S
SIA
Guest
Yes, you are right. Scripture is authority, but it isn’t the only authority.
- Status
I
Ignatius
Guest
The most that Holy Scripture explicitly claims for itself is that it is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training”.
Now what does the Bible say about the Church?
It says that The Church is “The Pillar and Foundation of Truth”.
Who are you going to listen to, poster BO, or the Bible? I’m going to have to go with the Bible, friend.
If you would like to learn more about the teachings of Jesus Christ, please contact the folks at chnetwork.org/. I promise, if you unite yourself to Jesus Christ through His Church, you will experience the great gift the He has promised to those who follow Him. As Jesus said, “He who eats My body and drinks My blood lives in Me and I in him and I will raise him up on the last day.” And He is faithful and sure to keep His promises. Repent, turn to the Gospel and be saved and you will have everlasting life.
Grace and peace be with you.
Your servant in Christ.
L
Lance
Guest
justasking4,
I am waiting for an answer as to what you believe the Church used for the first 400 years of Christianity as there was no Bible. This seems a rather simple question. Please give a straight forward answer.
I am waiting for an answer as to what you believe the Church used for the first 400 years of Christianity as there was no Bible. This seems a rather simple question. Please give a straight forward answer.
C
Craig_Kennedy
Guest
I have followed all the arguments in this thread very carefully.
If Catholics believe that scripture is authority, but not the only authority then I have a very important question:
Do Catholics, in this context, believe in biblical inerrancy? Why or why not?
Can and should Catholics believe in biblical inerrancy? Why or why not?
For the purposes of definition I hold that biblical inerrancy means that the original autographs as inspired by the Holy Spirit were infallible in their utterances and declarations and absolutely free from all error; this includes all historical, geographical, dogmatic and scientific propositions.
L
Lief_Erikson
Guest
To finish now my earlier post to justasking4 . . .
justasking4:
Or take the Eucharist, to some Protestants mere symbol, to some a windfall of the Spirit, to others flesh and blood but not Spirit . . . is it salvation and powerful life to those that partake of it? There are a lot of different opinions on that question.
Or take Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Does it happen at baptism? Does it happen some time after a separate “Born Again” experience? It is necessary for salvation- Jesus says we must be born of water and of Spirit to inherit eternal life. So there’s another lump in the tea.
Jesus’ mission is also not clear to relativists among the Protestants. While there are relativist Catholics too, their doctrines we can judge against the Vatican’s teachings and condemn. With Protestantism, interpretation of Scripture belongs to each individual, so while people may (and do) disagree with one another a lot, there is no position of authority from which any of us can judge a dangerous opinion and expel it from the Church (as the Early Church could do to so many heresies). Thus you have universal reconciliationist Protestants and universalists who believe everyone is already saved everywhere in the world right now, and thus everyone is going to Heaven (so you don’t need evangelism, many think), and you get Fundamentalist sects that say that their particular brand of Protestantism (and some say it has to include dispensationalism) is necessary for salvation. And you get the whole cheap grace controversy, which obviously has major ramifications on spiritual life and the hope of salvation.
I also would say that all Protestants are in a way unclear as to the identity of Jesus, for they do not believe the Eucharist is Jesus, in spite of the New Testament and Early Church testimony on the matter.
So yes, I would say that unfortunately, Protestantism is unclear on these vitally important doctrines of salvation.
justasking4:
justasking4:
justasking4:
I’ll respond to your two arguments anyway.
Thankfully, the Magesterium has made many very precise statements about what the Church’s dogma is to make sure it is clear to the faithful. That’s one of its critical values, and one of the reasons Church councils have been held repeatedly over the course of the last 2,000 years. In Catholicism, it’s easy to get set straight if you have an important question.
As for your 20 verses, I’m not sure how many verses there are, but I do know that explicit interpretations of a large numbers of verses is not necessary, because the Catholic Church only has to reveal the doctrines for it to be clear in what light many passages are to be read. If you start out with the answer to a math problem, it’s much easier to work out the route through the problem to that answer than it is if you don’t know what the answer is supposed to look like. In the same way, the Church doesn’t have to go point by point through every verse (like going through every particular of the math problem) for everybody when it has given the answer, so the process (or scripture interpretation) leading to that answer is obvious.
Yes. Take baptism, for starters. To many Protestants, baptism has power to save people from their sins. To many other Protestants, it does not and is purely symbolic. Or sanctification, another of the means by which salvation occurs. The Nazarenes view sanctification as a one time spiritual event that purifies a person from sin. They don’t believe the person sins after that one spiritual infilling of the Holy Spirit that sanctifies. That’s sanctification, to them, and this belief can cause a lack of repentance for small sins that they commit after their sanctification experience- a dangerous thing to spiritual life. Other Protestants view sanctification as an ongoing process.
Or take the Eucharist, to some Protestants mere symbol, to some a windfall of the Spirit, to others flesh and blood but not Spirit . . . is it salvation and powerful life to those that partake of it? There are a lot of different opinions on that question.
Or take Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Does it happen at baptism? Does it happen some time after a separate “Born Again” experience? It is necessary for salvation- Jesus says we must be born of water and of Spirit to inherit eternal life. So there’s another lump in the tea.
Jesus’ mission is also not clear to relativists among the Protestants. While there are relativist Catholics too, their doctrines we can judge against the Vatican’s teachings and condemn. With Protestantism, interpretation of Scripture belongs to each individual, so while people may (and do) disagree with one another a lot, there is no position of authority from which any of us can judge a dangerous opinion and expel it from the Church (as the Early Church could do to so many heresies). Thus you have universal reconciliationist Protestants and universalists who believe everyone is already saved everywhere in the world right now, and thus everyone is going to Heaven (so you don’t need evangelism, many think), and you get Fundamentalist sects that say that their particular brand of Protestantism (and some say it has to include dispensationalism) is necessary for salvation. And you get the whole cheap grace controversy, which obviously has major ramifications on spiritual life and the hope of salvation.
I also would say that all Protestants are in a way unclear as to the identity of Jesus, for they do not believe the Eucharist is Jesus, in spite of the New Testament and Early Church testimony on the matter.
So yes, I would say that unfortunately, Protestantism is unclear on these vitally important doctrines of salvation.
This just says you disagree- it doesn’t refute my point about the differences between us.
You trust in the Scripture and consider the Scripture alone to be infallibly reliable. But to trust the Scripture, you must trust the people who put together the canon by which you get the Scriptures. That’s human activity and opinion, a human process that your beliefs trace back to. So as I said, in contrast to my faith in what I believe to be an infallible source (the councils), you have faith in what you believe to be a fallible source (human tests).
First of all, these arguments don’t have any relation to my point. My point was that my belief is in the infallible on two critical matters of faith and practice (canon selection and scripture interpretation), whereas your faith is in what you admit to be fallible.
I’ll respond to your two arguments anyway.
Thankfully, the Magesterium has made many very precise statements about what the Church’s dogma is to make sure it is clear to the faithful. That’s one of its critical values, and one of the reasons Church councils have been held repeatedly over the course of the last 2,000 years. In Catholicism, it’s easy to get set straight if you have an important question.
As for your 20 verses, I’m not sure how many verses there are, but I do know that explicit interpretations of a large numbers of verses is not necessary, because the Catholic Church only has to reveal the doctrines for it to be clear in what light many passages are to be read. If you start out with the answer to a math problem, it’s much easier to work out the route through the problem to that answer than it is if you don’t know what the answer is supposed to look like. In the same way, the Church doesn’t have to go point by point through every verse (like going through every particular of the math problem) for everybody when it has given the answer, so the process (or scripture interpretation) leading to that answer is obvious.
L
Lief_Erikson
Guest
Continued from the final post of the previous page . . .
justasking4:
On the other hand, you are missing my main point in response to this, which is that a large number of official verse interpretations is not necessary in the Catholic faith
. That is because when we have the doctrines, the correct interpretations of the scriptures are clear. For instance, if you know from dogma that baptism saves rather than being a mere symbol alone, then you can read all the verses about baptism in that way. And without the Church officially defining a single verse, you know how to interpret them all. That’s my big point. The lack of a vast number of such specific verse interpretations is irrelevant in Catholicism.
It would make a big difference in Protestantism, I grant you! That’s because Protestantism doesn’t have any dogmas. So if a few verses were infallibly interpreted for Protestants, that would be a big, big deal. It would make a huge difference in their theology, because there’s such a mix of endlessly contradictory interpretive positions on doctrines or verses alike. In Catholicism, we start out with the doctrine and then from the doctrine we can see the obvious interpretation of a multitude of verses. One doesn’t need a verse by verse infallible interpretation to have a WHOLE LOT of meaning dead obvious, on issues Protestants ceaselessly wrangle over.
justasking4:
I’ve never looked into it.
On the other hand, you are missing my main point in response to this, which is that a large number of official verse interpretations is not necessary in the Catholic faith
. That is because when we have the doctrines, the correct interpretations of the scriptures are clear. For instance, if you know from dogma that baptism saves rather than being a mere symbol alone, then you can read all the verses about baptism in that way. And without the Church officially defining a single verse, you know how to interpret them all. That’s my big point. The lack of a vast number of such specific verse interpretations is irrelevant in Catholicism.It would make a big difference in Protestantism, I grant you! That’s because Protestantism doesn’t have any dogmas. So if a few verses were infallibly interpreted for Protestants, that would be a big, big deal. It would make a huge difference in their theology, because there’s such a mix of endlessly contradictory interpretive positions on doctrines or verses alike. In Catholicism, we start out with the doctrine and then from the doctrine we can see the obvious interpretation of a multitude of verses. One doesn’t need a verse by verse infallible interpretation to have a WHOLE LOT of meaning dead obvious, on issues Protestants ceaselessly wrangle over.
No, because Jesus said the gates of Hell would not overcome the Church- He didn’t say they wouldn’t overcome any particular believer. Individual believers can fall, as is described in the Revelation chapters you cite. Even bishops can fall, as Judas did. The Church as a whole cannot, according to Jesus (I think you believe this yourself). And it was led from the very beginning, as we see in Acts 15:6, 22, or Acts 16:4 and throughout Early Church history, by councils of leaders, bishops. Therefore, if the Church as a whole cannot fall into error, the councils of leaders who were (as revealed in Acts) supposed to lead it from the beginning could not fall into error. For if the Church as a whole was supposed to obey the councils of bishops according to Scripture and the Church as a whole could not fall into error according to Jesus, it follows logically that the councils of bishops could not fall into error.
L
Lief_Erikson
Guest
You know, this is one of the beauties of the Catholic Church that I was swept away by when I had come to realize the truth of the Catholic Church. When I realized the accuracy of their word, I saw how glorious it is that Jesus gave His flock clarity and unity that I had never before experienced. St. Paul wrote in Corinthians, “I do not want there to be any divisions amongst you.” I had lived in divisions and the brokenness of Protestantism, in the factionalism and constant debates over doctrine. In Catholicism, these do not exist. There are Catholics who disagree with official Church doctrine- practical heretics. Faithful Catholics conform to the teaching of Rome in a stunningly blessed unity. That is Christ. Jesus prayed for the Church that they might be one as He and His Father are one. That is a reality that I only encountered in fullness in the Catholic Church, to my indescribable benefit. For in the unity of Christ and His Father, there are no doctrinal disagreements. There is complete unity of being- the unity found between Catholics in the Eucharist, another stunning reality that Protestantism cannot match. The glories of the Church were unveiled to me and I am showered in blessing upon blessing. Error after error I have seen refuted- the logic of the Catholic Church! The logic and the beauty! She is too precious, too lovely and too Christ-like to ever abandon. In her there is total unity in Jesus, the Eucharist, there is singleness of religion that goes back to the apostles themselves in Tradition, rather than dating back to 1500 AD. There is infallible truth, purification through Confession and Penance (another doctrine Protestants have constant quarreling amongst themselves over, and a multitude of different practices on). There is also unity with the saints in Heaven- a unity blessed to think about (Imagine Jesus’ experience at the Transfiguration of meeting Moses and Elijah opened to all the followers to whom He is the example). There are so many more infallibles! Truth upon truth, layer upon layer, and it comes in the form of a type of the Trinity in Heaven: Sacred Tradition (God the Father) produces Sacred Scripture (God the Son, the Word) which is revealed through the Magesterium (the Holy Spirit- as Jesus said all His truth would be revealed through the Spirit). Unlike Protestantism, which has the Word given by a fallible source, interpreted by each of us individually, again fallibly.
Those are the glories I witnessed. They are too, too beautiful. They are like a crown of stars glowing in the heavens. That is the true depth and beauty and glory of all Christianity was meant to be. It is not intended to be factionalized and ever-splintering, changing its mind about doctrine depending on who you’re talking to, changing its messages about the process of salvation depending who you’re talking to, and all of it supposed to be sorted through by each person’s own fallible mind. That is not the ideal Christianity Christ set up. The Christianity that I have come to know in the one, apostolic Church is.
L
Lief_Erikson
Guest
That’s how the Church has traditionally defined it too. The Church does absolutely assert that the Scripture is free from all error.
Unfortunately (IMO), the council Vatican II, a pastoral council simply assembled to advise Catholics, not an infallible council and one that explicitly stated it did not pass any new dogma, made a couple ambiguous statements about scriptural interpretation that opened the doors to Catholics to interpret the Scripture in a way that reinterpreted “errors.” One of the ambiguous statements was something like, “God has revealed without any error that truth which, for the sake of our salvation, he intended to reveal.” One possible interpretation of this statement would be that the truth revealed in the Bible for the sake of salvation is free of error, but other things in the Bible can contain error. That’s one possible interpretation of this sentence by the non-infallible council.
I personally, and many, many other Catholics, hold to the Bible’s complete inerrancy. Unfortunately, many Catholics now disagree, because of the ambiguous statements of Vatican II, and the Church has not offered any infallible statement to end the controversy.
Vatican II is a serious source of controversy among Catholics. Just about the whole controversy is focused on Church practices, though, not faith or morals. There is certainly no debate going on as a result of Vatican II over any previously defined dogma. Just about the whole thing is over Church practices. The one possible exception being scriptural inerrancy- I’m not sure if Catholics would call that a matter of “faith”- it doesn’t appear to be a matter of morals. It probably would be considered a matter of faith, and if the controversy broadens, the Church may have to settle the matter with a clear definition of the meaning of the inerrancy it has affirmed from the very beginning of its history.
It’s a very irritating controversy to me personally. I have mixed feelings about Vatican II. But I’m glad that our “big debate” is really focused so much on Church practice and discipline, rather than on doctrine. Scriptural inerrancy is the only deviation from that, as far as I can make out.
Though there are, of course, Catholics who fail to hold to the Church’s teachings faithfully, or who reject them outright, thus falling into heresy or apostasy. That’s a big issue for all Christians to deal with everywhere.
G
guanophore
Guest
I am not saying that Catholics don’t study (well, more of them should) or that we do not look at evidence. I am saying that our faith is not arrived at by these means. We receive the faith from those to whom it was entrusted. It is imparted to us by revelation. Once we receive it, we do study to show ourselves approved, but we do not arrive at it by “study” and reasoning as you have stated you do. God’s revelation is a pure and reliable source of truth, whereas, our own reason is very limited.
I don’t know why?
You seem to be obsessed over this, but you also seem convinced that it does not exist. As you have been told repeatedly, it will not be possible for you to access Sacred Tradition because it is something that is “received”. If you don’t believe it exists, then you can’t receive it.
It is not hard for us, ja4. For us, it is faith, seeking understanding. For you, it is understanding seeking debunking…
You have been clear from the beginning that you believe the Catholic Church has been infiltrated by false teachings. When one approaches research of anything with so much bias, the bias will, of necessity, contaminate the research.
This is a good starting point. If you could get over this misperception, you might be able to move on. The NT is 100% Sacred Tradition. It is entirely composed of the Teachings if Jesus committed to the Apostles. It was written out of the beliefs held and taught by the Church. Scripture is one strand of the Divine Deposit of Faith.
No, not at all. If you reject the authority of the Catholic Church, and the Tradition that produced, protected, canonized and promulgated the Scriptures, then there is no way for you to establish that they are the Word of God. In order to establish that, one has to rely on Sacred Tradition.
This is one of the best evidences that SS is wrong. It is said that every doctrine must be explicity grounded in the scriptures, yet the authority for the scriptures is not contained within their pages. The list of books that belong in there, and the tests that were used to decide are not there. This indicates that the Scriptures require an authority outside themselves.
This is not a problem for people that do not espouse SS. The problem exists for SS, because they have no basis on which to claim the scriptures are authentic.
J
justasking4
Guest
The church has always had a written Scripture i.e. the OT. Secondly before the Word of God (NT) was written down it was taught orally by the apostles who in some cases wrote down some of their teachings as with the letters of Paul. There is no reason to that these letters were not immediately copied and sent to other churches who in turm copied them and sent them on. After the apostles died there were written letters and gospels and direct diciples of the apostles who taught others.
J
justasking4
Guest
You cannot get to the object of your faith without reason.
Are they any Sacred Traditions not found in the NT?
G
guanophore
Guest
Every time you say this you embarrass yourself. It is like saying “The Church did not believe in the Trinity until the Council of Nicea in 325”. On the contrary, Trent declard what was always held by the Church in response to heresies. A simple study of history will make it clear to you that the Church has always used the Septuagint.
The early Church used the Old Testament according to the canon of the Septuagint (LXX). The African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the New Testament, as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was repeated by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed. Pope Damasus I’s Council of Rome in 382, issued a biblical canon identical to that. Damasus’s commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West. In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. **When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church. ** Thus, from the fourth century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the canon (as it is today).
It is easy to verify this by looking at Bibles produced up until the Reformation. They all contained the deuterocanonical books. What happened at Trent was the same thing that happened on other disputed issues such as the hypostatic union. The Church made an infallible declaration of it’s beliefs in order to stand against the errors rampant in that day.
The early Church used the Old Testament according to the canon of the Septuagint (LXX).
God has given you free will. You can reject any and all of the gifts he has offered you.
My plea is that you take responsibility for yourself, and reject them in honesty, instead of pandering lies like the one you posted above.
This is true of human institutions which the Church is not. Her Head is Christ, and she is ensouled by the Holy Spirit, which is why she cannot err. It is the divine elements of the Church that make her infallible
Yes, we can, but these “methods” are not in the NT, and if it is the final authority, and it cannot authorize itself, how does it have any validity at all?
Councils canonized them, they decided which collection of books was inspired, and bound them together in one volume, which had not been done previously. If the council can be fallible, then you have no basis upon which to accept their decision.
What you are saying is that you are accepting Tradition in this matter.
This is not how Truth in matters of faith are determined, ja4. God’s Truth comes through revelation, and may not have any “evidence” at all that we can see. Or, the “evidence” may even be opposite to the truth. Sometimes God’s truth seems like foolishness to men.
Since the “tests” for what is Scripture are not in Scripture, how can you be so sure that any of the books meet them?
You are right about people being fallible and making errors. The charism of infallibility is given to the Church, which is how we cna trust that the Church, acting through infallible conciliar decisions, is trustworthy. Jesus meant what He said when He told the Church “the Spirit will lead you into all truth”.
Yes. Our trust is in the Lord, and since He is the Head of the Church, we can fully rely upon Him to carry us. He has promised that He will never abandon us or leave us orphaned. No matter how many fallible men err, we can trust His spirit to lead us into all truth.
Clearly you do NOT take his words at face value, since you seem to believe he did not really mean what He said.
J
justasking4
Guest
Huh? We accept the Scriptures as authentic based on the evidence that the Scriptures are actually inspired-inerrant. We accept that the church in the 4th century got it right…
J
justasking4
Guest
What does the term deuterocanonical mean and why were certain books placed in this category?
J
justasking4
Guest
Did not the church split around the 11th century and has been split since then?
If this is the case, which church is in error? Both cannot be right.
D
dawid
Guest
The Magisterium of the Church in the 4th century also based their decision on non-biblical factors including addressing heresies that developed. These decisions are considered to be inspired.Huh? We accept the Scriptures as authentic based on the evidence that the Scriptures are actually inspired-inerrant. We accept that the church in the 4th century got it right…
The Magisterium has also been required to address heresies developed since that time.
Thus, the authority of the Church continues to have a role.
Thus the hypothesis “Sola Scriptura is Absolutely biblical” fails!
J
justasking4
Guest
In regards to your last point. What is your defintion of Sola Scriptura?
L
Lief_Erikson
Guest
Look up the scriptures and Early Church statements about the authority of the pope (the principle reason for the split) and decide yourself, in prayer, which you think was right.
As I said in my recent posts, which I await a response to
, Jesus didn’t guarantee protection from error to individuals (except the Pope, when speaking ex cathedra) but to the Church as a whole- and therefore necessarily to the Magesterium he established to lead his Church as a whole.Individuals or groups that leave the Church or split themselves ideologically from it aren’t guaranteed immunity from error.
I went into the scriptural basis for this in my earlier posts. I await your response!
J
justasking4
Guest
Part 1
Lief Erikson;4289981]
To finish now my earlier post to justasking4 . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Quote:Lief Erikson
In Protestantism, on the other hand, the basic doctrines are a matter of human opinion (each individual interprets non-infallibly) rather than infallible revelation (the councils), so the basic doctrines can frequently become muddy.
Lief Erikson;4289981]
To finish now my earlier post to justasking4 . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Quote:Lief Erikson
In Protestantism, on the other hand, the basic doctrines are a matter of human opinion (each individual interprets non-infallibly) rather than infallible revelation (the councils), so the basic doctrines can frequently become muddy.
Both are right. Baptism only saves when a person has believed in Christ. It is also symbolic of a real spiritual reality. Pouring or dunking people in water without belief does not save.
This is not clear to me on their doctrine. Have you studied this at depth about this?
This would be the right view.
This was also true in the early centuries of the church. The fathers had different views on what it meant.
What i see here is a simplistic view of Christianity. With such a complex deep and rich faith there are going to be differences. What is common here in your statements about these churches is that they do consider all these things important but the meaning and the methods in how they are to be applied vary. You will not find a Protestant church for example that says you do not need to be baptized. Nor that taking the Lord’s supper is not to be done.
All you have done here is take an extra step. Instead of understanding the Scriptures and let that guide you you also must find ways to harmonize all of Catholic teachings with the Scriptures which in and of itself would take a vast amount time. Do you think all catholics who read the Vatican’s teachings come to the same understanding? Secondly, i have yet to meet a catholic who can claim to know all that the Vatican’s teaches. Do you know all of them?
There is no doubt there are errors in Protestant churches. I expect that since the Scriptures warn of false teachers that will come into the church and decieve many. Its true also in the Catholic church. The problem in the Catholic church is that its teachers teach that they cannot teach error no matter what. Just read a few of the marian threads to see what i mean.
This woudl true of Protestants that are not well taught. As for the Eucharist being Jesus that idea is not supported in the Scriptures.
Must a person belong to the Roman Catholic church to be saved?
- Status