Who is Your Infallibe Teacher?

[Janet1983]

The Bible also says:
Matthew 16: 18-19
18 "I also say to you that you are Kepha (Rock), and upon this Kepha I will build My church (Singular); and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

Matthew 18: 15-18
15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church (Singular); and if he refuses to listen even to the church let him be as a tax collector. 18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven

Please note that these are the only two places in the Gospels where the term Church is used. In both cases it is Jesus talking and in both cases He grants Authority, first to Peter, upon whom Christ builds His Church and then to the rest of the Apostles, the first Bishops of the Church.

Therefore we can see, taken directly from the mouth of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, that the Church CAN infallibly bind and loose “Whatever”.

Peace
James

Matthew 16:18-19
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The best thing to do is usually interpret scripture with scripture… So lets see what we got…
“And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven…” Matthew 16:19

“Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge…” Luke 11:52)

“And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.” Isaiah 22:22

“**And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name. **” Revelation 3:7-8

“For a great door and effectual is opened unto me, and there are many adversaries.” 1 Corinthians 16:9

“Furthermore, when I came to Troas to preach Christ’s gospel, and a door was opened unto me of the Lord” 2 Corinthians 2:12

“Withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds:” Colossians 4:3

This clearly and simply defines what a door is. God is in control and having all authority even after the keys are given. The doors have something to do with opportunity… connected with preaching. There is no power in the keys to these doors and Scripture is not so foolish to proclaim anything like that. The “Kingdom of Heaven” in Scripture is always Jewish, always Davidic, always in a mystery form until the second advent. (Daniel 2,7; Mattew 2-3, 10, 13 and 25).

Paul never mentions the Kingdom of Heaven, because it is part of Jewish prophecy, not Christian revelation. Why would anybody choose a proof text that is not even connected with Christianity?

Peter does not have any special right to interpret scripture. As a matter of fact Peter gives the wrong interpretation of scripture in Galatians 2 (after the ascension) and is trounced by Paul for messing up a correct doctrine.

After Matthew 16:18-19 Peter is being called “Satan” (Matthwe 16:23), he curses and swears (Matthew 26), denies Christ (Matthew 26), argues with the Lord (Acts 10), and perverts the Gospel (Galatians 2) and yet he supposedly was authorized to make any interpretation as he pleased. What a mess!

• Peter did not stabilize the Church from Acts 10-28, Paul did.
• The Church is not the Kingdom of Heaven; it is the body of Christ
• Peter did not classify himself as the “Chief shepherd”, but in 1 Peter 5 (his own epistle) said he was one of a group of elders entrusted with the feeding - and that the “chief Shepherd” was Christ.
• Peter had no authority whatsoever over Paul anywhere in the New Testament at any time, and Paul was the Apostle to the Romans (Romans 15)

Rome robs Paul to pay Peter, and yet Paul is given the revelation of the New Testament Church (Ephesians 2-3), which Peter knew nothing about whatsoever until after the 15th chapter of the Book of Acts.

1. • In Scripture a key is the ability to open a door.
   • In Scripture a door is an opportunity to preach the Gospel
   • In Scripture the Kingdom of Heaven is the opening of the Gospel to the Jew and Gentile after Pentecost ushering in the age when the earthly, literal, visible kingdom is a mystery form.
   • In Scripture the binding and loosing is given to more than the 12 Apostles (compare Luke 24, John 20, Matthew 18) and deals with disputes between Christians in an assembly.

 

[JRKH]

The best thing to do is usually interpret scripture with scripture… So lets see what we got…

(Snip)

This is all interesting, and I appreciate your effort here. Unfortunately I don’t have time to go through it all right now. I will review it later though. Thanks.

The essential fact is that you, and others, seem to have a problem with the idea that the Church, comprised of fallible humans, can be an infallible teacher etc., even though you believe teh Church to be the Body of Christ.
Let me ask you this, when Jesus sent out the 72 on their Misson He gave them power ot proclaim the Kingdom and to Cast out Demons did He not? He gavie this power to “Fallible Men” did He not? So, when the 72 went off to preach and heal, were they protected from error in their preaching or was it possible that they taught in error?

Peace
James

 

[SSTeacher]

This is all interesting, and I appreciate your effort here. Unfortunately I don’t have time to go through it all right now. I will review it later though. Thanks.

The essential fact is that you, and others, seem to have a problem with the idea that the Church, comprised of fallible humans, can be an infallible teacher etc., even though you believe teh Church to be the Body of Christ.
Let me ask you this, when Jesus sent out the 72 on their Misson He gave them power ot proclaim the Kingdom and to Cast out Demons did He not? He gavie this power to “Fallible Men” did He not? So, when the 72 went off to preach and heal, were they protected from error in their preaching or was it possible that they taught in error?

Peace
James

Unless all 72 were speaking ex cathedra throughout their respective homilies it certainly seems possible.

Helpfully,
Mick

 

[rinnie]

Quite the contrary, I am all too aware of my own fallibility. There is nothing in my faith which precludes looking to others of faith both past and present for assistance and insight in reading the scriptures, particularly if some interpretation seems novel or different from what I hear around me. I always seek to approach God and His teaching with humility, forming understanding but not becoming calcified to teaching which is based on derivation upon derivation or unwilling to accept insight from others.

It is for this reason that I try to ask more questions than I state opinions.

But of you have more questions then state opinions where does the true answer lie? Would it not have to lie in the Catholic Church because Jesus promised it to have the fullness of the Truth?

What good are others opinions. Do they claim to have the power of Apostolic Succession to teach the truth. If not where does their power come from. Because Jesus said not all are to be teachers only the ones he choose. That is done today as it was in the beginning by the power of the laying of hands. Called today Holy Orders.

 

[Hebrew_Student]

ababbidg,

First of all, if God is the only one leading us, why is the old testament canon different between Catholics, Orthodox and other christians? And why all the different interpretations of that scripture? Either God is confused, or not everyone is being guided by the Holy Spirit.

Actually, from my own study of the history of the OT Canon, the majority of the Catholic Church clear up until the time of the reformation held the view that the apocrypha, although useful, was not canonical. The ones who held the apocrypha to be canonical tended to be those who were either steeped in the Alexandrian school of hermeneutics [which, of course, makes the meaning of the OT text irrelevant], or those who were ignorant of the Hebrew Bible. In fact, even Gregory the Great rejected the apocrypha. It was not until the council of Trent in 1546 that it became official Catholic dogma, and, even then, it became offical dogma without a majority decision. In fact, even Cardinal Cajatan, the Cardinal who was sent to interrogate Luther, rejected the apocrypha.

Secondly, as pertaining to the canon being accepted by most people. This was very improbable for most of history, especially in the early church because 1) most people couldn’t read and 2) even if they could, getting the books that were in the bible were be very difficult. They would be very expensive and have to be hand written. Not until around the 15th or 16th century were bibles able to be mass produced. So the large majority of the laity would not be able to have any opinion on the canon of scripture, only clergy and theolgical scholars. The rest of the population would just have to accept the canon that the church told them. And since the only church around at that time was the Catholic church, I believe God guided the Catholic Church in determining what is and is not inspired scripture.

Well, as to #1, I dont’ think that is necessarily true. Remember, the disciples were simple fishermen from Galillee, and yet, you read, for example, the letters of Peter, and you find extremely sophisticated Greek. The same thing is true with the letter of James. So, there is a real question as to how great literacy was at this time. Second, even if I grant this point, are you trying to say that they were not only illiterate, but deaf also? When people go to church services, they would here these documents read and expounded. Hence, even illiteracy would not stop this procedure from happening.

As to #2, getting the books of the Bible may have been difficult financially, but only after the peace of the church. Most of the manuscripts before the peace of the church were written on papyri, which is not an expensive material. The difficulty would be copying these documents out. However, even then we know of 5,700 manuscripts in extant today thanks to the work of Dan Wallace, and the number is growing. In fact, we know of many more manuscripts that were captured by the Romans and burned, because we have Roman records stating such. The point is that, when you believe that God has spoken through Jesus Christ, you will want to do everything you can to expose yourself to it, even if that means you can only listen, or you have to spend hours copying a manuscript by moonlight.

Again, it is simply a matter of believing that God has condescended to his people.

 

[rinnie]

Our infallible teacher is the Church. And yes until Jesus Christ comes back again in glory it is run by the Pope. Jesus Christ gave him the keys, and only Jesus Christ can take them back. So until Jesus comes again in glory what he says sticks. You are Peter and you hold the keys to the kingdom. That is the reason the Pope has the power of the keys becasue they were passed down just like Jesus said. Jesus said the gates of hades will not prevail. Those were his words. So the power of the CC will never die. Jesus said so. He told Peter and his Apostles whatever you forgive is forgiven what you hold is held. Thats it, simple, easy to understand and as true today as yesterday.

 

[rinnie]

@JRKH:

I understand what you’re saying, but ultimately what you’re saying is still that you are the final arbiter of what you believe. After doing your research, you passed your own judgment on whether the RCC’s claims about itself were true.

So in professing belief in the teachings of the RCC, you are likewise declaring yourself the “final authority” on whether it’s claims about itself are true.

How do you figure this. No one in the RCC ever declared themself the final authority. Jesus CHrist declared the CC the final authority when he gave the pope the keys. Are you saying that by believing the words of Jesus Christ we declare ourself the final authority.

No one says we have authority, we agree with what Jesus said, Its the Pope he got the keys. WHo took them from him? As far as I know he still has them.

 

[SSTeacher]

No one in the RCC ever declared themself the final authority.

You’ll perhaps concede, though, that this is exactly the stance that Catholics sometimes appear to adopt. I’m thinking about a declaration from a Catholic along these lines:

I believe that if a person does not agree with my comment he/she is not a Catholic.

That sure sounds like a self–appointed judge, wouldn’t you agree? Indeed, an objective observer might be forgiven for supposing that the only time a Catholic with this mindset is likely to defer to another is in the event of a pope making an ex cathedra pronouncement.

Cordially,
Mick

 

[ababbidg]

ababbidg,

Actually, from my own study of the history of the OT Canon, the majority of the Catholic Church clear up until the time of the reformation held the view that the apocrypha, although useful, was not canonical. The ones who held the apocrypha to be canonical tended to be those who were either steeped in the Alexandrian school of hermeneutics [which, of course, makes the meaning of the OT text irrelevant], or those who were ignorant of the Hebrew Bible. In fact, even Gregory the Great rejected the apocrypha. It was not until the council of Trent in 1546 that it became official Catholic dogma, and, even then, it became offical dogma without a majority decision. In fact, even Cardinal Cajatan, the Cardinal who was sent to interrogate Luther, rejected the apocrypha.

That may be, but at the Council of Trent it was dogmatically declared to be the canon. I can’t argue with that. Even though it became dogma without majority decision, this does not matter. Catholicism is not a democracy. The canon has been cleared up now, case closed. Or perhaps we should listen to Luther, who wanted to take out the book of Revelation, Hebrews and James from the New Testament.

Well, as to #1, I dont’ think that is necessarily true. Remember, the disciples were simple fishermen from Galillee, and yet, you read, for example, the letters of Peter, and you find extremely sophisticated Greek. The same thing is true with the letter of James. So, there is a real question as to how great literacy was at this time. Second, even if I grant this point, are you trying to say that they were not only illiterate, but deaf also? When people go to church services, they would here these documents read and expounded. Hence, even illiteracy would not stop this procedure from happening.

**You are fooling yourself if you honestly think most people could read back then. It was only in the last century or two that the majority of people started to be literate. And yes, they would have had these documents read to them at mass. Just the same way it is still done in the Catholic church today. The Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, among other books, we thought to be canonical at one point, but no longer are. They would have been read at church, and thus thought to be canonical by most. The laity had no (name removed by moderator)ut on taking them out of the canon, only the Church did. **

As to #2, getting the books of the Bible may have been difficult financially, but only after the peace of the church. Most of the manuscripts before the peace of the church were written on papyri, which is not an expensive material. The difficulty would be copying these documents out. However, even then we know of 5,700 manuscripts in extant today thanks to the work of Dan Wallace, and the number is growing. In fact, we know of many more manuscripts that were captured by the Romans and burned, because we have Roman records stating such. The point is that, when you believe that God has spoken through Jesus Christ, you will want to do everything you can to expose yourself to it, even if that means you can only listen, or you have to spend hours copying a manuscript by moonlight.

Its not an issue of wether or not paper was expensive, its that hiring a scribe to do it would be. And as I stated above, even those who did have them would have no (name removed by moderator)ut as to what is canonical, unless they were Church clergy or theologians.

Again, it is simply a matter of believing that God has condescended to his people.

He does, but He doesn’t guide everyone in every aspect. Many people that have started new religions or denominations have claimed that they were lead by the Holy Spirit, even though what they taught was contrary to everything taught throughout history. He leads the majority of people in small matters probably, but I areas of doctrine and dogmas, God didn’t leave it up to every tom, dick and harry to determine that. He chose a select few, orignally 12 of them. Those 12 passed on their authority to our modern day Bishops.

 

[Hebrew_Student]

ababbidg,

That may be, but at the Council of Trent it was dogmatically declared to be the canon. I can’t argue with that. Even though it became dogma without majority decision, this does not matter. Catholicism is not a democracy. The canon has been cleared up now, case closed. Or perhaps we should listen to Luther, who wanted to take out the book of Revelation, Hebrews and James from the New Testament.

As did others. In fact, there were Roman Catholic scholars who had questions about these books as well. Does that mean something about Roman Catholicism? Of course not. In fact, Luther not only preached from all of those books, but also included them in his translation of the Bible.

However, I do think that this is ultimately the presupposition that you are coming with. Trent must be correct, period. That is the difference in our methodologies. My fundamental presupposition is that, on the issue of knowledge, God deals directly with his people, and your view is that he needs a middle man, namely, an infallible church.

You are fooling yourself if you honestly think most people could read back then. It was only in the last century or two that the majority of people started to be literate.

Well, I would simply disagree. Again, if that was the case, explain how simple fishermen from Galilee would be able to write such sophisticated works, if illiteracy was that low.

And yes, they would have had these documents read to them at mass. Just the same way it is still done in the Catholic church today. The Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, among other books, we thought to be canonical at one point, but no longer are. They would have been read at church, and thus thought to be canonical by most. The laity had no (name removed by moderator)ut on taking them out of the canon, only the Church did.

Which only strengthens my argument that God dealt with his people over time. The fact that other books, such as some works of the apostolic fathers were considered, means that this process was going on from a very early time. The fact that they were read in the church simply meant that people could listen and hear documents that were merely useful, alongside of scripture. When that happens for 400 years with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it is easy to see how my position can be understood.

Its not an issue of wether or not paper was expensive, its that hiring a scribe to do it would be. And as I stated above, even those who did have them would have no (name removed by moderator)ut as to what is canonical, unless they were Church clergy or theologians.

Actually, we know of many manuscripts that were not professionally handwritten. They are all over the place. Remember, you are not going to be able to hire a scribe, if you are running from the Roman army. Thus, there were many manuscripts that were done by non-professional scribes.

He does, but He doesn’t guide everyone in every aspect. Many people that have started new religions or denominations have claimed that they were lead by the Holy Spirit, even though what they taught was contrary to everything taught throughout history. He leads the majority of people in small matters probably, but I areas of doctrine and dogmas, God didn’t leave it up to every tom, dick and harry to determine that. He chose a select few, orignally 12 of them. Those 12 passed on their authority to our modern day Bishops.

Well, as you know, a claim is not necessarily proof. I can claim that I am the Pope, but you would hardly believe me. That is why I said that God’s dealings with the vast majority of his people must be the standard in this, both in terms of what scripture is, and what the cardinal doctrines of scripture are. Again, the real difference between us is not one of knowledge, but whether or not we need the middle man within this scheme. That is why I really think we need to look at what we do agree on, and that is scripture. Both of our methodologies produce the same NT canon, and I think the discussion needs to center on whether or not the New Testament teaches that this middle man is how God has condescended to his people.

In fact, I want to point out something. What you are saying is that we cannot have knowledge without this middle man. That actually sounds extremely gnostic. The gnostics said the exact same thing, namely, that you needed their secret knowledge in order to understand what God has said and what God has done. In fact, there are many people who have made that connection between the Roman Catholic view of tradition, and the gnostic view of secret knowledge. Hence, not only do I believe that we do not need this middle man, to posit it seems to go right back to what your own church has condemned as heresy.

God Bless,
Adam

 

[Bill_Pick]

You must pardon me for not understanding, I am not a confirmed member of a church.

So do you just use your private interpretation or individual interpretation to understanding the Bible

 

[ababbidg]

ababbidg,

As did others. In fact, there were Roman Catholic scholars who had questions about these books as well. Does that mean something about Roman Catholicism? Of course not. In fact, Luther not only preached from all of those books, but also included them in his translation of the Bible.

Luther also included the deuterocanon in his bible.

However, I do think that this is ultimately the presupposition that you are coming with. Trent must be correct, period. That is the difference in our methodologies. My fundamental presupposition is that, on the issue of knowledge, God deals directly with his people, and your view is that he needs a middle man, namely, an infallible church.

Well, I would simply disagree. Again, if that was the case, explain how simple fishermen from Galilee would be able to write such sophisticated works, if illiteracy was that low.

Jesus hand picked those fisherman. I’m sure He knew what He was doing and picked people that would be most useful to Him, namely someone that could read and write.

Which only strengthens my argument that God dealt with his people over time. The fact that other books, such as some works of the apostolic fathers were considered, means that this process was going on from a very early time. The fact that they were read in the church simply meant that people could listen and hear documents that were merely useful, alongside of scripture. When that happens for 400 years with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it is easy to see how my position can be understood.

Actually, we know of many manuscripts that were not professionally handwritten. They are all over the place. Remember, you are not going to be able to hire a scribe, if you are running from the Roman army. Thus, there were many manuscripts that were done by non-professional scribes.

Well, as you know, a claim is not necessarily proof. I can claim that I am the Pope, but you would hardly believe me. That is why I said that God’s dealings with the vast majority of his people must be the standard in this, both in terms of what scripture is, and what the cardinal doctrines of scripture are. Again, the real difference between us is not one of knowledge, but whether or not we need the middle man within this scheme. That is why I really think we need to look at what we do agree on, and that is scripture. Both of our methodologies produce the same NT canon, and I think the discussion needs to center on whether or not the New Testament teaches that this middle man is how God has condescended to his people.

In fact, I want to point out something. What you are saying is that we cannot have knowledge without this middle man. That actually sounds extremely gnostic. The gnostics said the exact same thing, namely, that you needed their secret knowledge in order to understand what God has said and what God has done. In fact, there are many people who have made that connection between the Roman Catholic view of tradition, and the gnostic view of secret knowledge. Hence, not only do I believe that we do not need this middle man, to posit it seems to go right back to what your own church has condemned as heresy.

God Bless,
Adam

How did we learn about God in the first place? Did He come down and talk to each person individually? No, He used prophets. He didn’t talk to all the Isrealites in the old testment, He used Moses as the “middle man”. And subsequent prophets after Moses further revealed Gods word to the people. In the new testament, the 12 apostles are the “middle man”. The modern day succesors of the 12 apostles are no different.

Gnosticism would be gaining some hidden knowledge to get to heaven, but none of the knowledge taught by the Catholic Church is new or hidden, it has been taught the same the last 2000 years. I could say that protestants are gnostics going by what you said. Heres how: Everything protestants taught was different than what the Catholic Church had taught the last 1500 years. Then protestants come along and change everything, claiming they gained this new knowledge from reading the bible. Was this knowledge hidden for 1500 years before protestants came along?

 

[rinnie]

You’ll perhaps concede, though, that this is exactly the stance that Catholics sometimes appear to adopt. I’m thinking about a declaration from a Catholic along these lines:

I believe that if a person does not agree with my comment he/she is not a Catholic.

That sure sounds like a self–appointed judge, wouldn’t you agree? Indeed, an objective observer might be forgiven for supposing that the only time a Catholic with this mindset is likely to defer to another is in the event of a pope making an ex cathedra pronouncement.

Cordially,
Mick

No not at all those are not the words of some Catholics as you have said that is the words of Christ. Let me show you.

Jesus Christ was received as a teacher. John 18:37 Jesus himself teaches he was born to bear wittness to the truth, and through those whom he sends to speak in his name. When he sent his apostles to preachm he told them I am with yu always to the close of the age Matt 28:20. Anyone who did not accipt the word of those he sen t would be rejecting not mere men, but him. Whereas acceptance of their word would be acceptance of Christ.

We as human beings need to be taught by God because of our fallen state. No one know the Father except the son and anyone to whom the son chooses to reveal him Matt 11:27

So why are you accusing some Catholics of saying this Jesus Christ said this himself. If you don’t believe me I showed you the scripture check it out.

 

[rinnie]

Then check out the N.T it stresses the duty of those called to teach in Christ’s name to preach the whole message of faith with loving care to gurard the truth that has been entrusted to you. 2 Tim 1:14

Jesus entrusted the teaching to the Pope (peter) and the Apostles (bishops). Sorry that is the word of God not of (SOME CATHOLICS).

 

[Bill_Pick]

This statement is patently wrong.
The councils which set the final canon of the Bible as we know ti today may well have occurred during the time of Constatntine but it was the Church and not Constatnine who did the determining.

Peace
James

W
WRONG<WRONG_WRONG Originally Posted by geometer
All of the scriptures were assembled into one book for the first time by Constantin Wrong-wreong

 

[Hebrew_Student]

ababbidg,

How did we learn about God in the first place? Did He come down and talk to each person individually? No, He used prophets. He didn’t talk to all the Isrealites in the old testment, He used Moses as the “middle man”. And subsequent prophets after Moses further revealed Gods word to the people. In the new testament, the 12 apostles are the “middle man”. The modern day succesors of the 12 apostles are no different.

Actually, the intercessor in the NT is spoken of as Jesus Christ. The “middle man” there is both God and man. He is God, so he can know God’s will, and he is man so he can reveal to us the will of the father. Unless you are arguing that the Catholic Church is both God and man, then the point is moot. Second, even when it comes to the apostles, you have to deal with the following text:

Acts 17:11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

Even the apostles, and yes, even the prophets were to be tested by scripture. When Jeremiah confronts the false prophets, what does he do? Just pull rank on them, and say that he is the true prophet? No, he confronts them with what had already been written by previous prophets. Hence, all of these men were to be corrected by scripture. However, how could they be corrected if God just expected them to believe whatever they said?

Gnosticism would be gaining some hidden knowledge to get to heaven, but none of the knowledge taught by the Catholic Church is new or hidden, it has been taught the same the last 2000 years.

Absolutely untrue. Name me one person before the year 300 who taught the doctrine of the queenly corination. Name me one person who taught the treasury of merit during that same period of time. In fact, name me one person who taught the bodily assumption before that time. In fact, what is interesting is that many uniquely Catholic teachings do find their origins in Gnosticism, such as the perpetual virginity.

Also, let me point out that you do believe that you need your traditions in order to know the truth. If that weren’t the case, then why would you care if someone held to Sola Scriptura? No, you need those traditions because it is the only way you can make the Bible say what you want it to say. That is why I say that your position is gnostic, because you believe that we need the traditions of the Catholic Church in order to understand what the scriptures tell us.

I could say that protestants are gnostics going by what you said. Heres how: Everything protestants taught was different than what the Catholic Church had taught the last 1500 years. Then protestants come along and change everything, claiming they gained this new knowledge from reading the bible. Was this knowledge hidden for 1500 years before protestants came along?

Again, there are Catholic scholars such as Raymond Brown and Joseph Fitzmayer who would say that what you are saying is totally untrue. Most of the traditions that are uniquely Catholic developed over time. Also, why is it that Luther and Calvin, in their argumentation, would quote the patristic writers all of the time? Calvin even knew several quotations from memory. Even modern Protestant apologists such as James White, William Webster, and Eric Svendsen quote the patristic writers all of the time.

The main difference is how we read both scripture and the early church fathers. Do we read them through the lens of Catholic dogmatic hindsight? Or do we allow the early church fathers to be the early church fathers? If we have read both the early church fathers as well as the scriptures through Catholic dogmatic hindsight, then, again, your position just reeks gnosticism. I as a protestant can simply say that we need to read both in the same way we read Plato, Aristotle, The Epic of Gilgamesh or any other ancient work. There are no hidden traditions needed to understand what the early church fathers or the scriptures say. Because of the fact that you say we need other things, then you do have a secret knowledge, just like the gnostics.

 

[ababbidg]

ababbidg,

Actually, the intercessor in the NT is spoken of as Jesus Christ. The “middle man” there is both God and man. He is God, so he can know God’s will, and he is man so he can reveal to us the will of the father. Unless you are arguing that the Catholic Church is both God and man, then the point is moot. Second, even when it comes to the apostles, you have to deal with the following text:

Even the apostles, and yes, even the prophets were to be tested by scripture. When Jeremiah confronts the false prophets, what does he do? Just pull rank on them, and say that he is the true prophet? No, he confronts them with what had already been written by previous prophets. Hence, all of these men were to be corrected by scripture. However, how could they be corrected if God just expected them to believe whatever they said?

Was Moses tested by scripture? I’m pretty sure the apostles also pass the test of scripture, considering that they wrote the scripture and were hand picked by Jesus himself.

Absolutely untrue. Name me one person before the year 300 who taught the doctrine of the queenly corination. Name me one person who taught the treasury of merit during that same period of time. In fact, name me one person who taught the bodily assumption before that time. In fact, what is interesting is that many uniquely Catholic teachings do find their origins in Gnosticism, such as the perpetual virginity.

Mary was always known to be a perpetual virgin, even the protestant reformers held this view. I’m not sure when protestants started dissing on Mary all the time, but it didn’t start with the reformers. I’ll have to get back to you on the other ones, my book about the early church fathers is being borrowed by a friend right now.

Also, let me point out that you do believe that you need your traditions in order to know the truth. If that weren’t the case, then why would you care if someone held to Sola Scriptura? No, you need those traditions because it is the only way you can make the Bible say what you want it to say. That is why I say that your position is gnostic, because you believe that we need the traditions of the Catholic Church in order to understand what the scriptures tell us.

One again gnosticism is HIDDEN knowledge. None of the catholic teachings are hidden. Get as catechism and just about everything the Church teaches is in there.

The bible even talks about holding fast to the traditions we taught to you (2 thessalonians 2:15). These are the Tradtions the catholic church holds. So unless you want to argue that the apostles were gnostics, you got nothing. These Traditions predate the bible by hundreds of years, so yes, we are going to look for evidence of those Traditions in scripture.

Again, there are Catholic scholars such as Raymond Brown and Joseph Fitzmayer who would say that what you are saying is totally untrue. Most of the traditions that are uniquely Catholic developed over time. Also, why is it that Luther and Calvin, in their argumentation, would quote the patristic writers all of the time? Calvin even knew several quotations from memory. Even modern Protestant apologists such as James White, William Webster, and Eric Svendsen quote the patristic writers all of the time.

You still didn’t answer the question of why didn’t we have this knowledge before the protestant reformation. Why would God wait 1500 years to reveal the truth? Where were true christians before this?

The main difference is how we read both scripture and the early church fathers. Do we read them through the lens of Catholic dogmatic hindsight? Or do we allow the early church fathers to be the early church fathers? If we have read both the early church fathers as well as the scriptures through Catholic dogmatic hindsight, then, again, your position just reeks gnosticism. I as a protestant can simply say that we need to read both in the same way we read Plato, Aristotle, The Epic of Gilgamesh or any other ancient work. There are no hidden traditions needed to understand what the early church fathers or the scriptures say. Because of the fact that you say we need other things, then you do have a secret knowledge, just like the gnostics.

Like I said before, of course we are going to look at scripture this way. Tradition predates the bible by hundreds of years. The bible is a product of Tradtion, not the other way around. This is what the early Church used to determine if a book was inspired or not. It had to agree with Tradition and have no teaching errors.

So basically, your point is that until 1500s, since the catholic church was the only church and the catholic church is gnostic there were only gnostics? Gnosticism was condemed as a heresy by the catholic church, but somehow catholicism is gnostic? I mean I just can’t wrap my mind around how you can think that. You can argue what some catholics have said, but the official position of the church doens’t depend on a few catholic scholars, only what the church officially says.

 

[geometer]

So do you just use your private interpretation or individual interpretation to understanding the Bible

Well I make an effort to read the scriptures in hope of understanding. However, I get the impression that most catholics just ignore reading the bible.

 

[SSTeacher]

Well I make an effort to read the scriptures in hope of understanding. However, I get the impression that most catholics just ignore reading the bible.

I have the impression that many Evangelicals just ignore reading it, too.

Sadly,
Mick
:sad_bye:

 

[Hebrew_Student]

ababbidg,

Was Moses tested by scripture?

If you consider the words of approval that God spoke of Moses in the Hebrew Bible to be scripture, then, yes, he was tested by scripture. Of course, they had the added advantage of actually hearing God speak the words.

I’m pretty sure the apostles also pass the test of scripture, considering that they wrote the scripture and were hand picked by Jesus himself.

Except for Peter when he denied Christ three times, and wanted to keep Jesus from being crucified when Jesus called him “satan.” The apostles were very fallible men. When they made a mistake, they were to be corrected by scripture. If that is not the case, did the Bereans do the right thing in Acts 17? The only time the apostles were infallible is when they were writing scripture, or teaching the doctrines of scripture which they had received from Christ.

Mary was always known to be a perpetual virgin, even the protestant reformers held this view.

Actually, that is not the case. The earliest references to the perpetual virginity are found in gnostic writings like the Odes and Psalms of Solomon. Gnosticism is the first place we find these things being taught. They do not come into orthodoxy until later.

I’m not sure when protestants started dissing on Mary all the time, but it didn’t start with the reformers.

Since when is saying that Mary was not a perpetual virgin “dissing” Mary? I thought that sexuality was a gift of God.

One again gnosticism is HIDDEN knowledge. None of the catholic teachings are hidden. Get as catechism and just about everything the Church teaches is in there.

That is not the respect in which I believe the Catholic Church is gnostic in their beliefs. I believe they are gnostic in the sense that you need these beliefs of a select group in order to properly understand the scriptures. The gnostics did believe that, and that is a strong connection between the two that I am certainly not the first to notice.

The bible even talks about holding fast to the traditions we taught to you (2 thessalonians 2:15). These are the Tradtions the catholic church holds.

Non Sequitor.

You still didn’t answer the question of why didn’t we have this knowledge before the protestant reformation. Why would God wait 1500 years to reveal the truth? Where were true christians before this?

I already did. I said I reject the premise that the beliefs of Protestantism were non-existant in the early church. Sola Fide can be found in Clement of Rome, and several commentaries that use that particular phrase [such as Ambrosiaster], Sola Scriptura is all over the church fathers, the rejection of the apocrypha is all over the place in the patristic writers.

So basically, your point is that until 1500s, since the catholic church was the only church and the catholic church is gnostic there were only gnostics?

My point is that the Catholic Church as we know it today did not exist in the early church. No one would have recognized it. Take the council of Nicaea. Who at the Council of Nicaea believed everything you do about Mary, Papal Infallability, treasury of merit, indulgences, puragtory, confession to priests, and transubstantiation? Would you say that a church that has no clue what those things are is a Catholic Church? Of course not. These things are developments over time, that have nothing to do with the early church.

The point is that I reject your assertion that what the Catholic Church was the only church for 1500 years. That is way overly simplistic, and anyone who claims this is ignoring the complex factors that led to what is modern day Roman Catholicism. Hence, because I reject your premise, I reject your conclusion.

You can argue what some catholics have said, but the official position of the church doens’t depend on a few catholic scholars, only what the church officially says.

First of all, you just contradicted the idea of Catholic unity. Now, the many denominations of Protestantism won’t work as an argument against Sola Scriptura, because you have admitted that there are differences of opinion in your own communion.

Secondly, why are you saying that these scholars are inconsistent with the offical teaching of the church? Have they been excommunicated? Are you the magisterium such that you can judge whether or not a scholar is consistent with the official teaching of the Catholic Church? The two men I have just mentioned have served in Papal comissions. They are in good standing with Rome, and probably have their papers and writings looked at far more than the average Catholic apologist. Yet, Rome has not excommunicated them. Again, this is totally inconsistent. If you are going to claim that the magisterium is infallible, then don’t then say that they cannot tell when a scholar is inconsistent with official Catholic teaching.