Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
The Catholic Church teaches that many of Christ’s teachings were unwritten. This is called Tradition.
catechism:
- Status
catechism:
A
atman
Guest
The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes no claim, however, that oral Tradition contains some revelation lacking in Scripture. They preached, according to those who would advocate the material sufficiency of Scripture, the same Gospel by different methods. Oral Tradition, however, has the power to explain itself, which Scripture is lacking. Scripture, conversely, is evidently immutable and set.
T
twb1621
Guest
John CH16; 12 "I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. 13 5 But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.
14 He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. 15 Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.
The Holy Spirit will guide His Church and reveil that which will be passed to Him until Jesus’ return. Not all is in the written word.
R
RedBert
Guest
too funny : if you didn’t know : Protestants look at that verse and see Catholics as modern day Pharisees ( and the Nicolaitans from Revelation)
and yes I have been broken by God; i have pounded on my chest knowing what a sinner I am: And that is why I can boldly claim now that I am justified , born again and assured of heaven:
I am called to share God’s Word: i do NOT need the approval of man
P
Philthy
Guest
Here’s my quote, please do your level best to deal specifically with what I said, OK? I choose my words very carefully to be explicit in my communication. Here’s what I said:
Using the term RCC when discussing canonicity introduces unnecessary ambiguities - the term Catholic Church is more accurate and appropriate. The term RCC did appear until the 16th century - it is another invention of the Reformation.
I have done research. Research of a historical nature necessitates the regurgitation of what “someone told you” unless, of course, you have some novel understanding of historical research. I get your point, however, that I shouldn’t listen uncritically to the opinions of others. You happen to fall into the category of people I dont accept without critical evaluation. So lets see the info and sources that you have to validate your claims, OK?
I am of the opinion that the Catholic Church existed from the beginning, so we have a fundamental disagreement there. There is solid historical support for my position from the ECFs, and from Acts of Apostles.
However many “problems” you have with the Catholic Church’s version of events the fundamental problem with your position is that apart from the Catholic Church there is no one ever declaring authoritatively what the canon of Scripture is. It’s quite simple really - you need to remove the plank from your eye to see that you simply accept the canon because of “what someone told you” - the very method you denounced earlier.
All Christians that met for councils were Catholic in this point in history. If you doubt this, please suggest what other church they belonged to with evidence to support that claim. Wasnt St Augustine the Bishop of Hippo at the time? He was a Bishop in the Catholic Church. Your point is escaping me…
Please state your intended point in bringing up these alleged facts as it relates to the topic at hand - then we may have something to discuss. Its the foundation of debate and apologetics: state your conclusion and then state the inf
I dont know, he probably accepted the canon of Rome, Carthage and Hippo just like everyone else did until the Reformation. Do you have an alternate explanation??
More to the point however, is that all you continue to do is demonstrate that if we dont the canon from the Catholic Church, we truly do not have a canon of Scripture. That would be the plank in your eye, again IMHO. I expect you to react emotionally rather than rationally to that allegation. The one thing you will not do, however, is address the issue at hand and cite your source for the canon of Scripture. That much is crystal clear.
Again, state your point and please try to be accurate. I will hold you to what you say, not what intended to say and I expect the same from you - that is why I am careful to say exactly what I mean.
Again, I cannot read your mind. Please state the conclusion that you draw from the pieces of information offered above. Certainly one conclusion that is obvious to draw from the above info is that the Apostles had not decided what was and what was not Scripture and that some of what we now consider Scripture was not known to be Scripture. This conclusion is entirely consistent with a later date for the conclusive, universal establisment of the canon. It sounds like the Catholic version of events to me. If you are reaching other conclusions you had better state them.
Lastly, you ignored my question for the 3rd time regarding the Apostles being infallible in proclaiming and writing Scripture. Why is that?
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Red, can you answer the following please?
To which Church did Pope St. Damasius I belong?
To which Church did Pope St. Damasius I belong?
- To which Church did St. Augustine belong when he said "“I would not believe the Gospel unless moved thereto by the Church.”
- St. Augustine of Hippo
- Who told St Jerome which books to put in the Bible?
- Which books made up the Canon of the Bible until 1520?
- To which Church did Martin Luther refer when he wrote, "Accordingly, we concede to the papacy that they sit in the true Church, possessing the office instituted by Christ and inherited from the apostles, to teach, baptize, administer the sacrament, absolve, ordain, etc., "
- To which Church did Martin Luther refer when he wrote:
“We concede – as we must – that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have Horeceived ly Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?”
So who is correct and why?
P
Philthy
Guest
You’ll get an honest answer to this question because RedBert and JacobG have no answer to it. Instead of actually answering the question, they will pretend to be great students of history and produce all sorts of detailed historical information as to why it CANT be the Catholic Church, rather than answering that most simple question. But you will never get an honest answer to how they know the canon of Scripture - they will, when pressed, begin to evade using bogus verses like “My sheep hear my voice”. Part of me feels sorry for them even though I also experience anger in dealing with the evasiveness that they will demonstrate in dealing with the issue. I havent read past this post yet, but I have been around long enough to know that we never get an answer to that simple question - just excuses.
P
Philthy
Guest
P
Philthy
Guest
You asked which Apostle - if you wanted to know WHERE an Apostle ever said…, then you should have been more explicit. 2Thess 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
There are others as well…
P
Philthy
Guest
R
RedBert
Guest
You don’t like the simple answer:
You don’t like the copy n paste with detailed answers
You label any other views as lies:
If you really “need” to know you can google “did the catholic church give us the bible”
as well has any one else.
Here where the rub is: you can’t deal with evangelical , fundamental Christians who found salvation outside of your Catholic Church.
The main point I’m making is that there are millions who declare Christ as their LORD and Savior and absolutely reject the “unique” doctrines of Catholics: and that doesn’t make any sense to you.
Poll after poll shows that church going Protestants are more likely than church going Catholics to believe int essentials of the faith , such a Jesus is Son of God , born of Virgin and rose from the dead.
Poll after poll shows that church going Protestants are more likely than church going Catholics to be INTOLARENT of abortion , divorce, or adultery.
Poll after poll Catholics routinely reject the of Doctrine Papal infallibility or transubstantiation and you are critical if some Protestants disagree on infant vs believers baptisms.
Are different beliefs under one roof really more acceptable than different beliefs under different roofs?
R
RedBert
Guest
First of all, the Roman Catholic Church was not really in effect as an organization in the first couple hundred years of the Christian Church. The Christian church was under persecution and official church gatherings were risky business in the Roman Empire. Catholicism as an organization with a central figure located in Rome did not occur for quite some time, in spite of its claim they can trace the papacy back to Peter.
Second, the Christian Church recognized what was Scripture. It did not establish it. This is a very important point. The Christian Church recognizes what God has inspired and pronounces that recognition. In other words, it discovers what is already authentic. Jesus said “my sheep hear my voice and they follow me…” (John 10:27). The church hears the voice of Christ; that is, it recognizes what is inspired and it follows the word. It does not add to it as the Roman Catholic Church has done. Therefore, it is not following the voice of Christ.
Third, the Roman Catholic Church did not give us the Old Testament which is the Scripture to which Christ and the apostles appealed. If the Roman Catholic Church wants to state that it gave us the Bible, how can they claim to have given us the Old Testament which is part of the Bible? It didn’t, so it cannot make that claim. The fact is that the followers of God, the true followers of God, recognize what is and is not inspired. The Jews knew what was inspired of God and they recognized what God had inspired. That is what those who are of God do.
Fourth, when the apostles wrote the New Testament documents they were inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit. There wasn’t any real issue of whether or not they were authentic. Their writings did not need to be deemed worthy of inclusion in the Canon of Scripture by a later group of men in the so-called Roman Catholic Church. To make such a claim is, in effect, to usurp the natural power and authority of God himself.
Fifth, the Scripture says, “But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God,” (2 Pet. 1:20-21). The Bible tells us that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the very nature of the inspired documents is that they carry power and authenticity in themselves. They are not given the power or the authenticity of ecclesiastical declaration.
Conclusion
The Christian church merely recognizes the Word of God (John 10:27). The authenticity of the New Testament documents rests in the inspiration of God through the apostles. It does not rest in the declaration of the Catholic Church. This is very important. The Christian Church recognizes what God has ordained through his sovereign inspiration to be the word of God. When the Catholic Church claims that it is the source of the sacred Scriptures, it is, in effect, placing itself above the word of God. It needs to repent.
carm.org
Second, the Christian Church recognized what was Scripture. It did not establish it. This is a very important point. The Christian Church recognizes what God has inspired and pronounces that recognition. In other words, it discovers what is already authentic. Jesus said “my sheep hear my voice and they follow me…” (John 10:27). The church hears the voice of Christ; that is, it recognizes what is inspired and it follows the word. It does not add to it as the Roman Catholic Church has done. Therefore, it is not following the voice of Christ.
Third, the Roman Catholic Church did not give us the Old Testament which is the Scripture to which Christ and the apostles appealed. If the Roman Catholic Church wants to state that it gave us the Bible, how can they claim to have given us the Old Testament which is part of the Bible? It didn’t, so it cannot make that claim. The fact is that the followers of God, the true followers of God, recognize what is and is not inspired. The Jews knew what was inspired of God and they recognized what God had inspired. That is what those who are of God do.
Fourth, when the apostles wrote the New Testament documents they were inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit. There wasn’t any real issue of whether or not they were authentic. Their writings did not need to be deemed worthy of inclusion in the Canon of Scripture by a later group of men in the so-called Roman Catholic Church. To make such a claim is, in effect, to usurp the natural power and authority of God himself.
Fifth, the Scripture says, “But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God,” (2 Pet. 1:20-21). The Bible tells us that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the very nature of the inspired documents is that they carry power and authenticity in themselves. They are not given the power or the authenticity of ecclesiastical declaration.
Conclusion
The Christian church merely recognizes the Word of God (John 10:27). The authenticity of the New Testament documents rests in the inspiration of God through the apostles. It does not rest in the declaration of the Catholic Church. This is very important. The Christian Church recognizes what God has ordained through his sovereign inspiration to be the word of God. When the Catholic Church claims that it is the source of the sacred Scriptures, it is, in effect, placing itself above the word of God. It needs to repent.
carm.org
R
RedBert
Guest
R
RedBert
Guest
D
Des
Guest
J
JacobG
Guest
Where are those unwritten traditions?
J
JacobG
Guest
From Philthy
The Book of Acts resembles nothing like your church today with it powerfully wealthy hierarchical monarchical rule.The Councils of Hippo and Carthage were provincial councils, not ecumenical and did not have ecumenical authority. They did not establish the canon for the Church as a whole. The New Catholic Encyclopedia actually affirms the fact that the Canon was not officially and authoritatively established for the Western Church until the Council of Trent.
The NT books were read and distributed as Scripture for over 300 years by individual Christians and churches long before church councils claimed to give us the Bible. Athanasius, who fought to preserve the Trinity in the council of Nicea in 325 Ad. when the Church was being challenged had all 27 books of the New Testament. When Athanasius argued in his debate against Arius he used much of the NT and quoted from nearly every book. He said they were the springs of salvation; do not add nor take away.
Almost 40 years later the council of Laodicea in 363 A.D. decreed that only canonized books of the old and new Testament were to be read in the Church’s. None of the councils made any list of what is in or out, the reason being that the majority of the church had accepted and used these books for many years before them.
Are we to accept the premise that 300 years passed with confusion and we waited for the RCC to decide in 397 A.D. what was to be our Scripture? Generations would have come and gone not having the whole Bible. The truth is that we can produce almost the entire Bible we have today from the early church writings in the mid 100’s to 200’s.
In 397 Ad. the council of Carthage put their approval on the canon that was already read by and throughout the church. It then became a fixed canon for the western church as it was for the eastern.
It was the people in the church, not a council who determined whether it was authoritative- did it come as thus saith the Lord? Did they recognize God’s voice in it? Did it have the life transforming power of God when it was applied?
Catholics claim that one can accept the Bible as being inspired and as having authority only on the basis of their church. In reality, the Bible is inspired and has authority, not because a church declared it so, but because God made it so. God delivered it by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and declared that it would abide forever. “All scripture is inspired of God…” (2 Tim. 3:16). “…Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Pet. 1:21). “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” (Matt. 24:35). “The grass withered, and the flower has fallen–but the word of the Lord endures forever.” (1 Pet. 1:24-25). The Catholics are wrong, therefore, in their assumption that the Bible is authoritative only because of the Catholic Church. The Bible does not owe its existence to the Catholic Church, but to the authority, power and providence of God.
.
The Book of Acts resembles nothing like your church today with it powerfully wealthy hierarchical monarchical rule.The Councils of Hippo and Carthage were provincial councils, not ecumenical and did not have ecumenical authority. They did not establish the canon for the Church as a whole. The New Catholic Encyclopedia actually affirms the fact that the Canon was not officially and authoritatively established for the Western Church until the Council of Trent.
The NT books were read and distributed as Scripture for over 300 years by individual Christians and churches long before church councils claimed to give us the Bible. Athanasius, who fought to preserve the Trinity in the council of Nicea in 325 Ad. when the Church was being challenged had all 27 books of the New Testament. When Athanasius argued in his debate against Arius he used much of the NT and quoted from nearly every book. He said they were the springs of salvation; do not add nor take away.
Almost 40 years later the council of Laodicea in 363 A.D. decreed that only canonized books of the old and new Testament were to be read in the Church’s. None of the councils made any list of what is in or out, the reason being that the majority of the church had accepted and used these books for many years before them.
Are we to accept the premise that 300 years passed with confusion and we waited for the RCC to decide in 397 A.D. what was to be our Scripture? Generations would have come and gone not having the whole Bible. The truth is that we can produce almost the entire Bible we have today from the early church writings in the mid 100’s to 200’s.
In 397 Ad. the council of Carthage put their approval on the canon that was already read by and throughout the church. It then became a fixed canon for the western church as it was for the eastern.
It was the people in the church, not a council who determined whether it was authoritative- did it come as thus saith the Lord? Did they recognize God’s voice in it? Did it have the life transforming power of God when it was applied?
Catholics claim that one can accept the Bible as being inspired and as having authority only on the basis of their church. In reality, the Bible is inspired and has authority, not because a church declared it so, but because God made it so. God delivered it by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and declared that it would abide forever. “All scripture is inspired of God…” (2 Tim. 3:16). “…Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Pet. 1:21). “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” (Matt. 24:35). “The grass withered, and the flower has fallen–but the word of the Lord endures forever.” (1 Pet. 1:24-25). The Catholics are wrong, therefore, in their assumption that the Bible is authoritative only because of the Catholic Church. The Bible does not owe its existence to the Catholic Church, but to the authority, power and providence of God.
I answered it as clearly and precisely as I could. I guess it went over your head…
I
Ignatius
Guest
Brother atman, we must remember that what we now have as the New Testament Scripture existed only as Sacred Oral Tradition for a couple of generations, passed on by word of mouth by The Catholic Church before the first began to be written around A.D. 50 or so. The earliest is the first Epistle of St. Paul to the Thessalonians around A.D. 50. Not only that, but the matter of the list of which books and letters are New Testament Scripture never was declared as Scripture and is not contained in the Bible itself, but a matter of Sacred Tradition. So, without Sacred Tradition, we wouldn’t even have the Canon of which books are to be included in the New Testament as God breathed Holy Scripture.
L
Lampo
Guest
“I do not judge myself. I am not aware of anything against myself, but that does not mean I am acquitted. It is the Lord Who judges me.” - 1 Cor. 4:3-4
- Status