I’m not sure what you mean, but even if we have no written record of the apostles themselves speaking of confession, this doesn’t say anything, since it was Jesus Himself giving them this power. But there are a lot of ECFs that spoke of confession:
Why would it be their failing?
I think you are dodging the question
that ultimately we will be victorious against all of satan’s forces?REally!? What do you think it means?
And yet, you do nothing to correct me…
Are we now to leave people in their errors? Or are we to rebuke them, lovingly, from scripture?“all”?
Translations such as the Living Bible are not meant to be literal, but conveying the meaning. Their success or failure I do not know of. But merely claiming that it is poor does not make it, nor others, actually poor.
And yet, when Scripture contradicts Tradition, it is explained away using Tradition…If Tradition can affect how we see the Scriptures, but the Scriptures cannot change or affect Tradition, it sounds like Tradition is above Scripture.
Ah, so this is a proof that Roman Catholicism is not true? Because when I meet their teachings, their ‘successors of the apostles’, it is anything but clear?
Really, whats so different about it? And you mind telling me what is so different for about 1600 years where the majority of people who claimed Christianity for the faith could not have access to the bible, let alone know how to read. About 75% of Christians in Africa are illiterate today.
Thats quite some language for something that you don’t adhere to. PILLAR AND FOUNDATION, remember that.
If I believe in Sola Scriptura, whom do I have to reject? And if you are a 1st century Christian, or a 9th century Christian that can’t read or doesn’t have access to a bible, who do you think they are “listening” to, as Our Lord put it?
I’m not a philosopher. I’m a mere human who knows tangible fact from what is not tangible. Rain is tangible. You are tangible. Even the Bible is tangible Its inspiration is not. You accept one set of books. The Catholics accept another. The Orthodox yet another. When asked which to accept, you lay down criteria and standards for the books of the Bible, none of which come from the Bible itself (and even if it did, it cannot avoid circular reasoning). Hence, I need to accept your authority. This means there is an authority other than Scripture Alone.
I’m making no proofs or defenses for Tradition. If I did based on Tradition, I would indeed be using circular logic, which is a fallacy. I’m not taking the Catholic side. I’m just asking you to prove yours and simply show me why Sola Scriptura is not a self-defeating proposition by reason and logic alone.
This preceding paragraph is not in the Bible. The Bible does not present itself as the standard (it presents the Church as that) against which traditions are measured. This paragraph in itself is therefore a tradition, since it is an extra-biblical standard.
I for one am not trying to prove you wrong. You just need to show that your initial premise: “Scripture is inspired” is right. That’s all. Sola Scriptura rests on this single premise.I never claimed it did
These are not straw men. You tried to prove Paul using Peter, so naturally you must prove Peter too. You are reasonable; you know that you need to prove that these books are inspired without resorting to circular reasoning. You tried to cite Jesus as accepting the Old Testament, but your only source for this is the Gospel, so you must also show that the Gospel has authority, hence my demand to show that Matthew is inspired.
This is not the case, hvg. The base of the Holy Traditions is Jesus. It is He who gave the apostolic authority. This is not circular.
This is an absurd conclusion. Since the Holy Tradition was given to the Apostles by Jesus long before any of it was written, of course it is not “based” on the Bible!
hvg… even the Apostles believe in Tradition. You don’t believe it? Find out for yourself here:Disagree!
If you read the text again, you can clearly see that Peter’s mistake was not in his teaching. The mistake was in his hypocrital behavior. Peter was not teaching anything contrary to what the Council of Jerusalem decided. His fault was in failing to follow the teaching himself. Barnabas was influenced by his behavior, which needed correction. The Church’s teaching on infallibility no where says that teachers do not err.
This is entirely Catholic of you, hvg! God’s word is found in the Holy Writings and in the Holy Traditions. Both sources of this divine deposit of faith should take precedence over the traditions of men (including those of the protestant reformers).
I am amazed that you would put yourself in the position to determine, of yourself, what constitutes “the fullness of time”. God of course, is able to take as much time as He sees fit to accomplish His will on earth, and is in no way answerable to your sense of timeliness!
Maybe you should write to the college of cardinals? Tell them they are not making spiritual discernment as swiftly as you think it should be done?
I am not questioning Peter’s testimony. I am pointing out that it is his testimony that validates the scriptures. Even so, when he refers to "all " scripture, he is referring to what we know of as the “Old Testament” (Moses, Psalms, Prophets). The bible used by Jesus. The rest of the NT was not written yet when Peter made that statement.
Exactly! And his peers and successors, to whom that information was faithfully passed down.
Indeed! So much so that He can keep His promise that He will lead his Church into all truth.
Of course we do! That is like saying that nothing would be lost if the original constitution went up on flames! It may not be essential for salvation, but that does not mean it was without value.
Sometimes the claims of God are foolishness to the world.
Not exactly. They were not called “Roman” at the time that contents page was compiled. Also, the protestant reformers removed some of the books that had been authorized for inclusion. However, the vast majority of what you are looking at was, indeed, compiled by the successors of the apostles, in union with the Pope.
Yes, but it was the Church who proclaimed those writings to be part of the God inspired canon that we now have.
I am glad we finally have agreement about something!
Your question seems to assume that there are “right” and “wrong” churches. Coming from a black-and-white Roman Catholic stance, that is understandable. But it is not correct.
Please, show me more.
Such as Peter teaching others, including Barnabas? They were all led astray.
You seem to forget what Peter did previously. He, three times, denied Jesus. He felt pretty darn bad. Now, Jesus asks him three times if he loves him. (theres the whole greek thing about different loves used by Jesus and Peter which I will not go into here) Three times, to make up for the three times of denial. This was not saying “You are the big boss now, and other big bosses will follow after you”. This was Jesus reinstating him as a disciple!
And it is stuff like this that gets scarily close to idolatry. God promised a shepherd for his people, but that shepherd was going to be God. Not a mere human.
Now we are getting somewhere!
Do you really think anyone could successfully “feed” ALL His sheep without the gift of infallibility [recall the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, Matt 16:18]?
I was just judging it by when the first pope was around. Cant remember for sure, but I think it was in the early 400’s. The 47th pope, I think, by your reckoning, but the first without imposing the title and role on those who did not claim it themselves.
Take a history course buddy.
Perhaps, Jesus did not mean this ‘power’ to be as Roman Catholicism teaches. And the disciples understood it in the way that Jesus meant, and thus did not use it as RCT teaches?
=> “they generally don’t practice is since they submit to their own pastors and their beliefs.”
I am curious what you think the power was, or how it was meant to be used. I think the Apostles understood it exactly, and I think they taught it to their sucessors exactly. I think the HS has preserved this teaching exactly as Jesus promised He would.
He. Did. Not. Have. The. New. Testament.
And what do we do? Preach to them in some strange language they do not understand? Or help them with schooling and translating the Bible into their own language?
Really? It asserts that the Catholic Church wrote the Bible? Are you planning on showing this, or do I have to take your word for it?
In what way do I not adhere to that?
Who do you reject? Simply those who do not teach in line with the Bible. Those who place themselves as above the Bible.
Correct, except you might take the marriage thing a bit too far
You reject the teaching authority appointed by Christ.
Are you saying that the church being the bride of Christ is not consistent with your Bible?!Correct, except you might take the marriage thing a bit too far
If you are asserting nothing, then I need prove nothing! ooh - there you go! asserting something! Prove it, then
Not at all. I have made a statement, I have offered my support for said statement. If you still disagree with it, then you need to show why it is not enough, or why it is incorrect.
They are indeed straw men.
You really think I’m going to waste my time and explain where we got the bible from? Try a good book.Really? It asserts that the Catholic Church wrote the Bible? Are you planning on showing this, or do I have to take your word for it?
And yet, where does the idea/proof for apostolic succession come from?
It was? And what proof of that do we have? Moreso - what proof of what this “Holy Tradition” that Jesus gave them actually was?
So do you give up your assertion that Scripture is inspired?
Without admitting its inspiration: 1 Tim 3:15.ooh - there you go! asserting something! Prove it, then
I don’t need to. I’m not trying to advance my position over yours. I’m not saying you are incorrect. Your supporting evidence is from the very thing you are trying to establish.
I refuted nothing so far. I just asked you to show me that Matthew was inspired. That’s all.