Sola Scriptura: an Evangelicals attempt to help to clarify its meaning

[Catholic_Dude]

I have some quick questions which I didnt see anyone ask:
1)Who ordained you and under what authority?

2)You said “I believe that I speak for God, being a pastor, but not infallibly. I believe that I have authority, but not infallible authority.” So when you read the Bible who answers your questions? Who tells you what a certain passage says and has the binding power for you to accept it?

3)So if a person comes up to you while you are talking to a Lutheran, Calvinist and a few others who adhere to… " In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity."…and asks something about salvation and each person gives a different reply, then how does that person know what to accept after telling him you all agree on “essential”? Also what is the difference between “essentials” and “non-e”? Give examples please.

 

[dennisknapp]

michaelp:

You and I do represent God, I agree. But we do not infallibly speak on behalf of God. The prophets and the apostles did. Does the Pope infallibly speak on behalf of God?

In what sense do you mean “infallibily speak on behalf if God?”

What does this entail? I gave you what the Church says it entails, what do you think it entails?

Peace

 

[michaelp]

dennisknapp:

In what sense do you mean “infallibily speak on behalf if God?”

What does this entail? I gave you what the Church says it entails, what do you think it entails?

Peace

That the Church, when speaking though the Magisterium on matters of faith and morals, does not err in what it says and perfectly represents the will and voice of God.

This is the same thing as a prophet.

That the prophet, when speaking on matters of faith and morals, does not err in what he says and perfectly represents the will and voice of God.

I am not trying to represent all the Church does, but if you believe the Church does not err and perfectly represents the voice of God in matters of faith and morals, why blindly believe them? Let them demonstate, like Christ, the apostles, and the prophets, that they do indeed speak on behalf of God. How come they can bypass this norm that God set up and expect people to believe them?

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Catholic Dude:

I have some quick questions which I didnt see anyone ask:

1)Who ordained you and under what authority?

My Church, under the authority of Stonebriar Community Church. Ordination is a formal attestation of the local body of Christ approval of my service. Don’t make it out to be more than it is. It ain’t much and gave me no real power that I did not have before by virtue of my committment to the Scriptures and ministry.

2)You said "I believe that I speak for God, being a pastor, but not infallibly. I believe that I have authority, but not infallible authority.

" So when you read the Bible who answers your questions? Who tells you what a certain passage says and has the binding power for you to accept it?

Depends. Most if fairly simply. I have been trained and continue to train myself in many ways. You are supposing that I have alot of questions. I read the Scriptures within the regula fide of the historic Christian church. When I have a conflict with something or tradition conflicts, I look to the evidence and pray that the Holy Spirit guides me in my decisions. But in most of these matters, if the Bible does not speak clearly on the subject, then I don’t. I speak clearly to the degree that Scripture, my experience, tradition, emotion, general revelation, and the Holy Spirit speaking through my conscience allows me. I don’t mind leaving tension where the Bible leaves tension. I think people are smart enough to make up their own mind. If they have someone make it up for them, do they really understand it? If they don’t really understand it, are they really convinced of it?

3)So if a person comes up to you while you are talking to a Lutheran, Calvinist and a few others who adhere to… " In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.

"…and asks something about salvation . . .

Give me an example from my evangelical tradition. Don’t throw all adherents of sola Scriptura into the same group and I will not throw you in will all adherent of Scripture plus an outside infallible authority.

Michael

 

[dennisknapp]

michaelp:

That the Church, when speaking though the Magisterium on matters of faith and morals, does not err in what it says and perfectly represents the will and voice of God.

This is the same thing as a prophet.

That the prophet, when speaking on matters of faith and morals, does not err in what he says and perfectly represents the will and voice of God.

I am not trying to represent all the Church does, but if you believe the Church does not err and perfectly represents the voice of God in matters of faith and morals, why blindly believe them? Let them demonstate, like Christ, the apostles, and the prophets, that they do indeed speak on behalf of God. How come they can bypass this norm that God set up and expect people to believe them?

Michael

What does this “speaking” entail? I refered to the fact that it preserves and clarifies, what does not make sense about this?

You seem to be saying that to infallibly speak for God infers being able to teach something new. Jesus and the Apostles were giving credibility to their new teachings and therefore needed signs to show their authority, correct?

What the Church does it hand on and clarify what was already verified by signs and wonders, there need not be any more.

Hence:

CCC 889
"In order to **preserve **the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a ‘supernatural sense of faith’ the People of God, under the guidence of the Church’s living Magisterium, ‘unfailingly adheres to this faith.’

Peace

 

[TNT]

michaelp:

I already said that Hebrews was written in the 60s. There were plenty of apostles around to verify it, since it was not written by an apostle. The evidence goes as follows:
Of course** I can be wrong.** What are you talking about?? Can YOU not be wrong?

1. It was written under the ministry of the apostles and was not condemned.
   **No such place in Scripture…NONE at all.
   Name ONE Apostle that “verified” it. And, prove that the verification was indeed that Apostle.
   Failure, by baloney.
   ** 2. It was accepted by the Church.
   **What Church? When, exactly? Name the Church that was infallible in selecting it.
   Failure by pleading to the infalliblity of the Roman Catholic Church, which you’ve already denied.
   ** 3. It was under the providential hand of God who is not sitting on His throne saying…
   **Cutsie. Where does God say Heb. is one of His inspired books?
   Failure by invoking unproven hypothoses. Or, maybe gnostic secret knowledge.
   Your answers fall FLAT. (Unless you are Catholic). You have not proved any HEB book must be in the NT infallibly. Not one bit. UNLESS you believe in the infallibility of the Catholic Church…outside your bible.
   Typical. When all else fails run to the Catholic Church (#2).
   **

Of course I can be wrong. What are you talking about?? Can YOU not be wrong?

**Then I request that you say so and be honest. ****Better yet, put it in your signature without ambiguity.
Something like :
“My every interpretation of my bible could be in complete or partial error, and therefore leading others astray. Further, I rely on the Catholic Church to determine my NT books.”
**
**I speak infallibly when I echo the infallible teachings of the True Church of Christ.
**Example:
“There are 27 NT and 46 OT books that together comprise the complete Bible of the Christain Faith.”
= Infallible = declaration of the True Church of Christ.

Totally question begging.

James White runaway answer. Won’t work for honest folks.

I cannot infallibly prove that the sun is going to rise either,…

** Nonsense.** “going to rise” is a prophecy simply based on prior experience. It is pure human faith which I said already, is your real faith. There is NOTHING of divine Faith in such a prophecy.
Failure by false analogy.
TNT states:

                          Now, you can either *EFFECTIVELY* address items **1 and ****2** or know that everyone sees only a wondering mind in your posts, with absolutely NO substance in either logic or Scripture. And worst of all, NO AUTHORITY TO INTERPRET.

Michaelp states:

No infallible authority, just like you, since you cannot even infallibly understand your own “infallible” authority based upon all the conflicting opinions on this website …

Runaway J White disciple answer…equate an opinion to an infallible dogma or doctrine. Nice try. Won’t work.
1. Answered: You DO NOT KNOW WHAT BOOKS ARE REQUIRED IN THE NT.
**Thank you for the honest admission…
2. **Answered: You DO NOT KNOW IF YOUR INTERPRETATION IS CORRECT, IN MINOR ERROR, OR IN MAJOR ERROR.
**Thank you for the honest admission…
**

No infallible authority, just like you,

Indeed I do, sir. It’s the Very Church that is the “pillar and foundation of the TRUTH”
That’s how I infallibly know there are 27 NT books, and Heb. is required to be one of them, regardless of the opposition to it for 300 years. That same Church told me so, infallibly.*** I echo her Infallible declaration***.
You have no such Church.
You have…you…and sometimes J. White the hi preest of heresy imbued with syrup…to rely on. Which by your own admission, could be in error.
By your own admission, you have no idea in SS what books are even required in the NT.
By your own admission, you have no way of giving infallible interpretations.
SS bites the dust. … for umptenth time.

I don’t have to (prove by miracles, signs) since I only present the evidence and don’t claim infallibility. I, unlike you, think that people are smart enough to understand God’s word.

You have NO infallible evidence outside the Church of Rome. So, it’s quite worthless except to the ignorant.
Pleeeeease. You just admitted that you cannot even determine infallibly what books include “God’s word” .
Are the 8 million Mormons “smart enough”. Are the 2 million High Anglicans “smart enough”? Are the 1,000,000,000 Catholics “smart enough”? Are the 2 million “Churches of Christ” members “smart enough”? Are the 17 milliom baptists “smart enough”? Are the 1 million Quakers “smart enough”? Or is what you are saying really mean only YOU are smart enough?

 

[dennisknapp]

1. It was written under the ministry of the apostles and was not condemned.
No such place in Scripture…NONE at all.
**Name ONE Apostle that “verified” it. And, prove that the verification was indeed that Apostle. **
Failure, by baloney.
2. It was accepted by the Church.
What Church? When, exactly? Name the Church that was infallible in selecting it.
****Failure by pleading to the infalliblity of the Roman Catholic Church, which you’ve already denied.
3. It was under the providential hand of God who is not sitting on His throne saying…
Cutsie. Where does God say Heb. is one of His inspired books?
Failure by invoking unproven hypothoses. Or, maybe gnostic secret knowledge.
Your answers fall FLAT. (Unless you are Catholic). You have not proved any HEB book must be in the NT infallibly. Not one bit. UNLESS you believe in the infallibility of the Catholic Church…outside your bible.
Typical. When all else fails run to the Catholic Church (#2).

**Then I request that you say so and be honest. **Better yet, put it in your signature without ambiguity.
Something like :
"My every interpretation of my bible could be in complete or partial error, and therefore leading others astray. Further, I rely on the Catholic Church to determine my NT books."

---

I speak infallibly when I echo the infallible teachings of the True Church of Christ.
Example:
“There are 27 NT and 46 OT books that together comprise the complete Bible of the Christain Faith.”
= Infallible = declaration of the True Church of Christ.

James White runaway answer. Won’t work for honest folks.

Nonsense. “going to rise” is a prophecy simply based on prior experience. It is pure human faith which I said already, is your real faith. There is NOTHING of divine Faith in such a prophecy.
Failure by false analogy.
TNT states:

Michaelp states:

Runaway J White disciple answer…equate an opinion to an infallible dogma or doctrine. Nice try. Won’t work.
1. Answered: You DO NOT KNOW WHAT BOOKS ARE REQUIRED IN THE NT.
Thank you for the honest admission…
2. Answered: You DO NOT KNOW IF YOUR INTERPRETATION IS CORRECT, IN MINOR ERROR, OR IN MAJOR ERROR.
Thank you for the honest admission…

Indeed I do, sir. It’s the Very Church that is the “pillar and foundation of the TRUTH”
That’s how I infallibly know there are 27 NT books, and Heb. is required to be one of them, regardless of the opposition to it for 300 years. That same Church told me so, infallibly.*** I echo her Infallible declaration***.
You have no such Church.
You have…you…and sometimes J. White the hi preest of heresy imbued with syrup…to rely on. Which by your own admission, could be in error.
By your own admission, you have no idea in SS what books are even required in the NT.
By your own admission, you have no way of giving infallible interpretations.
SS bites the dust. … for umptenth time.

You have NO infallible evidence outside the Church of Rome. So, it’s quite worthless except to the ignorant.
Pleeeeease. You just admitted that you cannot even determine infallibly what books include “God’s word” .
Are the 8 million Mormons “smart enough”. Are the 2 million High Anglicans “smart enough”? Are the 1,000,000,000 Catholics “smart enough”? Are the 2 million “Churches of Christ” members “smart enough”? Are the 17 milliom baptists “smart enough”? Are the 1 million Quakers “smart enough”? Or is what you are saying really mean only YOU are smart enough?

Hey, let’s have a little charity here. Your tone towards Michael is not befitting a Catholic. We need to leave our emotions at the door and discuss this issue with reason and respect. How else are we to get anywhere?

Please, let’s act in charity. We agree on so much, let’s not forget that.

Peace

 

[mtr01]

dennisknapp:

What does this “speaking” entail? I refered to the fact that it preserves and clarifies, what does not make sense about this?

You seem to be saying that to infallibly speak for God infers being able to teach something new. Jesus and the Apostles were giving credibility to their new teachings and therefore needed signs to show their authority, correct?

What the Church does it hand on and clarify what was already verified by signs and wonders, there need not be any more.

Hence:

CCC 889
"In order to **preserve **the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a ‘supernatural sense of faith’ the People of God, under the guidence of the Church’s living Magisterium, ‘unfailingly adheres to this faith.’

Peace

In what seems to be a rather frequent occurance, I made a very similar observation to Pastor Mike almost 2 weeks ago, and it seems to have been ignored.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=498936#post498936

Perhaps he’ll respond to you this time, Dennis.

 

[TNT]

mtr01:

In what seems to be a rather frequent occurance, I made a very similar observation to Pastor Mike almost 2 weeks ago, and it seems to have been ignored.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=498936#post498936

Perhaps he’ll respond to you this time, Dennis.

St. Athanasius said the same thing to Arius. And “**it seems to have been ignored”.

James White & Co. **send out their fellow heretics on some schedule just to see how many sardines they can catch, or “swines they can enter” .

The only thing they believe infallibly is non-infallibility.
One ought to smell smoke right there.
They take the NT Bible of the Roman Catholic Church and tell us that there is no infallible way of determining that the books are even required to be there or what books might be missing. Then, they tell us that they are completely fallible in its interpretation, BUT want poor souls to believe them (Infallibly?).
If that makes no sense at all, then you have an IQ above 70 and probably A Catholic or a good candidate.
If you believe this SS contradictory nonsense, then you get what desire …an antichrist. Or, you are not mentally at the age of reason.

 

[michaelp]

1. It was written under the ministry of the apostles and was not condemned.
   No such place in Scripture…NONE at all.
   **Name ONE Apostle that “verified” it. And, prove that the verification was indeed that Apostle. **
   Failure, by baloney.

It was accepted by the early Church. There is no reason to reject it. God said that His sheep would hear his voice. God is not sitting on the edge of His thone saying, “Why did the put that book of Hebrews in there? Oh well, there is nothing I can do.”

You remember, I believe in the providence of God.

1. It was accepted by the Church.
   What Church? When, exactly? Name the Church that was infallible in selecting it.
   ****Failure by pleading to the infalliblity of the Roman Catholic Church, which you’ve already denied.

I have never said that it was infallibly selected. It was selected based upon the evidence that it was inspired. Who needs infallibility? Why would you need it? Do you need to be infallibly certian that the sun is going to rise tomorrow? Seriously.

1. It was under the providential hand of God who is not sitting on His throne saying…
   Cutsie. Where does God say Heb. is one of His inspired books?

The very fact that it was accepted by the early Church and continues undisputed by the people of God until today. Why does God need to say it? He is a big boy and is in control of things. Again, I believe in the providential nature of God. Do you?

**

Failure by invoking unproven hypothoses. Or, maybe gnostic secret knowledge.

**

Unsupported allegation.

**

Your answers fall FLAT. (Unless you are Catholic). You have not proved any HEB book must be in the NT infallibly.

**

You are the only one talking about infallibility, not me. I don’t think that it must be infallibly accepted in order to be relied upon. Do you think that everything must have some infallible mark of approval before it can be accepted??

**

Something like :

"My every interpretation of my bible could be in complete or partial error, and therefore leading others astray. Further, I rely on the Catholic Church to determine my NT books."
**

---

I promise hermeneutics is not that hard. You just have to put some confidence in yourself and be willing to let go of a lot of preunderstandings. Read the Bible according to the author’s intent, not your own. Let the Bible speak not your preconceptions. But most of all, don’t outsouce your theology to someone else. You are created in the image of God. The early Church even establish that the analogy of language was sufficient to communicate to man what God has to say. Give yourself more credit.

**

I speak infallibly when I echo the infallible teachings of the True Church of Christ.

**

But are you infallibly certian that the Catholic Church is the one true church??? You keep dodging this one. Or is it just your opinion. If you are infallibly certian that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, then infallibly resides in you, right? How do you get around this? Unless you are not infallibly certian the the Catholic Church is the one true Church. If that is the case, then you and I are on the same page. We both have fallible opinions that must be tested by the evidence.

James White runaway answer. Won’t work for honest folks.

I have not read James White much on this material. It sounds like truth is easy to come by since you keep comparing me to him. When people think, they think alike.

**
Nonsense. “going to rise” is a prophecy simply based on prior experience. It is pure human faith which I said already, is your real faith. There is NOTHING of divine Faith in such a prophecy.
Failure by false analogy.

A prophecy??? It is just a statement. Do you believe that it is going to rise? I am not asking you to make a prophecy and speak for God. Just your opinion on the matter will be sufficient. Do you believe it?? If so, are you infallibly certian about it? If not, why do you act as if it is going to rise each and every night. Aren’t you worried that it might not???

Forgive the sarcasm, but you know what I mean. You don’t have to have infallibly certianty to be morally certian. Moral certianty is what we make all our decisions on each and every day. God will hold us accountable, not for what we are infallibly certian of, but what we are morally certian of.

**

 

[michaelp]

Runaway J White disciple answer…equate an opinion to an infallible dogma or doctrine. Nice try. Won’t work.
1. Answered: You DO NOT KNOW WHAT BOOKS ARE REQUIRED IN THE NT.

James White is really under your skin isn’t he. Believe me, that is not where I get my material. I am just discussing, coming up with this as I go!

I am morally certian what books are in the Bible, just like I am morally certian that God exists, Christ rose from the grave, and that the sun is going to rise. Same as you, unless you are infallible.

Indeed I do, sir. It’s the Very Church that is the “pillar and foundation of the TRUTH”

I suppose that you mean the Roman Catholic Church . Anyway, question begging.

That’s how I infallibly know there are 27 NT books, and Heb. is required to be one of them, regardless of the opposition to it for 300 years.

Come on. There was not that much opposition. I have studied this extensively.

Concerning your “infallibility” see below.

That same Church told me so, infallibly.*** I echo her Infallible declaration***.

But are you infallibly certian that she is correct? If so, how?

You have no such Church.

Don’t need one. I don’t want to outsource my theology (i.e. give controls of my beliefs to an institution). Does not do good for true belief.

You have…you…and sometimes J. White the hi preest of heresy imbued with syrup…to rely on. Which by your own admission, could be in error.

There he is again. White. Sound like you are pretty anti-Protestant. Is that true?

By your own admission, you have no idea in SS what books are even required in the NT.

Where did I admit that?

By your own admission, you have no way of giving infallible interpretations.

Don’t need it.

**

SS bites the dust. … for umptenth time.

**

Non sequitor

You have NO infallible evidence outside the Church of Rome.

Question begging.

So, it’s quite worthless except to the ignorant.
Pleeeeease. You just admitted that you cannot even determine infallibly what books include “God’s word” .
Are the 8 million Mormons “smart enough”. Are the 2 million High Anglicans “smart enough”? Are the 1,000,000,000 Catholics “smart enough”? Are the 2 million “Churches of Christ” members “smart enough”? Are the 17 milliom baptists “smart enough”? Are the 1 million Quakers “smart enough”? Or is what you are saying really mean only YOU are smart enough?

You really have no confidence in yourself to come to know truth do you? I admire your belief in your own sinfulness and the way it affects our minds ability to comprehend the truth (noetic effects of sin), but how did you have so much confidence to think that you are making the right decision in chosing the Roman Catholic Church?

Have a good night my friend, I hope you are doing well.

Michael

 

[dennisknapp]

Hey, did I just get side-stepped here?

Peace

 

[michaelp]

Sorry Dennis. A lot of responses.

What does this “speaking” entail? I refered to the fact that it preserves and clarifies, what does not make sense about this?

Not sure what you mean. Teaching. Making the Scriptures clear. Accurately evaluating the culture and applying God’s truth.

You seem to be saying that to infallibly speak for God infers being able to teach something new.

Not necessarily. Many of the prophets of the OT were just clarifying, condeming and applying the already given truth of the Law. Christ did that much.

Jesus and the Apostles were giving credibility to their new teachings and therefore needed signs to show their authority, correct?

They had to show signs for the authority with which they spoke. That was the issue in 2 Cor. 12:12. Not new revelation.

What the Church does it hand on and clarify what was already verified by signs and wonders, there need not be any more.

I agree with this statement perfectly. But

Hence:

CCC 889
"In order to **preserve **the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a ‘supernatural sense of faith’ the People of God, under the guidence of the Church’s living Magisterium, ‘unfailingly adheres to this faith.’

Take out infallibility, and I agree with this too.

Check ya dude. Turning in. Be back soon, but I am going out of town. So if you don’t see me for a while, I will be back. Hope that your family is doing well. Anything I can pray for you about?

Michael

 

[dennisknapp]

michaelp:

Sorry Dennis. A lot of responses.

Not sure what you mean. Teaching. Making the Scriptures clear. Accurately evaluating the culture and applying God’s truth.

Not necessarily. Many of the prophets of the OT were just clarifying, condeming and applying the already given truth of the Law. Christ did that much.

They had to show signs for the authority with which they spoke. That was the issue in 2 Cor. 12:12. Not new revelation.

I agree with this statement perfectly. But

Take out infallibility, and I agree with this too.

Check ya dude. Turning in. Be back soon, but I am going out of town. So if you don’t see me for a while, I will be back. Hope that your family is doing well. Anything I can pray for you about?

Michael

Infallible Christ establishes His Church and Church infallibily preserves and hand on what Christ taught. This is what is meant by the Church being salt and light. Salt (preserve) and light (clarify). In order to safeguard the truth infallibility needs to be there.

Have a great trip. I will PM you with some prayer requests.

Peace

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I have finished checking 2cor12:12

I do not see anything which mandates that an apostle or prophet must perform a miracle / sign in order to be sent by God.

Use of the indefinite argument is of no help – in English or Greek.

“the signs of a (indefinite article showing that it is all apostles) apostle were performed among you.”

If I say I have the sleeve cover of ‘a’ bible, does not mean that I have the sleeve cover of ALL bibles – even though the article ‘a’ is indefinite.
It doesn’t even mean that ALL bibles have sleeve covers.
In like manner, Paul’s saying that he worked the sign(s) of an apostle does not mean that he worked all such signs, nor that ALL apostles work miracles/signs.

The adjective ‘ALL’ is not part of the text. Reading ALL into 2 cor12:12 is all ‘eisousis’.

I see no proof from scripture that an apostle MUST work a miracle to be an apostle/prophet. ( I am using apostle in the loose sense of ‘one sent’, not in the restrictive sense of the Twelve, which is the same as what you appear to be doing. )

So what I am seeing is a theory, that since most figures in the OT and bible appear to use signs as proof, then everyone must do so.
But,
If it is the norm for most of the Apostles to perform miracles/signs/wonders, and yet there are exceptions, how do you know the Pope is not an exception for a reason?
You have a correlation (statistic), but no provable law.

Again, some Popes have been ‘verified’ by miraculous signs. Would you be willing to follow the teachings of one of those Popes? ( The obvious corolary is that the present Pope teaches the same thing. )

 

[michaelp]

Huiou Theou:

I have finished checking 2cor12:12

I do not see anything which mandates that an apostle or prophet must perform a miracle / sign in order to be sent by God.

Use of the indefinite argument is of no help – in English or Greek.

If I say I have the sleeve cover of ‘a’ bible, does not mean that I have the sleeve cover of ALL bibles – even though the article ‘a’ is indefinite.
It doesn’t even mean that ALL bibles have sleeve covers.
In like manner, Paul’s saying that he worked the sign(s) of an apostle does not mean that he worked all such signs, nor that ALL apostles work miracles/signs.

Your illustration fails for many reasons. First, it begs the question since all Bible do not necessarily have to have a sleeve cover. In other word, sleeve covers are not a necessary attribute of what a Bible is. In the context of 2 Cor 12:12, Paul is defending his apostleship agains “so-called super apostles.” Those who were claiming apostolic authority. Paul enters and says that they are not true Apostles since the sign of a true apostle is that they perform signs. If it was just the sign of some apostle, Paul’s argument would not make sense both contextually (since he would have have an arguement or historically (since all the apostles did have signs and wonders).

You illustration would be better if you were trying to prove that you had a real (true) bible becuase the sign of a real (true) bible was that it had a cover. This would then invalidate all other bibles. But this is not true. Therefore, it does not work. It is a false analogy.

Now if you said that I have a true Bible because it contains books (indefinite attribute of Bibles), then it would be true.

Context is everything.

The adjective ‘ALL’ is not part of the text. Reading ALL into 2 cor12:12 is all ‘eisousis’.

Context, context, context. It can’t be eisogesis (is that what you mean?) since Paul’s arguement makes no sense otherwise.

I see no proof from scripture that an apostle MUST work a miracle to be an apostle/prophet.

Deut 13, 18, 1 Cor. 12:12 (also see Isa. 40-48 for God’s verification of Himself against the other people who claim to speak for God through prophecy).

I am using apostle in the loose sense of ‘one sent’, not in the restrictive sense of the Twelve, which is the same as what you appear to be doing.

I am fine with that. I am using is as one sent with authority. There were particular ones who were sent with the authority of God and had the witness of seeing a resurrected Christ (Acts 1).

So what I am seeing is a theory, that since most figures in the OT and bible appear to use signs as proof, then everyone must do so.
But,
If it is the norm for most of the Apostles to perform miracles/signs/wonders, and yet there are exceptions, how do you know the Pope is not an exception for a reason?

Who are the exceptions? I don’t know of any that did not perform signs themselves or were not validated by someone who showed the signs.

Even if I were to grant you John. Are you going to say that the one exception to the hundreds of illustrations now provides the rule?? And that no person who claims infallible apostolic succession must perform them any longer?? That is a stretch to me.

But I cannot even give you John since he was authenticated by the testimony of Christ.

You have a correlation (statistic), but no provable law.

The evidence seem to support it 100%. Does your one exception, John, provide your rule???

Again, some Popes have been ‘verified’ by miraculous signs. Would you be willing to follow the teachings of one of those Popes?

If they did things indisputably like the apostles, where non could deny the claim and they did their signs in public in order to authenticate their message (like the Apostles and prophets did), then, yes, I would believe them . . . so long as their message did not conflict with already reveald truth (Gal. 1:8; Deut 13).

Michael

 

[mercygate]

michaelp:

Yes, you are right. And to illustrate I could say, you attempt base your doctrine of Transubstantiation on Scripture.

The fully worked-out doctrine of Transubstantiation is not to be found on the surface of Scripture, although the Real Presence is clearly there. Transubstantiation is but a working-out of the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which is quite readily demonstrated by Scripture and, just as importantly, universally believed by the Apostolic and sub-Apostolic Church.

As well, you attempt to base you doctrine of infallibility on it.

Infallibility emerges from the deeper doctrine of the Church as the Body of Christ, and is a “note” which rises, of necessity, from the commission to teach by the authority of the Holy Spirit who will “guide you into all the truth.” “Infallibility” is not an arrogation but rather a trust in Christ’s promise to his Church. For Scripture to be inerrant, it must be affirmed by a Church which has the note of infallibility. Scripture, without the Church, is incomprehensible – or, at best, only partially comprehensible.

But allegations are not the important thing here, evidence is.

Catholics, of course, would say that the history of the early Church – which no one denies is the same Church we know as the Catholic Church today – is evidence, indeed, that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded.

Oh, another thing, your insistence of the necessity of works is based on it.

Quite so, and without apologies since the inseparability of faith and works is testified to throughout Scripture. Actually, I believe that even sola fide Protestants are closer to the Catholic position and vice versa than many of us realize (unless you take the extreme Lutheran antinomian position) but that is another thread.

Could we go on and on? These types of comments are unnecessary, aren’t they?

Michael

You refer to my comment that all the best heresies arise from Scripture. Why should we not expect a defender of “sola Scriptura,” to address the matter of doctrinal discernment?

 

[st_felicity]

mercygate:

Catholics, of course, would say that the history of the early Church – which no one denies is the same Church we know as the Catholic Church today – is evidence, indeed, that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded.

Originally Posted by **michaelp **on http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=43684&page=3

Yes, Catholic, not Roman Catholic which did not around, in the opinion of Evangelicals until the 11th or 12th centuries.

2. Evangelicals believe that they represent the true Church and that Roman Catholicism is a recent movement. (true)

 

[mercygate]

Evangelicals believe that they represent the true Church and that Roman Catholicism is a recent movement. (true)

Ah yes. I am not sure what your parenthetical “true” refers to: that evangelicals believe that “Roman” Catholicism is a recent development and not the true early Church or that the “Roman” Catholic Church is not in fact the same Church as the Apostolic Church? (N.b., Some evangelicals do accept the history; fundamentalists tend not to.)

If the latter, then even the historic record will likely not persuade them otherwise. I was converted to the Church by the historic record as the Holy Spirit drew me to accept (kicking and screaming every inch of the way) the inescapable consequences of acknowledging the facts – which I learned in a secular setting, not through the Church, BTW. The Scriptures attest to the Church (this is a thread on sola Scriptura). The only Church supported by the historic record is the Catholic Church (which of course includes the Churches of the East before the schism).

 

[st_felicity]

mercygate:

Originally Posted by st_felicity

Evangelicals believe that they represent the true Church and that Roman Catholicism is a recent movement. (true)

Ah yes. I am not sure what your parenthetical “true” refers to: that evangelicals believe that “Roman” Catholicism is a recent development and not the true early Church or that the “Roman” Catholic Church is not in fact the same Church as the Apostolic Church? (N.b., Some evangelicals do accept the history; fundamentalists tend not to.)

If the latter, then even the historic record will likely not persuade them otherwise. I was converted to the Church by the historic record as the Holy Spirit drew me to accept (kicking and screaming every inch of the way) the inescapable consequences of acknowledging the facts – which I learned in a secular setting, not through the Church, BTW. The Scriptures attest to the Church (this is a thread on sola Scriptura). The only Church supported by the historic record is the Catholic Church (which of course includes the Churches of the East before the schism).

:bigyikes: :bigyikes::bigyikesLEASE don’t attribute that nonsense to me–I was simply quoting from the Why did He let them walk away? thread something that helped me see michealp in a more honest light. He does not believe the current “Roman” Catholic Church is the same Church Christ founded–but for some reason he fails to be honest about that to people he engages in conversation–and that is why they can’t comprehend his assertions concerning such things as discussed here. He’s not interested in honest discussion–he wants to proselytize.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=43684&page=3
see for yourself–he’s also rather insulting on that page in a few other posts–like Catholics have “blind alliegence” etc…