Questions for Protestants (please answer yes, no or scripture verse):

[ALLFORHIM]

“don’t go above the line”

Hi,
I was just wondering what translation you are looking at because my bible doesnt say that. NIV says beyond what is written. My catholic bible says the same thing. I cant find my NASB right now.

I can understand that that translation would be confusing. With what I wrote the scripture makes perfect sense about not boasting and being arrogant.

 

[hvg3akaek]

HVG…thanks for answering. Thought I would just touch on one of your responses for now.

1 Cor. 4:6 - this is one of the most confusing passages in Scripture. Many scholars believe the phrase “don’t go above the line” was inserted by a translator as an instruction to someone in the translation process. Others say Paul is quoting a proverb regarding kids learning to write by tracing letters. By saying don’t go above line, Paul is probably instructing them not to be arrogant. But even if the phrase is taken literally, to what was Paul referring? The Talmud? The Mosaic law? The Old Testament Scriptures? This proves too much for the Protestant because there was no New Testament canon at the time Paul wrote this, and the text says nothing about the Bible being the sole rule and guide of faith.

Hello Lampo!

I had a link in my post to the NIV, which reads as follows:

“I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.” (emphasis mine)

I think thats pretty clearly part of the original passage, it fits in with the context, with the judging of others, comparing and trying to boast against each other and so forth. I see no evidence that it would be added (and then where would we stop? Any part we don’t like is somehow “added in”?)

As to learning to write, that sounds like a big stretch Again, I see no evidence for it.

As for only referring to the OT, who is to say that he means that? Is not Paul’s words scripture? Did not Peter know and claim this? (2 Peter 3:16) Why cold Paul not, by God’s inspiration, know of the complete NT, and have a warning that would be for all time in response to it? I am not saying this is definitely the case, but it is a lot more likely than he only referring to the OT.

As to your second reply - I am not sure what is your text and what is mine. It is great to close the quote tags when quoting, and inserting your own text between such quotes

-hvg3

 

[Randy_Carson]

Can you provide a Canon of Tradition for me?

A List of Catholic Traditions

All public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.
The necessity of baptism for salvation
Baptismal Regeneration
Apostolic Succession in the Episcopate
The three-fold ministry (Bishop, Priest, Deacon)
Sacrificial Nature of the Eucharist
The Substantial Presence of Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity in the Eucharist
The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome in Succession of the Petrine Ministry
The Authority of Tradition and the Magisterium
The Authority of the Ecumenical Councils
The Nicene symbol homoousias
The Infallibility of the Teaching Church
The Canon of the OT and NT
Sunday as the day of worship
The liturgy of the mass
Purgatory
The Immaculate Conception of Mary
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
The Assumption of Mary
Mary as the New Eve
Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant
The Spiritual Motherhood of Mary
Mary, Queen of Heaven
Private revelation is not binding upon the faithful.
Communion of the saints
The permanent character of baptism
Sacrament of Confirmation as indelible upon the soul
Sacrament of Holy Orders as indelible upon the soul
Infused Grace
The Hypostatic Union
Knights of Columbus Spaghetti Dinners
Bingo

By the way, why do you seek a list from an authority you wouldn’t recognize, anyway?

If you want it simply because you think we must recognized such a list, then please understand that as Catholics, we don’t need a list because we have a living Teaching Authority to tell us what is and isn’t Sacred Tradition.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well, Mary’s perpetual virginity would be an easy one…

From a simple reading of the Bible (such passages as Matthew 1:25, 12:46-47, 13:55, Mark 3:31-32, 6:3, Luke 8:19-20, John 2:12, 7:3-10), it is very clear that Jesus had physical siblings (as well as spiritual siblings)

Nope.

Brothers of Jesus, Not Sons of Mary

Many non-Catholics deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary by referring to passages of scripture that mention the “brothers” of Jesus. A rigorous analysis of scripture, however, proves their position is false. Consider the following:

1. Jesus had a “brother” named James.

"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?”(Matthew 13:55)

2. James, the Lord’s “brother”, is an apostle.

“Then, after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Galatians 1:18-19)

3. There are two apostles named James.

“When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.”(Luke 6:13-16)

4. One James (the brother of John) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Zebedee.

“James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder)” (Mark 3:17)

5**. The other apostle named James is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Alpheus.**

“And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he called apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter and Andrew his brother, and James and John and Philip and Bartholomew, and Matthew and James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.” (Luke 6:13-16)

6. Therefore, neither apostle named James was a uterine brother of Jesus.

7. The man named Joseph (or Joses) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his mother is Mary and his brother is James. Therefore, this Mary is the wife of Alphaeus.

“Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.” (Matthew 27:55-56)

8. Judas is not a uterine brother of Jesus because he is the son of James.

“When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.” (Acts 1:13)

**9. While Matthew 15:35 declares James, Joseph and Judas to be the “brothers” of Jesus, it has been demonstrated from scripture that they are NOT uterine brothers of the Lord. From this, it is apparent that scripture must be using the term “brothers” to mean relatives other than sons of Mary. **

Jesus did not leave us a book that we have to figure out on our own; He left us a Church built upon a group of men commissioned to preach the full Gospel. When the Early Church Fathers—some of whom were disciples of Peter and John—spoke of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, they knew what they were talking about!

 

[hvg3akaek]

A List of Catholic Traditions
…
Knights of Columbus Spaghetti Dinners
Bingo

surely these are just jestful ones, testing to see if people read the list? I mean, many of the others are a mite bit strange, but only in a “Purgatory” type of way. These two…

Nope.

Answered here.

 

[kaycee]

A List of Catholic Traditions
All public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.
The necessity of baptism for salvation
Baptismal Regeneration
Apostolic Succession in the Episcopate
The three-fold ministry (Bishop, Priest, Deacon)
Sacrificial Nature of the Eucharist
The Substantial Presence of Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity in the Eucharist
The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome in Succession of the Petrine Ministry
The Authority of Tradition and the Magisterium
The Authority of the Ecumenical Councils
The Nicene symbol homoousias
The Infallibility of the Teaching Church
The Canon of the OT and NT
Sunday as the day of worship
The liturgy of the mass
Purgatory
The Immaculate Conception of Mary
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
The Assumption of Mary
Mary as the New Eve
Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant
The Spiritual Motherhood of Mary
Mary, Queen of Heaven
Private revelation is not binding upon the faithful.
Communion of the saints
The permanent character of baptism
Sacrament of Confirmation as indelible upon the soul
Sacrament of Holy Orders as indelible upon the soul
Infused Grace
The Hypostatic Union
Knights of Columbus Spaghetti Dinners
Bingo

By the way, why do you seek a list from an authority you wouldn’t recognize, anyway?

Clearly a church that claims infallibility, must know exactly what traditions are made equal in authority to God Breathed Scripture.

I don’t see indulgences on your list. Is that your own list or the magesteriums?

If you want it simply because you think we must recognized such a list, then please understand that as Catholics, we don’t need a list because we have a living Teaching Authority to tell us what is and isn’t Sacred Tradition.

Yes, that is quite evident.

 

[MrS]

Clearly a church that claims infallibility, must .

I don’t see indulgences on your list. Is that your own list or the magesteriums?
Yes, that is quite evident.

You really don’t know much about Catholicism do you??

FIRST:

The only one to claim infallibility for His Church was Jesus Christ… the gates of hell (error - in matters of faith and morals, not hockey results) will NOT prevail.

The Pope, and also the bishops in union with him, do enjoy what we describe as a “negative” protection that insures Jesus’ words are in fact true.

This protection (from the Holy Spirit “… Who will guide you …” - - - -(apostles and their successors, and the believers who are taught by them) will prevent the pope and the bishops in union with him … from declaring that Truth in matters of faith and morals is error… and vise versa.

SECOND:

Since what is in Scripture is inerrant (and will be helpful to all who have the correct interpretation of that Scripture)…
and
Since what is in the NT was originally only Oral Tradition
and
Since at a point in the history of the Catholic Church much of that oral Tradition needed to be written down to help in accuracy

then I guess you could start there (by accepting an accurate interpretation of our book ) to answer your request/question to: know exactly what traditions are made equal in authority to God Breathed Scripture

.

 

[Odell]

Well, Mary’s perpetual virginity would be an easy one…

From a simple reading of the Bible (such passages as Matthew 1:25, 12:46-47, 13:55, Mark 3:31-32, 6:3, Luke 8:19-20, John 2:12, 7:3-10), it is very clear that Jesus had physical siblings (as well as spiritual siblings) - indeed, if it were not for the comparison to the physical, born of Mary, siblings, the spiritual sibling comments would not make sense.

Well you have to admit we have proven you wrong here.

hope you are ok with that after all you did say your interpritation could be wrong.

question is how do you know what scripture passages you have right and what scripture passages you have wrong

could you give us the list?

To Catholics Jesus left us something where we never have to wonder if im right or wrong on faith and morals because he left us something called the Church that is the pillar and bullwark of truth.

Do you really think God is the author of this mass confusion of Christians?

would God not leave us something to turn to or take or matters too?

 

[hvg3akaek]

The only one to claim infallibility for His Church was Jesus Christ… the gates of hell (error - in matters of faith and morals, not hockey results) will NOT prevail.

That is one interpretation. Personally, I find it to be a poor interpretation, as nothing really stands to relate gates (usually used to defend against an oncoming attack/army), specifically the gates of hell (or ‘hades’ - the place of departed souls, death), can be talking about aspects of God’s church.

And then, the said gates will not prevail - or more correctly, prevail against. Or overpower. The term (katischuo) sounds to be more of one fighting. Not of a matter of error, but of a matter of Good vs Bad, of Christianity vs Satan’s army. Of Christ vs death or the devil.

The Pope, and also the bishops in union with him, do enjoy what we describe as a “negative” protection that insures Jesus’ words are in fact true.

unfortunately, there is still no biblical evidence for this. There is Tradition for this, for sure. However, that again is a cyclic argument.

This protection (from the Holy Spirit “… Who will guide you …” - - - -(apostles and their successors, and the believers who are taught by them) will prevent the pope and the bishops in union with him … from declaring that Truth in matters of faith and morals is error… and vise versa.

I would like to offer a bit of advice. When quoting scripture to back up your points, it is best to give a reference so that your reader may check up on your claims.

Anyway, as it stands, I can find no verses that make the claim that the Holy Spirit will guide us and prevent any of us from erring in any way… (and no, John 16:13 is not saying this. being guided into all truth, or being told all truth in no way suggests that the person being guided can then guide others in a likewise fashion, or that they could not make mistakes)

Since what is in the NT was originally only Oral Tradition

Please, prove this.

Since a large part of what is the NT is actually in the form of letters, one would assume it was written long before it was spoken. Thus, it was not ever “oral tradition”.

Since at a point in the history of the Catholic Church much of that oral Tradition needed to be written down to help in accuracy

again, as above - to what are you referring to? Paul’s letters were initially actually voicemail? The Roman Catholics of the 4th century decided to write them down because disagreements were being caused over his accent?



Seriously - you are making a bold and rash claim. Please back it up, or withdraw it.

 

[hvg3akaek]

Well you have to admit we have proven you wrong here.

hrmm…no?

When have you proven me wrong?
At best, instead of showing that the idea of mary’s perpetual virginity was based on the Bible, it has been shown that with the idea in hand, it is possible to twist the scriptures to agree with it…sort of. Even then, you have to make some huge assumptions (“these two people are definitely the same person, even though the name is a very common one”; “until doesn’t mean until, but something else”; “the writers forgot the term for cousin and just used brother instead”…)

The idea that Mary had other physical blood children is still the most logical conclusion to come to after reading said verses. Nothing has to be twisted or hidden or assumed to arrive here.

hope you are ok with that after all you did say your interpritation could be wrong.

It could be. But I doubt it. And I have not seen a better one yet.

question is how do you know what scripture passages you have right and what scripture passages you have wrong

could you give us the list?

Constant reading/studying of the Scriptures, discussion, prayer. And, obviously, I believe that I don’t have any of them wrong. Well, I can accept that I might have some wrong, but if I knew they were wrong, why would I keep them?

To Catholics Jesus left us something where we never have to wonder if im right or wrong on faith and morals because he left us something called the Church that is the pillar and bullwark of truth.

You could be right. However, the contradictions that go unresolved would claim otherwise.

However - isn’t that just the easy way? Leave it to someone else to think about, and sit back and be spoonfed? Clearly we are not meant to live by that, but should come to an understanding of the scriptures without simply accepting what another human tells us. Once again - Acts 17:11 - they accepted Paul’s message, but examined their scriptures to see if it were true. Why do you not do this, and just accept it as true? Are your teachers today better than Paul was?

Do you really think God is the author of this mass confusion of Christians?

Absolutely not! The sinfulness of man is.

Do you think God is the author of indulgences? Of the sinfulness seen within the Roman Catholic church? Of those labelled as ‘heretics’ that have risen within it?

would God not leave us something to turn to or take or matters too?

Yup! - first, His Word. Second, His Spirit.

-hvg3

 

[Odell]

hrmm…no?

When have you proven me wrong?
At best, instead of showing that the idea of mary’s perpetual virginity was based on the Bible, it has been shown that with the idea in hand, it is possible to twist the scriptures to agree with it…sort of. Even then, you have to make some huge assumptions (“these two people are definitely the same person, even though the name is a very common one”; “until doesn’t mean until, but something else”; “the writers forgot the term for cousin and just used brother instead”…)

The idea that Mary had other physical blood children is still the most logical conclusion to come to after reading said verses. Nothing has to be twisted or hidden or assumed to arrive here.

Most scholars dont agree with you. None of our Church fathers agree with you. it is a praticly new interpritation of the bible.

If I were you I would look more into this there are plenty of threds in regard to this topic.

but I will give you another verse if yiou want to expand on it start a thred and invite us in.

(Mark 6:3) “the” son of Mary, not “a” son of Mary. Jesus was always referred to as the son, never a son. This is because Jesus was her only child. Nowhere in the bible will it say Jesus was “a” son but always THE Son. That shoots a big hole in that “Jesus had brothers” theory.

It could be. But I doubt it. And I have not seen a better one yet.

It is

Constant reading/studying of the Scriptures, discussion, prayer. And, obviously, I believe that I don’t have any of them wrong. Well, I can accept that I might have some wrong, but if I knew they were wrong, why would I keep them?

is this what Christ letf you?

However - isn’t that just the easy way? Leave it to someone else to think about, and sit back and be spoonfed? Clearly we are not meant to live by that, but should come to an understanding of the scriptures without simply accepting what another human tells us. Once again - Acts 17:11 - they accepted Paul’s message, but examined their scriptures to see if it were true. Why do you not do this, and just accept it as true? Are your teachers today better than Paul was?

they examined the old testament because it fortold of the Christ that was Jesus.

we do the same.

you can examin the scriptures all you want nothing we teach contradict scripture it wouldnt we put it together.

Why make it harder than it is? Jesus gave us a Church that has passed on the true meaning of scripture. His Church is 2,000 years old. His Church is the pillar and bullwark of truth. you should turn to it.

Absolutely not! The sinfulness of man is.

you hit the nail on the spot. after all Jesus said people will follow false doctrines you admitt that you could have some. In fact you would have to admit that every denomination has somethings wrong, false doctrines.

And God is not the author. But yet God is the head of the Church therefore there can not be mass confussion in the Church Jesus founded. What you think?

Do you think God is the author of indulgences? Of the sinfulness seen within the Roman Catholic church? Of those labelled as ‘heretics’ that have risen within it?

Indulgences yes, start a thred. sinfulness no. whats the point?

Yup! - first, His Word. Second, His Spirit.
-hvg3

how about his Church its in his word

 

[hvg3akaek]

Most scholars dont agree with you. None of our Church fathers agree with you. it is a praticly new interpritation of the bible.

You better go study some history The idea was around before the 3rd century!

but I will give you another verse if yiou want to expand on it start a thred and invite us in.

(Mark 6:3) “the” son of Mary, not “a” son of Mary. Jesus was always referred to as the son, never a son. This is because Jesus was her only child. Nowhere in the bible will it say Jesus was “a” son but always THE Son. That shoots a big hole in that “Jesus had brothers” theory.

nope, doesn’t work. Firstly, we are talking about Greek here, not English, so the difference between “the” and “a” is not there. Secondly, with Jesus as the subject of the sentence, it is quite legitimate to have Him as “the”.

Oh, and if you want - thirdly, even if it were so, it doesn’t disprove sisters

is this what Christ letf you?

Absolutely, and what He left everyone!

you can examin the scriptures all you want nothing we teach contradict scripture it wouldnt we put it together.

Why make it harder than it is? Jesus gave us a Church that has passed on the true meaning of scripture. His Church is 2,000 years old. His Church is the pillar and bullwark of truth. you should turn to it.

Except, that it isn’t. I mean, just with one simple topic - the perpetual virginity of mary - not only is the Roman Catholic view not based on the Bible, but the verses in question have to be interpreted in some pretty strange ways to simply agree with what Roman Catholicism teaches. Simply put, just that one example shows that the doctrine of infallibility in the “church” is incorrect, that the Roman Catholics are not “God’s one true Church”. Its kind of ironic, because they only fall so much because they claim so much. Anglicans do not claim to be the only correct church, so if they have a false or mislead doctrine, oh well - they can fix it. But the Roman Catholics? One mistake brings it all down.

Sadly, this also makes the typical Roman Catholic a lot more closed minded about actually reading the Bible - I am not saying they don’t, but they read it with what Roman Catholic Tradition has said they have to read it as. No free thinking. And thus, unfortunately, they cannot get out of the rut.

you hit the nail on the spot. after all Jesus said people will follow false doctrines you admitt that you could have some. In fact you would have to admit that every denomination has somethings wrong, false doctrines.

And God is not the author. But yet God is the head of the Church therefore there can not be mass confussion in the Church Jesus founded. What you think?

I think that any false doctrine you can find and prove in Protestantism will pale in sight of what Roman Catholicism has to offer. Well, that’s what I think, but I may well be proven wrong.

I haven’t yet, though…

Indulgences yes, start a thred. sinfulness no. whats the point?

I have no need to If you think that indulgences are anything but wrong, then I already have my answer.

Sinfulness - if protestants have sinfulness, you condemn it as being outside of Jesus’ Church, and a sign that He is not the head. But if the priests of “Jesus’ Church” go sinning, that’s ok? That’s excusable?

Matthew 7:1-2
Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you

how about his Church its in his word

Yep, but at the moment it is still filled with sinful people. Clearly, the Bible and His Spirit are not sinful. Thus, I choose the latter

 

[Odell]

You better go study some history The idea was around before the 3rd century!

Prove it

Absolutely, and what He left everyone!

I thought you said God was not the author of mass confusion.
now you say he left us with something that we may not even know if it is true or not. You could be wrong.

Except, that it isn’t. I mean, just with one simple topic - the perpetual virginity of mary - not only is the Roman Catholic view not based on the Bible, but the verses in question have to be interpreted in some pretty strange ways to simply agree with what Roman Catholicism teaches.

acording to your fallible interpritation. I mean come on. Between the most learned scholars dont even agree on certain passages much less these passages. Why is your interpritation better than mine or other scholars?

Anglicans do not claim to be the only correct church, so if they have a false or mislead doctrine, oh well - they can fix it.

what about your denomination? Can you fix your doctrine so it is no longer false?

Ill ask again does this sound like the Church Jesus founded. I mean the aposltes could change stuff as they go along.

The true Church would at least admit to not having any false doctrine. you admit that you could. Yet the bible warns us of that.

Lets go back in time. Pretend it is 2,000 years ago and you are walking with the apostles. Do you think they would be having the same conversation we are having now?

Do you think the apostles said what we are preaching could be wrong but if it is we will fix it?

:banghead:

But the Roman Catholics? One mistake brings it all down.

WOW you admit that you have mistakes because you are fallible you just dont know what they are.

But the Church if you could supposely prove us wrong on just one thing we fall down.

How come you cant fall?:hypno:

Furthermore, you admit that you do not speak for all Protestants. So, do you speak for the ones who are 100% correct in their doctrinal beliefs, or for the ones who are only partially correct in their doctrinal beliefs? Are there any Protestants who are 100% correct in their doctrinal beliefs? Do you not see the inherent confusion inherent in your own statements?

Is the religious system, the church, founded by Jesus Christ, by it’s “origin and nature” a religious system that takes in a “diverse and independent-minded spectrum of doctrines?” If so, where do I find that in the Bible?

You say that your goal is to get to “what the Bible teaches,” but how do you know that you’re doing that? Don’t all Protestants think they are doing that?

Yet, you disagree with what some of the doctrines that Protestants teach. Why are you right and those Protestants who disagree with you wrong?

Why should I believe you, and not believe them?

Do you claim greater authority in regards to interpretation of Scripture than that of those Protestants whose doctrines you disagree with?

what authority do you have?

Are you the final arbiter of biblical interpretation when it comes to Protestant belief?

why should your interpretation of the Bible…your opinion of what the Bible says…impact my beliefs in any way, shape, or form?

As I asked above in regard to Protestantism, I will now ask in regard to all of Christianity: Are you the final arbiter of biblical interpretation when it comes to Christian belief?

By what authority do you claim your interpretation of any verse of Scripture is more valid or more “correct” than my interpretation?

I think that any false doctrine you can find and prove in Protestantism will pale in sight of what Roman Catholicism has to offer. Well, that’s what I think, but I may well be proven wrong.

so it is the Chruch with the least false doctrines?
yes or no

I have no need to If you think that indulgences are anything but wrong, then I already have my answer.

according to you start a thred they ar every biblical.
people did misuse them though if that is what you are talking about I understand where you come from but Indulgences are very much biblical.

you owe it to yourself to see what we really teach.
obviosly you have no clue. would not want you spreading false things about us

Sinfulness - if protestants have sinfulness, you condemn it as being outside of Jesus’ Church, and a sign that He is not the head. But if the priests of “Jesus’ Church” go sinning, that’s ok? That’s excusable?

never have brother Il admit there are wolve in sheep clothing.

 

[justasking4]

QUOTE=Randy Carson;2208132]A List of Catholic Traditions

All public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.
The necessity of baptism for salvation
Baptismal Regeneration
Apostolic Succession in the Episcopate
The three-fold ministry (Bishop, Priest, Deacon)
Sacrificial Nature of the Eucharist
The Substantial Presence of Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity in the Eucharist
The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome in Succession of the Petrine Ministry
The Authority of Tradition and the Magisterium
The Authority of the Ecumenical Councils
The Nicene symbol homoousias
The Infallibility of the Teaching Church
The Canon of the OT and NT
Sunday as the day of worship
The liturgy of the mass
Purgatory
The Immaculate Conception of Mary
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
The Assumption of Mary
Mary as the New Eve
Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant
The Spiritual Motherhood of Mary
Mary, Queen of Heaven
Private revelation is not binding upon the faithful.
Communion of the saints
The permanent character of baptism
Sacrament of Confirmation as indelible upon the soul
Sacrament of Holy Orders as indelible upon the soul
Infused Grace
The Hypostatic Union
Knights of Columbus Spaghetti Dinners
Bingo

By the way, why do you seek a list from an authority you wouldn’t recognize, anyway?

If you want it simply because you think we must recognized such a list, then please understand that as Catholics, we don’t need a list because we have a living Teaching Authority to tell us what is and isn’t Sacred Tradition.

This is the first time i have seen such a list. Do you happen to have the source for this?
Also, since the catholic church puts its “Traditons” on the same level as Scripture, are these “Traditions” also considered inspired-inerrant?

 

[justasking4]

Prove it

WOW you admit that you have mistakes because you are fallible you just dont know what they are.

But the Church if you could supposely prove us wrong on just one thing we fall down.

How come you cant fall?:hypno:

Furthermore, you admit that you do not speak for all Protestants. So, do you speak for the ones who are 100% correct in their doctrinal beliefs, or for the ones who are only partially correct in their doctrinal beliefs? Are there any Protestants who are 100% correct in their doctrinal beliefs? Do you not see the inherent confusion inherent in your own statements?

Is the religious system, the church, founded by Jesus Christ, by it’s “origin and nature” a religious system that takes in a “diverse and independent-minded spectrum of doctrines?” If so, where do I find that in the Bible?

You say that your goal is to get to “what the Bible teaches,” but how do you know that you’re doing that? Don’t all Protestants think they are doing that?

Yet, you disagree with what some of the doctrines that Protestants teach. Why are you right and those Protestants who disagree with you wrong?

Why should I believe you, and not believe them?

Do you claim greater authority in regards to interpretation of Scripture than that of those Protestants whose doctrines you disagree with?

what authority do you have?

Are you the final arbiter of biblical interpretation when it comes to Protestant belief?

why should your interpretation of the Bible…your opinion of what the Bible says…impact my beliefs in any way, shape, or form?

As I asked above in regard to Protestantism, I will now ask in regard to all of Christianity: Are you the final arbiter of biblical interpretation when it comes to Christian belief?

By what authority do you claim your interpretation of any verse of Scripture is more valid or more “correct” than my interpretation?

Your last question is good question but its not determined by “authority”. Since we are all fallible we must detremine the answer to this as we do in other fields. Briefly you look at which person-group done their homework. Which interpretation incorporates the scriptures in its context. In fact if you read the letter 2nd Timothy 2:15 Paul exhorts Timothy to “accurately handle the word of truth”. This takes work. Notice, that Paul does not tell him to appeal to some kind of church authority to do this either.

Now, where has the catholic church infallibly defined each verse of the Bible? Who do you go to when you want to know what a specific verse of the scriptrues means?

so it is the Chruch with the least false doctrines?
yes or no

How do you determine a true doctrine from a false doctrine? What specific criteria do you use?

 

[hvg3akaek]

Prove it

Sure.

I thought you said God was not the author of mass confusion.
now you say he left us with something that we may not even know if it is true or not. You could be wrong.

Did I say that?
Anyway, how much confusion has come out of Roman Catholicism? Surely all the protestant stuff could have been prevented if God was not the author of mass confusion, and wanted to keep His Church holy and one? Unless…there was something wrong that needed fixing…?

acording to your fallible interpritation. I mean come on. Between the most learned scholars dont even agree on certain passages much less these passages. Why is your interpritation better than mine or other scholars?

I don’t know - what is your interpretation?

what about your denomination? Can you fix your doctrine so it is no longer false?

Can you tell me what is false?

The true Church would at least admit to not having any false doctrine. you admit that you could. Yet the bible warns us of that.

Would it just> What verse do you get that from?

Lets go back in time. Pretend it is 2,000 years ago and you are walking with the apostles. Do you think they would be having the same conversation we are having now?

Do you think the apostles said what we are preaching could be wrong but if it is we will fix it?

I think that Galatians 2:11 is a good example of what would happen back then. Largely, because it did.

WOW you admit that you have mistakes because you are fallible you just dont know what they are.

No, I admit the possibility.

Furthermore, you admit that you do not speak for all Protestants. So, do you speak for the ones who are 100% correct in their doctrinal beliefs, or for the ones who are only partially correct in their doctrinal beliefs? Are there any Protestants who are 100% correct in their doctrinal beliefs? Do you not see the inherent confusion inherent in your own statements?

No, for there is none, until you add words to it.

You say that your goal is to get to “what the Bible teaches,” but how do you know that you’re doing that? Don’t all Protestants think they are doing that?

Yet, you disagree with what some of the doctrines that Protestants teach. Why are you right and those Protestants who disagree with you wrong?

Why should I believe you, and not believe them?

expand “protestants” to “Christians”, and see that the argument includes you, too.

Do you claim greater authority in regards to interpretation of Scripture than that of those Protestants whose doctrines you disagree with?

No, of course not, that would be a wrong thing for anyone to do.

what authority do you have?

None, only in God and his Word is there authority.

Are you the final arbiter of biblical interpretation when it comes to Protestant belief?

again, of course not.

why should your interpretation of the Bible…your opinion of what the Bible says…impact my beliefs in any way, shape, or form?

Because they are thought out, instead of simply and rigidly adhered to?

As I asked above in regard to Protestantism, I will now ask in regard to all of Christianity: Are you the final arbiter of biblical interpretation when it comes to Christian belief?

again, no.

By what authority do you claim your interpretation of any verse of Scripture is more valid or more “correct” than my interpretation?

The Bible’s

so it is the Chruch with the least false doctrines?
yes or no

Clearly yes - for that is what you believe too.

 

[Odell]

Your last question is good question but its not determined by “authority”. Since we are all fallible we must detremine the answer to this as we do in other fields. Briefly you look at which person-group done their homework. Which interpretation incorporates the scriptures in its context. In fact if you read the letter 2nd Timothy 2:15 **Paul exhorts **Timothy to “accurately handle the word of truth”. This takes work. Notice, that Paul does not tell him to appeal to some kind of church authority to do this either.

Paul was his authority. Paul is where he got his authority.
Paul was his spiritual father.

(2Tim 1:2) to Timothy, my dear child
hince why we call priest Father

2Tim 1: 6) For this reaso, I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God that you have trough the IMPOSITION OF MY HANDS."

This is how Timothy was given his authority. He did not get it by simply picking up the bible and reading it

The early Church had the aposltes to turn to.

does this Church still exist today that we should still turn too?

Now, where has the catholic church infallibly defined each verse of the Bible? Who do you go to when you want to know what a specific verse of the scriptrues means?

You should check out the Navar Bible and comintary it has all the early fathers (catholic) and how they interprited scripture. plus the cathicism is a good place to start.

How do you determine a true doctrine from a false doctrine? What specific criteria do you use?

The Church that is the pillar and foundation of the truth 1:Timothy 3:15 again adressing Timothy.

God bless

 

[Odell]

Sure.

other than your fallible interpritation.
surly there are Church fathers in your church that date beffore the 3rd century and how they interprited these verses. We have showed you our Church fathers and what they belived. Are we just better record keepers because all you have is your fallible interpritation. I want to see how our Church fathers interprited scripture. Today we are all over the place. Look to see what the people taught that were taught by the apostles themselves. Thats what I want to see.

Did I say that?
Surely all the protestant stuff could have been prevented if God was not the author of mass confusion, and wanted to keep His Church holy and one? Unless…there was something wrong that needed fixing…?

What are you saying here it sounds like you believe God dosnt want us one?

I said acording to your fallible interpritation. I mean come on. Between the most learned scholars dont even agree on certain passages much less these passages. Why is your interpritation better than mine or other scholars?

your response

I don’t know - what is your interpretation?

You dont know why your interpritation is better than mine? Or other scholars? Why is any scholar better than the other are they both being led by the holy spirit to interpirt it different?

better yet you dont know why your interpritation is better than mine but your telling me im wrong.

I said what about your denomination? Can you fix your doctrine so it is no longer false? In which you said you could very well have false teaching somewhere. your response was.

Can you tell me what is false?

what does it matter you wouldnt care. you admit to having false doctrine but If someone showed you would you really look into it. I dont think you would see you trully believe you could be wrong but you dont believe you are. See I think you have no credibility at all. How cold you believ you could be wrong but you are right?

Does not sound like an apostolic Church to me that Jesus founded.

I said The true Church would at least admit to not having any false doctrine. you admit that you could. Yet the bible warns us of that.

your response

Would it just> What verse do you get that from?

so here it is.

(1 Tim 1:3) Paul tells Timothy to stay and make sure no one teaches false doctrine.

Do you think Timothy taught false doctrine?

Hey what he taught isnt even in the bible I dont see what Timothy taught do you? Do you think he taught false doctrine? I asked twice because I want a response.

“And that He will be with us for all ages” in Jn 14:15 and Mt 28:19-20.

do you think Jesus being with his Church would let us teach false doctrine?

Where to go for truth? The Church; 1 Tim 3:15 but how could we go to a Chruch that does not have all the truth?

Jesus left us a Church that upholds and defends the truth.

How could the church that uphholds and defends the truth itself teach false truths, false doctrines?

(Matt 18:15-17) “Tell it to the Church.” Here we have a church that seems to be an authoritative church. Or else there would be no need to tell it to the church. Well which church do we tell it to? We have 33,000 churches to choose from. If I have an issue and go tell it to my Church and they tell me something other than what I want to hear, it’s OK. I have thousands more to choose from. What church speaks authoritatively to fulfill this passage? And if the Church is divided, how does it speak authoritatively? So not only did Jesus leave us with a Church of truth and unity, he left us with an authoritative Church.

Im takeing the issue of Marys perpetual verginity.
Who do I take this to? You the devided Protestant Church the bible or the Chruch that gave us the bible?

(Lk 10:16) “He who hears you hears Me”

He who hears the Church hears Jesus.

Did Jesus teach false doctrine?

He left us a infallible Church.

Do you not believe this?

continued

 

[Odell]

No, I admit the possibility.

either you do or you dont.

so do you believe you do have mistakes but you just dont know what hey are?

Or do you not have any mistakes?

expand “protestants” to “Christians”, and see that the argument includes you, too.

Ok I will.
You say that your goal is to get to “what the Bible teaches,” but how do you know that you’re doing that? Don’t all Protestants(Christians) think they are doing that?

Yet, you disagree with what some of the doctrines that Protestants (Christians) teach. Why are you right and those Protestants (Christans) who disagree with you wrong?

Why should I believe you, and not believe them?
Can you answer now?

I said Do you claim greater authority in regards to interpretation of Scripture than that of those Protestants whose doctrines you disagree with?

your response

No, of course not, that would be a wrong thing for anyone to do.

Did timothy not have authority to tell people not to teach false doctrines.

Did the Chruch not have the authority so people could take there matters too?

None, only in God and his Word is there authority.

Passage please.

I said why should your interpretation of the Bible…your opinion of what the Bible says…impact my beliefs in any way, shape, or form?

your response

Because they are thought out, instead of simply and rigidly adhered to?

You think those people Timothy was instructing not think out what they believe to be false doctrines?

Do you not think that all the Scholars that disagree with you have not thought it out?

(2Peter 3:16) Speaking of these things as he soes in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction just as they do the other scriptures"

Do you think these people where saying hey thats me Im ignorant of scripture Im distorting it to my own distruction?

no they where ignorant of the fact that they where ignorant. everyone thinks these things out.

the bottom line is authority.

I said
Are you the final arbiter of biblical interpretation when it comes to Christian belief?

your response

again, no.

]

who is brother? It has to be a Chruch Ive proven that.

I said By what authority do you claim your interpretation of any verse of Scripture is more valid or more “correct” than my interpretation?

your response

The Bible’s

That is what everyone says everyone of the 33,000 denominations that contardict you.

I can say it to but the Curch is the pillar and bullwark of the truth. Im doing what the bible says

Clearly yes - for that is what you believe too.

Im going with the Chruch that teaches no false doctrines

 

[hvg3akaek]

other than your fallible interpritation.
surly there are Church fathers in your church that date beffore the 3rd century and how they interprited these verses. We have showed you our Church fathers and what they belived. Are we just better record keepers because all you have is your fallible interpritation. I want to see how our Church fathers interprited scripture. Today we are all over the place. Look to see what the people taught that were taught by the apostles themselves. Thats what I want to see.

Of course there were, since most of the ones I have seen “for” the Roman Catholic ideas were arguing against others. But that does not matter - for it is a mere appeal to authority.

What are you saying here it sounds like you believe God dosnt want us one?

What I am saying is that God didn’t want us to be one “Roman Catholic” church. There was a problem, and He used people to fix it.

Just as God gave the Law to Moses, and the Pharasees added to it with their traditions, their books about how to walk, and in the end people were following the traditions of men instead of the Law of God, so did Jesus give us His law in our hearts…but still people wrote their own traditions which were not based off of what he gave us. Then, people began to follow what men taught, and not what the Bible taught.

You dont know why your interpritation is better than mine? Or other scholars? Why is any scholar better than the other are they both being led by the holy spirit to interpirt it different?

I don’t know what yor interpretation is Give it to me, then I may be able to tell you why mine is better. It is hard (and usually foolish) to compare two things whilst only knowing one of them.

In which you said you could very well have false teaching somewhere.

Correct. A possibility. I am not going to claim that it is perfect. I am not claiming that it is wrong, only that it could be wrong.

what does it matter you wouldnt care. you admit to having false doctrine

Not at all - I admit to the possibility. If you can not see the difference there, I do not see the point in continuing with you…

but If someone showed you would you really look into it. I dont think you would see you trully believe you could be wrong but you dont believe you are. See I think you have no credibility at all. How cold you believ you could be wrong but you are right?

Try me. Prove me wrong Or, do you not believe that what you hold onto is right?

(1 Tim 1:3) Paul tells Timothy to stay and make sure no one teaches false doctrine.

1 Timothy 1:3
As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer

The verse does not say “No one will ever teach false doctrines”. If anything, it states the opposite - people will teach false doctrines, and it was Timothy’s job to stop them. How can you use that to show there was no false doctrines??

Hey what he taught isnt even in the bible I dont see what Timothy taught do you? Do you think he taught false doctrine?

Seeing as it is not in the Bible, I guess we will never know in this existence.

“And that He will be with us for all ages” in Jn 14:15 and Mt 28:19-20.

do you think Jesus being with his Church would let us teach false doctrine?

I think His church being filled with sinful people could lead to false doctrine. There is as much reason in saying “Jesus is with us for all ages, therefore our doctrine will never be false” as there is in saying “Jesus is with us for all ages, therefore our people will never sin”. Except, of course, that the latter is much harder to convince people of.