Sola Scriptura is True

  • Thread starter Thread starter DD2007
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by DD2007 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
I believe that the Roman Catholic Church as it exists today is an apostate organization that teaches a false gospel. It is filled with deception and the office of the pope is anti-christ. I believe it is an affront for the kingdom of satan who loves nothing better than perverting the gospel of Christ and leading people away from the truth and into bondage to false doctrines based on fear.
**I am offended by your baseless, offensive and heretical **
comments here and I demand an apology!
Don’t hold your Catholic Christian breath. If he is truly a Witness, he has little or no fear of your Jesus, whom they proclaim as either “a” god, or perhaps Michael the Archangel… thus they have no fear of being heretical.

Sola Scriptura allows one to re-word, re-invent, re-interpret all by their sola self.

.
 
Originally Posted by DD2007 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
I believe that the Roman Catholic Church as it exists today is an apostate organization that teaches a false gospel. It is filled with deception and the office of the pope is anti-christ. I believe it is an affront for the kingdom of satan who loves nothing better than** perverting the gospel of Christ** and leading people away from the truth and into bondage to false doctrines based on fear.

Don’t hold your Catholic Christian breath. If he is truly a Witness, he has little or no fear of your Jesus, whom they proclaim as either “a” god, or perhaps Michael the Archangel… thus they have no fear of being heretical.

Sola Scriptura allows one to re-word, re-invent, re-interpret all by their sola self.

.
Wonder what he thinks of the scripture Saul Saul why are you persecuting me. We all know who Saul was persecuting. It was the same Church Saul became part of the Catholic Church. So who is the Catholic CHurch. Easy what did Jesus Christ say? ME.

Jesus Christ and his church are ONE.
 
You haven’t presented the view of the Church Fathers that contradict what I have said. All you do is say that I am wrong.
I have challenged you to study for yourself, since you seem unwilling to listen to anything a non-Catholic says. I pointed you to specific passages in the Fathers which use the word “Antichrist” for the eschatological “man of sin” (not, I repeat, for the Papacy–I apologize again for that misunderstanding). I have also pointed you to a classic manifesto of liberal Protestant exegetical theory and have pointed out how deeply hostile this theory is to the Catholic tradition and how conscious Jowett is that he is attacking that tradition. And you yourself, quite of your own volition, added to my case by giving me a liberal Protestant definition of exegesis as the only right and proper one (based on a Google search).

You seem to want a quick proof of how the Fathers defined exegesis. But there’s really no substitute for actually reading them. However, I can give you the definition of the original Greek word from the Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. BAG give two possible meanings for “exegesis.” The first is “narrative” or "description. They give an example from 1 Clement 50:1: “tes teleiotetos autes ouk estin exegesis” (its perfection [speaking of love] cannot be fully described). The second meaning, which is more directly relevant, is “explanation” or “interpretation.” You can see from this that the original term had a much broader meaning than you are giving it. It did not simply describe a strictly defined activity directed to determining what the original author meant in the original context. It could be used for all sorts of narratives, explanations, or descriptions. It was any kind of interpretive account.

I also, once again, point you to de Lubac’s Medieval Exegesis as the most authoritative account of what “exegesis” meant in practice from the early Church through the Reformation.
It is my baptismal obligation to inform the person of their error. If I annoy you by doing that then I say, so be it. It’s nothing personal, it’s not my intension
Interesting. Perhaps you should be less offended when other people carry out *their *baptismal obligations. I am not the one taking offense here. I am annoyed *only *by your refusal to engage with the issue. You can disagree with me all day long. You can even call me hard names all day long, and I won’t be offended–as long as you are presenting substantive arguments addressing the question of how the early Christians defined exegesis. So far you have made no argument that is even remotely relevant to this question.
Have I read and studied all the Early Church Father’s Writings, no I haven’t,
Obviously I haven’t either. Since you apparently have read some of the Fathers, perhaps you could tell me what you have read of their exegetical work which inclined you to think that they defined it as narrowly as you do.
but I can assure you there are none in communion with the Church that agree with DD2007 on either of the topics we have discussed.
You are fixated on poor old DD2007. I apologize for giving the impression that I agreed with him, but you need to stop implying that I do agree with him when I’ve told you explicitly that I don’t. The issue between us is how to define exegesis (and thus whether the traditional interpretation of 1 John through the lens of Daniel, Revelation, and 2 Thessalonians is automatically invalid as not fitting the proper definition of exegesis). That’s what I’m challenging you on. Please do us both the courtesy of not pretending that we are arguing about something else. I’m not even committed to defending the traditional definition of “Antichrist.” You (and modern Biblical scholars generally) may be right that 1 John shouldn’t be read in this way. All I’m saying is that this is the traditional Catholic (as well as Protestant) way to interpret 1 John and neither the specific interpretation nor the general exegetical method on which it rests should be simply dismissed without serious thought. (And again, since you seem determined to misunderstand me here, let me clarify that we are *not *talking about whether the Pope is the Antichrist.)
I would challenge you as well on the statement that your view of the meaning of the word exegesis would be more in line with the Pope than mine would. Obviously we cannot call him to ask, so I guess we’ll have to let that one go.
Well no. You could read some of his writings. It’s a worthy way to spend one’s time whether one is Catholic or Protestant.

Edwin
 
Originally Posted by DD2007 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
I believe that the Roman Catholic Church as it exists today is an apostate organization that teaches a false gospel. It is filled with deception and the office of the pope is anti-christ. I believe it is an affront for the kingdom of satan who loves nothing better than** perverting the gospel of Christ** and leading people away from the truth and into bondage to false doctrines based on fear.

Don’t hold your Catholic Christian breath. If he is truly a Witness, he has little or no fear of your Jesus, whom they proclaim as either “a” god, or perhaps Michael the Archangel… thus they have no fear of being heretical.

Sola Scriptura allows one to re-word, re-invent, re-interpret all by their sola self.

.
DD. WE now have the gospel according DD,we will have another church by Him,Hisalone and that will be 38,001. LOL run we have another Jim Jones running around,may god help us
 
Hi Edwin:wave: You and I have exchanged our opinions with eachother in the last few years. And I think we both have always treated eachother with great respect and we also have great respect for eachothers views.

I think we can come to the conclusion that we of course have different views but when push comes to shove we both have more in common with eachother then not. That main common Dem. being our Love for Jesus CHrist.

From what I was taught the word anti means against. And the word anti-christ was always taught to be the devil. It was always the devil who wants to attack the church and our faith.

So I would like to ask a personal question if I may. What do you think of any Christian saying that the teachings of the RCC is the devil. I mean I have discussed our Catholic faith with many of Christians and yes they may not agree with all of the Popes teachings. But they have always had great respect for him. as we as RC have great respect for anyone proclaiming the word of GOd.

I personally do go by the teaching of the POpe and the Church, but would never say that because protestant preachers are not in communion with ROme are the anti-christ. I believe that anyone teaching the word of God the best they can, even thought our views are different deserve our respect. Do you agree?
 
You seem to want a quick proof of how the Fathers defined exegesis. But there’s really no substitute for actually reading them. However, I can give you the definition of the original Greek word from the Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. BAG give two possible meanings for “exegesis.” The first is “narrative” or "description. They give an example from 1 Clement 50:1: “tes teleiotetos autes ouk estin exegesis” (its perfection [speaking of love] cannot be fully described). The second meaning, which is more directly relevant, is “explanation” or “interpretation.” You can see from this that the original term had a much broader meaning than you are giving it. It did not simply describe a strictly defined activity directed to determining what the original author meant in the original context. It could be used for all sorts of narratives, explanations, or descriptions. It was any kind of interpretive account.

Edwin
Why do you feel the need to “lay the law” to me? You jumped into the conversation with a preconceived notion of me and what I am about and you have failed to hear anything said. All you heard was, “…another uneducated Catholic.”

You want me to read the Fathers to see their use of exegesis; this will show me the result of their exegetical work. Even in your definition it shows the same as the one I listed yesterday, “explanation” or "interpretation” OF THE TEXT!

What they thought about the text is theology. Did this particular term, anti-Christ, take on different meanings through the centuries, yes. I never disagreed with that statement. It has been applied to many theological meanings of the different books of the bible, as you mention, again we agree. But never did a Father of the Catholic Church, in communion with her, say the Pope or his office is anti-Christ. That would lead to excommunication as a heretic, which has happened in the history of the Church.

When I make a statement like exegesis is exegesis that does not mean I don’t believe different theologians didn’t derive different meanings while in the process of exegetical work on the same scripture. I never said that. I simply stated what exegesis is, not what the results are. If I didn’t express that well enough I apologize.

Now please, can we move on? I am not going to continue arguing semantics with you, this will lead us nowhere positive. If you insist on laying the law to Lapey, I guess I’ll just have to stop the discussion with you (I know this would break your heart!:(). However, you don’t seem like that type of person. By the comments Catholics and others on this board have made to and about you, you seem like a very fair and reasonable person, quite learned as well.

Let’s discuss something more important than what a word means; like how do the same people, who believe in sola scriptura come to the conclusion that “the Apostle whom Jesus loved” is John the Apostle? You won’t find this written in scripture. Sola Scriptura believers like him must have a tradition to fall back on to learn this. Just a thought I had when reading another thread started by the unnamed starter of this thread.

I may be painting with a broad brush here, what are your thoughts?
 
You are fixated on poor old DD2007. I apologize for giving the impression that I agreed with him, but you need to stop implying that I do agree with him when I’ve told you explicitly that I don’t. The issue between us is how to define exegesis (and thus whether the traditional interpretation of 1 John through the lens of Daniel, Revelation, and 2 Thessalonians is automatically invalid as not fitting the proper definition of exegesis). That’s what I’m challenging you on. Please do us both the courtesy of not pretending that we are arguing about something else. I’m not even committed to defending the traditional definition of “Antichrist.” You (and modern Biblical scholars generally) may be right that 1 John shouldn’t be read in this way. All I’m saying is that this is the traditional Catholic (as well as Protestant) way to interpret 1 John and neither the specific interpretation nor the general exegetical method on which it rests should be simply dismissed without serious thought. (And again, since you seem determined to misunderstand me here, let me clarify that we are *not *talking about whether the Pope is the Antichrist.)

Edwin
I don’t believe I said, I know I didn’t think that you agreed with DD. You repeatedly denied his premise and I appreciate that from you. If I said or implied otherwise I apologize.
 
Let’s discuss something more important than what a word means; like how do the same people, who believe in sola scriptura come to the conclusion that “the Apostle whom Jesus loved” is John the Apostle? You won’t find this written in scripture. Sola Scriptura believers like him must have a tradition to fall back on to learn this. Just a thought I had when reading another thread started by the unnamed starter of this thread.
Depends how you define Sola Scriptura. There are definitions out there where this is not an issue.
 
Justin Martyr wrote:

“And now, if I say this to you, although I have repeated it many times, I know that it is not absurd so to do. For it is a ridiculous thing to see the sun, and the moon, and the other stars, continually keeping the same course, and bringing round the different seasons; and to see the computer who may be asked how many are twice two, because he has frequently said that they are four, not ceasing to say again that they are four; and equally so other things, which are confidently admitted, to be continually mentioned and admitted in like manner; yet that he who founds his discourse on the prophetic Scriptures should leave them and abstain from constantly referring to the same Scriptures, because it is thought he can bring forth something better than Scripture. The passage, then, by which I proved that God reveals that there are both angels and hosts in heaven is this: ‘Praise the Lord from the heavens: praise Him in the highest. Praise Him, all His angels: praise Him, all His hosts.’” (Dialogue with Trypho, 85)

A common Catholic response to such patristic passages is to argue that the church father in question was only referring to the importance of scripture, not its sufficiency. In other words, though Justin Martyr is correct that there’s nothing better than scripture, he isn’t denying that there can be other sources of equal authority, such as the traditions of Roman Catholicism.

But Justin criticizes those who would “leave” scripture, who wouldn’t “constantly” look to it in their arguments. If we can’t leave scripture, and we’re to look to it constantly, what is that if not sola scriptura?

Another common Catholic response to such patristic passages is to claim that the church father was advocating the material sufficiency of scripture, but not its formal sufficiency. In other words, all doctrines can be derived from scripture, but we need the infallible Roman Catholic hierarchy to guide us, to tell us what is to be derived from the scriptures. But Justin doesn’t say that. He doesn’t refer to scripture being sufficient if accompanied by the interpretations of the Roman Catholic magisterium. Rather, he refers to scripture itself being sufficient. Just after his comments on the sufficiency of scripture, Justin goes on to quote a passage from the Psalms as proof for one of his arguments. Instead of quoting the Roman Catholic magisterium’s interpretation of the Psalm, Justin tells us that the Psalm itself is the proof.

It doesn’t seem, then, that Justin had material sufficiency in view. It seems that he was referring to the formal sufficiency of scripture. Even if he had been referring to material sufficiency, the popularity of material sufficiency in some Roman Catholic circles is of recent origin, and some Catholics still reject the concept.

If scripture is as insufficient, as unclear as Roman Catholics claim it is, one wonders why there wasn’t some infallible interpreter of scripture in the Old Testament era, one to which both Justin Martyr and Trypho could have appealed in their disputes over the Messianic prophecies. Justin Martyr shows no knowledge of such an Old Testament infallible interpreter, nor does he show any knowledge of such an institution in this New Testament era.

Ambrose said:

“For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?” - Ambrose (On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102)

“The Arians, then, say that Christ is unlike the Father; we deny it. Nay, indeed, we shrink in dread from the word. Nevertheless I would not that your sacred Majesty should trust to argument and our disputation. Let us enquire of the Scriptures, of apostles, of prophets, of Christ. In a word, let us enquire of the Father…So, indeed, following the guidance of the Scriptures, our fathers [at the Council of Nicaea] declared, holding, moreover, that impious doctrines should be included in the record of their decrees, in order that the unbelief of Arius should discover itself, and not, as it were, mask itself with dye or face-paint.” - Ambrose (Exposition of the Christian Faith, 1:6:43, 1:18:119)

Cyprian wrote:

“Let nothing be innovated, says he, nothing maintained, except what has been handed down. Whence is that tradition? Whether does it descend from the authority of the Lord and of the Gospel, or does it come from the commands and the epistles of the apostles? For that those things which are written must be done, God witnesses and admonishes, saying to Joshua the son of Nun: ‘The book of this law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate in it day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein.’ Also the Lord, sending His apostles, commands that the nations should be baptized, and taught to observe all things which He commanded. If, therefore, it is either prescribed in the Gospel, or contained in the epistles or Acts of the Apostles, that those who come from any heresy should not be baptized, but only hands laid upon them to repentance, let this divine and holy tradition be observed.” - Cyprian (Letter 73:2)

Rufinus said (on Canon):

“But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not ‘Canonical’ but ‘Ecclesiastical:’ that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas, and that which is called The Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine.” - Rufinus (A Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed, 38)

Theodoret wrote:

“I shall yield to scripture alone.” - Theodoret (Dialogues, 1)
 
Augustine:

The RCC includes the Vulgate version of 1 Esdras in its canon, not the Septuagint version. But Augustine seemed to include the Septuagint version of 1 Esdras in his canon, not the Vulgate version. This is indicated by his reference to a story about a discussion among three men, which is included in the Septuagint version of 1 Esdras, but not the Vulgate’s:

“After these three prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, during the same period of the liberation of the people from the Babylonian servitude Esdras also wrote, who is historical rather than prophetical, as is also the book called Esther, which is found to relate, for the praise of God, events not far from those times; unless, perhaps, Esdras is to be understood as prophesying of Christ in that passage where, on a question having arisen among certain young men as to what is the strongest thing, when one had said kings, another wine, the third women, who for the most part rule kings, yet that same third youth demonstrated that the truth is victorious over all.” (The City of God, 18:36)

Cyril of Jerusalem:

“For the process was no word-craft, nor contrivance of human devices: but the translation of the Divine Scriptures, spoken by the Holy Ghost, was of the Holy Ghost accomplished. Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than thyself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if thou art desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them. For of the Law the books of Moses are the first five, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. And next, Joshua the son of Nave, and the book of Judges, including Ruth, counted as seventh. And of the other historical books, the first and second books of the Kings are among the Hebrews one book; also the third and fourth one book. And in like manner, the first and second of Chronicles are with them one book; and the first and second of Esdras are counted one. Esther is the twelfth book; and these are the Historical writings. But those which are written in verses are five, Job, and the book of Psalms, and Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, which is the seventeenth book. And after these come the five Prophetic books: of the Twelve Prophets one book, of Isaiah one, of Jeremiah one, including Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle; then Ezekiel, and the Book of Daniel, the twenty-second of the Old Testament.” - Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, 4:34-35)

John of Damascus:

“Observe, further, that there are two and twenty books of the Old Testament, one for each letter of the Hebrew tongue. For there are twenty-two letters of which five are double, and so they come to be twenty-seven. For the letters Caph, Mere, Nun, Pe, Sade are double. And thus the number of the books in this way is twenty-two, but is found to be twenty-seven because of the double character of five. For Ruth is joined on to Judges, and the Hebrews count them one book: the first and second books of Kings are counted one: and so are the third and fourth books of Kings: and also the first and second of Paraleipomena: and the first and second of Esdra. In this way, then, the books are collected together in four Pentateuchs and two others remain over, to form thus the canonical books. Five of them are of the Law, viz. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. This which is the code of the Law, constitutes the first Pentateuch. Then comes another Pentateuch, the so-called Grapheia, or as they are called by some, the Hagiographa, which are the following: Jesus the Son of Nave, Judges along with Ruth, first and second Kings, which are one book, third and fourth Kings, which are one book, and the two books of the Paraleipomena which are one book. This is the second Pentateuch. The third Pentateuch is the books in verse, viz. Job, Psalms, Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes of Solomon and the Song of Songs of Solomon. The fourth Pentateuch is the Prophetical books, viz the twelve prophets constituting one book, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. Then come the two books of Esdra made into one, and Esther. There 90 are also the Panaretus, that is the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus, which was published in Hebrew by the father of Sirach, and afterwards translated into Greek by his grandson, Jesus, the Son of Sirach. These are virtuous and noble, but are not counted nor were they placed in the ark.” - John of Damascus (An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 4:17)
 
Augustine:

“For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,–to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages.” - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 2:9)

“For this reason, where they cannot interpret them [the scriptures] otherwise according to their own sentence, be it ever so clear and manifest, they answer that it is obscure and uncertain because wrong and perverse they dare not call it.” - Augustine (Of the Work of Monks, 10)

Hippolytus:

Roman Catholics tell us that scripture is insufficient, and they often refer to scripture being unclear. We’re often told that Trinitarian doctrine, for example, either is unbiblical or is unclear in scripture. But Hippolytus, a church father of the second and third centuries, who lived in Rome, disagreed. In the process of refuting anti-Trinitarian heresies, he advocated sola scriptura and explained that scripture itself (not scripture and an infallible interpreter) is sufficient to refute these heresies:

“Some others are secretly introducing another doctrine, who have become disciples of one Noetus, who was a native of Smyrna, and lived not very long ago. This person was greatly puffed up and inflated with pride, being inspired by the conceit of a strange spirit. He alleged that Christ was the Father Himself, and that the Father Himself was born, and suffered, and died…But the case stands not thus; for the Scriptures do not set forth the matter in this manner…the Scriptures themselves confute their senselessness, and attest the truth…The Scriptures speak what is right; but Noetus is of a different mind from them. Yet, though Noetus does not understand the truth, the Scriptures are not at once to be repudiated…The proper way, therefore, to deal with the question is first of all to refute the interpretation put upon these passages [of scripture] by these men, and then to explain their real meaning…For whenever they wish to attempt anything underhand, they mutilate the Scriptures. But let him quote the passage as a whole, and he will discover the reason kept in view in writing it…if they choose to maintain that their dogma is ratified by this passage [of scripture], as if He owned Himself to be the Father, let them know that it is decidedly against them, and that they are confuted by this very word…Many other passages [of scripture], or rather all of them, attest the truth. A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, who, being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, Himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these, therefore, are three. But if he desires to learn how it is shown still that there is one God, let him know that His power is one…What, then, will this Noetus, who knows nothing of the truth, dare to say to these things? And now, as Noetus has been confuted, let us turn to the exhibition of the truth itself, that we may establish the truth, against which all these mighty heresies have arisen without being able to state anything to the purpose. There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us took; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them.” (Against the Heresy of One Noetus, 1-4, 7-9)

Cyril of Jerusalem:

“For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” - Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, 4:17)

Augustine:

“In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind…In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself.” - Augustine (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 11:5)

Clement of Alexandria:

“But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves.” - Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata, 7:16)

Augustine:

“Every sickness of the soul hath in Scripture its proper remedy.” - Augustine (Expositions on the Psalms, 37:2)

God bless.
 
Because RC is right scripture in unclear. Unless it is read under the guidance of the HS.

A eye for a eye

Thou shall not kill?

If you went just be picking and choosing a line of scripture, scripture would appear to contradict itself. BY we know as RC that scripture cannot contradict scripture. So it has to be misunderstood or taken out of context.

That is why Jesus left us the CHurch, not a Bible or scripture. If you took every bible out of the world today it would be okay. Because there would still be a Catholic CHurch led by the power of the HS. GOd promised it. God proved it. Many have tried to teach down the church. From the beginning of Christ. But the Church is still here like Jesus promised.

Look even today the Church was accused of being the anti-christ. Thats pretty bad, when a person calls themself a Christian and then accuses the Church that Peter and the Apostles started as being the anti-christ. But Jesus said to forgive them, and stay away from any false teachings. So we must forgive and obey the word of our dear Lord.
 
Augustine:

God bless.
Ok, for the sake of argument, I concede SS is true. Now how does Catholic Tradition and doctrine directly conflict with scripture? Not an individual interpretation, but the Catholic commentaries of scripture.

This is where we seem to go off the deep end. Doctrine is sound the interpretation of scripture within the church that follows the tradition and doctrine.

I believe where we separate is in the interpretation of the scripture. This has been said here many times by many people. I see support for the Immaculate Conception in scripture, definitely not a contradiction n my book. So how is that contrary to scripture?

The word sufficient does not mean that that is all I need. A salary of $250K is sufficient to live comfortably, but I would much rather Eli Manning’s contract.

All of the quotes you present as evidence can back up, and do, what the Catholic Church teaches and follows.

The teaching on the real presence in the Eucharist is plain as day, for me as a Catholic, explained by Jesus in John 6. But you who are not Catholic will not see this so you believe it is against scripture so we must be against scriptural teachings. That is not true in the least.

So I make you an offer, I’ll concede that sola scriptura is true, you concede that the Roman Catholic Church is right in every interpretation of scripture.

How’s that for a compromise?👍
 
Just a simple question:
DD2007 you said that the cannon of sacred scripture is in -
“apostles and prophets” from Ephesians 2:20
List of the Apostles:
The Twelve include Peter, Andrew, James the Greater, James the Lesser, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, Thaddeus, Simon, and Judas Iscariot. Judas had been one of the Twelve, but he betrayed Jesus and killed himself. With Judas gone, Matthias became one of the Twelve. Then Paul last.
Where is Luke in the list of Apostles?
List of the Prophets:
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (Baruch not in Protestant OT Scriptures)
Where does it say Luke was one of the prophets?
 
Originally Posted by DD2007 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
I believe that the Roman Catholic Church as it exists today is an apostate organization that teaches a false gospel. It is filled with deception and the office of the pope is anti-christ. I believe it is an affront for the kingdom of satan who loves nothing better than** perverting the gospel of Christ** and leading people away from the truth and into bondage to false doctrines based on fear.

Don’t hold your Catholic Christian breath. If he is truly a Witness, he has little or no fear of your Jesus, whom they proclaim as either “a” god, or perhaps Michael the Archangel… thus they have no fear of being heretical.

Sola Scriptura allows one to re-word, re-invent, re-interpret all by their sola self.

HEY! HE IS NOT ONE OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES!
he is a Calvinist

MOST JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES employ what Peter said we should be ‘always ready to make a defense before those demanding a reason for our hope.’ He then added that we should ‘do so together with a mild temper and deep respect.’ (1*Pet. 3:15) Yes, Peter recognized the need to be bold but also to use tact.

Also, Catholic Church couldn’t be “Babylon the Great” seee Rev 18:24

.
 
Because RC is right scripture in unclear. Unless it is read under the guidance of the HS.

A eye for a eye

Thou shall not kill?

If you went just be picking and choosing a line of scripture, scripture would appear to contradict itself. BY we know as RC that scripture cannot contradict scripture. So it has to be misunderstood or taken out of context.

That is why Jesus left us the CHurch, not a Bible or scripture. If you took every bible out of the world today it would be okay. Because there would still be a Catholic CHurch led by the power of the HS. GOd promised it. God proved it. Many have tried to teach down the church. From the beginning of Christ. But the Church is still here like Jesus promised.

Look even today the Church was accused of being the anti-christ. Thats pretty bad, when a person calls themself a Christian and then accuses the Church that Peter and the Apostles started as being the anti-christ. But Jesus said to forgive them, and stay away from any false teachings. So we must forgive and obey the word of our dear Lord.
Are you saying Catholics have never done what you claim everybody else does? You claim John 3:5 is speaking about baptism of water and baptism of Spirit. But if you see the scripture which proceeds after, it is clearly talking about natural birth and the birth of the Holy Spirit.

John 3:5-6 KJV
(5) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
(6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.


Even the previous scripture proves the interpretation of natural birth:

John 3:4
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?

How so? Well, Nicodemus basically asks Jesus how a man can be born twice. If the Catholic interpretation is correct, we must be born three times (naturally, by water, and by Spirit). When someone is born-again, they do not become born again twice.

God bless you.
 
But here is the thing, when Jesus left the Church he left the key to Peter. He promised to guide the CHurch with the advocate the HS and promised that the CC would always lead us to the absolute truth. He promised us that.

Now Peter started the Catholic Church and the Pope is handed down the keys to the kingdom. Now to deny that the Pope has been handed down those keys would mean that we deny that Peter ever had them either. Then you would be denying that Jesus CHrist had the power to hand over those keys. Do you understand what I am saying?

So the Question really is do you believe that Jesus Christ had that Power given to him from God to have the keys to the kingdom here and in heaven. If you believe that then you have to agree that God gave Jesus all power on heaven and earth the way he said he did. ANd if you believe that you must believe his words when he told the APostles all was given to me I now give to you. GO and make disciples of all nations. WHich they did, and continue to do. Jesus said the power would never die until the end of time. Now you either believe he has the power and passed it down or you don’t. If you believe what he said you cannot deny the Power of the Pope and the Bishops in office. Its as simple as that.

He also the hades would never end this power. Hades in the old testament meant death. So what Jesus said was death would never end this power. That is why it is passed down until the end of time the way Jesus promised. SO the gate of hades has never prevailed. Jesus said so. The power of the HS is still as alive today as it was in the time of Jesus. Because Jesus leads the Catholic CHurch and the Pope by the Power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus promised he would never leave us orphans. ANd he never has. He is alive and well in the HS and is still guiding the CC and the Pope and Bishops in office.
Yes, I understand what you are saying. Oddly enough,(as you may perhaps see it) I am very close to agreement with you.
Now, it is true that my definition of the Church is wider than yours. But when it comes to the subject at hand–Sola Scriptura-- I have resisted, and I will continue any attempts by anyone (Protestant, Catholic, EO, or the ever-popular ;)Upstate NY Non-Trinitarian Nudist Baptist Pagans) to set Sola Scriptura (or any of the other “solas” )as being a legitimate theological stance.
SS is simply indefensible. It denies the witness of history, the witness of the Church Fathers, and the reasoning ability placed in us by God Almighty. Anyone who tries to argue for SS is in the position of defending something because he likes it, not because it has any support from the Church. (And that means the wider Church that both Edwin & I speak of, as well as the less broad definition that you propose).
I will wrestle a Catholic to the wall on this subject every bit as much as I will wrestle an Anglican, a Presbyterian, or a fellow Methodist.
As far as following the lead of the teachings of Rome as the basis for choosing between two alternatives, I would expect that to be the response of a Catholic. What is peculiar in this thread is, that we have a couple of us 😉“heretics” defending Tradition and at least one Catholic trying to move away from it.
This is a bizarre state of affairs, but:shrug: there it is.

I will do one better: I will go so far as to say that the fact that a pope or popes–the Magisterium of the Catholic Church–adopting a position (on anything) gives more weight to that said position, than if some guy from, say, my (hopefully mythical) UNYNTNBPs spouting an opinion that came to him in a dream on Thursday last after indulging in a couple of Old Granddads.
The Magisterium has a solid basis for acceptance. That guy with the bottle of my own :tiphat:Favorite Poison:p?..Well. He has the:whacky: sound of his own voice (and:D good taste in liquor).

But again, I am with you on this point. I grant you freely that my reasons may be less than satisfactory to you, but there we are.
Sola Scriptura is not true. It cannot be true. It flies in the face of historic Christianity. And the fact that I believe that the Brothers Wesley were firmly within said historic Christianity, whilst you disagree is, for me, a very minor matter, compared to the total theological and exegetical chaos that ensues when people start listening to their own imaginations, and the Little Voices in their dreams.
 
Tristan,

Your patristic quotes demonstrate amply the authority of scripture in the early Church. Catholic teaching says the same thing. But saying that scripture is authoritative is not the same as saying that scripture alone is authoritative. Check this out.
 
Indeed. Not to start a quote war, but if you look you will find statements from many of the Fathers saying that they do in fact, follow Sacred Tradition and the Apostolic See.

Augustine

“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top