Stumbling Block for Protestants?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
But that’s like citing, “Wherefore art thou, Romeo!” and saying, “To be honest, he was citing ‘Romeo and Juliet’, not Shakespeare.”

Who is the author of the Book of John if not John? And was he a fallible man when he penned this, or was he given the charism of infallibility?
In post #821, Mlon was citing the Gospel of John which has been determined to be the inspired Word of God. Was John also infallible? Well, as an Apostle, sure.

Mlon made the point that men are fallible and supported his position by an appeal to a Book that is inspired. Mlon did not appeal simply to the man.

Stew thought he caught an irony there, but it was not what Mlon intended.
 
Look at this verse:

[BIBLEDRB]Acts 20:35[/BIBLEDRB]

Now, can you find in any of the Gospels where Jesus said “It is better to give than receive”?

No?

Then how did the inspired writer know Jesus actually said this?

Through…

Sacred Tradition.
I agree with your point about Tradition.

However, to be fair, drdonald said, “Any book”, and thus, the words of Jesus you quote are recorded in a book of scripture.
 
In post #821, Mlon was citing the Gospel of John which has been determined to be the inspired Word of God. Was John also infallible? Well, as an Apostle, sure.
Exactly.

So Mlon was being a little inconsistent, no?
Mlon made the point that men are fallible and supported his position by an appeal to a Book that is inspired. Mlon did not appeal simply to the man
Again, that is like saying someone is not appealing to Shakespeare when he quotes from “Romeo and Juliet.”
Stew thought he caught an irony there, but it was not what Mlon intended.
Yes. I am certain that Mlon was not intending irony. Or inconsistency.

But that is what it was.
 
I agree with your point about Tradition.

However, to be fair, drdonald said, “Any book”, and thus, the words of Jesus you quote are recorded in a book of scripture.
Sheesh, Randy!

The point is: the text from Acts is a clarion call for Sacred Tradition. There are no recorded words of Jesus saying, “It is better to give than receive”.

We know this because someone else heard the words. And transmitted this.

Hearing + Transmission = Sacred Tradition.
 
In terms of what ? I like the bishop of Rome, as head of your church denomination,as head of RCC.
That’s like an early Christian from Antioch saying that he likes Peter, but doesn’t have to submit to him.

That wouldn’t work in the early Church.

And it doesn’t work today.

Unless you want to say that there are tens of thousands of different heads of church, each of them with the authority to bind and loose? Is that your paradigm?
 
pocohombre-

Your religion is listed as “Christian”. Praise the Lord for that.

But could you be a little more specific about the church that you attend so that I can tailor my remarks using analogies and contexts that might be more familiar to you?

Thanks.
Come on, we are more universal than that . But…am more fundamental,pentecostal, evangelical.Used to be with Assemblies of God.
 
That’s like an early Christian from Antioch saying that he likes Peter, but doesn’t have to submit to him.
Peter was an apostles, one of eleven that we all are built upon. Yesterdays differences were localized by geography ( hence you had the Corinthian church,the church at Rome etc.). Today our differences are held by denominations. So as each church then had a "local /city/bishop(s),today we also have head bishops,leaders of our denomination, of which the pope is for Catholics. All denominations christian are built upon Peter and apostles. We submit by doing as they did.
That wouldn’t work in the early Church.
And it doesn’t work today.
That is right .The analogy doesn’t fit. Things may not be as then as far as “groupings” but what is the same is our foundation, and being “apostolic” by doing. As some of us were chided for not seeing change, an evolving of practice even some dogma so here should it not be expected as normal this change in how differences are channelled ?
Unless you want to say that there are tens of thousands of different heads of church, each of them with the authority to bind and loose? Is that your paradigm?
Is it a paradigm or is it a reality ? Isn’t bishop and presbyter the same in Pauline epistles? So yes we have many priests, pastors,bishops binding and loosing.
 
That is correct. Scripture alone is not sufficient, and this point was driven home dramatically (and decisively) in the “Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura” debate between Patrick Madrid and James White. Here is Madrid’s rebuttal of White’s use of 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

Now, in our remaining moments, let’s examine some key Scripture passages that are frequently brought up. Let’s turn immediately to II Timothy 3:16, 17, which Mr. White leans so heavily upon, and let’s take a look at what it really says. He quoted it for you, already, so I won’t feel the need to quote it again, but I do want to quote from his book, where he says (this is on page 42 of his book, Answers to Catholic Claims, I believe that the case for sola scriptura is so flimsy, that if you want to find how flimsy it is, you can just go to Mr. White’s book, Answers to Catholic Claims, which purports to deal with the sufficiency, or the formal sufficiency of Scripture. This book, I think, shows how flimsy that case is), Mr. White says, “II Timothy 3:16,17 literally screams sufficiency!” Well, this verse is screaming, but it’s only because of the way Mr. White is twisting it, in his attempt to shoehorn sola scriptura into it. II Timothy 3:17 does not teach the formal sufficiency of Scripture, folks, it simply doesn’t. It teaches, perhaps, material sufficiency, which I would be perfectly happy to go along with. But, just because Scripture contains all the necessary equipment, remember, Paul is saying that the man of God, through Scripture, will be equipped, will be competent, will be “thoroughly furnished”, as it says in the King James, for every good work. Every Catholic says, “Amen!” to that. There’s no argument. But, just because it will give you all the equipment that you need, doesn’t mean that it will necessarily make you able to use that equipment properly. Let me demonstrate.

Scripture says we must rightly divide the Word of God. That means that some people can wrongly divide it. They can wrongly use it. Some of you here, tonight, will think I am wrongly using the Word of God. So that, in effect, proves what I am saying. Some people will use it correctly, others won’t. So, just having the Bible alone is not enough to fully equip the man of God, in the sense that, he may have all the raw materials, he may have all the equipment, but he may not know how to use it properly.

Mr. White used a very quaint example about a bike store. And how the bike store can outfit him thoroughly, give him everything he needs, bike tires, inner tubes, helmets, and all the various things that he might need. But what about, Mr. White, if you don’t know how to ride a bike? Or what if you don’t know the rules of the road? Or what if you don’t know the proper way to handle a bike in difficult terrain, or in bad weather. The Church and Sacred Tradition, which the Bible does talk about, and we’ll show later tonight, is in that support role. Sure, the Bible will fully equip the man of God, but it doesn’t presuppose that the man of God automatically knows how to use that Scripture. That’s where the Church comes in, and Sacred Tradition. Those are the ways that the Church helps to guide the man of God in the proper use of Sacred Scripture. Don’t forget that point.

If somebody goes into the military (and many of you, in this room, have been in the military), when you get there, you’re issued a uniform, a helmet, a rifle, ammunition, not all at once, of course, but you’re issued ammunition, maybe hand grenades, maybe you’re assigned to a tank unit. You are issued all sorts of equipment. And to follow Mr. White’s analogy, you’re fully equipped by the U.S. military to carry out a military operation. But, the military also has to train the soldier, to fire that rifle, to know how to throw a hand grenade, and when to throw a hand grenade, how to drive the tank, when to duck when the bullets are coming, how to thrust with the bayonet. I could go on and on! I could bury Mr. White in his own analogy! The fact is, just because the military fully equips the soldier to carry out his mission, does not mean the soldier is necessarily ready to do it. He needs support things also. And that is the training and the guidance the military will teach him. “This tactic works.” “This tactic does not work.” All of that is necessary so that the military man may be truly complete and equipped for every military work.
Sorry I forced you to say scripture is not sufficient. Not a winning moment. Madrid over dramatizes the SS point. It is like what others say .Why don’t we just curl up with the bible and well that is it.You call that winning the debate ?I don’t. The bible specifically tells you about not just being equipped but how to fight, when yo fight, when to retreat etc. etc etc.It tells the bike shop owner how to ride a bike and that he must ride the bike etc etc .SS is not the denial of the obvious working out of our faith in the Body .
 
Sorry I forced you to say scripture is not sufficient. Not a winning moment. Madrid over dramatizes the SS point. It is like what others say .Why don’t we just curl up with the bible and well that is it.You call that winning the debate ?I don’t. The bible specifically tells you about not just being equipped but how to fight, when yo fight, when to retreat etc. etc etc.It tells the bike shop owner how to ride a bike and that he must ride the bike etc etc .SS is not the denial of the obvious working out of our faith in the Body .
It appears you miss Madrid’s acknowledgment of the material sufficiency of scripture. We just reject the formal sufficiency of scripture. That’s an important distinction, and you can learn more here:

socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/04/material-vs-formal-sufficiency-of.html
 
So yes we have many priests, pastors,bishops binding and loosing.
Poco, your Priests and Bishops celebrate Mass as did all the early Churches did that the apostles set up? :nope:

Examples below…

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

“Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man’s heart, to make his face to shine with oil, ‘strengthen thou thine heart,’ by partaking thereof as spiritual, and “make the face of thy soul to shine.”” **Cyril of Jerusalem, **Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350).

Are your bishops Catholic??

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

And do they follow the Catholic Church from Rome?

“For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago,–in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,–and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled.” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against Heretics, 22,30 (A.D. 200).

”Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.” Cyprian, To Florentius, Epistle 66/67 (A.D. 254).

History is against you Poco. The Church established by Christ was One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, with 7 sacraments.

PnP
 
Peter was an apostles, one of eleven that we all are built upon.
Yes. And what makes you think that Jesus stopped leaving His Church with any form of apostolic leadership after the death of the last Apostle??

And that His plan was to have tens of thousands of individual pastors leading their flocks into the chaos and confusion of today?

And to have any individual who decides that his own interpretation of Scripture, if it differs from his pastor’s, start his own church?
 
That you believe that some men were indeed infallible.

To wit: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul.

And that you believe that a group of men, Catholic men, (Catholic bishops, to be exact) were given this charism of infallibility in discerning the canon of the NT for you and me.
Wait a minute lets not get carried away or twist my point. The only infallible person who walked this earth is Jesus Christ. Even the disciples showed they were at times fallible. As Paul stated in Romans 3:23 “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God”
For example, Peters denial, Thomas’ unbelief just to name a few. Nevertheless, they also, filled with the Holy Spirit, spoke the truths God intended them to speak.

One thing that I have observed in my interactions in this board is I make a comment then someone responds asking me to provide evidence. It’s usually in the tone of “take that pal see if you can get out of this one”. I do so, at least in my opinion, in a reasonable logical way. I then get a response that takes a different direction than the original comment.

Back to my original point in support of Sola Scriptura. I was presented the challenge that it cannot be found in scripture. I gave an example how Jesus when encountering the Pharisees trumped tradition in favor of scripture. He brought them back to the original intention He laid out in the beginning of time. Another example can be found in the gospels. When Jesus was fasting in the desert and as you know was tempted by the Devil. What did Jesus use when combating Satan? He didn’t use the Jewish faith, traditions or the temple he recited scripture. These are two illustrations of Jesus Himself going back to scripture as the definitive word.

Trust me I have been in churches in which a pastor or priest said something that didn’t seem right to me. When this has occurred I did a thorough examination to see if it was scripturally sound doctrine. Let me ask a question. What if this happened and the people didn’t know the scripture, or didn’t have the ability to even read the scripture? They would take the words of the pastor, priest or church as the truth. Now let’s add hundreds of years into the equation. While Christianity may be more than the Bible it is the foundation of the faith.
 
Wait a minute lets not get carried away or twist my point. The only infallible person who walked this earth is Jesus Christ. Even the disciples showed they were at times fallible. As Paul stated in Romans 3:23 “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God”
For example, Peters denial, Thomas’ unbelief just to name a few. Nevertheless, they also, filled with the Holy Spirit, spoke the truths God intended them to speak.
Your last sentence is the key point. Infallibility doesn’t mean that these men were always incapable of error or mistakes. No Catholic believes that the Pope cannot make mistakes, nor is he impeccable (incapable of sin). “Infallibility” refers to instances where the Pope, or the College/Council of Bishops, are guided by the Holy Spirit on an issue, and can, to use your own words, speak the truths that God intends them to speak. That is what “infallibility” means in the Catholic context, when used in reference to the Pope or the Bishops in council. The Holy Spirit, on important doctrinal matters, prevents them from making mistakes or errors, just like God did in the Bible.
 
…The only infallible person who walked this earth is Jesus Christ. Even the disciples showed they were at times fallible. As Paul stated in Romans 3:23 “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” …
Let’s recap because I think you are getting tied up in your own argument:

[paraphrased]

Mlon: The Bible is the pillar and foundation of truth.

Randy: Jesus established an infallible Church – the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

Mlon: But people are fallible. And as evidence that people are fallible, look at this infallible document. We have to test Truth with Scripture.

Stew: How do you know the Gospel of John or any other Book is the inspired Word of God unless you accept the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church?

Finally, as I pointed out to poco - please read Paul’s First Epistle to Timothy, specifically chapter 3 verse 15.

Homework for you Mlon, that I sincerely hope you undertake. Relying on your framework in post #817, please tell me whether the following books in my bible are inspired:
  • Sirach
  • Tobit
  • Wisdom
  • Judith
  • 1 Maccabees
  • 2 Maccabees
  • Baruch
If these 7 Books are uninspired, then the Church a FALSE TEACHER, and it has been lying to the world for over 2000 years, which would lead me to place the Catholic Church in the same camp as the Church of the Latter Day Saints (certainly you and I can both agree that the Book of Mormon is not the inspired Word of God). Now, if we do come to that conclusion, then the Councils at Hippo and Carthage were no more inspired by the Holy Spirit than the Quorum of the Twelve. And if that’s true, taking this argument to its logical conclusion, then the New Testament is suspect as well… And this leads us back to the First Letter of John, which, if we follow this line of reasoning, may or may not be inspired!!
 

Trust me I have been in churches in which a pastor or priest said something that didn’t seem right to me. When this has occurred I did a thorough examination to see if it was scripturally sound doctrine.
But what if you are wrong? (Or are you saying that when you really do a thorough examination that you are never wrong?)
 
Wait a minute lets not get carried away or twist my point. The only infallible person who walked this earth is Jesus Christ. Even the disciples showed they were at times fallible.
It appears that you are operating under the misapprehension that when we say the Pope is infallible it means that he is never fallible.

Only when he speaks from his office as the vicar of Christ is he infallible.

Just like you believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and all the authors of Scripture were infallible when they wrote their inspired texts. Although they most certainly erred in their every day lives.

Unless you want to profess here what errors you believe they made?

If you don’t believe there are any errors in what they wrote, then you must conclude that they were infallible.

It’s the only conclusion you can make, Mlon.
 
Back to my original point in support of Sola Scriptura. I was presented the challenge that it cannot be found in scripture. I gave an example how Jesus when encountering the Pharisees trumped tradition in favor of scripture. He brought them back to the original intention He laid out in the beginning of time. Another example can be found in the gospels. When Jesus was fasting in the desert and as you know was tempted by the Devil. What did Jesus use when combating Satan? He didn’t use the Jewish faith, traditions or the temple he recited scripture. These are two illustrations of Jesus Himself going back to scripture as the definitive word.
Then your examples prove too much because Jesus necessarily referred to the OT only. We have more scripture than that. However, I understand the principle you are trying to illustrate, so let’s examine more closely.

The context of the disagreement with the Pharisees was over a point of law, so it made sense for Jesus to quote the law from scripture to the Pharisees. On other occasions, though, He refuted them on the basis of his own authority and wisdom. Jesus demonstrated His authority in many ways (healing, forgiving sins, walking on water, etc.), and this was a sign to the Jews of who He was. However, Jesus did not use scripture alone in His debates with them, and thus, there is no inference from His example that we must, either.

As for the temptation in the desert, I’ll offer a personal opinion (which, of course, may need to be revised or reversed!). Here, Jesus did use scripture to refute the devil precisely because he was being tempted! Had Jesus exercised His authority in that context, he might have fallen into the trap that Satan had set up…one of which was to use His power as God for Himself (making bread to end His hunger). If you have ever fasted for more than a day or so, then you might know how light-headed and weak you feel after even a short time as your body is deprived of nutrients. In a weakened condition (requiring the assistance of angels afterward), Jesus chose not to rely on Himself to win the battle with Satan.

There is not a single verse that you can offer in support of sola scriptura. And this brings me to the following conclusion regarding your repeated requests for a verse in support of every doctrine:

Answering the Question, “Where is that in the Bible?”

The Evangelical starts with the assumption that scripture existed first and that tradition was slowly and incrementally added to it as time progressed. However, the original deposit of faith was given to the Apostles years before New Testament Scripture was ever penned. The Church was founded on this truth from Christ. Some of this deposit was then written in Scripture, some was scrupulously passed from bishop to bishop as oral tradition, and some was later clarified as dogma by the agreement of the bishops in the councils of the Church.

These sources, of course, should be expected not to contradict each other. If the Church teaches something as true, it is justifiable to check that it is not contradicted by Scripture. But if the Church teaches something and the Bible is silent or ambiguous, that does not mean the teaching is any less truly a part of the original deposit of faith given the Apostles. The focus must shift from what is biblical to what is true. The first is always contained in the second, but all of the second is not necessarily contained in the first.

When an Evangelical asks, “Where is that doctrine in the Bible?”, the correct response is “First show me from Scripture why you believe all Christian doctrines must be in the Bible.” It can be frustrating for Evangelicals to confront this issue, but it is important for them to understand the lack of biblical basis for their question. Truth is at issue here.

Adapted from Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic by David B. Currie, pp.61-62.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top