Sola Scriptura . . .

[MountainBoy11]

OK, we’re going to play semantics here, are we?

Apologies…assuming then you do in fact then hold to the Headship of the Lord Jesus Christ over His church.

In your post you state “the apostolic age” is ending. Can you please show me where in the bible we are going from Apostolic Age to the Scriptures as the sole authority?

1 Cor 13:8 “Whether prophecies…fail…tongues…cease… knowledge…vanish.” Several of the distinguishing marks of apostles from disciples is that apostles had the authority to prophecy (speak and write authoritative revelation), speak in tongues, as at the beginning of Acts, and intimate knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, having personally seen and interacted with Him in some way. Since their unique ministries are said to have ceased, their unique office has also ceased.

This is why Paul told Tim “Use a little wine for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities” (1 Tim 5:23). Apostle had the ability to miraculously heal, but here, by the end of Paul’s life, even this unique apostolic gift seems to have fizzled out. And he certainly isn’t passing his apostleship on, as if there were a chain of apostolic succession. Paul is an apostle. Timothy a disciple. All church leaders today are disciples of Christ, NOTHING MORE. The only power ministers have today is that which is contained in Holy Scripture. Nothing apostolic is handed down. For the Word of God is living and powerful (Heb 4:12). Therein does the power rest now. This is why Tim was told to “Preach the Word,” because that’s where the power now lies.

OK, let me put it more clearly. If the Bible was meant to teach us all truths, negating the need for a teaching authority, wouldn’t it have been written more clearly? Leviticus comes to mind. It’s pretty cut and dried. Do this… Don’t do this…

The Bible is perfectly clear. It contains the mind of Christ (1 Cor 2:16). THe mind of Christ, being divine, is PERFECTLY CLEAR, since he is without sin. Jesus Christ did not have a speech impetiment, nor was there any sort of fogginess or ambiguity in the mind of God as he inspired men to author holy writ. As the Psalmist put it, The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. (Psalm 19). Also, true believers are given the Holy Spirit to teach us all things, and help us make sense of difficult passages. Confusion and unclarity over the texts of Scripture is often a sign of unbelief, as it was for the Ethiopian eunuch for example (Acts 8, cf 1 Cor 1:18).

 

[MountainBoy11]

Quote:
Originally Posted by NotWorthy
OK, we’re going to play semantics here, are we?

Apologies…assuming then you do in fact then hold to the Headship of the Lord Jesus Christ over His church.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NotWorthy
In your post you state “the apostolic age” is ending. Can you please show me where in the bible we are going from Apostolic Age to the Scriptures as the sole authority?

1 Cor 13:8 “Whether prophecies…fail…tongues…cease… knowledge…vanish.” Several of the distinguishing marks of apostles from disciples is that apostles had the authority to prophecy (speak and write authoritative revelation), speak in tongues, as at the beginning of Acts, and intimate knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, having personally seen and interacted with Him in some way. Since their unique ministries are said to have ceased, their unique office has also ceased.

This is why Paul told Tim “Use a little wine for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities” (1 Tim 5:23). Apostle had the ability to miraculously heal, but here, by the end of Paul’s life, even this unique apostolic gift seems to have fizzled out. And he certainly isn’t passing his apostleship on, as if there were a chain of apostolic succession. Paul is an apostle. Timothy a disciple. All church leaders today are disciples of Christ, NOTHING MORE. The only power ministers have today is that which is contained in Holy Scripture. Nothing apostolic is handed down. For the Word of God is living and powerful (Heb 4:12). Therein does the power rest now. This is why Tim was told to “Preach the Word,” because that’s where the power now lies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NotWorthy
OK, let me put it more clearly. If the Bible was meant to teach us all truths, negating the need for a teaching authority, wouldn’t it have been written more clearly? Leviticus comes to mind. It’s pretty cut and dried. Do this… Don’t do this…

The Bible is perfectly clear. It contains the mind of Christ (1 Cor 2:16). THe mind of Christ, being divine, is PERFECTLY CLEAR, since he is without sin. Jesus Christ did not have a speech impetiment, nor was there any sort of fogginess or ambiguity in the mind of God as he inspired men to author holy writ. As the Psalmist put it, The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. (Psalm 19). Also, true believers are given the Holy Spirit to teach us all things, and help us make sense of difficult passages. Confusion and unclarity over the texts of Scripture is often a sign of unbelief, as it was for the Ethiopian eunuch for example (Acts 8, cf 1 Cor 1:18).

---

“Learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.” (1 Cor 4:6 NAS)

 

[MountainBoy11]

Quote:
Originally Posted by NotWorthy
OK, we’re going to play semantics here, are we?

Apologies…assuming then you do in fact then hold to the Headship of the Lord Jesus Christ over His church.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NotWorthy
In your post you state “the apostolic age” is ending. Can you please show me where in the bible we are going from Apostolic Age to the Scriptures as the sole authority?

1 Cor 13:8 “Whether prophecies…fail…tongues…cease… knowledge…vanish.” Several of the distinguishing marks of apostles from disciples is that apostles had the authority to prophecy (speak and write authoritative revelation), speak in tongues, as at the beginning of Acts, and intimate knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, having personally seen and interacted with Him in some way. Since their unique ministries are said to have ceased, their unique office has also ceased.

This is why Paul told Tim “Use a little wine for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities” (1 Tim 5:23). Apostle had the ability to miraculously heal, but here, by the end of Paul’s life, even this unique apostolic gift seems to have fizzled out. And he certainly isn’t passing his apostleship on, as if there were a chain of apostolic succession. Paul is an apostle. Timothy a disciple. All church leaders today are disciples of Christ, NOTHING MORE. The only power ministers have today is that which is contained in Holy Scripture. Nothing apostolic is handed down. For the Word of God is living and powerful (Heb 4:12). Therein does the power rest now. This is why Tim was told to “Preach the Word,” because that’s where the power now lies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NotWorthy
OK, let me put it more clearly. If the Bible was meant to teach us all truths, negating the need for a teaching authority, wouldn’t it have been written more clearly? Leviticus comes to mind. It’s pretty cut and dried. Do this… Don’t do this…

The Bible is perfectly clear. It contains the mind of Christ (1 Cor 2:16). THe mind of Christ, being divine, is PERFECTLY CLEAR, since he is without sin. Jesus Christ did not have a speech impetiment, nor was there any sort of fogginess or ambiguity in the mind of God as he inspired men to author holy writ. As the Psalmist put it, The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. (Psalm 19). Also, true believers are given the Holy Spirit to teach us all things, and help us make sense of difficult passages. Confusion and unclarity over the texts of Scripture is often a sign of unbelief, as it was for the Ethiopian eunuch for example (Acts 8, cf 1 Cor 1:18).

---

“Learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.” (1 Cor 4:6 NAS)

 

[NotWorthy]

Apologies…assuming then you do in fact then hold to the Headship of the Lord Jesus Christ over His church.

Every loyal Catholic acknowledges and proclaims that Christ is the Head of the Church. We just also acknowledge and proclaim that Christ left a visible head of His Church until his Triumphant and Glorious Return.

1 Cor 13:8 “Whether prophecies…fail…tongues…cease… knowledge…vanish.” Several of the distinguishing marks of apostles from disciples is that apostles had the authority to prophecy (speak and write authoritative revelation), speak in tongues, as at the beginning of Acts, and intimate knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, having personally seen and interacted with Him in some way. Since their unique ministries are said to have ceased, their unique office has also ceased. Several people that were not Apostles wrote Scriptures that Catholics feel were authoritative Revelation. Are you denying this?

This is why Paul told Tim “Use a little wine for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities” (1 Tim 5:23). Apostle had the ability to miraculously heal, but here, by the end of Paul’s life, even this unique apostolic gift seems to have fizzled out. And he certainly isn’t passing his apostleship on, as if there were a chain of apostolic succession. Paul is an apostle. Timothy a disciple. All church leaders today are disciples of Christ, NOTHING MORE. The only power ministers have today is that which is contained in Holy Scripture. Nothing apostolic is handed down. For the Word of God is living and powerful (Heb 4:12). Therein does the power rest now. This is why Tim was told to “Preach the Word,” because that’s where the power now lies.

Paul laid his hands and his successors. You may want to go back to Ancient Jewish Tradition to see what this entails. Paul didn’t ask his disciples to teach AND CORRECT?

The Bible is perfectly clear.

Peter would beg to differ when he describes Paul’s writings.

It contains the mind of Christ (1 Cor 2:16). THe mind of Christ, being divine, is PERFECTLY CLEAR, since he is without sin. Jesus Christ did not have a speech impetiment, nor was there any sort of fogginess or ambiguity in the mind of God as he inspired men to author holy writ. As the Psalmist put it, The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. (Psalm 19). Also, true believers are given the Holy Spirit to teach us all things, and help us make sense of difficult passages. Confusion and unclarity over the texts of Scripture is often a sign of unbelief, as it was for the Ethiopian eunuch for example (Acts 8, cf 1 Cor 1:18).

the Ethiopian was a sign of unbelief? Where does it say this?
St. Peter would be a sign of belief since he found St. Paul’s writings confusing.

If the Scriptures were so clear, then why is infant baptism argued today? Baptism necessary for Salvation? I could go on…

 

[Michael_Francis]

Just a note… there was a forum “hangup” last night that resulted in posts not going through correctly and resulted in some multiple posts. They have been cleaned up now.
MF

 

[Church_Militant]

… That …, seems to borderline heresy, and unless I’m reading into your statement, reaks of a misguided perspective of delegated human authority, such as that Catholics show toward the Pope and church hierarchy. If Catholics believe it was the Apostles’ church then, I guess that helps me understand how they mistakenly think it’s the Pope’s, or Peter’s, or Mary’s, church now.

Please show us where there is anything in official Catholic teaching that implies the church is headed by anyone other than Jesus Christ.

Then please show us where there is anything in the Bible that specifically says that the Bible was ever meant to be the sole authority.

**The Scriptures were fixed in place before the writers became corpses. **

It’s authority was immediately recognized. … They had no reason to rush a bound volume of 66 books. With Nero on the throne, any publication or broad distribution of a Canon would have meant instant death. It wasn’t until a milder Constantine was on the throne that the “parchment press” could be safely fired up. In understanding Sola Scriptura and canonization, it’s okay to allow our minds to distinguish Scriptures from Canon. Scripture was written and went into affect immediately, although perhaps not neatly bound as 66 books until later.Unsubstantiated assertion. Also impossible since (just for instance) the book of Revelation, which was penned in about 99AD was not recognized before St. John passed away of natural causes, (the only one of the original 12 to do so) in 100AD.

"66 books…"Unfortunately (for you) the earliest lists of canonical books listed at least 73 and included the Deuterocanonical books which were in fact included in the original 1611 KJV (still are if you get a 1611 edition) and these were not edited out until the mid 1800s by some Bible society that actually had no authority to do so. (5 Myths About 7 Books)

This one’s fun…we could go on and on here, but I think we must respect the rules re long quotations agreed to when sigining up for this forum. We need to understand that the Holy Spirit has no problem with truth being revealed/compiled gradually (Jn 16:12).

Better review those quotation rules again. About 3 paragraphs and a link to the article are allowed.

Canonization is tricky. Two thoughts…

1. Catholic theologians seemed to understand Canonization at one point.
   … (although it does sound like a good Protestant theology…oops).

The Catholic Church understands the canon better than you dare realize. You can believe that revisionist thinking and try to claim it is protestant if you want to, but it’s wishful thinking.

1. How the canon came into being is one thing. The sufficiency of Scripture as the authority of the church today another. “My Sheep hear my voice” (Jn 10:27). God’s voice is clearly proclaimed in protestant churches that practice biblical exposition. True sheep are drawn to protestant churches.

Not necessarily, and your scripture citation is an out of context proof text that is actually irrelevant to this discussion. Catholics agree with the verse cited, but not with your fallible interpretation in this context.

The rest of that is just your propaganda and untrue.

1. The scriptures are read, proclaimed, and preached at every Catholic Mass.
2. “Biblical exposition”? Perhaps in some cases, but by and large those that espouse Sola Scriptura are teaching essentially and fundamentally flawed new winds of doctrines of men that did not exist prior to the so-called reformation and has resulted in some of the grossest and weirdest errors in doctrine, (Sola Fide, OSAS, the Rapture, Calvinism, and a host of others) as the idea that every individual with a Bible (in most cases abridged and edited to remove at least 7 of the original books and parts of others.) “interprets” different passages to suit their own understanding. Authority of scripture? That’s almost laughable in some cases as cult like churches grow up around men who preach their own versions of the Gospel.
3. “True sheep…”? When modern protestantism is compared to the teachings and beliefs of the early church what you find is that they are not the same, and the early church’s teachings are indeed far more in line with the New Testament and the Catholic Church.

It’s not like there was a bunch of chaotic debate and controversy over what was inspired and what wasn’t. THat was pretty much settled in everyone’s mind right away.

Really? Ever heard of the Gnostic “gospels”? Ever read some of the books that aren’t included in the canon and yet are considered valid Christian writings, like the Gospel of Nicodemus or the Didache?

 

[Church_Militant]

Apologies…assuming then you do in fact then hold to the Headship of the Lord Jesus Christ over His church.

Show us where we are taught anything else. I don’t think you can. You make prejudiced assumptions…

1 Cor 13:8 … Several of the distinguishing marks of apostles from disciples is that apostles had the authority to prophecy (speak and write authoritative revelation), speak in tongues, as at the beginning of Acts, and intimate knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, having personally seen and interacted with Him in some way. Since their unique ministries are said to have ceased, their unique office has also ceased.

According to your errant belief system which is not supported by the Word of God (Example: Ephesians 4:11-14) The Word of God does not tell us that those ministries “ceased”.

This is why Paul told Tim “Use a little wine for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities” (1 Tim 5:23). Apostle had the ability to miraculously heal, but here, by the end of Paul’s life, even this unique apostolic gift seems to have fizzled out.

In your opinion…which as I have shown is not based upon the Word of God.

If what you say were true then God would no longer do any miracles and none would have happened from the death of St. John until now, but that is verifiably not the case, which means then that your whole supposition collapses because of its fundamentally fallacious belief.

And he certainly isn’t passing his apostleship on, as if there were a chain of apostolic succession.

Paul is an apostle. Timothy a disciple. All church leaders today are disciples of Christ, NOTHING MORE.Really? Better break out your New Testament again and look carefully at one of the very first things that the apostles did in Acts 1:12-24

The only power ministers have today is that which is contained in Holy Scripture. Nothing apostolic is handed down.

According to you…but that does not agree with the very Bible that you claim as your sole authority.

For the Word of God is living and powerful (Heb 4:12). Therein does the power rest now. This is why Tim was told to “Preach the Word,” because that’s where the power now lies.

What does John 1:1-14 say is the Word of God?

The Bible is perfectly clear. It contains the mind of Christ (1 Cor 2:16).

Your cited verse reads as follows. “16: “For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.” The context makes it very plain that this is not about the Bible at all but discernment by the Holy Spirit. That whole chapter stands in refutation of your twisted interpretation that you are seeking to force onto it.

THe mind of Christ, being divine, is PERFECTLY CLEAR, since he is without sin. Jesus Christ did not have a speech impetiment, nor was there any sort of fogginess or ambiguity in the mind of God as he inspired men to author holy writ. As the Psalmist put it, The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. (Psalm 19).

Rhetorical preaching… The inspiration of scripture is not an issue here, but you have proof-texted out of context in an effort to make your case. What is it that your signature verse says? “Learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.” (1 Cor 4:6 NAS)

Also, true believers are given the Holy Spirit to teach us all things, and help us make sense of difficult passages. Confusion and unclarity over the texts of Scripture is often a sign of unbelief, as it was for the Ethiopian eunuch for example

(Acts 8, cf 1 Cor 1:18). If the Holy Spirit was the author of all the myriad differing interpretations of scripture found throughout n-C teachings then they would all be of one accord, teaching precisely the same things and they would also be in line with the recorded teachings of the early church and the New Testament (without the mental and theological gymnastics required to accept them…like your own message so far.) The fact that they are not (even with respect to this issue of Sola Scriptura :bible1: ) is fruit enough to make it plain that it is not the work of the Holy Spirit.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[MrS]

"66 books…"Unfortunately (for you) the earliest lists of canonical books listed at least 73 and included the Deuterocanonical books which were in fact included in the original 1611 KJV (still are if you get a 1611 edition) and these were not edited out until the mid 1800s by some Bible society that actually had no authority to do so. (5 Myths About 7 Books)Better review those quotation rules again. About 3 paragraphs and a link to the article are allowed.The Catholic Church understands the canon better than you dare realize. You can believe that revisionist thinking and try to claim it is protestant if you want to, but it’s wishful thinking.
Not necessarily, and your scripture citation is an out of context proof text that is actually irrelevant to this discussion. Catholics agree with the verse cited, but not with your fallible interpretation in this context.

I posted this last night at various threads that were dealing with the 73 vs 66 canon…

just thought I would add it here:

I hold in my formerly pagan-out-of-the-Catholic-Church-for-25-years hands a copy of the newly released

"Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger - The Untold Story Of The Lost Books Of The Protestant Bible"

Arguments about 73 or 66 usually are either ended in confusion in trying to present all the evidence, because no one (until now) has really accumulated all that evidence.

Certainly a work like this would not come from a protestant camp, lest they find themselves in error.

Gary Michuta, the author, presents over 300 pages which any serious student can check and double check. There are many footnotes, many references, many proofs that once again the Catholic position is the correct one… and it is a fairly easy read.

handsonapologetics.com/ is the website of the author, and you can link on to Grotto Press to order… a $20 reference book every “66” proponent should now consider.

Thanks Gary… but where were you 500 years ago when Luther was playing his game?

seriously, if one can afford to pick this up… it is not only a great and long overdue reference on the deutrocanonicals, but you would be supporting a darn good ministry too.

 

[Church_Militant]

I posted this last night at various threads that were dealing with the 73 vs 66 canon…

just thought I would add it here:

I hold in my formerly pagan-out-of-the-Catholic-Church-for-25-years hands a copy of the newly released

"Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger - The Untold Story Of The Lost Books Of The Protestant Bible"

Arguments about 73 or 66 usually are either ended in confusion in trying to present all the evidence, because no one (until now) has really accumulated all that evidence.

Certainly a work like this would not come from a protestant camp, lest they find themselves in error.

Gary Michuta, the author, presents over 300 pages which any serious student can check and double check. There are many footnotes, many references, many proofs that once again the Catholic position is the correct one… and it is a fairly easy read.

handsonapologetics.com/ is the website of the author, and you can link on to Grotto Press to order… a $20 reference book every “66” proponent should now consider.

Thanks Gary… but where were you 500 years ago when Luther was playing his game?

seriously, if one can afford to pick this up… it is not only a great and long overdue reference on the deutrocanonicals, but you would be supporting a darn good ministry too.

 

[guanophore]

As the apostolic age, lead by the biblical preaching of the apostles, winded down, the church age, lead by the biblical writing of the apostles, started up. Those early churches were in the middle of the transition period. But by the time Peter pens his second epistle in AD 68, he is already quoting the Apostle Paul’s writings (2 Pet 3:15-16), signaling the apostolic age is ending and now the church age is starting with the written Scriptures as the sole authority.

You have it backwards, Mountain Boy. The preaching of the Apostles occurred under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is true that they did sometimes quote the OT, but since the NT had not yet been written, the kerygma was entirely oral. All the churches were started without bible. The fact that Peter referred to the writings of Paul some 30 years later does not indicate that the scriptures had become the sole authority. On the contrary, the oral traditions were considered of equal importance:

2 Thess 2:15
15 So then, brethren, stand firm and **hold to the traditions **which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."

The faith was handed from one bishop to another by word of mouth:

2 Tim 2:1-3
2:1 You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, 2 and **what you have heard **from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also."

The writings were a supplement to the oral teaching:
1 Tim 3:14-16

14 I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, 15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth."

The church, not the scriptures, is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. Nowhere in the scriptures does it teach that it is the sole source of authority. In fact, when there is a dispute, it is to be taken to the church!

Matt 18:17
17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church"

the authority belonged to the Apostles, which they passed on through the process of ordination:

3 John 9

9 I have written something to the church; but Diot’rephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge my authority."

The written word proceeds out from the Apostolic authority.

Sure, the church was established by the time the first completed Bible was in print, but established on biblical preaching as its authority. Just as now the church is based on biblical writings as its sole authority.

 

[Nazianzen]

Youch. Can’t do much with this one until you please clarify the part about “their church.” I believe that Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church. In no way was the church ever the Apostles’ church?1? That phraseology is new to me, seems to borderline heresy, and unless I’m reading into your statement, reaks of a misguided perspective of delegated human authority, such as that Catholics show toward the Pope and church hierarchy. If Catholics believe it was the Apostles’ church then, I guess that helps me understand how they mistakenly think it’s the Pope’s, or Peter’s, or Mary’s, church now.

You need to get off this horse, guy. We all know who founded and heads the church.

 

[Nazianzen]

The Scriptures were fixed in place before the writers became corpses. It’s authority was immediately recognized. Granted, a nicely bound NT Canon had not yet been compiled. They had no reason to rush a bound volume of 66 books. With Nero on the throne, any publication or broad distribution of a Canon would have meant instant death. It wasn’t until a milder Constantine was on the throne that the “parchment press” could be safely fired up. In understanding Sola Scriptura and canonization, it’s okay to allow our minds to distinguish Scriptures from Canon. Scripture was written and went into affect immediately, although perhaps not neatly bound as 66 books until later.

It was, huh? I guess this is why some groups rejected Paul’s epistles, Hebrews, the Apocalypse, and 2 Peter, and some recognized the Apocalypse of Peter and the Didache and Clement’s epistles.

 

[Nazianzen]

Not trackin with you here.

The point is that Christians throughout the centuries have composed creeds to clarify what they stand for. They do this because there are so many possible interpretations of the Scriptures. From the Apostle’s Creed, to the Nicene-Constantinople, to the Westminster Confession, Christians have always recognized a need to clarify the Scriptures.

Now rather than give us such a creed, God has given us this huge book of histories, poetry, apocalypses, prophesy, and epistles written to specific audiences and many in seeming discontinuity with each other. If God had meant for us to rely on the Bible as our sole authority, then one assumes he wouldn’t have given such an inefficient one. Give the Bible to ten different people and tell them to interpret and rely on the HS to guide them, and I guarantee you will have many serious variations in their understanding of fundamental truths, like the divinity of Christ.

No, the Bible is not the sole authority - rather, it is a flower that adorns the church, providing evidences and elaborations of our beliefs, and an intimate, realistic portrait of our God.

 

[Nazianzen]

You do realize that when Paul says “scriptures” and “what is written,” he means the OT, right? So if 1 Corinthians 4:6 means what you think, then we shouldn’t be reading anything but the OT. Also, if does mean that we shouldn’t “go beyond” the Scriptures, then he goes on to contradict himself in 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

 

[toaslan]

MountainBoy, you sure stirred this thread up! Hi, everyone; I’ve just found you all after MountainBoy suggested he and I continue speaking in this forum. About your opinion, MountainBoy, that whatever is Christ’s church, it used to be led by preaching and now is led by writing–

As the apostolic age, lead by the biblical preaching of the apostles, winded down, the church age, lead by the biblical writing of the apostles, started up.

Well–since Catholics believe we have apostolic succession, we say that while *public revelation *ended with the death of the last apostle, the Church continues to be apostolic–hence we say, in the Nicene Creed, we believe in “one, holy, catholic and apostolic church…”

So we don’t recognize that term, “church age.”

The Catholic Church is apostolic because she is founded on the apostles in 3 ways–she was/is built on the foundation of the apostles; she keeps/hands on the teaching; and she continues to be taught, sanctified, and guided by the apostles until Christ’s return, through their successors in pastoral office: the college of bishops, in union with the successor of Peter, the Church’s highest pastor. This bit I took from the Catechism of the Catholic Church Part I, Section II, Ch.3, where there are biblical citations for each step.

Insisting on the church first being spread verbally only, and then, after the apostles, through writings only – this is an artificial division inconsistent with common sense and human nature as well as early Christian history, although it helps get rid of apostolic succession. What is wrong with saying that different Christian communities had different parts of the writings later collected into the New Testament, just as they were receiving verbal preaching at the same time in person from one, some but not all of the missionary apostles? Because that’s what happnd.

May I refer you to William A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1970), a huge collection, not a censored or textbook edition, of the earliest written witness we have, after the apostles, of the church.

There is no Grand Canyon between the early church and the Catholic Church of today–it is a continuous unbroken growth from those moments when Jesus annouced that Simon was “Kepha (Rock) and upon this kepha (rock) I will build my church”; from when He gave Peter the Keys of the Kingdom; from when He gave all the apostles the power “to bind and loose” in Mt 18:18–and don’t forget that Peter was given this power individually when he was given the “keys”, to the present day. Our Lord thus set up a visible human head for His Body, that all might be one, even as He is one with the Father.

But these powers were not handed on? We say they were. Common sense would predict it, and no one is not common sensical if not God. And I can give bible texts to say that these powers were handed on. Then you could give contrary texts.

Say we were both sincere in our positions, and we belonged to the same church: if there were no tie-breaker for this sort of impasse, then we would have to split up into two churches, each following his own conscience and what he discerns to be the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Private interpretation of the bible leads to false human tradition. Wrong interpretation is inevitable, given original sin and the fallen human condition, given the father of lies’ desire to isolate us from each other.

Any text out of context and in isolation from other texts can be proof of anything. As one of your interlocutors posted, this leads us to the miserable state we are now in, with 33,000-and-counting sects of separated Protestant brethren, all differing from each other and from their mother, the Catholic Church.

This is why Christians were given the Prime Minister of Jesus, the Pope, instead of a regional or local pope one happens to call pastor at the church down the road, or maybe just the pope of me, myself and I. I think you are the one who said, Mountain Boy, when we spoke, that it all comes down to authority – who has the authority to interpret the bible?

Bible quotes by their nature and the nature of the human mind cannot be decisive. The Holy Spirit is necessary. I say that the Holy Spirit operates through Peter and the bishops in communion with Peter; you say that the Holy Spirit operates through a sincere reader of the Word immediately and directly. I say that 33,000 Protestant churches proves this willfully wishful thinking.

Our Lord prayed to His Father for the unity of his church.Many times He spoke of the one body, the vine/branches, the bride/ bridegroom. Christian disunity is sorrowful to Him. That is why, I guess, we are all discussing this, because we take seriously the wound of Christian disunity. We know it is displeasing to God.

Sorry, all, if this got too long. Great notes!

 

[kleary]

The debate should be closed already.

No one has shown me where in Scripture is the list of books of the New Testament.

Sola Scriptura teaches that the totality of Divine Revelation is contained in Scripture Alone.

Therefore Sola Scriptura is false and must be rejected.

End of story.

Ken

 

[jemfinch]

The debate should be closed already.

No one has shown me where in Scripture is the list of books of the New Testament.

Sola Scriptura teaches that the totality of Divine Revelation is contained in Scripture Alone.

Therefore Sola Scriptura is false and must be rejected.

Or the Protestant can “bite the bullet” as, e.g., R.C. Sproul does, and call the Bible “a fallible collection of infallible books.”

Jeremy

 

[MountainBoy11]

MountainBoy, you sure stirred this thread up! Hi, everyone;

Hi Toaslan…glad to see you found us! Pretty cool forum, huh? And yes, it appears I have stirred up this thread. I was a little overwhelmed today when I sat down and saw the amount of responses to my posts.

To regular forum members, is it typical to have a 4 or 5:1 dogpile on Protestants like this? I mean, I realize I am at Catholic.com, but there have got to be some other Protestants around here who feel like Calvin and I, that

“Nothing can be more absurd than the fiction, that the power of judging Scripture is in the church, and that on her nod its certainty depends…Scripture bears upon the face of it as clear evidence of its truth, as white and black do of their color, sweet and bitter of their taste.” (Institutes, Vol 1).

 

[Church_Militant]

Hi Toaslan…glad to see you found us! Pretty cool forum, huh? And yes, it appears I have stirred up this thread. I was a little overwhelmed today when I sat down and saw the amount of responses to my posts.

To regular forum members, is it typical to have a 4 or 5:1 dogpile on Protestants like this? I mean, I realize I am at Catholic.com, but there have got to be some other Protestants around here who feel like Calvin and I, that

“Nothing can be more absurd than the fiction, that the power of judging Scripture is in the church, and that on her nod its certainty depends…Scripture bears upon the face of it as clear evidence of its truth, as white and black do of their color, sweet and bitter of their taste.” (Institutes, Vol 1).

What? Either your arguments are valid or they are not.

Prove your case, if you can. Calvin? He was dead wrong on a whole load of issues.

But I thought you said that the Bible was your sole authority?

No one’s dogpiled you dude. You came in and made statements and now you have to stand and deliver or admit that the Bible does not teach Sola Scriptura, at which point you must then reassess all that you believe that is based upon that one fundamental error. That may very well lead you to the Catholic Church, but that is the work and ministry of the Holy Spirit. Our job is to prayerfully and charitably explain and defend our most holy faith.

So? What have you got? :ehh:

 

[NotWorthy]

“Nothing can be more absurd than the fiction, that the power of judging Scripture is in the church, and that on her nod its certainty depends…Scripture bears upon the face of it as clear evidence of its truth, as white and black do of their color, sweet and bitter of their taste.” (Institutes, Vol 1).

Yeah nothing proves this theory like a single walk through the yellow pages under “Churches”.

Clear as mud!!!

Dog-piling? You call this dog-piling?

BTW, again, Welcome to the forums MountainBoy!!!