The most intense debate between Catholic and Protestant:Mary the Mother of God

[inkaneer]

I’m definitely not a sola scriptura person and have serious differences with Protestant fundamentalists and evangelicals who are. Along life’s way (I come from a mixed Catholic-Protestant heritage) I have become concerned about pagan-like influences upon Christianity. For example, I have read a good deal about the saints (and have heard the Lords tell of them many times on EWTN) and the stories of miracles they performed and such have made me very skeptical. Did Padre Pio, for example, really levitate and bilocate? I have to express honest doubts about such claims.

The witnesses for Padre Pio are still alive and can vouche for their own testimony. Rather than express doubt at something why not investigate it for yourself?

As to Mary, my own position at this stage of life (I am a senior) would go like this. Different Christians view Mary differently. Many Catholics focus on veneration as, say, when they say the Rosary.with its numerous ‘Hail Marys’. Protestants, generally, tend to minimize her except perhaps at Christmas and when they focus on the ‘Seven Last Words’ on Good Friday. I suspect that there are millions of Christians like myself. Obviously Mary was special as the mother of Christ. But, haven’t some Catholics gone too far in their Marian emphasis? Shouldn’t the church be open enough and tolerant enough to accept a variety of opinions on this matter? Years ago I happened to be in Rome when Pius XII defined the Assumption (1950). It became just another barrier between the Protestant majority here in the USA and Catholicism.

Interesting question. Should the church not proclaim a truth because it might upset protestants? I suggest that the Church take its cue from those early Catholics who were martyred in the Circus Maximus rather than compromise on truth. Quite frankly the Church has no obligation to placate or appease protestants.

Devout Catholics generally accept whatever the church teaches. I don’t knock them for their faithfilness, but what of us who can’t honestly do that? Does God really insist that we follow a church rather than our conscience? Or, our brain? I assume the issue boils down to authority. I respect those who can believe everything they are asked to believe. I have lived many years and over time have become more and more inclined to appreciate a wide variety of interpretations and beliefs. This universe is so awesome that I spend far more time feeling that awe and worshiping our Creator than worrying about such trivia as whether Mary committed any sin or not. My guess is that she probably did, and that doesn’t trouble me for a minute. It makes her more of a human mother, wife, and daughter. To make her sinless is to make her seem like some sort of goddess, and I can’t bring myself to do that.

Well if Jesus didn’t want us to follow a church then why did He establish one? Seems to me He went through a whole lot of trouble for nothing if He didn’t want us to follow His Church. And that whole prayer to the Father, you know, where He asked that His followers be one; what was that all about? Was it just for show or did He mean it? How many peoples in the Old Testament were the chosen people, one, two, ten, a hundred? The chosen people were the OT church and there was only one chosen people and they were led by one man on earth. Anyone see any similarities here? There are more too.

 

[PRmerger]

The end of 2 Peter 1 seems to clearly be establishing the divine inspiration of scripture, but says nothing regarding how we should read or interpret it. That passage also doesn’t establish any sole authority for interpretation, it only says that we should recognize scripture as having been inspired by the Holy Spirit working in Godly men.

But here’s the question, PLee. How do we identify what is Scripture?

It begs the question to say, “I know what’s inspired because it’s in Scripture” and “I know what’s Scripture because it’s inspired.” Circular reasoning.

You need a sole authority–the Catholic Church-- to tell you what is Scripture. Thus, is this passage “My breath is offensive to my wife” inspired? How do you know? Because the CC declared it to be so. And this is not inspired: “Be appalled at this, O heavens, and shudder with great horror,’ declares the LORD.” because an authority has told you it is not.

You can not read either of those verses and declare, unto yourself, what’s inspired.

Then, in verse 21, Peter says scripture didn’t come from the will of man, but was born of the Holy Spirit.

Amen!

As far as Acts 15, with Philip and the eunuch, the eunuch was reading prophesy about the coming of Jesus. The eunuch knew nothing of Jesus’ existence, and he didn’t have the NT. How could he have understood that prophecy?

“Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?”*

That’s exactly the point, isn’t it, PLee, made quite eloquently by you. He needed an authority to help him understand the prophecy.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, PLeeD,

I guess it all depends on how you filter what you read - that makes all of the difference,.

Let me explain…

The end of 2 Peter 1 seems to clearly be establishing the divine inspiration of scripture, but says nothing regarding how we should read or interpret it.

The first thing that must be understood is the Bible is NOT a catechism - it is a document for believers,. While there is no question about the Bible being inspired - THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE. What does one DO with the inspired world of God if they do not understand it? Christ founded His Church on Peter (Matt 16) and his successors. The current sussessor of the Church founded by Christ is Benedict XVI, This Church has the promise of Christ that the Gates of Hell (error leading men away from Christ) will not prevail, No other group has such a promise - in fact, as you look at these 20,000+ groups, cults, clicks, assemblies, covenants, sects - all trying to be the True Church and all faluting the others for being false - you have to wonder just where is their unity of belief?

That passage also doesn’t establish any sole authority for interpretation, it only says that we should recognize scripture as having been inspired by the Holy Spirit working in Godly men.
You are sooooooooooo right, PLeeD! That is why SS is sooooooooooooo dangerous - it not only encourages but promotes people to submit proof texts that one verse or even partial verse is all that it takes to prove or disprove anything they want, This verse does not establish any sole authority - and that is why you must go to the entire NT to get teh meaning,. Do you recall that it is the Church (not the Bible) that is the pillar and bulward of truth? Do you recall that is was Peter who was given the power to bind and to lose? Do you recall that Christ told the Apostles that He had many other things to tell them but they could not bear it now?I guess it all depends on how you filter what you read - that makes all of the difference,.

Let me explain…

As evidence that verse 20 refers to the inspiration of scripture, and not to interpretation of it, look at verse 16. Peter is saying that we do not follow fables that are skillfully devised by man. He says that what he teaches he learned as an eyewitness to the power of Jesus.

Then, in verse 21, Peter says scripture didn’t come from the will of man, but was born of the Holy Spirit.

And this is the verse that turns and bites you hard! Look at al these interpretations encouraged by SS - and you see so many sheep in search of a Shepard - in search of Christ! The idea of some guy standing on a stage holding a Bible aloft in one hand while pointing to congregation and telling them what scripture means is the essence of private interpretation - and not born of the Holy Spirit!

I have to say that attempts at turning that clear teaching in order to apply it to interpretation of scripture doesn’t hold up well under examination.

Seriously, PLeeD, is you want do some serious examination about the interpretation of scripture - and how these others groups have changed (look at same-sex marriage, promotion of homosexual life styles, abortion and the support of euthansia and infantacide if you need some examples you can get from the front page of any newspaper) in their interpretation of scripture. Now, look at the Catholic Church which has always condemned homsexual activity, murder, abortion and much mnore - from the 1st Century on. When did you guys start? Let me know the specific religion you claim and I can tell you about doctrinal changes. And, is this important - YES IT IS. It shows very clearly that the Catholic Church is being lead by the Holy Spirit. Why? Because the Holy Spirit is not going to ‘wake up one morning’ and say, “Oooooooops! I should not have said that … we are going to have to change our belief to fit our behavior!!!”

As far as Acts 15, with Philip and the eunuch, the eunuch was reading prophesy about the coming of Jesus. The eunuch knew nothing of Jesus’ existence, and he didn’t have the NT. How could he have understood that prophecy?

So Acts 15 also says nothing regarding sola scriptura.

The eunuch was taught by an Apostle - an Apostle that God directed to the carriage of this man reading scripture,. He obviously did not understand what he was reading - but, Philip, under the direction and leadership of the Holy Spirit was able to bring this man to not only a knowledge of salvation, but a desire to be Baptized.

I really do understand some of the reasons why there is SS. SS exists because other groups deny Apostolic Tradition, deny that John said not everything is in the Bible and deny Christ’s own words when He founded His Church on … Luther?..Calvin?.. Henry VIII? nope! When He founded His Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church) on Peter. That is the message you can research yourself and find it valid - but, to do so, you must first remove the filters you have been reading your scriptures through!

God bless

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
If you don’t think so then explain to me how you can justify sola scriptura scripturally against 2 Thess 2:15.

I wouldn’t justitfy sola scriptura with or against that passage. I don’t even necessarily buy into sola scriptura as a doctrine. But it’s easy to believe that 2 Thess. doesn’t preclude sola scriptura.

Paul was writing to the Thessalonians. He taught them traditions in person, and they heard his spoken word with their own ears. His letter to them reflects that intimate relationship. In 2010, all we have to go by is Paul’s (and the other apostles’s) letters, i.e. scripture.

I understand the Catholic claim to Apostolic succession, and all that entails, but I can’t view any Pope with the same regard as Paul (or, more properly, with Peter). My problem with Catholic tradition is that so much of it seems arbitrary and inefficient. There is a lot about Catholicism that I like, and that my church is in absolute agreement with, but there is also a lot that I would liken to the Pharisees - that is, seemingly man-made inventions passed off as commandments. I’ve read some of the early church father writings, and even there I don’t find references to all of what Catholicism has become.

The best source I have to find God’s will is the writings of the original apostles. Where the bible doesn’t closely line up with Catholic teaching I have to make a judgement call. I wouldn’t say things like the confessional or communion of the saints are wrong, and that Catholics are wrong for practicing those things. I simply don’t find clear basis for them in the bible, and so I can’t accept and practice them with any intellectual honesty. At the same time I can fully appreciate that Holy Spirit leads Catholics to practice them in good faith.

It’s troubling that that appreciation is not reciprocal.

REPLY: We agree that Paul did teach the Thessalonians in person. In fact, if you look at Paul’s letters they are all remedial in nature. Paul taught orally and followed up that teaching with letters addressing problems that arose regarding particular portions of his oral teaching. The problem with sola scriptura is that it does not tell us what Paul taught orally. It must have been important or else why would Paul tell the Thessalonians to hold onto oral teaching as well as his letters.

One must recall that Jesus never commanded His Church to commit to writing anything about the gospel. The command to the Church was to preach the Gospel and to baptize. But He also said something else. In John 16 He said:

"12 “I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 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. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.” [John 16:12-15]

I think that everyone agrees that the Spirit of Truth came on Pentecost. But His work was not limited to just that one day. I think everyone agrees that The Spirit of Truth [The Holy Spirit] would guide the Church beyond Pentecost. After all Paul’s conversion was still several years into the future and I don’t know of anyone who claims that Paul was not led into the Truth by the Holy Spirit. Kind of hard to do when Paul’s writings make up over half of the New Testament. But when does the Holy Spirit quit leading the Church into all truth? Neither scripture nor Jesus puts a time limit on when it is to end. Thus it is reasonable to believe that the Holy Spirit is still guiding the Church into all truth. Now if you don’t agree that is reasonable then consider the alternative scenario. The Holy Spirit guided the Church then at some point in time [it doesn’t matter when] stopped and thereafter the church drifted into “man made inventions passed off as commandments” and therefore error. That scenario is unscriptural. Jesus said that the Church He established would never have Hell prevail over it. If the Church did as you claim then Hell prevailed and scripture is therefore wrong and Jesus is a liar. I know of no protestant who would accept that scenario. Therefore one would have to conclude that scripture is not wrong; Jesus is not a liar and Hell has not prevailed because the Holy Spirit is still guiding the Church into truth. Now all one needs to do is find that same Church. There are thousands of ‘churches’ today claiming to be “THE” ‘church’. Which one is it? How do you tell? Which ever one it is it must be the same one as that on the day of Pentecost when Peter addressed the crowd in Jerusalem. So which church claims and can prove they were in existence and preaching the gospel and baptizing over the almost 2,000 years since Pentecost?

CONTINUED NEXT POST…

 

[inkaneer]

CONTINUING…

One more thing. You are looking to find justification for some Catholic teachings in the Bible. They are certainly there but may not be fleshed out. A good example is the Trinity. While we all can point to the passages that contain references to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit none of these passages provide us with the idea that these are separate persons in one God. In fact the Unitarians who reject the Trinity claim these passages refer to only different forms of the same God. They deny the Trinity doctrine and conduct their baptism only in the name of Jesus and not in the name of the Trinity as Jesus commanded. That is how they interpret the scriptures. But our concept of the Trinity was formed by the Church not by the scriptures alone. What scripture hinted at the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit fleshed out. In the case of the Trinity doctrine that included the use of Greek philosophical concepts of essence and person. These concepts are totally absent from the scriptures as well as Jewish philosophical thought. The same applies to confession and the communion of saints, Mary, purgatory and other ‘Catholic’ doctrines. These teachings are scripturally based but not explicitly detailed in the scriptures. Like the case with the Trinity the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit has fleshed out these teachings.

So it really comes down to something that people who claim to be sola scripturists don’t want to face. If you claim that you are going to rely on scripture as an inerrant authoritative source are you not therefore compelled to rely on the totality of what scripture says knowing that by doing so you are acknowledging that scripture states that not everything is contained in scripture and that there is a church guided by the Holy spiroit into all truth?

 

[inkaneer]

Hi, PLeeD,

I
The eunuch was taught by an Apostle - an Apostle that God directed to the carriage of this man reading scripture,. He obviously did not understand what he was reading - but, Philip, under the direction and leadership of the Holy Spirit was able to bring this man to not only a knowledge of salvation, but a desire to be Baptized.

I really do understand some of the reasons why there is SS. SS exists because other groups deny Apostolic Tradition, deny that John said not everything is in the Bible and deny Christ’s own words when He founded His Church on … Luther?..Calvin?.. Henry VIII? nope! When He founded His Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church) on Peter. That is the message you can research yourself and find it valid - but, to do so, you must first remove the filters you have been reading your scriptures through!

God bless

Not to quibble but are you sure Phillip in Acts 8 was the Apostle Phillip or the deacon Phillip? I have always thought Phillip in Acts 8 was the deacon. In the last part of Acts 6 it mentions the creation of the seven deacons listing Stephen then Phillip then the other five. Acts 7 is about Stephen and his martyrdom then Acts 8 tells of Phillip and his work among the Samarians and the scripture says that when word reached the Apostles in Jerusalem they sent Peter and John to them and they laid hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. If Phillip was the Apostle Phillip why could he not lay hands on the Samaritans and confirm them? He was an apostle/ bishop just as Peter and John were. That does not make sense. It only makes sense if this Phillip was the deacon Phillip not the Apostle. That would explain why Peter and John were sent to confirm the Samaritans as adeacon does not have the authority to confirm.

If the above is correct then this deacon is the same Phillip that is sent to the Ethiopian Eunuch. As such he represents the church in its role as the oficial interpreter of scripture and the Ethiopian eunuch’s words are a clear indication that private interpretation of scripture will do exactly what Peter said it would do in 2 Peter 3:15-16 where he cautioned about things in scripture that are hard to understand and which people [who he calls the ignorant and unstable] twist to their own destruction. The eunuch hears Phillip and the scripture which the eunuch did not understand is explained by the representative of the church and the eunuch is converted and baptized. Prior to Phillip the eunuch did not understand the scripture. In the words of Peter he was ‘ignorant’ and thus unstable. But with the explanation of the scriptures by the church in the form of Phillip the eunuch was no longer ignorant or unstable.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Inkaneer,

What an excellent observation! This certainly got by me!

Thanks for shariing this idea.

God bless

Not to quibble but are you sure Phillip in Acts 8 was the Apostle Phillip or the deacon Phillip? I have always thought Phillip in Acts 8 was the deacon. In the last part of Acts 6 it mentions the creation of the seven deacons listing Stephen then Phillip then the other five. Acts 7 is about Stephen and his martyrdom then Acts 8 tells of Phillip and his work among the Samarians and the scripture says that when word reached the Apostles in Jerusalem they sent Peter and John to them and they laid hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. If Phillip was the Apostle Phillip why could he not lay hands on the Samaritans and confirm them? He was an apostle/ bishop just as Peter and John were. That does not make sense. It only makes sense if this Phillip was the deacon Phillip not the Apostle. That would explain why Peter and John were sent to confirm the Samaritans as adeacon does not have the authority to confirm.

If the above is correct then this deacon is the same Phillip that is sent to the Ethiopian Eunuch. As such he represents the church in its role as the oficial interpreter of scripture and the Ethiopian eunuch’s words are a clear indication that private interpretation of scripture will do exactly what Peter said it would do in 2 Peter 3:15-16 where he cautioned about things in scripture that are hard to understand and which people [who he calls the ignorant and unstable] twist to their own destruction. The eunuch hears Phillip and the scripture which the eunuch did not understand is explained by the representative of the church and the eunuch is converted and baptized. Prior to Phillip the eunuch did not understand the scripture. In the words of Peter he was ‘ignorant’ and thus unstable. But with the explanation of the scriptures by the church in the form of Phillip the eunuch was no longer ignorant or unstable.

 

[Just_Me_Andrew]

Greetings again:

I have been reading through the posts again…and it appears SS has become the subject of discussion. I noticed 2 Thess 2:15 was mentioned:

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

Has anyone considered that the “by us” or “from us” refers to the traditions taught to these people at the time? E.g. we know earlier Paul had earlier passed on some Apostolic teachings concerning the second coming of Christ to the Thessalonian Christians and Paul reminds them to hold firm to these teachings.

Remember also that at the time these things were written scripture was not completed yet, it was in the process of being written. How 2 Thess. 2:15 would help the Catholic church concerning created later Marian teachings e.g. Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary…I have no idea.

Lastly I was wondering what view of Divine Revelation is held by the majority of Catholics in this forum…the Partim Partim view or the Material Sufficiency view.

Peace–Andrew

**You should point to the whole man Jesus and say, ‘‘That is God.’’ Martin Luther **

 

[PRmerger]

Has anyone considered that the “by us” or “from us” refers to the traditions taught to these people at the time?

Yes, that is what Paul was referring to. Especially since there was no Bible…Divine Revelation existed only in the Old Testament and the Sacred Tradition.

 

[Pitcharan]

… The eunuch hears Phillip and the scripture which the eunuch did not understand is explained by the representative of the church and the eunuch is converted and baptized. Prior to Phillip the eunuch did not understand the scripture. In the words of Peter he was ‘ignorant’ and thus unstable. But with the explanation of the scriptures by the church in the form of Phillip the eunuch was no longer ignorant or unstable.

I happen to have done some experiments way back in 1996-97 during the early days of my return to God. I have found that even the mere proclamation (reading out) of the Gospel by an anointed priest (abishegam seyyappatta guru in my mother tongue) of the CC, often has the effect of explanation. I saw a clear difference between a lay person’s reading out and an anointed priest’s proclamation and have received many inspired explanations after listening to an anointed priest’s reading.

 

[inkaneer]

Greetings again:

I have been reading through the posts again…and it appears SS has become the subject of discussion. I noticed 2 Thess 2:15 was mentioned:

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

Has anyone considered that the “by us” or “from us” refers to the traditions taught to these people at the time? E.g. we know earlier Paul had earlier passed on some Apostolic teachings concerning the second coming of Christ to the Thessalonian Christians and Paul reminds them to hold firm to these teachings.

Remember also that at the time these things were written scripture was not completed yet, it was in the process of being written. How 2 Thess. 2:15 would help the Catholic church concerning created later Marian teachings e.g. Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary…I have no idea.

Lastly I was wondering what view of Divine Revelation is held by the majority of Catholics in this forum…the Partim Partim view or the Material Sufficiency view.

Peace–Andrew

**You should point to the whole man Jesus and say, ‘‘That is God.’’ Martin Luther **

Yes, but. 2 Thess 2:15 is scripture. It is in every protestant Bible. Therefore it is accepted by protestants as the absolute truth, the word of God. God is immutable. God doesn’t chgange. He is, as protestants like to quote scripture [Hebrews 13:8], “…the same yesterday and today and for ever.” That being the case then does His Word change? God didn’t give us one word for the first century and another for the rest of time. 2 Thess 2:15 is just as true today as when Paul penned it almost 2,000 years ago. So are we holding onto what was preached orally today? Not if we hold to sola scriptura. By the way there is no verse in the scripture that tells us that what Paul or any of the other Apostles preached was reduced to writing. There is just no defense for sola scriptura.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Inkaneer,

What really makes SS so strange is that there wasn’t a Bible (as we know it today) until about 400AD - and that was through the Divine Guidance of God acting through His Church - and, that would be the Catholic Church. So, if SS is to address some issues - you just have to wonder what thse early Catholics did for these 1st 400 years? Tracing this back to just the 16th Century lays bare its real origin - those who rejected the Church founded by Christ on Peter and wanted to form one in their own image.

The second issue is how can one document (the Bible) which is Faithful to our Eternal and Unchanging God - spawn 20,000+ different versions of the ‘truth’ with each disparaging the teachings of all other groups. The only thing, apparently, each group can agree upon is that the Catholic Church founded by Christ on Peter (Matt 16) is wrong. Even to the untrained eye or ear - this cries out for an answer from each of these competing groups to answer.

SS is a failed idea that has deceived millions. The lack of respect that many have shown to the Mother of God based on their insular view of Scripture is truly sad.

God bless

Yes, but. 2 Thess 2:15 is scripture. It is in every protestant Bible. Therefore it is accepted by protestants as the absolute truth, the word of God. God is immutable. God doesn’t chgange. He is, as protestants like to quote scripture [Hebrews 13:8], “…the same yesterday and today and for ever.” That being the case then does His Word change? God didn’t give us one word for the first century and another for the rest of time. 2 Thess 2:15 is just as true today as when Paul penned it almost 2,000 years ago. So are we holding onto what was preached orally today? Not if we hold to sola scriptura. By the way there is no verse in the scripture that tells us that what Paul or any of the other Apostles preached was reduced to writing. There is just no defense for sola scriptura.

 

[Just_Me_Andrew]

Inkaneer: Thank you for posting a response to my post. I would like to comment on your response.

First off I believe truly that 2 Thess 2:15 is scripture and I accept it fully. God doesn’t change, his essential nature and character etc doesn’t change, agreed. Does God’s Word change? Perhaps you can clarify that question I am not sure what you are asking. Are you talking about the method God uses to pass on his directions, commands to his people? At different times God used different methods of passing on his divine instruction, commands to his people…God has used written and oral transmission. God for instance giving divine instructions through the prophets whom then gave them to the people, that is oral transmission. At other times God used written communication to his people…

You asked if we are holding onto what God has given orally today, interesting that your own church has stated no new revelation is being given today. The canon they say is closed…yet oral revelation is still being given? Interesting that in the early Church prophets were around e.g. Agabus (Acts 11:27-28). That is oral transmission of God’s prophetic word, and yet we don’t see the Catholic church proclaiming they have prophets giving oral revelation. As you read the book of Acts and onward through the NT the prophetic gift seems to have died down…yet the Catholic church claims oral revelation through the Pope and the Magesterium, very interesting.

You are correct there is no verse of Scripture I can examine in context to say that the Apostles were reduced to writing yet we see that they used that method of communicating God’s truth as time went on…Oral transmission of revelation can easily be corrupted however written revelation cannot easily be corrupted e.g. the Jews today still have the OT. Jesus said his words would not pass away. They haven’t, any person can go and buy a good literal translation e.g. the RSV and Jesus words are there for us.

Lastly no one answered which view they hold of Divine revelation…In my post I put: Lastly I was wondering what view of Divine Revelation is held by the majority of Catholics in this forum…the Partim Partim view or the Material Sufficiency view.

That is one of the important questions I would like some Catholics online to answer…IMO Partim Partim view seems more defensible for the Catholic…yet how would you explain Papal Infallibility and the Assumption, Immaculate Conception as revelation being late on the scene…Material Sufficiency is the view that I would love to debate Catholics concerning…because that states everything you believe is at least implicitly found in scripture. That would be interesting. However because it’s hard to defend either view exclusively many Catholics sort have a foot in both camps and won’t commit to either view.

Peace

We believe that the very beginning and end of salvation, and the sum of Christianity, consists of faith in Christ, who by His blood alone, and not by any works of ours, has put away sin, and destroyed the power of death.—Martin Luther

 

[PRmerger]

You asked if we are holding onto what God has given orally today, interesting that your own church has stated no new revelation is being given today. The canon they say is closed…yet oral revelation is still being given?

No, oral revelation is not still being given. Public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle (Dei Verbum, Vatican II)

The Christian dispensation, therefore, as the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away and **we now await no further new public revelation **before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ (see 1 Tim. 6:14 and Tit. 2:13)

However, doctrine does develop.

And at certain points in history the Holy Spirit deems it necessary to proclaim and define teachings which have always been part of the Deposit of Faith.

yet the Catholic church claims oral revelation through the Pope and the Magesterium, very interesting.

Again, no. You are operating under the misapprehension that the Pope and the Magisterium are continuing to proclaim oral revelation. It does not claim this charism.

 

[PRmerger]

Oral transmission of revelation can easily be corrupted however written revelation cannot easily be corrupted e.g. the Jews today still have the OT.

Then you ought not trust anything from the OT, (except, maybe, the Ten Commandments which apparently were written down immediately ) because much of it was passed through Oral Tradition for centuries before a single word was ever written.

 

[PRmerger]

That is one of the important questions I would like some Catholics online to answer…IMO Partim Partim view seems more defensible for the Catholic…yet how would you explain Papal Infallibility and the Assumption, Immaculate Conception as revelation being late on the scene…Material Sufficiency is the view that I would love to debate Catholics concerning…because that states everything you believe is at least implicitly found in scripture. That would be interesting. However because it’s hard to defend either view exclusively** many Catholics sort have a foot in both camps and won’t commit to either view**.

Yes. We need not be officially commit to either camp.

I, however, am a proponent of material sufficiency, which argues that all Catholic teachings are contained in the Bible, either explictly or implicitly.

Thus, the canon of Scripture, while not explicitly in Scripture, can be found in Matt18:18.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, PRmerger,

Do you happen to have some reference links on Partim Partim and Material Sufficiency?

Thanks and God bless

Yes. We need not be officially commit to either camp.

I, however, am a proponent of material sufficiency, which argues that all Catholic teachings are contained in the Bible, either explictly or implicitly.

Thus, the canon of Scripture, while not explicitly in Scripture, can be found in Matt18:18.

 

[PRmerger]

Hi, PRmerger,

Do you happen to have some reference links on Partim Partim and Material Sufficiency?

Thanks and God bless

These are from Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong:

socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/04/material-vs-formal-sufficiency-of.html and a dialogue between him and 2 protestants: socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/10/sufficiency-of-scripture-and-church.html

And here’s a CAF discussion on it:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=17831

 

[PRmerger]

Hi, PRmerger,

Do you happen to have some reference links on Partim Partim and Material Sufficiency?

Thanks and God bless

While the question (partim-partim vs material sufficiency) is an interesting exercise in theology, it is really a moot question…

for Catholics do not have to choose between ONLY Scripture or ONLY Tradition. We have the charism of both, thanks be to God, so any discussion about this is only theoretical, and has no basis in practicality.

 

[4thelamb]

The problem with debating Bible only Chrisitians is that they don’t accept the fact that some of Jesus’ teachings, ergo Catholic beliefs, took some time to be fully understood by the early Christians who followed the apostles. Bible only Christians don’t allow for history and church development. The Trinity for example, though fully understood by the apostles had to be explained to their successors who weren’t yet disciples of the living Christ. Bible only Christians have little tolerance for anything that is not explicitly stated in the Bible. I wish more Catholic debaters would throw out there the verse that says that not all the books in the world could contain everything Jesus taught. (paraphrasing)

That would be John chapter 20:30; and 21:24-25. And its Jesus’ “miraculous signs” that are not all written down…not His “teachings". The scripture says:
**“Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:30). ----Again in verses 24-25-----“This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. 25Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.”(21:24-25) **“

 The apostle John makes it clear that what we need to know about Jesus, is recorded and written down, and we’re promised, through scripture, eternal life in His name if we will believe in Him!  That tells me that I’m safe to put my trust in Scripture and not to worry myself over those miracles that were not recorded.  We must live by the Words God did choose to give the apostles to write down, and not worry about all the things that may or may not have happened in ages past. God gives his “light” (His Word) to us, through the Holy Spirit **(Psalm 119:105**), and we will count it sufficient for our Faith. Otherwise those who would deceive us could make up anything they want.  Scripture says: **“Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!  As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!”—(GAL 1:8) **This pretty much takes care of any future plans the church at Galatia had for any Doctrinal additions later on down the road…wouldn’t you say?  Jesus and the Apostles lived and preached according to the scriptures as well and quoted them often.(**Matt 15:9/Isaiah 29:13; Luke 24:27,44-48)**  In Acts 17 the scripture says: **“the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians because they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”-(ACTS 17:11) **You say there’s truth in what we don’t know.  Maybe.  But there’s most assuredly falsehood as well.  Are we to trust men?  The Material Church Institution is obviously NOT infallible (but this is not meant to be about dredging up the past of the R.C.C.)…so who will you trust?  Scripture also says: **“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”---(HEB 3:16).  “Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God?  Or am I trying to please men?  If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ”--(GAL 1:10). ** In those days Paul was speaking to the Galatians about Jews who would pervert the Gospel and teach the Gentiles that they must do additional things (like first becoming circumcised) to become a part of the Body of Christ.  Is there difference in our present day with the Catholic Church's Law of the Sacraments?  Which are outward and visible signs of an inward an spiritual grace, just as circumcision was an outward sign for the Jew of being inwardly “a chosen son of God (**PHI 3:3**).  The rule of faith is to live a life according to the Scriptures.  If you are comfortable trusting your soul to the hands of tradition that’s your choice.  Every man must choose his faith for himself.  I believe we must hold to the scriptures, otherwise….since **“all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (ROM 3:23) **we inevitably slip further and further away from truth with each new doctrine and passing century.  
 
 **“Preach the Word, be prepared in season and out of season, correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction.”  HEB 4:2**