Where to begin?

[jmcrae]

If you want to force the Catholic interpretation of this passage you will need to account for the difference in the Greek words used for stone and rock.

There is none. Imagining that Jesus was using the form of Greek that uses “petros” to mean something different from “petra” is akin to imagining that the President of the United States uses Medieval French to address his Senators.

The original conversation took place in the local version of Aramaic, as we see in the Book of Acts, where Peter is referred to as “Cephas” - the name given to him by Jesus was “Cephas” - not “Peter,” or “Petros.”

The form of Greek into which Matthew recorded the incident does not have the word “petros” in it - Matthew was in fact masculinizing the word “Petra” to make it a man’s name - and we see the reverse happening every time we see a little girl being named after Peter - since we can’t call a girl “Peter” we feminize it to make it a girl’s name, and call her “Petra”. Clearly, therefore, “Petra” and “Petros” are the feminine and masculine forms of exactly the same word.

If you want to arrive at the significance placed on this passage by the Catholic Church then you will need to pile on an extra helping of tradition (read eisegesis).

Not at all - the only “helpings of tradition” are being added by Protestants - first, by thinking that Jesus was speaking in Greek to His Aramaic-speaking audience, and secondly, that He was using an ancient form of Greek that had been out of use for many centuries, already, and that nobody in His times except for scholars of ancient manuscripts ever even thought of using.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Unfortunately, in order to do this you are going to need to convince the other person that the Catholic Church is the final authority and is indefectible and not simply because it claims to be.

This is quite doable. One simply out that the apostles ordained the bishops with their authority, to rule the Church and teach it and preserve it in the one true faith. Then one can string out the evidence for this from the Bible and from the most ancient available historical data, as in this article:

scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html

However, your reasoning is also backwards. In response to my criticism that Sola Scriptura is biblically unfounded, you have said that I must prove the authority of the Catholic Magesterium for this to be believed. Which is not true. All I must do is point out to you that Sola Scriptura is nowhere referred to in the Bible, and when you bring up a handful of texts that might be interpreted to imply it, show you that this interpretation is neither logical nor clear.

Yet Sola Scriptura teaches that only those doctrines are to be believed which are stated explicitly, or at least quite clearly, in the Bible. Therefore Sola Scriptura rules itself out as a truth proposition.

No one should just assume the truth of the basis for his belief system.

The Bible claims to be God’s word

Actually, no, it does not. I only know of two books, at present, which explicitly claim to be God’s Word, and those are the Book of Revelation and 1 John.

At the end of Revelation, it says that anyone who removes anything from the words of this book of prophecy will have his share removed from the tree of life, and anyone who adds to the words written in this book of prophecy will have plagues added to him, beyond those mentioned in the book. So this appears to be a claim of inerrancy for the Book of Revelation. This explicit Biblical claim cannot be applied to all the other books of the Bible, but only to the Book of Revelation, because the books of the Bible weren’t written together. When John wrote Revelation, he was only thinking of the Book of Revelation. The Bible didn’t exist as a single document in that time period, and the Early Christians thought a number of other books, such as the Shepherd of Hermas, the letters of Ignatius or the first epistle of Clement to the Corinthians might also be inspired scripture.

1 John also appears to claim infallibility, though its claim appears to apply to the oral tradition of the apostles as well as to their scriptural writings. We can discuss this in more depth.

You’re forgetting your historical context for the writing of the Bible.

The New Testament wasn’t written as one big book. The books were written separately. None of them claim that they belong to an infallible book, and very few claim that they are infallible themselves. Most of them were written as separate books or letters, addressed to specific people or churches to deal with various local problems.

None of the books of scripture claims that a Bible should be assembled. Nor does any book of the Bible tell us that a canon of scripture should exist. Or how to go about assembling a canon. Or what books should be in the Bible. All these questions pertaining to the existence and structure of the Bible are passed over completely in the Bible itself.

and has fulfilled prophecies to back up its claim.

Some of the books of the Bible do indeed contain prophecies that we see fulfilled in other books. Many books, on the other hand, don’t make any prophecies and don’t describe the fulfillments of any prophecies either. Furthermore, there were other books written in the Early Christian period which also describe the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. How do you know that the New Testament books which describe the fulfillments of prophecies are the true books of God, and the other books that describe the fulfillments of prophecies from the Old Testament are not infallible? How do you distinguish between these?

And furthermore, as I already mentioned, many books don’t contain any prophecies.

It might be added in addition to this that there ARE other books in existence, in which various prophets throughout history, including many Christian prophets, wrote down prophecies, and these prophecies were fulfilled. Does that mean that these should be added to the Bible?

 

[Lief_Erikson]

It is therefore easy enough to believe in its authority and infallibility for a Christian. It is a bit harder to swallow the claims of the Catholic Church since they are based solely on the arrogations and “traditions of men.”

This is not true, SC. Actually, it is Protestantism that is based on traditions of men.

You see, Protestants interpret the Bible in very different ways on countless points of doctrine, even including matters that the Bible says are essential to salvation. The meaning of “Born Again,” for instance, and the meaning of the Eucharist. Jesus said that we must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood to be saved. Baptists interpret this as referring symbolically to faith in the sacrifice of the cross. Lutherans and many Anglicans interpret it as referring to partaking of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. That’s a big difference of opinion on a critical matter, in Protestantism. Furthermore, there are questions about whether salvation is conveyed through infant baptism, and whether or not faith alone is essential to salvation, or works too (there are a variety of different opinions on this), and there are differences of opinion as to whether or not having the correct version of End Times theology is essential to salvation, and people will argue both ways. Protestantism is divided on all kinds of things pertaining to salvation.

And the issues I’ve just broached are strictly theological. One could go on and on over the divisions in Protestantism on ethical questions like the legitimacy of lying, torture, divorce, masturbation, nudity or wearing scanty clothing on the silver screen, and contraception, even among conservatives. And between conservatives and liberals, the differences over homosexuality, abortion, and sleeping together outside of wedlock are huge.

Christians in Protestantism will take all kinds of different moral positions on these issues, backing them up from Scripture, and some will say having a correct view on such and such an ethical matter is essential, and others will say that it isn’t. And they will argue over ethics on these issues, disagreeing with one another over whether or not these are critical to people’s salvation. And disagreeing over what the most Biblical position is.

Clearly, there are a lot of traditions of men in Protestantism that are rampant and dangerous.

And I’m only listing above some of the ones that are critical matters of salvation. On matters that people aren’t convinced are essential to salvation, the number of contradictions in Protestantism is also vast.

The reality is that even conservative Protestants admit that we interpret and read the Bible fallibly, because we are fallible, even though the Bible itself is an infallible document. Consequently, people come to all sorts of different conclusions about what it means, when left to their own devices. This is a basic problem of interpretation. One person reads the Bible and it seems clear to him. Another person reads it and it seems clear to him, but he understands it, in many ways, differently than the former person. And then people’s understanding of the Bible keeps evolving over the course of their lives as they come into contact with more different opinions and change their own views in various places.

It’s basically a mess of uncertainty, because there’s so much human opinion involved. Human understanding of the Bible is fallible, because we are fallible, and therefore Sola Scriptura leaves people with fallible interpretations of doctrines, even on matters pertaining to salvation.

In Catholicism, we have contradictions on matters critical to salvation when people reject the official and infallible Church teaching. Faithful Catholics assent to the teachings of the Church and consequently remain all united to one another. Unfaithful Catholics reject these teachings.

In the Catholic Church, the Magesterium defines doctrines clearly so that everyone can understand them and reject them or accept them. Therefore faithful Catholics across the board will agree on doctrine, if they know what the Church teaching is on whatever the matter is. The Magesterium therefore provides a principle of unity that people can accept or reject.

Sola Scriptura, on the other hand, leaves everyone to their own fallible interpretation of the Bible. It leaves them with fallibility and uncertainty, even on many essentials.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Even the biblical references offered in support of this claim are predicated upon the eisegetical interpretation of the Catholic Church.

Catholics tend to read the Bible from a Catholic point of view and Protestants from a Protestant point of view. The interpretation that the Catholic Church provides for these texts seems to me the most rational, by far. But we can disagree there, for now.
Solus Christus:

Unfortunately, in order to substantiate this claim you must prove that these so-called oral traditions that have supposedly been preserved by the Catholic Church do not simply amount to hearsay. We have confidence in the written word because it has been excellently preserved. There is no way to definitively determine the same for this oral tradition.

Actually, the oral traditions of the Church were preserved by the same sources that preserved the written word: The successors of the apostles, the bishops who led the Early Church. Many of the Early Church bishops died for their faith in the Roman persecution. They died for a faith that they claimed to be passing on orally.
Solus Christus:

Talk about arrogation!!! The word of God is based solely on the authority of men? This is a joke, right?

From a Protestant viewpoint, this must be true. From a Catholic viewpoint, it is not true at all.

The belief that a Bible should be developed cannot be found in the Bible itself. Nor is there any list of books or proposed method for establishing such a list, in the Bible.

The Bible was composed by the Catholic Church in the late 4th and early 5th centuries, in the councils of Hippo, Carthage and Rome. Prior to those councils, the various Early Church Fathers had frequently differing opinions on what books should be in the canon of sacred books, for the Old and New Testaments.

Since there was no universal agreement in the Early Church about what the canon (or list of sacred books) should be, and the existence of a canon is nowhere referred to in the Bible, one must turn to either human authority or Catholic Apostolic authority as the basis for believing the Bible.
Solus Christus:

If God could speak and move men to write, apart from any hierarchy, then He can define and preserve the same without (or in spite of, as the case may be), that same hierarchy. Just because a church council agreed upon something that was generally already evident

It wasn’t generally already evident to the Early Church Fathers. And the reasons they had to believe books were Scripture depended also the Tradition they adhered to. They looked at their Tradition (which is not in the Bible) to see whether or not the books were used by the apostles, and to find out whether or not it could be firmly established in their Tradition that this was the case. They also looked to see whether or not the books they were evaluating taught the same faith that the bishops had passed on. So they judged the Scripture by the Tradition of the ancient Christian faith handed on from the apostles to the bishops, and passed on through Apostolic Succession.
Solus Christus:

does not make that council or its organizational offspring henceforth and forevermore indefectible. It is quite a leap from one to the other. It is the same as saying that since the Jewish religious leaders correctly identified and preserved the Torah they were therefore indefectible. I think Jesus showed us otherwise. These giant leaps in logic must make the life of the Catholic apologist very difficult (unless, of course, he is preaching to the choir).

You’re getting it backward. What we are saying is that you don’t have any way of knowing the Bible is infallible except by assuming the council that assembled it in its final version was infallible. Because the Bible itself doesn’t tell us what should be in the Bible or that there should be a Bible, which are huge omissions, if the Bible alone is what we are supposed to use to know our faith (which includes our knowledge of the Bible).

The fact that the Bible is infallible doesn’t make the council infallible. Rather, the fact that the council is infallible means we can know which books are infallible and belong in the Bible. Without an infallible council, we only have the fallible testimony of men, which is all Protestants generally understand themselves to have, when it comes down to it.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Unfortunately, in order to do this you are going to need to convince the other person that the Catholic Church is the final authority and is indefectible and not simply because it claims to be.

No sweat…here’s how I would do it:

The Infallibility of the Catholic Church Proved from Scripture

The following verses suggest that the Catholic Church is prevented from teaching error in matters of faith and morals by God Himself. I provide questions below each verse to illustrate why it is applicable to our understanding of infallibility.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?

Matthew 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error at any time during the 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation, would that suggest that Jesus did not remain with the Church “always”?

John 14:15-16
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would that mean that Jesus did not give the Counselor or that the Counselor simply failed to remain with the Church “forever”?

John 14:18
18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would that imply that Jesus actually did leave us as “orphans” during all that time?

John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Q: If the Church fell into error despite this promise, would that mean the Holy Spirit failed to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Q: Could the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth - or allow the Church to fall into error - if Jesus promised otherwise?

Now, consider the following three verses:

1 John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

1 Timothy 3:13
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Mark 3:27
27In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.

Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?

In light of the above, is it possible for the Church to fall into doctrinal error? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history. Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong and vibrant – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.”

 

[Church_Militant]

My friend, you are presented with a most difficult predicament indeed. The Catholic Church tells you, after all, that it does not need the Bible to substantiate its claims because much of what they teach comes only from tradition (a very nebulous idea if ever there was one). Therefore, if you wish to base your dialogue on Scripture, you are at a disadvantage right from the start. Moreover, the Scriptural support that is provided by the Catholic Church itself depends upon an interpretation that is not at all obvious from the plain meaning of the text. In other words, it will be necessary for you to convince the person you are talking to, to accept the Catholic Church’s interpretation and ignore any and all inconsistencies brought about by that interpretation.

Like what inconsistencies?

Catholics were reading and studying the scriptures for about 1500 years before the modern errors of men blew in with their new winds of doctrines of men. Moreover, Sacred Tradition is far from “nebulous”,( though I’m sure you wish it was) because we have a great wealth of authentic and verifiable writings of the Church Fathers which date from the time of the New Testament itself and just after the death of the last apostle, (St. John) which most of you modern evangelicals seem to ignore (or try to in order to make claims like this one…)

 

[ignatius777]

My friend, you are presented with a most difficult predicament indeed. The Catholic Church tells you, after all, that it does not need the Bible to substantiate its claims because much of what they teach comes only from tradition (a very nebulous idea if ever there was one). Therefore, if you wish to base your dialogue on Scripture, you are at a disadvantage right from the start. Moreover, the Scriptural support that is provided by the Catholic Church itself depends upon an interpretation that is not at all obvious from the plain meaning of the text. In other words, it will be necessary for you to convince the person you are talking to, to accept the Catholic Church’s interpretation and ignore any and all inconsistencies brought about by that interpretation.

This is rather interesting. Tradition comes from scripture so its absurd to level the charge that the church doesnt need the bible to substantiate its claims.

As for interepretation you need to provide some kind of evidence that your interpretation is more accurate and authoritative then the church’s.

And as plain meaning how do yu miss the plain meaning of James 2:24. Or any portion of John 6?

 

[PJM]

=Solus Christus;Good point! On the essentials, none. All of the churches that truly subscribe to the idea of Sola Sciptura are in agreement on the content of the gospel message. As we like to say, “Unity on the Essentials, Liberty on the Non-essentials, Charity in All Things.”

Thanks.
Two additional queations if I may?

1. I have heard this comment before; what are the essentials? Are they same fo every faith?
2. Does this mean that different; even contrary views of what the bible teaches is permitted?

Actually, it was the Christian Church, not the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church only became a distinct entity when it split from the Eastern Church. You make such boastful declarations. Please, show how logic and history affirm that these words pertain to, and only to, what would someday become the Roman Catholic Church. How do we know, for example, they do not merely pertain to all who believe on Christ?

Actually the CC; by that precise name has been used from about 110 AD. The combination “the Catholic Church” (hē katholikē ekklēsia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnisans, written about the year 110. The words run: “Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholikē] Church.”

As to the validity of my claims: Each of the points I’ll make are historically proveable.

Christ founded Only One Church; One Faith, on One New Covenant. [Matt. 16:15-19;
Jn.10:16; Eph. 2:19-20; Eph. 4:4-8 and over 90 more if you want to se them let me know’.

No other “churhes” not tied to and associated to “The Way;” Christians, Catholic Church" came into existence until hundreds of years after the Bible was Codified by this same CC.

It was the CC whole colected the OT books [based on Traditions] for the bible

The NT was written entirely and exclusively by men known today to be Catholics.So much evidence exist that this pointis not even debateable.

It was the CC and ONLY church [other faiths had synagogues and Temples] that collected and Codified the Bible in a form still in existence and use today.

Because there was [and is] ONLY One Church when all of this took-place; all references to “church” [over 100 of them in the NT] logically have to apply to todays CC. NO OTHER OPTION EXIST.

In that the bible is from the CC; for the CC; reason dictates that She and She alone can and assured by God Himself, t be the Keepers of the Bibles truths. [John 14:16-17;John 17:15-19] apply ONLY to the CC then and now.

The CC can provide alist of continuing Popes from Peter to Benedict XVI.

Interesting scenario…Okay, I’ll role play with you. Well, if I were God and the RCC as it exists today was my master plan, I’ll tell you exactly what I would do: First, I’d tell Paul to make sure and include the title “Pope” in at least one of his lists of church offices

Space limitations restrict my response. But PM me if you want detailed info on the Primacy of Peter. Peter is list FIRST in most list of apostles; and even called “First”
Matt.10: 2 “The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb’edee, and John his brother”

Ignatius of Antioch: You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Clement of Alexandria: [T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5** [A.D. 200]).**

Next, when Paul was giving his litany of spiritual gifts (Romans 12:6ff, 1 Corinthians 12:8ff, etc.), I would make sure he included “infallibility” for the role of Pope

Paul did not have to because Christ already had done it…[Mt. 16:19; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; Jn. 14:16-17; Jn.17:15-19.] The List of Biblical FIRST for Peter is staggering . PM me.

Next, I would not wait until after the Protestant Reformation (some 1500 years later) to make this whole deal a settled matter, and I definitely would have made the vote unanimous and it would have happened on the first vote.

WHY Ifit ain’t broake don’t fix it. [No I’m NOT saying the CC was broke; only that Luther et. all were trying to break her.]

And whatever else happened, I certainly would have prevented the Western Schism from taking place, because it just looks bad when there are three popes at the same time (selected by the same group of men, no less). Wouldn’t it seem logical for God to do these things?

In that the Trinity was the excuse to usurp power; it would have been interestering for one to do so.

I guess those were “oral scrolls” Hilkiah found and gave to King mostly

Certainly scrools existed. But very rare. And The contents of most if not all, are based on a continuation of History via Tradition.

I have a great deal of information to share but space limits prohibit it.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Solus_Christus]

Gee, who gets to decide which doctrines are essential and which are optional?

Well the content of the Gospel would certainly be one of them

For example, the Bible says “Whoever believes AND is baptized will be saved.” So, is baptism essential or optional? The Methodist says baptism is essential; the Baptist says that it is optional. Both study to shew themselves approved workmen, of course.

Well, apparently someone forgot to tell the Methodists and Baptists who signed the document The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration that they actually don’t agree, because it sure looks like they do there.

Is doctrine important? Or are conflicting and contradictory doctrines acceptable within the Body of Christ?

Yes, doctrine is important. Is it necessary that all Christians be absolutely uniform in their beliefs and understandings on all things? If so, why?

 

[Solus_Christus]

Ya’ll type too fast for me. I can’t keep up!

 

[PJM]

=Randy Carson;7650070]Plain meaning??? You mean of such verses as:

“You are Peter Kepha], and upon this kepha] I will build my church”, or
“Whatever sins you forgive are forgiven”, or
“This is my body…this is the cup of my blood”?

I think the plain meaning of those texts is obvious enough, and I need go through no theological gymnastics to explain away them way.

To the contrary, I believe the Catholic suffers from an embarrasment of riches with regard to the scriptural support for its doctrines.

The REAL challenge comes when trying to open the eyes of those who have been blinded by the TRUE “traditions of Protestant men” - sola scriptura and sola fide. Perhaps you might begin by finding just one verse which teaches that the Bible Alone is the sole rule of faith for the believer (it’s been attempted by the best of Protestant apologists without success).

As for any supposed “inconsistencies”, well, I encourage you to initiate some threads of your own - and please, only ONE topic per thread.

Thanks. :tiphat:

Excellent reponse!

God Bless,

Pat

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Hello Solus

Well the content of the Gospel would certainly be one of them

2 Peter 1:20 (Rheims)
20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Quote from drb.org:
“No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation”… This shews plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by any one’s private judgment or private spirit, because every part of the holy scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the Spirit of God, which he hath left, and promised to remain with his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Some may tell us, that many of our divines interpret the scriptures: they may do so, but they do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, and not otherwise.

Yes, doctrine is important. Is it necessary that all Christians be absolutely uniform in their beliefs and understandings on all things? If so, why?

That’s why there is One Catholic Church, where everyone within it is to assent to doctrine and 30+ thousand different Protestantism who fight amongst themselves.

 

[PJM]

=ignatius777;7651804]This is rather interesting. *Tradition comes from scripture *so its absurd to level the charge that the church doesnt need the bible to substantiate its claims.

As for interepretation you need to provide some kind of evidence that your interpretation is more accurate and authoritative then the church’s.

And as plain meaning how do you miss the plain meaning of James 2:24. Or any portion of John 6?

First a response to Tradition comming from Scripture… IMPOSSIBLE! [If that was your intended message?]

1. The Entire OT is based on Tradition
2. As the NT was not even completed until the end of the First Century [and then in vastly scatted forms] the Church GREW and thrived ON TRADITIONS and Word of Mouth teaching.

Further the Bible as we know it was not assembled for hundreds of years; and while this or that book were used and referenced; the bulk of instruction was based on Word of Mouth Traditions.

James 2:24 “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone”

In order to understand this verse one must also understand that the NT references “works” with completely seperate meanings:

1. Works of The Law: meaning the multitude of additional commands added to the TEN COMMANDMENTS. Hundreds of them. Not bad of themselves; BUT of Human Origin; not from God.
2. Works: reading all of James 2 makes it exceedingly clear that what he speaks about is acts of charity. This command is of and from God; and are a necessary componant for our personal salvation. EVEN for those who think not.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[ignatius777]

First a response to Tradition comming from Scripture… IMPOSSIBLE! [If that was your intended message?]

1. The Entire OT is based on Tradition
2. As the NT was not even completed until the end of the First Century [and then in vastly scatted forms] the Church GREW and thrived ON TRADITIONS and Word of Mouth teaching.

Further the Bible as we know it was not assembled for hundreds of years; and while this or that book were used and referenced; the bulk of instruction was based on Word of Mouth Traditions.

James 2:24 “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone”

In order to understand this verse one must also understand that the NT references “works” with completely seperate meanings:

1. Works of The Law: meaning the multitude of additional commands added to the TEN COMMANDMENTS. Hundreds of them. Not bad of themselves; BUT of Human Origin; not from God.
2. Works: reading all of James 2 makes it exceedingly clear that what he speaks about is acts of charity. This command is of and from God; and are a necessary componant for our personal salvation. EVEN for those who think not.

God Bless,
Pat

Let me clarify my first point. Nothing in Tradition condradicts scripture. The elements of Tradition certainly have their roots from no where else but scripture. The bible is a snapshot of the totality of what Jesus left us. Scripture itself tells us that not everything was written down.

As to the remainder of your post I have no idea what you are trying to say

 

[jmcrae]

Well, apparently someone forgot to tell the Methodists and Baptists who signed the document The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration that they actually don’t agree, because it sure looks like they do there.

Does that document make any statement about the role of Baptism in our salvation?

Yes, doctrine is important. Is it necessary that all Christians be absolutely uniform in their beliefs and understandings on all things? If so, why?

Because this Jesus whom we claim to believe in is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

If we believe things that are not true about Jesus, then the Jesus we believe in is not the Truth, but a fantasy character who does not actually exist, and who therefore, like other fictional characters such as Batman or Superman, can have his story rewritten to suit more modern tastes, and it wouldn’t really matter one way or the other.

The reason it matters is because He is not fictional. He is real, and there are things that are actually true about Him, and things that are not - and if we are to recognize Him on the Judgement Day, we must know whom we seek.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well the content of the Gospel would certainly be one of them

Sure. Which verses do you want to call essential, and which ones are no big deal based upon your tradition’s interpretation of them?

Well, apparently someone forgot to tell the Methodists and Baptists who signed the document The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration that they actually don’t agree, because it sure looks like they do there.

Again, is baptism of infants essential or optional? Does baptism regenerate the soul or not? I realize you felt the need to respond in some fashion (or risk conceding the field), but this is a non-answer.

Yes, doctrine is important. Is it necessary that all Christians be absolutely uniform in their beliefs and understandings on all things? If so, why?

Why? Here’s why:

John 17:20-23

My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me**, that they may be one** as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

Did you catch that? Jesus prayed for our unity so that THE WORLD would know that He had come from the Father.

Because of the lack of unity, our witness is diminished in the eyes of an unbelieving world and souls are lost.

Think about that.

 

[Jabronie]

Folks, read my OP carefully.

I’m posing that YOU want to initiate the discussion about why your non-Catholic Christian friend should seriously consider the claims of the Catholic Church and, ultimately, become Catholic.

How would YOU initiate such a discussion?

In casual conversion, ask “Are you pretty happy with your church?” and see where the discussion goes from there. Before you know it, you’ll be in an in-depth discussion about Mary, Purgatory, and everything else.

I wouldn’t actively go around trying to “Mission to Protestants” because it will annoy them as much as it annoys us. Dialog is the most important thing, and through it, you’ll be able to make your case for the Church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

How about this:

In Matthew 16:18-19, we read:

18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

We know that Jesus has inherited the throne of His forefather, David, and the keys that are given to Peter are a sign of authority that the king confers upon the royal steward of his household. This can be seen in Is. 22:20-23 which reads:

20 “In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. 21 I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. 23 I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will become a seat of honor for the house of his father.
Notice that God Himself removes the symbol of authority, the key, from one man and gives it to another. From this we learn two things: 1) the office of steward is God-ordained, and 2) the office of steward continues even though the occupants of the office change.

Jesus, the eternal King, established Peter as His royal steward and confers upon him the authority to “open” and “shut” or to “bind” and to “loose”. Since the office of steward continues even when one occupant of the office dies, we can conclude that the office of royal steward exists today because Jesus’ kingdom will never pass away.

One other point from the passage in Matthew…Jesus stated that He would establish a “church” - singular, and not many “churches” as we see in the world today.

My question to you, my Protestant friend, is this: is there a single Church which has existed since the time of Jesus and Peter that can trace its leadership continuously from the days of the Apostles down to the present and which still looks to the successor of Peter as its leader?

You bet there is; it’s the Catholic Church.

etc, etc.

 

[wfr]

Hi,
Most of my discussions with Protestants usually begin with, or comes very soon to them asking, “Where is [praying to Mary, the saints, Pope, priesthood (You plug in the issue)] in the Bible?” So I ask where the Bible teaches that everything we believe as to faith and doctrine must be in the Bible. This in my view is a good place to start, we must establish our authority. If the Bible does not teach that it is sole authority of faith, which it doesn’t, then where is the Protestants religious authority? Answer Tradition.

PAX CHRISTI
Bill

 

[Evrlsting_Gospl]

Perhaps many will begin here and study to shew themselves approved:

A vast resource of Biblical information, use it, share it, freely you have received, freely give:
Pearl Trees Of Life:
www.pearltrees.com/awhn