Ralphy's Questions for Catholics

[Howie01]

SteveGC:

Of course not. I am selecting certain fundamentals about the use of humans in God’s plan to teach His creation.

OK.

SteveGC:

And how do you know it was all written down? Even the good Book says many of Christ’s teachings were NOT written down.

I have faith that God ensured that all that He wanted written down, is written down, and that He also ensured that what He wanted in the Canon is in the Canon.

SteveGC:

If you pull a 2 Timothy 3:16–17 out of the hat, you would have to admit this refers to Old Testament Scripture.

I have no difficulty whatsoever with limiting Paul’s statement to the OT. It was sufficient for Christ:**Luke 24:25-27

25 And He said to them, “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!

26 “Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?”

27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.**And, I know the apostles knew they were writing Scripture (cf 2 Pet 3:16).

SteveGC:

And even if you want to project Paul’s words to encompass the then non-existant New Testament (which I don’t believe was inferred), these verses nowhere say that a person is to teach himself - the very fact that Paul is physically there with Christians teaching them is evidence of the fact that accounts of teaching in the Bible are acts done by humans first, not written words first.

True. Christ’s commission to the apostles was to introduce Christianity to the world after His ascension (Jn 20:21; Mt 28:19-20), and that was done by preaching the gospel, and teaching Jesus’ doctrines (Mt 28:19-20; Acts 8:25; 15:35; Rom 1:1-6; Eph 4:20-1). They also planted and supervised the first local churches (Acts 8:14; 14:26; 14:26-27; 15:35-41; 18:23; Rom 15:18-19; etc.)

That gift, with its alleged apostolic succession, is not needed today, for the NT, having Jesus’ inherent authority, gives His teachings and supervision for His people. The title “apostle,” meaning “one who is sent,” can apply to people who are sent out to preach the gospel (cf Barnabas, Acts 14:14). But those people don’t have the gift of apostleship, and its authority.

Furthermore, God gave to certain men, specific gifts to ensure the correct teaching. One of those gifts is the gift of prophecy (prophecy being the gift related to giving divine revelation; Rom 12:6; 1 Cor 12:28; cf chap 14; 1 Pet 4:11). That gift enabled a person to speak, or to write God’s words under divine inspiration (Dt 18:18; Heb 1:1; 2 Pet 1:21).

And last, with respect to prophecy, before the NT scriptures were written and distributed, God’s will and direction to the local churches was made known through people with that prophetic gift (Acts 13:1-2; cf Eph 2:20).

Another of the gifts is that of discerning spirits (1 Cor 12:10). That gift enabled the immediate recognition of whether or not a person supposedly was exercising the gift of prophecy was speaking by the inspiration of the HS (1 Jn 4:1-3). Every congregation had at least two people with this gift for the positive recognition of the prophecy’s source, whether the HS, or a demon (Acts 13:1; Dt 19:15 cf Acts 11:27; 15:32; et al).

Since the writing of the apostles teachings, neither of those gifts is needed any longer.

Spiritual discernment, or insight, for evaluating the spiritual character of people or situations, is given to all who are taught in the scriptures (1 Cor 2:14ff; 1 Jn 4:1-6). That should be distinguished from the gift of discerning spirits in 1 Cor 12.

SteveGC:

The point is, Christian teaching is always a human act FIRST. The Bible attests to this fact.

Self study is a human act; so is reading.

SteveGC:

Comport with which interpretation of Scripture?

As I’m the one who’ll be giving an account, mine.

 

[paul_c]

Paul, thanks for breaking this down for me. The second camp does seem much closer to my Catholic understanding of salvation. So basically it comes down to confidence or maybe arrogance? The first camp is claiming they are 100% for sure saved no matter what whereas the rest of us HOPE we are saved based on our belief and how we live.

One more question. If a Catholic were to live half of his life holy (ie not commiting mortal sins and when doing so receiving the sacrament of confession) but then mid way through life leaving the Church and falling prey to a sinful life…then dying. Is it likely this person was predestined to NOT be one of the elect and be saved?

I’m not saying they didn’t have choices but God knew all along their outcome because he is All Knowing. So in essence at this very moment, God knows whether or not I will ultimately be saved or not? But I will not know until I die. I agree with this but I’m still trying to wrap my head around it.

Lux

This is what the Catholic Church teaches on predestination.

1. God knows what all men will do and he has a plan for all mankind that will be realized.
2. God gave every man free will to decide whether he will chose to be with God in heaven by leading a sacramental life and doing God’s will or whether he will chose to turn away from God in Sin, ending up in Hell.
3. Gods plan is such that it will be executed perfectly without impinging on man’s free will. The exact mechanism for this is actually unknown and unknowable by us. The Thomists speculate that the reason this is true is that God made man in such a way that he would react as God planned… The Molists speculate that God can predict what each man would do and made his plan accordingly… The results are the same: man’s use of free will will be in perfect harmony with God’s ultimate plan. And no man is predestined to Hell - it will be based completely on his choices.

So from a practical perspective, no man knows what his ultimate destiny is and hence, predestination has no effect on a man’s actions. If he choses to follow Church teachings, getting Baptized , staying in the state of Grace by doing God’s will, and takes advantage of the sacrament of reconciliation when he falls into sin, then he will ultimately be saved. God knew this would happen, but man still needs to do his part. Conversely, if a man falls into sin and is never reconciled, then he separates himself from God. And while God knew this would happen and planned for it, it was still the choice of the man that made it so. God’s plan is still sovereign and man’s free will remains intact.

Where most Protestants differ from Catholics, is that they don’t understand how God’s will can be done while leaving room for man’s true free will. Hence, they generally feel that man must have no choice in the outcome and that its all up to God. This is because they don’t understand that God is omnipotent and omniscient and can execute a plan that still leaves man’s free will intact.

 

[Th0t]

Ralphy: Speaking of tradition, I cannot believe that anyone would believe that God would build His church on a human being (a sinner) like Peter…"

Speaking of tradition, I cannot believe that anyone would believe that God would make human beings (sinners) like the apostles write the bible…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[JW55]

Some other points to keep in mind is that although we agree that the Bible is "inspired and suitable for teaching’ but it does not say anywhere in the Bible that the Bible was the only source. As far as we know Jesus never wrote anything on paper and most of the teachings were passed on orally by himself and the apostles. This spoken word was also considered the “Word of God”. The early Christians kept this oral tradition through the “Church” that Jesus established. This Church serves to interpret the correct teaching so there is not error in interpretation. The Apostle Paul refers to the “Church” as the foundation of the truth in I Tim 3:15. 2 Th2:15 lt says: “So then brethern, stand firm and hold the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or letter.” This would obviously imply the verbal teaching of the church waere considerd as important as those written down.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Wow, good stuff again James. I try to pray the rosary regularly but what is this Sacred Heart of Jesus and Heart of Mary devotional? It that the divine mercy chaplet you link for your signature?

Lux

Note that it takes grace to be able to complete these devotionals. I tried to do each of these devotionals at an earlier time in my life when I was young and foolish and thought I could just “do the work” (i.e. “just believe”) and I’d be assured of heaven. But you WILL NOT be able to complete these devotionals unless your heart is in the right place - right there with Jesus. He gives the graces to complete these. I could only complete them 25 years later when I was finally able to commit to the proper interior state. If you are not ready then you will forget to go to one of the masses within the first 2-3 months.

Sacred Heart of Jesus Devotional Background can be read here:
fisheaters.com/sh.html
Sacred Heart of Jesus Devotional Promises:

• He will give them all the graces necessary in their state of life.
• He will establish peace in their homes.
• He will comfort them in all their afflictions.
• He will be their secure refuge during life, and above all, in death.
• He will bestow abundant blessings upon all their undertakings.
• Sinners will find in His Heart the source and infinite ocean of mercy.
• Lukewarm souls shall become fervent.
• Fervent souls shall quickly mount to high perfection.
• He will bless every place in which an image of His Heart is exposed and honored.
• He will give to priests the gift of touching the most hardened hearts.
• Those who shall promote this devotion shall have their names written in His Heart.
• In the excessive mercy of His Heart that His all-powerful love will grant to all those who receive Holy Communion on the First Fridays in nine consecutive months the grace of final perseverance; they shall not die in His disgrace, nor without receiving their sacraments. His divine Heart shall be their safe refuge in this last moment.

Immaculate Heart of Mary Devotional Background can be read here:
fisheaters.com/ih.html

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

And, I know the apostles knew they were writing Scripture (cf 2 Pet 3:16).

Howie, this is not stated in this passage nor is it properly inferred. You can not possibly look into Peter’s head and project that Peter knew he was writing the NT anymore so than you could say Peter knew he was going to be crucified for his faith. In fact all the apostles originally thought Jesus’ return was imminent and within their own lifetimes. They were in a hurry to just get out and get the good news out verbally as fast possible to as many as they could. The original apostles were common fishermen and could not even read and write for the most part (except Paul who comes later). It was mostly their disciples who later wrote things down and some of the NT writers no one knows who they really were except that they were NOT apostles.

*2 Peter 3:14-16
So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. *

Peter here is talking about Paul’s teachings to the JEWS on the Old Testament and how Jesus related to it all. Paul nor Peter had ANY idea that what they were saying and what Paul was occasionally writing down in prepared speeches and sent letters would someday become the New Testament writings. As an aside Paul mentions in some of his “letters” that there are other letters he wrote but these never get into the Bible NT since they were never found and were lost. So if everything Paul was writing and saying was NT “scripture” then that would mean that God let some scripture become lost.

Further note that Peter FIRST calls Paul’s writings “LETTERS” and NOT scripture in vs 16. If Peter had intended to identify Paul’s letters as scripture the verse would read:
“His SCRIPTURE contains some things hard to understand, which ignorant & unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” But Peter does NOT say this since Peter was angry that people were distorting their words and the letters of instruction that Paul was writing just like they were distorting the Old Testament scriptures.

The NT was not in existence at the time Paul was writing. All that there was was a few of Paul’s letters (and some of those as I mentions are lost) and perhaps the epistle of James may have been written at this time. Peter does not declare ANYWHERE in the NT what is scripture. If Peter thought that Paul’s letters were scripture then it would mean that the apostles would have to have had a council meeting to define what was new scripture ahead of time. But we know this did not happen and there is no definition of NT scripture ANYWHERE in the NT. It is ONLY The Catholic Church that DEFINES the New Testament through Pope Damasus in the Council of Rome in 383 AD over 350 years later. At the time Peter spoke his words we don’t even yet have 2 Peter written. You can’t use unwritten scripture to declare scripture before it it written or spoken. For that matter no one has yet heard from Matthew, Hebrews, Jude or John or John1, John2, John3, or Revelation. So its impossible that NT scripture is known among the apostles at this time since it is not even conceived in the minds of any apostles - much less spoken and written.

So anyone who claims that the apostles knew that what they were saying was New Testament Scripture is in the words of Peter ‘ignorant and unstable and from people who distort the truth to their own destruction’.

I hope you can see now what the truth is.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

That gift, with its alleged apostolic succession, is not needed today, for the NT, having Jesus’ inherent authority, gives His teachings and supervision for His people. The title “apostle,” meaning “one who is sent,” can apply to people who are sent out to preach the gospel (cf Barnabas, Acts 14:14). But those people don’t have the gift of apostleship, and its authority.

The apostolic succession is not needed today???
Howie, this is YOUR OPINION and its not biblical. ONLY God can give or take away an authority. You are calling ALL Catholic Bishops, Priests, and Deacons “Good for Nothings”.

Do you know what scripture tells us about a person who calls their brothers useless?

Matthew 5:22
But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.

You do not have the authority of the supreme court nor the authority to amend scripture. Jesus gave the apostles the apostolic authority to preach to all nations and forgive sins until He returns.

*Matthew 16:17-20
And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” 20 Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.

John 20:21-23
So Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me,** I also send you**.” 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 “If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.” *

I do not see ANY words or weasel clauses in these verses that says “when howie tells you that you and your successors are no longer needed then you shall give up your apostolic authority.” Christ intended for the apostolic authority to extend until the gospel is spread throughout the entire world AND until the age of the Gentiles is completed AND until He comes again.

And last, with respect to prophecy, before the NT scriptures were written and distributed, God’s will and direction to the local churches was made known through people with that prophetic gift (Acts 13:1-2; cf Eph 2:20).

Yes, these were gifted Catholics and they always submitted their prophecies to the bishop to discern & test if they were true and if he would authorize them to be told to the other members.

Another of the gifts is that of discerning spirits (1 Cor 12:10). That gift enabled the immediate recognition of whether or not a person supposedly was exercising the gift of prophecy was speaking by the inspiration of the HS (1 Jn 4:1-3). Every congregation had at least two people with this gift for the positive recognition of the prophecy’s source, whether the HS, or a demon (Acts 13:1; Dt 19:15 cf Acts 11:27; 15:32; et al).

There is no such thing as an immediate test and discernment unless the person immediately blasphemes God and reveals that the spirit is evil. Did Moses test the burning bush in the OT? Did the apostles test the tongues of fire at Pentecost and say “profess that Jesus is Lord” before letting themselves be lit up with the Holy Spirit?

Since the writing of the apostles teachings, neither of those gifts is needed any longer.

There is no such “not needed after expiration date verse” in the scripture and your teaching is not scriptural.

Spiritual discernment, or insight, for evaluating the spiritual character of people or situations, is given to all who are taught in the scriptures (1 Cor 2:14ff; 1 Jn 4:1-6). That should be distinguished from the gift of discerning spirits in 1 Cor 12.

You need to apply this discernment to yourself and see that you are not speaking scripturally. It is good that the Holy Spirit led you to CAF since we here can test for you and have in fact told you now that you are not in possession of the full truth and need to purge the spirit of false teachings from yourself which I suspect come from the same errors of pride that Luther and the reformers passed on to you.

James

 

[SteveGC]

I have faith that God ensured that all that He wanted written down, is written down, and that He also ensured that what He wanted in the Canon is in the Canon.

Ok, you have faith. But you do not know. So, the jury is still out on whether or not everything was written down. I’ll even concede that everything we need to know about salvation is contained within Scripture. Let’s focus the discussion on how this information contained in Scripture is to be correctly transferred into the minds and hearts of people (like you and I).

Luke 24:25-27
25 And He said to them, “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!
26 “Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?”
27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

If anything, these verses prove that people are taught first by humans (wisdom that is passed along is “spoken” and “explained”). It doesn’t speak at all about individual interpretation.

And, I know the apostles knew they were writing Scripture (

Howie, be reasonable. There is nothing in Peter 3:16 (nor anywhere else) remotely suggesting that anyone knew their letters and teachings would later become canonical. I can’t imagine you can justify this even to yourself.

True. Christ’s commission to the apostles was to introduce Christianity to the world after His ascension and that was done by preaching the gospel, and teaching Jesus’ doctrines They also planted and supervised the first local churches. That gift, with its alleged apostolic succession, is not needed today, for the NT, having Jesus’ inherent authority, gives His teachings and supervision for His people.

So we understand each other, you are saying that when the apostles (and their ordained clergy) were all living on earth, it was necessary for them to teach what was written, but since what they taught ended up also being written down* itself*, there is all of a sudden no longer a need to teach what is written? It’s still all written down, isn’t it? So if it had to be taught by humans first back then, what makes it true that **more **words written down can stand on their own, with **no **human teaching beforehand? There’s no logic in that at all. If we don’t need humans to teach the written words today, we never needed humans…Scripture was written already at the time of the apostles, so why wasn’t it sufficient enough for people just to read it by themselves then? It wasn’t, as you would agree. Humans were needed to first teach what the meaning of it was. Just because Jesus is revealed in the newer written words says nothing about the fact that all of a sudden we don’t need what we’ve always needed - prior human teaching.

The title “apostle,” meaning “one who is sent,” can apply to people who are sent out to preach the gospel (cf Barnabas, Acts 14:14). But those people don’t have the gift of apostleship, and its authority.

Wait. Barnabas didn’t have the gift of apostleship? I know you don’t mean that. Anyway, we’re not talking about “preaching the Gospel”. We ALL can and should do that. I’m talking about teaching - not preaching. There’s a big difference. A preacher does not interpret Scripture nor the doctrinal absolutes as taught by Christ. Those things are reserved for authoritative teachers. What a preacher does is deliver what has already been taught, and at best, explains things within the doctrinal boundaries that a teacher has previously set for them.

God gave to certain men, specific gifts to ensure the correct teaching.

So what does that have to do with the fact that YOU have any of these gifts, or even your pastor, and can therefore, interpret Scripture and the related salvific doctrine contained therein?

Since the writing of the apostles teachings, neither of those gifts is needed any longer. Spiritual discernment, or insight, for evaluating the spiritual character of people or situations, is given to all who are taught in the scriptures.

Ok. You, like so many others, make the mistake of endowing yourselves with the exact same gifts given to the apostles, all the while conceding that different gifts are given to different people in God’s Plan. I’m not saying the Spirit is not within believers, it most certainly is. But again, the gift the Spirit gives specifically to “teach” that which came from Christ, is different from the gift we have to “confess that Jesus has come in the flesh”. Even if I concede that a believer has the gift to discern the spiritual character of people (which I don’t really believe fully), this says NOTHING with regard to the ability to interpret and teach doctrine as revealed in Scripture.
*
Continued below…*

 

[SteveGC]

Continued…

Self study is a human act; so is reading.

Let me clarify. I’m not debating what is and is not a human act. I’m saying that teaching is an act requiring atleast two humans, one to teach, another to learn. It’s not an act of a self-interpreted book. Self study and reading is not teaching,

As I’m the one who’ll be giving an account, mine.

By your shrug, I sense that you can’t see the obvious thing that so many of us see in your logic. Look, you’re saying that your individual account, even though it differs from so many others, is the one that is authoritative to teach to whomever you come into contact with. You’ll teach them that baptism is symbolic only. And another like you will teach someone else that baptism is salvific and essential. Do you not see the absurdity in saying that one’s own personal interpretation of the teaching, doctrinal truths, of Christ, is sufficient to spread unto whomever you come into contact with? Once again, I’m not downplaying our role in preaching…by all means, lets all go out and preach…but lets all FIRST get taught by those AUTHORIZED BY CHRIST TO TEACH us what in the world it is that we’re supposed to go out and preach.

God Bless

 

[Howie01]

CentralFLJames:

The apostolic succession is not needed today???
Howie, this is YOUR OPINION and its not biblical. ONLY God can give or take away an authority. You are calling ALL Catholic Bishops, Priests, and Deacons “Good for Nothings”.

Do you know what scripture tells us about a person who calls their brothers useless?

Matthew 5:22
But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.

You’re right, James, it’s my opinion, just as the opposite’s your opinion, and I don’t believe those men are my “brothers.”

CentralFLJames:

You do not have the authority of the supreme court nor the authority to amend scripture.

”Amend Scripture?”

CentralFLJames:

Jesus gave the apostles the apostolic authority to preach to all nations and forgive sins until He returns.

That’s what I said in previous post, James.

CentralFLJames:

I do not see ANY words or weasel clauses in these verses that says “when howie tells you that you and your successors are no longer needed then you shall give up your apostolic authority.” Christ intended for the apostolic authority to extend until the gospel is spread throughout the entire world AND until the age of the Gentiles is completed AND until He comes again.

That’s why He gave us the writings, the Scripture; they’re the authority—the apostles are no longer physically presently, though Christ is spiritually present with those who teach the truth.

CentralFLJames:

Yes, these were gifted Catholics and they always submitted their prophecies to the bishop to discern & test if they were true and if he would authorize them to be told to the other members.

They were gifted Catholics? See Webster’s for the definition of anachronism.

CentralFLJames:

There is no such thing as an immediate test and discernment unless the person immediately blasphemes God and reveals that the spirit is evil.

”…no such thing as an immediate test and discernment unless the person immediately blasphemes…” Listen to yourself, James.

CentralFLJames:

Did Moses test the burning bush in the OT?

It’s a NT gift, James, given to the church (1 Cor 12:10).

CentralFLJames:

Did the apostles test the tongues of fire at Pentecost and say “profess that Jesus is Lord” before letting themselves be lit up with the Holy Spirit?

James, you’re carping now.

CentralFLJames:

There is no such “not needed after expiration date verse” in the scripture and your teaching is not scriptural.

Then what happened to all of the miraculous “sign” gifts that were around at the beginning of the Church? The apostles were raising the dead, and healing the sick at that time, but by the time Paul wrote to the Philippians, he was unable to heal Epaphroditus (Php 2:25-30), and he urged Timothy to, "use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments." There is an “expiration date verse” concerning prophecy, tongues, and knowledge (1 Cor 13:8).

 

[Howie01]

CentralFLJames:

Howie, this is not stated in this passage nor is it properly inferred. You can not possibly look into Peter’s head and project that Peter knew he was writing the NT anymore so than you could say Peter knew he was going to be crucified for his faith. In fact all the apostles originally thought Jesus’ return was imminent and within their own lifetimes. They were in a hurry to just get out and get the good news out verbally as fast possible to as many as they could. The original apostles were common fishermen and could not even read and write for the most part (except Paul who comes later). It was mostly their disciples who later wrote things down and some of the NT writers no one knows who they really were except that they were NOT apostles.

2 Peter 3:14-16
So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Peter here is talking about Paul’s teachings to the JEWS on the Old Testament and how Jesus related to it all. Paul nor Peter had ANY idea that what they were saying and what Paul was occasionally writing down in prepared speeches and sent letters would someday become the New Testament writings. As an aside Paul mentions in some of his “letters” that there are other letters he wrote but these never get into the Bible NT since they were never found and were lost. So if everything Paul was writing and saying was NT “scripture” then that would mean that God let some scripture become lost.

Further note that Peter FIRST calls Paul’s writings “LETTERS” and NOT scripture in vs 16. If Peter had intended to identify Paul’s letters as scripture the verse would read:
“His SCRIPTURE contains some things hard to understand, which ignorant & unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” But Peter does NOT say this since Peter was angry that people were distorting their words and the letters of instruction that Paul was writing just like they were distorting the Old Testament scriptures.

The NT was not in existence at the time Paul was writing. All that there was was a few of Paul’s letters (and some of those as I mentions are lost) and perhaps the epistle of James may have been written at this time. Peter does not declare ANYWHERE in the NT what is scripture. If Peter thought that Paul’s letters were scripture then it would mean that the apostles would have to have had a council meeting to define what was new scripture ahead of time. But we know this did not happen and there is no definition of NT scripture ANYWHERE in the NT. It is ONLY The Catholic Church that DEFINES the New Testament through Pope Damasus in the Council of Rome in 383 AD over 350 years later. At the time Peter spoke his words we don’t even yet have 2 Peter written. You can’t use unwritten scripture to declare scripture before it it written or spoken. For that matter no one has yet heard from Matthew, Hebrews, Jude or John or John1, John2, John3, or Revelation. So its impossible that NT scripture is known among the apostles at this time since it is not even conceived in the minds of any apostles - much less spoken and written.

So anyone who claims that the apostles knew that what they were saying was New Testament Scripture is in the words of Peter ‘ignorant and unstable and from people who distort the truth to their own destruction’.

I hope you can see now what the truth is.

James, Peter uses the same noun, graphā, to describe Paul’s writings, as Paul uses in 2 Tim 3:16, and 1 Tim 5:18, to describe the OT Scriptures.

From your Catholic Encyclopedia:The Apostle St. Peter extends the designation Scripture also to tas loipas graphas (2 Peter 3:16), denoting the Pauline Epistles; St. Paul (1 Timothy 5:18) seems to refer by the same expression to both Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7.

 

[CentralFLJames]

James, Peter uses the same noun, graphā, to describe Paul’s writings, as Paul uses in 2 Tim 3:16, and 1 Tim 5:18, to describe the OT Scriptures.

From your Catholic Encyclopedia:The Apostle St. Peter extends the designation Scripture also to tas loipas graphas (2 Peter 3:16), denoting the Pauline Epistles; St. Paul (1 Timothy 5:18) seems to refer by the same expression to both Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7.

But Howie, why don’t you read the rest of it & see that almost no one with scholarship agrees that this was a canonical list of what we call New Testament writings?

You are being intellectually dishonest or lazy - which is it? And seperate from this issue of what Peter said and meant there is NO NT biblical historian of any standing who I know of that would agree with you that scripture was defined at the time Peter spoke these words since there was much more yet remaining to be written.

From the rest of New Advent comments on this we have:
New Advent Comments on the meaning of the greek usage of "graphe":

It is disputed whether the word graphe in the singular is ever used of the Old Testament as a whole. Lightfoot (Galatians 3:22) expresses the opinion that the singular graphe in the New Testament always means a particular passage of Scripture. But in Romans 4:3, he modifies his view, appealing to Dr. Vaughan’s statement of the case. He believes that the usage of St. John may admit a doubt, though he does not think so, personally; but St. Paul’s practice is absolute and uniform. Mr. Hort says (1 Peter 2:6) that in St. John and St. Paul **he graphe **is capable of being understood as approximating to the collective sense (cf. Westcott, “Hebr.”, pp. 474 sqq.; Deissmann, “Bibelstudien”, pp. 108 sqq., Eng. tr., pp. 112 sqq., Warfield, “Pres. and Reform. Review”, X, July, 1899, pp. 472 sqq.). Here arises the question whether the expression of St. Peter (2 Peter 3:16) tas loipas graphas refers to a collection of St. Paul’s Epistles. Spitta contends that the term graphai *is used in a general non-technical meaning, denoting only writings of St. Paul’s associates *(Spitta, “Der zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas”, 1885, p. 294). **Zahn refers the term to writings of a religious character **which could claim respect in Christian circles either on account of their authors or on account of their use in public worship (Einleitung, pp. 98 sqq., 108). But Mr. F.H. Chase adheres to the principle that the phrase ai graphai used absolutely points to a definite and recognized collection of writings, i.e., Scriptures. The accompanying words, kai, tas loipas, and the verb streblousin in the context confirm Mr. Chase in his conviction (cf. Dict. of the Bible, III, p. 810b).

Note that only one of the many scholars (Mr. F.H. Chase) adheres to the principle that the phrase ai graphai ** absolutely points to a definite and recognized collection of writings. But where is this list at if this is the case?** It’s not to be found in the NT.

At best concession to your assertion (which is just an assertion somone taught you), and it is a very dubious “at best” at that, the very most we can concede in charity to your point of view (against all better judgement and common sense) is that Peter is referring to a limited small collection of Paul’s letters as scripture. But again, NO LIST IS EVER PUBLISHED IN THE BIBLE. So again, from Peter’s comments you have NO way to account for what is scripture even if we conceded the best scholarship against the minority view to be in your favor. Further we know from Paul’s own words that some of his letters are lost to us and NOT in scripture. **Where these lost letters scripture too and are we missing some critical piece of of teaching necessary for our salvation? **

And we still have the very glaring problem of why Peter refers to Paul’s written words two times first as “letters” and then only associates them a single time at the end of the verse to the term “scripture” through indirect association; which arrives to us only through a twice transliterated translation of (what The Catholic Church later declares) scripture that MUST mangle grammar in going from Aramaic to Greek and then to English (especially given that there is no punctuation in the Greek). The reasonable thing to conclude giving lack of evidence of a cannon list and higher frequency of terms of “letters” is to conclude with high confidence that there was NO NT cannon defined at this time. History certainly does not bear out that scripture was closed at this time. You therefor have no evidence. Do you have anything to rebut with?

In any case the undeniable and plain truth is that NO WHERE in the bible does THE BIBLE tell us WHAT books belong in the bible. The Catholic Church tells you this. You therefor must admit that you trust from the traditions of others (e.g. that would be the Catholic Church) that we are telling you the bible is sacred inspired scripture at that it contained all the written works. But we Catholics who tell you this also tell you that you need more than what is written in the bible to attain to salvation - you need PROPER APOSTOLIC TEACHING AND AUTHORITY TO INTERPRET AND INVOKE THE SACRAMENTS AS WELL.

Why would you trust the Catholic Church to tell you what is inspired scripture but not trust it to tell you what is the proper interpretation?

[continued]

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

[continued from prior]

So perhaps the most principal question for you is WHERE did YOU get YOUR instruction that the bible is all of the written word of God when the bible itself tells us that Jesus said and did more than could be written in all the books of the earth (John 21:25)?

If we are told in Matt. 28:20 to “observe ALL I have commanded,” and you believe in that then how can you obey ALL of Jesus’ commandments if we see in John 20:30; 21:25 that not ALL Jesus taught is in WRITTEN Scripture? Clearly there must be things outside of WRITTEN Scripture that we must observe and your bible is not going to permit you to know all that Jesus commanded. Could it be that SCRIPTURE includes both written and taught aspects? Indeed it does since Paul tells us this in his letters to Timothy.

*John 20:30
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of (his) disciples that are not written in this book

John 21:25
There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written. *

From Luke 10:16 you better be absolutely certain in your OPINION that the apostolic succession is no longer in force or you have just vicariously rejected Christ by rejecting Christ’s Church and His appointed apostolic successors who all claim validity to the original apostolic succession. If you are wrong you will be among those that Christ told us are the ones who “called me Lord Lord” but were condemned to hell for only paying lip service and not obeying ALL His teachings (which is to also follow those who he appointed as apostolic teachers and priests).

Luke 10:16
The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me."

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

You’re right, James, it’s my opinion, just as the opposite’s your opinion, and I don’t believe those men are my “brothers.”

Good - at least you are admitting you are not following scripture and are following your own opinions. As for me - I am not following my own opinion. I am following the continuous unbroken 2,000 year old historical apostolic succession and teaching that has never been replaced by God or man. Can you deny that the Catholic Church has not been in existence for 2,000 years? We have the archaeological and historical evidence to back it (bones of St. Peter under the altar in the Vatican, the original papal residence and church given in Constantine’s time -Basilica of St. John Lateran as well as all the vast archives and museum collections.

How ironic that these men you renounce as not your brothers pray for you daily and most do masses daily too not only for you but for the rest of those living in error world wide. Cain was as jealous and scornful of his brother Abel who he slew.

Don’t you think that the ability of The Catholic Church to withstand and outlive ALL of its persecutors for 2,000 years is strong evidence that apostolic succession is still alive and well? We have outlives all nations and heretical Churches that have ever tried to oppress us. Whereas Protestantism IMMEDIATELY fractured during the Catholic-Counter-Revolution and now fractured into 32,000+ sects and denominations. This is not surprising to a system that teaches “every man with a bible and an opinion his own pope” (that comes from the error of sola scriptura).

Have you really given any serious thought to the divisions in Protestantism to imagine that it contains but mere shards of apostolic teaching truth?

”Amend Scripture?”

Yes- every time you re-interpret scripture to teach something that no apostle ever taught you are essentially re-writing scripture and teaching a new gospel. And we know how the apostle Paul thought about people teaching their own opinions.
*
Galatians 1:9. As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!*

And we also know that “Nothing deserving of a curse shall be found there. The throne of God and the Lamb shall be there, and His servants shall serve Him faithfully” (Revelation 22:3

That’s why He gave us the writings, the Scripture; they’re the authority—the apostles are no longer physically presently, though Christ is spiritually present with those who teach the truth.

The scriptures do not tell us that they are an authority. Authority exists in people and is God given. There is no scripture that tells us that scripture is authority. The scriptures do tell us that “the authority” to forgive sins is given to the apostles and that authority is given to their successors as we see when Mathias is elected and “layed on hands” to convey that apostolic authority. This same authority passes on to all the successive bishops and popes. Christ promised He would guide His church through the Holy Spirit and so this is what has happened and continues to happen.

James, you’re carping now.

Carping only in the sense of fishing. So I am doing the same thing the apostles did - I am fishing for men for Jesus as commanded. But you are hiding in the weeds and I am going to pull you up out from there with God’s grace.

Then what happened to all of the miraculous “sign” gifts that were around at the beginning of the Church? The apostles were raising the dead, and healing the sick at that time, but by the time Paul wrote to the Philippians, he was unable to heal Epaphroditus (Php 2:25-30), and he urged Timothy to, "use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments." There is an “expiration date verse” concerning prophecy, tongues, and knowledge (1 Cor 13:8).

In a certain sense you are correct that the signs and wonders were no longer necessary to gain new converts after the Church started being formed. But this is NOT to be taken as a sign of declining authority. The Spirit focused now more on revealing deeper truths of sacred scripture and tradition to help perfect His Church in teachings. But there are from time to time special signs and wonders given to individuals of the Catholic Church so God can confirm a critical message. This is why the Catholic Church has thousands of saints who performed many miracles after the apostolic era and still does to this day. A more modern saint is Padre Pio who had many visions and miracles associated with him. We don’t get much credible evidence of this from Protestants (except from the sensational TV healers which I don’t want to comment on further). Why is that?

BTW: are you admitting here that you are one of those Protestants that think its just fine to drink wine or is that a sin too?

James

 

[cazayoux]

bump … can anyone tell me how to subscribe to a thread without posting?

michel

 

[Howie01]

SteveGC:

Ok, you have faith. But you do not know. So, the jury is still out on whether or not everything was written down.

My friend, there’s a decided trend that develops throughout your entire post; namely, you’re not carefully reading what I’m saying, and therefore, you’re not listening to me.

That not everything is written down is evident from the apostle John saying so; therefore, the jury has decided.

SteveGC:

I’ll even concede that everything we need to know about salvation is contained within Scripture.

It would be silly of you not to.

SteveGC:

Let’s focus the discussion on how this information contained in Scripture is to be correctly transferred into the minds and hearts of people (like you and I).

OK.

If anything, these verses prove that people are taught first by humans (wisdom that is passed along is “spoken” and “explained”). It doesn’t speak at all about individual interpretation.

A point to which I’ve already agreed. You’re not listening to me.

What you’re doing is obfuscating the reason for my having cited that verse in the first place—the OT is sufficient to bring to one the knowledge of salvation (2 Tim 3:14-15).

SteveGC:

Howie, be reasonable. There is nothing in Peter 3:16 (nor anywhere else) remotely suggesting that anyone knew their letters and teachings would later become canonical. I can’t imagine you can justify this even to yourself.

You continue not to listen to me. I never said anything about them knowing their writings “would later become canonical,” but that they knew they were writing scripture.

However, the idea of them knowing what they were writing was canonical is not as farfetched as you seem to think. They certainly knew they were writing inspired instruction and even future prophecy, and, they knew the writings of Moses and the prophets of old had done the same, and that those writings were held in esteem as a collective body, or canon, if you will.

SteveGC:

So we understand each other, you are saying that when the apostles (and their ordained clergy) were all living on earth, it was necessary for them to teach what was written, but since what they taught ended up also being written down itself, there is all of a sudden no longer a need to teach what is written? It’s still all written down, isn’t it?

You’re still more interested in making your case, than in listening to what I’ve said. What I said was, the teachings, having been put to paper, ensure the continuance of Christ’s authority, since His authority is inherent in the inspired writings.

That teachers are necessary is evident by the fact that God sends men, to the church, who are gifted in teaching (Eph 4:11).

SteveGC:

Wait. Barnabas didn’t have the gift of apostleship?

Barnabas is called a prophet, a teacher, and an apostle. But, Barnabas is not one of the “twelve,” nor were Steven, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, nor Paul; neither were any of those chosen to replace Judas, but Matthias; however, Paul was commissioned personally by Christ (Acts 9; Gal 1:1, 11-12).

SteveGC:

So what does that have to do with the fact that YOU have any of these gifts, or even your pastor, and can therefore, interpret Scripture and the related salvific doctrine contained therein?

My statement answers your question: God gives to certain men, specific gifts to ensure the correct teaching.

SteveGC:

Ok. You, like so many others, make the mistake of endowing yourselves with the exact same gifts given to the apostles…

No, I’m not, and again, you’re not listening. I don’t claim to have the gifts of a “true apostle,” the ability to perform signs and miracles, and to proclaim to speak the inspired words of God, except when I speak from the scripture.

SteveGC:

But again, the gift the Spirit gives specifically to “teach” that which came from Christ, is different from the gift we have to “confess that Jesus has come in the flesh”.

Correct, only the apostles spoke and wrote by inspiration, no one alive since them has that authority. All of the authority of Christ is now inherent in the Scripture.

SteveGC:

I’m not debating what is and is not a human act. I’m saying that teaching is a human act, not an act of a self-interpreted book. Self study and reading is not teaching,

Correct. Presenting that which one has studied and read to others is teaching. And, that is also the method employed by the teachers under whom you sit.

SteveGC:

By your shrug, I sense that you can’t see the obvious thing that so many of us see in your logic. Look, you’re saying that your individual account, even though it differs from so many others, is the one that is authoritative to teach to whomever you come into contact with. You’ll teach them that baptism is symbolic only. And another like you will teach someone else that baptism is salvific and essential. Do you not see the absurdity in saying that one’s own personal interpretation of the teaching, doctrinal truths, of Christ, is sufficient to spread unto whomever you come into contact with?

How does what you do differ from what I do?

 

[CentralFLJames]

bump … can anyone tell me how to subscribe to a thread without posting?

michel

Sure - just go to the lower level menu on the thread topic called “thread tools” then select subscribe. But just by posting this question you are now subscribed automatically.

James

 

[ralphy]

This is VERY good information, thank you. I like your advice about quit worrying and just do your best to trust in Jesus and advance in holiness.

That part about Protestants and verbs above, I am literally laughing out loud, too funny.

Actually in Eph 2:8/9 as I stated previously, it says by grace are you saved through faith,not of works,(it is a gift), if you must have works to be saved then it is no longer a gift, nor is grace effective. Ralph

 

[CentralFLJames]

Actually in Eph 2:8/9 as I stated previously, it says by grace are you saved through faith,not of works,(it is a gift), if you must have works to be saved then it is no longer a gift, nor is grace effective. Ralph

Catholics believe all that is in scripture. We believe that grace is essential for faith but we also believe that grace can be resisted and so it takes a cooperation and consent to “let it be done according to your word”. God does not “take over” and “possess” anyone. God respects the person and their free choice. His own supreme righteousness causes him to respect the gift of free will he gave us. God forces no one to love Him (not that he lacks that power and magnificence) and God forces no one to hate Him. So Catholics see that it all starts with grace and a consent to that grace. Once that happens (baptism) a person through the power of Christ one is completely cleansed of their sins (both original and personal), the soul is initially sanctified and spiritually reconfigured and marked for Christ. This radical reconfiguration permits an immediate indwelling of the Holy Spirit and a supernatural flooding of sanctifying grace that is OURS - a free gift which makes us a divine child of God. We are not just “covered over” with a veneer of whitewash and made to look clean on the outside we are actually and really supernaturally cleansed and adopted as God’s very own child. From here we are continuously sanctified over our lives and learn to walk with God as a child of light and our souls actually GROW in capacity and we gain progressively more grace and ability to be more Christ-like. But grace wants to “work” and help God build up His Kingdom on earth by saving more souls so it will compel us to do works of grace. Since The Trinity is spiritually living within us we become progressively ONE with God and so our works while our own are only so through Christ. But we do gain real merit before God the more we cooperate with grace and bend our wills to His.

Here I would like to tease protestants a little bit and say if works were not a fruit of grace and not necessary for our salvation as a fruit therein then how can we justify including the bible book “The Acts of the Apostles”? THIS IS ENTIRELY A WORK - but a WORK of grace - just like Catholics believe

James

 

[SteveGC]

My friend, there’s a decided trend that develops throughout your entire post; namely, you’re not carefully reading what I’m saying, and therefore, you’re not listening to me.

Fair enough, Howie. I’ll concede that you utterly confused me. I even went back and pasted all our dialogue together to make sense of it. And here’s what I’ve concluded…

You concede that we are all taught by humans first (sort of…I’ll get back to this point).

You agree that the apostles were, atleast, the first teachers.

You do not agree that the ones the apostles laid hands on, like the 7 deacons, and others, were then also given the “gift” to authentically teach. (or am I not listening again?)

Either way, as soon as the biblical story closes, after the last apostle lived his life out, teaching fell to the authority NOT of those they ordained (laid hands on), nor the ones the ordained also subsequently laid hands on. No…not them. Teaching, rather, somehow fell into the lap of anyone who subsequently read Scripture. You don’t clarify a whole lot about this “gift”, but I would assume you mean, anyone who confesses Christ as Lord, prays to the Holy Spirit for understanding, then reads Scripture. By doing all this, they are endowed with the “gift” to teach what they “learn” from reading the Bible. Or, wait. Is it really just a hand-select few that now can teach? And you happen to be one of them?

In other words, you actually deny that you learn directly from the humans that co-exist with you now in your life, although at the outset you said you agree that we all learn first from humans. I assume you thought I meant that you do learn from humans since inspired humans wrote the Bible, and now the Bible is, in essence, a “human” teacher to you, and that’s why you agreed earlier?

So, here we are. I guess I’m listening now. I don’t like what I’m hearing, but I think I’m finally listening.

Am I given this gift to teach, Howie? I confess Christ, I pray to the Spirit of God. Is every believer who does this endowed? Can we all teach salvific doctrine? Is it universally accepted across the board, among all of us “gifted” teachers? Does it mean nothing to you that all these “gifted” teachers out there are all teaching different doctrine? Or are all the ones teaching it differently from you really NOT gifted to teach? How in the world do I find one of these ‘gifted’ teachers, Howie?

Are we now on the same page?