Sola Scriptura

[La_Chiara]

brianberean:

I have no problem acknowledging that God used a fallible NT era church to correctly recognize and protect his NT canon. He did the same thing for the OT when He used the fallible Jews to correctly recognize and protect it.

Brian

So God used the fallible Jews to protect the Old Testament canon, and He used the fallible Catholic Church to protect the New Testament canon…only until the infallible Protestants could protect the Bible? Or would that be particular infallible Protestants? Fundamentalists? Or just you? You are serious?

 

[brianberean]

fulloftruth:

Brian I see you want ECF evidence for the Isaiah 22 reference and while I do not Know if any exists, if it does not, it would only mean that everyone knew that Peter was the Prime Minister, and that the absurd Idea of questioning his seats’ authority had not yet wasted the ECF’s time. Too bad you weren’t around then so we would have such a defense.

Wrong again. There definately were challenges to decisions by the bishop of Rome and the authority the bishop of Roman thought he had.

Brian

 

[brianberean]

montanaman:

Brian,

The Pauline “evidence” looks to me like you’re trying to build a case for “impeccability,” not “infallibility.” It seems as though you think Catholics build a case for the primacy of Peter based on merely the number of times he’s mentioned, or because he’s somehow “better” than the rest. That simply isn’t true. We mention the frequency of Peter in Scripture because it’s always in conjunction with his “ranking,” not merely because he’s mentioned a bunch of times.

Montanaman,

I posted the “evidence for a Pauline primacy” simply to show the error of the other poster in citing what he did about Peter. I could have just as easily responded to every Peter snippet he copied from Dave Armstrong but I opted for this tactic instead. I don’t see how one could criticize these snippets about Paul and yet affirm the same tactic when applied to Peter.

Brian

 

[brianberean]

La Chiara:

So God used the fallible Jews to protect the Old Testament canon, and He used the fallible Catholic Church to protect the New Testament canon…only until the infallible Protestants could protect the Bible? Or would that be particular infallible Protestants? Fundamentalists? Or just you? You are serious?

Nobody, save God, is infallible. Seriously.

Brian

 

[La_Chiara]

So where in your Bible does it show that God changed his mind and took stewardship of the New Testament canon away from the Catholic Church (and gave it to Martin Luther or the Church of Calvary or the Baptists)?

 

[LaSalle]

brianberean:

Nobody, save God, is infallible. Seriously.

Brian

True, God is infallible. But where does the bible say that He did NOT give this to His Church?

Catholics believe He did, and that’s exactly how He guides us. Show me otherwise.

 

[brianberean]

La Chiara:

So where in your Bible does it show that God changed his mind and took stewardship of the New Testament canon away from the Catholic Church (and gave it to Martin Luther or the Church of Calvary or the Baptists)?

Revelation, chapter 23.

Brian

 

[brianberean]

LaSalle:

True, God is infallible. But where does the bible say that He did NOT give this to His Church?

Catholics believe He did, and that’s exactly how He guides us. Show me otherwise.

Where does it say that God gave infallibility to His church? There is president in Scripture that God didn’t give infallibility to his OT covenant people (the Jews), where does it say He gave it to his NT era covenant people?

Brian

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

brianberean:

The Mormons and JWs don’t consider “newness” an obstacle.

Do you?

Would the infallible interpreter need to go back at least as far as the OT was correctly recognized and protected? If not, why? How did a Jew living 50 years before Christ know that the book of Isaiah was inspired?

The OT Jews relied on the ones sitting in the seat of Moses, the ones with teaching authority.

Secret: I heard that 1 Tim 3:15 was (in context) referring to a local church. Shhh…

(whispering) You heard that 1 Tim 3:15, in context, means that each and every individual local church is it’s own upholder, protector and defender of it’s own truth? Is that true?

You are simply wrong.

How can you be certain that I’m wrong? Not that I’m not, but how can you be certain that I “simply” am?

And where do you come up with “tens of thousands”, do you have evidence for that figure?

According to David Barrett et al, editors of the "World Christian Encyclopedia*: * 34,000 separate Christian groups have been identified in the world.

World Christian Database: provided by the Center for the Study of Global Christianity of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, an evangelical Christian institution. Includes statistics on 34,000 Christian denominations.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[brianberean]

Nancy, I just noticed that you are a Packer fan. Your stock has just risen dramatically in my book!

Catholic4aReasn:

Do you?

I think any “unique” views, theologies, claims or teachings should be treated with caution.

The OT Jews relied on the ones sitting in the seat of Moses, the ones with teaching authority.

Evidence? The “seat of Moses” account from Matthew is not evidence for the claim you made. The Pharisees had only been around for a couple hundred years.

(whispering) You heard that 1 Tim 3:15, in context, means that each and every individual local church is it’s own upholder, protector and defender of it’s own truth? Is that true?

I’m just asking you to read the verse in context. Draw you own conclusions.

How can you be certain that I’m wrong? Not that I’m not, but how can you be certain that I “simply” am?

I answered the “how” in my response.

According to David Barrett et al, editors of the "World Christian Encyclopedia*: * 34,000 separate Christian groups have been identified in the world.

World Christian Database: provided by the Center for the Study of Global Christianity of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, an evangelical Christian institution. Includes statistics on 34,000 Christian denominations.

In the same report Barrett claims there are thousands of Catholic denominations. What does that mean?

Brian

 

[fulloftruth]

I may be naive here but my Bible doesn’t have a chapter 23 in Revelation. Brian are you being funny and just saying you have no proof, or what.

Brian,
Also I would like to say that you seem to lend great credence to anti catholic rhetoric and commentary, mainly from fallen away catholics. But you hold Catholic commentary and Catholic explanations as insufficient, and failing in some sense. Why such un-fair standard for the Bride of Christ. Your anger towards the Church is glaring and is quite dangerous for your soul. You will find when you pass from this world that you are Saul of old, and Christ will say to you" Why did you persecute me so?" I will pray for you. It is qiute clear that you are a former Catholic. Most other people do not hate the church so strongly. Your anger has blinded you from the truth. For example when you say there is no scriptural reference for succession. St. Paul says “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach. Now if you want to put blinders on and hold the Church to an un-reasonable standard of proof, then you could say that this passage proves nothing and Isaiah 22:20-24 proves nothing. Yet you will believe a group of fallible men who put the Bible together 1600 years ago whom you would say infallibly canonized the Scriptures, and that the infallibility of these men and the Church to which they themselves claimed to belong and to serve, ended right after that act and from then on it was the scripture that interprets itself and so on and so forth. Why such a double standard of proof. Why trust the Church for the Canon but not trust the Church on anything else.

 

[Aris]

fulloftruth:

Yet you will believe a group of fallible men who put the Bible together 1600 years ago whom you would say infallibly canonized the Scriptures, and that the infallibility of these men and the Church to which they themselves claimed to belong and to serve, ended right after that act and from then on it was the scripture that interprets itself and so on and so forth. Why such a double standard of proof. Why trust the Church for the Canon but not trust the Church on anything else.

Great! I’ve always wondered why non-Catholics take the Bible as the sole basis of Truth when it was the Catholic Church that collected all these books and said , This is the Bible.

And it wasn’t the Catholic Church that added or deducted from the Bible. It started with Martin Luther with his “Faith Alone” insertion into the text and his taking out the Apochrypha books in the Old Testament. Just because The Bible he had then didn’t support his views.

And we now have all the non-Catholics happily editing the Bible as they please.

 

[hlgomez]

Paul was the first apostle to write a book of scripture

Where is your evidence that he first wrote the book? Were you there or have you gone mystic?

Lactantius is anti-images for the reason you state. That this translated over to veneration of images as the RCC teaches today is proclaimed by Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott:…

I have quoted you texts from the Bible where God allowed graven images. Where do you wanna go from there? Are you really a Bible alone Christian or what? You’re contradicting Scripture and uses the fathers and then go back again to Scriptures if your argument is shaky in the fathers. Further, my advise for you is–don’t trust Catholic theologians 100%. They are not simply the offical teaching office of the Catholic Church. In short, they may swerve to the left or to the right anytime they wish. Instead, if you wish to prove your argument against the CC, refer all your argument to the teaching office (Magisterium)–that’s the OFFICIAL Catholic teaching source.

Paul is the last apostle chosen by God, apart from the other twelve.

Were not the 12 directly chosen by Jesus too?

When Paul was chosen, he didn’t preached at once but went to Ananias to receive the ordination–by laying on of hands. This is the most Biblical origin of ordination.
(Acts 9:17-19) So Anani’as departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came, has sent me that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized, 19 and took food and was strengthened.

In short, even if he was chosen by Jesus, he went on to follow the steps that was already laid out by Jesus–to receive ordination from the Bishop. Now, that’s Catholic doctrine at best! Do you Protestant follow that, too? Do you go at once to preach when you say “I am called” and not chose to follow Paul’s example? Gee… I thought Protestants follow the Bible.

Pio

 

[hlgomez]

Mary will not battle against the serpent. If you are speaking of Gen 3:15 that is a translation error that has been acknowledged by most scholars today and changed in most bible editions.

Are you saying you trust the scholars more than the Bible? Whew! Thanks be to God we have the Magisterium that guides our interpretation! For we simply not trust in those scholars.

Carefully read the text: (Gen 3:15) “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed;…” In this text, it shows that the woman is involved here, not just her seed. Is God speaking here or not? Don’t change the meaning of God’s word to suite you argument.

Rev. 12:13-17
And when the dragon saw that he had been thrown down to the earth, he pursued the woman who had borne the male child. 14 But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle that she might fly from the serpent into the wilderness, to the place where she is to be nourished for a time, and times, and half a time. 15 *The serpent poured water like a river out of his mouth after the woman, to sweep her away with the flood. *16 But the earth came to the help of the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed the river which the dragon had poured from his mouth. 17 Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus.

Isn’t it clear enough for you, referring to these passages, that the devil is so angry at the woman (Mary) that he wanted to destroy her as well? Isn’t there a battle going on between her, her offsprings and the devil?

Pio

 

[hlgomez]

I love Mary. She is blessed! What I dislike are the unbiblical teachings of the RCC concerning Mary.

Are you really Biblical or what? You want a Biblical proof of IC? Turn with me, then, to the Book of Song of Songs 4:7

You are all fair, my love;* there is no flaw in you**.* (KJV)

You are so beautiful, my beloved, so perfect in every part. (NLT)

*Thou art all fair, O my love, **and there is not a spot in thee. ***
(DRB)

These passage refer to Mary and is BIBLICAL. Unless you want to interpret otherwise. Note that Mary is the Spouse of the holy Spirit (mmm…that’s Catholic ).

*Pio

 

[hlgomez]

You are very reckless with your words, doesn’t Scripture say we will be held accountable for every reckless word? Now I hate Mary because I argue against the unbiblical teachings of the RCC concerning her? Keep up these irresponsible accusations and we won’t be conversing much longer, I won’t contribute to your sin.

Let’s set aside the IC dogma. I wanted to ask you some questions and answer sincerily from your heart. Now you say that you love her.

1. How do you show your love to her? If yes, how do you manifest your love to her?
2. Do you acknowledge that Mary is your mother?
3. Do you ask for her intercession, as we mostly do when we say to others; “please pray for me…”
4. Do you believe that she is with her Son in heaven?
5. Do you believe that God can preserve her from sin from the moment of her conception? Or simply say; “Can God do it?”

Now, with regards to what you call “accusations” by me, those are only my opinions. If you are offended by it, I didn’t mean to, since I only view it based on your statements.

Pio

 

[hlgomez]

You claimed all RC teachings came from the Apostles. I simply asked for proof. If you have none, just admit it.

Allow me to address this point. You say that you want proof. Let’s stick to just one imortant–most important–doctrine of the faith–the Eucharist.

Many Early Fathers affirm the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We don’t view it as a symbol but the real Body and Blood of Christ. I have quoted the Fathers in my previous post who supports this doctrine, not mentioning the Bible itself. For also in the Bible, I can’t find the words “symbol.” Honestly, I can’t. And in the writings of the early Fathers, too. Much more with the Catholic Church. I would say-- there is one mind and one accord to this doctrine of the faith–in the Bible, the early Fathers of the Church, and the Catholic Church (not to mention the Orthodox Church)! But how about you, do you agree with this teaching?

Pio

 

[hlgomez]

opps, the post above is addressed to Brian.

Pio

 

[brianberean]

fulloftruth:

I may be naive here but my Bible doesn’t have a chapter 23 in Revelation. Brian are you being funny and just saying you have no proof, or what.

Brian,
Also I would like to say that you seem to lend great credence to anti catholic rhetoric and commentary, mainly from fallen away catholics. But you hold Catholic commentary and Catholic explanations as insufficient, and failing in some sense. Why such un-fair standard for the Bride of Christ.** Your anger towards the Church is glaring and is quite dangerous for your soul. You will find when you pass from this world that you are Saul of old, and Christ will say to you" Why did you persecute me so?"** I will pray for you. It is qiute clear that you are a former Catholic. Most other people do not hate the church so strongly. Your anger has blinded you from the truth. For example when you say there is no scriptural reference for succession. St. Paul says “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach. Now if you want to put blinders on and hold the Church to an un-reasonable standard of proof, then you could say that this passage proves nothing and Isaiah 22:20-24 proves nothing. Yet you will believe a group of fallible men who put the Bible together 1600 years ago whom you would say infallibly canonized the Scriptures, and that the infallibility of these men and the Church to which they themselves claimed to belong and to serve, ended right after that act and from then on it was the scripture that interprets itself and so on and so forth. Why such a double standard of proof. Why trust the Church for the Canon but not trust the Church on anything else.

I was kidding about chapter 23. Obviously there is no mention of Luther in the bible.

Succession of unique apostolic authority is the succession I said is not in Scripture, not succession of teaching and spreading the Gospel.

Isaiah 22 does not work for describing the ECF’s views of the papacy because no ECFs used Isaiah 22 that way.

You continue to speak recklessly and make asinine assertions. I am done discussing this issue with you. As I said before, I will not contribute to your sin.

Brian

 

[brianberean]

Aris:

It started with Martin Luther with his “Faith Alone” insertion into the text

FYI - there were a couple RC bible editions that inserted “alone” before Martin Luther did. What does that mean?

Catholic translations prior to Luther spoke of faith alone at Romans 3:28. Hence, the Nuremburg Bible of 1483 had “allein durch den glauben,” while the Italian Bibles of Geneva in 1476 and even 1538 had “per sola fede”.

“Luther added the qualifier ‘alone’. However, this was neither a complete innovation, nor a real falsification, for the translation of the bible that appeared in 1483 had rendered Galatians 2:16: “justified only by faith”. Three Italian editions of scripture (Genoa, 1476; Venice, 1583; and 1546) offered a similar translation.” – Michael Schmaus, Dogma 6, Justification and the Last Things, (Sheed & Ward, Inc. 1977)

Brian