Sola Scriptura family problem

[JonathanKinsman]

Justasking4:

Michael’s quote: “The fruit of Sola Scriptura has been mass confusion.”

Your reply: “…However, there is much agreement among them as far as I know (except JWs) on key doctrines.”

Doctrines? Doctrines? What ‘key doctrines?’ Are we talking ‘baptism,’ and ‘justification by faith alone,’ two Protestant doctrines that have almost as many divergent views as the number of sects? Look at Baptists. What do they believe about the ones I’ve listed? Compare that with Assembly of God or Pentacostal denominations. Or Society of Friends. Or any one on the web who claims to know the inside scoop on who the anti-Christ is or the Whore of Babylon.

Justasking4; to paraphrase out of context: their name is legion.

There is NO agreement among Protestant sects about any Traditional or Scriptural doctrine.

There is talk of ‘lost’ manuscripts proving their point, whether it is proof that the Church is in apostasy or was taken over by the Illuminati or the Da Vinci Code bunch back in the Quattrocento. Remember the claims back in the 70s about that lost African civilization that discovered every modern convenience, algebra, the alphabet, engineering solutions, et cetera? But then those nasty Greeks and other Europeans destroyed the evidence after stealing all their culture. The first teller of this tale was a professor at a state university in New Jersey. He still teaches our youth.

Analogies go a long way in understanding where claims begin to enter the realm of Art Bell and company.

Your quote: “Jesus [is] in control of His church.” Again, you are assuming, contra to written evidence (the NT) and oral Tradition, that the ‘church’ is some invisible floating entity that alights where it will. According to those scriptures you claim to hold so dear, it is the Church He founded upon Peter and the other Apostles and instituted with the Holy Spirit at Pentacost.

Look at the Bible and its message as a Thanksgiving dinner at the Kinsmans. We are eating certain foods in certain prepared ways in a certain order, with great California Pinot Noirs and Chardonnays (okay, for my daughter and son-in-law I allow their Zinfandels). We pray a certain way and we end our dinner with a prayer.

If you were our guest, you would abide by our ways. I would not allow you to bring pizza, or beer, or turn on the television to see the Cowboys. It is my house and my rules. I set them up and I am responsible for their smooth (or not so smooth) execution.

You are free not to come. Or, you may come and eat a little of this and not of that. But you cannot change my traditional Thanksgiving feast. If you want to, I encourage you to start your own Thanksgiving traditions with others of similar bent.

That is the Catholic Church. It is not a cafeteria or party where individuals bring their own meat and drink. It does not change the menu, although those sitting at the table change (and may be pleasant or disagreeable to sit next to).

The menu is predictable. The outcome is predictable. It does not change due to the whims or trends of the moment.

That is hard to swallow for most Americans. We like it our way or we hit the highway. Look at those church hopping Protestants looking for that charismatic preacher, or that feel-good congregation that glad hands and offers to drive you to bible study! Or the door to door proselytizers, pointing to their “other testament of the Lord Jesus” or glossy magazines on why Rome is wrong.

Look, I am so fortunate so blessed to be able to practice my Faith. A Faith founded by the one I believe to be God. My Faith teaches that God gave you and Michael and me the free will to choose any thing: apples or oranges, chasteness or perversion, Anaheim Angels or dreaded NY Yankees. The whole gamut. But we are responsible for our choices. And our choices should dovetail with our Faith.

Those who profess the Christian faith on their rear windows sometimes have contrary beliefs or thoughts expressed along side of the two-kneeling-at-the-cross decal. Problem here?
I would think so.

Some people are so virulent in politics (it doesn’t matter what side) and their views are contrary to their ‘moral system’ [for those who profess agnosticism or some mutated form of Zen Buddhism] or their christian faith, yet they see no contradiction.

What I am trying to get you to understand is that a personal interpretation of Scripture is as valid as a personal interpretation of the Penal Code, or the US Constitution, or the Rules of Chess for that matter. How about 2+3=19 anyone? Look to how the visual and performing arts have changed. Anything goes if nothing matters. If I think its art then its art.

When there are no rules to go by, no Tradition of thoughtful analysis and discussion to consider, then anything you want to believe (remember Free Will?) is doctrinal.

 

[Philthy]

It is true that the catholic church did help to define the canon correctly. The church only recognized what the canon was. It did not create the scripture.

“Only” recognized what the canon was??? Somehow that seems like the understatement of the year - without recognizing what the canon is there is no way of knowing Scripture from non-Scripture. :yup:
Also, when you say the church “did not create scripture” you are mistaken. The apostles held the “office” of apostle within the Church and wrote Scripture as the teaching authority of the Church, guided by the holy Spirit. The non-Apostolic Scripture (Mark, Luke et al) was written by men who were given (and determined to possess) the same charism of the holy Spirit that the Apostles had - where did they get it from, and why - isnt it recorded in Scripture? Why is it not even hinted in the OT that a NT is forthcoming?

 

[mikeledes]

If we are not to go beyond what is written, then masturbation, abortion, and cloning should be allowed because there is no passage in the Bible that explictly deal with these issues. I know I’ve uses this example before, but when is a person actually married before God? Is it when they exchange vows before a designated authority? Is it when they consumate their union? Does a marriage have to be witnessed by anyone? Please point to the passages in the Bible that specifically address these questions. Don’t spend too much time looking, because you won’t find any passages that specifically address these questions. What will we do if we are not supposed to go beyond what is written?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[tequilamac]

If we are not to go beyond what is written, then masturbation, abortion, and cloning should be allowed because there is no passage in the Bible that explictly deal with these issues. I know I’ve uses this example before, but when is a person actually married before God? Is it when they exchange vows before a designated authority? Is it when they consumate their union? Does a marriage have to be witnessed by anyone? Please point to the passages in the Bible that specifically address these questions. Don’t spend too much time looking, because you won’t find any passages that specifically address these questions. What will we do if we are not supposed to go beyond what is written?

God Bless,
Michael

You forgot about embryonic stem cell research. There is nothing in the Bible on this either. Therefore sola scripturists would have us make no moral decision on this issue either. In fact, when you get right down to it, sola scripturists would give science a free hand in life and death.

 

[justasking4]

Part 1

Good Morning everyone!

Well. Justasking4, we are finally getting down to brass tacks!

1. Your quote: “We are to examine everything they teach us as 1Thess 5:21-22 exhort us to.”
   

Of course, that’s good if we will forget 2 Thess 2:15 in which St Paul encourages the same local church to “stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.” St Paul is delineating doctrine, Torah doctrine, scripture from the Old Testament, to the church in Thessalonia and how it was fulfilled in Jesus as Messiah. This is NOT a reference to good, bad and indifferent clergy in centuries to come.

However, this is a clear example of the Protestant tendency to pick and choose passages to support non-Traditional, unorthodox, unhistorical Christian theology. Or events which have not occurred.

1. Your quote: “That’s why we must know the scriptures and hold all doctrines and practices to it.”

Again, St Paul’s (and everyone else’s at that time) “scriptures” were Jewish and not his Epistles or any other of the 27 books of the NT.
Not so. Peter in 2 Peter 3:15-16 implies that his letters are equated with scripture

 

[justasking4]

part 2

1. Your quote: “It is only the scriptures alone that is inspired and inerrent. No teacher, church or man is above them.”

Hooray, call Rome! We found the doctrinal source for Sola Scriptura! Oops, it’s not in the OT or in any early Church document about the Bible!

What Tradition or doctrine in the catholic church is considered inspired-inerrant as the Scripture is?

It must be your PRIVATE interpretation, then.
What interpretation of the scriptures do youdepend on when you read scripture? Does your church have a an infallible-inerrant-inspired explaination of all the verses in the Scripture? If so, then i would like to see it. Otherwise it appears you to are left with your own PRIVATE interpretation.

Jesus was a man and a teacher. He said He taught his Apostles things about the Kingdom of God that He kept from other Disciples. Was He lying? These things are not in our Bible, so where are they, Justasking4??

The Church of Jesus is the one he founded.
How can this be when you look at the structure described in NT and it does not match up with your church exactly? Take celibate leadership.Paul lays out one of the qualifications for leadership in I Tim 3:2 as one who is married. Your church disqualifies married men from high leadership positions just because they are married.

It is not some invisible construct of Protestantism. It does not float from denomination to denomination. If it did, then whomever claims the Holy Spirit for divine inspiration (as Zerinus the Mormon does on other threads) is as valid as anyone else. St Luke in Acts stresses that the resurrected Jesus stayed with his Disciples (Apostles included) and taught them about the Kingdom of Heaven. He said they would “receive power when the holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judea adn Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

We Catholic trust in Jesus (the Hebrew language had no word for faith, the word they used translates as ‘trust’) and what He taught.

What language is the NT written in?

This is why, through Apostolic Succession, we know what the Holy Spirit wants. It has been passed down, orally and in scripture, through the centuries, through Apostle to disciple to bishop to priest to the present day.

Where is this apostolic succession taught as an office for all time in scripture?

This teaching has not varied. Forget the bad, evil popes and the idiot kingdoms under the banners of Rome and Geneva and Luther killing each other.

We must not forget the bad popes and the mistakes of your church in time. Even Jesus warned by their fruits you will know them

Whenever the Church (that’s the visible, Catholic Church, organized by Jesus and given its authority at Pentacost) teaches on matters of Faith it is inerrant.
What am i to make of the case of Joan of Arc? Your church condemned her as a heritic (matters of faith) and burned at the stake. Years later, your church reversed itself and she went from being a heritic to a saint.

To hold otherwise is to subject all of what was collected (regardless of how you feel about the process) by various Catholic bishops and promulgated by Catholic Popes and Councils, as false and in error.

You don’t take anything else out of context (I hope you don’t or your life will be a shambles), so why take the historical OT leading to the new covenant in the NT and the progression of the Kingdom of God (through the teaching of the Church) throughout the world out of context?

Not sure what you saying here. Can you give me an example where you think i have?

 

[justasking4]

part 2

1. Your quote: “It is only the scriptures alone that is inspired and inerrent. No teacher, church or man is above them.”

Hooray, call Rome! We found the doctrinal source for Sola Scriptura! Oops, it’s not in the OT or in any early Church document about the Bible!

What Tradition or doctrine in the catholic church is considered inspired-inerrant as the Scripture is?

It must be your PRIVATE interpretation, then.
What interpretation of the scriptures do youdepend on when you read scripture? Does your church have a an infallible-inerrant-inspired explaination of all the verses in the Scripture? If so, then i would like to see it. Otherwise it appears you to are left with your own PRIVATE interpretation.

Jesus was a man and a teacher. He said He taught his Apostles things about the Kingdom of God that He kept from other Disciples. Was He lying? These things are not in our Bible, so where are they, Justasking4??

The Church of Jesus is the one he founded.
How can this be when you look at the structure described in NT and it does not match up with your church exactly? Take celibate leadership.Paul lays out one of the qualifications for leadership in I Tim 3:2 as one who is married. Your church disqualifies married men from high leadership positions just because they are married.

It is not some invisible construct of Protestantism. It does not float from denomination to denomination. If it did, then whomever claims the Holy Spirit for divine inspiration (as Zerinus the Mormon does on other threads) is as valid as anyone else. St Luke in Acts stresses that the resurrected Jesus stayed with his Disciples (Apostles included) and taught them about the Kingdom of Heaven. He said they would “receive power when the holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judea adn Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

We Catholic trust in Jesus (the Hebrew language had no word for faith, the word they used translates as ‘trust’) and what He taught.

What language is the NT written in?

This is why, through Apostolic Succession, we know what the Holy Spirit wants. It has been passed down, orally and in scripture, through the centuries, through Apostle to disciple to bishop to priest to the present day.

Where is this apostolic succession taught as an office for all time in scripture?

This teaching has not varied. Forget the bad, evil popes and the idiot kingdoms under the banners of Rome and Geneva and Luther killing each other.

We must not forget the bad popes and the mistakes of your church in time. Even Jesus warned by their fruits you will know them

Whenever the Church (that’s the visible, Catholic Church, organized by Jesus and given its authority at Pentacost) teaches on matters of Faith it is inerrant.
What am i to make of the case of Joan of Arc? Your church condemned her as a heritic (matters of faith) and burned at the stake. Years later, your church reversed itself and she went from being a heritic to a saint.

To hold otherwise is to subject all of what was collected (regardless of how you feel about the process) by various Catholic bishops and promulgated by Catholic Popes and Councils, as false and in error.

You don’t take anything else out of context (I hope you don’t or your life will be a shambles), so why take the historical OT leading to the new covenant in the NT and the progression of the Kingdom of God (through the teaching of the Church) throughout the world out of context?

Not sure what you saying here. Can you give me an example where you think i have?

 

[justasking4]

mikeledes:
I guess Martin Luther’s approval of violence against Jews for not converting to his version of Christianity and Calvin’s burning of Servetus as a heretic clearly show that they were men of God and taught the Gospel of Christ, despite the fact that they virulently disagreed with each other on what this Gospel meant. All of this is a sure sign that they were guided by the Holy Spirit.

If this is what they did then it was wrong. I’m sure you are also aware of what your church has done with inquistion (with the approval of the pope?) and the burning of some of the protestants. Was this a sign of being guided by the HS?

Catholic leaders may have committed sins, but all of the most notorius examples occured over a thousand years after the Church was founded.

The beliefs of the Catholic Church in 900 were the same beliefs in 1500.
Are you sure about this? I thought celibacy for priests, the rosary. and the sale of indulgences were unknown before 900. Is this corrrect?

The Protestant reformers, on the other hand, either had blood on their hands or encouraged bloodshed. And these are the FOUNDING FATHERS of Protestantism! None of the immoral popes or bishops accused of atrocties founded the Catholic Church.

I wasn’t aware of all the bloodshed by all the reformers. Thats wrong. Is this not what you would expect from them who were not guided by the HS?

I don’t particularly care to get into these kinds of matters to much since there really is no way to defend it nor does it advance the cause of Christ. Both churches have erred greviously on these kinds of things. Need i bring up the inquistion for example? the burning at the stake of John Huss? Or wasn’t Joan of arc also put to death and later the catholic church reversed itself about that? Or the priest scandal that i would think brings you great disgust and embarassment? I may disagree with catholics on a number of issues but i rather not use these things against them.

I don’t quite understand how the guidance of the Holy Spirit works in your church. How do you know specifically a particular individual is being led by the Holy Spirit? What signs do you look for that tells you truly that person i.e. leader is being led by the Spirit?

God bless,
Michael

 

[tequilamac]

I guess Martin Luther’s approval of violence against Jews for not converting to his version of Christianity and Calvin’s burning of Servetus as a heretic clearly show that they were men of God and taught the Gospel of Christ, despite the fact that they virulently disagreed with each other on what this Gospel meant. All of this is a sure sign that they were guided by the Holy Spirit.

If this is what they did then it was wrong. I’m sure you are also aware of what your church has done with inquistion (with the approval of the pope?) and the burning of some of the protestants. Was this a sign of being guided by the HS?

Catholic leaders may have committed sins, but all of the most notorius examples occured over a thousand years after the Church was founded.

The beliefs of the Catholic Church in 900 were the same beliefs in 1500.
Are you sure about this? I thought celibacy for priests, the rosary. and the sale of indulgences were unknown before 900. Is this corrrect?

The Protestant reformers, on the other hand, either had blood on their hands or encouraged bloodshed. And these are the FOUNDING FATHERS of Protestantism! None of the immoral popes or bishops accused of atrocties founded the Catholic Church.

I wasn’t aware of all the bloodshed by all the reformers. Thats wrong. Is this not what you would expect from them who were not guided by the HS?

I don’t particularly care to get into these kinds of matters to much since there really is no way to defend it nor does it advance the cause of Christ. Both churches have erred greviously on these kinds of things. Need i bring up the inquistion for example? the burning at the stake of John Huss? Or wasn’t Joan of arc also put to death and later the catholic church reversed itself about that? Or the priest scandal that i would think brings you great disgust and embarassment? I may disagree with catholics on a number of issues but i rather not use these things against them.

I don’t quite understand how the guidance of the Holy Spirit works in your church. How do you know specifically a particular individual is being led by the Holy Spirit? What signs do you look for that tells you truly that person i.e. leader is being led by the Spirit?

God bless,
Michael

Generally I look to see if he is wearing a white collar. The difference being between our churches is that not every tom dick and harry can get up and lead the congregation while being led by the Holy Spirit. Our priests and other members of the magesterium have the right and obligation to interpret the Gospel for instance at Mass. Not the laity. Therefore we do not have everyone in the congregation interpreting it differently and leading each other down the garden path. Ordination and apostolic succession are the chief signs of the person being led by the Holy Spirit in our Church.

 

[tequilamac]

I guess Martin Luther’s approval of violence against Jews for not converting to his version of Christianity and Calvin’s burning of Servetus as a heretic clearly show that they were men of God and taught the Gospel of Christ, despite the fact that they virulently disagreed with each other on what this Gospel meant. All of this is a sure sign that they were guided by the Holy Spirit.

If this is what they did then it was wrong. I’m sure you are also aware of what your church has done with inquistion (with the approval of the pope?) and the burning of some of the protestants. Was this a sign of being guided by the HS?

Catholic leaders may have committed sins, but all of the most notorius examples occured over a thousand years after the Church was founded.

The beliefs of the Catholic Church in 900 were the same beliefs in 1500.
Are you sure about this? I thought celibacy for priests, the rosary. and the sale of indulgences were unknown before 900. Is this corrrect?

The Protestant reformers, on the other hand, either had blood on their hands or encouraged bloodshed. And these are the FOUNDING FATHERS of Protestantism! None of the immoral popes or bishops accused of atrocties founded the Catholic Church.

I wasn’t aware of all the bloodshed by all the reformers. Thats wrong. Is this not what you would expect from them who were not guided by the HS?

I don’t particularly care to get into these kinds of matters to much since there really is no way to defend it nor does it advance the cause of Christ. Both churches have erred greviously on these kinds of things. Need i bring up the inquistion for example? the burning at the stake of John Huss? Or wasn’t Joan of arc also put to death and later the catholic church reversed itself about that? Or the priest scandal that i would think brings you great disgust and embarassment? I may disagree with catholics on a number of issues but i rather not use these things against them.

I don’t quite understand how the guidance of the Holy Spirit works in your church. How do you know specifically a particular individual is being led by the Holy Spirit? What signs do you look for that tells you truly that person i.e. leader is being led by the Spirit?

God bless,
Michael

Generally I look to see if he is wearing a white collar. The difference being between our churches is that not every tom dick and harry can get up and lead the congregation while being led by the Holy Spirit. Our priests and other members of the magesterium have the right and obligation to interpret the Gospel for instance at Mass. Not the laity. Therefore we do not have everyone in the congregation interpreting it differently and leading each other down the garden path. Ordination and apostolic succession are the chief signs of the person being led by the Holy Spirit in our Church.

 

[petra]

Originally Posted by petra
An indulgence is the remission of temporal punishment for sin.
Please see catholic.com/library/prim…ndulgences.asp

I already explained–see above.

Again, Matt. 16:18. Christ makes a promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church.

That may be but that does not mean its protected from the false teachers within. If it were it would not make sense for Jesus and His apostles to warn against false teachers.

That has already been explained. False teachers can and have existed. But their teachings can always be easily compared with the official teaching of the Catholic Church, which cannot err.

For it to really make sense, one needs to have a solid understanding of Sacred Tradition.

Would you happen to know where i can get a list of all the Traditions with there origins and by whom through the centuries? This would help me in understanding what exactly these Traditions are and how they came about.

Actually, the term is Tradition (singluar), rather than Traditions (plural). It is a concept rather than a list of items. Sacred Tradiiton is the means by which the Word (Christ) gave revelation to His Church. Some of this was recorded in Sacred Scripture, but not all of it (John 21:25). Catholics hold a high view of Christ as the Word of God because we believe and hold dear the entire deposit of faith. Sola scriptura Protestants hold a low view of Christ as the Word because they exclude Christ’s revelation that was not recorded in scripture.

It is very late, and I can’t go into much detail, but in a nutshell, your belief in the Scripture as the Word of God presupposes the infallibility of the teaching authority of Pope Damasus when he identified the early Christian writings that were divinely inspired and were to be “canonized.”…

Do you know the criteria that the church used to determined what was scripture and what was not?

Great question! The answer is the Church, led by the Holy Spiritu, supernaturally discerned which books were canonical. Any “criteria” that one wishes to impose after the fact will fail in the case of at least 1 of the books. The author of Hebrews is not known, so one can’t make the claim that only books that were written by apostles or people close to the apostles were included. Also there were other books that were written by apostles that were excluded. Just as the inspired scriptures themselves were a work of the Holy Spirit, so was the discernment of which writings were inspired. How could fallible men make such a perfect choice? The same way fallible men were able to pen inspired scriptures in the first place.

Again, the list was not obvious. In early church times, there were several classes of writings: Recognized Books (universally regarded as scripture), Disputed (or Spurious) Books, and Heretical Books. The disputed books were authentically written by apostles and disciples, generally had solid theology, and were still used for instruction, but there was skepticism about their divine inspiration. Included among the Disputed Books were: Hebrews, James, Jude, 2nd Peter, 2nd John, 3rd John, and Revelation (Eusebius, History of the Church). You will, of course, notice that these disputed book are included in your New Testament. Your trust in these writings as scripture presupposes the infallibility of the Church.

Protestants correctly view the Scriptures as the Word of God, but they do so without sufficient basis.

Not sure what you mean here. The scriptures are not the Word of God becasue some church or man says so but they are the Word of God because that is their nature. Take the OT for example. The catholic church did not make them the Word of God. They were understood before them to be the Word of God. It is true that the catholic church did help to define the canon correctly. The church only recognized what the canon was. It did not create the scripture.

You are correct that the Church did not take average writings, bless them, and viola! they became scripture. The Church infallability discerned their canonicity. But as shown above, this was not an obvious choice and could have only been accomplished through the Catholic Church acting infallibly. To reject this infallibility is to reject your Bible.

 

[justasking4]

“Only” recognized what the canon was??? Somehow that seems like the understatement of the year - without recognizing what the canon is there is no way of knowing Scripture from non-Scripture. :yup:

Do you know how the church went about determining the NT canon? What was the criteria they used?

Also, when you say the church “did not create scripture” you are mistaken. The apostles held the “office” of apostle within the Church and wrote Scripture as the teaching authority of the Church, guided by the holy Spirit.

What is the source of the scripture? The ideas of the apostles or the Spirit?

The non-Apostolic Scripture (Mark, Luke et al) was written by men who were given (and determined to possess) the same charism of the holy Spirit that the Apostles had - where did they get it from, and why - isnt it recorded in Scripture?
Evidenetly the Holy Spirit didn’t deem that important.

Why is it not even hinted in the OT that a NT is forthcoming?

Good question. What does your church say?

 

[petra]

Also, when you say the church “did not create scripture” you are mistaken. The apostles held the “office” of apostle within the Church and wrote Scripture as the teaching authority of the Church, guided by the holy Spirit.

 

[mikeledes]

The point I was making, justasking4, is that sins committed by members in the Church do not necessarily affect the teachings of the Church. Do you believe the teachings of Martin Luther and John Calvin on Sola Scriptura were right, despite the fact that they both committed sins? Were they guided by the Holy Spirit in their teaching, despite the fact that they did not always live up to Christian values?

The Catholic Church is the only Christian institution that can trace itself back to the Apostolic age. If you don’t accept doctrinal continuity, then you have to accept institutional
continuity. We can trace back the Bishops of Rome (i.e. Popes) back to the Apostolic era. And this is thoroughly documented.

God established the Church not only to be a loose fellowship of believers, but an ORGANIZED BODY, an INSTITUTION (Please read Acts 15:6-30 & 16:4). He established this institution to be the “pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15).” If God made the church the pillar and foundation of truth, then it must be a pillar and foundation that can withstand all error and heresy. That is why Jesus promises in Matthew 16:18 that the gates of hell will not overcome His Church. That is why GOD gave us teachers and pastors so that we would not be deceived by any wind of doctrine and would be able to identify heresies like that of the Nicolaitans mentioned in Revelation. In other words, God gave us a teaching authority that would be trustworthy and through which the Holy Spirit would guide us in matters of DOCTRINE.

I firmly believe that the Protestant Reformation was the Sixteenth century version of the rebellion of Korah (Numbers 16:1-11). Korah rebelled against the authority of the Chair of Moses established by God Himself (Matthew 23:1-3), and the Protestant reformers rebelled against the authority of the Chair of Saint Peter established by God Himself (Matthew 16:18-19, John 21:15-17). The result has been mass confusion reflected in a diversity of competing churches. Like I said earlier, God is not the author of confusion.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[justasking4]

I already explained–see above.

That has already been explained. False teachers can and have existed. But their teachings can always be easily compared with the official teaching of the Catholic Church, which cannot err.

Since the assumption of Mary and indulgences are not in scripture there must have been a time when there was no “offical teaching” on this. How do you comapre a teaching if there is no scriptural grounds or offical teaching in which to compare it with?

Actually, the term is Tradition (singluar), rather than Traditions (plural). It is a concept rather than a list of items.
Do you have an infallible definition of Tradition by your church?

Sacred Tradiiton is the means by which the Word (Christ) gave revelation to His Church. Some of this was recorded in Sacred Scripture, but not all of it (John 21:25). Catholics hold a high view of Christ as the Word of God because we believe and hold dear the entire deposit of faith.

Sola scriptura Protestants hold a low view of Christ as the Word because they exclude Christ’s revelation that was not recorded in scripture.
What sacred scripture do you have that is not in the Scripture? Can you give me a couple of specific examples and show that your church defines these traditions as inspired and inerrant?

Great question! The answer is the Church, led by the Holy Spiritu, supernaturally discerned which books were canonical. Any “criteria” that one wishes to impose after the fact will fail in the case of at least 1 of the books. The author of Hebrews is not known, so one can’t make the claim that only books that were written by apostles or people close to the apostles were included. Also there were other books that were written by apostles that were excluded. Just as the inspired scriptures themselves were a work of the Holy Spirit, so was the discernment of which writings were inspired. How could fallible men make such a perfect choice? The same way fallible men were able to pen inspired scriptures in the first place.

Again, the list was not obvious. In early church times, there were several classes of writings: Recognized Books (universally regarded as scripture), Disputed (or Spurious) Books, and Heretical Books. The disputed books were authentically written by apostles and disciples, generally had solid theology, and were still used for instruction, but there was skepticism about their divine inspiration. Included among the Disputed Books were: Hebrews, James, Jude, 2nd Peter, 2nd John, 3rd John, and Revelation (Eusebius, History of the Church). You will, of course, notice that these disputed book are included in your New Testament. Your trust in these writings as scripture presupposes the infallibility of the Church.
Having an infallible church is not required to discern what the scriptures were. To discover that truth of a matter does not require infalliblity.

You are correct that the Church did not take average writings, bless them, and viola! they became scripture. The Church infallability discerned their canonicity. But as shown above, this was not an obvious choice and could have only been accomplished through the Catholic Church acting infallibly. To reject this infallibility is to reject your Bible.

It does not logically follow that my rejection of your church’ infalliblity leads me to reject the Bible. The Bible is inerrant and inspired not because your church proclaims it so but is based on the very nature of the Scripture itself.

 

[justasking4]

The point I was making, justasking4, is that sins committed by members in the Church do not necessarily affect the teachings of the Church. Do you believe the teachings of Martin Luther and John Calvin on Sola Scriptura were right, despite the fact that they both committed sins? Were they guided by the Holy Spirit in their teaching, despite the fact that they did not always live up to Christian values?
I don’t know if luther or calvin claimed to be “guided” by the HS in their teachings. Would you happen to know?

The Catholic Church is the only Christian institution that can trace itself back to the Apostolic age. If you don’t accept doctrinal continuity, then you have to accept institutional
continuity. We can trace back the Bishops of Rome (i.e. Popes) back to the Apostolic era. And this is thoroughly documented.

It seems you know this period better than i do. Was Peter ever recognized as the supreme head of all the church? Did the other apostles acknowledge this in the NT?

If Peter was the 1st pope, when did he pass on this “office” to the next pope-leader? Where did this happen and who was there to witness this?

God established the Church not only to be a loose fellowship of believers, but an ORGANIZED BODY, an INSTITUTION (Please read Acts 15:6-30 & 16:4).

Do you believe right from the start that the NT was organized like the catholic church?

He established this institution to be the “pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15).” If God made the church the pillar and foundation of truth, then it must be a pillar and foundation that can withstand all error and heresy.
Why does this follow? It seems to me that if this is true, then the warnings of false teachers coming into the church to deceive would be meaningless.

That is why Jesus promises in Matthew 16:18 that the gates of hell will not overcome His Church.

How has the catholic church infallibly defined this verse?

That is why GOD gave us teachers and pastors so that we would not be deceived by any wind of doctrine and would be able to identify heresies like that of the Nicolaitans mentioned in Revelation. In other words, God gave us a teaching authority that would be trustworthy and through which the Holy Spirit would guide us in matters of DOCTRINE.

if you look at these passages in Ephesians for example, there is no promise that these teachers or pastors would not decieve.

I firmly believe that the Protestant Reformation was the Sixteenth century version of the rebellion of Korah (Numbers 16:1-11). Korah rebelled against the authority of the Chair of Moses established by God Himself (Matthew 23:1-3), and the Protestant reformers rebelled against the authority of the Chair of Saint Peter established by God Himself (Matthew 16:18-19, John 21:15-17). The result has been mass confusion reflected in a diversity of competing churches. Like I said earlier, God is not the author of confusion.
Have you ever compared some of the doctrinal statements of 6-7 protestant churches? If so, have you found this “mass confusion” that you allude to?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[justasking4]

And while we are going there, why do you accept non-apostolic writings such as Mark and Luke as Scripture?
Both of them were associated with an apostle in some manner

How did Mark receive the charism of inerrancy in writing Scripture?

Evidently God did it some how. Writing a perfect document is not an impossible feat.

 

[valient_Lucy]

I’m having a family problem: I don’t believe in sola scriptura. My family accuses me of “hating God’s word” and “not believing in God’s word” and even calling me an athiest! How should I respond to this with charity?

First of all, pray. Pray that you will not fall into temptation, and that you will respond with charity and with patience.

One thing that might help is reading the Bible more. (I don’t know how often you read it.) When your family discusses the Scriptures (if they do) do you recognize the passages and have insights, or are you unfamiliar with the Scriptures? If you are familiar and devoted to the Scriptures, then perhaps this could aleviate the fears and hatred of your family. Even if it doesn’t, it never hurt a person to read the Scriptures.

 

[valient_Lucy]

You make some good points here. However, after the oral tradition era passed, we are all left with the written word only. There is no authoriative “oral tradition” today in the church from the apostles.

By what authority do you make that statement? Where in Scripture do we find the promise that the era of oral tradition has passed? For that matter, where do we find reference to an era of oral tradition?

 

[justasking4]

[Originally Posted by mikeledes
If we are not to go beyond what is written, then masturbation, abortion, and cloning should be allowed because there is no passage in the Bible that explictly deal with these issues.
[COLOR=“green”]In regards to masturbation that violates the lust principle in Matthew 5:28; abortion violates the command not to murder; cloning, i’m not sure at this point. I need to study this further.

I know I’ve uses this example before, but when is a person actually married before God? Is it when they exchange vows before a designated authority? Is it when they consumate their union?
I would say when you say your vows. What do you think?

Does a marriage have to be witnessed by anyone? Please point to the passages in the Bible that specifically address these questions.

I’m not aware of any and i don’t think it really matters. That’s why i believe when you make a vow before God, you better keep it. See Ecclesiastes 5:4

Don’t spend too much time looking, because you won’t find any passages that specifically address these questions. What will we do if we are not supposed to go beyond what is written?
This is why we need to have the "words of Christ richly dwell in us" As we grow in our understanding of scripture the greater our ability to discern God’s will. Psalm 119 is a great place to look at how the Word can help us.

God Bless,
Michael

You forgot about embryonic stem cell research. There is nothing in the Bible on this either.

Doing this would violate the commandment not to murder

Therefore sola scripturists would have us make no moral decision on this issue either. In fact, when you get right down to it, sola scripturists would give science a free hand in life and death.

Huh? Why do you say this? I adhere to sola scriptura but i don’t agree with your assement here. In fact there are many protestants that are deeply involved in matters of life and death issue. I know for me, the scripture helps to guide me on these matters.