Was the early church "high and dry" being without Scripture until the 3rd centrury?

[vern_humphrey]

mlchance:

But I haven’t cut God out of the equation. I’ve said all along that faith is a gift from God, but is not an automatic gift. It must be accepted. God doesn’t force faith on anyone.

So, to recap: People who do not have faith come to accept faith based on the evidence available to natural reason that faith claims, such as the resurrection of Christ Jesus or the existence of a Creator, are reasonable…

So you HAVE cut God out of the equation.

A committed athiest can read the Bible a hundred times, and not come to believe, unless God bestows Faith upon him. He will never arrive at faith through his own powers, unaided by God.

mlchance:

Therefore, faith is not believing without evidence, even if there isn’t evidence for all that faith contains (i.e., the Mystery of the Trinity).

– Mark L. Chance.

Ah, so there are SOME things we must believe on faith alone.

Now, how do we do that without the gift of faith?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[mlchance]

vern humphrey:

So you HAVE cut God out of the equation.

:yawn:
vern humphrey:

A committed athiest can read the Bible a hundred times, and not come to believe, unless God bestows Faith upon him.

Every single time? There was has never been an atheist ever who examined the evidence available and arrived at the conclusion that Christianity is indeed true after all? That must come as a terrible surprise to people who claim otherwise.
vern humphrey:

Ah, so there are SOME things we must believe on faith alone.

Not by faith alone. That’s a Protestant notion. Consider the Trinity. Unaided human reason did not discover the Trinity. It is revealed by God. But does this mean that human reason, in the light of this revelation, cannot show that the doctrine of the Trinity both conforms to Scripture and is reasonable?

I believe, by now, you have a rather nice reading list: The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, Jesus’s Resurrection: Fact or Fiction?, Fides et Ratio, and, now, The Case for Christ (which, I must admit, is the weakest of the four books).

Go and learn.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[vern_humphrey]

mlchance:

Every single time? There was has never been an atheist ever who examined the evidence available and arrived at the conclusion that Christianity is indeed true after all? That must come as a terrible surprise to people who claim otherwise…

Read what you wrote – you’re claiming that there are people who have come to believe WITHOUT the intervention of God!

mlchance:

Not by faith alone. That’s a Protestant notion…

Whoa, there! You’re saying that the argument “Faith versus works” is really “Faith versus evidence?”

That’s not the case, and you know it. To offer THAT as an argument is pure sophistry!!

mlchance:

Consider the Trinity. Unaided human reason did not discover the Trinity. It is revealed by God. But does this mean that human reason, in the light of this revelation, cannot show that the doctrine of the Trinity both conforms to Scripture and is reasonable?..

Your artgument was not about reason but about evidence.

mlchance:

I believe, by now, you have a rather nice reading list: The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, Jesus’s Resurrection: Fact or Fiction?, Fides et Ratio, and, now, The Case for Christ (which, I must admit, is the weakest of the four books).

Go and learn.

– Mark L. Chance.

I think when you pretend that “Faith versus works” is really “Faith versus evidence” you’re the one who needs to go and learn.

When you pretend one can come to believe all by one’s own efforts, without God bestowing the gift of faith, you’re the one who needs to learn.

 

[StubbleSpark]

Michael,

I wholly agree with you that it is illogical to say there were no scriptures before the Church closed the cannon. Which is why no Catholic believes that.

The crux of this argument is based upon a major Protestant misunderstanding of Catholic word use.

No Catholic thinks there were no scriptures available before the formation of the Bible cannon. In fact, the idea that the Bride of Christ formed the cannon RELIES on there having been a large body of scriptures widely available BEFORE the formation of the cannon. Which is why you are getting blue in the face chanting your mantra of 80% 80% 80%.

We know that. No Catholic believes that life before the cannon was a scripture-less wasteland and then after the formation of the cannon, POOF! suddenly Bibles everywhere. I defy you to find a single statement on this crazy site that supports the purpose of submitting this thread in the first place.

(I have said it once, I have said it a hundred times, we cannot defend what we DON’T believe.)

What you will probably find, however, are many posts saying that without the One True Church’s theologians and bishops (in obedience to the Will of God and ready tools of the Holy Spirit) meeting in council and declaring the Inspired nature of certain texts, that we would not have any Scripture (note the capital “S”).

Protestants only have one word for it: the Bible. Sometimes, in our Baptist church we called it “scriptures” but this is not an official alternate title like the term “Sacred Scripture” (or just “Scripture” for short). We Catholics love heaping titles on our precious things (ie, Lord of Lords for Christ, Bride of Christ for the Church) and “Sacred Scripture” is another word commonly employed for the Bible.

The Protestant term “scriptures” (plural, usually lower case) is used to describe the literary CONTENT of the Bible, not the Bible itself. For example, “Check the scriptures and see for yourself.” or “The scriptures say …”

Find one post on this entire web site (not just this thread) that asserts that Catholics falsely proclaim a world devoid of scriptures (lower case) before the formation of the cannon, and I will be amazed. I say this knowing full well the ZANY RANGE OF OPINIONS running rampant even among my fellow Catholics, some of whom I have to reluctantly disagree with.

If there is some question as to whether or not they mean to say there were no scriptures at all versus there were scriptures but no formal formation of the cannon, then ask them yourself for clarification.

Do not be confused. Saying there was no such thing as Scripture (Bible) before the formal compiling of the books that would compose the Bible is not the same as saying there was no scripture before the Bible. (All Catholics on this thread, please sound off!)

This thread is finished.

But I am not.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Michaelp,

You are right. The number 30,000 is tragically low compared to the actual amount of Protestant denominations, using Webster’s definition. If one used Webster’s definition and started counting, I’m betting I can count over 30,000 in Colorado alone, excluding all Catholic and Eastern/Oriental Orthodox denominations.

There are over 33,800 denominations worldwide according to Barrett’s encyclopedia (2001 edition). He admittedly does not count all the little denominations, which would certainly increase this number to a ridiculous amount. So, there’s “Over 33,000 denominations in 238 countries.” (Table 1-5, Vol 1, pg 16).

Barrett lists only one Roman Catholic denomination for every country. JUST ONE.

So, under JUST THE U.S. Country Table 2, of the 6,222 US denominations, there’s only ONE Roman Catholic denomination listed, he lists 60 Orthodox denominations. Barrett labels the rest of the denominations, Protestant, Anglican, Independent, & Marginal. The more commonly accepted classification of Christianity used by Protestant scholar Leslie Dunstan in his book Protestantism, Christianity consists of: 1) Catholic, 2) Orthodox, & 3) Protestant. So, using this more commonly understood classification …

Denominations in the US alone:
Catholic 1
Orthodox 60
Protestant 6,161

Worldwide denominations, according to Barrett for 1970 and 1995:

**1970: **26,350
**1995: **33,820

If you look to Barrett’s earlier editions, the number of Roman Catholic denominations is STILL just ONE for every country. The increase is not, contrary to Eric Svendson’s article, spread evenly, is it?

If you count the number of Eastern/Oriental Orthodox denominations worldwide, I’m betting it’s less than 2,000. That leaves over 30,000 “other” denominations. Call those denominations what you will, but even Protestant author’s call them Protestant, which is what Catholics call all those Christian sects who limit their Bible to the Protestant Bible, and assert Bible alone/Faith alone.

There are most certainly well over 30,000 denominations of these kind of sects, using Webster’s definition, which looks to the number of organizations having legal and administrative authority over local congregations.

Calvinist or Arminians do not qualify as a denomination, as they are not what Webster calls a “religious organization uniting local congregations in a single legal and administrative body.” You can redefine “denomination” into something fuzzy and it will seemingly show less division within Protestantism, but that’s not at all accurate as to what a denomination really is.

Remember: EVERY BAPTIST PARISH ACTUALLY IS A LAW UNTO ITSELF. Which makes every Baptist parish a denomination unto itself. The Baptist parish 3 blocks away from me will not fellowship with the Baptist parish 7 blocks away from me, because they do not agree with regard to what they consider essential doctrines of Christianity. They are certainly not governed by the same legal and administrave organization. According to Webster’s definition, they belong to different denominations.

Think of the US States operating like that, where the federal laws were not binding at all, but people pronounced a new source of authority, that of “Constitution alone,” which really meant that how the citizenry interpreted the Constitution was based upon their own interpretation. There did not exists any authority to authentically interpret and judge for all the citizenry, what the words of the Constitution truly menat. The federal court decisions were just optional, just suggestive. In such an example, we would have 50 different “denominations” of US states, as it it not an organization united the 50 states into a single legal and administrative body. That’s how protestantism works. If fact, it would splinter into even more than 50, because with each state, there would be bickering over what the authority of the State government over the people, who are freed from the yoke of such oppression, free to be a “law unto themselves.”

Among Lutherans, there is not a single organization that unites all Lutherans under one legal and administrative body. Neither is there such an organization for Presbyterians, Methodists, Anglicans, Pentacostals, Mennonites. All these assert that the Protestant Bible alone is their sole rule of faith.

You think the Catholic Church is just one of these, but we don’t even share the same Bible, the same understanding of authority, the same undrestanding of ecclesiology and soteriology. Considering too that their are approx. 2 billion Christians, approx. 54% (1.1 billion) profess to be Catholic, under the authority of the Roman Pontiff. It ought to become more clear to you that the 30,000 divisions are among those (approx 40%) professing only a 66-book Bible, the PROTESTANT Bible.

 

[StubbleSpark]

Now on to other things.

Your original argument bemoans the truth that the Church in complete union with the Holy Spirit declared what would be in the Bible and what would not is an argument that justifies our belief in Sacred Tradition (please note what I capitalize and what I do not) and is motivated out of vanity, fear, or ignorance:

"[high and dry] is a very unbalanced and illinformed argument. I am not saying this to argue for either side (Protestant or Catholic) right now, just to correct a misrepresentation **(although this is often done by Catholics arguing for the necessary role of infallible tradition in the early Church).
** "

As you can see from my post above, I (and all other Catholics) agree with you that the “high and dry” argument is illogical, and even anti-Catholic because it downplays the significance of the Church in the formation of the cannon by depicting a sudden explosion of Sacred Scripture from nothing. A sort of “Scriptura ex nihilo” argument that makes no sense but sounds more like a magic trick: “Nothing up my sleeve, PRESTO! Sacred Scripture!”

What I take issue with is your anti-Tradition tone. You seem to think that if Christ’s Church did not compile the cannon, the Bible would have been made anyway because the Will of God cannot be thwarted.

You couch your argument in terms that make it sound like you are on the moral high ground – putting more faith in God’s Will than in some man-made abstraction like the Catholic Church.

What this argument ignores is the fact that the Catholic Church is not man-made. No man-made organization has ever enjoyed a more long-lived and continuous existence than Holy Mother Church. That is because she was not made by a man but by God Himself.

We officially believe that our Church is the Earthly Branch of the Kingdom of Heaven (a kingdom is a “nation that rules other nations”). This is not some man-made machination to justify our existence but a fulfillment of Scriptures.

“Messiah” means “anointed.” David was anointed when he became King of the Jews. God promised in the OT that this kingdom (the Kingdom He made – just as Christ made the Church) would be ETERNAL. And God ALWAYS keeps His promises (He is not a liar).

This is why Matthew and Luke have long genealogies to demonstrate the royal (and priestly) line of Christ. This royalty is God-made, just as our Church is, and is a necessity dynamic in the physics of salvation. The term King of Kings is not just some bumper sticker meant to inspire warm fuzzies. It is FACT.

Christ rules the world as both its creator AND its KING and his vicar (or prime minister) is a man whose modern title is an affectionate term of endearment: “Pappa.”

You can sit down with some (practicing) Jewish friends and argue with them over whether or not the Kingdom of David was instated by God. You will get nowhere. Do it in the OT times and you just might find you head in the sand looking up at your newly decapitated body. Try and convince the Jews their rituals are just symbolic and not God acting through man in union with His will. Again, you will get nowhere.

Your problem is your understanding of the Church is not Jewish enough. You lack faith in the Will of God as written in the Bible.

I think the created universe is proof enough, my friend, that God does not ascribe to your minimalist views, but that He keeps offering more and more – filling the cup over the brim. Always instructing, always showing, always with us in more ways than you previously believed.

The Bible has the book of Revelation because He wanted it there.

You say it and all the other books would have found their way there eventually anyway.

Michael, we are the Catholic Church. We are that ANY WAY.

Christ is the God King Savior of all and we are His Children (through Baptism), and His servants through the rule of His Holy Church. The Church exists because it is the Will of God just as the Bible exists for the same reason.

 

[michaelp]

StubbleSpark:

Now on to other things.

Your original argument bemoans the truth that the Church in complete union with the Holy Spirit declared what would be in the Bible and what would not is an argument that justifies our belief in Sacred Tradition (please note what I capitalize and what I do not) and is motivated out of vanity, fear, or ignorance . . .

.

Stubble, I appreciate you posts. Thank you.

I find nothing new or convincing in your arguments that have not already been said. Statements of belief are not arguements. This is all that you have added is you slant on the creed of the RC Church that I already have been exposed to.

You probebly know by now that the fallacy of ambiguity often takes place in these arguements. I define the Church differently than you. I do not see it as an institution, but as a body of believers. Therefore, I would agree with many of your statements so long as this is the definition of the Catholic Church–simply the universal body of believers with Christ alone as its head.

You say that I have lack of faith so that I don’t believe what you believe (“You lack faith in the Will of God as written in the Bible”). I don’t think that that is a very wise assumption. It is simply ad hominem. It is not a very effective argument style. I would appreciate it if you did not make such assumtions, as I will not with you.

I am not anti-catholic or anti-tradition. Do people need to be called such if they have sincere disagreements with you position? I just do not see any biblical or historical evidence that suggests that Peter (or any of the apostles) passed on infallibility or absolute apostolic authority to anyone.

I do not respond to any particular arguement since, as I said, there really aren’t any in your post. You say I lack faith in the Bible. If you would have read through this post, you would see that I have discussed the proposed biblical evidence for the Papacy and the Magisterium (in particular, that they are infallible), and found them severly wanting. If there was biblical evidence that was done in a correct manner without eisegesis, then I would believe. I don’t think it is wise to assume that I don’t believe the Bible. But, then again, you will probebly continue to carry that assumption with you since it will comfort your confusion about my disagreements (we all do this at times).

Thanks for your time to respond though. I appreciate your passion and I pray that you have a merry Christmas.

Michael

 

[StubbleSpark]

And what is 80% anyway?

It is a meaningless number to the first Christians. The number comes only through the RETROSPECT of 100%. There is no concept of 80% unless you have a 100% from which to draw that number.

In their (the first Christians’) minds, they had x% – where the value x represents an unknown. Obviously they did not believe that x was enough. Otherwise, they would have stopped with just the 80% – which would make that 80% into 100%.

You can argue hypothetical positions like maybe there are more Inspired books out there and that the One True Church Made by God for Man erred when working in complete union with the Holy Spirit – that somehow the Holy Spirit and obedience with Him was not enough. But in doing so, you swing closer to the Gnostic heresies (like Dan Brown, author of the Da Vinci Code) than you do mainstream Christians (Catholic OR Protestant).

You can, like Luther, argue the hypothetical position that the Bible as set by the power of Holy Spirit working through God’s Church erred in putting too much into the Bible. But when you deny 15 centuries of Sacred Tradition, you create another heresy: relativism – the idea that what is true for me is not necessarily true for you. An idea that is fundamental to justifying the existence of Protestantism.

You can argue the hypothetical position that, come Hell or high water, the Bible would end up on our bookshelves in the 21st century.

But none of these hypothetical positions can negate WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. “Coulda woulda shoulda” has nothing to do with DID. God is not arbitrary.

He had a reason for introducing Christ to us through Mary instead of growing through the ground like a turnip or descending from the sky on a bolt of lightning. He had a reason for giving us the Bible through His Bride and not through your hypothetical cases. It was His Will, not yours that put Sacred Scripture on this planet and no amount of fantasizing will alter the historically accurate and widely accepted (by both Protestants AND Catholics) FACT of how, where, and why the Bible came into existence.

God is Truth (there is no lie in Him). Truth is that which does not change – it is eternal. That which changes never was truth. Relativism denies this fundamental aspect of Truth and thus, God Himself.

On this topic (on another thread), you said:

“My friend, we all have to walk through the gardens of Church history and choose the flowers that look best to us. You pick some that I don’t pick, and I pick some that you don’t pick. There are also many that we pick together. You must be realistic.”

and

“You see with a different pair of sunglasses on than I do. In other words, you worldview causes this statement to make sense to you, but to me, it makes no sense.”

Your selfish love of arbitrarily picking that which suits your personal pleasure when discerning Truth is an alien concept to those who understand God to be a UNITY and a TOTALITY.

You proudly cling to your “freedom” beyond the confines of Sacred Tradition. But tell me this, what “freedom” do you have that I do not?

The freedom to sin? To dissent with God? It may surprise you to learn that being a member of the Catholic Church does not take away our free will – at any time of my choosing, I may sin. The Church will tell me I did a bad thing, but I still may sin – just like you.

Are you free to pray the rosary? Are you free to bring Sacred Scripture into the church through a procession at the beginning of the service held high above your head? Are you free to be blessed by a priest? Are you free to kneel in prayerful worship in church? Are you free to accept the Body and the Blood of Christ (not symbolically)? Are you free to commune with the saints and martyrs that have gone before you?

What does your world view offer us? Scripture minus Tradition. Doubt instead of certainty. Peasant status among Pagans. Only quick prayers. Only symbolic worship. Only half the Truth. Only Sunday sermons. In every aspect, you would take away Godly treasure and in return, offer nothing.

Just what is it that you can do that a Catholic cannot? I would like to know. I have all your flowers and then some. I do not see through a glass darkly (sunglasses) because I have the Church to light the way.

 

[StubbleSpark]

michaelp:

Stubble, I appreciate you posts. Thank you.

I find nothing new or convincing in your arguments that have not already been said. Statements of belief are not arguements. This is all that you have added is you slant on the creed of the RC Church that I already have been exposed to.

You probebly know by now that the fallacy of ambiguity often takes place in these arguements. I define the Church differently than you. I do not see it as an institution, but as a body of believers. Therefore, I would agree with many of your statements so long as this is the definition of the Catholic Church–simply the universal body of believers with Christ alone as its head.

You say that I have lack of faith so that I don’t believe what you believe (“You lack faith in the Will of God as written in the Bible”). I don’t think that that is a very wise assumption. It is simply ad hominem. It is not a very effective argument style. I would appreciate it if you did not make such assumtions, as I will not with you.
Michael

This is not a response to post #280 which introduced pertinent information to the thread.

Merry Christ’s Mass

 

[michaelp]

StubbleSpark:

And what is 80% anyway?

It is a meaningless number to the first Christians. The number comes only through the RETROSPECT of 100%. There is no concept of 80% unless you have a 100% from which to draw that number.

In their (the first Christians’) minds, they had x% – where the value x represents an unknown. Obviously they did not believe that x was enough. Otherwise, they would have stopped with just the 80% – which would make that 80% into 100%.

You can argue hypothetical positions like maybe there are more Inspired books out there and that the One True Church Made by God for Man erred when working in complete union with the Holy Spirit – that somehow the Holy Spirit and obedience with Him was not enough. But in doing so, you swing closer to the Gnostic heresies (like Dan Brown, author of the Da Vinci Code) than you do mainstream Christians (Catholic OR Protestant).

You can, like Luther, argue the hypothetical position that the Bible as set by the power of Holy Spirit working through God’s Church erred in putting too much into the Bible. But when you deny 15 centuries of Sacred Tradition, you create another heresy: relativism – the idea that what is true for me is not necessarily true for you. An idea that is fundamental to justifying the existence of Protestantism.

You can argue the hypothetical position that, come Hell or high water, the Bible would end up on our bookshelves in the 21st century.

But none of these hypothetical positions can negate WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. “Coulda woulda shoulda” has nothing to do with DID. God is not arbitrary.

He had a reason for introducing Christ to us through Mary instead of growing through the ground like a turnip or descending from the sky on a bolt of lightning. He had a reason for giving us the Bible through His Bride and not through your hypothetical cases. It was His Will, not yours that put Sacred Scripture on this planet and no amount of fantasizing will alter the historically accurate and widely accepted (by both Protestants AND Catholics) FACT of how, where, and why the Bible came into existence.

God is Truth (there is no lie in Him). Truth is that which does not change – it is eternal. That which changes never was truth. Relativism denies this fundamental aspect of Truth and thus, God Himself.

On this topic (on another thread), you said:

“My friend, we all have to walk through the gardens of Church history and choose the flowers that look best to us. You pick some that I don’t pick, and I pick some that you don’t pick. There are also many that we pick together. You must be realistic.”

and

“You see with a different pair of sunglasses on than I do. In other words, you worldview causes this statement to make sense to you, but to me, it makes no sense.”

Your selfish love of arbitrarily picking that which suits your personal pleasure when discerning Truth is an alien concept to those who understand God to be a UNITY and a TOTALITY.

You proudly cling to your “freedom” beyond the confines of Sacred Tradition. But tell me this, what “freedom” do you have that I do not?

The freedom to sin? To dissent with God? It may surprise you to learn that being a member of the Catholic Church does not take away our free will – at any time of my choosing, I may sin. The Church will tell me I did a bad thing, but I still may sin – just like you.

Are you free to pray the rosary? Are you free to bring Sacred Scripture into the church through a procession at the beginning of the service held high above your head? Are you free to be blessed by a priest? Are you free to kneel in prayerful worship in church? Are you free to accept the Body and the Blood of Christ (not symbolically)? Are you free to commune with the saints and martyrs that have gone before you?

What does your world view offer us? Scripture minus Tradition. Doubt instead of certainty. Peasant status among Pagans. Only quick prayers. Only symbolic worship. Only half the Truth. Only Sunday sermons. In every aspect, you would take away Godly treasure and in return, offer nothing.

Just what is it that you can do that a Catholic cannot? I would like to know. I have all your flowers and then some. I do not see through a glass darkly (sunglasses) because I have the Church to light the way.

Well, it sounds like you are open minded to debate.

 

[StubbleSpark]

Answer the final question.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Michael,Hello, this is Lisa I pray that you have a Blessed Christmas and you continue to study and red the books you ordered, I also, hope you get some more books on the Saints If you would like any suggestions I will PM you.God Bless You

 

[StubbleSpark]

I took a lot of time to write those posts and meant them in all sincerity. I would like substantial answers. It is by your invitation that I am here in the first place. Be a gracious host and please humor me.

 

[michaelp]

StubbleSpark:

I took a lot of time to write those posts and meant them in all sincerity. I would like substantial answers. It is by your invitation that I am here in the first place. Be a gracious host and please humor me.

I don’t doubt you sincerity. But you just posted your conclusions concerning your faith. I respect you to have those conclusions.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Your selfish love of arbitrarily picking that which suits your personal pleasure when discerning Truth is an alien concept to those who understand God to be a UNITY and a TOTALITY.

This question? Oh, forgive me, that is not a question, but an accertation.

What does your world view offer us?

This one?

 

[Tim_Hayes]

MichaelP a question for you.

Catholics believe Christ is present in the Eucharist in a real way.

Protestants do not believe that the Eucharist is Christ.

Now, would you agree that if Christ is not present in the Eucharist in the way in which Catholics believe it is, then catholics are practicing idolatry.

Now what does God do with idol worshippers.

In Christ

Tim

 

[vern_humphrey]

Tim Hayes:

MichaelP a question for you.

Catholics believe Christ is present in the Eucharist in a real way.

Protestants do not believe that the Eucharist is Christ.

Now, would you agree that if Christ is not present in the Eucharist in the way in which Catholics believe it is, then catholics are practicing idolatry.

Now what does God do with idol worshippers.

In Christ

Tim

I would say the more cogent issue is, since Protestants don’t believe in the Real Presence, and since many Protestant churches have communion services, then THEY are the idol worshipers.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[michaelp]

Tim Hayes:

MichaelP a question for you.

Catholics believe Christ is present in the Eucharist in a real way.

Protestants do not believe that the Eucharist is Christ.

Now, would you agree that if Christ is not present in the Eucharist in the way in which Catholics believe it is, then catholics are practicing idolatry.

Now what does God do with idol worshippers.

In Christ

Tim

Hi Tim,

This would probebly be a good subject for another thread. This would get way off topic if we switched to the Eucharist right here.

Thanks for your contributions,

Michael

 

[StubbleSpark]

michaelp:

This question? Oh, forgive me, that is not a question, but an accertation.

This one?

Yes. The question which asks for proof of your greater freedom. You said in an earlier post that you are weighed down by traditions of man. But my point is that Protestantism, like all heresies, TAKES AWAY.

For example, Arianism (a heresy) believes Jesus was human and THEREFORE not divine.

While Docetism (another heresy) believes Jesus was divine and THEREFORE not human.

The Church agreed with what the two heresies affirmed about the nature of Jesus, but denied what they denied about Him, saying that those "THEREFORE"s unnecessarily took away from the Truth. (the word “heresy” comes from a Greek word meaning “to take or to chose.”)

I can go to a person who believes one heresy or the other and show them quantitatively how my understanding of the nature of Christ is more full and how theirs is lacking because of an unnecessary assumption that divinity precludes humanity or vice versa.

And my question does the same to you. I am challenging you to tell me what freedom Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura give you that I do not already have. I do not think there are any. I think the reason you have not answered the question is because you cannot think of any. Your words about freedom convey sentiment, but not any substance and now I am asking you to put proof on the table.

Show me your freedom.

I think this would be a logical next step for the thread as my post #280 (for which I am also still waiting for a response) effectively dismissed your original question as based on a Protestant misunderstanding of Catholic word use – which is one of the greatest obstacles our two groups enter dialogue. We tend to use similar words to mean different things or different words to mean the same things. It is confusing at times, but not hopeless. The more we can dispel in forums such as this, the better.

And I think you read more attitude into my words than are actually written there. I try to refrain from sarcasm whenever possible and I never watch the crazy talk TV shows with their shizzles, hizzies, hula-hoops, and fax machines. I speak directly, but I think it helps for you to understand what Catholics really believe.

 

[StubbleSpark]

michaelp:

I don’t doubt you sincerity. But you just posted your conclusions concerning your faith. I respect you to have those conclusions.

Michael

What if my conclusions are wrong?

Would you charitably show me how and then direct me to the fullness of truth? Our ideas are different enough so that we know that we both cannot possibly be correct. I have the Majesterium, working in union with the Holy Spirit, in the original Church founded by God Made Man. This is a wonderful gift from God that is physically AND spiritually manifest on this earth in the here and now. So you can see how my confidence in them would be so high.

But if you can show me how the Bride of Christ mentioned in Revelations is NOT the Universal Church and show me where she has erred in her teachings, then you will give me cause for doubting everything else she did (like compile the Bible, define Christ as both God AND man, define God as Three AND one, etc.)

Why are you assuming my previous posts have nothing to do with what we are talking about? You take time to write responses to the above comments concerning the Eucharist – for which I commend your discipline. You are right, it is off topic. But every single post I have written since #280 has received nothing but quips about my perceived tone complete with smilies.

Everything from post #280 on contains substantive (and dare I say interesting?) content that adds to the dialogue, keeps to the original question, and is consistent with logic and good taste. I even agree with you in #280.

I also asked you for examples in that post as well, but you have not provided any.