Not the same God?

[Portrait]

@ Kelman: First of all Kelman, Christ be with you and I hope you’re having a very blessed morning so far and forgive me if I’m being obtuse. Here’s the thing, I wouldn’t dare say I have a tenth of the amount of scripture memorized that you do, nor sadly, Church Father’s quotes, etc.,etc. However, I will tell you the same thing I’ve told my brother, which is “quality over quantity.” IOW, if you have the entire bible memorized but are 100% wrong in your interpretations (I would never presume this because you appear very knowledgable) and I know one verse but interpret it correctly, then who really knows more scripture? If I want to discuss purgatory for example, we can’t because it’s in that “uninspired” section, and although we have MOUNDS of evidence for the inspiration of the deuterocanonical books, you claim to have just as much evidence against them, so in the end, if we have no infallible interpreter of scripture, it’s all a matter of opinion as to what “evidence” is correct and that’s a pretty big gamble imo. I would hope, that although you implied that I have an incorrect understanding of sola scriptura, you would not be so arrogant as to believe that just because one has a different opinion than you you should discredit his interpretation. Futhermore, you have what you believe to be the correct interpretation of scripture I presume? And yet when I spoke of my brother defending the use of contraception, you said, and I quote, “In my OPINION” and then gave your reasoning behind your argument as to why you BELIEVE contraception is wrong and again gave no direct proof from scripture. Lastly, using your logic of saying we have no way of being POSITIVE of what scripture says because the world has no infallible interpreter, then forgive me if I don’t take your OPINION as anything infallible.

Dear Josh316,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Jolly well said, very insightful comments which show that Protestantism is all at sea when it comes to the matter of biblical interpretation.

Whilst both Catholics and Protestants equally venerate Sacred Scripture and recognise its great authority, our Protestant brethren want them alone to be the final authority. However, the problem is that whoever interprets the bible is the final authority and in Protestantism you have, well many final authorities, or rather a quagmire of competing opinions. Whilst it is perfectly fine to read and meditate upon the bible and nourish our souls with its wholesome content, we still need someone to interpret Sacred Scripture for us. This happens for Evangelical Christians when they listen to their favourite preachers, who are said to be “really on the word”, or study commentaries written by conservative bible scholars. In other words they are actually trusting the interpretative authority of their own church leaders and preachers. As a former conservative Evangelical of many years standing, I know this to be the case from my own personal experience. Speaking for myself, I looked to Evangelical Anglican leaders such as the late John Stott and good old Jim Packer and the position taken by the Church Society group (an Evangelical Reformed Protest organisation within the church of England). This was the Protestant Anglican ‘tradition’ that I followed until I became a High-Church Anglican, before finally crossing the Tiber and entering the One true Church established by Christ. If I ever disagreed with any of the Protestant leaders I respected, then I would trust to my own interpretative authority, perhaps based on some other Protestant commentator or leader. The problem was that equally devout and equally believing men taught different things, even with respect to essential issues. There was no certainty as to who was correctly interpreting the bible, or “rightly dividing the word of truth”, because their was no final authority to declare what that truth was.

At any rate, either way whoever decides what the bible means is the final authority. Therefore all Christians believe in some sort of final interpretative authority, but the pressing issue is, just how reliable and sound is that interpretative authority in which men place their trust and the eternal welfare of their souls?

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[entree_gratuite]

Entree Gratuite,

There has been corruption from day one in the Catholic Church beginning with Judas the betrayer, am I not right in saying so… The Catholic Church can never be corrupted in its Teachings Amen.

Yes, their may be corrupted priest in the Catholic Church, like Judas the betrayer, you must remember these are only men and men sin but never the Catholic Church, so please never say that the Catholic Church was corrupted saying what you Entree Gratuite have said, is calling Jesus Christ a Liar. Have you not read: Matt 16:18

Matt 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Entree Gratuite By you stating that the Catholic Church was corrupted you are going against Our Lord by saying yeah the gates of hell did prevail after all, and here is where you are saying subconsciously that Jesus Christ Lied.

The Catholic Church can never be corrupted because the gates of hell can not prevail over the Catholic Church, it is Jesus Christ’s promise. Judas the Betrayer was replaced by another so will all bad Catholic priests, but the Catholic Church can not be replaced by another church period, no matter how many thousands protestants churchesss there may be.

Ufam Tobie

It is because of ‘emotive’ and false reasoning that the catholic church is failing so many people who love Christ. While I think that Luther ,Calvin and all who dare to give their personal names to a church ,had motives for leaving which were not entirely pure, if ,
there had not been such evil ,amongst some hierarchy,and misdirection of God’s laws,then we might be in agreement. One of the things that gets up my nose is when unthinking supporters,sugggest that criticism of them has any bearing on Cchrist and
His Church.
My revelation tells me, that when Christ spoke of His Church, it was the inner life of the Holy Spirit in us who love Him ,and believe in Him ,and listen to Him,that is his Church.
There comes a time when the material aspects of the church life will end,as all matter does,and what will be left is the ‘faithful’ of the heart. Although the Catholic Church does well for those souls who prefer to follow,she has not reached out enough to the more brilliant minds who need to be engaged in discussion on a lay level .While the pope may have the final word,the church is the people of Christ,and they MUST be brought into the modern church,encouraged to read etc. by knowing they can engage in theological learning ,open discussion,in groups .As far as I can make out, many priests are not up to scratch,but that’s all right,because with learning groups,we all can learn to talk to and listen to one another .This site,and similiar others ,are very useful,but while every parish might not be able to set up such groups,every decent sized town could have one aroud the cathedral,or other active church. The personal engagement of groups is more powerful,and would produce more people who were strong ,both emotionally,morally,and intellectually to ‘evangelise’ .Each area has a social particularitie which can only be addressed by ‘local’ knowledge.

 

[Portrait]

However many times the Septuagint might have been quoted – one thing is certain – there’s not one quote from the Apocrypha books even though the OT was abundantly quoted. So obviously, Jesus and the Apostles didn’t consider those books OT Scripture.

Dear kelman,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for the above and your latest dispatches. Please do not worry about being behind with answering posts, I know myself how difficult it is sometimes to keep abreast with them all.

Returning to the subject of the canon, as far as the West was concerned rejection of the Deutrocanonical’s was the exception rather than the rule. However, it was to be expected that views frequently expressed in the East should have some impact also in the West. Hence, for example, Hilary of Poitiers (c. 315-366) reproduces the canon of Origen.

St. Augustine simply accepts the wider canon and affirms its contents on the authority of the Church; for him this argument was paramount. Often he has to defend the disputed books and does so, like a good Catholic, by recalling the Church’s testimony. Thus he defends the canonicity of Wisdom because “…it was found worthy of being read from the lector’s pulpit in the Church of Christ for so long a course of years, and of being heard with the veneration due to divine authority by all Christians, from bishops even down to the lowest laity, the peintents and Catechumens” (Lib de Praedest Sanctorum, c. 14).

The Catholic O.T. includes the LXX and the LXX was rejected by the Jews chiefly because it was used by the early Christians in controversy. It is therefore quite surprising that our Protestant brethren wish to use the shorter canon determined by the Jews who had rejected Christ as the Messiah, especially when the earlier followers of Christ used the LXX in the first place. The whole argument that the Jews were the custodians of the oracles of God is simply irrelevant, since they ceased being the chosen people with the sacking of Jerusalem and its temple in 70 AD. Therefore why should Christians have to accept the unauthoritative Jewish determination of the canon, rather that the Catholic Church’s decision?; Why should Christians opt for the truncated canon of disenfranchised Jews? The Jews had their own very biased reasons for rejecting the wider canon that included the LXX, for as the Protestant scholar, F.F. Bruce observed, “'Greek Judaism, it has been said, 'with the Septuagint had ploughed the furrows for the gospel in the western world; but it was the Christian preachers who sowed the seed. So thoroughly, indeed, did Christians appropriate the Septuagint as their version of the Scriptures that the Jews became increasingly disenchanted with it”. (The Canon of Scripture, Inter Varsity Press, 1988, p. 50). Unfortunately, many Protestants are only too eager to accept the Jewish determination of the O.T. canon because of their hostility to the Catholic Church and its teachings. However, many men wisely prefer to trust the determination of the new covenant people of God, the new priesthood (I Pet. 2: 9). Had not our Lord prophesied that the kingdom of God would be taken away from the Jews “and given to nation producing the fruits of it”? (S. Matt. 21: 43).

I conclude with these comments of the Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly:

"For the great majority…the duetro-canonical writings ranked as Scripture in the fullest sense. Augustine, for example, whose influence in the West was decisive, made no distinction between them and the rest of the O.T…The same inclusive attitude to the Apocrypha was authoritatively displayed at the synods of Hippo and Carthage, in 393 and 397 respectively, and also in the famous letter which Pope Innocent I dispatched Exuperious, Bishop of Toulouse in 405" (Ear**ly Christian Doctrines, 55-56, emphasis mine).

Following the “great majority” who accepted the Deutrocanonical’s, the Council of Trent repeated the decision of Florence (1441) and the books comprising of the canon were formally and correctly defined by the authoritative Church. True, some, including Cardinals Ximenes and Cajetan, did, before the Council of Trent, hesitate and reserve the designation canonical to the Hebrew shorter canon, but that was prior to the definitive decision of Trent so is hardly of any great moment. The Council finally decided that all the books, deutrocanonical anf protocanonical were inspired and of equal authority. All doubts were now set at rest by the decision of the Council. Contrasted with this definition of the Council was the attitude of the Reformers who, because they disapproved of some doctrines which found support in the duetrocanonical’s (e.g. purgatory in 2 Maccabees), were content to reject their authority in doctrinal matters. In this, as in so many other matters, they sadly opted to use their own fallible private judgement and rejected the authority of the Church, established by Christ. Unlike St. Augustine the authority of the Church is not paramount with Protestants when it comes to the canon of Sacred Scripture.

Goodbye for now, dear friend, and God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[PRmerger]

This seriously contradicts Scripture. No where do we find that “faith… in His Church” is a prerequisite for salvation. The “collection of books” which just happens to be the voice of God in written form proclaims that **“faith in Jesus Christ” **is what saves.

Of course, kelman. It is faith in Jesus Christ that saves!

However, Christ comes with His Body, the Church. One without the other is a lysis which is the tool of the Devil.

IOW, if one says he serves the Church without Jesus, he is serving a decapitated Body. A Body without a Head.

By the same token, if one says he serves Jesus only, he is serving a Head floating around without a corpus.

Incidentally, you would not know a single thing about Jesus without a Church–a Church that preserved the Scriptures for you so you can know that “faith in Jesus” saves.

If one insists that his church “saves”, he has not the faith or salvation about which God speaks.

Well, the Church “saves” only in the same sense as Paul claims that he saves souls.

If somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them.—Romans 11:14

Thus, if you object to the idea that we say that the Church saves then you will have to have a problem with Romans 11:14, in which St. Paul clearly states that he will “save some of” his fellow countrymen.

 

[illusion_buster]

There comes a time when the material aspects of the church life will end,as all matter does,and what will be left is the ‘faithful’ of the heart.

This is a Truth we all often forget. The establishment of a ‘church’ is to support and nourish living. If Jesus is the subject of it’s faith then obedience to it’s ‘rule’ is a step taken in faith. If the ‘rule’ is unjust, in time it will pass away… if the ‘rule’ is just it will serve the glory of God and progress God’s plan for all mankind. CHOOSING to obey the ‘rule’ when we personnelly think it’s misguided, frees us from 'our human self ’ and in thus doing, putts all faith in the Holy Spirit’s unfolding plan which IS infallible. Serving with humility, WHERE YOU ARE PLANTED…is the ultimate Trust in God. It does ‘Truth’ no favours arguing back & forth (though humanly, very enjoyable) when Truth is revealed to each man’s heart when he is ready to accept it. (parable of the sower of the seed). The ‘church’ as Jesus discribed it, is “His flock” of which there is many and of which none will be lost and TO which there are OTHERS, NOT of this particular group that are part of the larger flock.

The Good Shepherd parable:-
the one who enters through the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep recognize his voice and come to him. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. After he has gathered his own flock, he walks ahead of them, and they follow him because they know his voice. They won’t follow a stranger; “I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep. All who came before me were thieves and robbers. But the true sheep did not listen to them. Yes, I am the gate. Those who come in through me will be saved. They will come and go freely and will find good pastures. The thief’s purpose is to steal and kill and destroy. My purpose is to give them a rich and satisfying life.

The above implies that any shepherd (spiritual leader) who Truelly follows Jesus and His teachings is entitled to a flock which will follow him and no other shepherd. It also implies that there are MANY valid shepherds and they will find different yet GOOD pastures to nourish their sheep.

Jesus goes on further to emphesis that these shepherds ALL come under HIS larger flock

“I am the good shepherd; I know my own sheep, and they know me, just as my Father knows me and I know the Father. So I sacrifice my life for the sheep. I have other sheep, too, that are not in this sheepfold. I must bring them also. They will listen to my voice, and there will be one flock with one shepherd.

If there is a particular enclosed sheepfold (christians) to which there is a gated entry (Jesus) as discribed in the first section of the parable. Then who are the ‘other sheep not of the sheepfold?’ Could they be those of non Christian belief systems who reverently adore the One Creator God?

 

[PRmerger]

The above implies that any shepherd (spiritual leader) who Truelly follows Jesus and His teachings is entitled to a flock which will follow him and no other shepherd. It also implies that there are MANY valid shepherds and they will find different yet GOOD pastures to nourish their sheep.

Indeed! This is very Catholic of you to say!

And in the CC there are MANY valid shepherds in the Church who lead their diocese in spiritual formation.

 

[illusion_buster]

And in the CC there are MANY valid shepherds in the Church who lead their diocese in spiritual formation.

I always thought that all RCC diocese formation, speak with the One voice of the RCC. Thus we all hear the same teaching. The other shepherd Jesus referred to had their OWN voice but subject to the teachings of Jesus. This implies something else.

 

[PRmerger]

I always thought that all RCC diocese formation, speak with the One voice of the RCC. Thus we all hear the same teaching. The other shepherd Jesus referred to had their OWN voice but subject to the teachings of Jesus. This implies something else.

Firstly, illusion, if you could learn how to use the quote feature properly that might make it easier for you, rather than cutting and pasting and changing colors.

See here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=19771

Anyway, could you give an example of another shepherd teaching something in his own voice yet being subject to the teaching of Jesus?

(Incidentally, is there any other way to know what the teachings of Jesus are, except through the Catholic Church? what other teachings of Jesus are you aware of?)

 

[kelman]

The devotional reading of Sacred Scripture by the Catholic avails much, for it helps him advance in that “…holiness without which no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12: 14). The “Blessed Man” of Psalm 1 whose “delight is in the law of the lord” and who “meditates” upon it frequently will greatly prosper as regards true godliness. Thus, reading Sacred Scripture is highly profitable and this is recognised by the Church.

I’m afraid that Scripture is only “profitable” for the Roman Catholic when those parts that disagree with their church are either rejected or so twisted in their intent as to be of no value. Scripture declares – not to add to it and yet your church consistently does so by binding men’s conscience with its never ending new laws. For example, I’m in the process of discussing 2Thes 2:15 which the RCC has torn to shreds attempting to build support for their traditions. There is no attempt, no desire really, to find the true intent of the passages - only desire to bolster a preconceived church doctrine.

We then confirm this teaching for ourselves from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradtion and find it to be true, just as the Bereans did in the Acts.

Simply not true. The Bereans did not attempt to “confirm” Paul’s Gospel with the traditions of Pharisees who were “the blind leading the blind”. Why this constant adding to Scripture?..the passage does not say the Bereans consulted tradition – only the written Scriptures.

The bible does not state or even imply anywhere that Sacred Scripture alone is sufficient, that is an unsupportable Protestant deduction.

This is an odd statement especially since it so obviously contradicts Scripture. God is clear that the only thing He calls inspired is sufficient for salvation and leading a godly life. It’s not even a “deduction” because it is crystal clear. Did God say that tradition can make us “wise unto salvation”?..absolutely not. This is said only of inspired Scripture ”And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”(2Tim 3:15).

Again, does God say the church or tradition makes you “wise unto salvation”….no, He does not – He says that only of the written Scriptures.

And then God reiterates this principle as He insists that the written Scriptures are “breathed-out” by Him and totally able to bring man to “perfection” – ”All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” (2Tim 3:16-17). Therefore, whatever doctrine which is contrary to this, whatever cannot be supported by Scripture must be rejected.

 

[kelman]

(Originally by kelman)—
Of course that’s not what 1Tim 3:15 says, is it? No, it says the church is the pillar – not that the church is the truth – the truth is the written Scriptures. Besides, read in its context we see that the point of Paul’s argument is the government of the local church – elders, deacons and their qualifications. You say “a careful study”, however, instead of exegetical theology we get historical RCC theology. We just can’t take a verse out of it context and pretend it says something it doesn’t.

Yes, it is the church’s responsibility to uphold the written Scriptures(the Truth), however, that is not the task of one church but all churches. And, of course, it is from the traditions of men that any church can do this “infallibly”. The guide of absolute truth can only be produced by God and this He mercifully gave us in His inspired Bible. It is God’s words which are “truth” (John 17:17) – never a collection of fallible men. The Apostles alone were were guided into “all truth”(John 16:13) and they along with the OT prophets penned God’s truth for us(Eph 3:2-5). It is man’s sole heavenly guide along with the illumination of the Holy Spirit which was delivered once for all(Jude 3) God tells us that it is these written words of His which will judge the world in the last day(John 12:48; Rom 2:16; James 2:12). Paul does not “unequivocally” say that church is “truth”…only that it is a pillar which upholds truth.

How can Protestantism a collection of denominations fraught with division and doctrinal disagreements, truly be designated “the household of God”?

Easily, most denominations, of which the RC is one, bring the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. True, many denominations have so watered-down this Gospel and others have made the true Gospel of no avail by virtue of its man-made traditions.

The Christian bodies which, since the time of the Reformation, have put themselves outside of the Roman obedience and the succession because of its alleged “superstitions and accretions to the pure primitive faith” have, alas, extensively declined from the “faith once delivered” and that decline continues unrelentingly,….

There is no scriptural mandate to be obedient to Rome…that is a classic example of a delusion of grandeur to which Rome has long ago succumbed. Even an aberrant Protestant church is not outdone by the RCC in its “accretions to the pure primitive faith”. The “faith once delivered” is no longer the faith promulgated by Rome.

Roman Catholic historians/theologians who write their own biased or radical interpretation of truth and history, are indeed rebellious members. You may recall that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith met in 1979 to examine two leading liberal theologians, namely Edward Schillebeecks and Hans Kung.

Did I ever mention Kung?..no, I didn’t. In fact, I’ve mentioned RCC scholars(Raymond Brown and Joseph Fitzmyer) who were appointed by a pope and yet they deviate from what Rome considers evidence of a papacy and infallibility.

Rome achieved the prestigious position that it did because the Church there was founded by SS. Peter and Paul,…

Yes, that’s partly true, however, that prestige was built on faulty ground. Paul did not found the church at Rome and there is no biblical evidence that Peter was ever in Rome. Much of what passes for history we find is simply “word of mouth” and second or third sources. We know what God has to say about “word of mouth” – it is not reliable - and we’ve seen evidence of just that. That is why He gave us His written Word - so that we would evermore have His truths before us, unfortunately, many are not interested in them except perhaps as a means to garner something anything to promote an already established doctrine.

 

[PRmerger]

This is an odd statement especially since it so obviously contradicts Scripture. God is clear that the only thing He calls inspired is sufficient for salvation and leading a godly life.

If you do a search for the word “sufficient” in the New Testament, kelman, you will not find the word “sufficient” attached to “Scripture” at all.

See here: biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=sufficient&version1=31&searchtype=all&bookset=2
and here: biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=sufficient&searchtype=all&version1=63&bookset=2
and here: biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=sufficient&searchtype=all&version1=9&bookset=2

You have added that man-made tradition that says that Scripture Alone is SUFFICIENT.

[SIGN1]Nowhere do the Scriptures say that.[/SIGN1]

What is mentioned in the Scriptures as being SUFFICIENT is GRACE, which is, of course, Catholic teaching.

Scripture is declared to be PROFITABLE. And that, too, of course, is Catholic teaching.

And then God reiterates this principle as He insists that the written Scriptures are “breathed-out” by Him and totally able to bring man to “perfection” – ”All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” (2Tim 3:16-17). Therefore, whatever doctrine which is contrary to this, whatever cannot be supported by Scripture must be rejected.

Catholics give a hearty amen! to this!

Incidentally, in James 1:3-4 we read “…for you know that testing of your faith produces steadfastness [patience]. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.”

Clearly, here the Scriptures are saying that what brings a man to “perfection” is not Scripture but rather patience.

Are you willing to argue that the Scriptures say that patience “alone” is what’s required to bring a man to “perfection”?

If you use the same exegesis that you applied to 2 Tim 3:15 then you’ll have to conclude that it’s Patience Alone that brings you to perfection. Not Scripture Alone.

 

[kelman]

(Originally by kelman)—
The assumption of Mary, for one.

Two things. What anyone thinks would be “nice” for God to do is simply a matter of private judgment. Second, that is another unbiblical term for Mary – she is never referred to as “the Ark”.

Psalm 132:8 - Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou
and the Ark (Mary) of thy might. Both Jesus and Mary were taken up to
their eternal resting place in heaven.

”Ark of thy might”?..this has nothing to do with Mary. These are the same words used by Solomon at the dedication of the temple as he concluded his prayer with the following and clearly Mary is not in view in either passage:

2Chronicles 6:41 ** Now therefore arise, O LORD God, into thy resting place, thou, and the ark of thy strength: let thy priests, O LORD God, be clothed with salvation, and let thy saints rejoice in goodness.**

2 Cor. 12:2 - Paul speaks of a man in Christ who was caught up
to the third heaven. Mary was also brought up into heaven by
God.

One example is obviously biblical – the other is obviously not biblical…just what some men think would be “nice”. No, the Bible is profoundly silent on this issue nor is there early church historical evidence. In fact, this doctrine was based on writings condemned as heretical by previous popes. This is shown to be from the minds of men and not something revealed by God.

Matt. 27:52-53 - when Jesus died and rose, the bodies of the
saints were raised. Nothing in Scripture precludes Mary’s assumption
into heaven.

There’s simply no justification for making-up a doctrine out of whole cloth simply because Scripture is silent on the issue. This is the result of promulgating a doctrine for which there is no evidence, the result of rejecting the biblical doctrine of sola Scriptura.

1 Thess. 4:17 - we shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the
Lord in the air and so we shall always be with the Lord.

Yes, and absence of any evidence to the contrary, Mary’s body is one of those that will be changed on the last day.

Rev. 12:1 - we see Mary, the “woman,” clothed with the sun.
While in Rev. 6:9 we only see the souls of the martyrs in heaven, in
Rev. 12:1 we see Mary, both body and soul.

There’s more problems with this verse and RCC theology than you can shake a stick at! First, look at verse 2 which indicates, if you insist this is a literal woman, that the child was brought forth in pain. RCC teaching is that Mary had a painless childbirth. Second, when was “Mary” in the wilderness for “a thousand two hundred and threescore days”?(verse 6). Third, I supposes it was Mary who was ”given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place,…”?(verse 14). Fourth, when was Mary ”carried away of the flood”?(verse 15).

No, this was an apocalyptic vision given to John complete with symbols and metaphorical language – not about something that had happened in the past. And when read in the wider context of the entire book, we see that the “woman” is a reference to the true spiritual church which is often referred to as a woman ”Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.”(Rev 19:7) Or, ”…. Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife.”(Rev 21:9)

2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul instructs us to hold fast to oral (not just
written) tradition. Apostolic tradition says Mary was assumed into
heaven.

No, you make the classic RCC error by suggesting that the oral tradition mentioned is different from what was written. We know this is simply not true because verse 15 says **”So stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught…" ** Check out the verb tenses if the plain sense is not convincing enough for you. There is nothing future indicated in “oral tradition”. The church at Thessalonica was to hold to the traditions which were already delivered to them and where can they be found?..in the first epistle Paul wrote to them.

I’m not sure what your point was in using those biblical passages since not one of them in any way addresses the assumption of Mary.

 

[kelman]

While claiming the bones of the saints was a common practice during
these times (and would have been especially important to obtain Mary’s
bones as she was the Mother of God), Mary’s bones were never claimed.
This is because they were not available. Mary was taken up body and
soul into heaven.
source: scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-VI

It’s as I said, there is no biblical evidence, no suggestion that Mary was assumed. We even find RCC scholars(below) admitting that the patristic sources are scarce and the doctrine cannot be laid at their feet. Besides wasn’t such an idea condemned by two popes? It seems the idea originated in a spurious apocryphal book condemned by at least two popes in the 5th and 6th centuries? I see this as another example of RCC “chaos”.

”In these conditions we shall not ask patristic thought—as some theologians still do today under one form or another—to transmit to us, with respect to the Assumption, a truth received as such in the beginning and faithfully communicated to subsequent ages. Such an attitude would not fit the facts…Patristic thought has not, in this instance, played the role of a sheer instrument of transmission’” (Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., ed., Mariology, Vol. I (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955), p. 154).

”The history, therefore, of the belief which this festival was instituted to commemorate is as follows: It was first taught in the 3rd or 4th century as part of the Gnostic legend of St. Mary’s death, and it was regarded by the church as a Gnostic and Collyridian fable down to the end of the 5th century. It was brought into the church in the 6th, 7th, and 8th centuries, partly by a series of successful forgeries, partly by the adoption of the Gnostic legend on part of the accredited teachers, writers, and liturgists. And a festival in commemoration of the event, thus came to be believed, was instituted in the East at the beginning of the 7th, in the West at the beginning of the 9th century” (A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, William Smith and Samuel Cheetham, Ed., (Hartford: J.B. Burr, 1880), pp. 1142-1143).

 

[kelman]

(Originally by kelman)—
I didn’t say Paul wrote down every word he ever preached.

No need to be particularly “receptive” since it is only logical that not every word uttered by the Lord or His Apostles was written down. However, whatever God planned to reveal to us was written down so that, as Peter says, we might ever have the truth with us. In the following verse, John tells us that the written word is for the purpose of believing and thereby attaining eternal life.

John 20:21 ** But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.**

And if one is a Christian, one would think that every single
word uttered by one so close and so inspired would be important, yes?
I mean, if Paul came to your church today would you not hang on every
word he proclaimed? Or would you only listen to what he
wrote?

Hmm, where are these words that Paul spoke that are not recorded in Scripture?..seems like you think you have some….so, why not share? Obviously just a rhetorical question since we know such words do not exist, therefore, only written Scripture records for us the apostolic teaching and the final revelation of God.

Tertullian, in dealing with similar faulty logic of some heretical teaching, wrote the following which I think is as easily applied to the RCC doctrine of the assumption of Mary.

”But if we choose to apply this principle so extravagantly and harshly in our capricious imaginations, we may then make out God to have done anything we please, on the ground that it was not impossible for Him to do it. We must not, however, because He is able to do all things, suppose that He has actually done what He has not done. But we must inquire whether He has really done it … It will be your duty, however, to adduce your proofs out of the Scriptures as plainly as we do…”(Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Vol. III, Tertullian, Against Praxeas, ch. X and XI, p. 605).

 

[kelman]

(Originally by kelman)—
We should not attempt to thwart God’s will - attempt to frustrate His plan. God is the giver of life; it is He who determines the number of children a couple will have. Therefore, many see that contraception is attempting to thwart His plans. Just as there is no “one” passage proving the Trinity neither is there “one” proving contraception is not God’s will.

Are you looking for a secular legal response as to “when life begins”?..can’t help you there. However, I don’t think it takes an Einstein (or an interpretive authority) to recognize that if a woman is pregnant she has a life within her, therefore, we do not murder it.

There are plenty of people who take the name of the Lord and yet believe just about anything – the Bible isn’t inspired for one, there is no heaven or hell, gay marriage, etc. - and, sadly, that it is permissable to murder an unborn child….uh… “terminate the fetus”. However, these people are not Christians. They remind me of the women in Isa 4:1 “And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.”
I didn’t say that verse condemns contraception – only that many people do in fact read it, and other related passages that way. God has not condemned contraception in so many words. Therefore, some people take this as license to use it. It is my opinion, however, that these same people probably do not place their trust in God in all things and we are commanded to do so. Proverb 3:5 “Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.”
It is unfortunate that so many Roman Catholics haven’t the slightest idea what sola Scriptura is, nevertheless, feel competent enough to comment. And sadly those who do know keep a stony silence rather than educate their brothers and sisters.
Very simply put it means “Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) is the doctrine that the Holy Bible, being the Word of God, is the only infallible rule of faith and practice for Christians in the post-apostolic age.”
If you are interested, you can refer to this LINK (justforcatholics.org/a74.htm

Ask yourself how did I not answer your questions? You may not have liked or agreed with my answers, however, that does not translate into “not” answering. What specifically do you find objectionable besides your estimation that I’m my own authority?

As to authority, you are just as much your own authority as I am mine. You used your private judgment when you decided that the RC faith was for you. Of course, thereafter, you are forbidden to use private judgment - again a non-biblical rule set forth by your church.

However, your certainty that any of the things your church teaches is right cannot be greater than whatever certainty you have that your private judgment has decided the question rightly whether you ought to submit unreservedly to its teaching. Remember, since you do not possess infallibility, any decision you make is subject to error.

 

[kelman]

@ Kelman: First of all Kelman, Christ be with you and I hope you’re having a very blessed morning so far and forgive me if I’m being obtuse. Here’s the thing, I wouldn’t dare say I have a tenth of the amount of scripture memorized that you do, nor sadly, Church Father’s quotes, etc.,etc. However, I will tell you the same thing I’ve told my brother, which is “quality over quantity.”

I don’t understand. There can never be a principle of “quality over quantity” with regard to God’s inspired Scripture. All of God’s holy words are equally as inspired and authoritative.

IOW, if you have the entire bible memorized but are 100% wrong in your interpretations (I would never presume this because you appear very knowledgable) and I know one verse but interpret it correctly, then who really knows more scripture?

Goodness, it’s doubtful anyone would be a “100%” wrong in their interpretations. Nevertheless, I do see your point. Knowing what Scripture means is very important and thankfully God has graciously written that which is necessary for salvation very plainly. Besides, if we are taught at all, it is by the Holy Spirit.

If I want to discuss purgatory for example, we can’t because it’s in that “uninspired” section, and although we have MOUNDS of evidence for the inspiration of the deuterocanonical books, you claim to have just as much evidence against them, so in the end, if we have no infallible interpreter of scripture, it’s all a matter of opinion as to what “evidence” ! is correct and that’s a pretty big gamble imo.

The problem is that whatever evidence you have is not inspired evidence. The Scriptures give no credence to the Apocrypha books. Neither the Lord or His Apostles ever quoted from those books and the Lord Himself appealed to the 39 books of the OT when He referenced the original three-fold division of the Hebrew OT: ”And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.”.

So, the evidence I present is patristic but more importantly scriptural.

I would hope, that although you implied that I have an incorrect understanding of sola scriptura, you would not be so arrogant as to believe that just because one has a different opinion than you you should discredit his interpretation.

Your post demonstrated an incorrect understanding of sola Scriptura. We are not above making mistakes about another’s doctrine, I’ve done it often enough. However, I don’t make the same mistake twice; both sides need to have an undersanding of opposing doctrines otherwise how can an effective discussion take place?

I don’t dismisss your interpretations but I do hope to “discredit" them….as you do mine.

Futhermore, you have what you believe to be the correct interpretation of scripture I presume? And yet when I spoke of my brother defending the use of contraception, you said, and I quote, “In my OPINION” and then gave your reasoning behind your argument as to why you BELIEVE contraception is wrong and again gave no direct proof from scripture.

No, Josh, that’s not what I did. When I said “in my opinion” that was in reference to “why” I thought some people rejected placing their trust in God. This must be simply an “opinion” because I was speaking about motivations…no one can truly know the heart of another. In my defense, I was speaking generally and not to the motivation of an individual which, of course, we should never do. This is what I said: ”It is my opinion, however, that these same people probably do not place their trust in God in all things and we are commanded to do so.”

I didn’t give you any “direct proof” from Scripture because the issue is not addressed directly which is what I told you – ”Just as there is no “one” passage proving the Trinity neither is there “one” proving contraception is not God’s will.” And because we do not find that God has made using contraception a sin, there is no reason why anyone else should.

Lastly, using your logic of saying we have no way of being POSITIVE of what scripture says because the world has no infallible interpreter, then forgive me if I don’t take your OPINION as anything infallible.

We may be “positive” about much of Scripture because God gives us the faith to believe. Still, we may never assume authority over the Word of God by claiming an ability to “infallibly” interpret His thoughts. Nothing to “forgive”, I agree, you shouldn’t take anyone’s opinion as "anything infallible”.

 

[Josh316]

Ask yourself how did I not answer your questions? You may not have liked or agreed with my answers, however, that does not translate into “not” answering. What specifically do you find objectionable besides your estimation that I’m my own authority?

As to authority, you are just as much your own authority as I am mine. You used your private judgment when you decided that the RC faith was for you. Of course, thereafter, you are forbidden to use private judgment - again a non-biblical rule set forth by your church.

However, your certainty that any of the things your church teaches is right cannot be greater than whatever certainty you have that your private judgment has decided the question rightly whether you ought to submit unreservedly to its teaching. Remember, since you do not possess infallibility, any decision you make is subject to error.

I never said you didn’t respond to my questions, only that you didn’t give direct quotes from scripture. And yes, you’re right, I came to my own fallible conclusion that the Church is infallible. However, where we differ is that no matter what definition of sola scriptura you give it boils down to the bible being the ONLY infallible word of God, but without an infallible interpreter, that means diddly squat. Let me ask you Kelman, as a christian you want to avoid sin whenever possible, correct? So if you’re unsure as to whether or not something is a sin, do you always err on the side of caution? If one christian believes something is a sin and another does not, is the Holy Spirit coming to different conclusions or is it being biased towards one person and letting the other go down his own lost path? What you need to understand is the Church is not infallible without God and has never claimed to be, but you seem blinded with this desire to prove yourself right. Leave it to God.

 

[Josh316]

Listen kelman, please accept my appology for the whole “prove yourself right garbage” that I just spewed, sometimes I forget that just because someone is not Catholic doesn’t mean they don’t believe as strongly as I do, so I’m honestly sorry. But I know I’m not crazy so when I say I can feel what the Eucharist has done in my life I’m not some nut or just someone who has been brainwashed and so feels things that aren’t there. I was not a good person at all when younger and the Church, esp. the holy Eucharist, has done so much for me. I really don’t think, at least when it comes to us, that we are getting anywhere so again please except my apology but realize that, to steal your phrase, just because you don’t consider something as worthy evidence doesn’t mean it’s not, i.e. the evidence for the “extra” books. Christ be with you my brother.

 

[Portrait]

I’m afraid that Scripture is only “profitable” for the Roman Catholic when those parts that disagree with their church are either rejected or so twisted in their intent as to be of no value. Scripture declares – not to add to it and yet your church consistently does so by binding men’s conscience with its never ending new laws. For example, I’m in the process of discussing 2Thes 2:15 which the RCC has torn to shreds attempting to build support for their traditions. There is no attempt, no desire really, to find the true intent of the passages - only desire to bolster a preconceived church doctrine.

Dear kelman,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for the above response.

The Catholic Church rests secure in the promise of Christ that He would send the Holy Spirit to lead His Church into all truth (S. Jhn. 16: 12), that He would bind and loose in heaven whatever it bound and loosed on earth (S. Matt. 18: 18) and that He would protect it from destruction (S. Matt. 16: 18).

Our Lord established one Church (not many) through which He would make Himself known unto the world (S. Matt. 5: 14-15, 28: 18-20; Eph. 3: 10). Through the authoritative Scripture, oral preaching and infallible decisions that came from Christ through His Church (S. Lk. 10: 16; Acts 15), our Lord began the slow and steady process of working through the instrumentality of His Body the Church (cf. Rom. 12: 1-5; I Cor. 12: 12: 12-27; Eph. 3: 4-6, 5: 21-23; Col. 1: 18) to bring all things captive in obedience to Himself (II Cor. 10:5).

Now, my dear bother, in order to accomplish the great mission of God’s mercy, the one Church must of necessity be able to teach the truth all of the time. If the Church is not protected from teaching error, then the faithful would have absolutely no trustworthy foundation upon which to build their faith. My dear bother, it is of no use claiming that your doctrinal certitiude is based on Sacred Scripture alone, for the bible nowhere claims to be sufficient for this task. On the contrary, it actually warns that it can be misinterpreted (II Pet. 1: 20, 3: 15-16).

If the unbiblical Protestant ‘tradition’ that the Scriptures are the sole rule of faith is correct, then we are bound to ask how did multitudes of Christians manage through so many centuries before the invention of the printing press? Were they worse Christians for want of copies of the bible? No, that is utter nonsense. They were taught by the Catholic Church and that same Church continues to teach the Christian faith to her subjects today. Those who make the bible their sole source of authority and knowledge frequently end up believing strange and erroneous doctrines and delude themselves and others that these novelties have been derived from God’s word. Moreover, those who maintain the necessity of reading the bible actually limit the efficacy of Christianity, for to argue thus is to assert that multitudes of Christians (including a host of saints) could not have known the fundamental tentes of Christian orthodoxy before the invention of printing in the 15th. cent! The reading of the Scriptures is not, and never was intended by Christ to be a man’s guide in the matter of salvation. His intention was that men should look to the teaching Church (ecclesial docens) which He founded and commissioned to teach the world. Blessed be God, in all ages men have ever been able to turn to the Catholic Church for information, even when copies of the bible were unavailable or very scarce and expensive. If Christ had intended the bible to be indispensable as regards a man’s salvation, then we can only say that He failed abysimally for some fifteen centuries, but this is the conclusion to which Protestantism inelucatably leads.

It is an error to teach that the bible is simple enough in matters respecting a man’s salvation. It may sound superficially plausible but it is an unsound principle that even the bible itself does not support. If the bible really was that simple then there would not be be a multitude of Christian denomonations and a multiplicity of biblical interpretations - even on core Christian teachings, such as Baptism. In any case, many sincere men fail to understand the true meaning of Sacred Scripture, and still more read the wrong meaning into it. Thus St. Peter, the man on whom the Church was founded, says that there are many things in Scripture which are difficult to understand which the “ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction” (II Pet. 3: 18). The very fruits of private interpretation ought to be sufficient proof that God could never have intended such a method for ascertaing the truth. Men have made the bible support the most opposite doctrines ans have set up thousands of distinct and irreconcilable groups, each claiming to represent the true religion of Christ. Could God have ever been the originator of the Reformation principle, sola scriptura, given that it has resulted in so much doctrinal bedlam?

St. Paul’s words (II Tim. 3: 16-17) do not teach the sufficiency of the bible alone, but I cannot really add more to what PRMerger has said in their post to you respecting this passage. Scripture and Tradition are equally important fonts of the one Revelation given by Christ and entrusted to the holy Apostles. As St. Augustine says, “There are many things which the universal Church holds, and therefore rightly believes to have been taught by the Apostles, even though they are not found written down” (On Baptism, 5, 23 & 31, emphasis mine). If St. Augustine merely believed that the only oral tradition was what existed before the bible was penned, he would clearly have not spoken thus.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

Yes, it is the church’s responsibility to uphold the written Scriptures(the Truth), however, that is not the task of one church but all churches. And, of course, it is from the traditions of men that any church can do this “infallibly”. The guide of absolute truth can only be produced by God and this He mercifully gave us in His inspired Bible. It is God’s words which are “truth” (John 17:17) – never a collection of fallible men. The Apostles alone were were guided into “all truth”(John 16:13) and they along with the OT prophets penned God’s truth for us(Eph 3:2-5). It is man’s sole heavenly guide along with the illumination of the Holy Spirit which was delivered once for all(Jude 3) God tells us that it is these written words of His which will judge the world in the last day(John 12:48; Rom 2:16; James 2:12). Paul does not “unequivocally” say that church is “truth”…only that it is a pillar which upholds truth.

Dear kelman,

Hello again.

Unfortunately, the many Protestant groupings do not speak with one voice on even essential doctrines. Thus the question remains unanswered: to which ecclesial communion do we turn to hear the authentic and authoritative interpretation of Sacred Scripture? Clearly, it cannot be to any of the churches of the Reformation, or their many offshoots, since none of them claim infallibilty, but admit their liability to error because of the human condition. This being the case, how can we then place reliance upon their divergent biblical interpretations, which may lead us seriously astray and into error? Had they not departed from the authoritative and authentic Catholic interpretation there would not exists the scandal of so many “unhappy divsions” among them. As a matter of fact, all of this practically nulifies their cliams to be reliable guides as to the true sense of Sacred Scripture.

You see, dear friend, in the Protestant scheme of things there is no way of knowing who is right and who is wrong and this is the basic fallacy with the churches of the Reformation. They offer no certainty as to what God and the bible really teach. It is only the Catholic Church that can give this certitude in matters of religion, since she and she alone is the Church established by Christ upon St. Peter (S. Peter 16: 18). As St. Ambrose said, *Ubi *Petrus, ibi ecclesias, that is, “Where Peter is, there is the Church”, I have alread showed in a previous post (# 319 & 325) the apostolicity of the Catholic Church and the Primacy of St. Peter (# 326).

Only by abandoning the Protestant tradition of personal and private intepretation and embracing the doctrines taught clearly by the Catholic Church established by Christ, can any man have certitude and peace of mind. She is the only Church in the world with any authority from God to teach all nations and she alone is endowed with infallibilty in order that she may not lead men into doctrinal and moral error. Blessed be God, she has for two millenia both fulfilled and proved her mission under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax