Sola scriptura advocates, just a few of questions.......

[joe370]

Sola scriptura advocates, just a few of questions:

Before the printing press was invented roughly 1400 years after Christ, how was the Gospel spread?

When did tradition stop being in effect? 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6 and 1 Corinthians 11:2

What did Jesus mean when He told his followers to heed those who sat on the Chair of Moses in Matthew 23:2, and what, perhaps, does that say about Jesus’ expectations for his followers to obey earthly authority?

What does 1 Timothy 3:15 indicate is the rule of faith? Based on 1 Timothy 3:15, what do you believe is the rule of faith, and why?

Who are the only two people in the Old Testament to have been without original sin from their first moments? If Christ is the new sinless Adam (Romans 5:14-15, 1 Corinthians 15:22, 1 Corinthians 15:45), who is the new sinless Eve?

Do you believe that the Catholic Church wasn’t around until the time of Constantine?

Do you believe that the catholic church teaches the following:

Think they can work their way into Heaven and believe they are saved by works.

Think the pope does not sin.

Think the pope is infallible.

Re-crucify Christ at the Mass (or at least think they do).

Believe Mary is to be worshiped.

Worship statues.

Think they can’t pray to God directly but have to go through saints or Mary.

Conjure the dead.

Believe people can be saved after they die.

Teach that one who isn’t formally a Catholic is damned to Hell.

 

[agent_grey]

I pray for you. You are where I once was. The billy goat answer to your questions are pointless. Let them go. God does not hear their cries so why should you.

Follow the spirit into the desert. Not the devil.

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;7417886]Sola scriptura advocates, just a few of questions:

This is a few, Joe?

Before the printing press was invented roughly 1400 years after Christ, how was the Gospel spread?

By the preaching of the word.

When did tradition stop being in effect? 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6 and 1 Corinthians 11:2

It didn’t.

What did Jesus mean when He told his followers to heed those who sat on the Chair of Moses in Matthew 23:2, and what, perhaps, does that say about Jesus’ expectations for his followers to obey earthly authority?

In general, follow the law.

What does 1 Timothy 3:15 indicate is the rule of faith? Based on 1 Timothy 3:15, what do you believe is the rule of faith, and why?

Joe, this probably ought to be a thread in and of itself.

Who are the only two people in the Old Testament to have been without original sin from their first moments? If Christ is the new sinless Adam (Romans 5:14-15, 1 Corinthians 15:22, 1 Corinthians 15:45), who is the new sinless Eve?

Adam and Eve. The Holy Theotokos, though I don’t believe that should be an article of faith.

Do you believe that the Catholic Church wasn’t around until the time of Constantine?

No, though I wouldn’t say that the Catholic Church is limited necessarily to those in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Do you believe that the catholic church teaches the following:

Think they can work their way into Heaven and believe they are saved by works.

No

Think the pope does not sin.

No

Think the pope is infallible.

Only when speaks ex cathedra

Re-crucify Christ at the Mass (or at least think they do).

No

Believe Mary is to be worshiped.

Not in the latria sense, no.

Worship statues.

No

Think they can’t pray to God directly but have to go through saints or Mary.

No

Conjure the dead.

No

Believe people can be saved after they die.

No

Teach that one who isn’t formally a Catholic is damned to Hell.

Some Catholics interpret “NO Salvation outside the CC” as stating such, but I don’t think
that is the Church’s postion (anymore).

Jon

 

[Augsburg1530]

Sola scriptura advocates, just a few of questions:

Before the printing press was invented roughly 1400 years after Christ, how was the Gospel spread?

By word and sacrament. The same way that it is spread after the invention of the printing press.

When did tradition stop being in effect? 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6 and 1 Corinthians 11:2

I think this question operates under the presupposition that there is a quantitative difference between Tradition and Scripture. If by Tradition, you mean something that is not contained within the apostolic writings, then you would have to demonstrate that said Tradition was even taught by the apostles to begin with. Certainly, the texts you reference above mention tradition. Do they mention anything about traditions that are not written down?

What did Jesus mean when He told his followers to heed those who sat on the Chair of Moses in Matthew 23:2, and what, perhaps, does that say about Jesus’ expectations for his followers to obey earthly authority?

That insomuch as those teachers are teaching from the teachings of Moses, they are to be obeyed. Jesus does not indicate any authority on the part of the Jewish religious leadership to teach things which are not confirmed by the writings of Moses. If, by citing this passage, you mean to say that the Jewish religious leadership is correspondent with the modern authority of the Magisterium, you would run into some serious theological issues.

What does 1 Timothy 3:15 indicate is the rule of faith? Based on 1 Timothy 3:15, what do you believe is the rule of faith, and why?

First you’d have to define what you mean by rule of faith, and how you think this passage indicates that it is addressing a rule of faith. The problem with the interpretation of this passage put forward by many in apologetic circles, is that it reads the text within the presupposition of Roman Catholic ecclesiology. In order to say that this passage teaches that the Magisterium is an infallible rule of faith, you’d have to first prove that Paul’s use of the word “church” is synonymous with “Magisterium” and not to his use of the word church in the rest of his writings, which is basically to mean every baptized Christian. If Paul is not using the word church to mean the bishops in union with the See of Rome (the hierarchy) then to say it teaches ecclesial infallibility would be absurd. If you do say he is using the word church to mean the hierarchy, you’d have to prove that to be the case.

Who are the only two people in the Old Testament to have been without original sin from their first moments? If Christ is the new sinless Adam (Romans 5:14-15, 1 Corinthians 15:22, 1 Corinthians 15:45), who is the new sinless Eve?

Why would there have to be one? Since Scripture indicates that Adam is considered to be the representative of the human race, and not Eve, it would only require a second head of the human race to undo the effects of the first one.

Do you believe that the Catholic Church wasn’t around until the time of Constantine?

No. This view seems to be put forward mainly by secularists (i.e. atheists, the Jesus Seminar, etc); though I’ve heard a few fundamentalists make this claim. In any event, it’s a pretty recent one.

Do you believe that the catholic church teaches the following:

Think they can work their way into Heaven and believe they are saved by works.

If justification is understood to be something which is progressively merited by cooperating with saving grace through meritorious actions, then yes. If Roman Catholics do not believe this, then why the constant apologetic appeal to James 2:24?

Re-crucify Christ at the Mass (or at least think they do).

Seems to depend on which sources you’re looking at.

Conjure the dead.

I understand that Catholics don’t think they’re doing this. Yet, I find it ironic that in some apologetic circles, an appeal for the intercession of the dead is based on the episode of the witch of Endor!

No to the rest of your questions.

 

[PRmerger]

By word and sacrament. The same way that it is spread after the invention of the printing press.

Do you believe the “word” that was spread was spread infallibly? That is, when a peasant spoke about Nicodemus, were his “words” infallible?

And could you elaborate on what you mean by it was spread by sacrament?

 

[Augsburg1530]

Do you believe the “word” that was spread was spread infallibly? That is, when a peasant spoke about Nicodemus, were his “words” infallible?

In as much as the source of his preaching is infallible.

And could you elaborate on what you mean by it was spread by sacrament?

Holy Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, Absolution. That is, for example, when an infant was baptized, that was the Gospel being spread to a sinner formerly under God’s condemnation, but now reborn through water and the Spirit as a justified child of God.

 

[PRmerger]

In as much as the source of his preaching is infallible.

And how would the hear-er know when the peasant was proclaiming something in error?

 

[Augsburg1530]

And how would the hear-er know when the peasant was proclaiming something in error?

And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. - Eph. 4:11-14

 

[PRmerger]

And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. - Eph. 4:11-14

No. I am not talking about apostles, prophets, etc.

I am speaking specifically about a run-of-the-mill peasant. He is spreading the Word. Yet it was not in print. He preaches to his family. He says “A”. How is the family to know whether “A” is theopneustos or not?

Surely you’re not saying this peasant has the charism of infallibility, are you?

 

[PRmerger]

Holy Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, Absolution. That is, for example, when an infant was baptized, that was the Gospel being spread to a sinner formerly under God’s condemnation, but now reborn through water and the Spirit as a justified child of God.

I’m sorry. I’m not understanding. How does, say, Baptism, spread the Gospel? I understand that God’s grace is imparted to the recipient. But I don’t understand how this means the Gospel was imparted.

By Gospel, of course, we are talking about the good news of Christ’s redemption.

 

[Augsburg1530]

No. I am not talking about apostles, prophets, etc.

I am speaking specifically about a run-of-the-mill peasant. He is spreading the Word. Yet it was not in print. He preaches to his family. He says “A”. How is the family to know whether “A” is theopneustos or not?

Surely you’re not saying this peasant has the charism of infallibility, are you?

Ok, so you’re asking how would they know whether it was in the Bible or not? Presumably, they would have access to someone who knows the Scriptures.

Speaking from the standpoint of preaching the gospel, when the word is preached, it has the effect of creating faith in the hearer, whether or not the hearer has access to a print copy of the Scriptures.

 

[Augsburg1530]

I’m sorry. I’m not understanding. How does, say, Baptism, spread the Gospel? I understand that God’s grace is imparted to the recipient. But I don’t understand how this means the Gospel was imparted.

By Gospel, of course, we are talking about the good news of Christ’s redemption.

Would you agree with the statement that the sacraments are the gospel in visible, tangible form? When someone is baptized, it has the same effect as preaching the good news of Christ’s redemption to that person. That is, Baptism IS the good news of Christ.

 

[PRmerger]

Ok, so you’re asking how would they know whether it was in the Bible or not? Presumably, they would have access to someone who knows the Scriptures.

Ah. So there was someone, after the Bible had been codified, who was the source of info, so to speak? Was he infallible, then?

What about prior to the canonization of Scripture? For the first 400 years how was the Gospel spread?

 

[Augsburg1530]

Ah. So there was someone, after the Bible had been codified, who was the source of info, so to speak? Was he infallible, then?

In as much as his source is infallible. Inerrant, certainly.

What about prior to the canonization of Scripture? For the first 400 years how was the Gospel spread?

No different than after it was canonized.

 

[PRmerger]

Would you agree with the statement that the sacraments are the gospel in visible, tangible form? When someone is baptized, it has the same effect as preaching the good news of Christ’s redemption to that person. That is, Baptism IS the good news of Christ.

Indeed.

I see what you’re saying.

 

[PRmerger]

In as much as his source is infallible. Inerrant, certainly.

It would seem, then, that you have no problem with men being infallible, yes? Or certainly, with men being able to proclaim something inerrantly?

No different than after it was canonized.

Fair enough.

But, I suppose an acknowledgment must be made that men, infallible men, were required to canonize this Scripture?

 

[Augsburg1530]

It would seem, then, that you have no problem with men being infallible, yes? Or certainly, with men being able to proclaim something inerrantly?

We do things inerrantly all the time. If I score 100% on a math exam, I took the test inerrantly. Infallibility is a whole other thing… it means incapable of erring, which is a quality only God possesses.

Fair enough.

But, I suppose an acknowledgment must be made that men, infallible men, were required to canonize this Scripture?

Only in the sense of recognizing divine truth. I don’t see how this strictly requires infallibility. It doesn’t require them to be incapable of erring, only that they didn’t err.

 

[PRmerger]

We do things inerrantly all the time. If I score 100% on a math exam, I took the test inerrantly. Infallibility is a whole other thing… it means incapable of erring, which is a quality only God possesses.

I don’t think you actually believe this, Augsburg. I think that you do believe that men were infallible. Do you think that there was an error in any of the encyclicals St. Peter wrote (that is, 1 Peter and 2 Peter)?

Only in the sense of recognizing divine truth. I don’t see how this strictly requires infallibility. It doesn’t require them to be incapable of erring, only that they didn’t err.

Well, then, Augsburg, that is what the Catholic Church teaches about infallibility!

 

[Augsburg1530]

I don’t think you actually believe this, Augsburg. I think that you do believe that men were infallible. Do you think that there was an error in any of the encyclicals St. Peter wrote (that is, 1 Peter and 2 Peter)?

Peter was not infallible, that which he recorded was, because it was the word of God. God’s revelation was not capable of being something other than truth.

 

[PRmerger]

Peter was not infallible, that which he recorded was, because it was the word of God. God’s revelation was not capable of being something other than truth.

Do you think, like the Muslims do with Muhammad, that God literally dictated the encyclicals to St. Peter?