Simple and babe like truth : Scriptural sufficiency

[mercygate]

No need to give you a verse since none exist. However my case is made from the nature of the Scriptures themselves which alone are inspired-inerrant.
Does not your church believe them to be inspired-inerrant?

Some quotes from the *Catechism *on this subject:

95 "It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls."62

97 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God” (DV 10) in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God, the source of all her riches.

100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

**105 **God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”

“For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”

**107 **The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

 

[mercygate]

You ran as fast as you could from Elizabeth. Too hot in the kitchen for you. HA HA HA.

What’s this?

JA4, despite what appears to be a “typical” anti-Catholic position, asks serious questions and has been respectful here.

If I were on the receiving end of a crack like this, it would not elevate my opinion of Catholics or the Catholic Church.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… because they are not contained in the Hebrew canon.

Again, citing the authority of post-AD 70 rabbis??? Really??? That’s his authority???

And as far as sloppy research concerning this, what makes you an expert?

You don’t have to be an expert to reject as false anyone who claims to merely follow the scholarship of Jerome and Origen, but then reject what Jerome and Origen actually include as Scripture.

Harrison deals with the Qumran findings…

I doubt he does, but I’m guessing any attempt he made was as convincing as your other sources.

And yet, every ancient **Christian **manuscript of Sacred Scripture of other than fragmentary form prior to the advent or Protestantism, ALL OF THEM, disagree with his conclusions. The Protestant reason seems to rest squarely upon trust of something OUTSIDE of Scritpure, the Masoretic tradition of rabbis who reject God’s Word. They seem to trust the 10th century Hebrew Masoretic manuscripts over the universal testimony of the Christian Churches from antiquity.

And when the earliest Hebrew evidence from Qumran was discovered–fragmentary as it was–they easily dismiss the fact that Tobit and Sirach and parts of the larger book of Daniel were found there, as well as clear evidence that this 1st cent. Hebrew sect had different versions of canonical books. By what authority do Protestants still claim that the Hebrew canon was closed by the advent of Christ? The supposed sufficiency of Scripture? That didn’t work. The self-refuting tradition of sola scriptura won’t help with this one, as it solely relies upon TRADITION. The question is, which tradition do you accept, the Masoretic tradition or the Apostolic Tradition?

The most recent evidence clearly shows there were not only various Hebrew canons of Scritpure in the 1st cent., but also various versions of canonical Scritpures in the 1st century. The version the Hebrews finally decided upon in the 2nd cent. was just one of the many versions, and one that contradicts the unanimous consent of every ancient Christian manuscript of Scripture.

In comparing opposing authorities, I gotta go with EVERY ANCIENT CHRISTIAN CHURCH since the advent of Christ, since the Masoritc tradition cited by Protestants clearly reject God’s Word.

Qumran evidence is clear that many different versions of the same sacred books were accepted by the Hebrews of the 1st century. The fallback excuse by every source you given thus far is that those who ***rejected Christ after AD 70 accepted a different version. ***

The Jewish church…never considered them as canonical

Judaism of the 1st century did not have a standard set of what they considered the “oracles of God.” So it appears the Protestants simply use a “tradition of men” and sided with one sect of Rabbinic Judaism which survived the destruction of Jerusalem post AD 70. How is that supposed to be convincing? Especially since this particular sect of Jews disagreed even among themselves well into the second century as to which books were Sacred Scripture. Clearly they disagreed with what every Church of Christ considered the Book of Daniel, with what Origen called “our Scriptures.”

Prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, the Sadducees were “Torah only” tradition, the Pharisees held to a Torah+ tradition, and the Essenes, as Qumran evidence shows, rejected the Book of Esther but accepted different versions of the Book of Jeremiah and the Book of Daniel, and also accepted Tobit and Sircah as well as many other ancient texts.

Even Jewish sources admit that the list of sacred books were still being debated among the various “schools” of post AD 70 well into the 2nd century.

It appears that the Jews who rejected Christ as their Savior also rejected what the earliest disciples of Christ accepted in “every Church of Christ” as “our Scripture.”

Yet, even today, there are some Hebrews who received the “oracles of God” in a larger version, and accept the larger version of Daniel as Sacred Scripture (e.g. Ethiopian Jews).

It is clear that the earliest Christian Bible scholars (such as Jerome and Origen), had even more ancient manuscripts of Scripture than the Protestant Reformers had or that we have extant today. The most ancient Churches of Christ concluded against the authority of self-proclaimed rabbis who rejected God’s Word. Its bizzare that Protestant choose them as their authority, given that Scripture is claimed by them to be their sole and sufficient authority.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

As Calvin responded …the church receives it, and gives it the stamp of her authority…acknowledging it as the truth of God, she as in duty bound, shows her reverence by an unhesitating assent.

Amen! So why didn’t Calvin accept the larger Book of Daniel? All the Churches of Christ since the advent of Christ gave the larger version of Daniel their “unhesitating assent.” Only a minority of Christians (Protestants) even today dissent with this most ancient faith.

Calvin continues…

Scripture bears upon the face of it as clear evidence of its truth

When I apply this rule, I figure I should never find a single book in all of Sacred Scripture that fails to mention God, who is Truth. But in the Protestant Bible, there’s one book that doesn’t even mention God–their truncated version of the Book of Esther. No wonder the early Church, by their “unhesitating assent” accepted the larger version of Esther it received as to “oracles of God” from the Hebrews.

You claim that those books were accepted as inspired…quote Schaff as saying that they weren’t part of an official canon

Clearly you don’t understand what “canon” means. It is a norm, a law. The moment St. John the apostle penned his Book of Revelation, is was “inspired” text. Yet, “canonical” means accepted as normative by lawful ecclesial authority. Being canonized did not necessarily mean the text was Divinely inspired, and not all texts the early fathers thought were Divinely inspired were canonized.

The extant historical evidence indicates that the first Christian synods to canonize (make binding in law) the OT and NT texts were in the 4th century. These fourth century canons “fixed” the Catholic canon of Scriptures, as Schaff rightly explained. Before that time, various Christian Churches disagreed with regard to certain texts. However, with regard to the Book of Daniel, no evidence exists that any Christain Church ever rejected the larger version as non-Scriptural. The longer version of Daniel was always part of “our Scripture” as the earliest witness to this, Origen, explicity states. Other OT and NT texts were not universally accepted before the 4th century, such as the Book of Revelation. The canons of the Church served to end the regional dispute, declaring the canon of OT and NT Scripture accepted by the Church.

Even within the mind of Origen, what he thought was “Divinely inspired” was not the same as what he thought was “canonical.” For example, the Shepherd of Hermas is contained in the Codex Sinaiticus (4th. cent). Origen, Bishop of Alexandria explicity called this book: "“a work which seems to me very useful, and, as I believe, divinely inspired” (Comm. in Rom. 10.31, written about 244-6). However, he no where claims that the text was “canonical.” See this distinction?

Individual opinion about what is or what is not inspired does not constitute “canonization.” Only lawful ecclesial authority can “canonize” something as normative according to canon law.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

You like Schaff …

Schaff was a heretic. Yet there are some things heretics get right from time to time.

That’s hardly a unanimous acceptance of the church, from, as you say, ”the advent of Christ.”

As stated already, many texts of BOTH the OT and NT were in dispute in the early Christian Church. Yet, canon law makes something canonical. One is free as a Catholic to disagree with ecclesial law…but they have to obey it. A individuals disagreement with canon law does not make something that was canonized by lawful authority now “un-canonized.” Nor does an individual opinion that is not normative according to ecclsial authority make it “canonized.”

With regard to unanimous acceptance, it should be clear from the context that I was referring to the larger version of the Book of Daniel, not all the texts of the OT and NT. All the Protestant authors I’m familiar with who write about canonicity of Scripture don’t dare delve in too deeply with regard to the specifics of the Book of Daniel, as they may not like what they discover. They prefer gloss over the Book of Daniel and generallize it as “apocrypha” and therefore it must have been rejected by Origen and Jerome…but it wasn’t.

I challenge any Protestant to “test everything, hold fast to what is good.” (1 Thess 5:21). I have. That’s why I’m Catholic. For instance, you should ask yourself, “What’s wrong with the larger version of Esther?” At least that version talks about God!!! The Protestant version doesn’t even mention Him.

Furthermore, you should check the evidence for yourself…the early Christian Churches NEVER rejected the larger version of the Book of Daniel. Check the ancient Christian manuscripts of Sacred Scritpure. Check the councils and synods, check the early Church fathers. All available evidence shows that the larger Daniel was always “our Scripture.” So it appears that while the Book of Revelation was indeed in dispute in the early Church, the larger version of Daniel was never in dispute among the early Christian Churches.

This is why I can’t take seriously Protestant claim: “Jerome…rejected the Apocrypha…Origen…reject[ed] the Apocryphal books” (William Webster, The Canon). No matter how many “letters” they have next to their name, to make such absurd claims contrary to all available evidence they must either lack scholastic rigor or scholastic integrity.

Yet, what I find even more astonishing is that despite the fact that the larger version of Daniel was considered Scripture by both Origen and Jerome, and “found in every Church of Christ” (Origen, Against Africanus), some Protestants still shamefully reject the unanimous testimony of the ancient Christian Churches in favor of a “tradition of men” established by rabbis who reject God’s Word.

 

[cascherman]

Unfortunately scripture is up to an infinite amount of interpretation depending on the minute differences in each interpreters way of thinking.

It only makes sense that there is a body of people that can be an authority for one interpretation or the other.

Just like it makes very little sense to have a constitution without a Supreme Court to interpret it makes very little sense to have a MASSIVE book with innumerable metaphors and imageries and no one to say one way or the other.

After all, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit would only interpret it ONE way.

So, the Bible does have all the information in it needed to be bound for heaven, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t need an authority to clarify for us, you might interpret one thing one way and me the other.

 

[cascherman]

ah, I’m posting for the original post, I see you guys are deep into the nitty gritty though.

Well, if my post helps great otherwise, pass it by.

 

[justasking4]

De Maria;3137690]
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
i never said my logic is inspired or inerrant. I can err as all men can and do. This is why you should reject your church’ claim it cannot err. Fallible men can and do err.
De Maria
Uh, you forget, the Bible says the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. Therefore, She can’t err.

I don’t follow your reasoning here. If all men are fallible and fallible can and do err, then it follows that no institution can be infallible. Even your scriptural reference doesn’t claim that. In fact there are warnings in Scripture that false teachers would come into the church itself and decieve many. Even your own church has admitted mistakes and changed things. If she were truly infallible this would never have happened.

 

[mercygate]

I don’t follow your reasoning here. If all men are fallible and fallible can and do err, then it follows that no institution can be infallible. Even your scriptural reference doesn’t claim that. In fact there are warnings in Scripture that false teachers would come into the church itself and decieve many. Even your own church has admitted mistakes and changed things. If she were truly infallible this would never have happened.

Hey, JA, how about doing a little homework on the limits of infallibility (which is a negative protection, BTW)? This is well explained in many places besides the link I just gave you.

I thought you were well past confusing impeccability with infallibility and confusing discipline with doctrine.

 

[justasking4]

mercygate;3154116]
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
I don’t follow your reasoning here. If all men are fallible and fallible can and do err, then it follows that no institution can be infallible. Even your scriptural reference doesn’t claim that. In fact there are warnings in Scripture that false teachers would come into the church itself and decieve many. Even your own church has admitted mistakes and changed things. If she were truly infallible this would never have happened.
mercygate
Hey, JA, how about doing a little homework on the limits of infallibility (which is a negative protection, BTW)? This is well explained in many places besides the link I just gave you.

i read the article and i have a couple questions for you since it seems you are knowledgeable about these things. Is it not true that popes were not always thought to be infallible?

Do we have any indication in Scripture that Peter thought of himself as some kind of pope and that others thought of him like this?

How often has a pope spoken infallibly?

I thought you were well past confusing impeccability with infallibility and confusing discipline with doctrine.

Its possible i could be confused. i think a lot of catholics and protestants are.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t follow your reasoning here. If all men are fallible and fallible can and do err, then it follows that no institution can be infallible.

I would agree with this, except for an institution founded upon God. Jesus Christ Himself is the cornerstone of the Church, and the HS is the Soul of the Church. It is the divine nature of the founder that makes the Church infallible.

Even your scriptural reference doesn’t claim that.

Let’s try this:

“…as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.” Eph 5:25-27

If you say that the Church is spotty, wrinkled, unholy or blemished, then you are basically saying that Jesus sacrifice was not efficacious. He was too weak to wash her with water and word. Or she was so dirty the washing did not work?

In fact there are warnings in Scripture that false teachers would come into the church itself and decieve many.

Indeed, you are doing your best to promote such falsehoods here at CAF! I admire your efforts. You are certainly tenacious. I hope, though, that you do not succeed in decieving so many.

Even your own church has admitted mistakes and changed things. If she were truly infallible this would never have happened.

You are failing to distinguish between practices and disciplines and Infallible teaching. The Church is not at liberty to change the Teaching of Jesus, and she has never said that He made a mistake in what He taught. I think you do this purposefully, though, as part of your subtle anti-Catholic campaign.

Your conclusion is erroneous. People admitting mistakes, growing, changing, and better understanding the Revelation of God points more to the fact that the Revelation is Most Pure, and that we are constantly in the process of coming into communion with it.

Or, are you prepared to say that Peter, being corrected about his abhorence for Gentiles, nullifies the message of Christ? God had to give him a vision and a miracle to get him to understand that He meant to bring Gentiles into the Church.

Hey, JA, how about doing a little homework on the limits of infallibility (which is a negative protection, BTW)? This is well explained in many places besides the link I just gave you.

I thought you were well past confusing impeccability with infallibility and confusing discipline with doctrine.

I think you are right, mercygate. It has been explained to him repeatedly. I think he understands the difference, and is just hoping to catch someone weak in their faith flatfooted with this erroneous reasoning.

 

[mercygate]

i read the article and i have a couple questions for you since it seems you are knowledgeable about these things. Is it not true that popes were not always thought to be infallible?

Well, just as God was not “always” clearly understood to be “one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance,” the authority of the See of Peter has not “always” been fully understood as it now is.

Do we have any indication in Scripture that Peter thought of himself as some kind of pope and that others thought of him like this?

Scripture clearly shows from Our Lord’s own mouth that Peter had primacy among the 12. Scripture names him more frequently than all the others put together. There are many scriptural references to his Primacy, but – as usual with Christian teaching – we don’t get the whole view at once. Our understanding of these things evolves along with our need. I am certain that Peter had no more an evolved sense of what the Papacy would and must become than he had of the ultimately necessary full-blown teaching on the hypostatic union.

How often has a pope spoken infallibly?

Not quite the right question. The entire deposit of faith comes under the rubric of “infallibility” – the Resurrection, the Virgin Birth, the Second Coming. With the official promulgation of the doctrine of papal infallibility in the 19th century, strict limitations and conditions were placed around what the Pope could and could not do in promulgating doctrine. Since the promulgation of the dogma, the Popes have issued two dogmatic statements that are now “infallibly” part of the de fide belief of Catholics.

But here’s a common confusion. Many think that because Paul VI and JP II did not specifically invoke the “infallibility clause” when publishing the instructions on contraception and the impossibility of ordaining women to the priesthood that these teachings are still up for grabs. Nope. Both teachings merely affirm the constant and unchanging teaching of the Church on these subjects. The TEACHING is “infallible” although the specific documents are not. Are you dizzy yet?

Its possible i could be confused. i think a lot of catholics and protestants are.

Confusion of impeccability and infallibility, discipline and doctrine? A LOT of people ARE confused.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Are the Scriptures alone the only inspired-inerrant Word of God or is there something else that is inspired-inerrant? If so, what exactly is it and can you give me a couple of specific examples of it?

Nicea-Constantinople:

I believe in one God the Father almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages; Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made.
Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of the Father.
And He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; of His kingdom there shall be no end.
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spake by the prophets.
In one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church; I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins; I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come. Amen.

Nicea II

The holy, great and universal synod, by the grace of God and by order of our pious and Christ-loving emperor and empress, Constantine and his mother Irene, assembled for the second time in the famous metropolis of the Nicaeans in the province of the Bithynians, in the holy church of God named after Wisdom, following the tradition of the catholic church, has decreed what is here laid down.

{The council bases itself on the inspiration of Tradition & of itself}

The one who granted us the light of recognizing him, the one who redeemed us from the darkness of idolatrous insanity, Christ our God, when he took for his bride his holy catholic church, having no blemish or wrinkle, promised he would guard her and assured his holy disciples saying, I am with you every day until the consummation of this age. This promise however he made not only to them but also to us, who thanks to them have come to believe in his name. To this gracious offer some people paid no attention, being hoodwinked by the treacherous foe they abandoned the true line of reasoning, and setting themselves against the tradition of the catholic church they faltered in their grasp of the truth. As the proverbial saying puts it, they turned askew the axles of their farm carts and gathered no harvest in their hands. Indeed they had the effrontery to criticise the beauty pleasing to God established in the holy monuments; they were priests in name, but not in reality. They were those of whom God calls out by prophecy, Many pastors have destroyed my vine, they have defiled my portion. For they followed unholy men and trusting to their own frenzies they calumniated the holy church, which Christ our God has espoused to himself, and they failed to distinguish the holy from the profane, asserting that the icons of our Lord and of his saints were no different from the wooden images of satanic idols.

Therefore the Lord God, not bearing that what was subject to him should be destroyed by such a corruption, has by his good pleasure summoned us together through the divine diligence and decision of Constantine and Irene, our faithful emperor and empress, we who are those responsible for the priesthood everywhere, in order that the divinely inspired tradition of the catholic church should receive confirmation by a public decree. So having made investigation with all accuracy and having taken counsel, setting for our aim the truth, we neither diminish nor augment, but simply guard intact all that pertains to the catholic church.

cont…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

{Recapitulation and re-affirmation of everything taught by any previous ecumenical council}

Thus, following the six holy universal synods, in the first place that assembled in the famous metropolis of the Nicaeans {{1}Nicea I}, and then that held after it in the imperial, God-guarded city: {i.e. {2} Constantinople I} We believe in one God …[the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed follows]. We abominate and anathematize Arius and those who think like him and share in his mad error; also Macedonius and those with him, properly called the Pneumatomachi; we also confess our Lady, the holy Mary, to be really and truly the God-bearer, because she gave birth in the flesh to Christ, one of the Trinity, our God, just as the first synod at {3}Ephesus decreed; it also expelled from the church Nestorius and those with him, because they were introducing a duality of persons. Along with these synods, we also confess the two natures of the one who became incarnate for our sake from the God-bearer without blemish, Mary the ever-virgin, recognizing that he is perfect God and perfect man, as the synod at {4}Chalcedon also proclaimed, when it drove from the divine precinct the foul-mouthed Eutyches and Dioscorus. We reject along with them Severus Peter and their interconnected band with their many blasphemies, in whose company we anathematize the mythical speculations of Origen, Evagrius and Didymus, as did the fifth synod, that assembled at {5}Constantinople. Further we declare that there are two wills and principles of action, in accordance with what is proper to each of the natures in Christ, in the way that the sixth synod, that at {6}Constantinople, proclaimed, when it also publicly rejected Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Macarius, those uninterested in true holiness, and their like-minded followers.

cont…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

To summarize, we declare that we defend free from any innovations all the—written and—unwritten ecclesiastical traditions that have been entrusted to us.

{Council formulates for the first time what the Church has always believed regarding icons}

One of these is the production of representational art; this is quite in harmony with the history of the spread of the gospel, as it provides confirmation that the becoming man of the Word of God was real and not just imaginary, and as it brings us a similar benefit. For, things that mutually illustrate one another undoubtedly possess one another’s message.

Given this state of affairs and stepping out as though on the royal highway, following as we are the God-spoken teaching of our holy fathers and the tradition of the catholic church — for we recognize that this tradition comes from the holy Spirit who dwells in her—we decree with full precision and care that, like the figure of the honoured and life-giving cross, the revered and holy images, whether painted or made of mosaic or of other suitable material, are to be exposed in the holy churches of God, on sacred instruments and vestments, on walls and panels, in houses and by public ways, these are the images of our Lord, God and saviour, Jesus Christ, and of our Lady without blemish, the holy God-bearer, and of the revered angels and of any of the saintly holy men.

The more frequently they are seen in representational art, the more are those who see them drawn to remember and long for those who serve as models, and to pay these images the tribute of salutation and respectful veneration. Certainly this is not the full adoration {latria} in accordance with our faith, which is properly paid only to the divine nature, but it resembles that given to the figure of the honoured and life-giving cross, and also to the holy books of the gospels and to other sacred cult objects. Further, people are drawn to honour these images with the offering of incense and lights, as was piously established by ancient custom. Indeed, the honour paid to an image traverses it, reaching the model, and he who venerates the image, venerates the person represented in that image.

So it is that the teaching of our holy fathers is strengthened, namely, the tradition of the catholic church which has received the gospel from one end of the earth to the other.

So it is that we really follow Paul, who spoke in Christ, and the entire divine apostolic group and the holiness of the fathers, clinging fast to the traditions which we have received.

So it is that we sing out with the prophets the hymns of victory to the church: Rejoice exceedingly O daughter of Zion, proclaim O daughter of Jerusalem; enjoy your happiness and gladness with a full heart. The Lord has removed away from you the injustices of your enemies, you have been redeemed from the hand of your foes. The Lord the king is in your midst, you will never more see evil, and peace will be upon you for time eternal.

Therefore all those who dare to think or teach anything different, or who follow the accursed heretics in rejecting ecclesiastical traditions, or who devise innovations, or who spurn anything entrusted to the church (whether it be the gospel or the figure of the cross or any example of representational art or any martyr’s holy relic), or who fabricate perverted and evil prejudices against cherishing any of the lawful traditions of the catholic church, or who secularize the sacred objects and saintly monasteries, we order that they be suspended if they are bishops or clerics, and excommunicated if they are monks or lay people.

---

Anathemas concerning holy images

1. If anyone does not confess that Christ our God can be represented in his humanity, let him be anathema.
2. If anyone does not accept representation in art of evangelical scenes, let him be anathema.
3. If anyone does not salute such representations as standing for the Lord and his saints, let him be anathema.
4. If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church, let him be anathema.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

How can you say Scripture is not “necessary” when we are exhorted by Paul to have the “words of Christ” richly dwell in us? How can we fulfill this command if the Scriptures are not necessary?

For one thing, between the Lord’s preaching on earth and the first writiing of the NT, there is nearly two decades. If scripture were necessary, there would have been no Church of Thessalonika for St. Paul to write to.

and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
.

Nice try but there is no mention of any Magisterium type of thing in this entire letter.

Look at I Timothy.

And II Tim. 3:14 (the “knowing from whom” part).

 

[sterryfamily]

I don’t follow your reasoning here. If all men are fallible and fallible can and do err, then it follows that no institution can be infallible. Even your scriptural reference doesn’t claim that. In fact there are warnings in Scripture that false teachers would come into the church itself and decieve many. Even your own church has admitted mistakes and changed things. If she were truly infallible this would never have happened.

You keep answering your same question and then asking it again.

Do you believe that God’s Word is inerrant? Do you believe that the words, laws, and covenants he issued through his chosen covenant mediators (Moses, Noah, David, et. al.) are fallible?

If he can protect his word from error in the Old Testament why don’t you believe he can do so in the New? Especially since He promised He would be with his Church for all time, that the gates of Hell would never prevail against her, and that He would send His Holy Spirit to teach all truth through her?

 

[mercygate]

I don’t follow your reasoning here. If all men are fallible and fallible can and do err, then it follows that no institution can be infallible. Even your scriptural reference doesn’t claim that. In fact there are warnings in Scripture that false teachers would come into the church itself and decieve many. Even your own church has admitted mistakes and changed things. If she were truly infallible this would never have happened.

One more thought. The Church has an institutional aspect, but it is not essentially an institution. The Church is not merely an institutional organization but a Person, and His name is Jesus Christ. The Church is both the Bride and the Bridegroom. They are one flesh. She is unspotted and indefectible.

The fact that she simultaneously exists in the supernatural order and, identifiably, also in the natural order is a necessity of the Great Commission to carry Our Lord’s message to all nations until he comes.

 

[justasking4]

sterryfamily;3155264]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
I don’t follow your reasoning here. If all men are fallible and fallible can and do err, then it follows that no institution can be infallible. Even your scriptural reference doesn’t claim that. In fact there are warnings in Scripture that false teachers would come into the church itself and decieve many. Even your own church has admitted mistakes and changed things. If she were truly infallible this would never have happened.
sterryfamily
You keep answering your same question and then asking it again.

Why don’t you give me 4-5 examples with the context so i can see what you are talking about.
Secondly, were they addressed to you?

Do you believe that God’s Word is inerrant? Do you believe that the words, laws, and covenants he issued through his chosen covenant mediators (Moses, Noah, David, et. al.) are fallible?

Yes

If he can protect his word from error in the Old Testament why don’t you believe he can do so in the New?
The “New” what?

Especially since He promised He would be with his Church for all time, that the gates of Hell would never prevail against her, and that He would send His Holy Spirit to teach all truth through her?

Are you aware that the Scriptures warn of false teachers coming into the church itself and deceiving? Since this is the case, to accept everything your church says as true would be a violation of this warning.

 

[guanophore]

Are you aware that the Scriptures warn of false teachers coming into the church itself and deceiving?

I find myself wondering, ja4, is CAF your first foray into this “ministry”? Or did you practice trying to debunk Catholicism before coming to CAF.