O
Old_Scholar
Guest
Is that the same Augustine who said that anything that couldn’t be found in Scripture was false? And the same one who said that Christ built His church upon the faith of Peter and not upon Peter the man?
- Status
I
Ignatius
Guest
Now that’s a very good question. How do we discern the Church which Christ founded?
There are a few things we know about thischurch:
- It was built by Jesus Christ himself (Matt 16:18) which means that it must be about 2000 years old.
- Jesus only built ONE church (Matt 16:18).
- This church is the God-ordained upholder, protector and defender of the truth and should proclaim that it is.(1 Tim 3:15).
- This church is the fullness of Christ (Eph 1:22-23) which means that it is also the fullness of truth (John 14:6).
- This church can never change what it proclaims to be true. Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever (Heb 13:8) therefore truth is the same yesterday, today and forever (John 14:6).
- The Church which Jesus Christ founded is the one to whom He revealed and who declared and decreed which books are to be contained in the New Testament.
T
Tim_Kirchoff
Guest
We could easily say the same thing I have heard said of the ECFs who support the Real Presence. Even Saints can err…
Give me a good explanation for disbelief in the Real Presence, and I’ll give you a straight answer.
To paraphrase you, “Catholics who supposedly don’t believe Scripture but Tradition instead, when questioned about their beliefs, refer to Scripture.” The Assumption occurred too late to be recorded in the writings of Paul, but the Assumption supports the IC very well. You see, God has a reputation for taking those who serve him well all their lives up to Heaven, no questions asked. (See: Enoch, Elijah)
The Paschal Mystery is in every way an undoing of the sins of Adam and Eve. Instead of Eve coming out of Adam’s rib, Adam came from Eve. Both had the choice to sin, just as the original Adam and Eve had, but these two, the New Adam and New Eve, chose not to sin.
Part of Tradition is just logic, as above.
Finally, I would advise that no one else respond until OS learns to treat Tradition as he does Scripture: capitalize, or we’ll misinterpret.
(well, maybe not, but you get the point.)
I
Ignatius
Guest
Yes, Scripture. I don’t believe that you’ve been able to answer my questions yet.
In 2 Tim 3:16 Paul said “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”
Now I am sure that, you are aware that at that time, the New Testament had not been written. Paul was therefore referring to the Old Testament. Now the Old Testament used in the Greece and the middle East at the time was the Septuagint version and had been for 200 years before Christ and contains the Deuterocanonical books. Additionally, when the OT is quoted in the New Testament Greek, the Greek is very close to that of the Septuagint Greek text.
So, by 2 Tim 3: 16, Paul supports the Septuagint with the Deuterocanon as inspired.
Now given the above; on what basis do you believe the New Testament to be inspired? Can you explain from Scripture Alone how you arrived at your conclusion?
I’d also like to ask on what basis you know which writings should be in the New Testament? Again, from Scripture Alone, please explain how you know this.
I have no desire to embarrass you, so if you don’t know, don’t worry. I’ll take your failure to answer to indicate that you are unable to.
May the grace of Jesus Christ descend upon you and remain with your forever.
Your servant in Christ.
O
Old_Scholar
Guest
Is that how you avoid a direct question? After all you made a certain specific claim but won’t support it. Does that destroy your credibility?
D
DarkMark
Guest
Saint Augustine believe in the primacy of Peter:
“Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail” Augustine, Psalm against the Party of Donatus, 18 (A.D. 393).
“I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by…and by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate.” Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani, 5 (A.D. 395).
“Carthage was also near the countries over the sea, and distinguished by illustrious renown, so that it had a bishop of more than ordinary influence, who could afford to disregard a number of conspiring enemies because he saw himself joined by letters of communion to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished.” Augustine, To Glorius et.al, Epistle 43:7 (A.D. 397).
“The chair of the Roman Church, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today.” Augustine, Against the Letters of Petillian, 2:51 (A.D. 402).
The Fathers never claim that once the Scriptures were compiled all else should be avoided. Most of the Fathers believed in the material, not formal sufficiency of Scripture. This means they believed that all doctrines could be found in Scripture in seed form, but they ALL believed that the Church was necessary in order to extract the true doctrine and dogmatize it.
K
Kay_Cee
Guest
Old Scholar, I have been waiting a week for you to answer *my *questions.
Is that how you avoid a direct question? After all, you made a certain specific claim but won’t support it. Does that destroy your credibility?
D
DarkMark
Guest
Old Scholar, are you talking about the same Augustine who believe the following?:
Sacred Traditions:
“But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers and of similitudes. No sober person will decide against reason, no Christian against the Scriptures, no peaceable person against the church.” Augustine, On the Trinity, 4,6:10 (A.D. 416).
“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).
Mary’s Immaculate Conception:
“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” Augustine, Nature and Grace,4 2[36] (A.D.415).
Mary is Ever-Virgin:
“Her virginity also itself was on this account more pleasing and accepted, in that it was not that Christ being conceived in her, rescued it beforehand from a husband who would violate it, Himself to preserve it; but, before He was conceived, chose it, already dedicated to God, as that from which to be born…Christ by being born of a virgin, who, before she knew Who was to be born of her, had determined to continue a virgin, chose rather to approve, than to command, holy virginity. And thus, even in the female herself, in whom He took the form of a servant, He willed that virginity should be free.” Augustine, Of Holy Virginity, 4 (A.D. 401).
Infant Baptism:
“The blessed Cyprian, indeed, said, in order to correct those who thought that an infant should not be baptized before the eighth day, that it was not the body but the soul which behoved to be saved from perdition – in which statement he was not inventing any new doctrine, but preserving the firmly established faith of the Church; and he, along with some of his colleagues in the episcopal office, held that a child may be properly baptized immediately after its birth.” Augustine, Epistle 166:8:23 (A.D. 412).
Sacred Traditions:
“But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers and of similitudes. No sober person will decide against reason, no Christian against the Scriptures, no peaceable person against the church.” Augustine, On the Trinity, 4,6:10 (A.D. 416).
“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).
Mary’s Immaculate Conception:
“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” Augustine, Nature and Grace,4 2[36] (A.D.415).
Mary is Ever-Virgin:
“Her virginity also itself was on this account more pleasing and accepted, in that it was not that Christ being conceived in her, rescued it beforehand from a husband who would violate it, Himself to preserve it; but, before He was conceived, chose it, already dedicated to God, as that from which to be born…Christ by being born of a virgin, who, before she knew Who was to be born of her, had determined to continue a virgin, chose rather to approve, than to command, holy virginity. And thus, even in the female herself, in whom He took the form of a servant, He willed that virginity should be free.” Augustine, Of Holy Virginity, 4 (A.D. 401).
Infant Baptism:
“The blessed Cyprian, indeed, said, in order to correct those who thought that an infant should not be baptized before the eighth day, that it was not the body but the soul which behoved to be saved from perdition – in which statement he was not inventing any new doctrine, but preserving the firmly established faith of the Church; and he, along with some of his colleagues in the episcopal office, held that a child may be properly baptized immediately after its birth.” Augustine, Epistle 166:8:23 (A.D. 412).
D
DarkMark
Guest
continues:
Baptismal regeneration:
“It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated through the agency of another’s will when that infant is brought to Baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn…‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.’ The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was in one Adam.” Augustine, To Boniface, Epistle 98:2 (A.D. 408).
The Eucharist is transform into the Body and Blood of Christ:
“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
Intercession of the Saints:
“As to our paying honor to the memory of the martyrs, and the accusation of Faustus, that we worship them instead of idols, I should not care to answer such a charge, were it not for the sake of showing how Faustus, in his desire to cast reproach on us, has overstepped the Manichaean inventions, and has fallen heedlessly into a popular notion found in Pagan poetry, although he is so anxious to be distinguished from the Pagans. For in saying that we have turned the idols into martyrs, be speaks of our worshipping them with similar rites, and appeasing the shades of the departed with wine and food…It is true that Christians pay religious honor to the memory of the martyrs, both to excite us to imitate them and to obtain a share in their merits, and the assistance of their prayers. But we build altars not to any martyr, but to the God of martyrs, although it is to the memory of the martyrs…” Augustine, Against Faustus, 20:21 (A.D. 400).
Purgatory:
“The time which interposes between the death of a man and the final resurrection holds souls in hidden retreats, accordingly as each is deserving of rest or of hardship, in view of what it merited when it was living in the flesh. Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator [Mass] is offered for them, or when alms are given in the Church. But these things are of profit to those who, when they were alive, merited that they might afterward be able to be helped by these things. There is a certain manner of living, neither so good that there is no need of these helps after death, nor yet so wicked that these helps are of no avail after death” (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Charity, 29:109).
The Authority of the Pope:
“There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 5 [A.D. 397]).
“[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!” (Sermons 131:10 [A.D. 411]).
I am sorry Old Scholar, is this the same Augustine you are talking about? I am confused
Saint Augustine was more Catholic than Protestant. He believed in the Authority of the Church (the Church alone can interpret Scriptures, not individuals).
Baptismal regeneration:
“It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated through the agency of another’s will when that infant is brought to Baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn…‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.’ The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was in one Adam.” Augustine, To Boniface, Epistle 98:2 (A.D. 408).
The Eucharist is transform into the Body and Blood of Christ:
“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
Intercession of the Saints:
“As to our paying honor to the memory of the martyrs, and the accusation of Faustus, that we worship them instead of idols, I should not care to answer such a charge, were it not for the sake of showing how Faustus, in his desire to cast reproach on us, has overstepped the Manichaean inventions, and has fallen heedlessly into a popular notion found in Pagan poetry, although he is so anxious to be distinguished from the Pagans. For in saying that we have turned the idols into martyrs, be speaks of our worshipping them with similar rites, and appeasing the shades of the departed with wine and food…It is true that Christians pay religious honor to the memory of the martyrs, both to excite us to imitate them and to obtain a share in their merits, and the assistance of their prayers. But we build altars not to any martyr, but to the God of martyrs, although it is to the memory of the martyrs…” Augustine, Against Faustus, 20:21 (A.D. 400).
Purgatory:
“The time which interposes between the death of a man and the final resurrection holds souls in hidden retreats, accordingly as each is deserving of rest or of hardship, in view of what it merited when it was living in the flesh. Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator [Mass] is offered for them, or when alms are given in the Church. But these things are of profit to those who, when they were alive, merited that they might afterward be able to be helped by these things. There is a certain manner of living, neither so good that there is no need of these helps after death, nor yet so wicked that these helps are of no avail after death” (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Charity, 29:109).
The Authority of the Pope:
“There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 5 [A.D. 397]).
“[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!” (Sermons 131:10 [A.D. 411]).
I am sorry Old Scholar, is this the same Augustine you are talking about? I am confused
Saint Augustine was more Catholic than Protestant. He believed in the Authority of the Church (the Church alone can interpret Scriptures, not individuals).
E
epostle
Guest
It is true that any proposed tradition which contradicts Apostolic Scripture is a false tradition and must be rejected, but this does not make Apostolic Tradition inferior to Scripture for that reason. It is also true that any proposed scripture which contradicts Apostolic Tradition is a false scripture and must be rejected.
This was, in fact, one of the ways in which the canon of the New Testament was selected. Any scriptures which contained doctrines which were contrary to the Traditions the apostles had handed down to the Church Fathers were rejected. Between the Gnostic gospels (like the Gospel of Thomas) or Marcion’s edited version of Luke and Paul’s epistles, there were a lot of heretical writings that different groups wanted to see in the New Testament. But the Fathers said, “No, this contradicts the faith that was handed down to us from the apostles. Thus it must be a forged writing.”
So while tradition must be tested against Scripture to see if the tradition is apostolic, it is also true that scripture must be tested against Tradition to see if the scripture is apostolic. There is complementarity here, and one mode of teaching is not automatically inferior to the other.
cin.org/users/james/questions/q076.htm
OS, your scriptures produces a body of personal beliefs. THE scriptures were produced by God via His Church, and proven to be inspired, not merely assumed. To put it another way, the Bible is a fruit of the Church, a church is not produced by a bible. The Church pre-existed the Bible with its Traditions, and no amount of anti-Catholic revisionism can change that fact. Contrary to history and the Bible, you think a church came from the bible and you assume the books of the Bible were inspired with no need of apostolic verification. Preservation, proclamation, and the authority of Scripture is an Apostolic Tradition without which, you would have no Bible at all. You are shooting yourself in the foot.
I
Ignatius
Guest
But You’ve still been unable to answer these questions. (underlined below).
In 2 Tim 3:16 Paul said “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”
The facts are well known and they are these, as I am sure you are aware, at that time, the New Testament had not been written. Paul was therefore referring to the Old Testament. Now the Old Testament used in the Greece and the middle East at the time was the Septuagint version and had been for 200 years before Christ and contains the Deuterocanonical books. Additionally, when the OT is quoted in the New Testament Greek, the Greek is very close to that of the Septuagint Greek text.
So, by 2 Tim 3: 16, Paul supports the Septuagint with the Deuterocanon as inspired.
Now given the above; On what basis do you believe the New Testament to be inspired? Can you explain from Scripture Alone how you arrived at your conclusion?
I’d also like to ask on what basis you know which writings should be in the New Testament? Again, from Scripture Alone, please explain how you know this.
I’ll take your failure to answer the questions as an indication that you are unable to do so.
May the peace of Christ be with you.
Yours in Him.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Didn’t you read the excerpt that your buddy OS posted by James Akin? So far as I know, your definition of SS is the formal sufficiency of scripture. Is that accurate?
So? My point is that there is no scriptural basis for alleging that these people were blood siblings of Christ. ‘Brethren of the Lord’
I’m saying it makes better sense than your version.
Will you read it if I offer it to you?
C
Church_Militant
Guest
See the article I linked above.
I have no problem with that, but I disagree with your man made interpretations offered, not the Word of God.
You don’t wanna go there. That logic will disqualify all sources which includes every commentary and study around. Either the scriptural and historical case made is valid and correct, or it’s not. My premise is that most n-Cs make a case from an invalid premise because they believe an unscriptural doctrine about the Bible to begin with and that invalidates most of their subsequent doctrines because they are based upon that first foundational error.
Then it’s irrelevant to this discussion and why bring it up?
My point is that the New Testament infers that virtually everyone in Jerusalem knew what went on and so your case that “his brothers” didn’t know doesn’t wash. Moreover, St. John and the Blessed Virgin were there even when the rest of the apostles were not, so His family did know.
The fact that his siblings mocked and rebuked him in the New Testament should inform your thinking on this.
If, as scripture says, Jesus was the 1st born, then his siblings had to be step children because that is the only way they could get away with that. It was almost criminal to do that to a first born son at that time in Jewish custom, but if they were step siblings and older than Jesus it would be acceptable regardless.
It doesn’t have to be because history is also a valid source. That brethren of the Lord article makes a very good case, but my point about Jesus giving her to John at the foot of the cross just clinches it IMO.
You make it sound as if my case is weak, when in fact it is not.
If you used the God-given common sense that I believe you have you’d see that my points are at least as valid as any you have stated and in most cases more so.
I will never espouse Sola Scriptura because it is an unscriptural teaching of men that has only been around for some 500 years. The doctrines that have trickled down from it have only served to mislead millions of people about Christianity and allowed every conceivable heresy to run rampant through masses of people who otherwise would embrace and believe the original New Testament Gospel of Jesus Christ if presented to them.
What you seem to forget is that I was n-C for over 30 years, and so I know what you people teach as well as what the Catholic Church teaches and I reject your teachings because you base them all upon a gross error in doctrine concerning the Bible itself which is not taught in the Bible.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
, far from being an invention of Martin Luther, is taken for granted by St. Thomas Aquinas, and is a point agreed upon by the writers of the patristic age.
You have to believe the early church fathers.
Now if anyone wants to refute this, please do so one by one with references. Don’t just say they are wrong because I have given you where each one came from…Be honest and refute it if you can. Otherwise we’ll all know the early church fathers really did believe in Sola Scriptura as I have maintained all along… I’m honest. They reject SS because they would know, even as we do that when they speak of their love and faith in the Word of God they mean, even as we do) that they believe in the material sufficiency of scripture and not the formal sufficiency of scripture, and you have not presented a single ECF reference that even implies otherwise.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
I already know where to find them and have read them.
The problem is that while you try to twist their writings to support your false teaching, you will hope that we ignore the rest of their writings that show clearly that they believed the same things about what the Bible teaches that we do today.
Example: Ignatius holds to the same teaching as St. Paul in 1st Corinthians 10:16-17 & 11:23-30 when he says, "CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes."
That Eucharistic Real Presence is irrefutably Catholic, so the fact is that all your “scholarship” aside…They obviously didn’t share the same beliefs about what the Bible says and they certainly do not agree with you.
Now, if, as you say we have to believe the ECF, (and I agree so far as it goes.) then you too have to accept that your own non-sacramental and non Eucharistic communion is a sham when compared with what Ignatius makes such a serious case about.
If you want to quote them…why then do you not believe what they did? Is it because it would mean that you’d have to toss all your so-called “scholarship” and humbly admit that you have been deceived and then gone on to deceive others as well?
I believe it would.
E
EJTMJR
Guest
IF SS were true how could a person be a good Christian in the 1st and 2nd century when there was no written scripture to be sola.
AND AGAIN >>>PLEASE… MOST PEOPLE OF THAT TIME COULD NOT READ>>> what is so hard to understand about that.
Look at history in makes no common since
most people could not read
IF there had been Bibles available most would not be able to afford them
most would not have time to read, what with working very long hours.
their diet at that time would limit their intelect to really understand the BIBLE…if they had a Bible.
GOD DOES NOT ASK US TO DO WHAT WE CAN NOT DO!!
PLEASE, STOP AND THINK ABOUT IT!!!
AND AGAIN >>>PLEASE… MOST PEOPLE OF THAT TIME COULD NOT READ>>> what is so hard to understand about that.
Look at history in makes no common since
most people could not read
IF there had been Bibles available most would not be able to afford them
most would not have time to read, what with working very long hours.
their diet at that time would limit their intelect to really understand the BIBLE…if they had a Bible.
GOD DOES NOT ASK US TO DO WHAT WE CAN NOT DO!!
PLEASE, STOP AND THINK ABOUT IT!!!
L
LSK
Guest
If, historically, it was possible to accept Sola Scriptura we could; however, Holy Scripture tells us quite plainly that it is the CHURCH that is the pillar of truth and not the letters being written by Holy men.
Also, be aware that when Catholics speak to The Word, we mean Jesus Christ. So did the ECF(s), in particular those who lived before there were formally cannonized Holy Scripture.
Also, be aware that when Catholics speak to The Word, we mean Jesus Christ. So did the ECF(s), in particular those who lived before there were formally cannonized Holy Scripture.
F
fellowChristian
Guest
Old Scholar:
Where in the Bible does it give the index for the Bible?
I mean in Scripture does it say what books and letters should go together into one book?
Did the books and letters all just come together on its own?
Is there Scripture that says “Don’t listen to the church.”
or “The Bible is all you need.”
anything like that?
Can you show me where in Scripture it says that
Where in the Bible does it give the index for the Bible?
I mean in Scripture does it say what books and letters should go together into one book?
Did the books and letters all just come together on its own?
Is there Scripture that says “Don’t listen to the church.”
or “The Bible is all you need.”
anything like that?
Can you show me where in Scripture it says that
- I don’t need the church.
- I should not obey authority.
- I am the church.
C
Canto
Guest
in “THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF BLESSED MARY” A.D. 383 St Jerome against Helvidius wrote…
“2. I must call upon the Holy Spirit to express His meaning by my mouth and defend the virginity of the Blessed Mary. I must call upon the Lord Jesus to guard the sacred lodging of the womb in which He abode for ten months from all suspicion of sexual intercourse. And I must also entreat God the Father to show that the mother of His Son, who was a mother before she was a bride, continued a Virgin after her son was born. We have no desire to career over the fields of eloquence, we do not resort to the snares of the logicians or the thickets of Aristotle. We shall adduce the actual words of Scripture. Let him be refuted by the same proofs which he employed against us, so that he may see that it was possible for him to read what is written, and yet to be unable to discern the established conclusion of a sound faith.”
St Augustine
15:5 On Marriage and concupisence 419 AD
"[5] …as the heretic Jovinian did, when the holy bishop maintained the permanent virginity of the blessed Mary even after child-bearing, in opposition to this man’s impiety.
Holy Virginity 4:4 A.D. 401
“In being born of a Virgin who **chose to remain a Virgin **even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave”
Heresies 56 A.D. 428
“**Heretics **called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband”
St Ambrose
2:6 To Marcellina his sister – Concerning Virgins Book II 377 AD
"6. LET, then, the life of Mary be as it were virginity itself, set forth in a likeness, from which, as from a mirror, the appearance of chastity and the form of virtue is reflected. From this you may take your pattern of life, showing, as an example, the clear rules of virtue: what you have to correct, to effect, and to hold fast. "
Letters 63:111[A.D. 388]
“Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son”
St Irenaeus
21:4 Agains Heresies – Book III
"… **Emmanuel of the Virgin. **To this effect they testify, [saying,] that before Joseph had come together with Mary, while she therefore remained in virginity, “she was found with child of the Holy Ghost;”(4) and that the angel Gabriel said unto her, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God;”
St Thomas Aquinas
Summa Theolgica Question 28. The virginity of the Mother of God
“We must therefore simply assert that the Mother of God, as she was a virgin in conceiving Him and a virgin in giving Him birth, did **she remain a virgin **ever afterwards.”
St Origen
Commentary on Matthew 2:17 A.D. 248
“Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . **might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her **and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity”
St Athanasius
Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 A.D. 360
“Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary”
St John Chrysostom
Gospel of Matthew A.D. 370.
"And when he had taken her, he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son.’ He hath here used the word till,’ not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, hath he used the word, till’? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, The raven returned not till the earth was dried up.’ And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture saith, From age until age Thou art,’ not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away,’ it doth not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word “till,” to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves thee to make the inference.”
St Basil
Homily In Sanctum Christi generationem, 5 ante A.D. 379
“The friends of Christ **do not tolerate hearing that the Mother of God ever ceased to be a virgin” **
C
Canto
Guest
In light of post 970 and my own 920 and countless others…
I might have missed it but has anyone actually defined what GOD BREATHED scriptures are?
How do you know?
I can’t seemed to find a defintion in my Bible?
Do I have to go to a source outside the Bible for a definition?
I might have missed it but has anyone actually defined what GOD BREATHED scriptures are?
How do you know?
I can’t seemed to find a defintion in my Bible?
Do I have to go to a source outside the Bible for a definition?
- Status