof of being needed for your salvation, a person can only bind or loose what GOD has aready bound and loosed in heaven.

Catholics can not prove there was one Pope/bishop in the early Church. Paul did a lot of supervising and teaching. There was never one person with the power to solve spiritual debates - differences were solved by councils. At one time there were 5 Bishops Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem and Romeall of equal status.

1 Peter 5 1 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed:

How do we know when an interpretation is false? When the interpretation does not point to Jesus, when taken out of context of the surrounding verses, the chapter, the book, the Bible. When it has an agenda separate from that of the author.

Actually 2 Timothy 3 does not prove that the Bible is GOD’s Word

Actually, you should include verse 14 and 15 to make it complete:

2 Timothy 3:14-18 (New King James Version)
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Verse 14 and 15 speaks of instruction he received as a child studying the Scriptures…the Septuagint at his time…so there is the oral instruction…and Scriptures for additional reference, in you will, to the mission Timothy is entrusted by St Paul,

 

[Irish_Polock]

2Tim.3
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.

This verse is not talking about Timothy’s ability to understand scripture at any age. What it says is that scripture is **“able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” The question is who does the “thee” stand for in this verse? I believe it stands for all of us. ** The next verse says 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Now I’m sure that Paul when he wrote this was talking about the old testament, But because he was talking of the old testament does that make it untrue for the new testament? I think not.

Do you feel that St. Paul was teaching Timothy “Sola Scriptura” or some derivative thereof in 2 Tm. 3:16-17? What do you think Timothy was suppose to learn from St. Paul in this verse?

 

[pablope]

Don’t think of me saying the Catholic Church is a branch of the church Jesus built as a negative it is simply a fact.* It is not necessarily the case that it was not needed***.

Catholics can not prove there was one Pope/bishop in the early Church. Paul did a lot of supervising and teaching. There was never one person with the power to solve spiritual debates - differences were solved by councils. At one time there were 5 Bishops Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem and Romeall of equal status.

the Bible. When it has an agenda separate from that of the author.

Have you studied early Church History to make this statement? One of the early Church fathers listed the successors of St Peter as Bishop of Rome.

Also, St Paul, in his humility, submitted himself to Peter in Jerusalem, and what he was preaching, for his approval, as recounted in Acts and Galatians. So, there is a recognition of authority by St Paul. St Paul, as you know, had a direct revalation from Christ himself. He could have gone and established his own church, but he did not, did he?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Do you feel that St. Paul was teaching Timothy “Sola Scriptura” or some derivative thereof in 2 Tm. 3:16-17? What do you think Timothy was suppose to learn from St. Paul in this verse?

Paul is teaching exactly what the scripture says including v.15 it says
2Tim3
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.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

If scripture is “able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” If “all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” What more do we need? I mean if scripture is able to show us salvation in Christ and make us perfect. Wouldn’t that be everything we need? Wouldn’t that be Sola Scriptura?

 

[pablope]

Paul is teaching exactly what the scripture says including v.15 it says
2Tim3
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.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

If scripture is “able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” If “all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” What more do we need? I mean if scripture is able to show us salvation in Christ and make us perfect. Wouldn’t that be everything we need? Wouldn’t that be Sola Scriptura?

Actually, you should start at verse 14, to make it whole:

14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Verse 14 talks about oral teaching Timothy received, together with the use of Scripture…

Before trying to interpret this, my dear Richard, you should put the epistle in context. The epistle is written to Timothy, a bishop appointed by Paul, not to a particular church (Corinthians, Galatians, etc)…so this is advise to Timothy…the “thee” in the verse refers to Timothy, the addressee…the phrase “man of God” refers, as used during those times, to a man in service…a presbyter, minister or deacon, not the laity…so this passage is stating that for a “man of god” to be properly equipped in his ministry…he has his oral teachings he received (v 14) and the Scriptures (v16)…with which to rely upon…it makes him wise or knowledgeable or gives him wisdom in his work of salvation.

 

[Irish_Polock]

Paul is teaching exactly what the scripture says including v.15 it says
2Tim3
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.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

If scripture is “able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” If “all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” What more do we need? I mean if scripture is able to show us salvation in Christ and make us perfect. Wouldn’t that be everything we need? Wouldn’t that be Sola Scriptura?

If you believe 2 Timothy 3:16-17 teaches sola scriptura, then you must also believe that Timothy was meant to understand 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as teaching sola scriptura. Obviously, Scripture cannot be interpreted one way for us and another way for Timothy. But if Timothy is to see sola scriptura in this passage, neither entertaining nor seeking any other interpretation, then what was Timothy to do with Paul’s orally inspired teaching given at the same time as the writing of 2 Timothy, and which Paul told him to “keep” and “guard”? you could not argue that oral revelation was eventually confined to Scripture, for even if this were true, they are still left with the fact that in Timothy’s day oral revelation was an abiding concern. If Timothy was to see the same interpretation as you do in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, this imposes on Timothy the requirement to make a strong mental effort to stop referring to Paul’s orally inspired teaching and cease from passing it on and entrusting it to reliable men as he once was commanded.

But Paul never told Timothy anything of the sort. Paul commanded that his oral teachings were to be preserved and propagated throughout the church. He gave no indication that one day orally inspired teaching should be ignored, demoted, or looked upon with suspicion after Paul died, when the Scripture was completed, or when the Bible was canonized. It is only reasonable to conclude that if on his death bed Paul wanted to leave Timothy with a doctrine of sola scriptura a doctrine which would have made such a monumental difference in how Timothy arrived at truth he would have said so explicitly and clearly. As it stands, he did not.

Additionally, Scripture could not teach Sola Scriptura, for if it cannot be a valid concept during times of revelation, how can Scripture teach such a doctrine since Scripture was written precisely when divine oral revelation was still being produced? Scripture cannot contradict itself. Since both the 1st century Christian and the 21st century Christian cannot extract differing interpretations from the same verse, thus, whatever was true about Scripture then must also be true today. If the first Christians did not, and could not, extract sola scriptura from Scripture because oral revelation was still existent, then obviously those verses could not, in principle, be teaching sola scriptura, and thus we cannot interpret them as teaching it either.

 

[Irish_Polock]

Actually, you should start at verse 14, to make it whole:

14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Verse 14 talks about oral teaching Timothy received, together with the use of Scripture…

Before trying to interpret this, my dear Richard, you should put the epistle in context. The epistle is written to Timothy, a bishop appointed by Paul, not to a particular church (Corinthians, Galatians, etc)…so this is advise to Timothy…the “thee” in the verse refers to Timothy, the addressee…the phrase “man of God” refers, as used during those times, to a man in service…a presbyter, minister or deacon, not the laity…so this passage is stating that for a “man of god” to be properly equipped in his ministry…he has his oral teachings he received (v 14) and the Scriptures (v16)…with which to rely upon…it makes him wise or knowledgeable or gives him wisdom in his work of salvation.

Nice to see you and I are on the same page at least.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

If you believe 2 Timothy 3:16-17 teaches sola scriptura, then you must also believe that Timothy was meant to understand 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as teaching sola scriptura.

First of all I think that I need to define what I consider as sola scriptura (SS). For me SS is the fact that everything that we need for our salvation is contained in scripture. And since v. 15 says exactly that so my criteria for SS has been fulfilled in that one v.

Obviously, Scripture cannot be interpreted one way for us and another way for Timothy. But if Timothy is to see sola scriptura in this passage, neither entertaining nor seeking any other interpretation, then what was Timothy to do with Paul’s orally inspired teaching given at the same time as the writing of 2 Timothy, and which Paul told him to “keep” and “guard”? you could not argue that oral revelation was eventually confined to Scripture, for even if this were true, they are still left with the fact that in Timothy’s day oral revelation was an abiding concern. If Timothy was to see the same interpretation as you do in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, this imposes on Timothy the requirement to make a strong mental effort to stop referring to Paul’s orally inspired teaching and cease from passing it on and entrusting it to reliable men as he once was commanded.

You seem to think that Pauls oral teaching was different than his written teaching. I don’t believe this is so and I think he says as much in Gal. 1

7Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

and that gospel was the Gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ. 1Cor.2

1Cor.2
2For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

Just like it says in 2Tim.3:15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

If Timothy was to see the same interpretation as you do in 2 Timothy 3:16-17

What do you mean like I do? Do you mean that Timothy should read something into the verses that are not there because the way I see these verses is that they say
2Tim3
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.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Nothing more nothing less.

this imposes on Timothy the requirement to make a strong mental effort to stop referring to Paul’s orally inspired teaching and cease from passing it on and entrusting it to reliable men as he once was commanded. But Paul never told Timothy anything of the sort.

It would impose on Timothy no such requirement.

Paul commanded that his oral teachings were to be preserved and propagated throughout the church. He gave no indication that one day orally inspired teaching should be ignored, demoted, or looked upon with suspicion after Paul died, when the Scripture was completed, or when the Bible was canonized. It is only reasonable to conclude that if on his death bed Paul wanted to leave Timothy with a doctrine of sola scriptura a doctrine which would have made such a monumental difference in how Timothy arrived at truth he would have said so explicitly and clearly. As it stands, he did not.

Again you seem to think that oral tradition was/is different than what Paul wrote down it was/is not.

Additionally, Scripture could not teach Sola Scriptura, for if it cannot be a valid concept during times of revelation, how can Scripture teach such a doctrine since Scripture was written precisely when divine oral revelation was still being produced? Scripture cannot contradict itself. Since both the 1st century Christian and the 21st century Christian cannot extract differing interpretations from the same verse, thus, whatever was true about Scripture then must also be true today. If the first Christians did not, and could not, extract sola scriptura from Scripture because oral revelation was still existent, then obviously those verses could not, in principle, be teaching sola scriptura, and thus we cannot interpret them as teaching it either.

Paul did not teach the doctrine of SS. What he did teach is Jesus Christ and Him crucified. This is what the bible teaches both old and new testaments, and altho the new testament had not yet been written in Pauls day. 2Tim.3:16 says All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. It says All scripture is inspired by God The new testament is scripture, therefore the new testament is inspired by God. So if this does not teach SS as you say then there must be something else that you feel that we need for our salvation. What would that be Irish?

 

[schaick]

16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2 Tm 3:16-17, RSV)

If I remember my studies correctly, there are three significant words that most protestants use to prooftext sola scriptura in 2 Tm 3:16-17, those being:

“profitable”: Bauer’s lexicon defines it as: “useful, beneficial, advantageous, what is particularly helpful” (p. 900). This form appears in two other places in the New Testament, e.g., “for physical training is of some value” (1Tm 4:8) and “these things are excellent and profitable for everyone” (Titus 3:8). The verbal form oopheleoo appears 16 times, denoting the concept of “profitability” or “value,” e.g., Rm 2:25; 1Co 13:3; Gl 5:2; Hb 4:2. The noun form oopheleia appears twice, once translated as “advantage” in Jude 16. All in all, oophelimos does not mean selfsufficient. If Paul wanted to teach sufficiency he could have used a word such as autarkeia (2Co 9:8; 1Tm 6:6), which is lexically defined as “the state of one who supports himself without aid from others; contentment, selfsufficiency” (Bauer, op. cit., p. 122). A similar word is hikanos which can sometimes be translated as “sufficient” (2Co 2:6, 16; 3:5) or “qualified” or “able” (2Tm 2:2); and arkeoo which means “sufficient” or “content” (cf., John 14:8; 2Co 12:9; 1Tm 6:8), but none of them are used to describe Scripture.

Also:

“complete”: pronounced: artios from the verb artidzo.

“equipped”: pronounced: exartismenos from the verb exartidzo, which is a combination of ex + artidzo)

Greek lexicons are somewhat varied in their definition of both artios (RSV “complete”) and exartismenos (RSV “equipped”).

Standard lexical works such as Walter Bauer, Liddell and Scott, Ardt and Gingrich, and Louw and Nida contain a range of meanings from “fit” and “capable” to “complete” or “perfect.”

Liddell and Scott define artios as: (1) “complete, perfect of its kind, exactly fitted” (2) “active, quick, ready.” It defines exartidzo as “to complete, finish, to be completely furnished” (Abridged version, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1977) pp. 105, 233.

Walter Bauer defines artios as “complete, capable, proficient=able to meet all demands.” He defines exartidzo as: (1) “finish, complete” and (2) “equip, furnish.” (2nd edition, revised by Gingrich and Danker, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1957, 1979), pp. 110, 273.

The definitions of “fit,” “capable,” or “ready” show a preparedness to accomplish a given task but do not guarantee the outcome. The definitions of “complete” and “perfect” speak more to the expected result. Suffice it to say that, coupled with the very infrequent usage of these words in both classical and Koine Greek, the variations in meaning suggests that the understanding and application of the words will depend heavily upon the context in which they are placed.

The New Testament uses artios only here in 2 Timothy 3:17, while it uses exartidzo (from which exartismenos is derived) twice, the other occurrence appearing in Acts 21:5 in the infinitive form, normally translated as “accomplished” or “ended” (“But when those days were ended, we departed and went our way…”).

In the Septuagint exartidzo appears only in Exodus 28:7, translated as “fastened,” while artios appears only once, as a temporal adverb in 2 Samuel 15:34, translated as “until now.” Artios andits derivatives come from the root ar, which means “appropriateness, suitability, usefulness, aptitude.” The cognate katartidzo, its oldest derivative in classical Greek, means “to put in order, restore, furnish, prepare, equip.” These various meanings have a common origin in the basic concept “to make suitable, fitting.”

The Septuagint uses katartidzo 19 times, standing for no less than 9 different Hebrew words, e.g., in the sense of “complete” (Ezra 4:12), “to set up, establish” (Psalm 74:16), “to hold fast” (Psalm 17:5), “God’s equipping” (Psalm 40:6), “to restore” (Psalm 68:9). Katartidzo is also used in the New Testament as “repair” (Matthew 4:21), “prepare” (Hebrews 10:5), “to establish,” “to form” (Hebrews 11:3), “to equip” (1 Peter 5:10). From these various meanings and contexts, we understand Paul to teach that Scripture prepares the man of God to function properly — his function being to do “every good work.”

Commenting on these varied meanings, the Dictionary of New Testament Theology states: “artios here does not imply perfection, as was originally thought, doubtless because of the variant reading teleios, (“perfect”), in Codex D. Rather it refers to the state of being equipped for a delegated task. So too, in Eph. 4:12* katartismos* refers to the preparation of the church for becoming perfect, but not to this perfection itself, as can be seen from the use of teleios (complete, mature > Goal), helikia (stature > Age, Stature), and pleroma (> fulness) in v. 13 (Also 1 Cor. 1:10). The terms artios and katartismos thus have not so much a qualitative meaning as a functional one” (p. 350).

If you look at the Scriptures in its entirety, it is unlikely that anyone could teach a fallacy such as sola scriptura and remain honest with themselves and God.

15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thess. 2:15, RSV)

Tell me what tradition was taught and then show concrete proof that that was in fact the tradition taught,

 

[schaick]

Actually 2 Timothy 3 does not prove that the Bible is GOD’s Word

Actually, you should include verse 14 and 15 to make it complete:

2 Timothy 3:14-18 (New King James Version)
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Verse 14 and 15 speaks of instruction he received as a child studying the Scriptures…the Septuagint at his time…so there is the oral instruction…and Scriptures for additional reference, in you will, to the mission Timothy is entrusted by St Paul,

Please read what I wrote:

Actually 2 Timothy 3 does not prove that the Bible is GOD’s Word.

 

[schaick]

Have you studied early Church History to make this statement? One of the early Church fathers listed the successors of St Peter as Bishop of Rome.

Also, St Paul, in his humility, submitted himself to Peter in Jerusalem, and what he was preaching, for his approval, as recounted in Acts and Galatians. So, there is a recognition of authority by St Paul. St Paul, as you know, had a direct revalation from Christ himself. He could have gone and established his own church, but he did not, did he?

A list does not prove authority.

Also… only proves rule by committee, discussion- not superiority of one person.

Why was Paul writing to Rome if Peter was there as Pope? Is Peter ever mentioned?

Now here is proof of authority:
Acts 13
8 But Elymas the sorcerer (for that is what his name means) opposed them and tried to turn the proconsul from the faith. 9 Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said, 10 “You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord? 11 Now the hand of the Lord is against you. You are going to be blind for a time, not even able to see the light of the sun.”

Immediately mist and darkness came over him, and he groped about, seeking someone to lead him by the hand

What proofs do Popes exhibit today?

 

[schaick]

joe370-

Does it matter whether a person believes it is Jesus or Mary who is the Ark? Isn’t the important thing the Blood of the New Covenant. What did Jesus teach on the issue?

Show me that Jesus, the Disciples, Apostles taught what the Catholic Church teaches about Mary. Am I not allowed to attend a branch of Jesus’ Church that doesn’t speak of these things? What would you as a catholic have me do?

The Creed is completely Scriptural, GOD’s Word.

**There was splintering when Jesus was first describing eating HIS flesh in John 6:**66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
The early Christians taught the same thing that the Catholic Church teaches today about Mary, including her being the Ark of the New Covenant.

joe370 you can read the the spurious Gospels and Apocrypha for yourself and see that it should not be considered inspired Scripture from GOD.

What the Catholic Church did that must be given full recognition was securing, preserving, saving and protecting Scripture from destruction.

joe370 said- *Not such a good answer. Who, in the end, decides when something is taken out of context? Who has the authority to decide when it has an agenda separate from that of the author? I know it is not you or me. *

So you want an interpertation that doesn’t point to Jesus?

I am always so surprised by this. Didn’t Catholics learn interpretation in Junior High? We actually had a session in public High School interpreting an Old Testament Book. The teacher and school made sure parents understood that this was simply a teaching of how to interprete what the "author" was intending to pass on to us-no evangelizing took place.

 

[Irish_Polock]

First of all I think that I need to define what I consider as sola scriptura (SS). For me SS is the fact that everything that we need for our salvation is contained in scripture. And since v. 15 says exactly that so my criteria for SS has been fulfilled in that one v.

2 Tm. 1-3, in context, refers several times to Paul’s oral teaching. Did Paul consider his oral teaching merely his own ideas? No; according to 1 Thess. 2:13 he considered them the very words of God.

13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers. (1Thessalonians (RSV) 2)

Here we see Paul’s oral teaching was inspired by God just as were his written words. If these words were inspired by God, they were infallible. If the inspired oral preaching was infallible, Timothy had another infallible source from which to draw to make him a fit man of God prepared for every good work. Therefore, by the principle of infallibility, Paul cannot be teaching the concept of “sola scriptura”, no matter how one would define it.

You seem to think that Pauls oral teaching was different than his written teaching. I don’t believe this is so and I think he says as much in Gal. 1

7Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

and that gospel was the Gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ. 1Cor.2

1Cor.2
2For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

Just like it says in 2Tim.3:15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

This is proof-texting Richard, and honestly, I would encourage you to take these verses in the context that they were written.

What do you mean like I do? Do you mean that Timothy should read something into the verses that are not there because the way I see these verses is that they say
2Tim3
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.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Nothing more nothing less.

I agree. Nothing more, nothing less.

Again you seem to think that oral tradition was/is different than what Paul wrote down it was/is not.

Paul did not teach the doctrine of SS. What he did teach is Jesus Christ and Him crucified. This is what the bible teaches both old and new testaments, and altho the new testament had not yet been written in Pauls day. 2Tim.3:16 says All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. It says All scripture is inspired by God The new testament is scripture, therefore the new testament is inspired by God. So if this does not teach SS as you say then there must be something else that you feel that we need for our salvation. What would that be Irish?

I would like to point out the word inspiration in 2 Tm. 3:16 does not imply or prove that Scripture is our only source of inspired revelation. Certainly God inspired men to write the Scripture, but he also inspired them to speak his words, some of which were written down (Romans 16:22), and some not (Matt. 2:23; 10:19; 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Cor. 15:2; Ephesians 1:13), Paul commands that the word of God given by “word of mouth” was to be obeyed and preserved just as much as the written (2 Thess. 2:15).

Although much of what was orally inspired probably overlapped in content with what was inspired into writing, evidently some details of truth contained in orally inspired teachings Paul chose not to put in written revelation, otherwise there would be little reason for Paul to command that both forms, oral and written, be obeyed and preserved. If at that time the written word contained the complete and only necessary revelation of God to preserve, it would have been superfluous for the first Christians to preserve any oral revelation. But since Paul did command the first Christians to preserve and obey oral revelation, the Catholic Church has always taught that oral revelation serves as an additional source of revelation alongside the written word. Therefore, Scripture is not our sole authority.

 

[Irish_Polock]

Tell me what tradition was taught and then show concrete proof that that was in fact the tradition taught,

The very fact that you have a New Testament today is “concrete proof” that oral Tradition is also a source of revelation.

 

[pablope]

A list does not prove authority.

Also… only proves rule by committee, discussion- not superiority of one person.

Why was Paul writing to Rome if Peter was there as Pope? Is Peter ever mentioned?

Now here is proof of authority:
Acts 13
8 But Elymas the sorcerer (for that is what his name means) opposed them and tried to turn the proconsul from the faith. 9 Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said, 10 “You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord? 11 Now the hand of the Lord is against you. You are going to be blind for a time, not even able to see the light of the sun.”

Immediately mist and darkness came over him, and he groped about, seeking someone to lead him by the hand

What proofs do Popes exhibit today?

As I stated, read history, the early writers, successors to the Apostles themselves…see how they understood the authority of the Bishop of Rome.

 

[joe370]

The very fact that you have a New Testament today is “concrete proof” that oral Tradition is also a source of revelation.

Exactly Irish. :thumbsup:There was no official “New” Testament when Paul wrote his letter to Timothy (2 Tim. 3:16) - Even the Old Testament was still in the process of formulation, for the Jews did not decide upon a definitive list or canon of Old Testament books until after the rise of Christianity. It was the tradition of the CC that was the benchmark for in-errantly determining the canon of scripture, of course through the guidance of the holy spirit.

If the bible is infallible then the church that codified the infallible bible must have done so infallibly, otherwise the bible could in fact be fallible. Seven books of our NT were disputed as to their authenticity, at different times and in different places for the first 300 years of Christianity, which was why the CC convoked on more than one occasion, to settle the matter once and for all.

 

[PJM]

=Marc Anthony;7234566]So I’ve done a lot of thinking…perhaps too much as it has led me to question the Catholic Church.

But not in a negative way. I have faith in the Church, that she has a response to my questions and issues; I just don’t know what it is.

My problem is infallablity. My issue is that I don’t see where in Acts of the Apostles we see anybody speak of infallability. So how do we know that the Church was always understood to have it?

Now, don’t get me wrong. Nowhere in Acts is infallability contradicted. Theoretically it is a possibility, since nobdy erred on what the CC has defined as an infallible statement. But doesn’t it strike ou as…IDK…careless, perhaps, not to simply tell us that the Church had infallible authority? I mean, clearly the whole Church didn’t know that it was infallible, since a lot of Bishops (the direct successors of the Apostles) disagree with this and now belong to the Orthodox Church.

It’s hard to vocalize my thoughts here…actually come to think of it, I happen to agree kind of with JonNC, sort of.

No, JonNC is not responsible for me questioning the Church, so don’t hurt him . I’m just saying that when I see his views on matters regarding the early Church they sort of look like how I view the early Church-that councils were normally called to settle disputes and that nobody ever really claimed to be infallible and when disputes arose, a Council was called to resolve it, with Peter heading the council.

IDK. I sound very…Orthodox, don’t I?

I’m interested to see what both Catholics and non-Catholics have to say on the issue.

Perhaps friend, it’s because your looking in the right book; but the wrong place

May I SUGGEST you CAREFULLY READ THESE VERSES slowly and outloud to youeself…? In the sequence given.

1. Mt. 16:15-19 [especially verse 19]
2. Mt. 18:18 where his is also passed unto the other apostles
3. Mt. 28:19-20 [could not be accomplises without the power of Infallibility]
4. John 14: 16-17 [notice “for all time”]
5. John 17: 14-19 [notive again in prticular verse 19]. ONLY th CC has this promise and commitment from Jesus Himself.

Then consider NOT everything the CC is Teaching, or for that matter needs to be an '“Infallible” MANDATE to make it OBLIGATORY on ALL of us. ONLY, without out exception all ISSUES thouching on the topics of FAITH and or Morals have, even if NOT articulated with expressed “Infallibility” MUST ALWAYS BE OBEYED.

Love and prayers,
Pat

Canons 747 to 754

 

[joe370]

Hey Schaick…

joe370-

Does it matter whether a person believes it is Jesus or Mary who is the Ark? Isn’t the important thing the Blood of the New Covenant. What did Jesus teach on the issue?

I agree with you; the important thing is the Blood of the New Covenant.

Show me that Jesus, the Disciples, Apostles taught what the Catholic Church teaches about Mary. Am I not allowed to attend a branch of Jesus’ Church that doesn’t speak of these things? What would you as a catholic have me do?

Well, I respectfully say: I don’t have to, for the simple fact that I am not a sola scriptura advocate. I embrace the tradition of the CC as well. You, however, are a sola scritpura advocate, and if I remember correctly, you reject sacred tradition, so therefore, the word branch, as a reference to Jesus’ church must be found some where in sacred scripture, to be believed. However, if you want to call Jesus’ church a branch, that’s cool.

The Creed is completely Scriptural, GOD’s Word.

There was splintering when Jesus was first describing eating HIS flesh in John 6:66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
The early Christians taught the same thing that the Catholic Church teaches today about Mary, including her being the Ark of the New Covenant.

Agreed.

joe370 you can read the the spurious Gospels and Apocrypha for yourself and see that it should not be considered inspired Scripture from GOD.

Agreed.

What the Catholic Church did that must be given full recognition was securing, preserving, saving and protecting Scripture from destruction.

Schaick, seven books, without doubt, were doubted as to their authenticity, in certain parts for the first 300 ears of Christianity, and the CC, without doubt, decided that these seven books were to be part of the canon of scripture. This I learned long ago as a former non-Catholic, and yes, I agree with you regarding the following:

“What the Catholic Church did that must be given full recognition was securing, preserving, saving and protecting Scripture from destruction.”

If the CC got it wrong about other things, a claim made by many, then how can we know for sure that the CC preserved scripture? How can we be certain that the book of Revelation or Hebrews are in fact the genuine word of God, considering the fact that they were rejected early on by some ECF’s? Some ECF’s didn’t think they should be read.

Eusebius saysin Ecclesiastical History 3.25.1-7:

“Among the spurious books must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the Shepherd, as it is called, and the Apocalypse of Peter; and, in addition to these, the extant Epistle of Barnabas, and the Teaching of the Apostles [Didache] , as it is called. And, in addition, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seems right. (**This last as I said, is rejected by some, but others count it among the recognized books.) And among these some have counted also the Gospel of the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews who have accepted Christ take a special pleasure.” **

In th end, the CC, as a council, settled the matter, and it did not happen quickly or at one convocation.

joe370 said- Not such a good answer. Who, in the end, decides when something is taken out of context? Who has the authority to decide when it has an agenda separate from that of the author? I know it is not you or me.

So you want an interpertation that doesn’t point to Jesus?

Of course not. Jesus is no longer here to settle disputes and interpret the bible for us. Schaick, who was entrusted with the authority to interpret the bible and settle differences, such as ours, when the bible is of no help in settling our differences?

I am always so surprised by this. Didn’t Catholics learn interpretation in Junior High? We actually had a session in public High School interpreting an Old Testament Book. The teacher and school made sure parents understood that this was simply a teaching of how to interprete what the “author” was intending to pass on to us-no evangelizing took place.

That makes no sense to me. No evangelizing took place??? Evangelizing means to preach the gospel to others. Who is preaching truth and who is not? You and I agree regarding the Eucharist but many think that we are wrong, Again, who, through the guidance of the holy spirit, was entrusted with the authority to interpret the bible and settle differences, in a world where there is so much division vis-a-vis Christianity, such as Eucharistic division, when the bible is of no help in settling our differences?