Not By Scripture Alone

[Redbandito]

Just to make sure I understand…are you claiming that God does have a favorite denomination, and it just happens to be yours?

I have long felt that claim was implicit in Catholic theology, but this is the first time I have heard it stated explicitely.

All that I can say is that when I examine the churches in the small city near which I live, I see no evidence that any of them (let alone yours and certainly not mine) have the inside edge with the Lord Jesus Christ. Instead, I see a flawed bunch of local assemblies trying to do the will of Christ as they individually discern it.

God does not have a “favorite denomination.” God has one Church. The rest of the churches, while sharing in some of this truth, have separated themselves from this Church. Thus, it is not merely that God favors Catholics over Protestants, but that God established His Church through the Apostles that was and remains Universal (Catholic).

And while there are “flawed local assemblies” even amongst Catholics, the deposit of faith entrusted and protected by the Magisterium remains perfect and infallibly protected by the HS. Thus, any local parishoner that questions something a priest said can be officially corrected by the Official teaching of the RCC, the guardian of the Word of God.

 

[Redbandito]

I am sorry but I have never read a more sorry excuse of a blog claiming to be apologetic, you may as well have put a title up that says “Protestant Bashing Abounds, Be Wary All Ye Who Enter Here.” I propose that we take a good look at what Scripture has to say…and I will even consider church tradition, if I am allowed to look at the lives of the men who participated in the writing of such. Then draw conclusions about whom’s doctrine is absurd. I think we can all agree on the fact that no doctrine ought to completely contradict Scripture. So lets function out of that premise, do some homework, and stop arguing with emotion blinding us.

I dont think there has been any “Protestant Bashing” in here. Simply because we don’t agree with sola scriptura and believe the notion of such a doctrine is unBiblical, does not mean we are bashing Protestants. I, for one, have a great deal of respect for Protestants. My Father-in-law is a Baptist minister, and my wife used to be Baptist.

Anyway, I have no problem with your proposal. So, why don’t you start. Where does the Bible teach sola scriptura?

 

[Redbandito]

I don’t think you are following my logic here…

Perhaps not. My apologies.

I am not claiming the Bible identifies itself as the only infallible faith source; if it does, it does not do so clearly enough so a dummy like me can understand it…

Amen to that brother. I wish some of our Protestant brethren would be as honest as you and admit that.

All I am saying is that if any denomination claims another source is equal to the Bible, I need a means to verify that. Since the Bible does not identify any other sources as its equal, I don’t know what that means is. .

Fair enough. I can tell you are honestly trying to understand, and I respect that a great deal. What I would say is that since the Church preceded the Bible as our teacher of the “Word of God,” (Paul stated this while writing a book of the NT in 1 Thess 2:13) we should turn to this early church for our confirmation. Luckily, we have dozens of writings from the early church. I just got a 38 volume set of the ECF’s for Christmas that includes the writings of the 1st and 2nd century Fathers. It’s great! Anyway, if you need such a confirmation, that is where I would turn.

Otherwise I could just as easily be following the Book of Mormon…

Not the same. We know that no further revelation is possible past the Apostolic era. Therefore, the fullness of divine revelation was deposited in this era. The Church teaches that the Apostolic Tradition and the Scripture both flow from this. The Book of Mormon makes a completely separate, and fictional claim with no historical evidence whatsoever. Rather, they tell you, “Just pray to the Holy Ghost, and ask Him if the Book of Mormon is true.”

I think I added (or should have added) the qualifier “identifiable faith source”. The problem with “Apostolic Tradition” is that it is not identifiable. Outside of the Bible, I have no way of determining what traditions originated from the apostles and which are nice ideas…

It is identifiable. It resides in the Liturgy of the Catholic Mass. You should check out a book by Scott Hahn called Letter and Spirit. I think you’d get a lot out of it.

2000 year old games of telephone do not work very well. Fortunately God knew that and acted in the same common sense way we humans do when we want to preserve oral communications; He had it written down…

If it was actually this way, I would agree. Luckily, there are two major distinctions. Oral Tradition can actually be written down. And second, games of telephone guided by the HS, seem to be a lot more effective than your average games.

So I should take your interpretation of tradition and your magisterium as infallible because you claim your lineage comes from Peter…

No. Don’t take me at my word. I am just having a discussion with you. Research this stuff. It is readily available. Go to the Catholic Answers library, and the link to “This Rock” above. Read the Scriptural evidence we use to support these claims. Read the Church Fathers. Check out some Catholic books on the subject. I understand you have lots of questions. I did too. But if you really want the answers, it is going to require due diligence on your part, and that you remain open as you have been on this thread. Either way, after reading this stuff, you will either accept or reject the TRUE CATHOLIC FAITH, and not some strawman created by a John MacArthur or Jack Chick.

Even if your assertions about your lineage are true, it does not mean your interpration of tradition and your infallible pronouncements “ex cathedra” are in fact infallible and equal in authority to the Bible…

Infallible is infallible. If the Tradition comes from God, and my assertions on the lineage are true, then it certainly does back my claim. My claim is that Tradition is the Word of God, and not Scripture alone. That is it. If you grant that God established a Church, and protected it’s successors with the promises, “What you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven, and what you loose on Earth will be loosed in Heaven,” or “I give you the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven,” or “He who hears you hears me,” or “Who’s sins you forgive are forgiven them, who’s sins you retain are retained,” ect., and then we find that they understood this authority to be equivalent to the Word of God (as Paul states in 1 thess 2:13), then I would say you would have a pretty overwhelming testimony for this claim.

 

[Redbandito]

It seems to me that Implicit in Catholic thinking is the assumption that lineage is the governing metric and that somehow the Roman Catholic denomination is God’s favorite denomination. But what if the Roman Catholic Denomination ticked off God at some point in time and now His favourite denomination is Presbyterian. Although I am not a rabid anti-Catholic that believes that in fact is the case, I see nothing from Scripture that precludes that possibilty at least in theory.

If lineage is not a governing metric, then there is nothing that separates your claims from the claims of the Mormons and David Koresh…

Lineage is a governing metric. Christ entrusted His Apostles with His authority, such as when he labels Peter the “rock” that He would build His Church on (Mt 16), or when He makes Peter shepherd over His flock (Jn 21). Thus, those ordained and succeeding the Apostles were granted their authority.

As far as the RCC “ticking off” God, I am sure we have many times. But God is faithful. Christ stated these things would be so. Do you think Christ would abandon His promise? Reform in God’s Church may be necessary, but it must always be from within.

Maybe I am too simple minded, but I assume that at least today God does not have a favorite denomination; and I put my skeptic hat on when any denomination makes statements that imply that He does (and that their denomination just happens to be it).

I don’t think you’re simple-minded. I would be skeptical too. I would never ask you to simply take my word for it. I believe you are doing a good thing by questioning this and “testing” it. I would wonder how strongly convicted you are about your faith if you simply abandoned it after a few posts on a message board. The key is to remain open to the possibility, as I believe you will. And to continue to ask questions and research until you feel you have enough information to make a proper judgment. Either way, at least you will have sought with an open heart. God will honor that.

 

[mozart-250]

Working backwards…

I’ll address the rest of this post later today, but I will take this second to address this paragraph. For starters, I think you missed the point I was making. Augustine wasn’t just confirming for us that the “Catholic Church” is the Church. Augustine was confirming that our only way to know that the Scripture is the God’s Word is by the authority of the Church. I was merely providing support for my position. That’s it.

Doesn’t Scripture itself claim to be God’s word. So there are two ways at least I can think of…

Secondly, if this was the only quote I relied on to prove that the Catholic Church is THE Church Christ established, that would be different. However, that is not the case. I won’t get into citing a whole bunch of them right at this minute, but we can do that on another thread if you would like.

I have read those quotes…and here is my issue…

They were all written prior to the schisms that have resulted in the 8,346,468 branches of Christianity we see today. Therefore I have no idea how these writers would view the church if they could write about it today. Neither do you.

You rightly point out that the term Catholic was always meant to show that the Church is universal. What you seem to miss is that this was not meant as a denominational distinction. Originally, their were no competing sects of Christianity with the pull of Protestantism. The Catholic Church was the only Church.

Agreed, assuming the definition of Catholic is universal. The universal church was the only church.

The Catholic Church is still the Universal Church. The fact that there are other churches competing now cannot take that authority granted by Christ away. Those who have gone outside of this Church have done so wrongly. C.S. Lewis stated in the Abolition of Man, “Wherever traditional values are questioned, as if the burden of proof lay with them, we have taken the wrong position.”

Here we just disagree. Today Christians are interspersed into the thousands of ecclesiastical organizations that we call denominations that exist today. Therefore, not one of these can realistically be called the “Universal” church.

In other words, the Church found a way to work well for 1500 years prior to the Reformation. The Reformers and their followers have the burden to prove that external reform of doctrine, not just practice, was necessary. That includes the rejection of the Authority of the Church.

I am not a follower of the Reformers. I am a follower of Jesus Christ, who believes that Jesus has led me into the place of worship that I now attend. Therefore I don’t have to prove anything to anyone. I do not have to defend or castigate either the Reformers or the RC denomination.

Finally, the apples and oranges argument is simply not true. Just because denominations broke off does not mean they were right in doing so. As we all know, heresies have sprung up throughout the history of the Church, including long before the Reformation. The mere fact that you happen to agree with one of them, does not validate it.

Just because your denomination claims I am heretic does not mean that God necessarily agrees with you. I’ll let God be the judge thank you…

If you want to know what Church Augustine would agree with today, I recommend reading some of his writings. Augustine participated in the sacraments, believed in the authority of the Church (which he happened to call Catholic), held to the Catholic view of justification, etc. Which Church you think models Augustine’s? Hint: It’s not the Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, or Lutheran churches.

I have not read Augustine but I have read some of the earlier ones (Iranaeus and Clement).

It is a highly subjective exercise to read the early church fathers and then attempt to superimpose their writings over what we see today. In my subjective opinion, none of us in the western world match the early church fathers that closely. Probably the closest match is some third world church in a persecuted country IMHO. But as I have said…that is a highly subjective exercise.

I also just want to say. None of this means that Catholics do not acknowledge Protestants as Christians. We absolutely hold you to be our brothers in Christ. Where we grieve is that you have forsaken so many of the gifts and treasures Christ gave us, including the sacraments and the FULLNESS of truth. We acknowledge that you guys share in much of the truth, however the Catholic Church is the only Church that possesses it in it’s fullness.

Yeah, I have heard this claim. However, the only metric that I have heard given to back this up is the lineage one.

 

[Redbandito]

Working backwards…

Doesn’t Scripture itself claim to be God’s word. So there are two ways at least I can think of…

This is circular reasoning. To say that Scripture is “God’s word” because Scripture claims to be “God’s word” is not a real proof. That’s like me saying I am the Second Coming of Christ because I said so. Simply because I claim something about myself does not make it so.

Furthermore, not every book in the Scriptures makes this claim on itself. And since we don’t have an inspired Table of Contents, this merely begs the question as to “What books make up Scripture?”

I have read those quotes…and here is my issue…

They were all written prior to the schisms that have resulted in the 8,346,468 branches of Christianity we see today. Therefore I have no idea how these writers would view the church if they could write about it today. Neither do you…

Sure you can. If they believed in the sacraments before the Reformation, I think it is a reasonable assumption to say they would have after it. If they believed in justification as the RCC teaches it before, they would have after. And on and on with all the other doctrines. That’s why it is wonderful to have their writings. We know EXACTLY what they believed, and then all we need do is locate the Church that most closely resembles these beliefs. BTW, I think it’s hilarious when you write the huge numbers of denominations over 8 million. That’s good stuff.

Agreed, assuming the definition of Catholic is universal. The universal church was the only church…

Awesome! I love it when we agree!

Here we just disagree. Today Christians are interspersed into the thousands of ecclesiastical organizations that we call denominations that exist today. Therefore, not one of these can realistically be called the “Universal” church.
I am not a follower of the Reformers. I am a follower of Jesus Christ, who believes that Jesus has led me into the place of worship that I now attend. Therefore I don’t have to prove anything to anyone. I do not have to defend or castigate either the Reformers or the RC denomination…

I think a distinction needs to be made. Christians can exist outside of the true Church in a sense. In fact, many heresies have existed throughout history that took well-meaning Christians with them. That doesn’t take away from the univerality of the Church, it just takes away from those Christians that which is rightfully their’s through re-birth.

And as a follower of Jesus Christ, don’t you want all that He has left for you, and not just some of it? I have no doubt that Christ has led you to where you are today. But perhaps He only led you there temporarily knowing that He had something even bigger and better for you in the end. Perhaps, being where you are has allowed you to be open where you wouldn’t have been at another church.

Just because your denomination claims I am heretic does not mean that God necessarily agrees with you. I’ll let God be the judge thank you…

Who said you were a heretic? I didn’t call you any names. Certainly you don’t accept everything the RCC teaches to be true, otherwise you would be Catholic. Thus, do you not believe that the RCC teaches heresy on certain doctrine? Certainly God will be the judge of us all. I don’t claim to be that.

I

have not read Augustine but I have read some of the earlier ones (Iranaeus and Clement)…

I applaud you. What did you think? How does your church resemble their’s?

It is a highly subjective exercise to read the early church fathers and then attempt to superimpose their writings over what we see today. In my subjective opinion, none of us in the western world match the early church fathers that closely. Probably the closest match is some third world church in a persecuted country IMHO. But as I have said…that is a highly subjective exercise.

Yeah, I have heard this claim. However, the only metric that I have heard given to back this up is the lineage one.

Interesting. You wouldn’t concede that the reading of the Bible is subjective, but you say that the reading of the early church fathers is? How do you get that?

As for the ECF’s I simply disagree with you. I think they get a lot more detailed and explicit than even the Bible does. Furthermore, they are extremely Catholic in their writings. Don’t just take my word for it. Read them. Pick a topic, and study what the ECF’s had to say on the issue. Then determine if they were Catholic or not. I think you will be shocked about their Catholicity.

And finally, the lineage backs this up. However, in actually reading their writings, you cannot miss the significance of a unanimity of thought on doctrines of the faith. I think this speaks just as loudly, if not more.

 

[mozart-250]

Lineage is a governing metric. Christ entrusted His Apostles with His authority, such as when he labels Peter the “rock” that He would build His Church on (Mt 16), or when He makes Peter shepherd over His flock (Jn 21). Thus, those ordained and succeeding the Apostles were granted their authority.

Thank you for admitting that! I always felt that was the case.

You are aware that there multiple conflicting denominations that claim lineage to Peter.

So to summarize my understanding…

• The RC denomination claims its interpretation of tradition and its magisterium as equivalent to the Bible in authority.
• It does so because it also claims that it is the one true church as described in Matthew 16.
• This claim is verified by its chain of pontiffs starting with Peter, Linus, Clement…John Paul, Benedictus.

While at the same time I believe…

• I do not believe the claims that the RC denomination’s interpretation of tradition and its magisterium are equivalent to the Bible in authority. Neither do I believe the claims of any other denomination that claims an additional faith source is equal to the Bible in authority.
• I do not believe the RC denomination is the one true church as described in Matthew 16. I believe that the church is the people of God. Today the church is found in several hundred distinct ecclesiastical organizations we call denominations. The RC church in reality is one denomination amongst many. This phenomenon of denominations may not be what God had in mind when He designed this entity called the church, but it is reality at the present time. What (if anything) God does in the future to correct this is really up to Him.
• The metric of lineage is less important than the metric of hearing the Father’s will and doing it if you really want to play the game of evaluating the assorted denominations.

Now I really got to get to bed, and tomorrow I am going skiing.

 

[mozart-250]

And as a follower of Jesus Christ, don’t you want all that He has left for you, and not just some of it? I have no doubt that Christ has led you to where you are today. But perhaps He only led you there temporarily knowing that He had something even bigger and better for you in the end. Perhaps, being where you are has allowed you to be open where you wouldn’t have been at another church.

Actually, I have a personal situation (a newly diagnosed serious disease) that really makes changing churches unwise for me.

I got into the habit of arguing Christianity over the internet when I was looking into the assorted denominations of Christianity that were “not mine”. I was doing this to sanity check myself, to make sure I was still in the will of God. Now, the motivation for looking into these assorted denominations no longer exists.

Of course breaking the habit of arguing Christianity over the internet is easier said than done

 

[Mike_Brick]

Actually, I have a personal situation (a newly diagnosed serious disease) that really makes changing churches unwise for me.

I got into the habit of arguing Christianity over the internet when I was looking into the assorted denominations of Christianity that were “not mine”. I was doing this to sanity check myself, to make sure I was still in the will of God. Now, the motivation for looking into these assorted denominations no longer exists.

Of course breaking the habit of arguing Christianity over the internet is easier said than done

Mozart, my brother in Christ: Thank you for letting us know of your illness, and I know all of us who have gotten to know you will remember you in our prayers to the same Lord of Lords we all worship and try to follow.

I hope you take to heart what both Randy and Redbandito have said to you; our separated brothers and sisters in Christ in the various protestant churches, whether it’s the 40,000 denominations reported worldwide, not including the non-denominational denominations, which today are huge, or the 8 or 9 million you spoke of we know in jest, are just that; our brothers and sisters in Christ, whom He and we love. But you’re right, it seems like it could be a million “churches”, and it started with just one, created by Jesus Himself while He was on this earth.

When He created this Church He knew He would be ascending to heaven soon and saw to it the Church was begun on a solid foundation. It wasn’t started because brother so and so or sister so in so got mad at something the preacher said and started his or her own denomination. I don’t mean to minimize protestant denominations, but you know how churches/denominations “multiply by dividing”. Jesus created one, and prayed to His Father that they would be one, like He and the Father are one! (The “They” he referred to was obviously not the thousands and thousands of denominations which appeared beginning some 1,500 years later, but even if you think “They” referred to the various churches and not the flock of His lambs that He told Peter to feed, He still prayed that “they” will be one.)

With your obvious love and trust of the Bible you must agree He built His Church on the “Rock” and gave the Keys of The Kingdom to Kepha/Peter the Apostle. He also promised the He would protect the Church for all time saying the “gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it”, (Mt. 16-18). Later on He also said He would send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church, and that they would understand with the help of the Holy Spirit. Finally in the last chapter of the Gospel of John, the Apostle who loved Him so much, wrote that if everything Jesus taught them was written down it couldn’t be contained in all the libraries of the world.

I know you are searching for the truth, and the Holy Spirit will lead you to it if you remain open to Him. And that journey is often done in steps. I am also pleased that you have read some of the writings of the ECH as you all seem to write it, and my recommendation to you is to take a look at an easier read of four of them in a book called Four Witnesses, The Early Church in Her Own Words, by Rod Bennett a faithful So. Baptist who was on that same journey you are on. He was searching for the first century church where he could trust the original doctrines passed on by Jesus Himself and their style of worship. So he read all he could which was recorded by the witnesses of that time, not historians of this time who may be writing a revisionist history. It is not a scholarly text that requires a lot of previous theological training, just a love for Jesus and a willingness to find His will for you. Reading the testimony of these witnesses, taught by the Apostles themselves or their immediate understudies, will show you what Jesus established and left provided for untill the end.

May our Lord strengthen you in body and soul for your journey to the truth.

Mike Brick:thumbsup:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Mozart-

I can see you’re having fun with Redbandito and others, but I really did try to give you a reasonable answer as to how you can know the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is reliable waaaaaay back in post #74. In fact, at that point in this thread, the issue appeared to be central to your objections to Catholicism.

Any thoughts on this?

 

[francesco920]

Thank you for admitting that! I always felt that was the case.

You are aware that there multiple conflicting denominations that claim lineage to Peter.

Really? How many? The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church? You mean the two churches that were together for 1000 years and the only two (unless you want to count the small sect of Oriental Orthodox who broke off much earlier) who have credible claims to the Apostolic faith and who share almost identical beliefs? That’s multiple to you? Look at the historical documents!. As you said yourself, the Pope can trace his lineage all the way down to Peter.

So to summarize my understanding…

• The RC denomination claims its interpretation of tradition and its magisterium as equivalent to the Bible in authority.
• It does so because it also claims that it is the one true church as described in Matthew 16.
• This claim is verified by its chain of pontiffs starting with Peter, Linus, Clement…John Paul, Benedictus.

I would also add that the claim is verified because of the writings of the early Church Fathers and because no Christians denied that Tradition was equal to the Bible until Luther came along.

While at the same time I believe…

• I do not believe the claims that the RC denomination’s interpretation of tradition and its magisterium are equivalent to the Bible in authority. Neither do I believe the claims of any other denomination that claims an additional faith source is equal to the Bible in authority.

Really? Where in the Bible does it say “sola scriptura”? Where in the Bible does it say that there are no additional faith sources? Look at the Bible and at history and you will see that your claim that the Bible is the highest authority is incorrect. After all, simple logic would tell you that since the Church had the authority to make the canon of the Bible, that its authority is equal to if not greater than that of the Bible.

• I do not believe the RC denomination is the one true church as described in Matthew 16. I believe that the church is the people of God. Today the church is found in several hundred distinct ecclesiastical organizations we call denominations. The RC church in reality is one denomination amongst many. This phenomenon of denominations may not be what God had in mind when He designed this entity called the church, but it is reality at the present time. What (if anything) God does in the future to correct this is really up to Him.

What you are saying makes no sense. You are saying that the one true church of God includes 30,000 different denominations that conflict with each other on significant matters and that sometimes view each other as Satanic. Furthermore, most Christians (Catholics & Orthodox) disagree with this theory of yous. 99% of denominations are a result of the heresy of Protestantism. Before protestantism, there were two major groups, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, and of course the small sect of the Oriental Orthodox. The CC and EO have almost identical beliefs, and the OO’s agree with the CC and the EO when they say that Tradition is equal to the Bible. In other words, no Christians before the Reformations believed in sola scriptura and other Protestant heresies such as the denial of the Real Presence or double predestination or "once saved always saved."

• The metric of lineage is less important than the metric of hearing the Father’s will and doing it if you really want to play the game of evaluating the assorted denominations.

Apostolic Succession is important because the true church of God is the One, Holy, Catholic, and APOSTOLIC Church as defined by the Nicene Creed and Jesus promised that this Church would never fall into heresy. And, if you haven’t noticed, the beliefs of both the CC and the EOC, who both have valid Apostolic Succession, haven’t changed in 2000 years, while the Protestants, who have been around for 500 years, have changed their beliefs so radically that there are now 30,000+ Protestant denominations. Doesn’t it bother you that you base your beliefs on the rejection of Catholic doctrines?

Now I really got to get to bed, and tomorrow I am going skiing.

 

[Insignificant]

In regard to my last post about doing my homework, and presenting an argument, i am going to put the disclaimer on it that a.) I am only an undergrad student of theology, and b.) I am trying to get published currently so It may be a while.

I would also say that your argument about the actual phrase “sola Scriptura” being in the Bible is horse buggy because most NT theology is not found explicit in the Bible.

 

[mozart-250]

Mozart-

I can see you’re having fun with Redbandito and others, but I really did try to give you a reasonable answer as to how you can know the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is reliable waaaaaay back in post #74. In fact, at that point in this thread, the issue appeared to be central to your objections to Catholicism.

Any thoughts on this?

The following quotations are taken from several posts from mozart-250:

To which I reply:

1. 
   *]We can prove from written accounts of eyewitnesses and historians that a man named Jesus died, rose from the dead, and appeared to many people before ascending into heaven.
   *]We can demonstrate through historical sources (many of which are actually biased against the claims of the Christian Church) that Jesus instituted a church.
   *]We can reliably identify some ancient manuscripts as copies of documents written by the early members of that Church including the Apostles, their disciples and men and women in the post-apostolic era.
   *]We can demonstrate that some of the writings of the early Church were put together to form the New Testament of the Bible.
   *]We can compile a profile or description of the Church that Jesus established from the New Testament and determine that the Church is described therein as having certain attributes, characteristics, and functions that it has been commissioned to perform.
   *]We can analyze the existing churches of our own day to determine if one of them matches the description of the Church found in the pages of the New Testament.
   *]We can also scrutinize the existing churches of our own day to determine if one of them matches the descriptions of the Church found in the writings of the early Christians and ancient historians.
   *]We can review the historical records to determine if any Church of our own day can demonstrate a continuous connection or link to the New Testament Church.
   *]We can conclude that if a Church of our own day matches the descriptions of the Church found in both the New Testament and the writings of the earliest Christians and can demonstrate a continuous connection to the Apostles, then that Church must be the true Church founded by Jesus.
   *]We can know that when we hear the true Church speaking, we are hearing voice of Jesus Himself because Jesus said, “He who listens to you listens to Me”. (Luke 10:16)
   *]We can trust that the true Church, speaking with the voice of Christ Himself, teaches correctly about its own infallibility and teaching authority, or Magisterium.
   Adapted from Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Karl Keating.

1. 
   Randy:
   I was working backwards through the assorted posts and had not gotten to this one
   
   John Wesley believed that the Bible was the only infallible rule of faith, but that it was not self-interpreting. To arrive at a valid interpretation of the Bible, he believed it should be interpreted in the light of history, reason, and personal experience.
   
   It does seem reasonable that when an ambiguity in the Bible is encountered, that one look through the lens of history to understand how the ambiguity was understood by the original audience of the author, if possible.
   
   Of course the New Testament, particularly the book of Acts, provides a very good account on how the earliest Christians operated.
   
   I personally have adopted the rule that the earliest church fathers that were important in the church have the most weight as far as understanding Scripture. This would be names such as Ignatius, Clement, Justin Martyr, Iranaeus. The later they are the less weight they carry with me. Things can change in 200 years.
   
   If I were to read these authors together with the book of Acts and the New Testament, and if the composite picture that I receieved was that they match one denomination very closely above all others, that would have to be seriously thought through. Note that I would assign the greater weight to the big picture above isolated details. Note that from my reading so far (which is not expert level) , I do not get the impression that any of us are that much like the earliest Christians. They had a passion, innocence, and purity that us in the sophisticated west have lost

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I would also say that your argument about the actual phrase “sola Scriptura” being in the Bible is horse buggy because most NT theology is not found explicit in the Bible.

You, as a protestant, just destroyed SS

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I personally have adopted the rule that the earliest church fathers that were important in the church have the most weight as far as understanding Scripture. This would be names such as** Ignatius, Clement, Justin Martyr, Iranaeus.** The later they are the less weight they carry with me. Things can change in 200 years.

If I were to read these authors together with the book of Acts and the New Testament, and if the composite picture that I receieved was that they match one denomination very closely above all others, that would have to be seriously thought through. Note that I would assign the greater weight to the big picture above isolated details. Note that from my reading so far (which is not expert level) , I do not get the impression that any of us are that much like the earliest Christians. They had a passion, innocence, and purity that us in the sophisticated west have lost

Good Luck on your journey for the TRUTH brother!!
Let me give you a taste of what your going to see, for example the Eucharist:I. Jesus’ Real Presence in the Eucharist

                 "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, **because they confess not the                          Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our                          sins**, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." *Ignatius of                              Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).*

                                          "For **not as common bread and common drink do we receive these**; but in like                          manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our                          salvation, so likewise have we been taught that **the food which is blessed by                          the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are                          nourished,** **is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.**" *Justin                              Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).*


                     "[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and                          the cup His blood..." *Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18,4 (c. A.D. 200).*
                 
                     "**He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood,                          from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he                          affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.**" *Irenaeus,                              Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).*
                 
                     "But what consistency is there in **those who hold that the bread over which                          thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood**, if                          they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world..." *Irenaeus,                              Against Heresies, IV:18, 2 (c. A.D. 200).*


                     "For the blood of the grape--that is, the Word--desired to be mixed with water,                          as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold.                          For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption;                          and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. **And to drink the blood of                          Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord's immortality**; the Spirit being the                          energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is                          blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine                          and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to                          immortality. **And the mixture of both--of the water and of the Word--is called                          Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are                          sanctified both in body and soul.**" *Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2                              (ante A.D. 202).

scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html#tradition-I

 

[Insignificant]

How so Catholic Dude, Sola Scriptura is not the only thing that is not explicit in the Bible. The majority of Catholic Doctrine is just as implicit as the majority of Protestant doctrine. So if you have a point please ellaborate.

 

[San_Patricio]

How so Catholic Dude, Sola Scriptura is not the only thing that is not explicit in the Bible. The majority of Catholic Doctrine is just as implicit as the majority of Protestant doctrine. So if you have a point please ellaborate.

Our doctrine can be implicit in the Bible, because as well as going by the Bible we have 2000 years of Sacred Tradition passed down from the Apostles, and the Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit as Christ promised, to weigh our implicit interpretations against. Other non-Catholic Christians (Orthodox excepted) have the Bible. Only. How can you verify your implications if you have naught to verify them against?

If you say you do not go by the Bible alone (which you already did), then you have conceded to the Catholic position that, although it is the inerrant word of God, scripture alone is not sufficient.

Good night and God bless.

Come home to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[mozart-250]

Really? Where in the Bible does it say “sola scriptura”? Where in the Bible does it say that there are no additional faith sources? Look at the Bible and at history and you will see that your claim that the Bible is the highest authority is incorrect. After all, simple logic would tell you that since the Church had the authority to make the canon of the Bible, that its authority is equal to if not greater than that of the Bible.

Umm…even if the position of the RC denomination on “sola scriptura” (whatever that is…that it is not in the Bible) is absolutely correct, it still does not mean that your interpretation of tradition and your magisterium have equal authority to the written word of God.

Even if the position of the RC denomination on “sola scriptura” is absolutely correct, it still would mean that all claims of authority equal to the Bible must be rigorously examined and rejected if found wanting. Otherwise you could just as easily be following the Book of Mormon (that was why I brought it up).

Even if the position of the RC denomination on “sola scriptura” is absolutely correct, if all other claims of authority equal to the Bible were examined and rejected, what you would end up with would be “sola scriptura by default” anyway.

As far you your “simple logic” statement…you are just incorrect. If entity A has authority to select entity B, that does not mean that entity A has greater or even equal overall authority than entity B. This logic is specifically negated in real life. For example we as citizens have authority to select presidents, senators, congressmen, etc. Yet at the same time we are under in authority what we select and are subject to their laws.

 

[mozart-250]

Good Luck on your journey for the TRUTH brother!!
Let me give you a taste of what your going to see, for example the Eucharist

Thanks for the quotes. Not to hijack this thread…but one comment.

I actually am aware of these and have examined them. They are general enough so that they are supportive (in addition to the RC denomination) also of the Orthodox, Anglican, Episcopal, Lutheran, and Classic Methodist denominations views of the Eucharist…all of which have not substituted *represents *for is.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Our doctrine can be implicit in the Bible, because as well as going by the Bible we have 2000 years of Sacred Tradition passed down from the Apostles, and the Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit as Christ promised, to weigh our implicit interpretations against. Other non-Catholic Christians (Orthodox excepted) have the Bible. Only. How can you verify your implications if you have naught to verify them against?

If you say you do not go by the Bible alone (which you already did), then you have conceded to the Catholic position that, although it is the inerrant word of God, scripture alone is not sufficient.

Good night and God bless.

Come home to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Ok I’m in a hurry but I wanted to comment. There is much in this thread I want to comment on but I will be brief for now.

First, yes there has been protestant bashing on this thread. Particularly in the first posts. Even worse when a protestant said something you don’t like, you’ve responded with things on the level of “that’s not nice; you shouldn’t say that”.

Also, salvation by works is the heresy. We are saved through faith alone in Christ alone. Let me introduce you to chapters 3 through 5 in the book of Romans…you will find this truth there. James talking about faith without works being dead has to do with one’s faith before man. People will believe your faith to be dead if it lacks good works. Good works would come from faith but they are not a “step” to salvation.

Last of all, the comment I quoted above. I’m getting rather tired of seeing that “bs”. Scripture **IS **sufficient! Allow me to introduce you to 2Timothy 3:16! Be sure to ask your magisterium if you can read that verse though. (thoroughly disgusted and off my soapbox now). By the way, I don’t have a problem with you all as people. I don’t even know you. But I have a problem with some of the things that have been said here. To sum it up…Scripture IS sufficient!