Sola scripture from satan

[chet]

This is confusing terminology. By “body of Apostolic Teaching” are you saying the Apostles themselves orally interpreted Scripture (Old and New Testaments) and certain men have infallibly passed on and preserved, orally, their interpretation?

But still, you’re back to the Scriptures. So my question remains. What do we know of Christ and salvation other than what has been revealed and preserved for us in Holy Spirit inspired writing?

How about the teachings of the Apostolic Fathers, knew the Apostles, such a Ignatius, Polycarp and Clement of Rome. In fact I’ll let St. Ireneaus handle this question. He is much more of an expert than I am!

“Having founded and built the Church, the blessed apostles entrusted the episcopal office to Linus, who is mentioned by Paul in the Epistles to Timothy; Linus was succeeded by Anacletus; after him, in the third place from the apostles, the bishopric fell to Clement, who had seen the blessed apostles and conversed with them, and still had their preaching ringing in his ears and their authentic tradition before his eyes. And he was not the only one; there were still many people alive who had been taught by the apostles. . . . In the same order and the same succession the authentic tradition received from the apostles and passed down by the Church, and the preaching of the truth, have been handed on to us. “The Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points of doctrine just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the churches in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, not do those in Spain, not those in Gaul, not those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions [Palestine] of the world.” “When therefore, we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek among others the truth which is easily obtained from the Church. For the apostles, like a rich man in a bank, deposited with her [the Church] most copiously everything which pertains to the truth; and everyone whosoever wishes draws from her the drink of life. Let us suppose that the apostles had left us no written records. Would we not have been able to follow the precepts of the tradition that they handed down to those to whom they entrusted the Churches? It is this precept of tradition that is followed by many barbarian nations that believe in Christ who know nothing of the use of writing, or ink.” **St. Ireneaus (c. 130-200) Against Heresies **

 

[mozart-250]

I’ll let St. Cyprian answer you.

A couple of points:
(1) St. Cyprian although certainly to be respected is not infallible. Therefore any quote from an ECF while it may be supporting evidence of a position can not be regarded as proof.
(2) It is a logic error to assume that any quote of an ECF regarding the “Catholic church” in a period in which there was the Catholic (universal church) aside the gnostics and other heretics, can be ported lock-stock-and-barrel to a time period in which there are the Catholic, Orthodox, and assorted Protestant denominations. Nobody knows how St. Cyprian would respond with any certainty if we had the ability to raise him from the dead and transport him in time to the 21st century.
(3) Any reference to the Catholic church prior to the point of the church dividing upon itself is subject to logic rules of inheritance.

At any rate, I have yet to receive convincing proof that sola scriptura is definitely false. The best you can do is provide evidence (I am not sure how convincing it all is but anyway…you try and on some points you have some merit anyway). I have not and will not attempt to prove sola scriptura (at least my definition) true. The best I can do is provide evidence for why I believe what I do.

In light of these realities, I really think it best that you all tone down the “Sola scriptura is from satan schtick” (and we (collectively) tone down the “Whore of babylon” and “Pope is the antichrist schtick”). None of this can be proven and it is all quite inflammatory language.

 

[Metaron]

Welcome Home!!! This is what Jesus wants.Just don’t let the “Cafeteria Catholics” confuse you! If you do run into questions we’re all here to help.Peace be with you.

Yes. In Protestantism, I found there was no difinitive Truth. I was expected to read the Bible and follow my own conclusions; to be my own Pope. This I could not do. I could use my own interpretation, but all the other Protestants’ interpretations would contradict mine. How could I know that mine were correct? I wanted to rely on something bigger than myself, on 2,000 years of Apostolic Tradition and Biblical interpretation. So then I became Anglican. With Apostolic Succession and the Holy Eucharist, I thought I had found my church. But no. Politics, doctrinal ambiguity in order to avoid confrontation, and the condoning of contraception, which I didn’t find out about until recently, caused me to wonder. I then began to read the Church Fathers about Papal Primacy. I consulted the Bible, too, about St.Peter’s role in the early Catholic Church. Now I’m in RCIA.

 

[chet]

Here’s a prime example of twisted scripture.

1Ti 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

church in this verse was taken from ekklēsia which means…

1. a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly

Explanation of Church

Being that so many people are hung up on thinking that the Catholic Church is God’s church, let’s define Church according to the time of Christ.
The word translated “church” in the English Bible is ekklesia. This word is the Greek words kaleo (to call), with the prefix ek (out). Thus, the word means “the called out ones.” However, the English word “church” does not come from ekklesia but from the word kuriakon, which means “dedicated to the Lord.” This word was commonly used to refer to a holy place or temple. By the time of Jerome’s translation of the New Testament from Greek to Latin, it was customary to use a derivative of kuriakon to translate ekklesia. Therefore, the word church is a poor translation of the word ekklesia since it implies a sacred building, or temple. A more accurate translation would be “assembly” because the term ekklesia was used to refer to a group of people who had been called out to a meeting. It was also used as a synonym for the word synagogue, which also means to “come together,” i.e. a gathering. “Body of Christ” Since believers have been united with Christ through spiritual baptism, they are sometimes corporately referred to as the body of Christ. (Rom. l2:4-5; 1 Cor. l2:11,13,l8,27; Col. l:l8; Eph. 5:30) The idea seems to be that the group of Christians in the world constitute the physical representation of Christ on earth. It is also a metaphor which demonstrates the interdependence of members in the church, while at the same time demonstrating their diversity from one another. (Rom. 12:4; 1 Cor. 12:14-17)

Maybe that is how you justify your beliefs; But your argument does not match up with what the ECFs taught! Please read posts #198 and #201

 

[moondweller]

chet:

How about the teachings of the Apostolic Fathers, knew the Apostles, such a Ignatius, Polycarp and Clement of Rome. In fact I’ll let St. Ireneaus handle this question. He is much more of an expert than I am!

Can you show me where Ireneaus speaks about this separate “body of Apostolic Teaching” which interprets Scripture? Ireneaus himself quotes Scripture directly, but never Paul or any Apostle outside of Scripture.

So where/how is this separate “body of Apostolic Teaching” being infallibly kept and preserved? Is it memorized by all Bishops? If so, how do you account for the majority of Bishops embracing Arianism before and after the council of Nicea?

But still you didn’t answer my question. What do we know of Christ and salvation that has not been revealed and preserved in the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures? Please give me some examples of the secret things that the Holy Spirit whispered into the ears of men to be passed down orally rather than preserve in Holy Writ.

 

[anthony022071]

If the apostles did not teach the Assumption (and I have no reason to believe they did) it is not a part of apostolic tradition.

But it is indeed a part of the apostolic tradition,because it was believed by church fathers who were the heirs of the apostolic tradition. The apostolic tradition is not confined to the things which are written in scripture.

St. Athanasius:

“It becomes you to be mindful of us, as you stand near Him Who granted you all graces, for you are the Mother of God and our Queen. Help us for the sake of the King, the Lord God Master Who was born of you. For this reason you are called ‘full of Grace’…”

St. John Damascene:

“Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem at the Council of Chalcedon (451) made known to the Emperor Marcian and [his Empress] Pulcharia, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles and that her tomb, when opened upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to Heaven.” (Homily on the Dormition)

first of all if you define Sola Scriptura as I defined it in a previous post, it most definitely is supported by Scripture. Specifically it is supported by the silence of Scripture in that Scripture gives me absolutely no warrant to believe in any other source as incapable of error.

Paul commands his disciples to keep the “traditions” and things which were taught by “word of mouth”. Peter and Paul were in Rome and founded the Roman Church,which keeps the apostolic tradtions. That is your warrant to believe the traditions of the Church.

The idea that there is no other infallible faith source is rooted in Scripture in that Scripture does not identify any other source that it incapable of being incorrect.

But there is another source.

"The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name–he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you. " (John,14,26)

The apostles who received the Spirit went on to found “The church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” (1 Tim 3:15)

And the foundation of the universal Church is in Rome.

St Irenaeus:
"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. (Against the Heresies 3, 1:1 --180 A.D.)

“…Pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the Tradition and the Faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles.” (Against the Heresies, 3, 3:2)

St.Cyril of Jerusalem:
“And if ever you are sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord’s House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all.”

 

[anthony022071]

Your point being

The point of that quote is that sola scriptura is for heretics.

 

[mozart-250]

The point of that quote is that sola scriptura is for heretics.

So? I bet the same heretic believed in the resurrection. Does that mean the resurrection is for heretics?

 

[mozart-250]

But it is indeed a part of the apostolic tradition,because it was believed by church fathers who were the heirs of the apostolic tradition. The apostolic tradition is not confined to the things which are written in scripture.

The only tradition that Scripture tells me to hold in high regard is the tradition that is sourced from the apostles. When the first reference to something that may be the assumption of Mary is 350 years or so after the death of Christ and when the Bible is silent on the assumption of Mary, I have absolutely zilch for a reason to believe it is sourced from the apostles.

Paul commands his disciples to keep the “traditions” and things which were taught by “word of mouth”. Peter and Paul were in Rome and founded the Roman Church,which keeps the apostolic tradtions. That is your warrant to believe the traditions of the Church.

If you can provide a tradition that is not written down in the Bible that you can provide convincing evidences comes from the apostles, I will gladly believe it.

The say so of your denomination is not convincing evidence.

"The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name–he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you. " (John,14,26)

Yup. It doesn’t say that we are incapable of being incorrect in discerning what the Holy Spirit is saying to the church. Or that it happens immediately. Or that we can’t resist the Holy Spirit.

The apostles who received the Spirit went on to found “The church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” (1 Tim 3:15)

Yup. But it doesn’t say that the pope will be incapable of being incorrect when he speaks ex-cathedra on faith and morals.

St Irenaeus:
"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. (Against the Heresies 3, 1:1 --180 A.D.)

“…Pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the Tradition and the Faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles.” (Against the Heresies, 3, 3:2)

St.Cyril of Jerusalem:
“And if ever you are sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord’s House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all.”

Yup. These ECF were writing in context of their time period and the conditions that were prevalent at that time. It does not mean that if they were alive today observing the conditions prevalent at our time they would write the same thing. Conditions change over time.

One can not assume with any historical document that what is true about an institution at a given location is applicable 1800 years or so later to the same institution at the same location.

If we were to resurrect the ECF to the present time, I don’t know what they would observe and write concerning the institution called the church. Neither do you.

 

[Metaron]

…Yup. These ECF were writing in context of their time period and the conditions that were prevalent at that time. It does not mean that if they were alive today observing the conditions prevalent at our time they would write the same thing. Conditions change over time.

One can not assume with any historical document that what is true about an institution at a given location is applicable 1800 years or so later to the same institution at the same location.

But the Roman Catholic Church (Or some say, the Orthodox Churches) is the same as the Church of the Fathers. Are you saying that God may have abandoned it (The Church) or not lead it in truth as He promised?

…If we were to resurrect the ECF to the present time, I don’t know what they would observe and write concerning the institution called the church. Neither do you.

They would be horrified by Protestantism for disregarding Apostolic Succession, the Real Presence, the Episcopate, the Sacraments, and for adding Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, and breaking away from the Church and making a man-made institution, based on one’s private interpretation of the Scriptures.

 

[anthony022071]

So? I bet the same heretic believed in the resurrection. Does that mean the resurrection is for heretics?

No,it means that heretics interpret scripture while denying the traditions of the Church.

“They who are placed without the Church, cannot attain to any understanding of the divine word. For the ship exhibits a type of Church, the word of life placed and preached within which, they who are without, and lie near like barren and useless sands, cannot understand.” Hilary of Poitiers, On Matthew, Homily 13:1 (A.D. 355).

“But beyond these [Scriptural] sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept.” Athanasius, Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1:28 (A.D. 360).

But after him [the devil] and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they do not rightly know them or their power. (Athanasius, Discourse against the Arians I)

“To refuse to follow the Fathers, not holding their declaration of more authority than one’s own opinion, is conduct worthy of blame, as being brimful of self-sufficiency.” Basil, Epistle To the Canonicae, 52:1 (A.D. 370).

“All heresies, that they evermore delight in profane novelties, scorn the decisions of antiquity, and …make shipwreck of the faith. On the other hand, it is the sure characteristic of Catholics to keep that which has been committed to their trust by the holy Fathers…” Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory of the Anitquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith, 24:63 (A.D. 434).

 

[anthony022071]

Vincent of Lerins:

“If one should ask one of the heretics who gives you this advice, 'How
do you prove [your assertion]? What ground have you for saying
that I ought to cast away the universal and ancient faith of the
Catholic Church? He has the answer ready: ‘For it is written.’ And
forthwith he produces a thousand examples, a thousand authorities
from the Law, from the Psalms, from the apostles, from the
prophets, by means of which, interpreted on a new and wrong
principle, the unhappy soul may be precipitated from the height of
Catholic truth to the lowest abyss of heresy… Do heretics
appeal to Scripture? They do indeed, and with a vengeance. For you
may see them scamper through every single book of Holy Scripture
… Whether among their own people or among strangers, in private
or in public, in speaking or in writing, at convivial meetings or
in the streets, hardly ever do they bring forward anything of
their own which they do not endeavor to shelter under the words of
Scripture… You will see an infinite heap of instances, hardly a
single page, which does not bristle with plausible quotations from
the New Testament or the Old” ( 25,26,25).

 

[w_stewart]

Sure we can. At the time Paul penned this letter (I do recall reading this was the first book of the New Testament written) that was all the audience of this letter had. Since that time it makes perfect sense to me that God (knowing how unreliable long term human oral communications are) made sure that the unwritten teachings at the time of Paul were written down for a church 2000 years and counting into the future.

There is the Holy Spirit to guide the Church forever. He will teach the Church all the teachings handed down by Christ. Do not underestimate the power of the Holy Spirit.

By the way, what is your basis that the unwritten teachings at the time of Paul were all written down? It is not the Bible, right?

 

[w_stewart]

Those maybe church fathers (300-400 years after the fact though), but they are not Apostolic Fathers, which I understand is reserved for those early fathers who may have known the Apostles, such a Ignatius, Polycarp and Clement of Rome.

They were successors of the successors of the apostles.

 

[w_stewart]

Since I do not read in the Bible that God suspended the laws of biology for the apostles, I can assume that the apostles conformed to the biological laws that God established and that they umm…died.

And that is an assumption that is not Biblical, right? What is your basis that God established biological laws? Not the Bible, I surmise.

Jesus said:

Which is not the same as “the Bishop of Rome speaking ex-cathedra on an issue of faith and morals is incapable of being wrong”.

Again which is not the same as “the Bishop of Rome speaking ex-cathedra on an issue of faith and morals is incapable of being wrong”.

Again which is not the same as “the Bishop of Rome speaking ex-cathedra on an issue of faith and morals is incapable of being wrong”.

Again which is not the same as “the Bishop of Rome speaking ex-cathedra on an issue of faith and morals is incapable of being wrong”.

The message of those passages is that the Church headed by the Pope has the protection from Heaven from introducing heretical doctrines. This guarantee is not given to the splintered Protestant denominations. Only the Church headed by the Bishop of Rome has been assured of this infallibility. An assurance given by her founder, the Lord himself.

Glaring truths that Catholic apologists stretch into saying something that they really do not say.

Because the Catholic Church, the only Church founded by Christ, is the only institution in this planet capable of interpreting correctly the Word of God. This Church compiled, and decided the authoritativeness and infallibility of, the Bible.

 

[chet]

So where/how is this separate “body of Apostolic Teaching” being infallibly kept and preserved?

How about the Catholic Liturgy,and the Catholic Catechism,for starters.

But still you didn’t answer my question. What do we know of Christ and salvation that has not been revealed and preserved in the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures? Please give me some examples of the secret things that the Holy Spirit whispered into the ears of men to be passed down orally rather than preserve in Holy Writ.

 

[mozart-250]

But the Roman Catholic Church (Or some say, the Orthodox Churches) is the same as the Church of the Fathers. Are you saying that God may have abandoned it (The Church) or not lead it in truth as He promised?

…and so you claim. As I said, I have no idea how the ECF would respond if they were somehow brought back in time to the present. And neither do you.

“Lead it into truth” is hardly the same as can not err in speaking of matters of faith and morals when speaking ex-cathedra.

And even if the church were to err, it does not mean that God has abandoned it.

They would be horrified by Protestantism for disregarding Apostolic Succession, the Real Presence, the Episcopate, the Sacraments, and for adding Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, and breaking away from the Church and making a man-made institution, based on one’s private interpretation of the Scriptures.

…and so you claim. As I said, I have no idea how the ECF would respond if they were somehow brought back in time to the present. And neither do you.

 

[mozart-250]

No,it means that heretics interpret scripture while denying the traditions of the Church.

…or more accurately the apostolic traditions of the church.

I have not problem with that statement. So all you have to do is to demonstrate that an unwritten tradition originates with the apostles.

 

[mozart-250]

There is the Holy Spirit to guide the Church forever. He will teach the Church all the teachings handed down by Christ. Do not underestimate the power of the Holy Spirit.

Yup.

But it is also impossible to notice what the promise to “guide into all truth does not say”

• It does not say it is immediate
• It does not say that one (either individually or corporately) can not err in discerning what Christ is saying to the church
• It does not guarantee this process is not thwarted should one (either inidividually or corporately) begins to live in disobedience to Christ

By the way, what is your basis that the unwritten teachings at the time of Paul were all written down? It is not the Bible, right?

That is not what I said. I don’t know whether all the unwritten teachings at the time of Paul were all written down. However the only teachings that I know originated with the apostles were those the apostles did write down. Every other claim of apostolic origin is just idle speculation to me until good and sufficient reason is provided for me to believe that it is so.

 

[mozart-250]

And that is an assumption that is not Biblical, right? What is your basis that God established biological laws? Not the Bible, I surmise.

Maybe indirectly through Scripture and reason. If I believe God created the universe, a part of the creation would be the scientific laws that govern the universe.

The message of those passages is that the Church headed by the Pope has the protection from Heaven from introducing heretical doctrines. This guarantee is not given to the splintered Protestant denominations. Only the Church headed by the Bishop of Rome has been assured of this infallibility. An assurance given by her founder, the Lord himself.

Then I must be really reading comprehension challenged. When I read those passages I read nothing about a pope or being incapabled of erring or about the promises of the passages not applying to Protestants. But then again I must be really reading comprehension challenged.

Because the Catholic Church, the only Church founded by Christ, is the only institution in this planet capable of interpreting correctly the Word of God. This Church compiled, and decided the authoritativeness and infallibility of, the Bible.

You know I could perhaps believe you if I could open my Bible and all of a sudden see the assumption of Mary, the immaculate conception of Mary, the pope guaranteed to speak without errors on faith and morals and …

Instead I open my Bible and scratch my head and wonder where in the wide world of sports all of this stuff comes from. So it leaves me wondering why if the Catholic church is the only institution on this planet capable of interpeting the Bible correctly it seems to come up with stuff I just don’t see in the Bible. It just does not add up to me.

But then again maybe I am just reading comprehension challenged.