Where is this taught in the bible?

[Brian_Culliton]

Ahhh no Brian. The issue here is your remark,so do not go off on a tangent. Sorry,but Steve B actually showed the opposite. Now back to your remark,you just included in your response. Here let me point it out to you in your own words:

Catholic apologists; references are either stripped of context, tampered with, or both

Therefore Brian,show me your empirical evidence Catholics have tampered with primary sources? I do recall learning a great deal about primary sources as a graduate student,so I want you to provide the evidence against us Catholics tampering with primary sources.

Please no more dodging and denials.

Empirical evidence per your request.

Post 81:

“…every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority everywhere…” (SB)

**Post 91: **

"‘every Church should agree with this Church on account of its pre- eminent authority everywhere’

who is this Church specifically, and why does it have pre-eminent authority everywhere?" (SB)

And here is what he said later…"

Post #100:

“Here is the text I used. What Shaff had problems with SHOULD give him problems. It shows how obvious and clear Irenaeus was.

‘For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.’” (SB)

I accused Steve of removing the key words from the quote in post #105 and he responded in post #108 with, “Me thinks you protest too much.” I think that is an admittal.

So I ask you, did he or did he not manipulate the text?

(In this case the “manipulation” was orchestrated by removing key words that by there absence strengthened his position.)

 

[Nicea325]

Empirical evidence per your request.

Post 81:

“…every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority everywhere…” (SB)

**Post 91: **

"‘every Church should agree with this Church on account of its pre- eminent authority everywhere’

who is this Church specifically, and why does it have pre-eminent authority everywhere?" (SB)

And here is what he said later…"

Post #100:

“Here is the text I used. What Shaff had problems with SHOULD give him problems. It shows how obvious and clear Irenaeus was.

‘For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its **pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful **everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.’” (SB)

I accused Steve of removing the key words from the quote in post #105 and he responded in post #108 with, “Me thinks you protest too much.” I think that is an admittal.

So I ask you, did he or did he not manipulate the text?

(In this case the “manipulation” was orchestrated by removing key words that by there absence strengthened his position.)

LOL! Steve B is your evidence? Read it again,your own words:

*It’s a common practice among Catholic apologists; references are either stripped of context, tampered with, or both. *

You are flat out accusing Catholics (plural) of tampering primary sources. Tampered Brian? Meaning what? Altered,perverted,fabricated,etc,etc. Brian show me where the actual words of the ECF’s have been tampered with from the PRIMARY SOURCE? Give me one primary source from let us St.Augustine that the RCC has **tampered with **and show me St.Augustine’s actual writings? Hence,show me your empirical evidence? Let me read the ‘tampered’ sources that is such a common pratice among Catholic apologists and the primary source and compare them?

Sorry,but one person is not EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. Another thing one is taught in graduate school,one sole source does not rebuke or debunk an entire argument,position,belief,etc.

Try again.

BTW: Go back and read how Steve exposed your Protestant reference. Common trait among you non-Catholics.

I’ll await your overwhelming proof.

 

[joe370]

Brian, could you address the following, which is the OP:

Based on my last thread regarding the non-Catholic consensus of what sola scriptura is, and is not, I have concluded that the bible, as per sola scriptura advocates, is the Christians only source of divine authority, and that all Christians, as per the practice of sola scriptura, must defer to the authority of the bible alone, (with the exception of one SS advocate) - as opposed to deferring to the authority of the Catholic Church or any other Protestant Church for that matter. I am told that All have the right to read the bible (with which I agree, to a point…) - as it has been written, and discern truth for themselves: no church Bishop or Pastor (regardless of church affiliation) - is needed to further expound that which has been expounded by the Spirit of Christ in the Prophets and the Apostles.

Where is this taught in the bible??? 2 Timothy 3 does not teach this…

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Pretty weak Brian. The issue here is not Steve B.,but your own charges. Read it again,your own words:

It’s a common practice among Catholic apologists; references are either stripped of context, tampered with, or both.

You are flat out accusing Catholics (plural) of tampering primary sources. Brian show me where the actual words of the ECF’s have been tampered with from the PRIMARY SOURCE? Give me one primary source from let us St.Augustine that the RCC has **tampered with **and show me St.Augustine’s actual writings? Hence,show me your empirical evidence? Let me read the ‘tampered’ sources that is such a common pratice among Catholic apologists and the primary source and compare them?

Sorry,but one person is not EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. Another thing one is taught in graduate school,one sole source does not rebuke or debunk an entire argument,position,belief,etc.

Try again.

BTW: Go back and read how Steve exposed your Protestant reference. Common trait among you non-Catholics.

I’ll await your overwhelming proof.

And there you have it. A person who claims to have 20 years of early church study doesn’t care if people manipulate sources so long as it is Catholics who are doing it.

What was done was dishonest and the fact that you support it is absolutely shameful. You have ZERO credibility.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Brian, could you address the following, which is the OP:

Based on my last thread regarding the non-Catholic consensus of what sola scriptura is, and is not, I have concluded that the bible, as per sola scriptura advocates, is the Christians only source of divine authority, and that all Christians, as per the practice of sola scriptura, must defer to the authority of the bible alone, (with the exception of one SS advocate) - as opposed to deferring to the authority of the Catholic Church or any other Protestant Church for that matter. I am told that All have the right to read the bible (with which I agree, to a point…) - as it has been written, and discern truth for themselves: no church Bishop or Pastor (regardless of church affiliation) - is needed to further expound that which has been expounded by the Spirit of Christ in the Prophets and the Apostles.

Where is this taught in the bible??? 2 Timothy 3 does not teach this…

Sorry, I am done with this thread. I prefer honest dialog!

 

[joe370]

Sorry, I am done with this thread. I prefer honest dialog!

I ask a simple, honest question, which by the way, is the OP, and you refuse to help me out? I guess I have my answer…

 

[Nicea325]

And there you have it. A person who claims to have 20 years of early church study doesn’t care if people manipulate sources so long as it is Catholics who are doing it.

What was done was dishonest and the fact that you support it is absolutely shameful. You have ZERO credibility.

LOL! And there you have it! Yep! A person who has been caught in his anti-Catholic and biased views and cannot walk the walk when challenged.

A person who makes references to an issue he has the slighest clue about and expects others to believe it?

Poor Brian…cannot admit someone is more educated than him…to much pride is not good Brian.

 

[fbl9]

In Brian’s defense there is broad defination of the word apologists.

 

[fbl9]

(In this case the “manipulation” was orchestrated by removing key words that by there absence strengthened his position.)

Faithful to what? Answer that and you could make a new agruement.At time of this writing just what did the faithful believe? Did not the author of this letter in question beleive the same as modern day Catholics?

 

[Dokimas]

I ask a simple, honest question, which by the way, is the OP, and you refuse to help me out? I guess I have my answer…

You want help why? to belittle an understanding, to change your understanding … seems by the way you interact with people who understand the Bible differently than you, belittle is my guess. I could be wrong based on the fact I’m often wrong. If I am, please accept my apology.

 

[ignatius777]

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura, like the doctrine of the Trinity, is not based on one particular proof text. The passage you mentioned is one of the many scriptures that support the sufficiency of the Bible as the only infallible rule of the Christian faith.

The Holy Scriptures are the property and the inheritance of the people of God and they pass them on from one generation to another. How did you first learn that the book called the “Holy Bible” is the Word of God? Was it not from your parents or from your Sunday School teacher or your pastor or some other Christian? Even though they are not infallible, the Lord used them to place in your hands His book and the doctrines therein.

If you insist on the need of an infallible authority to assure you which books are inspired, well, in that case you should not stop there either. You should then ask, “How do I know for sure that the church magisterium is infallible?” You can’t say, “Because the Bible says so” (since as a Catholic, you cannot be sure that the Bible is inspired apart from the teaching of the infallible church); and you can’t say either, “Because the church says so”.

You may wonder how people like Timothy, you and I, could know which books are inspired apart from an infallible church. Could we not trust in God who inspired the Bible in the first place? He gave the Scriptures to His people, and He could use them (weak and fallible as they are) to recognize His Word, and pass it on to future generations. I am convinced that this is exactly what God did.

justforcatholics- a protestant apologetic website

I doubt any of us would disagree that the bible is the word of God. And the word made flesh, Jesus told Peter he would send the Holy Spirit to lead the church in the truth and nothing shall prevail against the church. It seems fairly clear then that Jesus intended for the church to be a leader in sharing what Je was leaving behind for his church. No where in scripture is it stated that personal interpretation of God’s word is acceptable. Sola scriptura leads to this type of personal interpretation since anyone can claim the bible is clear about what it teaches. Really? The why do w ehave so many christian denominations? All led by somone who has embraced sola scriptura and found some revelation different then the last church they were in.

What do you think?

 

[Dokimas]

I doubt any of us would disagree that the bible is the word of God. And the word made flesh, Jesus told Peter he would send the Holy Spirit to lead the church in the truth and nothing shall prevail against the church. It seems fairly clear then that Jesus intended for the church to be a leader in sharing what Je was leaving behind for his church. No where in scripture is it stated that personal interpretation of God’s word is acceptable. Sola scriptura leads to this type of personal interpretation since anyone can claim the bible is clear about what it teaches. Really? The why do w ehave so many christian denominations? All led by somone who has embraced sola scriptura and found some revelation different then the last church they were in.

What do you think?

SS, to my understanding, does not give individuals the right to privately interpret the Bible, but the responsibility to be obedient thus filled with the Spirit, then to study with the desire to rightly divide the Word of Truth, resulting in obediently following what the Bible teaches, which includes sharing it’s Truths with those who don’t follow Jesus.

The Holy Spirit inspired the Bible. It is He and He alone that can rightly interpret the Bible.

 

[ignatius777]

SS, to my understanding, does not give individuals the right to privately interpret the Bible, but the responsibility to be obedient thus filled with the Spirit, then to study with the desire to rightly divide the Word of Truth, resulting in obediently following what the Bible teaches, which includes sharing it’s Truths with those who don’t follow Jesus.

The Holy Spirit inspired the Bible. It is He and He alone that can rightly interpret the Bible.

So I guess I am confused and beg your patience. It couldnt have been Jesus intention to have thousands upon thousands of christian denominations all claiming to have the truth could it? He had disciples whom he taught and instructed to go and spread the word of God. Teaching has to come from a singular source of truth no? Personal intepretations can only lead to as many truths as there are those making the interpretations. Is tha twrong thinking on my part?

 

[ignatius777]

SS, to my understanding, does not give individuals the right to privately interpret the Bible, but the responsibility to be obedient thus filled with the Spirit, then to study with the desire to rightly divide the Word of Truth, resulting in obediently following what the Bible teaches, which includes sharing it’s Truths with those who don’t follow Jesus.

The Holy Spirit inspired the Bible. It is He and He alone that can rightly interpret the Bible.

If I may offer an example of my problem with personal interpretation…I read James 2:24 to mean that we are not saved by faith alone. There are many who read the exact same words as me and have an entirely different understanding. Could God have meant that those words mean different things to different people?

 

[Dokimas]

So I guess I am confused and beg your patience. It couldnt have been Jesus intention to have thousands upon thousands of christian denominations all claiming to have the truth could it? He had disciples whom he taught and instructed to go and spread the word of God. Teaching has to come from a singular source of truth no? Personal intepretations can only lead to as many truths as there are those making the interpretations. Is tha twrong thinking on my part?

Seems pretty good IMO.

What you do with your conclusion, I may disagree with. However, whether I agree or disagree is of NO concequense; it’s only God’s opinion that counts and is correct.

 

[ignatius777]

Seems pretty good IMO.

What you do with your conclusion, I may disagree with. However, whether I agree or disagree is of NO concequense; it’s only God’s opinion that counts and is correct.

Ultimately you are correct it is only God’s opinion that matters. But if it comes down to my choice about whom I should believe is teaching God’s truth, shouldnt I base my decision on more then a roll of the dice? It seems most of what we see today in the way of splintered denominations can be traced back to the presonal revelations of one man, Luther,right? Am I willing to put all my faith in the personal revelation of one man?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Seems pretty good IMO.

What you do with your conclusion, I may disagree with. However, whether I agree or disagree is of NO concequense; it’s only God’s opinion that counts and is correct.

and what is God’s opinion? and how do know what is God’s opinion?

 

[ignatius777]

and what is God’s opinion? and how do know what is God’s opinion?

Excellent questions

 

[wisdomseeker]

Excellent questions

Some say it is the HS enterpreting, some say it is the Bible that enterpret itself, but they all come up with some different ideas. go figure.
One thing they cannot explain is how, if the HS is enterpreting the Bible for them, how come they have different ideas of what the Bible is saying? where is the assurance of the Truth? and if the Bible enterpret itself, and they all still come up with different ideas, where is the assurance of the Truth?

 

[Dokimas]

Ultimately you are correct it is only God’s opinion that matters. But if it comes down to my choice about whom I should believe is teaching God’s truth, shouldnt I base my decision on more then a roll of the dice? It seems most of what we see today in the way of splintered denominations can be traced back to the presonal revelations of one man, Luther,right? Am I willing to put all my faith in the personal revelation of one man?

Correct me if I’m wrong but Luther did not want to start an new church nor did he. In my reading I never saw that Luther wanted to leave the CC. In fact wasn’t the CC that kicked him out?

He disagreed with some of the practices which, if i’m not mistaken, the CC have changed some of the practices he was against.