You can't have it both ways.

[PRmerger]

Pope Eugenius and other popes said **living withing the Catholic Church **was necessary for salvation. He purposely excluded pagans, Jews, heretics and schismatics.

Indeed. And unless they “live within the Catholic Church”, visible or invisible, they will not be saved.

The CC is mystical, ron. It is a spiritual entity. It is not confined to St. Joaquim and Anne Catholic Church on Maple and Main St.

Tto the degree that pagans, Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc and other Christians are joined to the CC is the degree with which they receive the grace for sanctification.

Now, stop seeing manure when you keep being shown flowers.

 

[ron77nyc]

Now, stop seeing manure when you keep being shown flowers.

I do see the flowers. I like to keep flowers with flowers and manure with manure.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Please elaborate…list the ways please. Thanks 1holy…

Some protestants would say that Jesus quoted Scripture every chance he got. The Early Fathers like Ignatius, Irenaus, Clement, Polycarp, and the gang all quoted scripture to prove their points right and left, Augustine almost always backed up his opinions and theories with Scripture, etc. Jesus often started a sentence with “you’ve heard it said…” quoting Scripture. Paul refers to the OT constantly in reinforcing his Messianic and grace/salvation/faith commentary, etc. The Councils referred to Scripture to make decisions about theological opinions or heresies, and it seems like Scripture was the heart and soul of so much Early Church discussion and analysis, etc.

Sola Scriptura isn’t just an extrabiblical position, it’s a contrabiblical position, it’s an unhistorical position…

Sola Scriptura is wrong in so many ways.

 

[joe370]

Hey Gurney…

;7097699]Please elaborate…list the ways please. Thanks 1holy…

Some protestants would say that Jesus quoted Scripture every chance he got. The Early Fathers like Ignatius, Irenaus, Clement, Polycarp, and the gang all quoted scripture to prove their points right and left, Augustine almost always backed up his opinions and theories with Scripture, etc. Jesus often started a sentence with “you’ve heard it said…” quoting Scripture. Paul refers to the OT constantly in reinforcing his Messianic and grace/salvation/faith commentary, etc. The Councils referred to Scripture to make decisions about theological opinions or heresies, and it seems like Scripture was the heart and soul of so much Early Church discussion and analysis, etc.

Yes, but what you have just shown is the fact that the leadership of the CC was the one making the authoritative decisions regarding theological matters and heresies. If sola scriptura, as believed by protestants today, would have been practiced then, making authoritative decisions or resolving heretical matters would have been up to each individual Christian based on his/her interpretation of the bible, as opposed to the CC. Can you imagine the doctrinal division that could have ensued very early on if that would have been the case?

Of course Scripture was the heart and soul of so much Early Catholic Church discussion and analysis, etc. Today, however, the idea of the CC still being entrusted with the authority to make decisions regarding theological matters, heresy etc… has been replaced by the bible alone as each and every Christians absolute and final authority.

Gurney, there did exist books that ranked in some places as equal to the works of James or Peter, or Revelation, books found in the bible that were not always embraced early on as part of the canon, in certain parts. For example: the Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, the Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles, Apostolic Constitutions, Gospel according to the Hebrews, Paul’s Epistle to the Laodiceans, Epistle of St Clement, and others. Protestants (which is something I did as a former protestant) - should particularly take notice of the fact, (as it utterly undermines their Rule of Faith, the Bible and the Bible only notion) - regarding certain books found in their bible, that were disputed in some places, and among these we actually find the Epistle of James, Epistle of Jude, 2nd Epistle of Peter; 2nd and 3rd of John, Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse of John.

Why were such books as the Shepherd of Hermas or the Epistle of Barnabas embraced as genuine apostolic writings, and actually read aloud at church, but today, are nowhere to be found in the Bible, and who decided that they should not have made the final cut? The CC! If Scripture alone as the Christians only and final authority, via his/her interpretation, back then, had been the means for determining what should have constituted sacred scripture and what should not, scripture might look very different today.

 

[StTommyMore]

Please elaborate…list the ways please. Thanks 1holy…

Some protestants would say that Jesus quoted Scripture every chance he got. The Early Fathers like Ignatius, Irenaus, Clement, Polycarp, and the gang all quoted scripture to prove their points right and left, Augustine almost always backed up his opinions and theories with Scripture, etc. Jesus often started a sentence with “you’ve heard it said…” quoting Scripture. Paul refers to the OT constantly in reinforcing his Messianic and grace/salvation/faith commentary, etc. The Councils referred to Scripture to make decisions about theological opinions or heresies, and it seems like Scripture was the heart and soul of so much Early Church discussion and analysis, etc.

Quoting Scripture and Sola Scriptura are not the same thing. TO suggest that it is so is dishonest apologetics.

 

[1holycatholic]

Please elaborate…list the ways please. Thanks 1holy…

Some protestants would say that Jesus quoted Scripture every chance he got. The Early Fathers like Ignatius, Irenaus, Clement, Polycarp, and the gang all quoted scripture to prove their points right and left, Augustine almost always backed up his opinions and theories with Scripture, etc. Jesus often started a sentence with “you’ve heard it said…” quoting Scripture. Paul refers to the OT constantly in reinforcing his Messianic and grace/salvation/faith commentary, etc. The Councils referred to Scripture to make decisions about theological opinions or heresies, and it seems like Scripture was the heart and soul of so much Early Church discussion and analysis, etc.

The pope quotes scripture all the time, that doesn’t have anything to do with Sola Scriptura.

The Arians quoted scripture to defend their position. They’re in the dustbin of history. Protestants don’t hold the same beliefs about things written in the Bible that they did a century ago. I’d argue that they’ve rejected Protestantism, which is the same as embracing Protestantism - for division as manifested in Sola Scriptura is at the very core of Protestantism.

In the previous post I’ve listed three things that completely discredit Sola Scriptura. Any one is sufficient reason to reject Sola Scriptura. There’s no point in belaboring the issue.

 

[joe370]

Gtrenewed, why would Paul say to Tim, the following?

2 Tim 2:2 - And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.

Why wouldn’t Paul say something like:

Sacred scripture is the Christians one and only rule of faith for teaching and no church authority is required to teach others; simply defer to the bible alone for elucidation?

Paul did say to Tim:

All Scripture is God-breathed** and is useful for teaching,** rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness…but he still tells Tim:

2 Tim 2:2 - And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.

Why the need for these teachers? Take it right to scripture as per sola scriptura, I thought?

 

[joe370]

Gtrenewed, the Acts of the Apostles records that there were different truths being taught regarding keeping the Mosaic Law. One group represented by Judaizers taught that Gentile Christians must come to the Christian life through keeping the Mosaic Law; the second group represented by Paul taught that Gentile Christians did not need to keep the Mosaic Law. There was no Scripture regarding the truth of the issue. So they appealed to the authority of the Holy Spirit in council, and the Catholic Church has followed this model ever since.

How could the bible alone, back then, have resolved this dispute regarding the truth of the issue, considering the fact that scripture did not have the answer to this question?

My sister tells me that the apostles were guided into all truth, and therefore could settle the matter once and for all, and once they all passed away, the holy spirit left the church founded by Jesus, at which point the bible became the final authority for settling disputes. Do you agree with her?

 

[schaick]

OK. Let’s start with the verse where Jesus commands His
guanophore;7091941:

OK. Let’s start with the verse where Jesus commands His Aposltes to worship Him. Do you remember where it is?

What? Surely you jest. Jesus never commanded us to worship HIM.

What we do see in Scripture is evidence of people worshipping HIM and HE accepts the worship,

For example, that He gave His Body and Blood, both at the Last Supper, and again on the cross.

There was only one final sacrifice.

And for example, that All Authority was given to Him and He authorized His Apostles to govern the Church until He comes again, and that the Apostles passed this authority on to their successors, the bishops.

That He founded a visible and authoritative Church, which produced the NT, the interpretation of which is not to be separated from that One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

GOD inspired men to produce Scripture- it is not a product of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church made official that the books being used by the early Church fathers was canon.

No, I don’t believe so. You clearly are unable to accept the Scriptures themselves, the early fathers, and history, so I doubt there is anything but a divine intervention that will pursuade you.

Well that makes no sense - how can a sola scriptura practioner be unable to accept scripture.

The Gospel is to be recieved, through faith, Schaick. Although it is accompanied with “proofs”, it is not a science, and does not lend itself to scientific “proofs” such as you demand. The revelation of God to mankind is quite above any puny human “proofs” that we can manage.

Do you really believe we are to blindly follow? Have blind faith?

1 Thessalonians 5
21Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Besides, since you cannot accept the evidence that is right in front of your face, it seems certain that your needs for “proof” will not be met. It is like asking someone to “prove there are stars, but you are only allowed to make a case for this at noon, and no other time of day or night is allowed”.

You have placed conditions upon yourself that prevent any “proofs” from reaching you.

Yes, I am aware of that. I don’t think it is the first time that I have compared your request to one that “prove there are stars in the sky” at midday.

Is this your best arguement?

I have proof that Jesus is my Lord and Saviour. The Bible has shown me how to walk towards a better relationship with GOD.

I am sure that all your doctrines are biblically based, or at least you believe they are.

Jesus did NOT practice SS. This is a preposterous notion. Do you honestly believe that the God of the universe has confined Himself to the writings? Honestly. It seems that you need to believe this so much, it would probably be dangerous to try to pursuade you otherwise.

So tell me what doctrines do you believe I follow that are unbiblical?

LOL!! You sound like you think I am one of those people that believe Jesus only spoke aramaic.

When Jesus needed to settle a dispute between HIS followers HE looked to Scripture.

Jesus was GOD’s WORD.

 

[joe370]

Hey Dokimas, Schaick or anyone else, the following passages demonstrate that the New Testament authors drew on oral Tradition as they expounded the Christian faith. How do you reconcile the following with the idea that we must find all of our doctrine in written Scripture? The authors of the New Testament** draw on oral Tradition in addition to Old Testament Scripture. **In several instances, they explicitly cite oral Tradition to support Christian doctrine which violates sola scriptura. Not only does this observation undermine the practice of sola scriptura, but it lends positive support to the Catholic position of Scripture and Tradition as parallel conduits through which God brings us his revelation.

We find passages in the New Testament in which oral Tradition is cited in support of doctrine. For the apostles, oral Tradition was trustworthy when formulating and developing elements of the Christian faith:

Matthew 2:23

Scripture says that Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth after their sojourn in Egypt, “that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.’” (Matt. 2:23) - All scholars admit that the phrase “He shall be called a Nazarene” is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. Yet Matthew tells us that the Holy Family fulfilled this prophecy, which had been passed on “by the prophets.” Matthew is drawing on oral Tradition for this saying. If this is the case, it is significant that he places this prophecy on the same level as ones he attributes to specific authors of the Old Testament. This is an example of God’s own Word being passed on via oral Tradition and not through written Scripture.

Matthew 23:2

Just before launching into a blistering denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus delivers this command to the crowds: “The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.” (Matt. 23:2-3)

Although Jesus strongly indicts his opponents of hypocrisy for not following their own teaching, he nevertheless insists that the scribes and Pharisees hold a position of legitimate authority, which he characterizes as sitting “on Moses’ seat.” Jesus here draws on oral Tradition to uphold the legitimacy of this teaching office in Israel. The Catholic Church, in upholding the legitimacy of both Scripture and Tradition, follows the example of Jesus himself and certainly that is not a bad thing - right? This verse about Moses’ chair illuminates why we say that the successor of Peter, when he gives a solemn teaching for the whole Church, is said to speak ex cathedra or “from the chair.”

1 Corinthians 10:4

Paul shows how Christian sacraments—baptism and the Eucharist—were prefigured in the Old Testament. He treats baptism first: “Our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (vv. 1-2). Next he highlights the Eucharist, prefigured by the manna in the wilderness (John 6:26-40), and the water that God provided for Israel: “All drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.” (1 Cor. 10:4)

The Old Testament says nothing about any movement of the rock that Moses struck to provide water for the Israelites (Ex. 17:1-7, Num. 20:2-13), but in rabbinic Tradition the rock actually followed them on their journey through the wilderness.

Jude 9

Jude relates an altercation between Michael and Satan: “When the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you.’” (Jude 9) This text provides another example of a New Testament author tapping oral Tradition to expound Christian doctrine. Jude speaks of the rebellious upstarts of his day, saying, “It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, ‘Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” Here is a tradition, a prophetic revelation, which was passed on orally for millennia before being captured first in a non-inspired written document (1 Enoch) - and then in an inspired document (Jude).** Did the writers of the New Testament ever regard oral tradition as divine revelation? **This example more than any other shows that the answer to that is a resounding, Yes!

Paul taps into rabbinic tradition to supply the names, Jannes and Jambres, of the magicians who opposed Moses in Pharoah’s court. (2 Tim. 3:8) In the Old Testament, these individuals are anonymous. James tells us that because of Elijah’s prayer there was no rain in Israel for three years, but the Old Testament account of Elijah’s altercation with King Ahab says nothing of him praying.

The authors of the 4 gospels are also anonymous.** It’s the second century tradition of the CC** that puts a name to these books.

The teaching of the Bible and of the Church is that God’s Word comes to us both through the writings of the prophets and apostles and through the oral Traditions that they handed on, and these are preserved by the Church through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.** Why would the authors of the New Testament draw on oral Tradition in addition to Old Testament Scripture, if in fact they were sola scriptura advocates?**

 

[Dokimas]

Except for the Jesus founded only one Church, and the theology of said CHurch is CAtholic, so what are you getting at?

No point.

 

[Dokimas]

You know, I agree with you, Doki. While I think it is important that we examine the sources of our ideas, I know that you and many of our separated brethren on here study on their own, and come to their own conclusions, apart from “some preacher”. I dislike this accusation about as much as I dislike the constant use of the 30,000 or 40,000 or whatever it is up to now that people use to refer to the number of divisions. Even one is too many!

Unfortunately, there are many blind leading the blind in all communities, and I don’t think most Catholics go home from Church with the Berean attitude either, to study the Scriptures in the light of what they heard.

Thank you for this supportive comment. I appreciate it.

 

[Dokimas]

It is interesting that you took my description personally, when it was a general statement. It is curious that you are here, though.

I enjoy interacting with fellow Christians and discussing God’s Word.

I enjoy to bond we share. That’s why I get so testy when some here can’t see the bond. (Please don’t say it’s the CC – it’s the Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.)

 

[Dokimas]

It might help if you were able to acknowledge the point of view. It is clear you don’t share it, but it is helpful in discussion to be able to appreciate the other point of view. In High School debate, we had an instructor who would poll us about our opinions, and deliberately assign us to the team that represented the opposing view. As frustrating as it was to learn to advocate for the opposite of one’s convictions ,it did help those who participated to see the contrary points, and how people reasoned who got to them.

I acknowledge that you believe what you believe and that you’ve studied both the Bible and the CC teaching on issues. Is this what you mean?

I can’t remember my view on the perpetual virginity of Mary based on ‘until’ acknowledged by you or other catholics here. Maybe I missed it. This could be said for other teachings I differ with you and the CC. You ask for acknowledgement; I haven’t seen it coming my way (or others with my point of view - truly it dosen’t bother me; you brought it up so I thought I’d mention there’s a ‘two way street’.)

 

[Dokimas]

The test is in Basic Logic 101.

It’s a self-refuting paradigm.

“Scripture is the sole rule of faith”.

If this is true, then this rule of faith* must *be found in Scripture.

Since it is not found in Scripture, then it cannot be true.

Self-refuting.

Have you considered you really don’t understand the SS point of view?

Someone a day or two ago gave a really good ‘definition’ of SS. I made comment saying it was very good.

You want me to stop believing in SS because the Bible doesn’t say, ‘believe in SS’ yet you want me to believe the church Jesus founded is the CC because the CC has traced itself back to Peter, thus Jesus and the CC tells me it is the one and only true church? Do you see my dilemma?

 

[Dokimas]

Dokimas, the CC does not profess that each teaching must be explicitly stated in Scripture.

That’s YOUR self-refuting paradigm, not ours.

Yours is kind of self-serving and circular in it’s reasoning.

 

[Dokimas]

Ok. Which Catholics are you talking about here?

Do you find any “blind followers” on CAF?

I’m not looking for any so I can’t answer this question.

 

[PRmerger]

No, guanophore said nothing of the kind. If you interpret scripture the same way you interpret the posts you are reading here, then no wonder you are having so many problems!

Heh. Trenchant point.

Proof right here in the 21st century that misinterpretations of the written word are rampant.

It’s helpful when the author is able to clarify his posts.

But when the Author has left designees to clarify, then we need misinterpret no longer.

 

[PRmerger]

Yours is kind of self-serving and circular in it’s reasoning.

No, not circular. Spiral.


A Spiral Argument

“Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.”

 

[joe370]

Hey Dokimas, Paul was telling those early Christians to hold to traditions taught, not just in his written letters (what would be called the New Testament) - but also given orally. What were these, is the common question from SS advocates? How can they be known? Perhaps through the preservation of the church.

Or, they were eventually committed to scripture, ending the need to stand firm these traditions? If they were eventually committed to scripture thereby ending the need to hold fast to these traditions then where does Paul reveal this truth? I am told by SS advocates: if it’s not in the bible it’s not to be believed. As far as I can tell, Paul’s command to stand firm and hold to the traditions which those early Christians were taught, whether** by word **of mouth or by letter, was never revoked due to the supposed fact that these oral traditions were all safely committed to scripture. If they were eventually committed to scripture then please identity these traditions that were eventually committed to scripture and the passages that support the supposed fact that the following command was to be rejected once those traditions were committed to scripture:

*So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.
*