Sola Scriptura again

[ezeekl]

I agree that the apostles did receive apostolic authority from God and they did receive direct revelation from God to establish His Church. This apostolic authority ended with the death of John and the end of the apostolic age and did not continue through AS as the CC teaches. This means that the CC can error.

Ed

I am sorry but that is scripturally incorrect. It is a man made invention of protestantism to justify sola scriptura . Ironic I think that to justify sola scriptura one must contradict scripture but that is what protestantism does. No where in scripture does it say that the authority given by Jesus to the Apostles ended. For if it did then Jesus went through a whole lot of trouble to establish a church just for one generation.

In the book of Acts we see where the church acted swiftly to fill the office vacated by Judas’ through his death. Peter quotes portions of two of the OT psalms in calling for someone to take the place of Judas. In Acts 1:20 we read as follows:

"For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it'; and His office let another take.’ [Acts 1:20 RSV]

Notice the word ‘office’ The Apostles held offices. The office did not die when the occupant died. The office went to someone else. This office that the Apostles held was the office of bishop. The word that is translated as office is the Greek word episkope from which we get our word bishop. Indeed the KJV translates this same verse as:

"For it is written in the booke of Psalmes, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: And his Bishopricke let another take.’ [Acts 1:20 KJV (1611)]

So the authority was retained in the office and did not expire when the Apostles died. The early Corinthians knew this. Although they were closer to Ephesus where the Apostle John, who was the last living Apostle, resided at the time, they went to Clement, bishop of Rome to resolve a crisis in Corinth. They recognized that Clement was the successor [3rd in line of succession] to Peter and thus the mantle of chief steward was passed on at Peter’s death.

 

[ezeekl]

I would say that the CC teaches a different Gospel that contradicts what Jesus and the apostles taught as found in Scripture.

Ed

Funny that you shouild say that. Why not look up the Catechism of the Catholic Church and see for yourself what the Catholic Church teaches? It is available on line. There you will see Catholic doctrine and the scriptural references for it.

Then you have the problem that you in essence call Jesus a liar. For if, as you say, the Catholic Church teaches a different Gospel than what Jesus and the Apostles preached then despite what Jesus said in Mt 16:19 the gates of hell did indeed prevail over the Church and the Holy Spirit did not guide it into truth and Jesus who promised to be with his church until the end of the age just stood by and did nothing. But who knows maybe the Holy Spirit went out for a 1500 year smoke break and maybe Jesus took a coffe break. Do really think so???

This allegation by protestants is so ludicrous that it defies all logic, not to mention it defies scripture.

 

[Good_Fella]

I agree with some of what you say but maintain what I said in my original statement…the two key issues at the heart of the reformation were authority and justification.

Who or what speaks for God, and what exactly is the Gospel?

Since you apparently believe that Scripture is the final teaching authority and the rule of faith, not the Magisterium and the Church under its governance, you should examine what the Scriptures reveal about the matter of authority to determine with whom it authentically lies. And keep in mind that what has been recorded in writing reflects the Apostolic Tradition of the Church. Tradition precedes Scripture, and so the written word must be interpreted in light of the unwritten word. Scripture makes clear that the Gospel message can be truly understood only by listening to the authentic teaching authority of the Church. So let us turn to the Scriptures to confirm how Jesus intended to structure his Church on the foundation of the apostles and what the Church perceived herself essentially to be in apostolic time. By doing so, at least with ample integrity, we may see that the teaching authority of the Church shouldn’t have been made an issue at all by religious individuals who believed themselves to be faithful and true adherents of the written word.

First of all, Jesus established his Church so that his appointed ministers should teach all nations until he returns in glory. The apostles were commissioned to preach the word of God and administer the sacraments - not to write the NT (cf. Mt. 28:18-20). And our Lord promised his apostles, whom he appointed to preach the Gospel, that the Holy Spirit would be with them “forever” to instruct and remind them of everything he said - not wrote down (cf. Jn. 14:16, 26). Jesus promised to send the Paraclete to guide the Church in all truth and to declare - not write down - all the things that were coming pertaining to matters of faith and morals, but couldn’t be understood just yet (cf. Jn 16:12-13). Jesus wasn’t speaking to a crowd of people or referring to believers in general; He was speaking to his apostles with their valid successors in mind when he said that those whom he had appointed were commissioned to teach all nations “until the end of this age” and always under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who would be with them “forever”. The apostolic teaching authority of the Church never ceased with the death of the last apostle.

The apostle Paul referred to his ministry as a divine office (cf. Col. 1:24-26). This term, not unlike the American presidential office, denotes a perpetual state effected by a succession of the proper authority. The divine office which Paul had received through the divine authority conferred on the Apostles by Jesus (cf. Jn. 20:21-23) was similarly passed on to Timothy and Titus through the laying on of hands in accord with the divine mandate (cf. 1 Tim. 4:14-15; 2 Tim. 2:2; Titus 1:7-1; 1 Cor. 4:17; 2 Cor. 8:16-24). As bishops, they had not only the authority to ordain presbyters [priests] (Titus 1:5) through the sacrament of Holy Orders, but also the authority to teach “sound doctrine” and to “confute those (‘insubordinate men’) who contradict it”. In this sense Paul referred to the Church – not the Bible – as “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (cf. 1 Tim. 3:15) and as the medium through which “the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known” (Eph. 3:10). The prophet foretold that the Church established by Christ would be infallible in the teaching of sound doctrine (i.e., justification) by those who were anointed of the Holy Spirit to teach what “befits sound doctrine” and to “exhort and reprove” all those who “disregarded” their teaching and ruling authority (cf. Titus 2:1,15).

**And a highway shall be there,
and it shall be called the Holy Way;
the unclean shall not pass over it,
and fools shall not err therein.
Isaiah 35, 8

To be continued.

 

[Good_Fella]

…the two key issues at the heart of the reformation were authority and justification.

Who or what speaks for God, and what exactly is the Gospel?

To continue, Paul acknowledged that neither he nor Titus was a “pedlar of God’s word” because both of them were “commissioned by God” to preach the Gospel in the name of Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 2:17). Those among the heretics of his time who opposed their teachings were regarded to have had no sufficient authority to begin with, since they weren’t commissioned by God nor guided by the Holy Spirit (cf. 2 Cor 3:4-6). And Paul condemned them for having created divisions in the Church. For this reason above all they couldn’t possibly have had the authority to teach and exhort. Not unlike the so-called reformers of the 16th century, who ended up debating among themselves and splitting over their respective notions of sound doctrine, these heretics of different persuasions, though each of whom believed that they were led by the one Holy Spirit, rejected the instituted central teaching authority of the Apostolic Church (cf. Acts 15:28; 2 Cor 5:20) and consequently undermined what Jesus had intended by establishing one hierarchical Church on the foundation of the apostles: a visible oneness and unity of faith through the guaranty of the Holy Spirit. (cf. Jn 10:16; 17:17-23; Rom. 12:5; 15:5; 16:17; 1 Cor. 1:10; 12:13; Eph. 4:4-6; Phil. 2:2; Col. 3:15). The apostle may have had our Lord’s words in mind (cf. Mt. 12:30) when he wrote to the churches in Galatia: “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel - not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ… Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:6-9).

Hence, those ministers who have been validly commissioned by God and sealed with the Holy Spirit have the authority to speak for God in Christ. In the 16th century, that authority rested with the bishops who convened at the Council of Trent to anathematize those individual Catholic academicians, some clerics included, who with absolutely no authority perverted the Gospel and confused the faithful resulting in the scattering of Christ’s sheep. Through the sacrament of ordination the bishops could physically trace their teaching and governing authority back to the apostles themselves. And for this reason the so-called reformers couldn’t possibly have had any ecclesial authority despite their theological credentials which, by the way, weren’t absolutely safeguarded from error by the guaranty of the Holy Spirit. They weren’t qualified to act as “ministers of the New Covenant” whose “sufficiency came from God”. At most they could – and did – presume that they had God’s confidence – as if our Lord would actually demolish the episcopal college in union with Peter’s successor, which he himself intended to institute and guide in all truth for the sake of our receiving his Gospel and holding to it “with one heart and one mind”.

The Church – not the Bible – under the authority of the Magisterium is the final teaching authority (cf. Mt. 16:19). At best, by rejecting this central ecclesial authority, individuals like Luther and Calvin could appeal only to the Scriptures – the written word of God- since they basically had in turn rejected what the Holy Spirit had already declared to the Church through the medium of sacred Tradition – the unwritten word of God belonging to the deposit of faith together with sacred Scripture. Not only did they renounce the Magisterium’s divine right to serve as the custodians of the deposit of faith, but they also substituted its teaching authority for the written word and thereby dismissed most of what belonged to Tradition in accord with their private judgements and religious sensibilities. By doing so, they had in fact violated their own principle by contradicting Scripture itself which was meant to remind all future generations that the Church is indeed hierarchical and obedience is called for in the proper order for the sake of the building up of the body of Christ and maturing in a unity of faith (cf. Eph 4:11-14; Acts 2:41-42; 2 Cor. 10:1-6; 13:9-10). The Gospel cannot be truly understood by relying solely on the written word and one’s private perusal of it divorced from what the Paraclete has definitively “declared” to the Church through her authentic teaching authority. “And the Spirit said to Philip, ‘Go up and join this chariot.’ So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ And he said, ‘How can I, unless someone guides me?’ And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him” (Acts 8:29-31).

*Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability. *
*2 Peter 3: 13-17 *

PAX

 

[edkw55]

Funny that you shouild say that. Why not look up the Catechism of the Catholic Church and see for yourself what the Catholic Church teaches? It is available on line. There you will see Catholic doctrine and the scriptural references for it.

Then you have the problem that you in essence call Jesus a liar. For if, as you say, the Catholic Church teaches a different Gospel than what Jesus and the Apostles preached then despite what Jesus said in Mt 16:19 the gates of hell did indeed prevail over the Church and the Holy Spirit did not guide it into truth and Jesus who promised to be with his church until the end of the age just stood by and did nothing. But who knows maybe the Holy Spirit went out for a 1500 year smoke break and maybe Jesus took a coffe break. Do really think so???

This allegation by protestants is so ludicrous that it defies all logic, not to mention it defies scripture.

I have read through the CCC beginning to end twice as well as the writings of the early Church fathers though the early 5th century and many other books written by Catholics about CC doctrine.

As an Evangelical I disagree with you as to what the Church is. I do not call Jesus a liar. It is your opinion that the one true church established by Jesus Christ is the Roman Catholic Church (and all those in union with her) and I, as an Evangelical disagree with this opinion. Your opinions cannot be proven through history or the Bible and I have done my research best as can (making no claims to be a brilliant scholar). Jesus did establish His Church nearly 2000 years ago and His Church continues to exist today. He is fulfilling all of His promises to His Church.

 

[edkw55]

Hi Good Fella

I have read through everything you have posted above as well the writings of many Catholic apologist. We disagree as to what the Church fundamentally is. I do not reject authority or tradition (small a small t) and I do have authorities and traditions that I look to for guidance in matters of faith and morals. However, these authorities and traditions must be subservient to the Authority of the Bible and never contradict the Bible. I respect your beliefs but disagree with you. In my opinion the Catholic Church’s teaching on justification contradicts the True Gospel as taught by Jesus and the apostles as recorded in Sacred Scripture.

Ed

 

[ezeekl]

I have read through the CCC beginning to end twice as well as the writings of the early Church fathers though the early 5th century and many other books written by Catholics about CC doctrine.

As an Evangelical I disagree with you as to what the Church is. I do not call Jesus a liar. It is your opinion that the one true church established by Jesus Christ is the Roman Catholic Church (and all those in union with her) and I, as an Evangelical disagree with this opinion. Your opinions cannot be proven through history or the Bible and I have done my research best as can (making no claims to be a brilliant scholar). Jesus did establish His Church nearly 2000 years ago and His Church continues to exist today. He is fulfilling all of His promises to His Church.

Well I would disagree with you about history not being able to prove that the church that existed from Pentecost onward was not the Catholic Church. On the contrary history affirms that it isindeed the Catholic Church. But, if as you claim, the Catholic Church is not the church established by Jesus then the burden is on you to show us which church was the one established by Jesus. Remember Jesus said that He would never abandon His church and He would remain with it until the end of the age. So that church would have to exist for 2,000 years. Bear in mind the protestant denominations are all less than 500 years old and the evangelical denominations less than 200 years. It is only the Catholic Church that has a 2,000 year history. So which church was the one established by Jesus???

 

[ezeekl]

Hi Good Fella

I have read through everything you have posted above as well the writings of many Catholic apologist. We disagree as to what the Church fundamentally is. I do not reject authority or tradition (small a small t) and I do have authorities and traditions that I look to for guidance in matters of faith and morals. However, these authorities and traditions must be subservient to the Authority of the Bible and never contradict the Bible. I respect your beliefs but disagree with you. In my opinion the Catholic Church’s teaching on justification contradicts the True Gospel as taught by Jesus and the apostles as recorded in Sacred Scripture.

Ed

Well then maybe you should tell us what your concept of the church is. Is it this invisible, nebulous “Big Tent” concoction where all are welcome as brothers even though they disagree on basic doctrine? God didn’t tolerate that sort of thing in the OT so what makes one think He would do so now? But maybe that isn’t your concept of what the church is. I would like to read your answer.

And since you brought it up why don’t you expound on what you think the Catholic teaching on justification is? So please give us your opinion on what the Church teaches as far as justification is concerned. I would like to hear it.

 

[Good_Fella]

Hi Good Fella

We disagree as to what the Church fundamentally is. I do not reject authority or tradition …and I do have authorities and traditions that I look to for guidance in matters of faith and morals. However, these authorities and traditions must be subservient to the Authority of the Bible and never contradict the Bible., In my opinion the Catholic Church’s teaching on justification contradicts the True Gospel taught by Jesus and the apostles as recorded in Sacred Scripture.

Hi, Ed. :tiphat:

The teaching authority must be physically traced back to the apostles through the sacrament of Holy Orders with the laying on of hands and anointing of the Holy Spirit in order to be authentic. No Protestant denomination can physically trace the office of their leaders or elders back to the apostles. So whatever teaching authority they claim to hold in their independent churches is invalid. Naturally, in order to assert that authority the idea of apostolic succession must be rejected, although the NT and some extant writings of the ECFs show that it’s genuinely true and has been traditionally held all along by the Church (cf. St. Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians 44:1 [96 A.D.]; St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8:1 [110 A.D.]).

You then, my child, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus; and what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well.
2 Timothy 2,2

The Apostolic Tradition consists of both the sacred and oral traditions of the Church as they were handed down by the apostles. Sacred Tradition belongs to the deposit of faith as a medium of divine revelation, and so unlike oral tradition it is infallible. Sacred Tradition has been described as the mighty deeds of God in the history of salvation declared by the Holy Spirit to the Church. It was through sacred Tradition that Philip (not one of the Twelve, but commissioned through them) authoritatively taught the Ethiopian eunuch the full meaning of the prophet Isaiah with regard to Christ written in the OT. So in the deposit of faith sacred Scripture - the written word of God - is infallible insofar sacred Tradition - the unwritten word of God is infallible. The Jews who rejected the preaching of the apostles and refused to convert weren’t convinced by the written word alone. On the contrary, they demanded proof which they felt the written word didn’t provide. They interpreted the divine truth differently in conformity with Judaic tradition.

The traditions which you claim to hold in your church are more in line with what we Catholics call ecclesiastic traditions which pertain to particular churches in the sphere of practice and aren’t commonly held by the entire Church; for instance, the date Easter is celebrated. Sacred Tradition is something one and the same, although its monuments or expressions differ in form. You may subscribe to a particular traditional belief in justification, but it doesn’t belong to the deposit of faith handed down from the apostles and upheld by the Patristic Fathers of the Church. Nor might your tradition apply in practice in harmony with other Protestant denominations. Reformed Presbyterians, for example, practise infant baptism, while Southern Baptists refrain from baptising infants and very young children who haven’t yet acquired the ability to sufficiently reason for themselves. In that case, your tradition is fallible and depends on your private interpretation of Scripture which, therefore, inversely precedes your tradition. Unlike Catholic doctrines, Protestant doctrines – except for those borrowed from the Apostolic Catholic Faith – originate directly from proof-texting the Scriptures as a reaction against certain Catholic beliefs and teachings.

Hence, how can you be sure that your interpretation is right? And as long as the truth rests on how you manage to interpret and privately judge the meaning of the written word of God, Scripture is fallible and thus cannot ever realistically be the final teaching authority. That authority actually belongs to the person who is holding the Bible and judges for himself what has been divinely revealed. Yet Scripture makes it clear that it itself isn’t a matter of private interpretation by any individual or body of religious authority not commissioned by God (cf. 2 Pet. 1:20). This final authority rightfully belongs to the Magisterium of the Church and should be exercised by the College of Bishops in union with the Pope. In the nascent Church it was held and applied by the Apostles in union with Peter, who had the final word on any decision that had to be made in matters of faith and morals. Without Philip’s guidance in light of the Church’s sacred Tradition, the eunuch could never have grasped the divine truth just by reading the OT text on his own or by consulting with the Jewish elders. And it was Peter’s vision through the activity of the Holy Spirit which confirmed and brought to light what was written down in the OT regarding the Gentiles in God’s plan of salvation which endorsed the decision reached by the apostles who convened at the Council of Jerusalem.

**Whoever knows God listens to us, and who****ever is not from God does not listen to us. From this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
1 John 4, 6

PAX
:heaven:

 

[benhur]

Yes but only because they not only knew who wrote it but also knew that the writer had authority that others did not. Would they receive a letter from anyone else and give it value as well? Well, actually yes, for they received a letter from Clement who was Bishop of Rome and treasured it because almost a century later they were still reading it in their churches. This is attested to by the letter of Dionysius (Bishop) of Corinth to Soter (Bishop) of Rome in the late second century.

Good. You partially agree that some writings did not need a church council for validity. Totally agree to history of later letter,that it was also revered,but I would partially argue against why. There is little evidence to suggest the second letter had as much authority or weighted the same .one letter was from an apostle who said he was an apostle and had such authority. The other letter does not state any specific author nor any specific office, save that it was from " the church at Rome". I believe it claimed authority based on her speaking the truth of God and from God on the matter at hand. That is any church could have taken such a righteous stand. That it was Rome I know has led some to,proportion a beginning of or evolving of Petrine chair doctrine. Others would say a letter from the largest church,where Paul ended up ,from the city that ruled the known world, might have some clout, though there is no evidence the letter was asked by the deposed Corinthian bishops…again, other non apostolic writings were revered in the churches,regionally,and not necessarily uniformly, based partly on author and content.

 

[benhur]

Where exactly is it recorded in any of Paul’s letters (the Scriptures) that he claimed to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit to commit the word of God to writing and, if I may add, his letters were to serve as the sole and final rule of faith - but not simply function as the objective norm of faith?

PAX
:heaven:

Good call. Not sure right now except that at times or maybe only once he says I not The Lord say this.the inference is that the rest is The Lord saying, speaking.

 

[benhur]

Regardless, Jesus gave his apostles and thereby their valid succe**ssors in the episcopate the power to legislate and to discipline.

“Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Matthew 18, 18**

“If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”
*Matthew 18. 17 *

So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.
Acts 14, 23

For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I comman**ded you.
Titus 1, 5

PAX

No one is denying the shepherding of the church…Actually Luther was part of that…the binding scripture is actually in favor of Luther for it really states that what is bound in heaven shall be bound on earth, that is you can not bind something God won’t bind. So let’s say indulgences are wrong or ungodly god doesn’t say it is ok if pope or council say it is…scripture does not say what ever you bind is bound, or whatever you say goes. It is very careful to make the strong implication that what is heavenly will be earthly. We are to bring his kingdom dominion on to this earth that is ruled by satan dominion…the correct Greek translation understanding of the verse will bear me out. It should be understood as , “whatever is bound in heaven shall be bound on earth”.

 

[benhur]

Your first statememnt is entirely wrong. The so-callled reformation was really a revolt against authority. Luther spent a life time revolting against authority. First he revolted against the authority of his parents. Then the authority of the Augustinians and then the church. The only authority that Luther did not run from was what he claimed as his own and that was his claimed authority to interpret the scriptures by himself. The fact that this contradicted the scriptures didn’t seem to phase him in the least. But that pseudo- authority eventually caught up with him when others started doing the same thing as Luther. When that happened, Luther would become enraged.

Well Luther became a monk and forsook earthly stuff instead of becoming an earthy lawyer like his father wanted…if that is your picture of revolting, then revolting is not a bad thing…was it a revolt ,absolutely, some good and some bad…but then what goes around comes around. The church had become embroiled in earthly politics, some good some bad. So why are you surprised that some of it should come back to haunt the church? Live by the sword die by the sword,sew what you reap,forgiven but still reap the consequences.

 

[ezeekl]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezeekl
Yes but only because they not only knew who wrote it but also knew that the writer had authority that others did not. Would they receive a letter from anyone else and give it value as well? Well, actually yes, for they received a letter from Clement who was Bishop of Rome and treasured it because almost a century later they were still reading it in their churches. This is attested to by the letter of Dionysius (Bishop) of Corinth to Soter (Bishop) of Rome in the late second century.

Good. You partially agree that some writings did not need a church council for validity. Totally agree to history of later letter,that it was also revered,but I would partially argue against why. There is little evidence to suggest the second letter had as much authority or weighted the same .one letter was from an apostle who said he was an apostle and had such authority. The other letter does not state any specific author nor any specific office, save that it was from " the church at Rome". I believe it claimed authority based on her speaking the truth of God and from God on the matter at hand. That is any church could have taken such a righteous stand. That it was Rome I know has led some to,proportion a beginning of or evolving of Petrine chair doctrine. Others would say a letter from the largest church,where Paul ended up ,from the city that ruled the known world, might have some clout, though there is no evidence the letter was asked by the deposed Corinthian bishops…again, other non apostolic writings were revered in the churches,regionally,and not necessarily uniformly, based partly on author and content.

I would disagree. Clement’s response included this phrase:

“Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us;” [Letter of Clement to the Corinthians]

So the Corinthians initiated the process requesting a consult with Rome. But that still does not answer the question of why they did not go to John. Why go to Rome and not to one of the original Apostles?

 

[ezeekl]

No one is denying the shepherding of the church…Actually Luther was part of that…the binding scripture is actually in favor of Luther for it really states that what is bound in heaven shall be bound on earth, that is you can not bind something God won’t bind. So let’s say indulgences are wrong or ungodly god doesn’t say it is ok if pope or council say it is…scripture does not say what ever you bind is bound, or whatever you say goes. It is very careful to make the strong implication that what is heavenly will be earthly. We are to bring his kingdom dominion on to this earth that is ruled by satan dominion…the correct Greek translation understanding of the verse will bear me out. It should be understood as , “whatever is bound in heaven shall be bound on earth”.

You write “…scripture does not say what ever you bind is bound, or whatever you say goes.” We Catholics would agree with that but not for the reason you do. That statement of yours points out a fallacy in the protestant understanding of the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility. Neither Peter nor the Pope enjoys unlimited infallibility in all things. So neither one could go off willy-nilly binding and loosening as they pleased. No, this authority to bind and loose is controlled by the Holy Spirit. It is under the Spirit’s guidance that an otherwise fallible man can be infallible. The infallibility rests not with the man but with the Holy Spirit. That is not something that is totally foreign to protestantism. After all protestants accept the guidance of the Holy Spirit on fallible men to produce infallible scripture.

 

[ezeekl]

Well Luther became a monk and forsook earthly stuff instead of becoming an earthy lawyer like his father wanted…if that is your picture of revolting, then revolting is not a bad thing…was it a revolt ,absolutely, some good and some bad…but then what goes around comes around. The church had become embroiled in earthly politics, some good some bad. So why are you surprised that some of it should come back to haunt the church? Live by the sword die by the sword,sew what you reap,forgiven but still reap the consequences.

Read Luther’s own words on his relationship with his parents. Today we would say that he was a victim of child abuse. Read how he describes his mother beating him until he bled over what Luther calls “an insignificant nut”. Read about his relationship with a father who Luther said he could never forgive.

As for the church of Luther’s day there was indeed corruption but then the church has always been the target of Satan. Attacks on the Church come from without as well as from within. Today is no exception. But do you think that any protestant denomination is without its share of sin, corruption and evil? Reform did come to the Catholic Church but not by Luther. It came at Trent

 

[benhur]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezeekl
Yes but only because they not only knew who wrote it but also knew that the writer had authority that others did not. Would they receive a letter from anyone else and give it value as well? Well, actually yes, for they received a letter from Clement who was Bishop of Rome and treasured it because almost a century later they were still reading it in their churches. This is attested to by the letter of Dionysius (Bishop) of Corinth to Soter (Bishop) of Rome in the late second century.

I would disagree. Clement’s response included this phrase:

“Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us;” [Letter of Clement to the Corinthians]

So the Corinthians initiated the process requesting a consult with Rome. But that still does not answer the question of why they did not go to John. Why go to Rome and not to one of the original Apostles?

Dah. Very good and thanks for the correction. Rome did not take the initiative but was asked for help. Again most believe the Apostle had deceased or was on Patmos (" the Letter must have been written just after the Emperor’s death and at the end of the persecution, that is, immediately after the year 96." Pope Benedict 3-7-07)…I gave good reasons why go to Rome adding that" all roads lead to Rome" and that being more than just a physical reality and her prestigiousness. Still quite a letter, almost Pauline.

 

[benhur]

You write “…scripture does not say what ever you bind is bound, or whatever you say goes.” We Catholics would agree with that but not for the reason you do. That statement of yours points out a fallacy in the protestant understanding of the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility. Neither Peter nor the Pope enjoys unlimited infallibility in all things. So neither one could go off willy-nilly binding and loosening as they pleased. No, this authority to bind and loose is controlled by the Holy Spirit. It is under the Spirit’s guidance that an otherwise fallible man can be infallible. The infallibility rests not with the man but with the Holy Spirit. That is not something that is totally foreign to protestantism. After all protestants accept the guidance of the Holy Spirit on fallible men to produce infallible scripture.

Well the nifallibility is controlled by the HS yes but even more so than you say. Does one control "truth "? Truth simply is ,whether we agree or see it or not. So, if it is true, in heaven, by God’s standards, it is to be true down here, to bind any falseness against it, to proclaim the truth . Seems deeper than just control by HS…Of course most claim their truth to be HS inspired, so yes and amen to that “control”…Again, how do we know stuff on indulgences was properly “controlled” by the HS ? How do we know it was not willy-nilly ? The assumption given to Luther was a pope or council can not be willy-nilly and must be HS “correct”.

 

[benhur]

Read Luther’s own words on his relationship with his parents. Today we would say that he was a victim of child abuse. Read how he describes his mother beating him until he bled over what Luther calls “an insignificant nut”. Read about his relationship with a father who Luther said he could never forgive.

As for the church of Luther’s day there was indeed corruption but then the church has always been the target of Satan. Attacks on the Church come from without as well as from within. Today is no exception. But do you think that any protestant denomination is without its share of sin, corruption and evil? Reform did come to the Catholic Church but not by Luther. It came at Trent

Can not speak to Luther’s attitude towards his parents…P’s do not claim perfection and i believe are gracious in accepting faults of other churches also. I would say that is strained from time to time when CC alone claims perfection in her doctrine… Reform succeeded because of Luther, that is, as a catalyst. That reform was tried but unsuccessfully is shown by Wycliffe or Huss or Savanrola. It also came with Loyola before and at trent. and much of his reform was aimed at winning back Lutherans in germany…

 

[ezeekl]

Well the nifallibility is controlled by the HS yes but even more so than you say. Does one control "truth "? Truth simply is ,whether we agree or see it or not. So, if it is true, in heaven, by God’s standards, it is to be true down here, to bind any falseness against it, to proclaim the truth . Seems deeper than just control by HS…Of course most claim their truth to be HS inspired, so yes and amen to that “control”…Again, how do we know stuff on indulgences was properly “controlled” by the HS ? How do we know it was not willy-nilly ? The assumption given to Luther was a pope or council can not be willy-nilly and must be HS “correct”.

Well, would the Holy Spirit permit someone to bind or loose something that was not true? If the Spirit did so is that really guiding into all truth? I don’t think so. Also, recall what Jesus also said in conjunction with the Holy Spirit guiding into all truth. He said He had more things to tell the Apostles but they could not bear it at the time. Those things would be revealed by the Spirit. Jesus could have very easily given the Apostles a book of all truth but He didn’t. Instead he chose to reveal things to them over time.

But I still have a problem with the notion that somehow the church apostasized, slipped into error or whatever way one wants to justify another denominations belief system. Scripturally such a notion is a contradiction. In addition to the Spirit leading into all truth, Jesus said He would remain with His church until the end of the age. I can’t imagine Jesus just standing idly by and watching his church fall into error especially after He paid a very heavy price for it.