Reformers:1) SS is right, 2) The Bible is wrong...

[SteveGC]

So if God can call to those outside the body of believers then, as He did Paul why can’t this happen everywhere or anywhere today?

This certainly can happen, as God in His providence can do anything. But the fact is that He doesn’t. What we know is that Paul, a Christ-ordained apostle, himself referred to the authentic appointment (through the laying on of hands) of successors to the teaching ministry by elders in the Church (i.e. Timothy). This ordination of others transmitted to them the same knowledge-guiding and error-protecting Spirit which Paul possessed directly from Christ. I don’t expect you to believe this. But this is the Catholic position of apostolic succession, and the means by which it is to be accomplished. Ordination is neither self-proclaimed, nor has it been given directly by Christ since St Paul’s appointment. Authentic teaching authority is passed down from those who possess it within the Church. Here is an article which explains it further, if you’re interested of course. The Authority to Teach.

 

[michaelsmth626]

Catholics do not say that Jesus can only be found through our church.
The Catholic Church does believe their is truth in other faith.
The fact that you are Christian is proof of that.

Be careful to understand what the Catholic Church actually teaches before arguing against it.

Oh, if only we could all have the conversion experience that Paul had, wouldn’t that be something?!

I absolutely believe that God calls EVERY man to him, regardless of their starting point.

Again, your are assuming a teaching of the Catholic Church that isn’t so.
We do not believe that oral teaching is another set of written words or sentences that were directly spoken by the apostles or Jesus.
Oral Tradition is the understanding of the teachings of the apostles.

An example is the Trinity.
The Arians did not believe that Jesus was God and were very adept at using scripture to support their belief. It was the bishops, the successors to the apostles, that decided on the matter to properly teach truth. (as modeled in Acts 15)

An example.
I know that at Christmas time, I buy a tree, put in the house, decorate it with tensil, top it with a decoration. In my family this has gone on for generations and all without one of my forefathers writing down “at Christmas, you need to buy a tree, put it in your house, decorate it with tensil and top it with an angel or star”.

So while I do not have writings from my great, great grandfather on this, the whole family knows the tradition.

I hope this example helps to clarify what we do and do not mean by Oral Tradition.

In your post, you’ve made two assumptions about the Catholic Church that turned out not to be actual teachings of the Catholic Church.
If you are curious about what we actually believe, feel free to ask.

I’d much rather you disagree with me on something I actually believe rather than something else that, for some reason, you wrongly think I believe. On many issues, we might find that we are on the same side when it comes right down to it.

Cheers!

michel

I guess I’ve met my first catholic that does not believe the catholic church is the sole deposit of faith. quote - Oral Tradition is the understanding of the teachings of the apostles.

My challenge was for you to provide evidence of NT teachings that can not be found in the OT or spoken of by Jesus. Find a teaching that does not have another testimony that supports it. For example Peter becoming the rock on which the church is founded, the rock is always referring to Jesus threw out the entire bible. Nothing supports the church being built on anything but Christ the Rock? It’s entirely out of context with the rest of scripture. SS certainly doesn’t enforce catholic doctrine, its no wonder then catholics teach against it.

 

[SteveGC]

OK. What “outside authority” is greater than the word of God?

Hmm, clever that you assumed that the outside authority I speak of is “greater than the word of God”. Nothing is greater than the word of God. And the Bible is not the only “word of God”. Christ is the word of God. Creation itself is the word of God. The Bible is simply the written form of that word.

That aside, the outside authority is Christ Himself, but specifically in the form of those men He officially sent to spread His message. It is their authority (given by Christ Himself) which was never meant to be separated from the written word. Never. Luther separated it…and you subscribe to that separation today. The written word does not authenticate itself. It is forever enjoined, inseparably, to the apostolic tradition that authored it. Your belief is that the interpretation of Scripture became self-evident or self-contained within Scripture itself with the death of the last apostle, or perhaps at the time of canonization of the Scriptures. Our belief is that, through apostolic succession, itself a biblically proven concept, this authority to authentically interpret scripture has been preserved within the apostolic family lineage for all time. This outside authority does not wield power ‘over’ the scriptures…as in possessing the power to change it, add to or subtract from it. No. The authority is cooperative, as opposed to superlative. It is the possession (from Christ) to preserve, interpret and teach the truths found within it.

 

[michaelsmth626]

This certainly can happen, as God in His providence can do anything. But the fact is that He doesn’t. What we know is that Paul, a Christ-ordained apostle, himself referred to the authentic appointment (through the laying on of hands) of successors to the teaching ministry by elders in the Church (i.e. Timothy). This ordination of others transmitted to them the same knowledge-guiding and error-protecting Spirit which Paul possessed directly from Christ. I don’t expect you to believe this. But this is the Catholic position of apostolic succession, and the means by which it is to be accomplished. Ordination is neither self-proclaimed, nor has it been given directly by Christ since St Paul’s appointment. Authentic teaching authority is passed down from those who possess it within the Church. Here is an article which explains it further, if you’re interested of course. The Authority to Teach.

Your right I dont believe it. You are making a case that Jesus had no influence on Paul, that Pauls ministry was the result of the apostles actions. Here is an article in Acts that’s says that the Spirit was given to the gentiles by hearing the words spoken, not by baptism that also came after the fact. It would seem that some catholic teachings ignore the obvious. If this is true you ether have to redefine your your understanding of the way the Holy Spirit is given or ignore the first instance of it being sent to the gentiles. The official teaching chooses the later.

acts 10-34 Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. 35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. 36 The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ—He is Lord of all— 37 that word you know, which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached: 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him. 39 And we are witnesses of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they killed by hanging on a tree. 40 Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly, 41 not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before by God, even to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. 42 And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. 43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.”
The Holy Spirit Falls on the Gentiles

44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.
Then Peter answered, 47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.

It looks like the baptismal in water to receive the Spirit is not true. Water baptizum is a sign of repentance, something the uncircumcised had already done, repented.
To quote Peter, repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus. Or more defined, repent and receive the baptismal of Jesus, the Holy Spirit.

 

[SteveGC]

I dont see the point in demanding a universal interpretation of scripture.
Scripture is simply the recorded words spoken. You dont have to read very far into any of the four gospels to realize that the actual words spoken were perceived differently by people who understood all the grammar and usage of the language. Why is it now that all must accept the interpretation of one that heard or read? The true knowledge of the intended message is known by the speaker and the speakers inspiration, that being the Spirit of God.

So, are you suggesting that as long as just the speaker and the Spirit know the intended message of the written word, that all is well? And that it’s okay if the people who hear it (and today read it) perceive it differently? I assume you would say yes, since you claim you don’t see a point in a universal interpretation. But actually, I can’t imagine you think that’s okay, since I’m sure you acknowledge the fact that the message is intended for others, and therefore they must somehow obtain the authentic meaning of the words. So you must mean something other than what I think you mean by this post.

 

[SteveGC]

Your right I dont believe it. You are making a case that Jesus had no influence on Paul, that Pauls ministry was the result of the apostles actions. Here is an article in Acts that’s says that the Spirit was given to the gentiles by hearing the words spoken, not by baptism that also came after the fact. It would seem that some catholic teachings ignore the obvious. If this is true you ether have to redefine your your understanding of the way the Holy Spirit is given or ignore the first instance of it being sent to the gentiles. The official teaching chooses the later.

It looks like the baptismal in water to receive the Spirit is not true. Water baptizum is a sign of repentance, something the uncircumcised had already done, repented.
To quote Peter, repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus. Or more defined, repent and receive the baptismal of Jesus, the Holy Spirit.

You’re all over the map, my friend. Can we find a topic and stick to it? Let’s save baptism for another time. This is about authentic teachers and interpreters of the written word.

And no, I’m certainly NOT saying Paul’s power to minister came from the apostles, as opposed to Christ. In fact, I acknowledged the fact that Paul was ordained directly from Christ, without himself receiving ordination from the apostles. But even if he was ordained in the manner of Timothy, through the laying on of hands from the elders, this power STILL originates from God…specifically the Holy Spirit. Perhaps we’re having a communication breakdown.

Now, again I’m not interested in a baptism debate on this thread - as it will clearly derail it - but I will address your argument about the Spirit given to the Gentiles, as it is relevant…

Nowhere have I ever asserted, nor does the Church teach, that the Spirit is reserved only for the apostles or their successors. That is obviously not the reality of the life of the Spirit for the faithful. When He (the Spirit) is received by a believer, He indeed is a life-altering force within the soul, making us adopted sons and daughters of God, and places within us Christ Himself whom we are called to bring forth to the world through us. That gift of the Spirit, however, is quite a different gift than the specific gift bestowed upon the apostles and their successors. While they themselves also received the Spirit as we do, they were (and still are) given the gift of truth preservation, which includes the authority to interpret scripture, define doctrines of the faith and declare statements of morality. No other believer, besides those within that specifically ordained (sent) family, is given that gift.

This is not to say we cannot interpret Scripture, because in a sense, we can. But our interpretation is not one of defining doctrine, or proclaiming moral behavior…rather, it is one of receiving guidance from the Spirit as we prayerfully read…guidance on the application of the preserved truth given to us by the Church for our individual, unique journey in the faith. With the Holy Spirit, we explore and learn from scripture as it is illumined by the apostolic tradition which, by virtue of that same Spirit, safeguards it and hands down the knowledge of the truths found within it.

 

[michaelsmth626]

So, are you suggesting that as long as just the speaker and the Spirit know the intended message of the written word, that all is well? And that it’s okay if the people who hear it (and today read it) perceive it differently? I assume you would say yes, since you claim you don’t see a point in a universal interpretation. But actually, I can’t imagine you think that’s okay, since I’m sure you acknowledge the fact that the message is intended for others, and therefore they must somehow obtain the authentic meaning of the words. So you must mean something other than what I think you mean by this post.

Did Jesus run around beating people over the head with His words that fell on death ears?
He knew that the Father was watching and searching the hearts and minds of those that heard. They receive the Spirit just as Cornelius and the others did, by hearing the word. Back then there was only one gospel but we see that soon after their were those that had already started false teachings. Were the Apostles concerned about this? yes but they knew that those who were born of the Spirit and used their teaching as the backbone of their new life could not be deceived, the Spirit will lead you into all understanding. Its the Spirit that knits the whole body together not the church. Without the HS their would be no NT church. Those that have received the HS are the church and I dont believe that is a market the catholics have cornered. As I have pointed out catholic teachings dont agree with SS. Are you worried that some teach false doctrine? I’m not because the truth is able to be found. I’m not worried about Gods ability to know mens hearts and draw them to Himself ether. As for yourself you sound like your dependent on men and their ability to persuade others you are right. That to is the work of the HS working threw a man, the man that is in that position does not take credit for such a work, if he did he would not find the HS working threw him. Do you see Peter telling the gentiles what a perfict man he is before God or do you hear him giving all the credit to whome it belongs?

acts 10-42 And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. 43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.”

Pretty simple message that can be so over complicated by men, dont you think

 

[michaelsmth626]

You’re all over the map, my friend. Can we find a topic and stick to it? Let’s save baptism for another time. This is about authentic teachers and interpreters of the written word.

And no, I’m certainly NOT saying Paul’s power to minister came from the apostles, as opposed to Christ. In fact, I acknowledged the fact that Paul was ordained directly from Christ, without himself receiving ordination from the apostles. But even if he was ordained in the manner of Timothy, through the laying on of hands from the elders, this power STILL originates from God…specifically the Holy Spirit. Perhaps we’re having a communication breakdown.

Now, again I’m not interested in a baptism debate on this thread - as it will clearly derail it - but I will address your argument about the Spirit given to the Gentiles, as it is relevant…

Nowhere have I ever asserted, nor does the Church teach, that the Spirit is reserved only for the apostles or their successors. That is obviously not the reality of the life of the Spirit for the faithful. When He (the Spirit) is received by a believer, He indeed is a life-altering force within the soul, making us adopted sons and daughters of God, and places within us Christ Himself whom we are called to bring forth to the world through us. That gift of the Spirit, however, is quite a different gift than the specific gift bestowed upon the apostles and their successors. While they themselves also received the Spirit as we do, they were (and still are) given the gift of truth preservation, which includes the authority to interpret scripture, define doctrines of the faith and declare statements of morality. No other believer, besides those within that specifically ordained (sent) family, is given that gift.

This is not to say we cannot interpret Scripture, because in a sense, we can. But our interpretation is not one of defining doctrine, or proclaiming moral behavior…rather, it is one of receiving guidance from the Spirit as we prayerfully read…guidance on the application of the preserved truth given to us by the Church for our individual, unique journey in the faith. With the Holy Spirit, we explore and learn from scripture as it is illumined by the apostolic tradition which, by virtue of that same Spirit, safeguards it and hands down the knowledge of the truths found within it.

Can you provide some scriptural evidence that supports two flavors of the Holy Spirit one for the Apostles (that now only exist in the catholic church) and one for everybody else?

guidance from the Spirit - given to us by the Church
Sounds to me like you dont have the Spirit but depend on the church to provide it.

 

[kcmekim]

Hmm, clever that you assumed that the outside authority I speak of is “greater than the word of God”. Nothing is greater than the word of God. And the Bible is not the only “word of God”. Christ is the word of God. Creation itself is the word of God. The Bible is simply the written form of that word.

The Bible never says that Creation is the word of God, nor that the Bible is a written form of Christ.

That aside, the outside authority is Christ Himself

But the Bible is the word of Christ.

It is their authority (given by Christ Himself) which was never meant to be separated from the written word. Never.

Which verse is that?

The written word does not authenticate itself.

I disagree.

Our belief is that, through apostolic succession, itself a biblically proven concept

Then why is it that no Catholic can even show Biblical evidence for this?

this authority to authentically interpret scripture has been preserved within the apostolic family lineage for all time. This outside authority does not wield power ‘over’ the scriptures…as in possessing the power to change it, add to or subtract from it. No. The authority is cooperative, as opposed to superlative. It is the possession (from Christ) to preserve, interpret and teach the truths found within it.

I disagree.

 

[kcmekim]

Can you provide some scriptural evidence that supports two flavors of the Holy Spirit one for the Apostles (that now only exist in the catholic church) and one for everybody else?

Good question. I’ve never understood this belief, either. I simply cannot find two sets of promises in scripture, one for Apostles, one for the rest of us.

 

[cazayoux]

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say in one case that it must include other sources (which you still haven’t named, by the way) just because it doesn’t say “only scripture” and then turn around and say that it must not include Revelation because it doesn’t specify Revelation. Which is it? Does it have to specify something to include it or not?

This verse doesn’t say anything about any other sources.
It speaks of scripture.
It doesn’t say to the exclusion of all else like you want it to.

Logic here.

It’s like if someone said “all trucks are green” and you said, “see, all trucks are green and no other vehicles are green”.
However, a motorcycle could be green. The original statement says nothing about all other vehicles, it’s simply stating something about trucks.

‘Scripture’ isn’t the only think scripture says we need.
We need to have the whole armor of God.

Eph 6:13-17
[13] Therefore take the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
[14] Stand therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness,
[15] and having shod your feet with the equipment of the gospel of peace;
[16] besides all these, taking the shield of faith, with which you can quench all the flaming darts of the evil one.
[17] And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

It’s not one thing or another that we need, but the **whole **armor of God.

James 1:4
[4] And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

In the way you are reading scripture, you will *only *need to let steadfastness have it’s full effect for you to be perfect.
or … do you think that other, additional things are needed to make you perfect?

2 Tim 3:14-17 says that scripture is profitable. It doesn’t say that only scripture is profitable.

I’m not saying it has to include Revelations. That would make no sense to Timothy, whom the letter is written to.
I agree that Paul’s letters were treated as scripture.
I agree that Paul prophesied.

The first is that the Greek uses the singular article.

I’m always willing to learn.
Explain the Greek to me and show me how this verse ‘actually’ ( by your reading) says ‘only scripture is profitable to the exclusion of all else’.

The second is that the fact that he specified scripture eliminates all other sources.

No it doesn’t. THAT’S my point. This is where you make the verses say something that just isn’t there.
If you think this verse is saying that only scripture can make you perfect, then what to do with the verse in James about steadfastness? What to do with Ephesians and the rest of the armor of God.

I disagree. I believe it does support what we’ve said it does for 2,000 years now.

Okay … give me the name of one person in your church from, say … the 7th century that believed as you do.

When I meet one, I’ll let you know.
It certainly doesn’t appear that you have.

Okay … keep it nice … show me you are Christian.

Let’s step back and look at sola scriptura from another angle.
If it was the rule of faith, even in the 1st century, why then did the church wait until the end of the 4th century before defining what was and was not recognized as scripture?
If sola scriptura were true, why didn’t Paul’s last letter to Timothy just tell him to make as many copies of his letters as he could.

That makes me think of other words Paul gave to Timothy.

2 TIm 1:14
[14] guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.

Why the need for the Holy Spirit if everything is written down and everyone is using scripture alone?

michel

 

[Drawmack]

Exactly!

The Jews didn’t define a canon until AD97.
Why oh why would a Christian give any authority to the Jews or their canon after the resurrection of Christ 63 years before?!
They no longer had any authority.

michel

Why wouldn’t a Christian give purview to the Jewish peoples for Canonization of the Old Testament? That is our history, that is where we came from, and it is a Jewish history.

 

[guanophore]

The “imperfect collection” idea made me uncomfortable at the time, and now that I have thought more about it, I think the phrase is nearly meaningless. I mean, if the Holy Spirit could guide the authors to write only truth, surely He could have guided the people who just had to assemble the books.

You make an excellent point jen,and one also has to wonder, if the books are perfect, then why did Luther need to take any out? He wanted to take out Jude, James, and Revelation, as well as the Deuterocanon. If these books are imperfect, then how can the canon be a collection of perfect books?

How is it the HS was too weak or disinterested to fail to lead the Church into all Truth?

 

[Drawmack]

This is why Luther’s character is a focus, and not any sinful pope (that thankfully did not attempt to teach any doctrine).

michel

I’m sorry, but I differ. If you’re going to call into play the character of any individual that puts the character of all individuals in the realms of fair play.

You bring up that Calvin martyred over 50 people, fine. Then I’ll bring up that prior to England becoming a Protestant nation Thomas More, as part of his job, martyred over 200 Protestants and was still canonized. Of course, you’ll ask for proof about this one. But, think about it for a minute. What was Thomas More’s job before England became Protestant? Is it really so hard to believe that a nation, which once it was Protestant, martyred Catholics would have martyred Protestants while it was Catholic?

As someone else said – let’s leave character assassination out of this and we’ll be much more fruitful.

 

[kcmekim]

This verse doesn’t say anything about any other sources.
It speaks of scripture.
It doesn’t say to the exclusion of all else like you want it to.

Logic here.

It’s like if someone said “all trucks are green” and you said, “see, all trucks are green and no other vehicles are green”.
However, a motorcycle could be green. The original statement says nothing about all other vehicles, it’s simply stating something about trucks.

Terrible analogy. In this case, we’re talking about one thing, not several things.

‘Scripture’ isn’t the only think scripture says we need.
We need to have the whole armor of God.

Actually, that’s a descriptive way to explain how we are to apply scripture, not a declaration of authority.

In the way you are reading scripture, you will *only *need to let steadfastness have it’s full effect for you to be perfect.
or … do you think that other, additional things are needed to make you perfect?

The Bible says that Christ has already made me perfect.

2 Tim 3:14-17 says that scripture is profitable. It doesn’t say that only scripture is profitable.

Repeating it doesn’t make it any less false.

I’m not saying it has to include Revelations. That would make no sense to Timothy, whom the letter is written to.
I agree that Paul’s letters were treated as scripture.
I agree that Paul prophesied.

Then your previous claims are false.

I’m always willing to learn.
Explain the Greek to me and show me how this verse ‘actually’ ( by your reading) says ‘only scripture is profitable to the exclusion of all else’.

Honestly? No. You don’t even believe what it says in English. If I were to explain the Greek to you, you’d do the same thing you’re doing now.

No it doesn’t. THAT’S my point. This is where you make the verses say something that just isn’t there.

And where you continue to deny what is there.

Okay … give me the name of one person in your church from, say … the 7th century that believed as you do.

Why? First of all, you wouldn’t accept it. Second, what would be the point when we don’t get our doctrine from the 7th century, but from scripture.

Let’s step back and look at sola scriptura from another angle.
If it was the rule of faith, even in the 1st century, why then did the church wait until the end of the 4th century before defining what was and was not recognized as scripture?

Do you mean the Council of Nicea? Are you serious? You’re the one who’s always bragging about how your church is the only true church and how you gave us the Bible and yet, you don’t know that the church already accepted the canon as scripture, but was only reacting to Gnostic heretics and their attempt to sneak non-canonical books into the canon?

If sola scriptura were true, why didn’t Paul’s last letter to Timothy just tell him to make as many copies of his letters as he could.

I have no idea what you’re talking about. The number of letters doesn’t make God’s word any more or any less inspired.

Why the need for the Holy Spirit if everything is written down and everyone is using scripture alone?

I’ve already explained to you at least twice now why sola scriptura is a misleading name and that we do not believe in the Bible alone, but accept other forms of authority, such as the creeds, confessions, and catechisms of the church, the authority vested in pastors and elders to preach and teach the word of God, the authority vested in the church to practice church discipline, etc.

 

[cazayoux]

[Michel]
Catholics do not say that Jesus can only be found through our church.
The Catholic Church does believe their is truth in other faith.
The fact that you are Christian is proof of that.

I guess I’ve met my first catholic that does not believe the catholic church is the sole deposit of faith. quote - Oral Tradition is the understanding of the teachings of the apostles.

Your reading more into my words than is actually there.
I do believe the Catholic Church has (not is) the full deposit of faith.
The only reason you know any Christian truth is because you have a part of that deposit of faith (the bible).

Now what has happened with those that believe you need the bible only and not the church? We see nothing but division among them.

John 17:11 "…that they may be one, even as we are one. "

Phil 2:2
[2] complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.

Why is it that sola scriptura believing denominations have differing doctrines from each other?
The scriptures above do not lead me to think division and doctrinal differences are what should be expected from the church that Jesus founded.

If someone in your congregation disagrees with what the pastor is teaching, how is it handled? Does the pastor share that opposing view with the congregation? Is the ‘troublemaker’ asked to leave? How do you decide who is right?

The unity that Jesus speaks of in John 17 is not found in protestantism today.
Sola Scriptura has lead to splintering upon splintering.
There is no ‘one mind’ among you.

My challenge was for you to provide evidence of NT teachings that can not be found in the OT or spoken of by Jesus. Find a teaching that does not have another testimony that supports it.

Circumcision of the gentiles.
You see … this is how the church functions.
When questions arise, the church responds. They meet in council, come to a decision and teach the rest of the church.

This is what Acts 15 is all about.

They made their decision and sent a letter to explain it.
Their authority stated in the letter was that “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15:28).
It doesn’t say scripture, yet was still binding on the church members.

No sola scriptura on the part of the apostles.
What about those that received the letter?

Do you think the letter that went back to Antioch brought following reaction: “Well this is a nice letter from the apostles. I’ll consider it, reflect on it, and study the scripture to see if it is in accord with what I think is the right teaching.”
I don’t think so.

For example Peter becoming the rock on which the church is founded, the rock is always referring to Jesus threw out the entire bible. Nothing supports the church being built on anything but Christ the Rock? It’s entirely out of context with the rest of scripture. SS certainly doesn’t enforce catholic doctrine, its no wonder then catholics teach against it.

In another thread we can tackle the new teaching that Peter is not the rock.

michel

 

[Drawmack]

Timothy was a young man, but it is unlikely that he had more than one or two Christian writings from childhood. This is mainly talking about the OLD testament.

Wait a minute, earlier in this thread someone claimed that the Old Testament was officially declared until 97 and acts was written before 97 – you can’t have it both ways.

 

[guanophore]

Martin Luther did not remove books from the Bible. That is simply false!

Clearly you need to do a little reading of the history of your faith. There were no Bibles published prior to the Reformation that lacked the Deuterocanon. That is because the Septuagint is the collection used by theApostles, and later adopted by the Church,along with 27 “New Testament” books.

There were two different camps of Judaism, which recognized different Cannon. One group, centered in the area of Greece, recognized more books because they allowed books of cannon that were originally written in Greek.

When you do research this, you will find that ALL those books were originally in Hebrew. This is why the find at Qumran was so important.

Another group only allowed books of Cannon if they were originally written in Hebrew. The Catholic Church uses the OT books recognized by the first group using the rational that these are the books the apostles had access to because of the area they are from.

The Apostles were from Palestine. They used the Septuagint.

Martin Luther uses the books recognized by the second group because that group was much larger. I’m not saying either one is right or wrong, just stating the facts.

The idea that the Jews in Palestine after the destruction of the temple were more numerous than those of the Diaspora is preposterous.

Besides that,the number of people embracing an idea is not an accurate reflection of it’s Truth.

Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint. They were a very small minority (called in the NT a “jewish sect”. We accept these books because this is the Truth committed to the Church by them.

Luther thought the light of his own revelation was more reliable, just as do all Sola Scripturists today.

 

[cazayoux]

Your right I dont believe it. You are making a case that Jesus had no influence on Paul, that Pauls ministry was the result of the apostles actions.

uh … Paul was an apostle.

Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God

Here is an article in Acts that’s says that the Spirit was given to the gentiles by hearing the words spoken, not by baptism that also came after the fact. It would seem that some catholic teachings ignore the obvious. If this is true you ether have to redefine your your understanding of the way the Holy Spirit is given or ignore the first instance of it being sent to the gentiles. The official teaching chooses the later.

It looks like the baptismal in water to receive the Spirit is not true. Water baptizum is a sign of repentance, something the uncircumcised had already done, repented.
To quote Peter, repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus. Or more defined, repent and receive the baptismal of Jesus, the Holy Spirit.

Another new teaching we can cover in a separate thread.

 

[Drawmack]

And Jesus Said to Peter, (and to the other Apostles) Whatever you Bind on Earth Shall be Bound in heaven and Whatever you loose on earth sahll be loosed in Heaven.
“Whatever” is pretty Broad
And Jesus said, The Father will sen the Comfortor who will lead you into ALL truth.
He did not say that he would do this by way of some error
St Paul Said, “All Scripture is Useful…”
Note that St Paul taught primarily in the Greek Speaking World, who would have been using the Septuigent version of the OT.

Catholics view that verse as some kind of promise. I, on the other hand, view that verse as a warning. Almost like Jesus is saying beware! It takes on a whole new meaning when you look at it that way.

You are really reaching here my friend. You may want to believe that this makes sense, but it doesn’t hold up to even mild scrutiny.
There are a great many documents that have been preserved from the early Church until now without being included in the canon of Scripture. These documents include both Secular AND religious texts. Otherwise how would we know what Socrates or Aristotle wrote?

The oldest autographs of those texts is from the 400s. We have no idea what the originals actually said because the oldest autographs we have a so far removed from the originals. Additionally there are only about a dozen autographs that old.

How would we know about the Roman History of Josephus?

The oldest autographs of these texts is from the mid 200s. Again, no idea what the originals actually said because the oldest autographs are so far removed from the originals. And, we only have a couple of autographs that old.

Compare that with scripture. The autographs of many parts of the Bible go back to within 50 years of its writing and we have hundreds of autographs that old. We can be reasonably certain that these texts hadn’t changed considerably in that time by comparing later works with those we have and seeing that there is not a big difference in them.

Thus these examples actually prove my point that the best way to preserve a text in antiquity was to get the people to recognize it as scripture.

I apologize if I seem over the top sometimes. Please accept my apology.

Don’t worry about it.