Protestant belief in Sola Scriptura

[simspt]

Josiah

How do you know the NT Scriptures you use as your norm are the correct writings? What about the ones that were excluded or strongly debated?

I disagree I think Brown’s comments show the logical difficulty with SS and also point out that even Protestants implicitly are under the influence of the their Church organizations in so far as how their standard should be put into practice and correctly understood.

 

[surritter]

Josiah, this is getting quite tiresome. Please stop repeating the same questions. They have been answered. Sorry if you don’t like the answers. Perhaps you can fine-tune your questions to ask the specific detail that you think the answerer is wrong on.

Also, please stop trying to take up more of a page with the spaces and periods.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

Raymond Brown makes a very perceptive statement in his NT INTRO BOOK on page 31

Dr. Brown is simply wrong.

1. His first point about hermeneutics is moot to this discussion. His rebuke of self designating self as the sole, authoritative and unaccountable interpreter is odd (and noteworthy) since there is only ONE in all of Christiandom that does that he is rebuking - and that one is The Catholic Church. As The Catholic Church insists in The Catechism of The Catholic Church as written by The Catholic Church, The Catholic Church designates ONE authoritative interpreter of Scripture and Tradition, and that ONE is itself. Alone. CCC 85, etc.
2. His second point is also moot since it deals with arbitration. The discussion here is whether teachers of doctrine are accountable for what is taught, and if so, what is the most sound rule/canon/norma normans for that norming. But by self (CC) designating self (CC) as the SOLE arbiter for the determination of the correctness of self - made entirely and absolutely moot since self alone (CC) declares self alone (CC) to be INCAPABLE of being wrong.
3. The only correct things he mentions are as follows:
   A. How does one know if that one is correctly following the Spirit? Ah, Brown’s Protestant past is shining through, THAT is related to the issue of this thread!
   B. Yes, Protestants also embrace Tradition in hermeneutics, and if this thread was about hermeneutics, I’d pursue his point there.

.

I disagree I think Brown’s comments show the logical difficulty with SS

I disagree. I think Brown’s comments show his discomfort with self designated self as the sole, authoritative, infallible interpreter - but then the only case of that is The Catholic Church.

He seems to embrace accountability (which is my point - so we seem to be in agreement there) and he embraces the use of Tradition in hermeneutics, which I agree with as well but we’ll need to leave that to a thread about hermeneutics.

The question here is accountability, and the norming (and thus norma normans) that requires. If Dr. Brown is correct and teachers are accountable, then The Catholic Church is accountable. Of course, some Catholics here are attempting to defend that the best way to approach accountability of a teacher is for that teacher to exempt himself alone from such and instead just demand that all accept whatever self alone says with docility.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Jesus never intended for the Church to be “derived from Scripture”. If He had, He would have written
Scripture instead of founding a Church! Imagine how much He would have been able to get written, had He not been pre-occupied with those dense Apostles!

Patient and thorough work as always, guanophore. I think in order to believe all divine truth must come from Scripture alone, the Protestant must believe the following: Christ ascended around 33 A.D. and the Church was given the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Then God’s plan of leading His Church by Scripture alone included the delaying of writing a single word of it for 12-15+ years. And He thought it best for this “sole” source (or sole “praxis norma norms,” if one insists) of divine truth to not be completed for at least 60+ years more. God thought it best for this single source to not be fully recognizable by Christians for around another 350 years. The Protestant must therefore say God did not provide the sole source of His revelation to His people from the beginning.

 

[inkaneer]

Then you disagree with The Catholic Church.

It passionately holds that ALL teachers of doctrine are fully, wholly, completely accountable for what is taught RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW - and not just to God. As you know, it has a very long history of judging teachers and teachings, of declaring some teachings and teachers to be wrong, of excommunicating, declaring some of heresy and that they are heretics, even occasionally dispatching the wrong to their appointed afterlife a bit ahead of schedule smelling like smoke. It DISAGREES with you that teachers are accountable only to God. Frankly, I do too. Which is it? Do you argree with The Catholic Church and I that teachers are accountable here and now, or do you think that teacher are only accountable to God and The Catholic Church needs to reverse and repent of all its excommunications, declaration of heresies, and firery dismissals from earthly life?.

The church is, as the scriptures clearly state, the pillar and foundation of Truth [1Ti 3:15]. It was to the Church that Jesus imparted the deposit of Faith and commanded that the church teach the nations. As such the church is the guardian of the truth and has the responsibility to not only safeguard the truth but to hold teachers who claim to teach the truth accountable to the truth. Therefore when the church issues a decree of excommunication it is formally stating that a teacher is teaching material that is false and therefore that teacher is not in communion [ex communicato] with that deposit of truth given by Jesus to the Apostles. So yes the church can hold others to be accountable but the church itself is accountable to God and that as I posted before is a moot point.

Such is the claim of The Catholic Church alone for The Catholic Church alone. We’re discussing if it is the most sound epistemology and the most sound way to determine correctness for the defendant to excempt himself alone from accountability and for himself alone to insist instead that he alone is incapable of being wrong, and that all just lay aside accountability in the singular, exclusive case of self alone and rather just accept whatever self alone says with docility.

Of course, as we all know, Jesus never so much as even MENTIONED The Catholic Church. For anything, about anything, concerning anything, in any regard for any matter. And you, too, seem to be confusing Teacher with students, Leader with followers. I’d suggest you read Genesis Chapter 3. .

And I suggest that you put your bigotry aside and use the intelligence that God gave you to see that your arguments are false. And it doesn’t matter if Jesus never mentions the Catholic Church. He certainly does not mention Martin Luther either so where are you going with that argument??? I’ll tell you where. The same place you go with all your arguments, NOWHERE!

 

[simspt]

I disagree. I think Brown’s comments show his discomfort with self designated self as the sole, authoritative, infallible interpreter - but then the only case of that is The Catholic Church.

He seems to embrace accountability (which is my point - so we seem to be in agreement there) and he embraces the use of Tradition in hermeneutics, which I agree with as well but we’ll need to leave that to a thread about hermeneutics.

The question here is accountability, and the norming (and thus norma normans) that requires. If Dr. Brown is correct and teachers are accountable, then The Catholic Church is accountable. Of course, some Catholics here are attempting to defend that the best way to approach accountability of a teacher is for that teacher to exempt himself alone from such and instead just demand that all accept whatever self alone says with docility.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

Do you not think that the Christian Bible is a product of the Church, not the other way round? How do you exclude the importance of the role the Church played while simultaneously acknowledging the end result which you hold as the absolute standard. How do you know that SS is based on the correct scriptures? Other books that were not canonized claimed divine inspiration. I am wondering how logically you can support SS while claiming that the history of those very scriptures and how they were collected is moot to our discussion on SS. Please help me understand the defense of SS in relation to the historical context of those scriptures.

 

[simspt]

Josiah,
Why do have such confidence in the NT? Obviously you believe it is accurate when it discusses things about Jesus (who he was, what he said, what he did). Do you think that the Catholic Church was accountable when the NT was canonized? If you trust the scriptures do you not trust The organization that is responsible making those scriptures accessible to you? If my logic is flawed please help me out on this one.

 

[simspt]

Josiah,
when you state “Some (namely the RCC, LDS as well generally all cults) reject the Rule of Scripture, but not because they have a better candidate for the function but because each rejects accountability for the doctrines of itself, requiring instead that all just accept whatever doctrine that teacher exclusively “with docility.” We disagree on the issue of accountability of doctrines.”

I Find it interesting you mention Mormonism.
Why do you believe The NT but not the book of Mormon as being historically accurate? If you claim that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young etc were not accountable for the doctrines of themselves and compare their lack of accountability to Catholics also lacking accountability then why would you ever put your trust in the NT? Was not the NT a product of those unaccountable Catholics?

 

[guanophore]

Yes, it is even possible that the apostles did not write any of the NT (unless you consider Paul an apostle, which is something he considered himself).

The NT is considered inerrant and inspired by the Church, regardless of the autthor.

It cannot be considered infallible.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Then you disagree with The Catholic Church.

It passionately holds that ALL teachers of doctrine are fully, wholly, completely accountable for what is taught RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW - and not just to God. As you know, it has a very long history of judging teachers and teachings, of declaring some teachings and teachers to be wrong, of excommunicating, declaring some of heresy and that they are heretics, even occasionally dispatching the wrong to their appointed afterlife a bit ahead of schedule smelling like smoke. It DISAGREES with you that teachers are accountable only to God. Frankly, I do too. Which is it? Do you argree with The Catholic Church and I that teachers are accountable here and now, or do you think that teacher are only accountable to God and The Catholic Church needs to reverse and repent of all its excommunications, declaration of heresies, and firery dismissals from earthly life?.

.

The church is, as the scriptures clearly state, the pillar and foundation of Truth [1Ti 3:15].

You indicated that a teacher of doctrine is only accountable to God.
I simply noted that as such, you are in disagreement with The Catholic Church.
Read what you posted from me; answer the questions if you like.

Yes, the church should uphold the truth. But I fail to see how this verse indicates that The Catholic Church - specifically, particularly, perpetually and exclusively - is infallible, unaccountable, exempt from norming, and that whatever it and it itself exclusively says is just to be accepted as correct “with docility” or how it indicates that ALL teachers of doctrine are fully and wholly accountable, right here and right now, with ONE notable, exclusive and absolute exception: The Catholic Church.

Such is the claim of The Catholic Church alone for The Catholic Church alone. We’re discussing if it is the most sound epistemology and the most sound way to determine correctness for the defendant to excempt himself alone from accountability and for himself alone to insist instead that he alone is incapable of being wrong, and that all just lay aside accountability in the singular, exclusive case of self alone and rather just accept whatever self alone says with docility.

Of course, as we all know, Jesus never so much as even MENTIONED The Catholic Church. For anything, about anything, concerning anything, in any regard for any matter. And you, too, seem to be confusing Teacher with students, Leader with followers. I’d suggest you read Genesis Chapter 3. .

.

And it doesn’t matter if Jesus never mentions the Catholic Church. He certainly does not mention Martin Luther either so where are you going with that argument? I’ll tell you where. The same place you go with all your arguments, NOWHERE!

I’ve made no claims about Luther. You are making huge, remarkable claims about The Catholic Church - specifically, particularly, perpetually, absolutely and exclusively. And constantly with “Jesus promised ____________ and authorized __________ to The Catholic Church, thus …” And yet, obviously, you’ve not been able to substantiate that He ever even MENTIONED it - for anything. So, where is that argument getting us?

IF I posted, “Jesus said that Martin Luther is infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error, and whatever he specificially and exclusively says is just to be accepted with docility” then I have a hunch that your immediate (and very appropriate) response would be: “Where? Where did Jesus so much as even MENTION Martin Luther?” It would be a very valid point.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

If you trust the scriptures do you not trust The organization that is responsible making those scriptures accessible to you? If my logic is flawed please help me out on this one.

Actually, Concordia Publishing House (a wholly owned company of The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod) made my tome.

I agree with The Catholic Church that GOD is the author and source of His Scriptures. Just as the Old Testament believers, Jesus, the Apostles and all who lived before the 15th century did not need The Catholic Church to do or say ANYTHING in this regard, nor do I. I realize that most denominations have done exactly as The Catholic Church has also done, made some official embrace of the Scriptures as such for itself. This your denomination did in the 16th century at Trent, Italy. Mine did it in the 19th century at St. Louis, MO, USA. But an official embrace by the organization for the denomination is not the same thing as “making it accessable” or authoring it or choosing it. As you well know.

The reality that all parties embrace such as reliable (even inerrant), that it is knowable by all and alterable by none, makes it a good norma normans for us to use. Consider the similar Rule of Law in civilized societies. Now, let’s consider that a friendly man in blue pulls over your car. He notes that you were driving 60 MPH which you hold was right for you to do. He (embracing accountability and looking to a rule/canon) points to the large, square, white sign posted alone the road right next to the two of you, one with large, black, bold numerals and letters that proclaims: “MAX SPEED LIMIT; 45 MPH” In using the Rule of Law, he is subjecting you, he and your position to the Rule of Law and the canon of that sign. YOUR position is that a better way to resolve the correctness of your position is for you exclusively to designate that you exclusively are incapable of error in driving and thus you alone are exempt from any accountability for it, and whatever a defendant does or says is just to be accepted as correct, but ONLY if that defendant is you. Exclusively. We’re discussing is that epistemology is the best way to determine correctness of a position.

Was not the NT a product of those unaccountable Catholics?

No.

Here is the position of The Catholic Church, “The Bible is the very word of God and no greater credence can be offered. The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does this mean? It means that God himself is the Author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as He wished.” “The Bible is authoritative because the Author is, and that Author is God.” (The Handbook of The Catholic Faith, page 136).

Of course, we don’t know who MANY of the penmen were of the OT and NT books. And even if we could identify all of them - from Genesis through Revelation - it’s absurd to argue that all of them were officially registered in congregations legally affiliated with The Catholic Church, specifically, particularly and exclusively. And while The Catholic Church is just like the majority of denominations and has for itself officially embraced Scripture as such has nothing to do with such being Scripture.

And you miss the point. Scripture is not me. It’s not you. It’s OUTSIDE, ABOVE and BEYOND all teachers among us (including The Catholic Church), knowable to all and alterable by none, embraced by us all as reliable in doctrine (in fact, usually regarded as inerrant and the inscripturated words of God). It’s not Josiah declaring Josiah exclusively to be right cuz Josiah says Josiah is so Josiah is, so there.

.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

.
I’ve made no claims about Luther. You are making huge, remarkable claims about The Catholic Church - specifically, particularly, perpetually, absolutely and exclusively. And constantly with “Jesus promised ____________ and authorized __________ to The Catholic Church, thus …” And yet, obviously, you’ve not been able to substantiate that He ever even MENTIONED it - for anything. So, where is that argument getting us?

IF I posted, “Jesus said that Martin Luther is infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error, and whatever he specificially and exclusively says is just to be accepted with docility” then I have a hunch that your immediate (and very appropriate) response would be: “Where? Where did Jesus so much as even MENTION Martin Luther?” It would be a very valid point. .

People have shown you over and over that the Church that Jesus founded and promised to be with to the end of the age is the Catholic Church. It wasn’t called the Catholic Church initially, that came later, around 100 AD. Jesus just called it “my church.” (You are Peter, and upon this Rock I will found my church - Peter became the first Bishop of Rome, the first Pope, the first leader of the Catholic Church).

You just ignore whatever people say and cut and paste the same gibberish over and over again. You can’t defend the unscriptural doctrine of sola scriptura, so you have resorted to attacking the authority of the Church - which is ironic because there would be no Sacred Scripture without the Catholic Church. So, when you read the Gospel of Matthew as part of the canon of Scripture but not the Gospel of Thomas, you are accepting the authority of the Catholic Church.

 

[simspt]

Josiah,
You haven’t addressed the other questions I presented? This is where I guess I am somewhat confused, How do you understand SS as being practiced before the fourth century? By the way I’m not a Catholic YET but very honestly moving quickly in that direction. SS has never been presented to me persuasively by anyone.

 

[guanophore]

Jesus railed against the traditions of men.

Actually, He didn’t. He followed quite a few of those traditions of men Himself, as did His Apostles. He criticized placing any custom of man above the Word of God.

Apparently you don’t understand the difference between customs (traditions of men) and Sacred Tradition (the Word of God).

The Catholic responds they only uphold the traditions of God

This is a false statement. No Catholic who knows his faith would make such a statement. The variety among the 23 Rites of the Catholic Church are largely traditions of men, culture, language, dress, etc.

The Sacred Tradition, the Word of God, is equal to Scripture. The customs and traditions of men are not.

 and refers the Protestant to verses such as 2 Thessalonians 3:6, where believers are exhorted to pass along the tradition which they have received. The Catholic tells the Protestant that the traditions of the Catholic Church are these very same traditions spoken of in the New Testament.

Do you honestly believe that the Apostle would command them to keep the traditions of men on equal par with the Holy Scriptures?

Since the content of those traditions is never described in the New Testament, however, both the Catholic and Protestant must take it on faith that the two traditions are one and the same or else reject the claim.

To some extent, this is true. Just as we take the entire Bible on faith. Is there any other reason you would accept the Bible as the Word of God? Catholics trust the Source. To some extent it is false, since they are referred to in the NT.

 When the Pharisees confronted Christ about his disciples not following the traditions of the elders, Christ explained exactly what was wrong with their traditions: "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" (Matthew 15:3) Christ then goes on to explain how the Pharisees nullified God's law through their traditions. My explanation, using the example of prayers to the saints, shows what I believe to be a nullifying of God's commands.

Indeed, this is true whether it is Jews, Catholics, or Protestants putting human traditions over the Word of God. There is nothing wrong with human traditions, but they should not be used as an excuse to disobey God.

I also firmly believe that if the Catholic Church operated on Sola Scriptura, then there never would be this notion of prayers to the saints.

I am sure you are right! This doctrine has caused many of the Apostolic practices to be lost.

So, I mentioned how the notion of praying to the saints places a degree of separation between the supplicant and God.

clearly you do not understand the nature of communion in the Body of Christ, and God’s intention for the Church.

This is like saying the Bride of Christ “places a separation” between herself and Christ. It just does not make any sense - unless you are suffering from a deficient notion of Church.

Back to the present argument, in what do we have faith?

Are you suggesting that having faith in God means we cannot trust one another to pray?

Somebody responded to me by referencing James 5:16 ("*The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much*") in defense of the Catholic doctrine. Yet as Christians, we *are* righteous. Not intrinsically, but under the blood of the Lamb (for Christ is our righteousness (1 Corinthians 1:30)).

God intends for us to become that which He has decalred us to be. Those who are more progressed in their sanctification have a more powerful prayer life.

If someone fears their prayer will not be received or heard by God, then they lack faith that the blood of Christ is sufficient to restore direct fellowship with God.

While this is true, it is not a reason to refrain from seeking the prayers of others. I would say it is even more reason to do so.

In essence, the idea of the communion of saints, removes the requirement of faith.

Then, if you are so full of faith, why do not not accept what scripture records about the communion of saints?

This has got to be one of the most preposterous things I have heard yet on CAF. How can anyone believe in that which is unseen without faith?

The petitioner is relying on the relationship of the petitioned to God rather than their own relationship, through Christ, with God.

This is also absurd. The effectiveness of our prayers rests in Christ. We are not relying on our own selves, or that of others. The reason the saints prayers are powerful is that they are “in Christ” so whatever they ask, He will grant.

Finally, the petitioner is relying on the faith of the petitioned to obtain a favorable response from God. The doctrine makes for a convenient escape clause, but appears contrary to the requirements of God: that we have faith in Him and in what He has done for us through Christ’s sacrifice.

This is also absurd. The only reason any of us can do anything for God is by His grace. those in heaven no longer need “faith” because they have “arrived”. It is we who must exercise our faith, that we may join them.

I am sure that your ideas appear contrary to the requirements of God. they appear that way to me too.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

People have shown you over and over that the Church that Jesus founded and promised to be with to the end of the age is the Catholic Church.

No. They haven’t even attempted such.

What has been the point is that Jesus promised and authorized all sorts of things specifically, exclusively, particulary to THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. They’ve not only failed to so that He promised all these things specifically and exclusively to it, but even that it so much as simply mentioned it - for anything, at all, ever.

And then, flowing from all this, that ERGO, The Catholic Church (exclusively, particularly, specifically, perpetually and exclusively) is infallible and unaccountable. Without any indication of such from Scripture. Often by an argument that an inerrant Teacher means all are infallible and unaccountable students, an inerrant Leader means that all are ergo infallible/unaccountable followers (how one can argue that and has read the Bible - even just one chapter, Genesis 3, is something I just don’t understand).

You can’t defend the unscriptural doctrine of sola scriptura

1. There is no such doctrine.
2. I have Scripturally defended accountability of teachers.
3. I have shown the Scripture was used normatively, from Moses through the Apostles (the praxis is known as Sola Scriptura).

You have resorted to attacking the authority of the Church

No, I’ve said nothing whatsoever about any authority of any denomination - yours, mine or any other.

Some Catholics - trying to justify that while all teachers of doctrine are accountable - ONE is not: The Catholic Church. Some have done so by saying Jesus so stated but they have yet to quote the verse. Others by saying that since God teaches and leads inerrantly, all students and followers must be infallible/unaccountable, an argument I find both illogical and unbiblical (did you teachers regard YOU as infallible/unaccountable? Did God regard Adam and Eve as infallible/unaccountable?).

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

How do you understand SS as being practiced before the fourth century?

Jesus DID embrace accountability and never exempted The Catholic Church. Scripture affirms accountability for teachers of doctrine. Just a very few of just NT verses on this: 2 Peter 2:1, Titus 2:1, 1 Timothy 6:3, Revelation 2:2, James 3:1, Matthew 13:52, Luke 20:46, Ephesians 4:14. All are before 400 AD.

Whereas Jesus never once used The Catholic Church or Catholic Tradition as normative (or as anything; He never so much as even MENTIONED it - for, by or as anything), He did use Scripture normatively (Sola Scriptura). Here’s just 50 examples of where Jesus uses Scripture normatively (Sola Scriptura), all well before 400 AD (in fact, all before 31 AD): Matt 21:42 Matt 22:29, Matt 26:54, Matt 26:56, Matt 2:5, Matt 4:4l, Matt 4:6, Matt 4:7l, Matt 4:10, Matt 11:10, Matt 21:13, Matt 26:24, Matt 27:37, Mark 12:10, Mark 12:24, Mark 14:49, Mark 15:28, Mark 1:2, Mark 7:6, Mark 9:12, Mark 9:13, Mark 11:17, Mark 14:21, Mark 14:27, Luke 4:21, Luke 24:27, Luke 24:32, Luke 24:45, Luke 2:23, Luke 3:4, Luke 4:4, Luke 4:8, Luke 4:10, Luke 4:17, Luke 7:27, Luke 10:26, Luke 18:31, Luke 19:46, Luke 20:17, Luke 21:22, Luke 22:37, Luke 23:38, Luke 24:44, Luke 24:46, John 2:22, John 5:39, John 7:38, John 7:42, John 10:35, John 13:18, John 17:12, John 19:24, John 19:36, John 19:37, John 20:9, John 2:17, John 6:31, John 6:45, John 8:17, John 10:34, John 12:14, John 12:16, John 15:25, John 19:20, John 20:30, John 20:31, John 21:25. There are more, of course.

Here are just some examples of Apostles using it, too, all before 400 AD. In fact, all before 100 AD: **Acts 1:16, Acts 8:32, Acts 8:35, Acts 17:2, Acts 17:11. Acts 8:24, Acts 18:28, Acts 1:29. Acts 7:42, Acts 13:29, Acts 13:33, Acts 15:15, Acts 23:5, Acts 24:14, , Acts 13:46, Romans 1:2, Romans 4:3, Romans 10:11, Romans 11:2, Romans 15:4, Romans 26:26, Romans 1:17, Romans 2:24, Romans 3:4, Romans 3:10, Romans 4:17, Romans 4:23, Romans 8:36, Romans 9:13, Romans 10:15, Romans 11:8, Romans 11:26, Romans 12:19, Romans 14:11, Romans 15:3, Romans 15:9, Romans 15:21, 1 Cor. 15:3, 1 Cor. 15:4, 1 Cor. 1:19, 1 Cor 1:31, 1 Cor. 2:9, 1 Cor. 3:19 , 1 Cor. 4:6, 1 Cor. 9:9, 1 Cor. 9;10, 1 Cor. 10:7, 1 Cor. 10:10, 1 Cor. 14:22. 1 Cor. 15:45, 1 Cor. 15: 54, 2 Cor. 4:13, 2 Cor. 8:15, 2 Cor. 9:9, Gal. 3:8, Gal. 3:22, Gal. 4:30, Gal. 3:10, Gal. 3:13, Gal. 4:22, Gal. 4:27, 1 Tim 5:18, 2 Tim 3:16, James 2:8, James 2:23, James 4:5, 1 Peter 2:6, 1 Peter 1:16, 2 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 3:16 **There are more, of course. Space doesn’t permit all the OT examples.

NO ONE, including Jesus, OT or NT, needed The Catholic Church to tell them what was or was not Scripture. Read the following: Matthew 21:42, Matthew 22:29, Matthew 26:54, Matthew 26:56, Mark 12:10, Mark 12:24, Mark 14:49, Mark 15:28, Luke 4:21, Luke 24:27, Luke 24:32, Luke 24:45, John 2:22, John 5:39, John 7:38, John 10:35, John 13:18, John 17:12, john 19:24, John 19:36, John 19:37, John 20:9

Nor did any Apostle. None of them needed The Catholic Church to tell any of them anything about what is or is not Scripture. Read what they said, CENTURIES before 400 AD: Acts 1:16, Acts 8:32, Acts 8:35, Acts 17:2, Acts 17:11, Acts 18:24, Acts 18:28, Romans 1:2, Romans 4:3, Romans 9:17, Roamns 10:11, Romans 11:2, Romans 15:4, Romans 16:26, 1 Cor. 15:3, 1 Cor. 15:4, Gal. 3:8, Gal. 3:22, Gal. 4:30, 1 Tim. 5:18, 2 Timothy 3:16, James 2:8, James 2:23, James 4:5, 1 Peter 2:6, 2 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 3:16

Thank you,

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[guanophore]

You and I will disagree on this, but I do not believe transubstantiation is an essential doctrine.

Where in the Bible is the list of which doctrines are essential, and which are not? Why did the Apostles think this was essential?

  The contention of Protestants is that the Catholic Church began to imbibe some false ideas shortly after the time of Constantine.

No. I think the majority of Protestants know that such a concept is just a bunch of hooey. I know there are some, such as the LDS, that have to maintain the Apostasy in order to justify their existence, but anyone who knows any history of the Christian Church knows that Constantine did not influence Catholic doctrine.

I know this is the crux of the debate, and so I await a coherent response to the explanation I have given concerning why Protestants believe in the real spiritual presence of Christ in the elements, but not in transubstantiation.

Transubstantiation is a Thomistic formulation of the Apostolic Teaching, It is not familiar to the Eastern Rites, who think about it differently.

 

[simspt]

Jesus DID embrace accountability and never exempted The Catholic Church. Scripture affirms accountability for teachers of doctrine. Just a very few of just NT verses on this: 2 Peter 2:1, Titus 2:1, 1 Timothy 6:3, Revelation 2:2, James 3:1, Matthew 13:52, Luke 20:46, Ephesians 4:14. All are before 400 AD.

Whereas Jesus never once used The Catholic Church or Catholic Tradition as normative (or as anything; He never so much as even MENTIONED it - for, by or as anything), He did use Scripture normatively (Sola Scriptura). Here’s just 50 examples of where Jesus uses Scripture normatively (Sola Scriptura), all well before 400 AD (in fact, all before 31 AD): Matt 21:42 Matt 22:29, Matt 26:54, Matt 26:56, Matt 2:5, Matt 4:4l, Matt 4:6, Matt 4:7l, Matt 4:10, Matt 11:10, Matt 21:13, Matt 26:24, Matt 27:37, Mark 12:10, Mark 12:24, Mark 14:49, Mark 15:28, Mark 1:2, Mark 7:6, Mark 9:12, Mark 9:13, Mark 11:17, Mark 14:21, Mark 14:27, Luke 4:21, Luke 24:27, Luke 24:32, Luke 24:45, Luke 2:23, Luke 3:4, Luke 4:4, Luke 4:8, Luke 4:10, Luke 4:17, Luke 7:27, Luke 10:26, Luke 18:31, Luke 19:46, Luke 20:17, Luke 21:22, Luke 22:37, Luke 23:38, Luke 24:44, Luke 24:46, John 2:22, John 5:39, John 7:38, John 7:42, John 10:35, John 13:18, John 17:12, John 19:24, John 19:36, John 19:37, John 20:9, John 2:17, John 6:31, John 6:45, John 8:17, John 10:34, John 12:14, John 12:16, John 15:25, John 19:20, John 20:30, John 20:31, John 21:25. There are more, of course.

Here are just some examples of Apostles using it, too, all before 400 AD. In fact, all before 100 AD: **Acts 1:16, Acts 8:32, Acts 8:35, Acts 17:2, Acts 17:11. Acts 8:24, Acts 18:28, Acts 1:29. Acts 7:42, Acts 13:29, Acts 13:33, Acts 15:15, Acts 23:5, Acts 24:14, , Acts 13:46, Romans 1:2, Romans 4:3, Romans 10:11, Romans 11:2, Romans 15:4, Romans 26:26, Romans 1:17, Romans 2:24, Romans 3:4, Romans 3:10, Romans 4:17, Romans 4:23, Romans 8:36, Romans 9:13, Romans 10:15, Romans 11:8, Romans 11:26, Romans 12:19, Romans 14:11, Romans 15:3, Romans 15:9, Romans 15:21, 1 Cor. 15:3, 1 Cor. 15:4, 1 Cor. 1:19, 1 Cor 1:31, 1 Cor. 2:9, 1 Cor. 3:19 , 1 Cor. 4:6, 1 Cor. 9:9, 1 Cor. 9;10, 1 Cor. 10:7, 1 Cor. 10:10, 1 Cor. 14:22. 1 Cor. 15:45, 1 Cor. 15: 54, 2 Cor. 4:13, 2 Cor. 8:15, 2 Cor. 9:9, Gal. 3:8, Gal. 3:22, Gal. 4:30, Gal. 3:10, Gal. 3:13, Gal. 4:22, Gal. 4:27, 1 Tim 5:18, 2 Tim 3:16, James 2:8, James 2:23, James 4:5, 1 Peter 2:6, 1 Peter 1:16, 2 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 3:16 **There are more, of course. Space doesn’t permit all the OT examples.

NO ONE, including Jesus, OT or NT, needed The Catholic Church to tell them what was or was not Scripture. Read the following: Matthew 21:42, Matthew 22:29, Matthew 26:54, Matthew 26:56, Mark 12:10, Mark 12:24, Mark 14:49, Mark 15:28, Luke 4:21, Luke 24:27, Luke 24:32, Luke 24:45, John 2:22, John 5:39, John 7:38, John 10:35, John 13:18, John 17:12, john 19:24, John 19:36, John 19:37, John 20:9

.

I would have to respectfully disagree.
Take care
John

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

Jesus DID embrace accountability and never exempted The Catholic Church. Scripture affirms accountability for teachers of doctrine. Just a very few of just NT verses on this: 2 Peter 2:1, Titus 2:1, 1 Timothy 6:3, Revelation 2:2, James 3:1, Matthew 13:52, Luke 20:46, Ephesians 4:14

. All are before 400 AD.

Whereas Jesus never once used The Catholic Church or Catholic Tradition as normative (or as anything; He never so much as even MENTIONED it - for, by or as anything), He did use Scripture normatively (Sola Scriptura). Here’s just 50 examples of where Jesus uses Scripture normatively (Sola Scriptura), all well before 400 AD (in fact, all before 31 AD): **Matt 21:42 Matt 22:29, Matt 26:54, Matt 26:56, Matt 2:5, Matt 4:4l, Matt 4:6, Matt 4:7l, Matt 4:10, Matt 11:10, Matt 21:13, Matt 26:24, Matt 27:37, Mark 12:10, Mark 12:24, Mark 14:49, Mark 15:28, Mark 1:2, Mark 7:6, Mark 9:12, Mark 9:13, Mark 11:17, Mark 14:21, Mark 14:27, Luke 4:21, Luke 24:27, Luke 24:32, Luke 24:45, Luke 2:23, Luke 3:4, Luke 4:4, Luke 4:8, Luke 4:10, Luke 4:17, Luke 7:27, Luke 10:26, Luke 18:31, Luke 19:46, Luke 20:17, Luke 21:22, Luke 22:37, Luke 23:38, Luke 24:44, Luke 24:46, John 2:22, John 5:39, John 7:38, John 7:42, John 10:35, John 13:18, John 17:12, John 19:24, John 19:36, John 19:37, John 20:9, John 2:17, John 6:31, John 6:45, John 8:17, John 10:34, John 12:14, John 12:16, John 15:25, John 19:20, John 20:30, John 20:31, John 21:25. **There are more, of course.

Here are just some examples of Apostles using it, too, all before 400 AD. In fact, all before 100 AD: Acts 1:16, Acts 8:32, Acts 8:35, Acts 17:2, Acts 17:11. Acts 8:24, Acts 18:28, Acts 1:29. Acts 7:42, Acts 13:29, Acts 13:33, Acts 15:15, Acts 23:5, Acts 24:14, , Acts 13:46, Romans 1:2, Romans 4:3, Romans 10:11, Romans 11:2, Romans 15:4, Romans 26:26, Romans 1:17, Romans 2:24, Romans 3:4, Romans 3:10, Romans 4:17, Romans 4:23, Romans 8:36, Romans 9:13, Romans 10:15, Romans 11:8, Romans 11:26, Romans 12:19, Romans 14:11, Romans 15:3, Romans 15:9, Romans 15:21, 1 Cor. 15:3, 1 Cor. 15:4, 1 Cor. 1:19, 1 Cor 1:31, 1 Cor. 2:9, 1 Cor. 3:19 , 1 Cor. 4:6, 1 Cor. 9:9, 1 Cor. 9;10, 1 Cor. 10:7, 1 Cor. 10:10, 1 Cor. 14:22. 1 Cor. 15:45, 1 Cor. 15: 54, 2 Cor. 4:13, 2 Cor. 8:15, 2 Cor. 9:9, Gal. 3:8, Gal. 3:22, Gal. 4:30, Gal. 3:10, Gal. 3:13, Gal. 4:22, Gal. 4:27, 1 Tim 5:18, 2 Tim 3:16, James 2:8, James 2:23, James 4:5, 1 Peter 2:6, 1 Peter 1:16, 2 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 3:16 There are more, of course. Space doesn’t permit all the OT examples.

NO ONE, including Jesus, OT or NT, needed The Catholic Church to tell them what was or was not Scripture. Read the following: Matthew 21:42, Matthew 22:29, Matthew 26:54, Matthew 26:56, Mark 12:10, Mark 12:24, Mark 14:49, Mark 15:28, Luke 4:21, Luke 24:27, Luke 24:32, Luke 24:45, John 2:22, John 5:39, John 7:38, John 10:35, John 13:18, John 17:12, john 19:24, John 19:36, John 19:37, John 20:9

Nor did any Apostle. None of them needed The Catholic Church to tell any of them anything about what is or is not Scripture. Read what they said, CENTURIES before 400 AD: Acts 1:16, Acts 8:32, Acts 8:35, Acts 17:2, Acts 17:11, Acts 18:24, Acts 18:28, Romans 1:2, Romans 4:3, Romans 9:17, Roamns 10:11, Romans 11:2, Romans 15:4, Romans 16:26, 1 Cor. 15:3, 1 Cor. 15:4, Gal. 3:8, Gal. 3:22, Gal. 4:30, 1 Tim. 5:18, 2 Timothy 3:16, James 2:8, James 2:23, James 4:5, 1 Peter 2:6, 2 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 3:16

Thank you,

Pax

• Josiah

.

I would have to respectfully disagree.

With what?

.

 

[guanophore]

It is meaningful to people because it addresses our human condition, upon which race and culture have no bearing.

It is interesting to me that God created us to have race, and culture, and that you seem to think this has no bearing on our humanity. It is no wonder you have a deficient view of the Church!