The Inspired Scriptures are All-Sufficient?

[Genesis315]

alyssa:

Dear Robert,

"We should take a closer look at the statement “upon this rock”. “Rock” here is Petra (feminine gender in the greek) and refers to the foundation upon which Jesus built his church. “Petros”(masculine gender), which means “a stone”, is one thing , and “Petra”, which means a “ledge of a rock”, is another. "

Jesus would have spoken Aramaic. To tranlate Kepha, the aramaic “rock,” into Greek “petra” would have been giving Peter a girl’s name! You don’t put feminine endings on masculine nouns, same ruels are in latin, if you are familiar with that. Besides, why bother to change his name, and give him keys, if it ment nothing?

Plus, the original manuscript was written in koine greek where petros and petra mean the same thing.

 

[Titanites]

See catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp

 

[mercygate]

Robert Shadwick:

First in response to my question concerning the origin of the Roman Catholic church I was refered to the scripture (by the way this shows authority on the part of scripture) Matt.16:18 which reads;
“And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter ,and upon this rock I will build my church: and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”.

We should take a closer look at the statement “upon this rock”. “Rock” here is Petra (feminine gender in the greek) and refers to the foundation upon which Jesus built his church. “Petros”(masculine gender), which means “a stone”, is one thing , and “Petra”, which means a “ledge of a rock”, is another. Jesus did not say nor mean to say that his church would be built upon “a stone”, but upon a solid “ledge of rock”. In 1 Cor. 3:11 Paul refers to Jesus as the foundation. The context of Matt.16:18 refers to the truth that Peter had just confessed (verse 16) ,which was the diety of Jesus. The truth that Jesus is the Son of God is the most fundamental and basic of all truths pertaining to mans redemption.

This is a dead argument, even Protestants reject it. And the alleged Greek doesn’t hold up. Go here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=45207&highlight=petros%2Fpetra

and here: Twelve quotations from ten Protestant Biblical scholars:

itsjustdave1988.blogspot.com/2005/04/upon-this-rock-is-rock-of-matt-1618.html

As for Peter VERSUS Peter’s confession: There is no dichotomy. Paragraph 424 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.

Following that confession, of course, Jesus says he will build his church upon Peter.

 

[geezerbob]

sonseeker:

Where does Roman Catholic Church appear?

If you mean this to be an answer to the question of where the Trinity is mentioned in the bible, it isn’t. Try again, please.

 

[Mad_Amos]

It is of vital importance in these matters to separate the message from the method. When Christ delivered to His disciples the teaching of the Beatitudes, He was conveying a most wonderful and powerful message indeed, one that was truly worthy of commission to the written word. And so it was, and you can read it at your leisure courtesy of the Bible. Ultimately it is the teaching itself that is important, however, not the fact that it was written.

We must understand that the Heart of Christ’s gospel is truly embodied in Sacred Scripture. Because of this, countless disciples - both past and present - have been able to recall His good news as if they had listened to His Voice so very long ago. But to imply that Scripture is the sum total of His Mission, however, is to put serious constraints on the breadth and purpose of His Ministry.

It has been said to the point of cliche - but is true nonetheless - that Christ established a Church, not a book. You may find inspiration, reproof, and instruction in the pages of the Bible. But what you will not find is the absolute fullness of Christian truth, as carried down by the Church from those who walked directly with Christ Himself*.*

One who reads a biography certainly cannot, with any credulity, claim equal relationship with the one whose life was chronicled as one who actually knew the person. The Church knows Christ, and continues to carry Him to the world - still to this very day - through the sacraments that He commissioned her to provide to the faithful

The fact that the Cathechism and the Bible agree is very telling and should demonstrate to you one very important fact: they are preaching the same message.

 

[Mickey]

Mad Amos:

It is of vital importance in these matters to separate the message from the method. When Christ delivered to His disciples the teaching of the Beatitudes, He was conveying a most wonderful and powerful message indeed, one that was truly worthy of commission to the written word. And so it was, and you can read it at your leisure courtesy of the Bible. Ultimately it is the teaching itself that is important, however, not the fact that it was written.

We must understand that the Heart of Christ’s gospel is truly embodied in Sacred Scripture. Because of this, countless disciples - both past and present - have been able to recall His good news as if they had listened to His Voice so very long ago. But to imply that Scripture is the sum total of His Mission, however, is to put serious constraints on the breadth and purpose of His Ministry.

It has been said to the point of cliche - but is true nonetheless - that Christ established a Church, not a book. You may find inspiration, reproof, and instruction in the pages of the Bible. But what you will not find is the absolute fullness of Christian truth, as carried down by the Church from those who walked directly with Christ Himself*.*

One who reads a biography certainly cannot, with any credulity, claim equal relationship with the one whose life was chronicled as one who actually knew the person. The Church knows Christ, and continues to carry Him to the world - still to this very day - through the sacraments that He commissioned her to provide to the faithful

The fact that the Cathechism and the Bible agree is very telling and should demonstrate to you one very important fact: they are preaching the same message.

AMEN!!! WELL SAID, AMOS!
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_55.gif

P.S–Why are you mad.

 

[pkmksk]

Just barrowed it from “Today’s Tract,” maybe it can help.

FOUR MARKS OF THE TRUE CHURCH

If we wish to locate the Church founded by Jesus, we need to locate the one that has the four chief marks or qualities of his Church. The Church we seek must be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.

The Church Is One (Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, 12:13, CCC 813–822)
Jesus established only one Church, not a collection of differing churches (Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, and so on). The Bible says the Church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23–32). Jesus can have but one spouse, and his spouse is the Catholic Church.

His Church also teaches just one set of doctrines, which must be the same as those taught by the apostles (Jude 3). This is the unity of belief to which Scripture calls us (Phil. 1:27, 2:2).

Although some Catholics dissent from officially-taught doctrines, the Church’s official teachers—the pope and the bishops united with him—have never changed any doctrine. Over the centuries, as doctrines are examined more fully, the Church comes to understand them more deeply (John 16:12–13), but it never understands them to mean the opposite of what they once meant.

The Church Is Holy (Eph. 5:25–27, Rev. 19:7–8, CCC 823–829)
By his grace Jesus makes the Church holy, just as he is holy. This doesn’t mean that each member is always holy. Jesus said there would be both good and bad members in the Church (John 6:70), and not all the members would go to heaven (Matt. 7:21–23).

But the Church itself is holy because it is the source of holiness and is the guardian of the special means of grace Jesus established, the sacraments (cf. Eph. 5:26).

The Church Is Catholic (Matt. 28:19–20, Rev. 5:9–10, CCC 830–856)
Jesus’ Church is called catholic (“universal” in Greek) because it is his gift to all people. He told his apostles to go throughout the world and make disciples of “all nations” (Matt. 28:19–20).

For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has carried out this mission, preaching the good news that Christ died for all men and that he wants all of us to be members of his universal family (Gal. 3:28).

Nowadays the Catholic Church is found in every country of the world and is still sending out missionaries to “make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19).

The Church Jesus established was known by its most common title, “the Catholic Church,” at least as early as the year 107, when Ignatius of Antioch used that title to describe the one Church Jesus founded. The title apparently was old in Ignatius’s time, which means it probably went all the way back to the time of the apostles.

The Church Is Apostolic (Eph. 2:19–20, CCC 857–865)
The Church Jesus founded is apostolic because he appointed the apostles to be the first leaders of the Church, and their successors were to be its future leaders. The apostles were the first bishops, and, since the first century, there has been an unbroken line of Catholic bishops faithfully handing on what the apostles taught the first Christians in Scripture and oral Tradition (2 Tim. 2:2).

These beliefs include the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the forgiveness of sins through a priest, baptismal regeneration, the existence of purgatory, Mary’s special role, and much more —even the doctrine of apostolic succession itself.

Early Christian writings prove the first Christians were thoroughly Catholic in belief and practice and looked to the successors of the apostles as their leaders. What these first Christians believed is still believed by the Catholic Church. No other Church can make that claim.

Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth

Man’s ingenuity cannot account for this. The Church has remained one, holy, catholic, and apostolic—not through man’s effort, but because God preserves the Church he established (Matt. 16:18, 28:20).

He guided the Israelites on their escape from Egypt by giving them a pillar of fire to light their way across the dark wilderness (Exod. 13:21). Today he guides us through his Catholic Church.

The Bible, sacred Tradition, and the writings of the earliest Christians testify that the Church teaches with Jesus’ authority. In this age of countless competing religions, each clamoring for attention, one voice rises above the din: the Catholic Church, which the Bible calls “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).

Jesus assured the apostles and their successors, the popes and the bishops, “He who listens to you listens to me, and he who rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16). Jesus promised to guide his Church into all truth (John 16:12–13). We can have confidence that his Church teaches only the truth.

 

[scylla]

Welcome to the forums Robert, hope your stay is informative and fruitful.
Now as others have stated, if you are looking for answers then it is really helpful to stick with one subject as asking multiple questions is a tactic many use just to make their opinion known and not to seriously look for answers. I am not saying you are doing this, but if you look at previous threads, especially by people who come not to have questions answered, but just to preach to Catholics then we see that behavior.
These people just jump in and post multiple questions, not seriously looking for answers, but just trying to disprove Catholicism. Don’t be worried if some Catholics come across as gun-shy as this happens often on these forums.

Now to answer your question, which in order to understand our responses please take a step back from your understanding of things.
The Catholic Church is not based on the Bible, it is Biblically consistant and not one of its doctrines contradicts the Bible.

Now here is a short response trying to explain your questions.

The origin of the Catholic Church is traced back to the Apostles, we take this very seriously. They were sent by Jesus Christ out to the world and were of one accord. We trace our original deposit of faith which determines our understanding of the Bible, back to the apostles and you can find much of this with the early Church Fathers.

I suggest you read some of Saint Ignatius in his writings he describes some of the Church in that day. circa the year 107. This is one of the first written examples of the Church being called Catholic, which means universal. He is writing this to others who are obviously aware of the name so this means that this name was in use at that time to describe the Church. In his letter to the Romans you can see examples how the primacy of Rome is described.

Now I believe Jesus founded a Church and sent out the Apostles to go out and preach the word. They in turn laid hands on chosen men. Now the only ones with the authority to do this were the Apostles\Bishops, they were able to pass on authority which can be traced to the present day. They were able to appoint priests and as someone said this is a contraction of presbuteros.

I believe that Jesus created a Church, did not abandon it and it has maintained the deposit of faith, it might seem to contradict your interpretation of the Bible, but sometimes it does require a closer look as the Church has good reason to do what it does. That is why it doesn’t change doctrine, it has to maintain the faith and the apostolic understanding of it.
Feel free to read the information on Catholic Answers as they provide good orthodox explanations of the Catholic faith.

Good luck on your search for the truth, it took me quite a while, and it takes a willing to follow Christ anywhere he might lead you.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[ScottH]

Titanites:

I don’t think anyone disagrees that scripture is profitable. But the problem arises in the multitude of scriptural interpretations. As Jesus says:

Matt 18:17 “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church”

The church has the final say and provides the correct interpretation of scripture. If your interpretation conflicts with church teaching, then you are the one in need of correction.

But isn’t Dogma an interpretation of scripture, yet one deemed “infallable”?

What makes it infallable?

 

[mercygate]

sonseeker:

Where does Roman Catholic Church appear?

Since all the Churches were in communion, the churches of the New Testament were by definition “catholic” – it was one universal Church. The word “Roman” has been attached to the Latin Church largely since the Reformation, largely by Protestants.

I cannot imagine why Catholics today sometimes adopt the term “Roman Catholic” – except possibly to distinguish the Latin Church from the 23 other Churches (Maronite, Melkite, Ukranian, Greek and so on) also under the Bishop of Rome. These are distinct from the Eastern Orthodox Churches which may bear the same national name, e.g. “Greek.”

 

[Mickey]

ScottH:

But isn’t Dogma an interpretation of scripture, yet one deemed “infallable”?

What makes it infallable?

**APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION! **

 

[MikeB]

Every time I see the whole Peter and the rock argument I just want to scream. What is so hard to understand what Jesus was doing. Jesus is the “cornerstone” that was rejected not the foundation! He clearly spoke about houses built on sand or rock and which ones would last. Jesus called Simon “Kephas” on a rock (Caesarea Philippi) that was 200 by 500 feet. Where a temple to Caesar was built. Jesus was clearly showing that the Rock He was using was far greater than anything else known.

 

[mercygate]

Robert Shadwick:

Concerning “Priest” and “Elders”.
The Bible teaches that all who have obeyed the gospel are a"holy" and “royal priesthood” capable of offering “up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God though Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5,9). The offering is thru Jesus Christ and not a pope or bishop.

Catholics believe that both the universal and the ministerial priesthood derive from Jesus Christ himself. There is only one Priest – All Catholic Priesthood is the Priesthood of Jesus.

And yes I believe in the “Trinity”. I know the word is not used but the doctrine is taught.

We would say, rather, that it is implied. In order to have an Orthodox doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the word homoousion is used. That word is nowhere found in Scripture. The doctrine of the Trinity is perhaps the key dogma to demonstrate the teaching charism of the Church. After all, if the dogma were unassailable from a straightforward reading of Scripture, then it would not have required definition by an ecumenical council.

 

[ScottH]

**APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION! **

Isn’t that hard to hang your hat on once original apostles die and other sinners (i.e. all of us) are left to make sense of it all?

That being said, shouldn’t the scriptures themselves have been used as a guidebook on how to proceed?

 

[imroc]

Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura
By Joel Peters

What is Sola Scriptura?
“We believe in the Bible alone and the Bible in its entirety as the sole rule of faith for the Christian!”

geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/solascriptura21.html

Protestants often point to verses such as 2 Timothy 3:16-17 or The Apocalypse (Revelation)22:18-19 in defense of Sola Scriptura, but close examination of these two passages easily demonstrates that they do not support the doctrine at all.

In 2 Timothy 3:16-17 we read, “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.” There are five considerations which undermine the Sola Scriptura interpretation of this passage:

1. The Greek word ophelimos (“profitable”) used in verse 16 means “useful” not “sufficient.” An example of this difference would be to say that water is useful for our existence – even necessary – but it is not sufficient; that is, it is not the only thing we need to survive. We also need food, clothing, shelter, etc. Likewise, Scripture is useful in the life of the believer, but it was never meant to be the only source of Christian teaching, the only thing needed for believers.
2. The Greek word pasa, which is often rendered as “all,” actually means “every,” and it has the sense of referring to each and every one of the class denoted by the noun connected with it. (2) In other words, the Greek reads in a way which indicates that each and every “Scripture” is profitable. If the doctrine of Sola Scriptura were true, then based on Greek verse 16, each and every book of the Bible could stand on its own as the sole rule of faith, a position which is obviously absurd.
3. The “Scripture” that St. Paul is referring to here is the Old Testament, a fact which is made plain by his reference to the Scripture’s being known by Timothy from “infancy” (verse 15). The New Testament as we know it did not yet exist, or at best it was incomplete, so it simply could not have included in St. Paul’s understanding of what was meant by the term “scripture.” If we take St. Paul’s words at face value, Sola Scriptura would therefore mean that the Old Testament is the Christian’s sole rule of faith. This is a premise that all Christians would reject.

Protestants may respond to this issue by arguing that St. Paul is not here discussing the canon of the Bible (the authoritative list of which books are included in the Bible), but rather the nature of Scripture. While there is some validity to this assertion, the issue of canon is also relevant here, for the following reason: Before we can talk about the nature of Scripture as being theopneustos or “inspired” (literally, “God-breathed”), it is imperative that we identify with certainty those books we mean when we say “Scripture”; otherwise, the wrong writings may be labeled as “inspired.” St. Paul’s words here obviously took on a new dimension when the New Testament was completed, as Christians eventually considered it, too, to be “Scripture.” It can be argued, then, that the Biblical canon is also the issue here, as St. Paul – writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit – emphasizes the fact that all (and not just some) Scripture is inspired. The question that begs to be asked, however, is this: “How can we be sure we have all the correct writings?” obviously, we can only know the answer if we know what the canon of the Bible is. Such a question poses a problem for the Protestant, but not for the Catholic, as the latter has an infallible authority to answer it.

1. The Greek word artios, here translated “perfect,” may at first glance make it seem that the Scriptures are indeed all that is needed. “After all,” one may ask, “if the Scriptures make the man of God perfect, what else could be needed? Doesn’t the very word ‘perfect’ imply that nothing is lacking?”

Well, the difficulty with such an interpretation is that the text here does not say that it is solely by means of the Scriptures that the man of God is made “perfect.” The text – if anything – indicates precisely the opposite to be true, namely, that the Scriptures operate in conjunction with other things. Notice that it is not just anyone who is made perfect, but rather the “man of God” – which means a minister of Christ (cf. 1 Tim. 6:11), a clergyman.

 

[mercygate]

ScottH:

But isn’t Dogma an interpretation of scripture, yet one deemed “infallable”?

What makes it infallable?

Infallibility is an essential “note” of the Church. Jesus promised that “the gates of hell would not prevail against it.” He knew that his coming again would be delayed and assured the disciples of an infallible guide:

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. (Jn 16:13). When he returned to the Father, he left a task and a promise:

Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Mt 28:18-20)

If Jesus commissions his Church with teaching until the end of time, then surely, he must provide a means of guarding the teaching. As for the centrality of the Catholic Church: only the Catholic Church and the Churches of the East, separated since the great schism, trace their history and charism back to the Apostles and to Christ. Apostolic Succession is a clear biblical mandate for authenticity (Acts 1:26). Although there are Apostolic Churches separated from Rome, for me it came down to one simple point: If Peter is not in your house of bishops, you are missing the centerpiece named by Christ himself.

 

[Mickey]

ScottH:

Isn’t that hard to hang your hat on once original apostles die and other sinners (i.e. all of us) are left to make sense of it all?

That being said, shouldn’t the scriptures themselves have been used as a guidebook on how to proceed?

The apostles were sinners too.
Apostolic succession began with Timothy, Titus, Mark, Phillip, and Apollos and continues to this day–yes, when the Holy Spirit descends upon those sinners though the laying on of hands by the bishop. It’s very Biblical!

Please read:

Acts 6:1-6
Acts 14:23
Titus 1:5
2Tim 2:2

 

[mercygate]

ScottH:

Isn’t that hard to hang your hat on once original apostles die and other sinners (i.e. all of us) are left to make sense of it all?

That being said, shouldn’t the scriptures themselves have been used as a guidebook on how to proceed?

We do (Acts 15-26):

In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said, “Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry. . . . For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it'; and His office let another take.’ So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us – one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsab’bas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthi’as. And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.” And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi’as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.

Pretty much how it is done today. In that decision Peter with the others demonstrate their confidence that the Apostolic charism is not to die with the Apostles. (Also ties in with Jn 20:21-23)

 

[Ignatius]

“The Sacred Sriptures contain the Word of God and because they are inspired they are truly the Word of God”
( pg. 37 - 135 ,DV 24)

"God is the author of Sacred Scipture because he inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error his saving truth. ( pg. 37 -136 , cf. DV 11)

Again , I want to thank the owners and moderators. I know your task in this format is tedeous. I appreciate the opportunity to study with you.
Robert Shadwick

First, the most that the inspired Sacred Word of God says is that scripture is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”, etc. It does not say that it is all sufficient. As Paul himself points out, scripture is subject to misinterpretation. That is why Jesus Christ founded His Church, which is the “Pillar and Foundation of Truth”, as the standard for correct interpretation.

Secondly, you should know that it is the Catholic Church which, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, defined the books which belong in the New Testament, declared by the Authority given it by Jesus Christ that these books are God breathed and inerrant, and delivered them unblemished and immaculate down through the millennia. The false, man made doctrine of Scripture Only (Sola Scriptura) did not even exist until the 16th century. A full 16 centuries after Jesus founded His Church. So, you see, the Protestants got the New Testament from the Catholic Church.

If you truly desire to enlighten yourself with regard to the Holy Scriptures, you might start with answering these questions.

Insofar as what books to include in the New Testament, who declared which books to include? Where (geographic location) was this done? When (approximate dates) was this done? (Hint: look for New Testament Cannon). Please reply to this post and let me know what you find out.

May the Holy Spirit grant you the wisdom and vision in this research and guide you to the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.

May the love of God the Father, the love of His Son Our Lord Jesus Christ, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you always.

Yours in Christ.

 

[CARose]

One of the most beautiful things about Peter being the Rock upon which the Church is built is that Peter was the frailest of men, and it is only through the power of the Holy Spirit that he could amount to anything. This power was demonstrated in the Father telling him that Christ was the Messiah, preceding his Confession. But the Holy Spirit had not fully descended upon him establishing a Church until the Pentacost, when he gave his incredible sermon. Before that, even though Christ knew he’d come through in the end, Peter proceeded to deny Christ 3 times.

It is only Through the power of God that the Church through the Vicars of Christ, has survived for 2000 years. God has indeed ensured that the Gates of Hell will not prevail.

CARose

Oh, BTW, take a look at 1 Timothy 3:15