J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
It says He explained beginning from Moses to all the Prophets.
- Status
G
Gorgias
Guest
That is the Protestant argument for Scripture: only that which was put into writing is the teaching of the apostles. It begs the question: “the teaching of the apostles is what’s found in the Bible… because it is found in the Bible.”
It’s fallacious; it just doesn’t hold up.
M
mcq72
Guest
well, if under scrutiny, I suppose i can tighten up what is really meant by us. it is rather “the apostles put sufficiently in writing the Lord’s precepts”
What salvific or life giving doctrines were left out?
what is the question?
I would hope the teaching of the apostles is in their writing , lol.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
Thank you
Is Moses from his time or the first five books that he was inspired to write, like from Genesis?
G
Gorgias
Guest
Ahh! Great!
OK… where, then, do you get that assertion? Is it expressed as such in the Bible? Is it a teaching of the early Church? Or – and I hate to raise the stakes like this, but… – is a later “tradition of men”?
Again: begging the question. But, nevertheless… are you really lobbing that softball at me? 'Cause, here’s the answer, from the perspective of the Church that Christ founded: everything that the Church teaches but Protestants deny. We can start a short list, and it’ll just keep growing: seven sacraments, salvation not by faith alone (after all, if it were in the Bible, you’d agree with it, no?
), apostolic authority, … and the list goes on and on!Ahh… but you claim something distinctly different: that the entirety of the teaching of Jesus is found in the texts of the Bible. That’s an important difference – and it’s not asserted in the Bible! (And, in fact, as has been pointed out to you, it’s explicitly denied in the Bible!!)
D
dochawk
Guest
Uhh . . . how does that contradict what I wrote?.
uh, no, not all by itself.
I have never heard the suggestion anywhere else that the primacy of the bishop of rome is of apostolic, rather than divine, origin.
They have the fundamental problem that this bit of scriptura doesn’t fit with sola scriputra . . .
M
mcq72
Guest
Then why are the differences and the things you listed come with much biblical text support as pointed out by CC ?(What was left out of bible? Mcq question) everything that the Church teaches but Protestants deny. We can start a short list, and it’ll just keep growing: seven sacraments, salvation not by faith alone (after all, if it were in the Bible, you’d agree with it, no?
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
I believe so. Even the CC says it is materially sufficient.
We all have the same players of the church, tradition, the Holy Spirit, and the Scripture. We just differ on the focus and functional application or their method or character of the synergy.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
That is your strawman. I posted "the apostles put sufficiently in writing the Lord’s precepts”
I have never ruled out that He ceases from teaching even today. I would add pretty sure He has no new precepts but only new applications perhaps.
Churches, like the CC then stress the opposite, that the entirety of teaching is not in bible, to justify their role and positions. This “entirety” thing is your game and of others I suppose.
Well, thank you for the question mark at least.
I have admitted that some things of the reformation, or at least accentuation of some points, can be “man made”, but only as a counter to the “man made” accentuation to the opposite by CC practice.
Last edited:
A
ArchStanton
Guest
1 Thess 2:13 And for this reason we too give thanks to God unceasingly, that, in receiving the WORD of God from HEARING us , you received not a human word but, as it truly is, the word of God, which is now at work in you who believe
3 Jn 13-14 I have much to write to you, but I DO NOT wish to WRITE with pen and ink . Instead, I hope to see you soon, when we can TALK face to face.
2 Jn 12 Although I have much to write to you, I do not intend to use paper and ink . Instead, I hope to visit you and to SPEAK face to face so that our joy may be complete.
A
ArchStanton
Guest
The Eucharist is either true [body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ] or it is false.
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
Allowing for a belief and saying that belief is so are two different things.
G
Gorgias
Guest
The standard you’re arguing for is particularly that the teaching of the Catholic Church is only validly accepted when it’s found in Scripture though, no?
In any case, if you can find the Scripture reference that asserts that Scripture is sufficient (as opposed to ‘useful’ or ‘profitable’, since those are different claims altogether!), I’d appreciate seeing it!
I don’t think it’s my strawman. To be honest, I think it’s yours. Jesus commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, right? And, if they did so in a way that didn’t land in the Bible, but was part of the teaching tradition that was handed down by the Church, would you accept that non-Scriptural-but-nevertheless-apostolic teaching? If not, then my characterization, I would assert, is accurate. Looking forward to reading your response…!
Hmm… so, is the problem with “man-made traditions” or merely “man-made traditions we don’t like”?
A
AlNg
Guest
Yes. Why would Peter be listed behind James if he was the Vicar of Christ and James was not the Vicar of Christ? shouldn’t the Vicar of Christ be listed first indicating his primacy over the others?
"And when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. "(Galatians 2:9 ESV)
A
ArchStanton
Guest
The Holy Spirit didn’t seem to have a problem naming Peter first.
Mt 10:2-4 The names of the twelve apostles are these: FIRST, Simon called Peter , and his brother Andrew; James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James, the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddeus; Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot who betrayed him.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
Well, we were talking of succession of Peter’s role as leader of the twelve. Does that continue, so that the bishop of Rome was head of 100 successors, or today almost 6000?
No one contests appointment of presbyters by all the apostles. What has in my opinion been questionable way before any reformation or schism is specific succession of a sole leader over all.
Agree to first sentence. Agree Paul was not Peter’s successor (died before Peter?), but has been cited as co apostle/ bishop in or of Rome’s church. I believe Paul replaced Judas.
Last edited:
A
ArchStanton
Guest
That would be Matthias
M
mcq72
Guest
Yes, what man adjured the Lord in prayer to pick by lots, before Pentecost…could be valid…we have no biblical commentary, only that this happened
Just as valid is that Jesus chose the eleven and it could be argued Jesus chose and educated the replacement with Paul. I believe Paul is the only other apostle ever mentioned to be appointed by Jesus or the apostles( save Mathias). If a bunch of others were, I would not make this claim . Paul is the only one, and one of epic proportions, mentioned as much as Peter.
Last edited:
A
ArchStanton
Guest
Why not add Barnabas to the list. [Acts 14:14] with Barnabas listed first … post 134 comes to mind
Acts 14:14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting:
A
ArchStanton
Guest
…but only one was given the keys of authority. [Mt 16]
Last edited:
- Status