O
Old_Scholar
Guest
**The list of what Scripture teaches is easy. It is the Bible. There is nothing taught as Scripture that doesn’t appear there.
Now I am waiting on the list you promised me.**
- Status
Now I am waiting on the list you promised me.**
E
epostle
Guest
Before the canon of the Bible, the Christian Rule of Faith (TRADITION) included
That is a PARTIAL list of Sacred Traditions. This is the second time it has been posted, yet you keep demanding a list, OS.
- belief in the Apostolic succession through the Episcopate,
- the authority of Tradition itself,
- the authority of Scripture,
- the three fold ministry (bishop-priest-deacon),
- the Eucharist as Sacrifice,
- belief in baptismal regeneration,
- prayers for the dead,
- veneration of the Saints,
- the Seven sacraments,
- the evangelical counsels,
- the annointing of the sick by the priests
- and others.
That is a PARTIAL list of Sacred Traditions. This is the second time it has been posted, yet you keep demanding a list, OS.
F
fellowChristian
Guest
From Old Schooler:
Catholics seem to believe that Scripture is the word of God and is the pillar and foundation of faith,
Catholics know that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. We read the Bible and it says…
**1 Timothy 3:15 **
but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is **the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth. **
Not scripture. His church! The church Jesus left us.
The real purpose of the Reformation was to correct the perceived errors of the Catholic Church
Are you saying that hell overcame the church that Jesus left us?
Sir are you saying Jesus lied when He told Peter…
**Matthew 16:18 **
"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
**John 14:16 **
Role of the Spirit
16"I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever;
With the Holy Spirit guiding His church forever,how can His church error?
John 14:26
26"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.
Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would be with the Church forever. The Spirit **prevents the teaching of error **on faith and morals. It is guaranteed because the guarantee comes from God Himself who cannot lie.
Catholics seem to believe that Scripture is the word of God and is the pillar and foundation of faith,
Catholics know that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. We read the Bible and it says…
**1 Timothy 3:15 **
but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is **the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth. **
Not scripture. His church! The church Jesus left us.
The real purpose of the Reformation was to correct the perceived errors of the Catholic Church
Are you saying that hell overcame the church that Jesus left us?
Sir are you saying Jesus lied when He told Peter…
**Matthew 16:18 **
"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
**John 14:16 **
Role of the Spirit
16"I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever;
With the Holy Spirit guiding His church forever,how can His church error?
John 14:26
26"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.
Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would be with the Church forever. The Spirit **prevents the teaching of error **on faith and morals. It is guaranteed because the guarantee comes from God Himself who cannot lie.
F
fellowChristian
Guest
**Q:If the Bible is the sole authority, Where in the Bible does it tell us what books should go in the Bible?
Q:Which came first the Bible or the Church?
Q:Why would Jesus make us wait almost 400 years for the “book” to come out?Only to have Martin Luther take out 7 books 1,500 years later?
Q:Why didn’t Jesus tell us to wait 1,500 years for Martin Luther,who could “fix” the church that Jesus founded?**
Q:Why do Protestants ignore what the Bible says about the Church?
It doesn’t matter anyway Old Schooler doesn’t even read my posts
Q:Which came first the Bible or the Church?
Q:Why would Jesus make us wait almost 400 years for the “book” to come out?Only to have Martin Luther take out 7 books 1,500 years later?
Q:Why didn’t Jesus tell us to wait 1,500 years for Martin Luther,who could “fix” the church that Jesus founded?**
Q:Why do Protestants ignore what the Bible says about the Church?
It doesn’t matter anyway Old Schooler doesn’t even read my posts
M
MrS
Guest
There, there now… I am old(er) and am continually schooled… and I read your posts…It doesn’t matter anyway Old Schooler doesn’t even read my posts
T
Tomster
Guest
fellowChristian,**Q:If the Bible is the sole authority, Where in the Bible does it tell us what books should go in the Bible?
Q:Which came first the Bible or the Church?
Q:Why would Jesus make us wait almost 400 years for the “book” to come out?Only to have Martin Luther take out 7 books 1,500 years later?
Q:Why didn’t Jesus tell us to wait 1,500 years for Martin Luther,who could “fix” the church that Jesus founded?**
Q:Why do Protestants ignore what the Bible says about the Church?
It doesn’t matter anyway Old Schooler doesn’t even read my posts
While we wait for an answer from O.S., I will begin to reply to your questions with your permission.
While Protestants may admit the foundation by Christ of a religious society, they deny that any church has the right to consider itself the vice-regent of God and commissioned by Him to lead men to their destiny. In the Catholic conception they see the Church confused with the kingdom of God and her authority assimilated to that of the transcendent Deity.
Over the years the leaders of Protestant thought have resisted this claim with a passion which suggests how keenly they recognize it as the keystone of the Catholic religion. In his closing address to the World Council of Churches many years ago, Reinhold Niebuhr frankly confessed that the unity of the Catholic Church is impressive and, in some respects enviable, in comparason to Protestant divisions. But the Romanists, he explained, maintained this union at the price of a monstrous heresy. They presumed to “exalt the Church as the ‘extension of the Incarnation,’ as essentially divine, as the mediator of God’s judgment rather than as the locus in human history where the judgments of God can be heard, whether upon the righteous or the unrighteous. This heresy was to obscure the chasm between the human and the divine, which the prophets of Israel understood so well; to pretend that there were priests who were privy to God’s counsels, were in control of God’s redemptive powers and purposes; and were in possession of the keys of heaven.”
It would be hard to improve on this passage for clarity on the most radical cleavage that separates Catholic from Protestant Christianity. All other differences are subordinate or merely corollary. Every shade of Protestantism makes the same disclaimer, although naturally for different reasons.
O
onenow1
Guest
Hi, All
The false doctrine of SS, and “individual interpretation” of Scripture, are the root causes of the splits in the Body of Christ in Protestantism.
And here is scripture that backs this statement up.
Acts 8.
26 But an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” This is a desert road.
27 And he rose and went. And behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a minister of the Can’dace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure, had come to Jerusalem to worship
28 and was returning; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah.
29 And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.”
30 So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?”
31 And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him
And: 2Peter
15 And I will see to it that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.
16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,”
18 we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.
19 And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
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.
Also in 2Peter: Peter makes the point that in all of Pauls letters there are things that are hard to understand.
Comment: In verse 21 notice Peter says men moved by the Holy Spirit. In this world there seems to be a lot of men like Luther, Calvin ETC. up to the present time with different intepertations that were moved by the Holy Spirit and the results can be seen today.
Peace,OneNow1
The false doctrine of SS, and “individual interpretation” of Scripture, are the root causes of the splits in the Body of Christ in Protestantism.
And here is scripture that backs this statement up.
Acts 8.
26 But an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” This is a desert road.
27 And he rose and went. And behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a minister of the Can’dace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure, had come to Jerusalem to worship
28 and was returning; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah.
29 And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.”
30 So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?”
31 And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him
And: 2Peter
15 And I will see to it that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.
16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,”
18 we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.
19 And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
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.
Also in 2Peter: Peter makes the point that in all of Pauls letters there are things that are hard to understand.
Comment: In verse 21 notice Peter says men moved by the Holy Spirit. In this world there seems to be a lot of men like Luther, Calvin ETC. up to the present time with different intepertations that were moved by the Holy Spirit and the results can be seen today.
Peace,OneNow1
K
Kay_Cee
Guest
Wow, sounds like this guy doesn’t know his Bible: “Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church.” Colossions 1:24
The church is the body of Christ.
O
onenow1
Guest
Posted by : Tomster
They presumed to “exalt the Church as the ‘extension of the Incarnation,’ as essentially divine, as the mediator of God’s judgment rather than as the locus in human history where the judgments of God can be heard, whether upon the righteous or the unrighteous. This heresy was to obscure the chasm between the human and the divine, which the prophets of Israel understood so well; to pretend that there were priests who were privy to God’s counsels, were in control of God’s redemptive powers and purposes; and were in possession of the keys of heaven.”
Quote=OneNow1. I suppose the whole of Christianity would collapse if any believed that malarchi. A grand denial of the Keys presented to Peter and the Apostles.God worked through throughout the entire Scripturewith man, it is no different in the new covenant given by Jesus, who is human and divine. Jesus performed all his miricles through God the Father as a human ,with the will of the Father. In scripture Jesus says to the Apostles they will do even greater works then He. I wonder what he meant ?
Nice post Tomster,Peace OneNow1
They presumed to “exalt the Church as the ‘extension of the Incarnation,’ as essentially divine, as the mediator of God’s judgment rather than as the locus in human history where the judgments of God can be heard, whether upon the righteous or the unrighteous. This heresy was to obscure the chasm between the human and the divine, which the prophets of Israel understood so well; to pretend that there were priests who were privy to God’s counsels, were in control of God’s redemptive powers and purposes; and were in possession of the keys of heaven.”
Quote=OneNow1. I suppose the whole of Christianity would collapse if any believed that malarchi. A grand denial of the Keys presented to Peter and the Apostles.God worked through throughout the entire Scripturewith man, it is no different in the new covenant given by Jesus, who is human and divine. Jesus performed all his miricles through God the Father as a human ,with the will of the Father. In scripture Jesus says to the Apostles they will do even greater works then He. I wonder what he meant ?
Nice post Tomster,Peace OneNow1
T
Tomster
Guest
P
Philthy
Guest
The promise of a list was conditional upon you providing the list of what Scripture teaches.
I have never seen “the list of what Scripture teaches”.
The Bible is 1200 pages long, wandering, often confusing, but also inspirational and edifying. One thing it is not, however is a “list”.
The list of Tradition is easy - it is the Catechism of the Catholic Church and it is written with the express purpose of communicating the truth of the Christian faith contained in Scripture to anyone who wishes to read it.
Most of it will be viewed as a redundant interpretation of Scripture, but contained within it are also truths not clearly apprehended by all who read Scripture.
One thing I wont be waiting for is your admission that you lied about copying and pasting print from the Vatican website.
Peace to you
K
Kay_Cee
Guest
Old Scholar, this is the **fourth **time I have asked. Either give an answer or explain why you won’t.
O
OnlyAmbrose
Guest
The most convincing argument I’ve seen against Sola Scriptura is simply that it’s a self-denying statement. Many Evangelicals I know use this same argument against moral relativists. They say, “How can you say there are no absolutes when that is, itself, and absolute?” But then when the same argument is used against Sola Scriptura, they claim it’s irrelevant.
In essence, how can you follow a doctrine that says you only accept scripture as authority when that doctrine is not itself in scripture?
In reality, your authority is NOT the Bible, your authority is yourself. You believe that the Bible is the only authority, so you are putting authority in your own hands by making that decision. Sola Scriptura is as much a doctrine of men as any tradition in the Catholic Church.
In essence, how can you follow a doctrine that says you only accept scripture as authority when that doctrine is not itself in scripture?
In reality, your authority is NOT the Bible, your authority is yourself. You believe that the Bible is the only authority, so you are putting authority in your own hands by making that decision. Sola Scriptura is as much a doctrine of men as any tradition in the Catholic Church.
S
Schabel
Guest
You are contending that being married is a condition of leadership in the Church. You said you are aware the Christ was not married. I’m assuming you’d agree that Christ was indeed a leader (THE leader) in the Church. Therefore, your proposition is proven false.
I base my case on I Timothy 3:4-7
1Co 7:8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.
So then, according to your interpretation of this passage, Paul is not acceptable as a leader. Hmmm …
I do believe you’re interpreting this incorrectly.
W
wanner47
Guest
Your assertion presupposes that every single person should be able to read the Bible and take away the exact same message and teachings – no disagreement, whatsoever.
As Church history has shown, that is most definitely not the case. There are 10,000+ Protestant denominations out there, all of whom claim sola scriptura, all of whom claim to be teaching the Truth.
How do we know who is right?
I’d really appreciate an answer to this question, as well as an answer to the questions I’ve previously asked.
T
Tomster
Guest
O.S.,
Perhaps, before getting into just exactly what Protestantism really believes, let us examine just exactly what Protestantism is.
Protestantism is an elusive concept of which we can find as many definitions as writers on the subject. Even dictionaries are not a great help. Some two hundred odd years ago Samuel Johnson defined a Protestant as “one of those who adhere to them, who, at the beginning of the reformation, protested against the errors of Rome.” Modern lexicons are clearer but still describe, without defining, a Protestant as a member of one of the Christian churches that repudiated papal authority, and were severed from the Roman communion at the time of the Reformation. Hence in popular language the term is applied to any Western Christian or member of a Christian church, outside the Catholic faith.
Further complications arise from the RELUCTANCE of Protestants to accept the connotations of the name. It was admittedly derived from the protest of Luther’s followers at the Diet of Speyer (1529 I believe), where they refused to accept the agreement by which the Lutheran princes would allow their states to practice the NEW religion while demanding the same rights for Catholics. It is further conceded that the subsequent extension of the term may be justified as an official protest which became “the only thing that all the multifarious institutions and cultural manifestations known as Protestant have in common. This is the opposition to the Roman Catholic Church and all Catholic thought as expressed in literature, art, science, and culture in general: an opposition in the name of individual responsiblity before God” - (Gerhard Ritter, “Protestantism”, p.914) But the negative implications grate. So appeals are made to etymology to prove that Reformation culture is quite positive. The Latin protestari, as found in Quintillian and frequently in law, means to profess, bear witness or declare openly; which makes it nearly equivalent to profiteri. In both cases the preposition adds the idea of openness or publicity to that of witness or declaration.
However, this sensitiveness about the name has no place in serious theological writers. Men like Calvin and Schleiermacher among the classics, or Barth and Tillich make no apology for the negative elements of their faith. They glory in them as the clearest way of describing a form of Christianity which is Christian without being Catholic. The following analysis, if you care to get into it, will follow the pattern set by those who, after reflecting most deeply on their own beliefs, found certain features that may be called characteristic. Their agreement will be more universal on what should be rejected of Catholic principles, and less common on adequate substitutes. For you see, Old Scholar, this is the essence of Protestantism.
T
Tomster
Guest
CAUTION! Do NOT hold your breath.
J
justasking4
Guest
Do you know if the Septuagint of the 1st century contained the Deutrocanical books?
In my research of this the earliest Greek manuscripts that include them date from only fourth century A.D. We don’t have a copy of the first century Septuagint to know what its canon was.
The New American Bible has these footnotes on the Apocryha books:The Books of Maccabees, though regarded by Jews and Protestants as apocryphal, i.e., not inspired Scripture, because **not contained in the Palestinian Canon or list of books drawn up at the end of the first century A.D., **have nevertheless always been accepted by the Catholic Church as inspired, on the basis of apostolic tradition.
The Books of Tobit, Judith, and 1 and 2 Maccabees, as well as parts of Esther, are called deuterocanonical: they are not contained in the Hebrew canon but have been accepted by the Catholic Church as canonical and inspired.
The Jews themselves did not accept them as being inspired.
Are there any direct quotes from the deuterocanonical books themsleves in the NT?
There were a number of tests the church used to determine this question. Was it wriiten by an apostle or one associated with one? Was it written by a prophet? Does it tell the truth about God? These would be some of the tests to determine inspiration.
O
Old_Scholar
Guest
**That’s a really good question. Tell my why Catholics don’t believe Jesus had brothers and sisters when the Scriptures say He did. Tell me why Catholics say Mary remained a virgin when the Scriptures say Joseph “knew” his wife. Tell me why Catholics believe in the assumption of Mary when there is nothing in the Bible to support that or the immaculate conception. All made up. Tell me why Catholics believe in the primacy of the pope while Scripture says different…
I could go on but I believe you get the point.**
O
Old_Scholar
Guest
I am a Catholic…just not a Roman Catholic. There’s a difference. We believe in the Church Christ began. Not what it became when Rome took it over.Would you accept any source other than the Bible? Catholics believe the Deposit of Faith, consisting of Scripture and Tradition. How long have you been posting around here, again?
Actually, this post would make more sense coming from a Catholic…
Am I the only one who notices this?
- Status