Ok, I see what you are saying. The Lutheran confessions seems to stand more in line with the above expressed Orthodox position. I wonder aloud here if the “Ratzinger Proposal” could ever gain traction.
Jon
- Status
Jon
N
Nicea325
Guest
Unfortunately, it is one of my arguments against the Orthodox position.I mean read the countless words of many ECF’s and they do not seem to express or hold the belief of “first among equals” as many argue today. I do not believe the ECF’s had to necessarily say the word “primacy” in order to gain weight for the primacy of Rome;equally important, their countless words seem to express and teach much more than “equal” and “honor” as the common argument today.
No offense,but the expressed Orthodox position seems to downplay or merely diminish Peter’s primacy. For the life of me I simply cannot extract the “first among equal” argument as if it were the common belief and tradition the first 1,000 years of the church.I have many ECF writings and the counter-argument against the primacy seems a bit weak in my estimation.
Peace Jon
And peace also with you.
No offense taken, certainly not from you. You present here a levelled and thought out defense of the Catholic position. This is a significant issue, and honestly the most conflicting for me, personally.
Thanks,
Jon
N
Nicea325
Guest
Thanks again Jon. Indeed Jon it is a very difficult issue for many Christians and well understood. I know many view the Catholic position as being narrow-minded, arrogant and lacking charity. Precisely why I say: No offense, in order not to offend anyone’s views or beliefs. Oh trust me, I wish this issue would not be “one” of the leading issues hindering unity among the churches.
As a Roman Catholic, I know the papacy has made its share of errors over its long history. However,what many forget is that Christ founded the best office for the man,not the best man for the office. In my opinion, I think the deepest misunderstandings and misinterpretations stem from-history. Yes one may add politics,geography,language and culture. If re-unification happens in my life, it will be glorious to experience it and share with it with others. As I have said many times, the papacy is a hot topic and the only way we as Christians can move forward is by hearing and listening and drop all the finger-pointing. Both sides are to blame for the split,not just the East or vice versa. Both.
Peace Jon
C
Christina79
Guest
As far as the Scripture being sufficient to show all things necessary for salvation…here are two verses I’ve heard used: Rom. 10:17 “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” And Gal. 1:8-12
Ok, so for 2 Tim 3:16…17 also must be included.
This is the defining point of this scripture and why it is interpreted to mean that scripture alone is enough; because it says it is able to make the man of God perfect, “thoroughly furnished unto ALL good works”16 “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.”
Another is 1 Corinthians 4:6 “And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.”
And, Prov. 30:6 “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”
Here are a few others that are used: Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Psalms 119:160, and Rev. 22:18-19
N
Nicea325
Guest
Wrong! No where does Jesus or the Apostles or any author the NT teach, scripture alone is enough! No where! You like so many are merely isolating passages to prove an agenda invented way after the Bible was compiled. Second, 2 Tim 3:16 was not written to prove or support the Bible-alone as you believe. Third, the verse says: All scripture…not ONLY scripture.As far as the Scripture being sufficient to show all things necessary for salvation…here are two verses I’ve heard used: Rom. 10:17 “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” And Gal. 1:8-12
Ok, so for 2 Tim 3:16…17 also must be included.
16 “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.”
Another is 1 Corinthians 4:6 “And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.”
And, Prov. 30:6 “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”
Here are a few others that are used: Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Psalms 119:160, and Rev. 22:18-19
D
David
Guest
1 Tim 3:15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and * profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
It is always important to study to context of Scripture. In verse 15 you will notice that St Paul is talking to Timothy about the sacred writing he has known since childhood. Timothy could not have read the New Testament as a child. St Paul is talking about the Old Testament writings. The New Testament has not been completely written or canonized at this point in time. This is yet another reason why these verses could not possibly be teaching Sola Scriptura.
Peace
David
It is always important to study to context of Scripture. In verse 15 you will notice that St Paul is talking to Timothy about the sacred writing he has known since childhood. Timothy could not have read the New Testament as a child. St Paul is talking about the Old Testament writings. The New Testament has not been completely written or canonized at this point in time. This is yet another reason why these verses could not possibly be teaching Sola Scriptura.
Peace
David
P
pablope
Guest
Hi, Christina…actually, you miss verse 14…14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it,As far as the Scripture being sufficient to show all things necessary for salvation…here are two verses I’ve heard used: Rom. 10:17 “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” And Gal. 1:8-12
Ok, so for 2 Tim 3:16…17 also must be included.
16 “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.”
With v 14…it makes the whole passage whole…and v14 speaks of oral instruction or teaching…that is why Paul, also says…keep the traditions we taught you…whether by epistle or word of mouth.
And besides, in believing he Bible as the source of all we need to know, don’t you think it goes counter to this passage… Timothy 3:15
15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the **church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. **
C
Christina79
Guest
Please, there is no need to get aggressive. I was only trying to SHARE what I have been taught.
I am also here to learn and grow in the faith.
And, yes, I know that it says all scripture…but what of it saying that it is profitable so that the man of God may be “thoroughly furnished unto ALL good works”? How can it make them capable of performing ALL good works if they are not ALL contained IN the scripture? That was the point I was trying to make from it. I’m humbly asking your opinion, NOT trying to prove some agenda.
And also 2Th 2:15 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”
BTW, what version is that which you quoted from?
P
pablope
Guest
Please, there is no need to get aggressive. I was only trying to SHARE what I have been taught.
C
Christina79
Guest
Very interesting. I had not thought of it in that way. I do see how this could be true, though. And, so, if this IS the case…what about this other verse that says “man of God”?
1 Tim. 6:11 “But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness. 12Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses. 13I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession; 14That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:”
This then would also not apply to a layman either? Or, if it is just part of living a holy life, as we are all to do, why would it be stated here separately…only for Timothy?
No, I’m using the King James Version. And what version were you using?
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Christina79,
Welcome to CAF
I don’t think anyone meant to get aggressive, but we do have spirited dialogues…
Sola Scriptura (SS) is a problem for several significant reasons: it is totally unbiblical (which personally I find ironic!) because the Bible never once says it is the only source of authority. More importantly, it simply trashes the Word of God because it leaves it up to everyone to supply their interpretation - and this is the main reason why there are currently 30,000+ Protestant groups all clamoring that they have the accurate interpretation. Finally, SS is an invitation to ‘cherry-pick’ the verse and the interpretation to prove an existing agenda. For example, take the time and read the John 6:22-72 (here is a link: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/John_6 ) and just count the times Jesus references Himself to food and that He is to be eaten. Then see if you can find another example where people left Christ because of a metaphor He used. There are none - Christ’s listeners understood Christ correctly, they were to eat His Flesh if they were to have life in Him. Protestantism dismisses this literal reading of Christ’s Words.
Here is a link you may find helpful: scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html
Hope this helps.
God bless
Welcome to CAF
I don’t think anyone meant to get aggressive, but we do have spirited dialogues…
Sola Scriptura (SS) is a problem for several significant reasons: it is totally unbiblical (which personally I find ironic!) because the Bible never once says it is the only source of authority. More importantly, it simply trashes the Word of God because it leaves it up to everyone to supply their interpretation - and this is the main reason why there are currently 30,000+ Protestant groups all clamoring that they have the accurate interpretation. Finally, SS is an invitation to ‘cherry-pick’ the verse and the interpretation to prove an existing agenda. For example, take the time and read the John 6:22-72 (here is a link: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/John_6 ) and just count the times Jesus references Himself to food and that He is to be eaten. Then see if you can find another example where people left Christ because of a metaphor He used. There are none - Christ’s listeners understood Christ correctly, they were to eat His Flesh if they were to have life in Him. Protestantism dismisses this literal reading of Christ’s Words.
Here is a link you may find helpful: scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html
Hope this helps.
God bless
Please, there is no need to get aggressive. I was only trying to SHARE what I have been taught.
I am also here to learn and grow in the faith.
And, yes, I know that it says all scripture…but what of it saying that it is profitable so that the man of God may be “thoroughly furnished unto ALL good works”? How can it make them capable of performing ALL good works if they are not ALL contained IN the scripture? That was the point I was trying to make from it. I’m humbly asking your opinion, NOT trying to prove some agenda.
And also 2Th 2:15 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”
BTW, what version is that which you quoted from?
N
Newsy
Guest
How could SS have existed, or been used, prior to 382ad? The Council of Rome set down the Canon, same list of books as the Council of Trent. So, between 33ad and 382ad, nobody had a defined list of books. How would they use SS, if they had no compiled Bible? Even if this was overcome, how would SS work when most people were illiterate?
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi Newsy,
These are excellent questions - they are also practical questions of how something develops and then moves forward. The Council fo Rome is a real mile-marker and one that must be addressed in an intellectual rather than emotional level… My guess is that many Protestants do not know where the Bible really came from - and knowing that teh entire document was put together by the Catholic Church around the year 400AD must be distressing for Protestants who love to hate the Catholic Church.
But, ‘Protestants’ did not exist until the 16th Century - prior to that, the Catholic Church developed its own theology mainly in response to 1st Century (and, then thereafter) heretics.
There is no historically accurate answer that will be well received by today’s Protestants.
God bless
These are excellent questions - they are also practical questions of how something develops and then moves forward. The Council fo Rome is a real mile-marker and one that must be addressed in an intellectual rather than emotional level… My guess is that many Protestants do not know where the Bible really came from - and knowing that teh entire document was put together by the Catholic Church around the year 400AD must be distressing for Protestants who love to hate the Catholic Church.
But, ‘Protestants’ did not exist until the 16th Century - prior to that, the Catholic Church developed its own theology mainly in response to 1st Century (and, then thereafter) heretics.
There is no historically accurate answer that will be well received by today’s Protestants.
God bless
How could SS have existed, or been used, prior to 382ad? The Council of Rome set down the Canon, same list of books as the Council of Trent. So, between 33ad and 382ad, nobody had a defined list of books. How would they use SS, if they had no compiled Bible? Even if this was overcome, how would SS work when most people were illiterate?
P
pablope
Guest
P
passer_by
Guest
To say that you can arrive at the belief that the Bible is Divine Revelation through anything other than reason IS problematic.
In a sense you are saying that the belief in the Bible need not be rational as long as I have a personal experience. If that were indeed true, then any belief is protected by personal experience.
So someone who believes in the Koran or maybe the Lord of the Rings as Divine Revelation isn’t actually wrong. In fact, there are no ground to say he has been mislead. All you have is your personal experience over his/hers.
Therefore, I think the major error was that we seem to have boiled our faith down to some blind faith without reason. But in fact, the correct way to God or finding him is through reason.
Now yes, you might have ended up in Catholicism by a personal experience or through baptism by your parents. BUT, when your position is challenged in certain ways, you have to go back to the drawing board.
To elaborate,
If someone challenges a catechized Catholic who has a good prayer relationship with God whether God exists, then that question can be certainly ignored.
BUT, if someone asks the Catholic if they are in the right Faith, that question cannot just be ignored by defense of Personal Experience.
Now if someone has a personal relationship with Christ, then if questioned why he is not a Muslim, then he can ignore it as well.
BUT, if someone asks that person why he believes the Bible, then that questioned has to be answered as well.
You see, there are claims that are justifiable by Personal Experience. But one cannot justify a belief in the Bible, or that a certain book is divine revelation through personal experience UNLESS the whole text was re-revealed to them.
Now a Catholic can believe that Divine Revelation is valid because the Church teaches it. If someone questions the authority of the Church, they would have to go back to history and logic to defend it.
In the case of Protestantism, when questioned, they go back to Luther or even Apostles. But then that leads to a logical inconsistency. The Protestants want to believe in one teaching (the Bible) over the others or as being subject to the Bible. Such a belief lacks any foundation.
Hence it is arbitrary. One cannot defend this belief from Personal experience either and that is why Protestantism is irrational.
So yes, one can defend and hold on to certain beliefs based on Personal Experience. But the idea that “the Bible is divine Revelation”, or “Lutheran church has authority” are not beliefs that can be defended by Personal Experience (unless the whole text and authority was revealed to them directly by God).
P
passer_by
Guest
Have you answered my charge that your position to accept that “Rome had primacy in teaching” and not accept the teaching on “Papal Infallibility and Primacy of Rome (albeit differently than early understanding)”?
I think you should think about it Jon.
N
Newsy
Guest
I understand what you are saying, but the fact is that not all people come to be Christian by reason alone. I don’t necessarily disagree with what you are saying, but I have had enough conversations with my pentecostal in-laws to know that they will never be swayed by reason alone. I stated in my post that I don’t trust feelings and personal experience all the time, but there are some who do. To build your argument on this idea, that there is a correct/ incorrect way to “find God”, seems rather arrogant.
I came to believe the CC has authority through study. I researched my way into the Catholic Church, but not everyone does it that way. Whether someone finds a church through personal experience or through divine revelation, they feel it, but may not be able to defend it. This leads to unproductive conversations and uncomfortable situations. Been there
I am merely addressing the fact that your logical argument falls on deaf ears when someone doesn’t come to God by pure reason. There are millions who go to church and have a good prayer relationship with God, they never use reason to find a church. You could say that they should, but the fact remains unchanged.
In the case of JonNC, if he leaves his current church to join either the CC or the EO, without knowing who is right, then he could choose the wrong one. Is being in one wrong church better than being in another wrong church? I pray that we see unity in our lifetime, that many find their way home.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Newsy,
I do not think Presser made the claim that we ONLY come to God through reason - only that reason plays a role. Additionally, when challenged by those using reason as their argument, it would be expected that one would respond with a reasoned response.
Now I say the following in all seriousness without the slightest intention of humor: one’s in-laws can not necessarily be convinced of anything. This just isn’t true of your in-laws … but Christ’s statement that a prophet is not without honor - except in his own house has a direct application today. The same statements being made by a total stranger may have more impact on a listener than those statements made by a family member. While you only have one set of in-laws, using them as the criteria may be counter-productive.
One can not rule out the impact of a bias (intentional or other-wise) when discussing any topic with anyone. My late father would not be caught dead in a Japanese car. When he went looking for his last car, the salesman wanted to find out what he wanted and offered some suggestions - and this included foreign imports. I’ll never forget his response, “We fought a war against those people, didn’t we?” For him a continued boycott was part of the on-going national war effort. Now, this just isn’t rational - and truly was a bias that he was not going to give up … and, he never did. A rational argument in favor of Japanese cars - no matter how good - would have never worked.
While there are major differences between one’s Religion and one’s car - there may be some similarities in the existence of a bias that need to be addressed. Now, continued prayers for your in-laws is something that we can all do. And, this is something that I am sure your spouse would appreciate.
God bless
I do not think Presser made the claim that we ONLY come to God through reason - only that reason plays a role. Additionally, when challenged by those using reason as their argument, it would be expected that one would respond with a reasoned response.
Now I say the following in all seriousness without the slightest intention of humor: one’s in-laws can not necessarily be convinced of anything. This just isn’t true of your in-laws … but Christ’s statement that a prophet is not without honor - except in his own house has a direct application today. The same statements being made by a total stranger may have more impact on a listener than those statements made by a family member. While you only have one set of in-laws, using them as the criteria may be counter-productive.
One can not rule out the impact of a bias (intentional or other-wise) when discussing any topic with anyone. My late father would not be caught dead in a Japanese car. When he went looking for his last car, the salesman wanted to find out what he wanted and offered some suggestions - and this included foreign imports. I’ll never forget his response, “We fought a war against those people, didn’t we?” For him a continued boycott was part of the on-going national war effort. Now, this just isn’t rational - and truly was a bias that he was not going to give up … and, he never did. A rational argument in favor of Japanese cars - no matter how good - would have never worked.
While there are major differences between one’s Religion and one’s car - there may be some similarities in the existence of a bias that need to be addressed. Now, continued prayers for your in-laws is something that we can all do. And, this is something that I am sure your spouse would appreciate.
God bless
I understand what you are saying, but the fact is that not all people come to be Christian by reason alone. I don’t necessarily disagree with what you are saying, but I have had enough conversations with my pentecostal in-laws to know that they will never be swayed by reason alone. I stated in my post that I don’t trust feelings and personal experience all the time, but there are some who do. To build your argument on this idea, that there is a correct/ incorrect way to “find God”, seems rather arrogant.
I came to believe the CC has authority through study. I researched my way into the Catholic Church, but not everyone does it that way. Whether someone finds a church through personal experience or through divine revelation, they feel it, but may not be able to defend it. This leads to unproductive conversations and uncomfortable situations. Been there
I am merely addressing the fact that your logical argument falls on deaf ears when someone doesn’t come to God by pure reason. There are millions who go to church and have a good prayer relationship with God, they never use reason to find a church. You could say that they should, but the fact remains unchanged.
In the case of JonNC, if he leaves his current church to join either the CC or the EO, without knowing who is right, then he could choose the wrong one. Is being in one wrong church better than being in another wrong church? I pray that we see unity in our lifetime, that many find their way home.
N
Newsy
Guest
Thanks for the insight. Please bear with me as I don’t know how to multi-quote from different posts.
I understand we are discussing this on a apologetics forum. I understand why we use reason. I agree with much of what passer has brought up. The insinuation in his posts was, if it is cannot be supported with reason, then you should abandon it. Statements like, “IF the Catholic Church is unacceptable for you and IF the Orthodox are unacceptable for you. YOU STILL HAVE TO ABANDON PROTESTANTISM.” from post #236, and “The depressing part about all this is that you somehow seem to think it ‘logical’ that if Catholicism is also circular in its reasoning, you can remain a Protestant
If Catholicism is also circular, then you must abandon both Protestantism and Catholicism.” from post #212, make it seem like a reason only event.
As for my in-laws, I use them as an example. There are others, especially those I have met in more charismatic protestant circles, who weigh experience heavily. I am not generalizing, this is just what I have run into. My only point was that reason and experience are not either/or. So, we may be talking past each other.
I appreciate what passer is saying, but he goes a little overboard here, “But in fact, the correct way to God or finding him is through reason.” in post #315. I didn’t know there was a wrong way to find God.
I am only presenting an alternative view to what passer is stating, you know like a devil’s advocate
.BTW, I agree with your Dad’s stance on foreign products. Not because of the war, but to support our jobs here.
Thanks for your help.
- Status