The Perfect Answer for Sola Scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter fulloftruth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
RMP:
LOL. for you to make these accusations is without foudation, proof, or common sense.
Click to expand...
My position is founded, can be proved, and uses common sense. A gratuitous assertion merits a gratuitous response.

~Matt
 
He was neither Catholic nor Protestant, but a member of a church that cannot be fully equated with any institutional organization or movement today.
Click to expand...
then prove this…

I have several quotes that tell the world what church he belonged to from his own writings and his belief in authority of the church, the eucharist, infallability of bishops, ordination of priest. But, as I said,
YOU prove he wasnt Catholic. We know he wasnt protestant.
 
40.png
p90:
I reject your false dichotomy and the premise upon which it is founded. He was neither Catholic nor Protestant, but a member of a church that cannot be fully equated with any institutional organization or movement today.

~Matt
Click to expand...
The early Church died out? Apostasized completely that is why it can not be found today?

Really? I have yet to see the evidence for this.
 
40.png
Aris:
The early Church died out? Apostasized completely that is why it can not be found today?
Click to expand...
You’re misrepresenting what I’m writing. Why are you doing this?

~Matt
 
40.png
RMP:
YOU prove he wasnt Catholic.
Click to expand...
It is difficult to make a response, because I do not know what kind of evidence you are looking for or what, if anything, will convince you that he wasn’t a member of your denomination.

However, Athanasius disagrees with the current Catholic canon and his view of Scripture as an authority is much different than what Catholics believe today. No Catholic today would write the following:

“Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture” (De Synodis, 6).

As far as a number of other current Catholic beliefs, they are completely absent from his writings.

~Matt
 
40.png
p90:
It is difficult to make a response, because I do not know what kind of evidence you are looking for or what, if anything, will convince you that he wasn’t a member of your denomination.

However, Athanasius disagrees with the current Catholic canon and his view of Scripture as an authority is much different than what Catholics believe today. No Catholic today would write the following:

“Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture” (De Synodis, 6).

As far as a number of other current Catholic beliefs, they are completely absent from his writings.

~Matt
Click to expand...
Hi Matt,

Do you want to discuss this furhter? on Athanasius being Catholic or not? I think if you want to discuss this furhter it deserves another thread.
 
40.png
Aris:
Can’t escape the fact that it was through the Catholic Church you have the Bible right now.
Click to expand...
Hmmm…don’t the Jews deserve any credit for that?
 
40.png
Aris:
Only if you say the Bible consists of the Old Testament only.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t make sense. It does contain the Old Testament. Yours doesn’t?
 
40.png
Aris:
Only if you say the Bible consists of the Old Testament only.
Click to expand...
By that logic, if I took any two books and put them together, I could give myself credit for writing both books?:confused:
 
40.png
ahimsaman72:
My conclusion here is that the Scriptures didn’t need people to validate them. They were valid by themselves. When Moses wrote the Pentateuch, the Israelites didn’t wonder if it came from God. They knew God spoke to Moses and that was enough for them.

I’m glad that early believers assembled the New Testament Scriptures. But I reject the idea that they needed canonization from a group of people to say they were authentic.
Click to expand...
My first thought is what if three Christians disagreed. One believes 1 & 2 Maccabees are inspired by God; another thinks they are not; yet another thinks that not only are 1 & 2 Maccabees inspired but so is 3 Maccabbees.

Does it matter? Will it affect their views on anything and cause disunity?

Has God ever authorized people to present His word and lead His people before? Moses was authorized to lead the people and instructed them. The jewish high priest sat on the chair of Moses at the time of Jesus.

God changed Simon’s name to Peter. A change in name meant something really important in ancient times. He said: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church”.

He also said to Peter “Feed my sheep” (John 21:17).

So Peter had a clear role in the foundation of the Church and to feed Christ’s sheep.

Christ also suggested that Peter would need to strengthen the rest of the bretheren.

“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again [after the denials], strengthen your brethren” (Luke 22:31-32).

So if God helped Peter direct the bretheren (incuding the apostles), directed Moses (helped by Aaron) for the benefit of the Isrealites, is it not possible that he has still provided an earthly leadership today.

For this leadership to have any real authority from God it should be able to tell what books of the Bible are inspired by God?

The Catholic Church has the Bishops (successors to Apostles), who in union with the Bishop of Rome have been guided by the Holy Spirit to make such decision when called upon.

An example of this decision making is at the Council of Jerusalem in the Acts of the Apostles. There is also an example of a successor to an Apostle in Acts. Judas is succeeded.

Since Biblical times there have been other Church Councils where decision on a matter has been necessitated.

There is a good book called “Where we got the Bible”, by Henry G. Graham that has a good overview of the history of the Bible from a Catholic point of view.

With regard to authority in the Catholic Church Steve Ray also has a good book called “Upon This Rock”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top