But Christ’s one true Church is and always has been possessed of all truth, handed down from the Apostles themselves. What is there about it that could possibly be in need of reform - at least at the level of teaching or beliefs (I don’t speak of praxis)?
crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/178/Mary__Mother_of_God__Theotokos____Cyril_of_Alexandria.html
Do you believe that Catholics are Christian and are we going to Heaven?
But there are English language versions that have translations with substantially different meanings. We’d agree, I’m sure, that a single word can change the meaning of an entire passage. I submit that it isn’t exactly the same bible. Luther’s translation suited Luther’s theology.
First, you have the wrong Cyril. My quote was from Cyril of Jerusalem, not Cyril of Alexandria.
Thanks be to the Lord, the Catholic Church got it right. I shouldn’t worry so much, after all, about those complaining about the exclusion of St. Paul’s letter to the Laodiceans.
DD2007, are these two statements equivalent?
Just because one thing equips you for “every good work” doesn’t mean that nothing else can equip you for any good work at all.
Mea Culpa.
So what? If the Doctors of the Church (The Catholic Church, by the way) are sufficient to explain why Creeds are useful as summaries of the True Faith, then the Doctors of the Catholic Church should be sufficient in their views on Mary. After all, you quoted their reliance upon Scripture in expositing the Creed. Were they so trustworthy that you can use them for your purposes, but so deluded that only you can discern their truths from errors?
Jews also assure us Jesus is not the Messiah.
Man-made tradition - you don’t have scriptural quotation for what you said above.
Now, because you can not show me where an apostle of Christ blessed as true Masthew’s Gospel, must I assume that is not Scripture either?
Using scripture alone, try to show me who the actual writer of Mark’s Gospel was.
Oh, that odd word: tradition.
Going by the Bible alone, how do you know that what Paul (or any other person for that matter) wrote should be scripture?
Considering that DD2007 hasn’t been able to cite the verses in the Bible that list the books that are canonical, how could they cite the verses that say that the Word of God is only found in the Bible.
I am stll trying to find scriptural support for the theory that the Ezra/Nehemiah era was the cut-off period for the Old Testament. Will you please help me?
Thomas Aquinas was human and I don’t have to agree with everything that he said and did. As Catholic apologists are wont to point out when early writing seem to support a Protestant view, the writers are not infallible. When someone suggests that one cannot follow the bible alone and still accept the Creeds, it is useful to show that writers accepted by the Church state that the Creeds only summarize Scripture.
Who says what the “proper” exegesis is? Anything you might appeal to here, including “accepted rules of exegesis” is external to scripture and so your appeal to “proper exegesis” is self-refuting.
I used to hold this argument as an evangelical Protestant, but I realized that the logic was bad. Saying that scripture is given so that the man of God may be fully equipped is not the same as saying that with scripture alone the man of God is fully equipped. That would (to borrow Newman’s phrase) prove too much and “prove,” for example, that the illumination of the Holy Spirit and seminary education are unnecessary. That’s the sort of thing that results in snake-handling hillbilly churches. Or Arminianism
I see no table of contents here. Nothing to tell us that Hebrews is in and the Gospel of James is out.
The list of errors of individual members of the Church (including some of its leaders) is endless, but I don’t think you have a leg to stand on when you say “the Church has made errors”.
You can’t with any integrity claim Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, or Luther as Reformed. I understand that what you’re saying is that they agreed with Reformed theology on many things and contributed a great deal to what would become Reformed theology. And you’re right there. But I think it would behoove you to ask whether, if you really admire these figures so much, you shouldn’t listen to them a bit more carefully when they say things that *don’t *agree with Reformed theology. (Two obvious examples would be the Real Presence and baptismal regeneration, and to make these more specific, I mean by the former a presence of Christ in the sacrament such that worshiping Christ there cannot be called idolatry, and by the latter a regeneration that can be received by those who are not among the elect, that is, by those who do not finally persevere.)
Most scholars think that Daniel and other books of the Hebrew canon were also written after that time.