Or you do not recognize it properly. Question:
Does your wife have to interpret the menu for you? Or simply read what it says?
You’re aware that Paul preached these things first, and then later dictated them to a scribe or scribes who often signed their own names to them in addition to Paul’s signatures?
And in admitting “I think it proves just the opposite” you unwittingly demonstrate more than mere opinion regarding why we cannot rely on Scripture alone.
In general??? Even if you remove the “in general” you cannot substantiate such a claim from Scripture, though you recognize the need for it to be true. This conflict - that it must be true for your theological system to make any sense and the fact that it is not actually stated in Scripture - leaves your objectivity compromised in assessing the reasonableness of what Scripture actually says.
Absolutely false conclusion. Paul clearly demonstrated his ability to acknowledge when he had “received” something from the Lord in Chapter 11 of his letter to the Corinthians dealing with the Lords Supper:"For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you…"1Cor 11)
You have no idea, though, and that fact is vastly more important than your speculations. Perhaps Paul was so confident that it was all God that he believed whether it was written or spoken God would control events in a way to secure His message being properly passed on. We have no idea! The fact of the matter is that Paul never articulated the position that you have suggested. Nor did the successive generations that eventually determined the canon. There is a HUGE silence regarding the alleged transition from a living oral (and written) tradition to a purely written tradition (aka sola scriptura). No one ever bothers to say, “The age of oral tradition has ended, we are now a faith of the Bible alone”. It never happens, and the deafening silence of every generation of Christianity for 1500 years is an overwhelming veto of your thoughts regarding what Paul did and didnt know and why he did or didnt write things down.
Solus, what church do you attend? I’ve never understood why non-Catholics sign up for membership in this forum and then put “Christian” or “True Beleiver” or “Evangelical” in the field labelled “Religion”. What are you guys ashamed of?
Yes and no. You think that until you begin to disagree with your pastor or elders. Then, you move to a different church or start your own. Don’t deny it, brother. I’m a convert. I know the truth of which I speak.
Let me get this straight…are you saying that you are a member of a denomination that does NOT allow you to interpret the scriptures for yourself? You ARE required to toe the party line, so to speak? And you claim that you are not bound by “tradition”?
Church split?
Actually your evidence doesn’t fit the charge. This does not nullify the word of God.
and this means what?
Does that mean that once the difference really sinks in, you would be open to becoming Catholic? Read on…
Maybe they don’t even know.
This has nothing to do with mileage. It has everything to do with the reasonableness of the claims and demands being made by the RCC. The RCC is asking you (or, as a Catholic, requiring you) to believe them about what they tell you. Without the sort of evidence I am asking for, that belief is purely a faith in hearsay. As a non-Catholic, the only reason a Catholic evangelist can offer me is that the RCC says so. The traditions of the RCC are, therefore, purely a matter of dogmatism.
Perhaps your problem is that you put the cart before the horse.
It’s true that we don’t have the text of the Sacramentary of the first and second centuries, probably because most of it was oral.
Technically, yes, it’s hearsay - but what reason did either St. Paul or St. Justin have to lie about it?
Not only because it says so today, but because it has always said so, right from the very beginning, when Jesus said, “Thou art Rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” and “Whatsoever ye bind on earth is bound in Heaven, and whatsoever ye loose on earth, is loosed in Heaven.”
Mark is making a lot of unsubstantiated claims here. However, I would just ask one question: If it was unclear what constituted Scripture to the Jews during the time of Christ, how could Christ have repeatedly appealed to the Scriptures? Wouldn’t Christ have had to first ask the individuals He was addressing what was their conception of the Scriptures to understand the extent to which their consciences had been formed?
I fail to see the irony here. Yes, the Septuagint was known and used by the early Church. No one debates that. The earliest version of the Septuagint, however, did not even include the aprocryphal books. It was their subsequent inclusion that made them a matter of debate. Ireneaus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria accepted them as canonical, but Athansius, Origen, and Jerome did not.
You yourself have pointed out how some things developed over time. I do not know by what century the Sacrament of Reconciliation developed to the point we recognize it today. And that is precisely the problem: We see a gradual development over time. This was, therefore, not a tradition handed down by the apostles or we would have expected it to be fully developed from the start and thus evident in Scripture. Because it was not fully developed from the start, however, the sacrament as we recognize it today is something concocted by the RCC, but to which the RCC attributes a divine origin.
Question: What did Jesus mean in John 6:63 when He said: “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”
This statement completely ignores the context. Read the chapter in its entirety. Paul is confronting the Corinthian church about the way in which it observes the Lord’s Supper. Paul recounts the Last Supper in verses 24 and 25. Both before and after this recounting Paul talks about the ways in which they profaned the observance. If this meal was separate from the consecration, then why did Paul make a reference to the Last Supper? This makes no sense at all!
I understand you accept the Catholic dogma uncritically. “Single,” “visible,” and “infallible” do not, however, appear in Scripture. It is inferred through eisegetical insertions into the Bible text.
Whether intentional or not, you are dodging the real issue here. The entire premise behind the RCC interpretation of Matthew 16:17-19 is that Christ was there making a declaratory statement about the intended polity and structure of His Church. The RCC claims this was understood and taught by the apostles and was handed down through oral tradition down to present day. But the arguments I am hearing here in this forum are that maybe it was not readily evident to the apostles and the understanding only developed over time. Well, which is it? Because if it is something that developed over time, then clearly it was not something handed down by the apostles via oral tradition. If it was understood by the apostles, then Mr. Boncore’s explanation does not hold water and his portrayal of the Council of Jerusalem is a sham.
I understand completely. These threads can become unruly after a while. So I am asking you to help me understand the flaw you see in the following logic:
Peradventure one day the Pope released a document teaching about some doctrinal matter, but it was not deemed to be ex cathedra. Let’s say even the Pope stated it should not be taken as being received as ex cathedra. But the Catholic faithful joyfully accept and read the document. Now, what if the document contained a subtle but destructive heresy? Is it possible that large portions of the Church could be led astray in this scenario?
Good point! We really need to try to be objective here. With this in mind, please tell me how an objective reading (i.e. sans the RCC’s eisegesis) of Matthew 16:17-19 proves infallibility. Remember, the objective reader would also be willing to include in his considerations Matthew 18:18,19!
I said the RCC’s reasoning, but I understand that as a Catholic you take it personally. I am not being rude, however, just challenging the reasoning. If the reasoning is not the impetus behind your acceptation of the Catholic interpretation, however, then tell me it is really based on faith and we will stop arguing about it.
Actually, that is precisely my contention. The Catholic believes he/she is placing their faith in God by relying on the RCC to teach them what to believe concerning God. The Catholic believes this because the RCC teaches them that this is God’s plan (and the RCC accuses Protestants of circular reasoning!). But by trusting in this claim by the RCC, the Catholic is not placing his/her trust in God (since the RCC’s assertion is not revealed as true in His Word), but in the RCC.
Another question for you Randy: Do you believe there is a unifying theme in the Bible? If so, what is it?
Coming from a Protestant background, please tell me what was it that led you to convert to catholicism. As a Protestant I see so many problems with the claims of the RCC, so I am genuinely interested to hear your conversion story. Were you predisposed toward the Catholic Church, or was it a hard fought struggle for you?
Are there no concerns about the Church being led astray informally taught doctrines?
I hate to point out the obvious, but “quite good” is not synonymous with “the same.” Either there is uniformity or there is not. What you describe are similarities. Do the Orthodox believe in the infallibility of the Pope? No! Do they believe in the primacy of the Pope? No! There is not uniformity by any definition, else the Orthodox would cease to distinguish themselves and would subordinate their hierarchy to the Bishop of Rome. How can the RCC maintain that there is only one visible Church in one breath and then call the Orthodox church a true church in the next breath? This is a strange paradox. Is the Church of Christ only found in one visible institution or not? If I appear ignorant, then it is because I am confused by all of the double-talk.
Well, this pretty much settles it for me. The Orthodox church is not a “true church” after all. If it were, Peter’s successor would be able to exercise authority over the Orthodox church. Since the Orthodox church does not recognize the Pope’s authority over them, however, and since it is a separate visible institution, it must not be a “true church.” I sure hope that Lumen Gentium wasn’t pronounced ex cathedra!
Abundant reasons maybe, but certainly no conclusive reasons. Once again, it is all predicated on an acceptance of the elaborate interpretive framework erected around this passage by the RCC. If you take off your “Catholic glasses” and look at the passage objectively, these “abundant reasons” appear very questionable. I have already shown “abundant reasons” to doubt that the passage portends everything the RCC claims it does. A number of questions throw the RCC’s interpretation into doubt and still have not been answered. To name three of them:
