James White Debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter fulloftruth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
c0achmcguirk:
But the Pope is Infallible!

Now herein lies the rub. A Roman Catholic has absolutely no problem accepting that the Pope is infallible when speaking on matters of faith and morals, yet when asked to show how they know this infallibly they respond with silence.

If you say that the Protestant must have an infallible list of books in order to say that the Bible is infallible, you’d better be prepared to provide an infallible list of Popes in order to say that the Pope is infallible.

God bless,
c0ach
We don’t all respond with silence.

Infallibility is a negative protection given by Christ Himself as recorded in Scripture. It will prevent the Pope from declaring “new” truth, or from abusing his position to declare error in matters of faith and morals as doctrine.

Think of the verse “…and whatever you shall bind…,”

A better, and more correct understanding is this:

All Truth has existed for all time. Jesus is Truth. Jesus is in heaven. All truth is in heaven…

now; “and whatever you shall bind on earth has been bound in heaven, and what ever you shall loose on earth has been loosed in heaven…”

The gates of hell will not prevail.

I “give you the keys to kingdom of heaven…”

Each of these verses in the NT fullfill the OT - See Isaah 20-22 for an understanding of the significance of the office of the prime minister, and the keys given him by the king. Then go to Matthew 16 to see it fullfilled.

All popes, by virtue of their office (“let another his office fill”) have the gift of infallibility, but very few have clarified a doctrine as protected by this gift of the Holy Spirit.

Sorry, but no other faith community has it.

MrS
 
If, when the Canon was assembled, all of the apostles were dead, and Christ was in heaven, who or what was used infallibly to determine what was inspired and what was not. Since they did not use Scripture to assemble the list of Canon, doesn’t that kind of prove that scripture is not the only infallable authority. If that does not prove that to you, then when, and you must prove this from scripture, did the authority cease to be authoritative and when did Scripture become the only infallible rule of faith, and not the Church that assembled and Promulgated it.
“Let’s all calm down about the 'ol Jesus and the Apostles didn’t practice sola Scriptura so therefore SS is false argument. This is not a valid argument, and those who understand SS properly don’t use the argument. Why? Did the Apostles or Jesus recognize Papal Infallibility? Using the same logic you undermine your own position. One shouldn’t use arguments that refute your own position.”
Jesus did recognize Papal infallibility, he instituted it. When Jesus stated in Matt 16:18-19, that Peter would be given the “keys to the Kingdom,” He was pulling from the text of Isaiah 22:20-24 almost verbatum.“And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias; And I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And I will lay the **key of the house of David **upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a peg in a sure place, and he shall be for a throne of glory to the house of his father. And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father’s house, divers kinds of vessels, every little vessel, from the vessels of cups even to every instrument of music.”

The Catholic Church teaches that Christ was re-instituting the office of Prime Minister. Since Christ is called The Son of David in the same Book of Matthew, and he came to fullfill the ancient Kingdom of David and to transform it into the Heavenly Kingdom, He uses the old model of the Kingdom of David as the basis for the structure of the new Kingdom. The word Pope is the Italian word for Papa, which simply means that the Pope is like a Father to the Inhabitants of the New Heavenly Jerusalem, which is the Church(see Rev 21). Also, the office of Prime Minister lasted for the entire duration of the Kingdom of David, always appointing a successor when needed, and that successor had the same authority as the person he replaced, it is the office that holds the authority, and that authority is held by who ever holds that office. All of the apostles would have known what scripture Christ was qouting, and would know,when the Spirit came on Pentecost, what he meant. Quite simply put, it was Christ himself that set up the office of Pope and gave it a share of the authority that was given to him from the Father. To ensure that the Great Commission could be carried out, He had to leave us with an authority that could lead us into all truth and steer us away from heresy. Making disciples of all nations could not have been done in one generation. This authority in no way means that every Pope will be even remotley Christ Like. It simply gaurantees the faithful that Christ is with us always even to the end of the age and that He did not leave us with God breathed Scripture, He left us with a Church, which he said He would build, and that Church gave us God Breathed Scripture, and continues to make disciples of all nations until He comes again.
 
“This is for everyone to check out. If you are Catholic and Know your stuff, then I would ask you to listen to the arguments of White several times, like 6-8 times…”

This was a great debate, very lively and energetic. However, it seems to me in this context, no one really changes their mind as a result of this kind of a debate. I do agree with you that Staples wins the argument, but I would bet that not one in the audience changed their position.

Newby
 
Newby you are so right, you really have to listen to Whites arguments several times to really see there errors. If you are Catholic and you do know your stuff, it is glaring. Where is the Coach. I wo.uld like to see his response to what I wrote above this message
 
To FullofTruth,

You are so right in your post about the “Keys”. I find it interesting in this apoligetic arena, that opponents of the Catholic Church look for every nuance in each verse to support what ever position that they want to take. When I debate with someone that is not Catholic, when they get to the verse they don’t understand, they go to their minister/Pope to get the proper interpretation.

Most Catholics look at the overall message being delivered to come to a conclusion. Of course we all have a zeal for our faith and want all to have salvation. I’ve come to learn, it is fun to debate and argue, but all we really can do is present our position and let the Holy Spirit prevail. We have done all we can.

I believe that whether you split hairs on verse after verse to make it say what you want it really comes down to a position of authority. Who has it? Would God leave us without a “way to know” what he wants us to know in the centuries after he revealed his truth? I think not, that is why the Keys, Rock and Church exist. This book, the bible we all love, is a VERY confusing read. We all know the basics…God loves us, Jesus died for our sins, and we have FREE WILL to accept him or not. He gives all the help time after time when we error, but he doesn’t leave us orphans. Who has the body of the “most truth”? It is protected in the Catholic Church from where the Canon came.

But is fun to debate and argue…just don’t expect to change peoples minds…only the Holy Spirit can accomplish that.

Bless you all
 
40.png
MrS:
Think of the verse “…and whatever you shall bind…,”
Well, if Matthew 18:18 was a promise of infallibility, then you are saying that all the Apostles were infallible, since that is who Jesus is talking to in Matthew 18 (cf MT 18:1).

Did Jesus promise infallibility to all the Apostles?

Where does the Bible teach that these keys were passed on to successors? The Bible teaches of no such thing.

Forgive me if I redirect us to the topic…that being that one needs an infallible canon (list of books) in order to have an infallible Bible.

Do you have an infallible list of Popes? If you say that I need an infallible canon to say that the Bible is infallible, then don’t you need an infallible list of Popes?

God bless,
c0ach
 
40.png
fulloftruth:
If, when the Canon was assembled, all of the apostles were dead, and Christ was in heaven, who or what was used infallibly to determine what was inspired and what was not. Since they did not use Scripture to assemble the list of Canon, doesn’t that kind of prove that scripture is not the only infallable authority.
If you read my previous posts you would know that I don’t claim the Church was infallible when she determined the Canon. It was a historical process that allowed for the possibility of error, even though I believe that there wasn’t error (as far as the New Testament is concerned 😃 )
If that does not prove that to you, then when, and you must prove this from scripture, did the authority cease to be authoritative and when did Scripture become the only infallible rule of faith, and not the Church that assembled and Promulgated it.
This is silly. I don’t have to prove to you the exact date and time that SS came into effect to prove SS true any more than you need to prove the exact day the Earth was created to prove God created the Earth. 🙂
Jesus did recognize Papal infallibility, he instituted it. When Jesus stated in Matt 16:18-19, that Peter would be given the “keys to the Kingdom,” He was pulling from the text of Isaiah 22:20-24 almost verbatum.
If this is true, Jesus would have corrected the Apostles who were arguing over who was the greatest among them in Matthew 18. But this is not the case. The Apostles certainly didn’t think Peter was their leader, nor the greatest among them as their disputes in Matthew 18 and Mark 9:33-37 show.

Can you name one single early church father that connected Isaiah 22 to Matthew 16?

Also,

If one needs an infallible canon (list of books) to say that the Bible is infallible, does one need an infallible list of Popes to say that the Papacy is infallible?

God bless,
c0ach
 
This is silly. I don’t have to prove to you the exact date and time that SS came into effect to prove SS true any more than you need to prove the exact day the Earth was created to prove God created the Earth. 🙂
You are right you don’t need a date, but a Scripture verse along the lines of “it’s all been written down now, disregard the parts where we said hold fast to tradition, **oral **or by letter”. (2 Thess 2:15). Otherwise, Scripture alone goes completely against Scripture that tells us to hold fast to BOTH, making no distinction between the two.
 
40.png
c0achmcguirk:
Well, if Matthew 18:18 was a promise of infallibility, then you are saying that all the Apostles were infallible, since that is who Jesus is talking to in Matthew 18 (cf MT 18:1).

Read the verses again. First Jesus gives this grace to St Peter alone, then later to the Apostles as a group, not individually. The Greek is translated singular you for Peter, and plural you for the Apostles.

So, yes the Pope is infallible, and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is infallible under the criteria required (declaring the statement as Truth, from the chair of Peter, etc)

Did Jesus promise infallibility to all the Apostles?

Where does the Bible teach that these keys were passed on to successors? The Bible teaches of no such thing.

Isaah 22-20

Forgive me if I redirect us to the topic…that being that one needs an infallible canon (list of books) in order to have an infallible Bible.

Only if your assumption is that there is no other Christ-given authoritative voice. Catholic say there is. There are three witnesses to the Truth…Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium … and none can contradict the other in matters of faith and morals and never have.

Do you have an infallible list of Popes? If you say that I need an infallible canon to say that the Bible is infallible, then don’t you need an infallible list of Popes?

You don’t need an infallible canon. You have the Church which has recognized what is inspired to do that work for you.

Again, all popes have the protection, or gift, or grace if you will, of infallibility. Matt 16:18 et al


God bless,
c0ach
Thanks for your dialogue, and God Bless

MrS
 
Dear Coach,

Rest assured, I will give you those references that you asked for - By the end of the week. Having to gather something with references is a bit more tedious than just typing away your thoughts.

For now, I just want to say that I think your comparison is a straw man. Someone had already pointed this out. Let me repeat it in other words:

The comparison between an infallible Scripture and an infallible Pope is a straw man because the Pope is not infallible in the same way that Scripture is infallible. Scripture is infallible INHERENTLY and POSTIVELY. There is not one single thing in Scripture that could be wrong. What is contained in it is exactly what God intended to have written down. Would you agree?
In distinction, the Pope is NOT infallible inherently nor positively. That is, the Pope does not possess in and of himself the charism of infallibility - it is a GIFT from God - and a charism that can be exercised only in very limited instances; and the protection of infallibility granted to the Pope is a negative protection against error.

Simply put, there is really no reason why the Pope needs to decree a list of infallible Popes, because it is not the Pope himself who is infallible. It is a charism of the OFFICE, not the person. Thus, if you want a list of infallible Popes, you will get none, at least not in the same sense of infallibility that obtains with Scripture. Once a Pope leaves the office, he is no longer protected by the gift of infallibility, unless it is in teaching in union with the next Pope. If you want a list of infallible Popes - “infallibility” for the Pope defined as Catholics understand it - then you can start with Peter and work all the way down to HH JP2.

So there- I have given you your list. EVERY Pope, by VIRTUE OF HIS OFFICE, has had the charism of infallibility.

Now, please be so kind as to provide for us an infallible list of books from Scripture.

Also, your analogy with having a thorough or complete knowledge of a computer in order to use it is again a straw man because you misundertand the issue. You don’t need to have a comprehensive knowledge of a computer in order to be order to use it, merely a sufficient knowledge. The problem here is that you yourself define biblical infallibility with BOTH sufficiency AND completeness in salvific knowledge. Now, if your complete and sufficient Scriptures do not give you a list of books, how do you know that the Scriptures are complete (and sufficient)? Yes, all Scirpture is God-breathed and profitable … But WHICH SCRIPTURES?

If you argue that one does not need an infallible list of infallible books, how do you know that all we currently possess contains everything God wanted for our salvation? You can only say that everything we need to know for our salvation is in these books IF one has a set of books that one knows FOR CERTAIN (i.e., infallibly) are all the books there are. But since the only infallible thing is Scripture, then Scripture must or should have an infallible list of these books.

You are constrained to believe that EVERYTHING you believe must be contained in these books. But if there is a possibility that there are other books out there, or that some books don’t actually belong (for that is what a notion of a FALLIBLE canon attests to), HOW DO YOU KNOW YOUR FAITH IS COMPLETE?
Either you must admit to extra-biblical material testimony for your belief, without which you would not know your faith is complete, or you must become an agnostic.

God bless,
Greg

God bless,
Greg
 
40.png
c0achmcguirk:
This is silly. I don’t have to prove to you the exact date and time that SS came into effect to prove SS true any more than you need to prove the exact day the Earth was created to prove God created the Earth. 🙂

Would you agree that is was at least 1500 years after the birth of the Church?

The Apostles certainly didn’t think Peter was their leader, nor the greatest among them as their disputes in Matthew 18 and Mark 9:33-37 show.

John did… he let Peter enter the tomb first, even though he (John)got there first.

**then there is: Lk 22:32, Jn 21:17, Mk 16:7, Lk 24:34, Acts 1: 13-26, Acts 2:14, Acts 2:41, Acts 3:6-7, Acts 5:1-11, Acts 8:21, Acts 10:44-46, Acts 15:7, Acts 15:19, Gal 1:18, **

**And how often are the Apostles mentioned as “Peter and the others…” ??? Mt 10:1-4, Mk 3:16-19, Lk 6: 14-16, Acts 1:13, Lk 9:32, Mk 16:7 **

and the 195 times Peter’s name occurs in Scripture - more than all the rest put together.

Can you name one single early church father that connected Isaiah 22 to Matthew 16?

Since the Holy Spirit leads the Church into all Truth, and since the Truth is eternal, and since the NT fulfills the OT… would you consider Peter and the Apostles as early Church Fathers??

Well can you name any Church Father who denied Infallibility. Or denied the verses that support it???


Also,

If one needs an infallible canon (list of books) to say that the Bible is infallible, does one need an infallible list of Popes to say that the Papacy is infallible?

we don’t need the list… we have the Church.

All Popes have the gift of infallibility, and the keys, and the position of Vicar of Christ…


God bless,
c0ach
 
40.png
MariaG:
You are right you don’t need a date, but a Scripture verse along the lines of “it’s all been written down now, disregard the parts where we said hold fast to tradition, **oral **or by letter”. (2 Thess 2:15). Otherwise, Scripture alone goes completely against Scripture that tells us to hold fast to BOTH, making no distinction between the two.
MariaG, this would be a good argument if you could show that the oral tradition mentioned in the Bible contained something other than what was in the Scriptures.

Could you demonstrate us a tradition handed down by the Apostles that wasn’t recorded in Scripture?

God bless,
c0ach
 
Hello MrS, I appreciate your civil tone!
c0ach: Where does the Bible teach that these keys were passed on to successors? The Bible teaches of no such thing.
MrS:Isaah 22-20
I believe the verse you’re referring to is Isaiah 22:22?

There are many problems for the Catholic who uses Isaiah 22 to prove Papal Infallibility.
  1. Isaiah 22 is talking about the key (singular) of the house of David, while Matthew 16 is talking about the keys (plural) of heaven. Where in the Bible does it say that the key of the house of David turned into the keys of heaven?
  2. Why does Jesus still have the key of the house of David in Revelation 3:7?
These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. --Revelation 3:7
  1. Can you name one Church Father from the first 1000 years that interpreted Isaiah 22 the way you do?
You don’t need an infallible canon. You have the Church which has recognized what is inspired to do that work for you.
Well, I agree with the first sentence, and I appreciate the admission, but the second is a little bit of “begging the question” if you don’t mind my saying. 🙂

God bless,
c0ach
 
40.png
GAssisi:
The comparison between an infallible Scripture and an infallible Pope is a straw man because the Pope is not infallible in the same way that Scripture is infallible.
Sorry to be nitpicky, but a straw man is when someone misrepresents your position…as in creating a straw man, tackling it (instead of your opponent) sending straw everywhere. You’re claiming not that I misrepresent you, but that I’m making an invalid comparison, so maybe you meant “Undistributed Middle?”

Regardless, I stand by the comparison between the Papal Infallibility and Biblical Infallibility as valid. 😃

But you probably already knew that I would… 😉
What is contained in it is exactly what God intended to have written down. Would you agree?
Indeed I would.
Simply put, there is really no reason why the Pope needs to decree a list of infallible Popes, because it is not the Pope himself who is infallible. It is a charism of the OFFICE, not the person.
Well, I see what you’re saying, but the analogy is still valid (IMHO). For example, there were times in history when there were more than one Pope, both of them anathemetizing the other–which Pope carried the authority of Peter? In addition, how do you know that the current Pope is infallible (when he speaks on matters of faith and morals)…what good is the office of Pope if one can never know infallibly if the person who currently claims the office actually represents the office?

There are sedevacantists who will say that the current Pope is not valid and that the Chair of Peter is empty, and they have compelling reasons to demonstrate this. They believe the office of Pope is infallible as you do–why the disagreement? Isn’t this even more reason for an infallible list of Popes before one can say the Office of Pope is infallible?

So the reasonable Catholic must admit that he does not need an infallible list of Popes to say that the Papal Office is infallible…and in doing so must allow that one doesn’t need an infallible canon to say that the Bible is infallible.

Do you need to know exhaustively how your computer works before you can use it?

God bless,
c0ach
 
I just finished listening to the Staples/White debate on Sola Scriptura. I still don’t understand the doctrine of Sola Scriptura according to White. Perhaps the meaning of Sola Scriptura depends upon the person who applies it? 😃 He is very adept at avoiding the answer to the question: To whom do we turn to decide a disagreement in scriptural interpretation?
 
c0ach:This is silly. I don’t have to prove to you the exact date and time that SS came into effect to prove SS true any more than you need to prove the exact day the Earth was created to prove God created the Earth.
MrS: Would you agree that is was at least 1500 years after the birth of the Church?
No, nice try though. 😉 Sola Scriptura came into effect after the last of the Apostles died. Then there was only one God-breathed rule of faith for the Church: the Scriptures.
and the 195 times Peter’s name occurs in Scripture - more than all the rest put together.
If these reasons are compelling for belief in Petrine Primacy…maybe you should read Jason Engwer’s 50 reasons for a Pauline Papacy here:

members.aol.com/jasonte3/paul51.htm

Your prooftexts for Petrine Primacy are a great example of “The Peter Syndrome.” This is the tendency of Catholics to interpret all of the Bible (including the Old Testament) and the writings of the Church Fathers in the light of modern Petrine claims made by Rome. This results in every reference to Peter in the Bible or in the writings of the fathers is read with “Pope Glasses” and so the Papacy is transferred into the reference, even when there is no logical, historical, or contextual reason to make such a reference.

Case in point: Peter is often listed first among the apostles. And there is no question that Peter’s name comes up more times than any of the others. But this could mean any number of things–it could be because Peter was oldest, or because he was chosen first, or because he was so impetuous and opened his mouth before the others did (often to his detriment).

No one disputes that Peter had a prominence in the Bible…but to take the logical leap from prominence to Pope is quite unwarranted.

The Gospels themselves deny that any of the apostles were in a position of primacy…and in fact, the New Testament shows that Peter did not actually take any position of primacy.

Read Luke 22:24-30, where the disciples are walking along (on the night of Christ’s betrayal) and the disciples got into an argument about who among them would be considered the greatest. Clearly these disciples didn’t see Jesus’ words to Peter in Matthew 16 as establishing him as the foundation of the Church, the first Pope, the Vicar of Christ on earth! If the disciples and Peter believed this then the argument wouldn’t even have started.
Well can you name any Church Father who denied Infallibility. Or denied the verses that support it???
Certainly,

Tertullian
“Tertullian regarded the Peter of Matthew 16:18-19 as representative of the entire church or at least its ‘spiritual’ members”
–Karlfried Froehlich

Origen (similar to Tertullian)
“And if we too have said like Peter,…we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ…” --Origen

I have more from Cyprian, Eusebius, Firmillian, Athanasius, Didymus the Blind, Augustine and more…but I have limited space.

God bless,
c0ach
 
Robert in SD:
I just finished listening to the Staples/White debate on Sola Scriptura. I still don’t understand the doctrine of Sola Scriptura according to White.
It’s a very simple doctrine, but easily confused. I recommend reading the section on sola Scriptura in the Roman Catholic Controversy by Dr. White. It does a good job explaining it. But perhaps this will help:

Sola Scriptura is not a:
  1. claim that the Bible contains all knowledge
  2. claim that the Bible is an exhaustive catalog of all religious knowledge
  3. denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth
  4. denial that God’s Word has, at times, been spoken
  5. rejection of every kind or use of tradition
  6. denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding the Church
sola Scriptura says:
  1. Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith.
  2. No other revelation is needed for the Church.
  3. There is no other infallible rule of faith outside of Scripture.
  4. Scripture reveals those things necessary for salvation.
  5. All traditions are subject to the higher authority of Scripture.
He is very adept at avoiding the answer to the question: To whom do we turn to decide a disagreement in scriptural interpretation?
Maybe because the question is begging the question? It assumes (there is an infallible authority outside the Bible) what it seeks to prove. 😉

God bless,
c0ach
 
“Maybe because the question is begging the question? It assumes (there is an infallible authority outside the Bible) what it seeks to prove.”

Eh? Are you saying that infallible Scripture is so definite and precise that a difference of interpretation is simply impossible? Are we to understand that every single fallible human being who reads the infallible Scripture will hopelessly, inevitably arrive at exactly the same infallible interpretation every other fallible human being, who ever read it, did?

Shalom, amen.
 
Well, if Matthew 18:18 was a promise of infallibility, then you are saying that all the Apostles were infallible, since that is who Jesus is talking to in Matthew 18 (cf MT 18:1).
Did Jesus promise infallibility to all the Apostles?
I think if you understood what infallibility means and how it is carried out you would not see an issue here. The Pope must intend to speak to the whole church and it must be done in concert with the Holy See or the College of Bishops and it is strictly confined to matters of Faith and Morals. No Pope has ever changed a doctrine to mean the opposite of what it once meant. The same eternal truths are simply applied to the current culture of the world. Christ did Promise to lead the apostles into all truth, and he gave the apostles , with the final earthly authority to decide differences of interpretation or application to be Peter and his successors, the responsibility to not only preach that truth but to raise up trustworthy desciples that they could entrust with that truth and trust them to hand it down faithfully to others(2 Tim 2:2).
Where does the Bible teach that these keys were passed on to successors? The Bible teaches of no such thing.
(2 Tim 2:2) (Acts 1:20)If you do not see that Christ was re-instituting the office of Prime Minister(Isaiah 22:20-24)(Matt 16:18-19), Eliacim’s office, in the formation of his church and in the formation of how his church would be run while he was in heaven, and that the office would be like a throne of honor in his Fathers house, and he would be like a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judea, and that for as long as the kingdom lasted so did this office of authority, If you cannot see that this is what Christ was doing and this is what the Apostles thought he meant, then I feel sorry for you. See (Lk 22:32, Jn 21:17, Mk 16:7, Lk 24:34, Acts 1: 13-26, Acts 2:14, Acts 2:41, Acts 3:6-7, Acts 5:1-11, Acts 8:21, Acts 10:44-46, Acts 15:7, Acts 15:19, Gal 1:18)
Forgive me if I redirect us to the topic…that being that one needs an infallible canon (list of books) in order to have an infallible Bible.
Do you have an infallible list of Popes? If you say that I need an infallible canon to say that the Bible is infallible, then don’t you need an infallible list of Popes?
God bless,
c0ach
I hope you are being funny, Your line of thinking is quite comical and not at all on the level that any Protestant debater would hold a Catholic too much less himself. Because we have the Church that Christ started and promised never to abandon, and because no other church claims to be that church, and no other church can trace an unbroken line of Successors from Peter to JPII which means that using reasonable logic and God given faith, one can reliably believe that based on all of the secular historical evidence and the fact that every reformer was a Catholic, meaning the Catholic Church gave the faith to the reformers and that all of the reformers agreed that the Catholic Church was the Church That Christ started, but that it had fallen away at some point. That makes Christ unreliable, and while the church did need reformation, The ego of Martin Luther and others got in the way of reform from within. Instead of trusting in God, who had brought them that far, with enough truth to raise up the reformers with enough knowledge of Christ and His Church to become experts, beyond the Church Fathers, they thought that change had to happen in thier lifetime, while God was reforming the Curch in his own time. How is it that Martin Luther was a Catholic Priest, and believed in the True Presence, and many other teachings, but that in just 400 years because of Sola Scriptura, the Protestants have splintered into a loose association of believers in hardly the same Gospel, proclaiming beliefs that are quite different from Martin Luther and the reformers. By whose authority did the reformers remove books from Sacred Scripture.
 
MariaG, this would be a good argument if you could show that the oral tradition mentioned in the Bible contained something other than what was in the Scriptures.
Yes, the oral tradition is contained in what Catholics call Sacred Tradition. Those traditions that we get accused of being “man-made”.

But you answered my question,in a way. I think you are saying that the oral words that we are told to hold fast to are the same as the written ones?

But then how do you explain the fact that Scripture also tells us that there are not enough books in the world to contain everything Jesus did (Jn 21:25)?

The Catholic faith can show Scripture that tells us to hold fast to oral tradition. We have oral tradition called Sacred Scripture. And the Scriptures even tell us not everything Christ did was written down. We are consistent.

How do you interpret the last verse of John telling us that not everything was written down?

God Bless
Maria
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top