It's NOT in the Bible, okay?

[Philthy]

I guess this is where Catholics derive the necessary ambiguities for the defense of their beliefs, all the while decrying the “ambiguities” that they claim others create.

I was not creating ambiguity IMHO, I was attempting to be clear.

You’re right, Philthy, words do have to be carefully chosen. But thoughts that are promulgated must be carefully chosen as well. In this subject (as with all controversies), “ambiguities” are nothing more than deliberately created obfuscations to detract from the main point of the debate.

I give you my word that I have not, am not now, nor will I ever “deliberately create obfuscations” to detract from the main point of the debate.

In this specific retort by JacobG, he obviously did not hold to the oft-stated claim by Catholics that it was the organized Catholic Church which was responsible for the cannonization of Scripture.

That much was obvious.

JacobG has proffered some interesting facts to support his contention that it was not the official Catholic Church meeting at the Council of Hippo, but an aggregation of North African Pastors.You’ve created a red herring by ignoring this fact, and instead focusing in on his use of the term “RCC.”

Perhaps I overlooked JacobG actually articulating “his contention” as you call it, or perhaps you deduced that “contention”? I think you honestly look at it you will see why I addressed the CC vs RCC issue. Here is what he said:

The RCC accomplished this gathering and enclosing?? …The RCC did not decide canonicity. You really need to do the research and not mere mimic what someone told you. All the scriptures that comprise the NT were already written and made available by the apostles and other NT writers before the RCC ever existed. Although the RCC declares the scriptures were officially canonized at the Council of Hippo in 390 AD, there are some problems with this.
First, who ever said the Council of Hippo was a Roman Catholic council. It consisted only of North African pastors. Rome had nothing to do with it.

Perhaps I overemphasized the “Rome” aspect of his comments, but saying that “Rome had nothing to do with it” is very different than saying the "Catholic Church had nothing to do with it. Is that really being nitpicky on my part?
And just so we are clear, are both of you claiming that the “North African pastors” who met at the Council of Hippo were not actually members of the Catholic Church?
It is not clear to me from the comments made.

Secondly, in the proceedings of the Council of Hippo, the bishops did not once mention in their proceedings that they were “officially” declaring the canon for the RCC and the world. That official declaration was made at the Council of Trent which was around 1545.

This point probably has less significance than it appears. What is significant is that they met and recognized the need to establish a canon; and that the canon they established was the same as other councils of Catholic Bishops; and that the canon was the same as the one dogmatically declared at Trent; and that it is different than your non-Catholic canon. Those are substantially more important points IMHO.

I suppose that you can say that by default, all Christians were “catholic”, but this is assuming that all Christians understood the present day conflict between Protestants and Catholics - that is clearly not the case.

The “assumption” that they were Catholic has nothing whatsoever to do with understanding the present day conflict between Catholics and Protestants - Im not even sure what he means by that statement. How could they possibly have understood something that had not yet happened?

Today’s Catholic Church is not the same Catholic Church of the 1st century, because it has morphed into a completely different entity. This is why the Reformers felt it necessary to break off from this alien concept of the Christian Church which Christ founded.

I disagree with the allegation that it has “morphed into a completely different entity” and I welcome your supporting information for such a bold claim. The Church has changed in some ways but remains the same in the necessary ways. The same can be said of the NT canon.

There was no other church other than the one that Jesus Christ founded. History shows that we referred to this church as the “Catholic” church because of the meaning of the word, “catholic” (UNIVERSAL), not because it describes the present day Catholic Church.

Im sure that you have a point to make here, but I dont think I get it. The Church of the first centuries is largely consistent with the Catholic Church of today. That seems like a topic for another thread, however.

Blessings!

 

[joe370]

RedBert, you said:

**so what would give a person authority to taech the Bible?
**

Jesus gave His established church Apostles the authority to teach to the ends of the earth. How were they to accomplish this feat upon their demise?

Sola scriptura clearly states that the bible, as opposed to any one person, is our one and only authority. The holy spirit was sent to all Christians on an individual basis, regardless of church affiliation, to guide them into all truth. All they have to do is defer to their one and only authority (the bible) - if they want the truth regarding any one doctrine, right?

Can there be only one truth regarding any one doctrine?

I must have missed where i claimed to be all knowing.
however i did say “I admit when I don’t know or am wrong”*

You didn’t, but you did claim that the CC’s interpretation of the bible is wrong, and you don’t have the authority to make that claim, if in fact the bible (as opposed to any one person or body of people) - is the Christians one and only authority!

**So right there is a perfect example of the frustration in debating on these site.
**

I guess you are right. Try debating on a protestant forum as I attempted to do a few months ago. Can you say CHAOS. Everyone brought something different to the table, and everyone agreed on just one thing; can you guess what that one thing was???

** Is being all knowing required to teach the Bible?**

What is not required, to teach the bible, as per sola scriptura, is the authority of any one person or church, including the CC; agreed?

**The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
**

You mean like: Catholics worshiping Mary…? I totally agree!!!

 

[joe370]

the CONTEXT was in reply to this quote:

• We all know that HONEST DISAGREEMENTS arise when different people read and interpret documents. Thats why we need a final arbiter.** Think about it! If the Bible were the final arbiter, why would there be so many Protestant denominations and conflicting theology? ***__________________

Pointing out their more UNITY in the essentials of Christian Doctrines (ex: the apostle’s Creed) in the pews of a Protestant Church vs a Catholic Church

Is it that hard to follow the context?

**So, the bible is NOT the Christians final arbiter? Who is the final arbiter, if not any one church, in the world today??? Is it Jesus, as our one and only mediator, via individual interpretation??? **

 

[RedBert]

RedBert, you said:

**so what would give a person authority to taech the Bible?
**

Jesus gave His established church Apostles the authority to teach to the ends of the earth. How were they to accomplish this feat upon their demise?

Sola scriptura clearly states that the bible, as opposed to any one person, is our one and only authority. The holy spirit was sent to all Christians on an individual basis, regardless of church affiliation, to guide them into all truth. All they have to do is defer to their one and only authority (the bible) - if they want the truth regarding any one doctrine, right?

Can there be only one truth regarding any one doctrine?

I must have missed where i claimed to be all knowing.
however i did say “I admit when I don’t know or am wrong”*

You didn’t, but you did claim that the CC’s interpretation of the bible is wrong, and you don’t have the authority to make that claim, if in fact the bible (as opposed to any one person or body of people) - is the Christians one and only authority!

**So right there is a perfect example of the frustration in debating on these site.
**

I guess you are right. Try debating on a protestant forum as I attempted to do a few months ago. Can you say CHAOS. Everyone brought something different to the table, and everyone agreed on just one thing; can you guess what that one thing was???

** Is being all knowing required to teach the Bible?**

What is not required, to teach the bible, as per sola scriptura, is the authority of any one person or church, including the CC; agreed?

**The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
**

You mean like: Catholics worshiping Mary…? I totally agree!!!

great now you know what a straw man argument is , lets look and see how mant times you just did this in a single post.

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.

 

[Philthy]

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.

At least now we know how you got your username!

 

[RedBert]

Not what…Who. Answer…Christ; through the instrument of His Church, specifically the anointed, SENT men, and their anointed SENT successors.

.

I thought i was part of His Church: by Church to you mean Catholic Church?

If yes: please clarify the following point:

Are you saying that only Catholics have the authority to teach a Bible lesson?

 

[RedBert]

**So, the bible is NOT the Christians final arbiter? Who is the final arbiter, if not any one church, in the world today??? Is it Jesus, as our one and only mediator, via individual interpretation??? **

Do you understand what the current Pope says in a speech or written declaration?
Or do you need an interpreter?

Do you understand what the first Pope said in a speech or a written declaration ?
Or do you need an interpreter?

Eventually , you have to decide what was meant? Either you are finding a meaning in the original or you finding a meaning in what an interpreter writes.

 

[Philthy]

Pointing out their more UNITY in the essentials of Christian Doctrines (ex: the apostle’s Creed) in the pews of a Protestant Church vs a Catholic Church. Is it that hard to follow the context?

Hi Red! Yes it was difficult for me to follow because I dont rely on some ridiculous poll to tell me that Protestant churches have conflicting doctrine all based on the fact that Scripture is incapable of being a final arbiter. And they are all filled with people that go to those churches believing - for the time being - what their pastors teach them. Have you ever read Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology? It’s a Protestant theological textbook that covers all the “essential” doctrine (from a Protestant perspective) of Christianity, and it is all derived exclusively from the Bible. It is very revealing because each doctrine has several viewpoints - often in direct, conflicting opposition - all arrived at from the “final arbiter”, Sacred Scripture. So I apologize if my knowledge of the facts regarding the diversity of theology among Protestant churches distracted me from your profound revelations based on limited polling of church members that dont actually speak for the churches they represent. It would be interesting if we had a “poll” from 500 years ago to see what the pewsters believed were the “essential” doctrines of Christianity and what they believed regarding those doctrines. My personal opinion is that much like the obvious shifting of sand that has occurred in Protestant churches, the same would be found in the pews.
And I of course recognize the problem that exists in the Catholic Church where many of the people in the pews simply do not hold the Catholic Faith. It is truly sad. But unlike Protestant churches, the Catholic Church has not altered its faith as a result of rejection by its members. This makes it’s continued existence even more remarkable…almost miraculous.

Blessings!

 

[Philthy]

Eventually , you have to decide what was meant? Either you are finding a meaning in the original or you finding a meaning in what an interpreter writes.

I think you miss the point that if a PERSON says something that you dont understand, you can INTERACT WITH THE PERSON to get an explanation; if a TEXT says something that you dont understand you CANNOT INTERACT WITH TEXT to get an explanation.
The Church, through the Magisterium can continually interact with the faithful to continually, more articulately and clearly define the faith and its application to our lives.
Scripture alone - especially with regard to Christian doctrine - simply does not do this. I do feel that, through prayer and by grace, one can gain insight into the application of Scripture to their personal lives, but that is a fundamentally different topic.

 

[atman]

I think you miss the point that if a PERSON says something that you dont understand, you can INTERACT WITH THE PERSON to get an explanation; if a TEXT says something that you dont understand you CANNOT INTERACT WITH TEXT to get an explanation.
The Church, through the Magisterium can continually interact with the faithful to continually, more articulately and clearly define the faith and its application to our lives.
Scripture alone - especially with regard to Christian doctrine - simply does not do this. I do feel that, through prayer and by grace, one can gain insight into the application of Scripture to their personal lives, but that is a fundamentally different topic.

Though I, too, am a Catholic and believe we need a Magisterium to fully and authoritatively interpret Scripture to guard against erroneous interpretation of Holy Writ, I don’t think you should try and prove this from “textual silence” in response to questions.

Really good books, like the Republic, Summa Theo., Confessions, Metaphysics, Inferno, etc. can answer questions. It takes time to learn, but good books are capable of answering responses to themselves. If Dante can manage this, why wouldn’t God be able to?

Rather than an argument from “textual silence,” I pose an argument from literary interpretation. Only a highly trained student of literary criticism can delve really deep into, say, the Aeneid without starting to contradict himself and fall into error, and probably only Virgil could explain the poem completely. Since Scripture is so much more refined, subtle, and meaningful than a merely human work, it requires an equally refined, subtle, and meaningful interpreter, God’s chosen Catholic Church.

 

[joe370]

PEPCIS, you said:

**I guess this is where Catholics derive the necessary ambiguities for the defense of their beliefs, all the while decrying the “ambiguities” that they claim others create.
**

Perhaps both are wrong; where would that leave us?

You’re right, Philthy, words do have to be carefully chosen. But thoughts that are promulgated must be carefully chosen as well. In this subject (as with all controversies), “ambiguities” are nothing more than deliberately created obfuscations to detract from the main point of the debate.

You mean like: Catholics worship Mary or, Catholics are guilty of Eucharistic idolatry, and have been, for almost 2000 years? These trumped up specious claims of the myriad PC’s are NOT in the Bible or the CCC, okay, so why believe them, if in fact you do???

**In this specific retort by JacobG, he obviously did not hold to the oft-stated claim by Catholics that it was the organized Catholic Church which was responsible for the cannonization of Scripture.
**

**Perhaps it was one of the PC’s in the world today…? Which one? Was it my former Lutheran church or the Baptist church? **

JacobG has proffered some interesting facts to support his contention that it was not the official Catholic Church meeting at the Council of Hippo, but an aggregation of North African Pastors. You’ve created a red herring by ignoring this fact, and instead focusing in on his use of the term "RCC."

Let us assume that he is right. To which church did this aggregation of North African Pastors belong? Here is the Protestant mantra: the Bible is inspired and has authority, not because the CC, or any church for that matter, declared it so, but because God made it so. God delivered it by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and declared that the HS 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 CC is wrong, 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 alone.

Do you agree with this declaration?

Was the RCC council of Hippo in 390 A.D., the same church which is known as the Roman Catholic Church, today?

Do you believe, as I once did, as a former Lutheran, that the 27 New Testament books were defined, bound and codified in their present form at the close of the apostolic age?

Do you believe that the teachings in the bible correspond to the teachings of the myriad PC’s? If so, which one?

Do you believe that the Catholic Church is not the original and true church, but a “church born of many departures and corruptions from the New Testament church?”

Do you believe that the infallible word of God was given to the world by fallible humans, guided by the holy spirit in perpetuity, who penned the words of the bible and safeguarded the bible, until the bible was finally codified by fallible successors?

Do you believe that the Bible is inspired, and has authority, not because a church declared it so, but because God made it so?

Do you believe that God DID NOT give church leadership the authority to select His sacred books?

Do you believe that the CC is not following the teachings of the Bible, today? If so, perhaps you could identify the church that is?

Do you agree with the following:

Choosing the canon that makes up the Bible was not an easy thing. Accounts in Scripture hint at the early church problems, debates, and different interpretations:

James 4:1
1 Timothy 6:3-4
2 Peter 2
2 John 2
Jude 4
Jude 8

Canonization (selection of which books were put in the Bible) was a process that went through several stages and took many centuries. These stages were not separate but sometimes overlapped:

• • Composition (manuscripts were written either as a recording of oral stories and teachings or as original documents)

* Community (manuscripts were read, circulated, and revised within the religious communities)
* Criteria (certain manuscripts became accepted as authoritative scripture within the religious communities-- different groups accepted different scriptures)
* Collection (scriptures were gathered together in single scrolls, codices, and later in books-- the physical manner of collecting scriptures also had an influence on canonical decisions)
* Canon (a defined group of scriptures in a single collection became accepted by a certain religious community as The Bible-- different groups chose different canons for the first 300 years of Christianity)

Continued…

 

[joe370]

**I suppose that you can say that by default, all Christians were “catholic”, but this is assuming that all Christians understood the present day conflict between Protestants and Catholic - that is clearly not the case.
**

Furthermore, no Protestant would ever call themselves Catholics. Test it! They will say something like: I am a Christian not a Catholic, as if they are 2 different things.

**Today’s Catholic Church is not the same Catholic Church of the 1st century, because it has morphed into a completely different entity.

**
You do not have the authority to make that call; as a Protestant, the bible is your one and only authority, and nowhere in the bible does it say that the Catholic Church is not the same Catholic Church of the 1st century, because it has morphed into a completely different entity. I could say the same thing about the Baptist church, but I won’t.

This is why the Reformers felt it necessary to break off from this alien concept of the Christian Church which Christ founded.

…And form the multifarious maelstrom we see today in the protestant world. Which PC in the world today, did, what Christ could NOT do, by breaking off from this alien concept of the Christian Church which Christ founded?

**There was no other church other than the one that Jesus Christ founded. **

Help me find this one church in the world today, built by Jesus Christ on the foundation of the Apostles, on Pentecost, as opposed to all the man-made churches, stemming from the reputed apostate RCC??? Is it the Baptist church?

**History shows that we referred to this church as the “Catholic” church because of the meaning of the word, “catholic” (UNIVERSAL), not because it describes the present day Catholic Church.
**

History shows that we refer to Jesus’ one church as Catholic because the CC is the only church that existed since Pentecost which has ventured out to the ends of the earth, and she was called Catholic by the turn of the 1st century for practical reasons. Many heretical movements were claiming to be the true Christian church, so the true Christian church adopted the name Catholic to establish a clear line of demarcation.

 

[joe370]

Do you understand what the current Pope says in a speech or written declaration?
Or do you need an interpreter?

Do you understand what the first Pope said in a speech or a written declaration ?
Or do you need an interpreter?

Eventually , you have to decide what was meant? Either you are finding a meaning in the original or you finding a meaning in what an interpreter writes.

Yes, no, yes, and no…Is it the bible that helps us decide what is to be believed and how to interpret said belief??

How does the following statement not apply to you:

Either you are finding a meaning in the original or you are finding a meaning in what an interpreter (such as yourself) - says or writes.

Again, So, the bible is NOT the Christians final arbiter? Who is the final arbiter, if not any one church, in the world today??? Is it Jesus, as our one and only mediator, via individual interpretation???

 

[ncgolf]

Only a highly trained student of literary criticism can delve really deep into, say, the Aeneid without starting to contradict himself and fall into error, and probably only Virgil could explain the poem completely.

I agree … the whole basis of understanding the Bible is to understand what the author truly intended.

Virgil would be the absolute best in understanding Virgil’s poetry but since the author is gone we depend on scholars to delve into this and to pass on their years of study of the man and his works. I could read Virgil till the earth ends and miss key parts of the author’s intentions … we use respected and trusted scholars on the subject.

Why not the written word of God also … why not find trusted authorities and study in light of these trusted sources.

Given the wide range of literary styles in the Bible … this is no small task. Given the wide range of beliefs extracted from this one Book, common sense says there are interpretations and practices the original authors did not intend.

So, IMO, two possibilities exist … one where the truth is absolute and correct or two … all have some truth and some error. I don’t know why anyone would settle for #2 or reason that God would leave something like that.

 

[joe370]

RedBert;5967254]great now you know what a straw man argument is , lets look and see how mant times you just did this in a single post.

**OK…
**

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue.

**Agreed! I am guilty of asking off topic questions, as you are, but it certainly seems harmless enough to answer them, as I have answered yours. Everything I have said, ultimately, has to do with: “It’s NOT in the Bible, okay?”
**

The basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.

**Do you think that that is my objective? OK…Since you refuse to answer a question unless the question is: It’s NOT in the Bible, okay? - then let me ask you this:

Nowhere in the bible does it tell us to celebrate/commemorate Jesus’ birth or resurrection, so why does the Baptist church commemorate Jesus’ birth and resurrection once a year? It’s NOT in the Bible, okay? **

 

[RedBert]

Nowhere in the bible does it tell us to celebrate/commemorate Jesus’ birth or resurrection, so why does the Baptist church commemorate Jesus’ birth and resurrection once a year? It’s NOT in the Bible, okay? <<

…is a straw man argument:

The point is :

The celebration of the birth and resurrection of Jesus does NOT contradict what is the Bible…

I believe St. Thomas went to India (not in the Bible , so what, it doesn’t contradict the Bible)

Maybe Mary was assumed into Heaven (not in the Bible , so what, it doesn’t contradict the Bible)

We’ve been through this already: Sola Sciptura does NOT claim everything there is to know is in the Bible.

 

[RedBert]

…Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology? It’s a Protestant theological textbook that covers all the “essential” doctrine (from a Protestant perspective) of Christianity, and it is all derived exclusively from the Bible. It is very revealing because each doctrine has several viewpoints - often in direct, conflicting opposition - all arrived at from the “final arbiter”, Sacred Scripture.

While I have not read that specific book : I do seek out different opinions and can at least understand either side of most debates

I have read (and studied) the Bible , and I can see how others can reach a conclusion different than mine on many doctrines.

But it would be one thing to say I don’t agree with someone’s view and I quite another to say " I have …yet to find anything that supports this idea" …And that is what the OP claimed.

While I have not read that specific book : I do seek out different options and can understand either side of most debates

I have read (and studied) the Bible , and I can see how others can reach a conclusion different than mine on many doctrines.

But it would be one thing to say I don’t agree with someone’s view and I quite another to say " I have …yet to find anything that supports this idea" …And that is what the OP claimed.

I find it somewhat disingenuous to state “I have read the Bible (all 73 books of it!) many times and have yet to find anything that supports this idea”

 

[joe370]

Nowhere in the bible does it tell us to celebrate/commemorate Jesus’ birth or resurrection, so why does the Baptist church commemorate Jesus’ birth and resurrection once a year? It’s NOT in the Bible, okay? <<

Maybe Mary was assumed into Heaven (not in the Bible , so what, it doesn’t contradict the Bible)

**Maybe we are getting somewhere. It doesn’t have to be in the bible; it just can’t contradict the bible? **

We’ve been through this already: Sola Sciptura does NOT claim everything there is to know is in the Bible.

I apologize; I think I got you confused with Yankee. Your church does not, but most do. If everything there is to know is NOT found in the Bible, then where else can one look? Forgive me if I have already asked this question, for I do not remember your answer.

 

[joe370]

Ncgolf, you said:

So, IMO, two possibilities exist … one where the truth is absolute and correct or two … all have some truth and some error. I don’t know why anyone would settle for #2 or reason that God would leave something like that.

That is one of the reasons why I became a Catholic. God left us a teaching church, (not the bible) - with fallible teachers such as Peter, John, Luke, Mark, Timothy and Titus, and their successors, and so on, and Jesus’ church, built circa 33 AD was/is guided by the infallible holy spirit, until the end of time. The key for me was finding that incipient church built by Jesus, on Pentecost.

 

[qui_est_ce]

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?”

Redbert:

oo funny : if you didn’t know : Protestants look at that verse and see Catholics as modern day Pharisees ( and the Nicolaitans from Revelation)

So who is correct and why?