Protestants: how do you know that your interpretation of the Bible is the right one?

[MrS]

Yes, I’m very familiar with that.

Is it your contention the Holy Spirit deliberately left out of Scripture things necessary for the believers to know concerning salvation, faith and morals?

It is the position of the Catholic Church that what** IS** in Scripture (73 books) IS inspired by the Holy Spirit… simply that. Certainly there could be other epistles of Paul etc that are free of error. They are, however not canonized, and thus we are not obliged to render them inspired.
Further… what IS in Scripture has many Truths that must be interpreted correctly. Scripture is not self-authenticating or self-interpreting.

Also, you’ve not addressed the questions posed to you. Here they are again

I see. The Father, the Son and the Spirit are one God. Is your use of comparison between them to demonstrate that the Bible and the magisterium are one as well?

No, the comparision is made to show that there are 3 witnesses to the Truth… Traditon, Magisterium and Scripture.
Tradition, by the way is a “singular” word that refers to ALL the Oral Teachings received by the Apostles from Jesus
The were “born” if you will… or began… in that order. God of course has no such limiting quality.
Each of the three will always be in harmoney … if they are not, then there is error somewhere. And Scripture will always be in harmony with itself.
There in lies the problem. The Catholic Church is perfect… those in it are not. Thus the gift of infallibility is a “negative” protection that the gates of hell won’t prevail… not that the Magisterium is infallible.

I see, and do you hold that the letters of the ECFs are on par with inspired Scripture?

Nope. They are the writing of witnesses to the early Church … Apostles and those who followed. There are arguements and differences in what ECF declared… just like in ACTS when the Apostles and disciples differed. But after the opinions are presented… a decision is given.
Not so in much of protestantism. When one disagrees, he is free to leave and start his own group of followers who agree with him… thus we have new groups sprouting up almost daily.
In Catholicism we understand that the Chief Steward is in charge of the kingdom until the King returns. That person occupies the Chair of Peter and each is his successor. Whether he is called Vicar of Christ, Pope, Holy Father or whatever… he is filling the office as described in Isaiah as referenced in Matt 16:18

Again, ISTM that you are saying that after the apostles, God raised up other writers whose writings are on par with the inspired writings of the apostles; is that what you’re saying? If so, how do you support that?

Yes… Luke was not an Apostle, nor was Mark… or Jude…

OK. Can you authentic the ORAL teaching that was not written down as having been indeed taught by the apostles to certain writers, orally, by citing writings of ECFs who attribute this or that oral teaching as having been taught specifically to them by this or that apostle?

Again this leads back to the long history of authority. And yes some things are strongly… repeat… strongly supported by the writing of the ECF. Most common are the beliefs we find implicit in Scripture… some of them centered on the Mother of God.
I could spend some time citing ECF on a particular topic if you really wish. But understand that their writings are quite extensive… to put it mildly.

Please explain to me how your “verse picking” is different from the “verse picking” of others, if, as it’s being posited by Catholics on this thread, ordinary humans have no real authority to interpret Scripture? If that’s what you believe, how is that you, an ordinary human, has arrived at an authoritative understanding of something which you have no authority to discern?

I contend that the numbering of chapters and verses had both good and bad fruits.
The good is simple… easy to find a verse, easy to quote or memorize, easy to organize
The bad is simple too… instead of reading Scripture like the love letter(s) it is, we tend to pick and choose our favorites…often out of context.
When a protestant quotes a verse to me… I most often ask for the verses before and after… usually to no avail.
Catholics who love the Scripture, IMHO, actually know it far better than the average Protestant… we just don’t know the chapter and verse… but we know it because we hear virtually the entire Bible every 3 years just in the Liturgy of the Mass.

I guess, to sum up an answer to your last question… we discern the truth with faith. We must obligate ourselves to God, and place all trust in Him.

If we can do that… passages like John 6 are wonderful, mysterious, and believable… we don’t walk away (actually or emotionally, or “intellectuallly”).

Much of my “verse picking” is just a normal response to the “verse picking” of the non-Catholic. Happens a lot when conversing orally. But when I am writing back and forth, I try to make it a happit of expanding the verse in question and offering what the Church thinks about the whole of the context.
An example might be Romans 4:5, which takes on a whole wonderful teaching when Gen 15, and Gen 22, and Samual are shown to be the basis for what Paul is saying.

.

:

 

[SteveGC]

Make what you’d like of it. I have no questions concerning proper words, punctuation or pronounciation. :shrug”

I see. So the Church you accept is a grammar clearing house, having no other role in Christianity but to make sure all the words are spelled and pronounced correctly. That about sum it up?

Anyway, your Augustine quote says nothing of the disposition and alignment of “the believer”. Further, it does not address under what light the Scriptures are interpreted. If you are a true follower of Augustine, you would know he fully understands and accepts that the Church has two legs, one standing firmly in Scripture, the other in Tradition.
More Augustine for you:

• “The authority of our Scriptures, strenghtened by the consent of so may nations, and confirmed by the succession of the Apostles, bishops and councils, is against you”
  C Faustus 8:5 *

And this…
*‘For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty…The consent of peoples and nations keep me in Church, so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The SUCCESSION of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the APOSTLE PETER, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave it in charge to feed his sheep, down to the present EPISCOPATE…The epistle begins thus:–Manicheus, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the providence of God the Father. These are the wholesome words from the perennial and living fountain. Now, if you please, patiently give heed to my inquiry. I do not believe Manichues to be an apostle of Christ. Do not, I beg you, be enraged and begin to curse. For you know that it is my rule to believe none of your statements without consideration. Therefore I ask, who is this Manicheus? You will reply, An Apostle of Christ. I do not believe it. Now you are at a loss what to say or do; for you promised to give knowledge of truth, and here you are forcing me to believe what I have no knowledge of. Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manicheus.But should you meet with a person not yet believing in the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For MY PART, I should NOT BELIEVE the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manicheus, how can I BUT CONSENT?’
C. Epis Mani 5,6 *

You’re not addressing the question posed to you on that point. Here it is again:How do you know about apostolic succession if human beings have no authority to discern what the Bible states about that, if anything?

There’s plenty of apostolic succession in the Bible, laying on of hands occurred several times. And I didn’t say humans can’t discern from the Bible - I simply have repeated that SPECIFIC humans are appointed by Christ to do that. But in general, there is no need to prove it biblically, since the whole notion of apostolic succession didn’t NEED to be written…it was simply just DONE. This is part of Tradition. The same Tradition that made the Bible for you, the same that tells you that you can trust in it, because otherwise, you have nothing to tell you it’s trustworthy, expect itself.

You’re poisoning the well, Steve, in your remarks about my refutations of Catholicism, and alleged “proselytizing of Catholics to take them out of the Church.”And I’m not upset by that, but pointing out what you’re doing.

Fine. I’m poisoning. What exactly ARE you doing then? Learning about the Catholic faith? I thought you didn’t “fellowship” with us Catholics. Putting us amateur apologists in our place by dazzling us with circular arguments, answering questions with more questions? Lay it out for us.

God Bless

p.s. I see we’re settled on the ‘steering’ issue? I’ll take your lack of further response as an apology for accusing me of doing so.

 

[josie_L]

Way to go MrS that was a “wickedly” on point post.

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

P.S. Lets hope he has a better understanding of the relationship between Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium.

 

[Jerry_Marino]

mary does not save me.

Jesus saves.

as for interpretation:

the Bible is the only book we nee to discover the foundational truths of how to know and walk with God. some aberrant religious groups or cults insist we need another book to help us interpret what the Bible says. but the Bible needs no outside interpretation. it speaks for itself. in fact, the best commentary on the Bible is the Bible.

God bless.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

mary does not save me.

Jesus saves.

as for interpretation:

the Bible is the only book we nee to discover the foundational truths of how to know and walk with God. some aberrant religious groups or cults insist we need another book to help us interpret what the Bible says. but the Bible needs no outside interpretation. it speaks for itself. in fact, the best commentary on the Bible is the Bible.

God bless.

Spoken just like an ex-Catholic.

 

[Jerry_Marino]

thank you.

 

[SteveGC]

mary does not save me.

Jesus saves.

How Catholic of you to profess this. But to be accurate, Grace saves. Jesus made it sufficient. Jesus shows us the way to it. Mary assists those who recognize her unique role, by pointing to Jesus for us.

as for interpretation:
the Bible is the only book we nee to discover the foundational truths of how to know and walk with God. some aberrant religious groups or cults insist we need another book to help us interpret what the Bible says. but the Bible needs no outside interpretation. it speaks for itself. in fact, the best commentary on the Bible is the Bible.

Absolutely absurd, illogical, and fundamentally flawed thinking. The Bible needs no outside interpretation? Tell me Jerry, do you know what interpretation means? Nothing interprets itself. Nothing. The very IDEA of interpretation involves a second outside party. Something ELSE has to act on another something for interpretation to exist.

I think what you meant to say is that the Holy Spirit interprets the Bible? That atleast qualifies as an outside interpretation, no? So if you’re going to proclaim something to make a point that the Catholic Church is wrong, atleast make a convincing argument. Don’t say the Bible doesn’t need interpretation, because it does.

Nevertheless, you still don’t get the reason why the Holy Spirit is not a private tutor for you in your efforts to discover truth from the Bible, do you? You still don’t get the fact that Truth has already been revealed, and individual believers don’t have to scourge prayerfully through a book, as Sacred as it is, to unearth hidden revelation. It’s already out there, Jerry. Waiting for you to come home to find it. Folks like you love to hold the Bible up to the heavens, proclaim its SOLE Authority, and completely ignore the men, the tradition, the Church that brought it to you, under the guidance of the same Holy Spirit you now proclaim is yours alone to forget the Church and their efforts to canonize it for you, and just open it up and figure it all out on your own. You give FULL credit to the book, and ZERO to the men who gave it to you.

You still believe that to be a Christian, you just look in the Bible to discover the full truth, and it will tell you everything you need to know. You still refuse to see that YOU yourself didn’t do it this way…that you learned what you now believe because of a mosaic of dozens of human ‘teachers’ in your life, from childhood to today. You think you can look at Scripture today and convince yourself somehow that you aren’t being swayed in your ‘interpretation’ by everything in your life that you have been taught by humans. They have created your framework…your lens…your bias, Jerry. Your brain interprets everything under the guidance of human interpretations when you read Scripture. It happens to all of us. It is intended to be so. But it’s supposed to happen to us authentically…we’re supposed to be taught by Christ’s apostles and their successors, not a non-denom youth pastor or Bible-only minister at the pulpit, who is not protected by the Holy Spirit through apostolic ordination.

I don’t mind if you disagree with the idea that the Catholic Church isn’t the source of this Christ-appointed apostolic lineage (although it is). I just get frustrated by those who claim they aren’t persuaded by human teaching. It is the fundamental way in which we learn Christianity, and it is the fundamental influence that dictates how we “interpret” Scripture, even if we profess until the cows come home that we just invoke the Holy Spirit within us as we read Scripture in a complete vacuum.

God bless

 

[Jerry_Marino]

i know this much that you won’t find out about God anywhere else but in His Word that He made available to us; the Bible. without it we would not be having this discussion.

Jesus is Lord, He saves.

 

[ProudJesusFreak]

All normal dialogue we seen consistently from those outside the Catholic Church.

How are we saved? Catholic deny Sola Fide and Sola Scripturea. Perhaps the simply explanation is we are saved Sola Gratia…

However it is by Grace Alone, through Faith Alone, working in Love.

God will not save us without our cooperation. It is His plan that gives us His Son, and His Son who gives us the “tools” and the path… and The Holy Spirit who gives us the grace and guidance to attain eternal companionship with God.

But we have to cooperate.

So, yes, there are differences between The Gospel of Jesus Christ found only in the Catholic Church… and the Gospel Of Jesus Christ which tens of thousands of non Catholic faith communities are satisfied with.

In your short statement above you have made 3 common errors concerning the Catholic Church. So what you are saying is not only wrong, it is misleading. And the “fruits” of your statement all have one thing in common… authority.

Protestants have that in common… a denial of some or much authority that Jesus gave in His own words to His one Church.

Who is saved? That is God’s judgment, not ours. The Catholic Church exists to help everyone to be saved. Every other faith community actually is an obstacle, a barrier, to the fullness of the Truth.

.

Our salvation comes from Jesus Christ alone, period. Scripture tells us that salvation only comes through Jesus Christ(His blood, His sacrifice). It does not come from any other source. All references I make have been obtained through the catechism of the catholic church.

Saved by faith through grace. That’s it. With everything that we have in scripture, we know how to obtain salvation and KNOW that we have salvation.All of them are about Christ, none of them speak of Mary, Peter, a pope, confession to a priest or anything close to that. Christ paid our debt, it’s done. Jesus did it all, like He said “It is finished!”

A church organization is not the ‘truth’, Jesus is(John 14:6) One of the only main differences where Christ is concerned between Caths and non Caths( prots, ect) is you believe that Christ’s sacrifice wasn’t sufficient. Which, according to the catechism, works are still required for salvation along with purgatory. That’s simply not what Christ taught.
Salvation only comes through Christ, do you agree?

Romans 10:13,John 3:36,John 5:24, John 6:47,Romans 10:9-10,John 1:12,Acts 10:43, Romans 1:16,2 Timothy 3:15,Acts 16:31,Romans 6:23 ,1 John 4:9,Romans 5:9,Acts 4:10, 12,Ephesians 2:8-9,Romans 3:28,Galatians 3:8,Galatians 3:26,Galatians 2:16,John 10:9,Isaiah 43:11,2 Samuel 22:3… these are just a few of the numerous.verses that tell us where our salvation comes from.

Scripture tells us who is saved as well, you just have to research it in the scriptures.

 

[ProudJesusFreak]

i know this much that you won’t find out about God anywhere else but in His Word that He made available to us; the Bible. without it we would not be having this discussion.

Jesus is Lord, He saves.

How right you are!Jesus is the only one that can save us, no one else. It’s in scripture if people would just look for themselves instead of just following. Right again you are about God making scripture available to us. HE gave us scripture, not the catholic church.

 

[MrS]

Scripture tells us who is saved as well, you just have to research it in the scriptures.

I once encouraged a Baptist friend of mine, who used the same basic “argument” that you just used. I encouraged him to renounce their meeting place, toss out the song books, quite listening to his pastor preach on his own favorite verses, drop the fellowship stuff, quite Awana, and certainly toss his KJV.

He thought I was nuts… and he said all those things help to bring him closer to Christ.

My response… Absolutely … it is just that Catholics have so many more of “those things”

If Jesus did not want us to have anything but Him, He would not have chosen 12, among other things.

Jesus redeemed us all. That is, He re-opened the gates of heaven so that we could share in His inheiritance.

He did that without our cooperation or approval or (name removed by moderator)ut.

Salvation, however requires our cooperation. And I will employ all the help, tools, graces etc that He gives me.

Corinthians states that we must make up “…what is LACKING in Christ’s affliction…”

We are saved by Grace Alone, through Faith alone, working in love.

I suggest you read some more Catholic commentary on James 2:24… all of James 2 for that matter… and you might, with God’s grace… see how you are accepting a simplistic (and very misguided) interpretation of what God’s plan is for us all.

Or you can, as you say you can, just toss the Scripture and hope in yourself and your own actions. Or you can visit this site often… give your (name removed by moderator)ut, and accept responses. You have the free will to accept or reject Truth… that is a work that continues till the day you die.

Please be more like Paul who asked others to pray for him so that he would not LOSE what he had gained. Doesn’t sound like even Paul was teaching a guranteed salvation.

.

 

[Jerry_Marino]

man you freak me out:thumbsup:

catholics believe in others than the work of Jesus on the Cross for their salvation which is not taught in the Bible; it is taught in the catechism.

that is why the likes of steve say that the Bible is not sufficient enough, that is why secondary outside party to interpret God’s word. hence now we have some authority to tell us what the Bible means.

People interpret this if you would:

Acts 4:12 "There is no salvation through anyone else, nor is there any other name under heaven given to the human race by which we are to be saved."

Romans 10:8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we preach), 9 for, if you confess 5 with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For one believes with the heart and so is justified, and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved. 11 For the scripture says, “No one who believes in him will be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, enriching all who call upon him. 13 For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

Jesus the Lord saves us

God Bless

 

[Howie01]

SteveGC:

I see. So the Church you accept is a grammar clearing house, having no other role in Christianity but to make sure all the words are spelled and pronounced correctly. That about sum it up?

Steve, the quote you offered was concerned with seeking the authority of the church respecting words, punctuation and pronunciation. :whacky: Perhaps you should have selected a more appropriate quote, but couldn’t find one.

SteveGC:

Anyway, your Augustine quote says nothing of the disposition and alignment of “the believer”. Further, it does not address under what light the Scriptures are interpreted. If you are a true follower of Augustine, you would know he fully understands and accepts that the Church has two legs, one standing firmly in Scripture, the other in Tradition.

For the third time, the quote I posted wasn’t intended for that purpose, but to show the importance of Scripture against treacherous errors, and for confirming the believer’s heart. Scripture was the benchmark for Augustine.

SteveGC:

And this…
‘For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty…The consent of peoples and nations keep me in Church, so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The SUCCESSION of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the APOSTLE PETER, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave it in charge to feed his sheep, down to the present EPISCOPATE…The epistle begins thus:–Manicheus, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the providence of God the Father. These are the wholesome words from the perennial and living fountain. Now, if you please, patiently give heed to my inquiry. I do not believe Manichues to be an apostle of Christ. Do not, I beg you, be enraged and begin to curse. For you know that it is my rule to believe none of your statements without consideration. Therefore I ask, who is this Manicheus? You will reply, An Apostle of Christ. I do not believe it. Now you are at a loss what to say or do; for you promised to give knowledge of truth, and here you are forcing me to believe what I have no knowledge of. Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manicheus.But should you meet with a person not yet believing in the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For MY PART, I should NOT BELIEVE the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manicheus, how can I BUT CONSENT?’
C. Epis Mani 5,6

An oldie. Luther responded many, many years ago: "St Augustine is quoted as having written in the book against the Letter of the Manicheans, “I would not believe the Gospel if I did not believe the Church.” Here you see we are to believe the Church more than the Gospel.

I answer: Even if Augustine had used those words, who gave him authority, that we must believe what he says? What Scripture does he quote to prove the statement? What if he erred here, as we know that he frequently did, as did all the fathers? Should one single sentence of Augustine be so mighty as to refute all the texts quoted above [Luther had quoted a variety of texts proving the supreme authority of Scripture]? That is not what God wills; St. Augustine must yield to them.

Further, if that were St. Augustine’s meaning he would contradict himself; for in very many places he exalts the HoIy Scriptures above the opinions of all teachers, above the decrees of all councils and churches, and will have men judge of him and of the teachings of all men according to the Scriptures. Why then do the faithful shepherds pass by those sayings of St. Augustine, plain and clear as they are, and light on this lonely one, which is so obscure and sounds so unlike Augustine as we know him from all his writings? It can only be because they want to bolster up their tyranny with idle, empty words.

Furthermore, they are deceivers, in that they not only ascribe to St. Augustine an opinion he did not hold, but they also falsify and pervert his words. For St. Augustine’s words really are ’I would not have believed the Gospel if the authority of the whole Church had not moved me.'

Augustine speaks of the whole Church, and says that throughout the world it with one consent preaches the Gospel and not the Letter of the Manicheans; and this unanimous authority of the Church moves him to consider it the true Gospel. But our tyrants apply this name of the Church to themselves, as if the laymen and the common people were not also Christians. And what they teach they want men to consider as the teaching of the Christian Church, although, they are a minority, and we, who are universal Christendom, should also be consulted about what is to be taught in the name of universal Christendom. See, so cleverly do they quote the words of St. Augustine: what he says of the Church throughout all the world, they would have us understand of the Roman See.

(continued)

 

[Howie01]

(Continued from 924)
But how does it follow from this saying that the doctrines of men are also to be observed? What doctrine of men has ever been devised that has been accepted and preached by all of the universal Church throughout the world? Not one; the Gospel alone is accepted by all Christians everywhere.

But then we must not understand St. Augustine to say that he would not believe the Gospel unless he were moved thereto by the authority of the whole Church. For that were false and unchristian. Every man must believe only because it is God’s Word, and because he is convinced in his heart that it is true, although an, angel from heaven and all the world preached the contrary. His meaning is rather, as he himself says, that he finds the Gospel nowhere except in the Church, and that this external proof can be given heretics that their doctrine is not right, but that that is right which all the world has with one accord accepted. For the eunuch in Acts viii, 37, believed on the Gospel as preached by Philip, although he did not know whether many or few believed on it. So also Abraham believed the promise of God all by himself, when no man knew of it, Romans iv, 18. And Mary, Luke i, 38, believed the message of Gabriel by herself, and there was no one on earth who believed with her. In this way Augustine also had to believe, and all the saints, and we too, every one for himself alone.

For this reason St. Augustine’s words cannot bear the interpretation they put upon them; but they must be understood of the external proof of faith, by which heretics are refuted and the weak strengthened in faith, when they see that all the world preaches and regards as Gospel that which they believe. And if this meaning cannot be found in St. Augustine’s words; for they are contrary to the Scriptures and all to experience if they have that other meaning."

Source: Martin Luther, [ui]That Doctrines of Men Are to be Rejected Together With A Reply to Texts Quoted in Defence of the Doctrines of Men (1522), Works of Martin Luther Volume II (The Philadelphia Edition), Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1943, pp. 451-453.

 

[MrS]

man you freak me out:thumbsup:

catholics believe in others than the work of Jesus on the Cross for their salvation which is not taught in the Bible; it is taught in the catechism.

that is why the likes of steve say that the Bible is not sufficient enough, that is why secondary outside party to interpret God’s word. hence now we have some authority to tell us what the Bible means.

People interpret this if you would:

Acts 4:12 "There is no salvation through anyone else, nor is there any other name under heaven given to the human race by which we are to be saved."

Romans 10:8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we preach), 9 for, if you confess 5 with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For one believes with the heart and so is justified, and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved. 11 For the scripture says, “No one who believes in him will be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, enriching all who call upon him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Jesus the Lord saves us

God Bless

I would contend that one who denies even one thing that Jesus taught… has denied Jesus… and is not a believer.

Ya gotta get a better grasp on the word believe.

The devil believes.

 

[Howie01]

SteveGC:

There’s plenty of apostolic succession in the Bible, laying on of hands occurred several times.

You’re still not answering my question, Steve. How have you come to understand what Scripture says, when it’s your contention that Scripture cannot and does not teach?

SteveGC:

And I didn’t say humans can’t discern from the Bible - I simply have repeated that SPECIFIC humans are appointed by Christ to do that.

And you’re not one of those appointed to discern what Scripture says. So how do you know that those people who claim to be teachers appointed by God to discern the Scriptures are telling you the truth?

What’s your point of reference for the truth?

SteveGC:

But in general, there is no need to prove it biblically, since the whole notion of apostolic succession didn’t NEED to be written…it was simply just DONE.

I see. So apostolic succession is correct and true because the Church says it’s correct and true, correct?

Was the church guided by the Spirit in that? If so, how do you know for certain? You couldn’t have learned that from Scripture because, according to you, Scripture cannot and does not teach? So, how do you know?

Do you know for certain they were guided by the Spirit because they say so?

SteveGC:

Fine. I’m poisoning. What exactly ARE you doing then? Learning about the Catholic faith? I thought you didn’t “fellowship” with us Catholics. Putting us amateur apologists in our place by dazzling us with circular arguments, answering questions with more questions? Lay it out for us.

I’m still trying to figure out your whacky idea that one come to a knowledge of the truth without having the authority to say what the truth is.

According to you, Scripture cannot and does not teach you, but, despite that, you know that the Church teaches Scriptural truth. :whacky:

SteveGC:

p.s. I see we’re settled on the ‘steering’ issue? I’ll take your lack of further response as an apology for accusing me of doing so.

Actually no, you’re wrong Steve.

However, I knew full well that you would manifest your pettiness by not letting it go.

Are you, by any chance, a former commissioned military officer?

 

[ProudJesusFreak]

I once encouraged a Baptist friend of mine, who used the same basic “argument” that you just used. I encouraged him to renounce their meeting place, toss out the song books, quite listening to his pastor preach on his own favorite verses, drop the fellowship stuff, quite Awana, and certainly toss his KJV.

He thought I was nuts… and he said all those things help to bring him closer to Christ.

My response… Absolutely … it is just that Catholics have so many more of “those things”

If Jesus did not want us to have anything but Him, He would not have chosen 12, among other things.

Jesus redeemed us all. That is, He re-opened the gates of heaven so that we could share in His inheiritance.

He did that without our cooperation or approval or (name removed by moderator)ut.

Salvation, however requires our cooperation. And I will employ all the help, tools, graces etc that He gives me.

Corinthians states that we must make up “…what is LACKING in Christ’s affliction…”

We are saved by Grace Alone, through Faith alone, working in love.

I suggest you read some more Catholic commentary on James 2:24… all of James 2 for that matter… and you might, with God’s grace… see how you are accepting a simplistic (and very misguided) interpretation of what God’s plan is for us all.

Or you can, as you say you can, just toss the Scripture and hope in yourself and your own actions. Or you can visit this site often… give your (name removed by moderator)ut, and accept responses. You have the free will to accept or reject Truth… that is a work that continues till the day you die.

Please be more like Paul who asked others to pray for him so that he would not LOSE what he had gained. Doesn’t sound like even Paul was teaching a guranteed salvation.

.

Well, here is the thing about that. While we don’t HAVE to have any of that, we are told to fellowship and to read the scriptures and to praise Him. Salvation only requires our faith in Him, like scripture tells us, scripture that was written by His apostles. Does Colossians say that Christ’s death wasn’t sufficient for our salvation? Paul was writing about his own suffering. Like I said before, Jesus is the Truth (John 14:6) I have never and will never reject Him. God’s plan for us is salvation seeing as how He wills that none should perish but all have eternal life. Asking for prayer is not wrong, not in the least. It seems that you are touching on the Sin of Presumption but scripture tells us that we can know that we are saved.

“These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.” 1 John 5:13

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3:16

“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” John 3:36

“He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.” John 5:24

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.” John 6:47

“And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:40

“In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;” Titus 1:2

“And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.” 1 John 2:25

 

[SteveGC]

Steve, the quote you offered was concerned with seeking the authority of the church respecting words, punctuation and pronunciation. :whacky: Perhaps you should have selected a more appropriate quote, but couldn’t find one.

No. The quote was just fine. Your shallow response was what lacked appropriateness. You have no problem with ‘authority of the Church’ because you claim it is only authoritative within the context of that specific thought of Augustine?? Talk about a dodge. You don’t think that Augustine would’ve appealed to the authority of the Church for all other discrepancies of Scripture?

For the third time, the quote I posted wasn’t intended for that purpose, but to show the importance of Scripture against treacherous errors, and for confirming the believer’s heart. Scripture was the benchmark for Augustine.

Of course you didn’t intend for the quote to be used for that purpose, for you’d have to elaborate on the fact that Augustine in fact DOES intend for Scripture to be read in light of Tradition, especially when it concerned the potential for “treacherous errors”. You can say it a fourth and fifth time. The same result applies…just like Scripture, you can’t read Augustine in a vacuum. In your quote, there is much unwritten but assumed about Augustine’s positive frame of mind regarding the significance of The Church with regard to Sacred Scripture, but you can conveniently overlook it, since it didn’t appear specifically in the quote. And when it DID appear in MY quote, you took in out of context to say he only felt that way about the Church when it applied to punctuation. Absurdity at its finest.

An oldie. Luther responded many, many years ago:

Ah yes, Luther. There’s a credible source. So, you use Augustine to support your claim that the Church is unnecessary regarding Scripture, THEN you quote Luther, who basically discredits Augustine. Oh, except for the Augustine YOU quoted, right? Lame argumentation. Get your sources squared away, Howie. Don’t use them only when they support your theories. If you’re going to quote them, accept all their quotes.

 

[Howie01]

SteveGC:

No. The quote was just fine. Your shallow response was what lacked appropriateness. You have no problem with ‘authority of the Church’ because you claim it is only authoritative within the context of that specific thought of Augustine?? Talk about a dodge. You don’t think that Augustine would’ve appealed to the authority of the Church for all other discrepancies of Scripture?

I find it amusing that all you could come up with was a lame quote on punctuation and pronunciation.

SteveGC:

Of course you didn’t intend for the quote to be used for that purpose, for you’d have to elaborate on the fact that Augustine in fact DOES intend for Scripture to be read in light of Tradition, especially when it concerned the potential for “treacherous errors”. You can say it a fourth and fifth time. The same result applies…just like Scripture, you can’t read Augustine in a vacuum.

I’m not reading Augustine, or an of those early men in a vacuum. Most of them, when the full context of their statements regarding Tradition is read, refer to the Gospel, and other such things as can be verified by Scripture. Some refer to mundane things, such as the direction one turns when he prays, and what not. They don’t refer to much of what the Church today claims as tradition. You’re engaging in anachronism with respect to those early men if you think otherwise.

SteveGC:

In your quote, there is much unwritten but assumed about Augustine’s positive frame of mind regarding the significance of The Church with regard to Sacred Scripture, but you can conveniently overlook it, since it didn’t appear specifically in the quote. And when it DID appear in MY quote, you took in out of context to say he only felt that way about the Church when it applied to punctuation. Absurdity at its finest.

Of course, Steve. It’s all about you, and your silly quote.

SteveGC:

Ah yes, Luther. There’s a credible source. So, you use Augustine to support your claim that the Church is unnecessary regarding Scripture, THEN you quote Luther, who basically discredits Augustine. Oh, except for the Augustine YOU quoted, right? Lame argumentation. Get your sources squared away, Howie. Don’t use them only when they support your theories. If you’re going to quote them, accept all their quotes.

More well poisoning, as if the well against Luther hasn’t been sufficiently poisoned already.

 

[SteveGC]

What’s your point of reference for the truth?

Here’s our difference. You claim authority for yourself. I submit to authority. And why do I do this? Because I realize that the Bible cannot be my sole authority without something OUTSIDE of it that teaches me that it is worthy of my trust. That something is The Church. The book’s been in my face my whole life. And everybody tells me something different about it. So, I go to people who wrote the writings, and those that compiled and canonized the writings. Books come from people. People came first. Inspired people to make an inspired book. And I went to the only Church that not only claims to have been apostolic throughout the ages, but also teaches uniformly and universally throughout the entire world. That’s the Catholic Church.

Do I know, and can I prove 100% that this Church is the authentic real-deal? No. I suffer from living 2000 years later, just as you can’t prove 100% what you believe. Our counter-claims of authority are, after all, our own opinions. I don’t deny that. But, I am convinced of The Church’s proof of historical apostolic lineage. I am convinced of their biblical exegesis. I am 100% convinced of sacramental grace, and the monumental change it has made in my Christian life. But as an appeal to logic, what makes my claim of Church authority more reasonable than your claim of believer authority, I am convinced that Church is intended to be visible, that something about humans is concretely incipient to a book. And once I submit to that reality, it really leads nowhere else but Rome.

Scripture, in a sense, does teach me, but it doesn’t teach me in a vacuum, which is to say that it requires an authentic framework within which I prayerfully read, and the Holy Spirit guides me in understanding truths which the Church has revealed that perhaps I previously did not understand. The HS also guides me into application of teachings in my daily walk with Christ.

Actually no, you’re wrong Steve. However, I knew full well that you would manifest your pettiness by not letting it go. Are you, by any chance, a former commissioned military officer?

Yes, are all of us former officers full of pettiness? Are you a former politician? Ducking and weaving your way through theology? Your “actually no, you’re wrong, Steve” comment is quite a convincing reason for me to believe it was me actually steering, not you. I concede.