Sola Scriptura family problem

[JonathanKinsman]

Your quote: “Protestants would agree. However, the Word of God is also the scriptures. see Hebrews 4:12 for example.”

St Paul’s letter to the Hebrews addresses Torah example on the Sabbath rest. The four Gospels and Acts were not in existence when St Paul wrote his Epistles. Chapter 4 alludes to Numbers 14:22-23; Deut. 1:35;the 95th Psalm; Genesis and (in your quote) Wisdom and Isaiah.

I don’t disagree with you main reply (which is Catholic teaching and Tradition) however, I don’t know where you’re going with that last "However,…[and citation].!!

Please explain.

Inspired/inerrancy muddle: these are two distinct word with two distinct meanings and theological implications. I can be inspired to do something but errant in execution. Inspiration does not equal inerrancy. This is what you are implying. If not, then explain what you mean by these two words.

St Paul and other inspired authors in the NT paraphrase more than they directly quote from the Septuagint. Whenever “Scriptures” are mentioned they are Jewish, not NT. Many Protestants can’t seem to keep this fact straight when trying to change centuries of interpretation and belief. Again, look to the changes Luther made, the JWs made, the Mormons made. Look to the changes prior to the last century in mainstream Protestant bibles. Their available through most metropolitan libraries. I borrowed some 19th reprints from the Orange County library when I was doing research of the Presidential Oath. The KJV is rife with textual and thus, doctrinal, errors. It was the priest Erasmus who gave the committee their manuscripts. The irony of it is that the NT manuscript was a Vulgate variant written by recusant French.
Source: OUP, A Companion to the Bible.

As to the comments re my father-in-law (a non practicing Jew while alive): they beg the question. Of course many Jews would dismiss Jesus or consider him one of many prophets from Galilee. The irony is that Protestants base their heresies on the support of post-Pauline and post-Catholic canon documents.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Your confusion on the Constitutional analogy.

If you are a strict Constructionist, a believer in States’ Rights, you look to Madison’s notes and the Federalist Papers for what the Founders meant with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Many attorneys and legal scholars today contend the Constitution is a “living document” and must be interpreted in light of current events and societal aims. Thus we have activist Judges and reactionary legislatures.

The parallel is this: at one time there was one Church. It was called Catholic because it was comprised of many different peoples and its teachings were from Jesus who told His Apostles and Disciples to go forth and teach all nations. The Good News applies to everyone, everywhere.

Heresies started early. Bogus Acts of Pilate and Acts of Paul. Some bishops claiming to know what Jesus meant (Marcion), some interpreting scriptural passages literally (Origen c 185-253, who castrated himself because of Matthew 19:12). The Gnostics thought Jesus was really spirit appearing to be man. It has always been a struggle to remind the flock what the teachings were and what they meant.

Some churches split along the way. Marcion started his own version of Christianity. The Eastern (Orthodox) split from the Western (Rome) over a silly interpretation of the word Filioque.
The split was instigated through many centuries and finalized by Pope Nicholas I (not a very good one) who excommunicated Photius (the Byzantine Patriarch). Photius defended the patriarchal autonomy of East Rome and also
opposed the introduction of the Filioque, which holds that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father.
The two Churches withdrew their mutual anathemas under Pope John Paul II.

Well, from there it was only a matter of time as kingdoms became powerful and clashed with direction from Rome (or Avignon or Ravenna)during the 1400s and 1500s. Toss in some stupid actions of local bishops and you get everybody starting their own religion. Henry the VIII wanted a divorce. So, Episcopalians and Anglicans were founded by a man who wanted to divorce his wife. Luther and his bishop did not agree on indulgences and those other 98 theses. He married a nun. John Calvin (his anglicized name) had his own version of scripture, too.

Fast forward to America and you get Baptists, Anabaptists, Millerites, Mormons, Seventh-Day Baptists, Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Assemblies of God, Foursquare Church, Church of Christ, Calvary Chapel, AME Methodist, et cetera ad infinitum.

Now, is this really good for the message of Jesus? Moslems love pointing out the proliferation of ‘christian based’ religions as a reason to conclude Islam is what Allah meant.

If you accept your personal version from your personal savior (where in the Bible does one find this??!!) then you must accept ours. Whose is the more correct one? Again, sorry to Pastor Ted at the Feel Good Like A Rock Praise Chapel (who gets those great federal and state tax breaks, especially the parsonage one!) but my bet is with Rome.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

I thought Leo XIII wrote an encyclical saying that the scriptures, both OT and NT were free from error?

I think it was in “PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS” where in paragraph 21 he stated:
“21. It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error. And so emphatically were all the Fathers and Doctors agreed that the divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error,…”

Reformed1,

Our Catechism states in paragraphs 121 et seq. that (I was discussing the OT and I assume your answer is in accord) “Its books ae divinely inspired and retain a permanent value,…” [121].

Then, in the following paragraph; “Even though they contain matters imperfect and provisional, the books of the Old Testament bear witness to the whole divine pedagogy of God’s saving love:…” (italics mine).

Imperfect and provisional says it all. If not, God speaking to Abram/Abraham would have done it. Or to Moses. Or giving Moses the tablets. Or the Ark for Joshua. Or the Prophets. Or Jesus as God-Incarnate to clear it up once and for all for that “stubborn-necked people” He chose.

This is what I meant as errant. If it isn’t clear and is read the wrong way or things have changed (the dietary and holocaust laws for example), then the prior statements are in error to the new, revised or reinterpreted version through the Magisterium.

I hope I am clearer now.

 

[petra]

How would you define indulgence? ( a simple defintion would be fine)

An indulgence is the remission of temporal punishment for sin.

Can you also show me a couple examples of it in scripture?

Please see catholic.com/library/primer_on_indulgences.asp, which explains indulgences and the scriptural support for them. If you are looking for a verse in which St. Paul encourages Christians to get an indulgence, you won’t find one. Neither will you find a verse that defines the Trinity, but that does not mean that the Trinity is unscriptural.

Are you aware of the article on indugences in Catholic ency? I was reading some of it and it looks like it would be a great topic to discuss sometime.

Yes, I am. Indeed, it would be an interesting discussion.

Do you agree then that the pope and Tetzal were completely right in their promotion of indulgences?

At that time, indulgences were used incorrectly to extort and abuse people. This was a grave error, but it was an error in practice. The doctrine of indulgences was not in error, and the Church has never changed its position on that. Indulgences are still used today to remit temporal punishment—and validly so.

Where is this grounded in scripture? There must be some specific passage that directly deals with such a claim. I’m not aware of any. What i am aware of is that the apostles do warn of false teachers coming into the church itself. In Acts 20:28-30, 2 Cor 11:12-14; Rev 2:15 we see this repeated warning about false teachers. In 2 Peter 2:1 it is clear that these false teachers would be among them. The danger in claiming not to be mislead by your leaders leaves you open to doctrines that cannot be supported by scripture nor those that come later.

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

You are right. False teachers have come from within the Church, and some people, wanting to have their ears tickled, have gone astray. Usually such false teachers go into schism and lead their followers out of the Catholic Church. However, the teaching authority of the Church—the Magisterium and the Pope—cannot teach error. I know this sounds naive to your Protestant ears, but it is actually very rational. For it to really make sense, one needs to have a solid understanding of Sacred Tradition.

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.” This list was not self-evident. Local church bodies regarded different collections as “scriptures” according to the historian Eusebius, including books that are not part of our New Testament. So where is it grounded in scripture that Pope Damasus had the authority to do this? You see how you have put the cart before the horse?

Protestants correctly view the Scriptures as the Word of God, but they do so without sufficient basis. Ironically, it is the infallibility of the Catholic Church that has given Protestants their Scriptures.

 

[justasking4]

Now, where was I when I was interrupted…

1. Church Fathers. Well, from a very early date the honorific “Father” was applied to bishops as witnesses of the Christian tradition. Teaching bishops were known as “fathers” of their students. St Paul in Corinthians applied this title to himself: “For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the Good News” ( 1 Cor 4:15). Many Catholic scholars believe this to be the beginning of the tradition of using the term “father.”

By the 5th century, the term came to be used in a more comprehensive manner to include ecclesiastical writers who were not bishops but were known and acknowledged for personal sanctity and doctrinal purity. St Jerome was not a bishop but he was listed by that polymath St Augustine as a Father of the Church.

By the 13th century, the title “Apostolic Father” became reserved for the Christian Apologists who wrote before the reign of Constantine. It is interesting that clarification was going on as early as St Paul and into the age of Constantine!

It was Pope Boniface VII who started the official (as Bishop of Rome and as Pope) promulgation by declaring Sts Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine and Gregory the Great as outstanding teachers of the Church (egregii doctores ecclesiae).

Here are some primary (original language and translation) sources for you to consider: Early Latin Theology, Volume V, from the Library of Christian Classics (ed. John Baille, McNeill and Van Deusen (Phila., Westminster Press, 1956). Also, The Early Church by Henry Chadwick (Baltimore, Penguin Books, 1969). A few of these guys are Protestant scholars on early Church history.

1. “appears to be lost” in reference to some supposed original manuscript of Mark. Well, there you have it; like Shakespearean scholars who posit non-existent Hamlets we have come full circle to discussions of our common heritage. We have what we have and it is what it is. The longer ending is radically different from the shorter ending in Mark and has been fodder for the Mary Magdalene marries Jesus of Nazareth and founds the royal house in France conspiracists.

The shorter ending is found in four or five (I don’t have my source handy and it is late) Greek manuscripts from the 7th or 8th centuries. Also, and I apologize if I repeat myself, in an Old Latin version where it appears alone without the longer ending.

So contra to your statement, there is NO lost ending to Mark. There are two endings to Mark. Inerrancy, anyone?

In regards to your last statement this is what i mean by (name removed by moderator)iration and inerrancy—Inerrancy is a logical result of inspiration . Inerrancy means “wholly true and without error.” And what God breathes out (inspires) must be wholly true (inerrant).
Inerrancy applies to the original text, not to every copy. The copies contain some scribal errors but the accuracy is still extremely high.

Do you believe that when Mark wrote his gospel he had 2 endings?

Doesn’t the catholic church believe in inerrancy and inspiration?
/COLOR]

 

[justasking4]

An indulgence is the remission of temporal punishment for sin.

Please see catholic.com/library/primer_on_indulgences.asp, which explains indulgences and the scriptural support for them. If you are looking for a verse in which St. Paul encourages Christians to get an indulgence, you won’t find one. Neither will you find a verse that defines the Trinity, but that does not mean that the Trinity is unscriptural.

Yes, I am. Indeed, it would be an interesting discussion.

At that time, indulgences were used incorrectly to extort and abuse people. This was a grave error, but it was an error in practice. The doctrine of indulgences was not in error, and the Church has never changed its position on that. Indulgences are still used today to remit temporal punishment—and validly so.
Can you show me in the NT for example where indulgences was ever taught?

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.

You are right. False teachers have come from within the Church, and some people, wanting to have their ears tickled, have gone astray. Usually such false teachers go into schism and lead their followers out of the Catholic Church. However, the teaching authority of the Church—the Magisterium and the Pope—cannot teach error. I know this sounds naive to your Protestant ears, but it is actually very rational.

It maybe rational but its not true. The catholic church holds to some false doctrines. I suspect you won’t agree with this.

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.

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.” This list was not self-evident. Local church bodies regarded different collections as “scriptures” according to the historian Eusebius, including books that are not part of our New Testament. So where is it grounded in scripture that Pope Damasus had the authority to do this? You see how you have put the cart before the horse? \

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

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.

Ironically, it is the infallibility of the Catholic Church that has given Protestants their Scriptures.

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.

 

[justasking4]

Your quote: “Protestants would agree. However, the Word of God is also the scriptures. see Hebrews 4:12 for example.”

St Paul’s letter to the Hebrews addresses Torah example on the Sabbath rest. The four Gospels and Acts were not in existence when St Paul wrote his Epistles. Chapter 4 alludes to Numbers 14:22-23; Deut. 1:35;the 95th Psalm; Genesis and (in your quote) Wisdom and Isaiah.

I don’t disagree with you main reply (which is Catholic teaching and Tradition) however, I don’t know where you’re going with that last "However,…[and citation].!!

Please explain.

Inspired/inerrancy muddle: these are two distinct word with two distinct meanings and theological implications. I can be inspired to do something but errant in execution. Inspiration does not equal inerrancy. This is what you are implying. If not, then explain what you mean by these two words.

St Paul and other inspired authors in the NT paraphrase more than they directly quote from the Septuagint. Whenever “Scriptures” are mentioned they are Jewish, not NT. Many Protestants can’t seem to keep this fact straight when trying to change centuries of interpretation and belief. Again, look to the changes Luther made, the JWs made, the Mormons made. Look to the changes prior to the last century in mainstream Protestant bibles. Their available through most metropolitan libraries. I borrowed some 19th reprints from the Orange County library when I was doing research of the Presidential Oath. The KJV is rife with textual and thus, doctrinal, errors. It was the priest Erasmus who gave the committee their manuscripts. The irony of it is that the NT manuscript was a Vulgate variant written by recusant French.
Source: OUP, A Companion to the Bible.

As to the comments re my father-in-law (a non practicing Jew while alive): they beg the question. Of course many Jews would dismiss Jesus or consider him one of many prophets from Galilee.

The irony is that Protestants base their heresies on the support of post-Pauline and post-Catholic canon documents.

Can you clarify what you mean by "[post-Pauline and post-Catholic canon documents? /COLOR]

 

[mikeledes]

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.

If the Catholic Church is so “wrong” on other, what gives you the confidence that it identified the right canon? If the Holy Spirit guided the Church to infallibly determine the canon several centuries after the apostolic age, why can’t it be infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit in other matters of faith and morals.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[justasking4]

If the Catholic Church is so “wrong” on other, what gives you the confidence that it identified the right canon?
I’m not one of those who think that the catholic church has done everything wrong through the centuries.

If the Holy Spirit guided the Church to infallibly determine the canon several centuries after the apostolic age, why can’t it be infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit in other matters of faith and morals.

God Bless,
Michael

When we are dealing with fallible men, the forces of evil etc, error is bound to creep into your church and mine. As you may know, the scriptures warn of this possiblity. If we had the full nature of Christ Himself Who could not error because He was God then i would believe it would be possible.
I suspect you are well aware of the history of your church and that it has done some evil at times. If it was infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit all the time then this kind of thing would not have happened. I know catholics like to qualify this by applying it to faith and morals but i don’t find that compelling. Even when the apostles were on the scene they had their differences of opinion and problems. If these men, handpicked directly by Christ Himself could not be of one mind all the time, can we expect the same today?

I also believe when i compare some of the catholic doctrines with scripture, there are things either that contradict the scripture or go beyond what is written.

 

[mikeledes]

When we are dealing with fallible men, the forces of evil etc, error is bound to creep into your church and mine. As you may know, the scriptures warn of this possiblity. If we had the full nature of Christ Himself Who could not error because He was God then i would believe it would be possible.
I suspect you are well aware of the history of your church and that it has done some evil at times. If it was infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit all the time then this kind of thing would not have happened. I know catholics like to qualify this by applying it to faith and morals but i don’t find that compelling. Even when the apostles were on the scene they had their differences of opinion and problems. If these men, handpicked directly by Christ Himself could not be of one mind all the time, can we expect the same today?

I also believe when i compare some of the catholic doctrines with scripture, there are things either that contradict the scripture or go beyond what is written.

Just read both letters to the Corinthians, 3 John, and the messages to the churches in Revelation and you will realize that the early church also had it’s scandals and problems. The behavior of church members does not necessarily affect the doctrines being taught. The Holy Spirit infallibly guide’s the Church’s teaching, but this does not translate to sinlessness among its members and even leadership.

The apostles were of one mind when it came to Christian teaching. Can you point out where they disagreed on Christian teaching? This does not mean that they were sinless. Are you saying that a Christian pastor cannot teach the truth even if he is in sin?

Ephesians 4:11-14 says that God gave us teachers so that we would no longer “be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming.” If we cannot rely on the teaching authority, which consists of morally fallible men, God has given us to interpret the Bible, then how can we be protected from every wind of doctrine, if that was the point of establishing teachers in the first place?

The fruit of Sola Scriptura has been mass confusion and the appearance of every wind of doctrine (Lutheran, Calvinist, Arminian, Baptist, Penetcostal, Seventh Day Adventist, Holiness, Anglican, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Nazarenes, Church of Christ, Methodists, etc.) God is not the author of this confusion. This is what happens when you reject the teaching authority God Himself has establshed and set the individual as the final arbiter of what is true. The Protestant reformation was the 16th century version of the rebellion of Korah, and its confusing results testify to the fact that it was not from the Holy Spirit.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[justasking4]

Just read both letters to the Corinthians, 3 John, and the messages to the churches in Revelation and you will realize that the early church also had it’s scandals and problems. The behavior of church members does not necessarily affect the doctrines being taught.
Good point that you point here. However there does seem to be evidence of false teaching in the church at Pergamum in Rev 3:12-15 for example.

The Holy Spirit infallibly guide’s the Church’s teaching, but this does not translate to sinlessness among its members and even leadership.
On what passage in scripture are you basing your claim that your church would be unable to teach without error forever?

Also how do you know this is a direct reference to the Roman Catholic Church?

The apostles were of one mind when it came to Christian teaching. Can you point out where they disagreed on Christian teaching?
It appears in Acts 15 that this was not always the case. It took time for them to figure these things out.

This does not mean that they were sinless. Are you saying that a Christian pastor cannot teach the truth even if he is in sin?

No. A person can teach the truth even if they are in sin. However, would you agree that if a person who is in known sin that it would have a negative impact on his message?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[justasking4]

Just read both letters to the Corinthians, 3 John, and the messages to the churches in Revelation and you will realize that the early church also had it’s scandals and problems. The behavior of church members does not necessarily affect the doctrines being taught. The Holy Spirit infallibly guide’s the Church’s teaching, but this does not translate to sinlessness among its members and even leadership.

The apostles were of one mind when it came to Christian teaching. Can you point out where they disagreed on Christian teaching? This does not mean that they were sinless. Are you saying that a Christian pastor cannot teach the truth even if he is in sin?

 

[justasking4]

Sorry I missed this in prvious message.

Ephesians 4:11-14 says that God gave us teachers so that we would no longer “be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming.” If we cannot rely on the teaching authority, which consists of morally fallible men, God has given us to interpret the Bible, then how can we be protected from every wind of doctrine, if that was the point of establishing teachers in the first place?

I didn’t claim that we cannot rely on the teachers Christ has provided His followers. We are never to accept what our teachers teach us uncritically though. We can be deceieved by false teachers and their teachings. We are to examine everything they teach us as I Thes 5:21-22 exhort us to. Thats why we must know the scriptures and hold all doctrines and practices to it. It is only the scriptures alone that is inspired and inerrant. No teacher, church or man is above them.

The fruit of Sola Scriptura has been mass confusion and the appearance of every wind of doctrine (Lutheran, Calvinist, Arminian, Baptist, Penetcostal, Seventh Day Adventist, Holiness, Anglican, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Nazarenes, Church of Christ, Methodists, etc.)

I would agree that this can be a problem. However, there is much agreement among them as far as i know (except JW’s) on key doctrines.

God is not the author of this confusion. This is what happens when you reject the teaching authority God Himself has establshed and set the individual as the final arbiter of what is true. The Protestant reformation was the 16th century version of the rebellion of Korah, and its confusing results testify to the fact that it was not from the Holy Spirit.
Do you believe your church in the 15th century was without any blame? Do you believe that Jesus intended for His church to be part of the govt? Do you believe He would have applauded the selling of the indulgences the way your church was doing?

i actually believe that the reformation was the work of Christ for a number of reasons. For one it decentralized the power in the church. The catholic church was becoming to worldly.
Secondly, since Jesus is in control of His church and the continuing growth and vitality in prostentant churches is also sign that He is behind it. If not, then the gates of hell have prevailed.
Thirdly, it gave the church more flexiblity and a greater participation of lay people in the church. In the catholic church for example, it has made marriage a disqualifier for a man to serve in high leadership. This is in direct contradiction of the scripture.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Sorry I missed this in prvious message.

Ephesians 4:11-14 says that God gave us teachers so that we would no longer “be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming.” If we cannot rely on the teaching authority, which consists of morally fallible men, God has given us to interpret the Bible, then how can we be protected from every wind of doctrine, if that was the point of establishing teachers in the first place?

I didn’t claim that we cannot rely on the teachers Christ has provided His followers. We are never to accept what our teachers teach us uncritically though. We can be deceieved by false teachers and their teachings. We are to examine everything they teach us as I Thes 5:21-22 exhort us to. Thats why we must know the scriptures and hold all doctrines and practices to it. It is only the scriptures alone that is inspired and inerrant. No teacher, church or man is above them.

The fruit of Sola Scriptura has been mass confusion and the appearance of every wind of doctrine (Lutheran, Calvinist, Arminian, Baptist, Penetcostal, Seventh Day Adventist, Holiness, Anglican, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Nazarenes, Church of Christ, Methodists, etc.)

I would agree that this can be a problem. However, there is much agreement among them as far as i know (except JW’s) on key doctrines.

God is not the author of this confusion. This is what happens when you reject the teaching authority God Himself has establshed and set the individual as the final arbiter of what is true. The Protestant reformation was the 16th century version of the rebellion of Korah, and its confusing results testify to the fact that it was not from the Holy Spirit.
Do you believe your church in the 15th century was without any blame? Do you believe that Jesus intended for His church to be part of the govt? Do you believe He would have applauded the selling of the indulgences the way your church was doing?

i actually believe that the reformation was the work of Christ for a number of reasons. For one it decentralized the power in the church. The catholic church was becoming to worldly.
Secondly, since Jesus is in control of His church and the continuing growth and vitality in prostentant churches is also sign that He is behind it. If not, then the gates of hell have prevailed.
Thirdly, it gave the church more flexiblity and a greater participation of lay people in the church. In the catholic church for example, it has made marriage a disqualifier for a man to serve in high leadership. This is in direct contradiction of the scripture.

God Bless,
Michael

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. 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. 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.

God bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Sorry I missed this in prvious message.

Ephesians 4:11-14 says that God gave us teachers so that we would no longer “be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming.” If we cannot rely on the teaching authority, which consists of morally fallible men, God has given us to interpret the Bible, then how can we be protected from every wind of doctrine, if that was the point of establishing teachers in the first place?

I didn’t claim that we cannot rely on the teachers Christ has provided His followers. We are never to accept what our teachers teach us uncritically though. We can be deceieved by false teachers and their teachings. We are to examine everything they teach us as I Thes 5:21-22 exhort us to. Thats why we must know the scriptures and hold all doctrines and practices to it. It is only the scriptures alone that is inspired and inerrant. No teacher, church or man is above them.

The fruit of Sola Scriptura has been mass confusion and the appearance of every wind of doctrine (Lutheran, Calvinist, Arminian, Baptist, Penetcostal, Seventh Day Adventist, Holiness, Anglican, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Nazarenes, Church of Christ, Methodists, etc.)

I would agree that this can be a problem. However, there is much agreement among them as far as i know (except JW’s) on key doctrines.

God is not the author of this confusion. This is what happens when you reject the teaching authority God Himself has establshed and set the individual as the final arbiter of what is true. The Protestant reformation was the 16th century version of the rebellion of Korah, and its confusing results testify to the fact that it was not from the Holy Spirit.
Do you believe your church in the 15th century was without any blame? Do you believe that Jesus intended for His church to be part of the govt? Do you believe He would have applauded the selling of the indulgences the way your church was doing?

i actually believe that the reformation was the work of Christ for a number of reasons. For one it decentralized the power in the church. The catholic church was becoming to worldly.
Secondly, since Jesus is in control of His church and the continuing growth and vitality in prostentant churches is also sign that He is behind it. If not, then the gates of hell have prevailed.
Thirdly, it gave the church more flexiblity and a greater participation of lay people in the church. In the catholic church for example, it has made marriage a disqualifier for a man to serve in high leadership. This is in direct contradiction of the scripture.

God Bless,
Michael

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. 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. 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.

God bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

The Luthern Church, by the way, was a STATE church in many parts of Germany and in Scandinavia. Luther relied on support from the Elector of Saxony and defended the cause of the princes against the peasants in the Peasant’s revolt, even encouraging violence against the peasants. That’s a magnificent example of the separation of church and state? Let’s not talk about Puritan Massachusetts and its famous Salem witch trials. Massachusetts had an established church until the 1830’s, I believe. Oh, and let’s not forget the Anglican Church and its Head, Queen Elizabeth. And how about John Calvin’s Christian commonwealth in Geneva, under which he burned Michael Servetus as a heretic. These are just shining examples of democratic values.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[JonathanKinsman]

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.

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! It must be your PRIVATE interpretation, then.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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?

 

[Philthy]

quote=Reformed1]You are apparently behind the times. Your catechism offers the following:

*… All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."[272] *

…[274] Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,[275] and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”[276]
What say you? /quote]

Enough of this. Here are some answers from the CA Library and here is the full link: catholic.com/library/Great_Heresies.asp

Keep this in mind: Protestantism is a heresy, but that does not mean that all Protestants are heretics.

"Heresy is an emotionally loaded term that is often misused. It is not the same thing as incredulity, schism, apostasy, or other sins against faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him” (CCC 2089).

To commit heresy, one must refuse to be corrected. A person who is ready to be corrected or who is unaware that what he has been saying is against Church teaching is not a heretic.

A person must be baptized to commit heresy. This means that movements that have split off from or been influenced by Christianity, but that do not practice baptism (or do not practice valid baptism), are not heresies, but separate religions. Examples include Muslims, who do not practice baptism, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, who do not practice valid baptism.

Finally, the doubt or denial involved in heresy must concern a matter that has been revealed by God and solemnly defined by the Church (for example, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the sacrifice of the Mass, the pope’s infallibility, or the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary).

It is important to distinguish heresy from schism and apostasy. In schism, one separates from the Catholic Church without repudiating a defined doctrine. An example of a contemporary schism is the Society of St. Pius X—the “Lefebvrists” or followers of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre—who separated from the Church in the late 1980s, but who have not denied Catholic doctrines. In apostasy, one totally repudiates the Christian faith and no longer even claims to be a Christian.

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials

presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.

*Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, *August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
*+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, *August 10, 2004 "

 

[Philthy]

In regards to your last statement this is what i mean by (name removed by moderator)iration and inerrancy—Inerrancy is a logical result of inspiration . Inerrancy means “wholly true and without error.” And what God breathes out (inspires) must be wholly true (inerrant).
Inerrancy applies to the original text, not to every copy. The copies contain some scribal errors but the accuracy is still extremely high.

Do you believe that when Mark wrote his gospel he had 2 endings?

Doesn’t the catholic church believe in inerrancy and inspiration?
/COLOR]

And while we are going there, why do you accept non-apostolic writings such as Mark and Luke as Scripture? How did Mark receive the charism of inerrancy in writing Scripture?

 

[Philthy]

In regards to your last statement this is what i mean by (name removed by moderator)iration and inerrancy—Inerrancy is a logical result of inspiration . Inerrancy means “wholly true and without error.” And what God breathes out (inspires) must be wholly true (inerrant).
Inerrancy applies to the original text, not to every copy. The copies contain some scribal errors but the accuracy is still extremely high.

Do you believe that when Mark wrote his gospel he had 2 endings?

Doesn’t the catholic church believe in inerrancy and inspiration?
/COLOR]

And while we are going there, why do you accept non-apostolic writings such as Mark and Luke as Scripture? How did Mark receive the charism of inerrancy in writing Scripture?