P
Protestant101
Guest
None of these teachings would be in contradiction to the Bible; so it is not possible to say that the Bible is not intended to be “sufficient.”
- Status
J
joe370
Guest
Nothing you can say will justify the claim that the Bible is Catholic. The Apocrypha is Catholic, but it is not Biblical.
So, you are saying that the bible is not a product of the C.C. but the apocrypha is??? Is that a correct assertion?
Apostles preached and taught via oral tradition. Eventually their disciples through the decades committed these oral traditions to papyrus and somebody must have safeguarded these sacred writings, *but not yet canonized writings. *Logically the churches that were being created by Apostles, Paul and the rest of his disciples would be the ideal place to safeguard the word of God. After all Jesus said He came to build a church, not author a collection of books.
Do you believe with staunch conviction that the C.C. was not responsible for collecting, selecting, compiling and finally codifying these sacred writings, amongst a bevy of heretical writings.All done out of necessity?
If the C.C. is not responsible for the aforementioned, then which church is responsible for the codification of the bible that the world possesses today? Does the bible come down to us through the centuries from a protestant church(s)Or did the bible make its way through the wicked centuries without a need for a Divine Church at all.
Do you agree with Time line (below) of how the Bible came to us? see link…I wish you would throw some questions my way; I love a good but amiable debate…
davidmacd.com/catholic/timeline_of_how_the_bible_where.htm
J
joe370
Guest
I do that to prove to protestants that the bible is indeed Catholic and that the church yields the ultimate authority!!! Bible say the church has the authority —period Please do the same, using the bible alone to prove that the bible is not catholic and that it has no authority. I will be waiting…To use the Catholic argument Joe; “Trinity cannot be found in Scripture either;” so there’s not much sense in you tossing about the fine points of how “primacy” or “sufficiency” cannot be found in Scripture. My points are pretty clear above, and can all be found in the Bible. The fact that there is such a thing as “oral tradition” does nothing to disprove sola scriptura; for all tradition is in the Bible in one way or another.
Catholics don’t limit themselves to just sacred scripture, we have sacred tradition, however you do, so you shouldn’t be throwing around words that are not in your bible.—that’s my only point…
However, your private interpretation here is falsehood. It’s like saying “Trinity is not in the Bible so it cannot be true.” There are many Scripture verses which would give us the idea that it is better to give than to receive!! I would suggest that all of the other texts you just mentioned could be shown in a similar light where you have turned them into patent falsehoods to support your private (instead of Biblical) interpretations.
I have no idea what you are talking about, could you please expound.
But I will give you one thing; you sure appeal to the Bible a lot for someone who’s ultimate authority is the Church. Maybe you are becoming Protestant, by associating with me??
BTW all catholic’s love their bible and love to read it; after all the Word(Jesus) of God gave us His word of God via His apostolic church.
L
Lampo
Guest
How would this statement apply if it was the year 107AD?
L
Lampo
Guest
What is *your *ultimate authority?But I will give you one thing; you sure appeal to the Bible a lot for someone who’s ultimate authority is the Church. Maybe you are becoming Protestant, by associating with me??
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Protestant101’s recent “attacks” on the “Bible is Catholic” thread and the ‘Protestant Question about Purgatory” thread lead me to believe that he is reaching the limits of his valid arguments and therefore must fall back on accusations of Catholic’s being “Taught to denigrate the Bible. I feel that I must comment upon this for the benefit of all and particularly our brother Christian, Protestant101.
This is part of a fairly consistent pattern with him whereby he deflects points and avoids answering questions while continually asking for answers to his questions. In point, what he is looking for is specific answers in specific ways that he then expounds upon. For instance, the “Questions about Purgatory” thread is an offshoot of the “Bible is Catholic Thread”.
In the “Bible is Catholic thread the discussion involved the fact that the Bible used by Protestants is missing 7 complete books, plus portions of 2 other books and is thus incomplete. Protestant101 would not accept this fact and instead deflected the discussion into one of “what is in those seven books that is not clear in the other books.”
Never mind that we posted links to information showing clearly that Jesus, as well as the Apostles and Early Church Fathers, used and recognized these books.
Never mind that the Books were in the canon for a thousand years.
Never mind that they were canonized via Spirit Guided early Church Councils and ratified repeatedly over the next 1000 years.
Never mind that an errant priest, not a council, removed them in the 16th century.
Protestant101 only wanted to know what was in them that wasn’t in the rest of the Bible. Thus was raised the question of Purgatory.
His point was as simple as it was devious. Any item that we might bring up supporting the Catholic position re the canon of the Bible, would likely involve a doctrine that is rejected by Protestants.
Now purgatory is a concept, long accepted by the Catholic Church and not by the Protestant community. I brought this up as a place where the Deutero’s help the Church in her understanding of God’s revelation while the Protestants are missing that understanding due to their incomplete Bible.
Of course, Protestant101 doesn’t accept purgatory and decided to start another thread to discuss that point. All fine and good except that, once there, he simply repeats his same pattern in the new thread. He deflects and avoids direct answers, continually and repeatedly asks questions to which others respond until he gets the response he is looking for. The one with the details he can hammer at.
“The Devil is in the Details”. Protestant101 knows that and uses it to try and make his points. However, he has been unable to. In each case the amount of information supporting the Catholic position is more than sufficient. He twists and turns and pokes and prods, usually in a pleasant manner, but he always refuses to give in, instead always looking for that one verse, or argument that he can hang his hat on.
When these things fail, he will occasionally lose it, and declare that:
“The Early Church Was Protestant” (The Bible is Catholic Post # 126)
or
You and others in this thread have done nothing but minimize the Bible’s authority (The Bible is Catholic Post #565)
or
“Catholics are taught to denigrate Biblical authority and inspiration” (Protestant Questions About Purgatory Post #82)
These are the comments of someone who has reached the limits of his abilities to make reasoned arguments and is faced with a most basic problem. He must now disobey Jesus outright. For it is written, “If he will not listen to them, then ]take it to The Church****. Protestant101 cannot do this for he has rejected Christ’s Church and placed all his hopes in the Bible.
It saddens me because I know Protestant101 knows better than to say these things. The history is there, the teachings are there, and the Truth is there but he denies it obstinately.
He hopes that by hammering at certain passages and details he can overcome the teachings of the 2000 year old Church. The one that Jesus, The Word, personally guards and protects.
Peace
James
James I wanted to post up because your commentary is worth repeating here, thank you.
Because this is a non catholic forum, do you think, it would be reasonable to challenge Protestant 101 christian belief’s? I am of the understanding that Catholics do not attack others beleifs, Catholics defend the 2000 christian tradition of faith from false accusations, Lies, misunderstandings, Historical misrepresentations. But how does one defend against another who refuses to accept truth, and cling to his or hers distorted understanding of Truth?
.
Peace, James, loved your commentary.
M
mercygate
Guest
P-101 has been around for a while. Time to stop engaging in incessant and fruitless churning. Not every “But” or “What about” requires another response re-hashing the old material already well covered. If P-101 can ever come to recognize and to accept what cannot be denied about Catholic history, that’s a step in the right direction.James I wanted to post up because your commentary is worth repeating here, thank you.
Because this is a non catholic forum, do you think, it would be reasonable to challenge Protestant 101 christian belief’s? I am of the understanding that Catholics do not attack others beleifs, Catholics defend the 2000 christian tradition of faith from false accusations, Lies, misunderstandings, Historical misrepresentations. But how does one defend against another who refuses to accept truth, and cling to his or hers distorted understanding of Truth?
.
Peace, James, loved your commentary.
We do not need to “close a sale” here. It would be a failure to recognize how deeply ingrained a lot of ideas are among non-Catholics. It takes even to acknowledge very straightforward historical facts – such as that “the Bible is Catholic.”
J
JRKH
Guest
I realize I have cut much out, but look at these two statements. In the first you recognize The Church and in the last you declare the Bible as the soul authority and needing no other. After accusing me of twisting scripture, I can only marvel at your gymnastics here.
The fact is that The Church DOES always use scripture as her guide. This is not a fact that can be disputed.
Haven’t the people here answered each of your concerns/questions/queries with quotes from Scripture?
You do not agree with this interpretation and therefore use your own, or perhaps more correctly, the view of the SDA.
The Point is, as it has been from the beginning of this thread, that THE BIBLE says to “TAKE IT TO THE CHURCH” Which Church? The only one that Jesus established personally and by His own authority. The One Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church.
Peace
James
A
anthony022071
Guest
The Church is older than the books of the New Testament,and it compiled the Bible with apostolic authority.
It is for the Church that Christ founded to interpret the scriptures,so no-one can rightly say that the doctrines of the Church are in contradiction of scripture. It isn’t for outsiders or the laity to determine what true doctrine is.
To doubt the Church is to ultimately doubt scripture itself,since scripture says that the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church,and Christ will be with it to the end,and it is the pillar and foundation of truth.
L
Lilyflower
Guest
At last we have a consensus. It is good that after so much debate and discussion we have arrived at the same conclusion via different routes.A fundamental principle set forth by Scripture concerning itself is that the Bible alone is the final norm of truth, the primary and absolute source of authority,the ultimate court of appeal, in all areas of doctrine and practice.
The classical text which expresses this basic premise is Isa 8:20 (NIV): “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn.”
The two Hebrew words torah (Law) and tecudah (testimony) point to the two loci of authority in Isaiahs day which now constitute Holy Scripture: the Pentateuch (the Torah or Law of Moses) and the testimony of the prophets to the previously revealed will of God in the Torah.
Jesus summarized the two divisions of OT Scripture similarly when He referred to the Law and the prophets (Matt 5:17; 11:13; 22:40).
The NT adds the authoritative revelation given by Jesus and His apostolic witnesses (see Eph 2:20; 3:5).
In both Old and New Testament, the principle of sola Scriptura implies two corollaries: the primacy and the sufficiency of Scripture.
The sufficiency of Scripture points towards the authority of the Church where not only Scripture but Heaven itself is subordinate to the Church
Mt 16:19
L
Lilyflower
Guest
Protestant 101’s position is that of Sola Scriptura, is that of the ‘literalist’ perspective which is premised on the idea that we can take literally the teachings so that no Church is necessary to define the meanings.
It is VERY fragile position. Only one demonstrable inconsistency or error in either the Old or New Testaments is enough to shake this position. Adam and Eve have to be believed as literal people. No other interpretation is possible and there can be no Church to define it.
But It can lead to bad theology. The Bible, in literalist hands, has been used as a weapon to prove that personal opinions and prejudices are actually God’s, and as an offensive weapon to deny the opinions and experiences of other people who do not share the same interpretation of ‘God’s Word’. Thus within the ‘literalist’ movements, there is constant splitting and re-splitting of groups as people begin to question each others’ interpretations of ‘The Word’ as there is no Church authority to define a singular interpretation.
The central command of Jesus to ‘love one another as I have loved you’ is lost to the great god ‘Truth’ (as though we could, any of us, know all the truth), which, in reality, masks the old human temptation to be seen to be correct.
But if we take Protestant 101 seriously then we have a paradox since Scripture is seen as superior to all, so that a Church is not neccesary to define it. But the Church DID define it by deciding which books to include and which not to include and which texts within books, when the Bible was first canonised.
It is VERY fragile position. Only one demonstrable inconsistency or error in either the Old or New Testaments is enough to shake this position. Adam and Eve have to be believed as literal people. No other interpretation is possible and there can be no Church to define it.
But It can lead to bad theology. The Bible, in literalist hands, has been used as a weapon to prove that personal opinions and prejudices are actually God’s, and as an offensive weapon to deny the opinions and experiences of other people who do not share the same interpretation of ‘God’s Word’. Thus within the ‘literalist’ movements, there is constant splitting and re-splitting of groups as people begin to question each others’ interpretations of ‘The Word’ as there is no Church authority to define a singular interpretation.
The central command of Jesus to ‘love one another as I have loved you’ is lost to the great god ‘Truth’ (as though we could, any of us, know all the truth), which, in reality, masks the old human temptation to be seen to be correct.
But if we take Protestant 101 seriously then we have a paradox since Scripture is seen as superior to all, so that a Church is not neccesary to define it. But the Church DID define it by deciding which books to include and which not to include and which texts within books, when the Bible was first canonised.
Thus the Protestant 101 position is that the Church has no authority over Scripture nor is required to interpret it, therefore it did not have the authority to canonise the Bible. Therefore the very Bible to which Protestant 101 alludes, must according to the Protestant perspective be rejected.
J
JRKH
Guest
We can certainly challenge anothers beliefs, so long as we do it in a Christian sense. P101 has come to a catholic board with questions, opinions and understandings based on his learning and study. We must work with him where he at.James I wanted to post up because your commentary is worth repeating here, thank you.
Because this is a non catholic forum, do you think, it would be reasonable to challenge Protestant 101 christian belief’s? I am of the understanding that Catholics do not attack others beleifs, Catholics defend the 2000 christian tradition of faith from false accusations, Lies, misunderstandings, Historical misrepresentations. But how does one defend against another who refuses to accept truth, and cling to his or hers distorted understanding of Truth?
.
Peace, James, loved your commentary.
When it comes to these kinds of discussions I always think of the analogy of a rope. You can pull something with a rope, but you cannot push something with a rope. The idea being that we must draw others to us and not try to push them into believing.
Another analogy along this same line is this. Picture that you are trying to get someone closer to God. There you stand, in front of you sits Jesus on His throne. Behind you is your friend who needs to become closer to God. If you take his hand and draw him forward you also remain close to God. But if you get behind your friend and try to push, you have put yourself farther away from God than your friend already is.
This analogy relates most aptly to the use of tactics. Drawing people in with Christian Love keeps us near to God. Pushing and prodding people with aggressive or negative tactics only results in our finding ourselves farther from God and does more harm than good.
Peace
James
P
Protestant101
Guest
While you have made many strident claims with many sibilate “concerns” you have proved nothing to Protestants. Claims and proof of claims are two different things.
L
Lilyflower
Guest
Protestant 101 has every right to come here. I welcome him as my breathren in Christ.
Blessings and peace
P
Protestant101
Guest
Well, personally, I would class much of the “apologetics” here at CA as going way beyond the bounds of “defense.” And I don’t mind that myself. it is good to be challenged.
Protestant 101 has every right to come here. I welcome him as my breathren in Christ.
Blessings and peace
L
Lilyflower
Guest
Well, personally, I would class much of the “apologetics” here at CA as going way beyond the bounds of “defense.” And I don’t mind that myself. it is good to be challenged.
Brother we are indeed challenged by and learn from each other. I have had to think more deeply and I have indeed learned from you.
Blessings and peace.
P
Protestant101
Guest
Not a bad 'analogy" if I dare say so myself. Kind of like when we point our index finger at someone; we usually have three of our fingers pointing at us.
That’s why it’s important to stick with ideas, and not people when challlenging beliefs.
P
Protestant101
Guest
Thanks - where is “Anglia England?” I have never heard of that. I know that’s off topic, so PM me on that if you want. I am just curious. I would like to visit England someday. Christianity and the Bible has some rich history there.
Brother we are indeed challenged by and learn from each other. I have had to think more deeply and I have indeed learned from you.
Blessings and peace.
P
Protestant101
Guest
Now Joe! Hold back all those horses and all those men!! You stated above that “catholics do not “limit” themselves to just Scripture;” but you must note to interested members how that protestants are in no way limited by just the Bible.
S
sambos671
Guest
I actually lived in East Anglia England for 6 years. In a town called Huntingdon just north of Cambridge or just south of Peterborough. It’s pretty much a direct line down from the Wash. A lot of the area there are called the Fens (reclaimed marsh land) The english look at the people of the Fens as being backwards. England was great by the way.Thanks - where is “Anglia England?” I have never heard of that. I know that’s off topic, so PM me on that if you want. I am just curious. I would like to visit England someday. Christianity and the Bible has some rich history there.
- Status