1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christian: Sola Scriptura

Discussion in 'Same Faith Debates' started by Uncertaindrummer, Jul 6, 2005.

  1. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,864
    Ratings:
    +1,394
    Religion:
    Catholic


    What letter was written down at the exact second revelation was given?
     
  2. writer

    writer Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    514
    Ratings:
    +16
    What letter was written down at the exact second revelation was given?
    I thot u meant to ask what letter was spoken or read aloud before sending?
    Take care
     
  3. athanasius

    athanasius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,573
    Ratings:
    +123
    writer,

    You said

    count the long-suffering of our Lord to be salvation, even as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them concerning these things, in which some things are hard to understand, which the unlearned and unstable twist, as also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

    2 P 3:15-16 never mentions 'justification.' 2 P 3:16 specifies 'all' (not some) of Paul's letters as 'Scripture'*

    My response

    Peters says all of Pauls writings. But what were all of Pauls writings? You see this was the problem for the early Christians. Peter nowhere mentions the name of every epistle that Paul wrote or who he wrote to. He just makes a general statement Peter also nowhere mentions the complete table of contents for the new testament that would be binding on all christians.

    So what about all those other books in the new testament? how do you know what scripture is? This is the issue of the Canon. Again without a divinly inspired table of contents, you have no way of knowing what scripture is. How do you even know that the book of Peter that you just read is itself inspired? The majority of Christians for the first 300 years or so were not so sure?

    Most didn’t believe it(2 Peter) was.
    Again this is something you ignore. You historically have to rely on Catholic councils and tradition. YOu say Im wrong. Prove it to me. Show me in history. I can an show you the proof from Christian scholars.

    Remember the historical book on the canon I suggested to you written by a protestant minister “Where we got the bible, our debt to the Catholic church”. Show me the historical proof if Im wrong!!!!!! By the way Peter does speak of Salvation or soterian in the context of verse 15.


    You said

    at most u should recognize that your own 382 argument amounts to claiming that 382 canonized Hebrews, James, 1 P, 2 P.

    My answer

    Yes the Catholic Council in Rome in 382 did formerly recognize and authoritativly Canonize those books for all Christians to read as God breathed scripture.


    You said

    Once again, by reading. For instance, if you've ever read the New Testament (and Old), you should notice a difference between them and any other human writing. May i ask: do u?


    My answer

    Oh boy, this argument does not work. The Mormon will tell you the same thing. They believe that the book of mormon is inspired scripture because they read it and prayed about it. They may tell you that they have a burning int he bosom and God spoke to thier heart and is telling them that its inspired.

    They also say that there is no other book like the book of mormon. Are they right?? The Muslims believe the same about the Koran. Are they right? Then how can you be? YOu utilize the same arguments they do. The truth is you have no way of getting around it, you owe your new testament canon to the Catholic church and thats how you know. Amen!

    You said

    i also admit the historical fact that the Catholic Church as we know it today is neither the church in the NT; the church of God, Christ, and the Spirit; nor a church that historically formed similar to today's until around 600 AD under Gregory 1.
    Thanks*

    My answer

    Wow. And you say your a student of history??? Well ok if your correct the fathers of the Church will show us that you are. HMMMMMMM How about St Ignatius of antioch, who was a disiple of the Apostle John himself.

    In the year 110 Ad he wrote this.. “Wherever Jesus Christ is there is the Catholic church”---Ignatius letter to the smyrnians.

    Ignatius also believed in the Leadership of Romes Church and the Papacy. Wow thats alot earlier than 600? How about the secular(non Catholic encyclopedia) Merrium websters show the historic lineage of each Pope from Peter to Our Current Pope.

    Another book written by a protestant church historian Dr JND Kelly’s “OXford dictionary of the Popes” admits the papacy goes all the way back to Peter.

    And of coarse in 382 ad the Catholic church held a council at rome under Pope Damasus I. Wow alot sooner than 600 Ad!!!

    You still haven’t answered my question about infant baptism. Whos right? You or the Lutheran? Is baptismal regeneration in a infant possible? Can a baby be baptized and is it in the bible? The Lutheran says yes and he says infant baptism and baptismal regeneration are in the bible. You said no they weren’t. YOu both go by the bible alone! Who’s right?

    Can’t the bible alone equip the man of God to know correct doctrine? If you say he’s wrong by what authority do you? Scriptural authority? The Lutheran would say the same thing to you. So who’s right? Scripture alone cannot give us all that we need to know on doctrine. This is a prime example of why sola scriptura is false. You see what a bankrupt system sola scriptura is! Thus Sola scriptura has no practicle application to each bible believing individual as as we just seen.

    If you believe that 2 tim 3:16-17 teach sola scriptura like you suggest, then show me in the verse. It nowhere teaches sola scriptura.

    Writer, I would suggest you read some books on the canon. The books I suggest are by protestants and Catholics. “Where we Got the bible, our Debt to the Catholic church” by Rev Henry Graham is a small and great book. Also Kelly’s Early christian Doctrines has a good explanation of the development of the canon up to Athansaius.
    Well I have to go and study. I will be back tommorrrow to answer you false statements on baptism in the other forum.

    In Jesus through Mary, Bless you.
     
  4. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    We might be talking past eachother here. Paul wrote letters to the churches, most times creating new material that did not have a previous oral tradition. That is, the letters that Paul wrote were actually "occasional" letters and are not records of oral tradition written later like a lot of the material that we find in the Gospels. So with Paul we have an example of written tradition that stands apart from oral tradition - it was written first and then spoken (=read aloud) in the church rather than vice-versa.

    We do have, however, in some Pauline letters interpolations of previous written material that may have oral tradition - like the addition of hymns and prayers that may have oral tradition before they were written, like the Carmen Christi in Phil 2.
     
  5. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    Knowing that you're not speaking to me...

    I suppose that at least portions of 1 Cor, 2 Cor, Galatians, 1 and 2 Thess, and Romans were written pretty close to the revelation.
     
  6. writer

    writer Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    514
    Ratings:
    +16
    223 what were all of Pauls writings?
    That we have: Romans, 1+2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1+2 Thessalonians, 1+2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews

    You see this was the problem for the early Christians.
    To the contrary: i neither "see this;" nor was it any problem--rather it was a blessing--for the early Christians to whom Paul wrote

    Peter nowhere mentions the name of every epistle that Paul wrote or who he wrote to
    By that, r u or Catholicism teachin that Paul didn't write Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothies, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews or any combination thereof? Or is Catholicism, or u, setting forth that Paul wrote something else we have?

    Peter also nowhere mentions the complete table of contents for the new testament that would be binding on all christians.
    the NT needs no table of contents to be the NT

    what about all those other books in the new testament?
    They're written by Matthew, Mark (for Peter), Luke, John, James, and Jude. Matthew was one of the 12 disciples. John Mark was Peter and Paul's coworker. Luke was Paul's coworker. John was one of the 12. James was the Lord's younger brother. Jude was the Lord's younger brother

    how do you know what scripture is?
    I kno what it isn't

    This is the issue of the Canon.
    I've no issue with the canon, with Scripture. The NT's the NT. The OT's the OT

    without a divinly inspired table of contents, you have no way of knowing what scripture is.
    To the contrary: Scripture needs no table of contents 2 b Scripture

    How do you even know that the book of Peter that you just read is itself inspired?
    The early Christians and i both receive it as such. It itself is palpably not a forgery, as many others before me have realized; and carries the sense, authority, and tone of Peter and of Scripture. Do u or Catholicism contend that 2 P is not Scripture and/or not inspired?

    The majority of Christians for the first 300 years or so were not so sure?
    If so: that's their problem (Tho it's unso, given Muratorian Canon etc). And if that's meant to be a statement: i disagree certainly as to the 1st recipients of 2 P: whether they called 2 P 'Scripture' or not, the effect was the same. Each book from Mt-Rev were written, and sent, in the 1st place, to believers, churches. Not to unbelievers, not to heretics, not to the world, not to sects

    You historically have to rely on Catholic councils and tradition.
    To contrary: I don't. Even if by 'Catholic councils and tradition' u mean our common Christian heritage. Since both the writers and recipients of the NT PRECEDE the councils u refer to

    Where we got the bible, our debt to the Catholic church
    I'm glad Catholicism preserved, copied, and even translated the Bible through its history. Should it, or any Christian group, have done otherwise? I'm sorry Catholicism also did much to frustrate translation and preservation of the Bible. Such as the murder of William Tyndale. And the murder of speakers of the Bible such as Jan Huss. But no, given that the church of Christ is not the Catholic Church, i cannot credit the Bible to the Catholic Church

    Show me the historical proof if Im wrong
    Historically, the NT was written, and received by its recipients, from about 150-90 years before the muratorian canon. 150-90 years. That's alot of time. Hebrews, James, 1 P, and 2 P were written, and received by their rcipients, from 332-315 years before the year 382 and its council. 332-315 years. That's over 3 centuries. Equivalent to the distance between the years 1674-1691 and us (2006). Thas alot o time

    Peter does speak of Salvation or soterian in the context of verse 15.
    'Salvation' in 2 P 3:15 is not the word 'justification;' nor is it the thought of justification, as Paul used 'justification' in Romans. Since Peter wrote 2 P 3:15 about Christians

    the Catholic Council in Rome in 382 did formerly recognize and authoritativly Canonize those books for all Christians to read as God breathed scripture.
    Hebrews, James, 1 P, and 2 P were Scripture; were read or benefitted from as Scripture (such as by their original readers); were authoritative, were for all Christians, and were God-breathed (from at latest the instant they were written), about 332-315 years (comparable to the span of time between 1674/1691 and 2006) b4 the council in Rome in 382

    Mormon believe that the book of mormon is inspired scripture because they read it and prayed about it. They may tell you that they have a burning int he bosom and God spoke to thier heart and is telling them that its inspired.
    Do u, or Catholicism, find the Book of Mormon to be of the same calibre as the New, or Old, Testaments?

    They also say that there is no other book like the book of mormon. Are they right??
    No. They're mistaken, at best

    Muslims believe the same about the Koran. Are they right?
    No. At best they're mistaken

    Then how can you be?
    Itz not me. It's God. His Spirit both inspired His Scriptures, and lives in me

    YOu utilize the same arguments they do.
    Then one o' us isn't tellin the truth

    you owe your new testament canon to the Catholic church
    No i don't. Although many early, post-apostolic Christians used the word 'universal' ('catholic') to describe the church, just as i do in my language, my Bible and historical research shows me that Catholicism, a Church centered around Rome or a self-proclaimed Bishop of Rome, is neither the church who authored the NT, nor is it even the church in existence in 382 in Rome or elsewhere (tho some germinal elements were there). Instead: the particular consolidated, and applied political-religious power of a single man and office in the old Roman Empire capitol of Rome which i recognize today as the Catholic Church didn't fully commence until Gregory 1 and Justinian's laws around AD 600
     
  7. writer

    writer Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    514
    Ratings:
    +16
    in para 5's answer above, pleze include Peter. He wuz one o' the 12
     
  8. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,864
    Ratings:
    +1,394
    Religion:
    Catholic
    If by written you mean that no one else but Paul was aware of the material he was about to write, then I agree. But if by written you mean that what Paul was writing (regarding doctrinal matters) was not known by anyone but Paul, then I disagree.
     
  9. athanasius

    athanasius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,573
    Ratings:
    +123
    Mr writer,

    You said
    That we have: Romans, 1+2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1+2 Thessalonians, 1+2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews*

    my answer

    Again you have totally avoided the question. You know that those books comprise Pauls writings because your bible has a table of contents that tell you so.

    Your current bible and Church follows that table of contents because historically the Catholic church listed those New testament books as authoritative for Christians years ago in 382. Your bible came in a codex with all the books neatly packed in there. But , it was not like this for the early church.

    And again nowhere in 2 Peter does he list all of Pauls writings by name. You said he does list the canon of the bible in 2nd Peter and that is simply not true and you won’t admit it.

    Sola scriptura doesn’t tell you what the canon is does it? Then how can it, the bible alone, be the ultimate guide to doctrine if it can’t even give you what books belong in the bible and if you have to rely on Catholic authority to find out?


    History shows us the early Christians did by use of Apostolic tradition and the Catholic church’s Authoritative decrees which all Christians hold to today.


    You said

    By that, r u or Catholicism teaching that Paul didn't write Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothies, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews or any combination thereof? Or is Catholicism, or u, setting forth that Paul wrote something else we have?

    My answer

    Of coarse the Catholic church agrees with those books and considers them to be scripture. We were the First, way before protestants ever even came on the scene to recognize and authoritatively declare those books to be true inspired scripture. Your just dodging the question and I will not let you get away with that.

    you said

    the NT needs no table of contents to be the NT*

    my Answer

    Your right! The new testament needs no table of contents to “Be” the new testament. But it does need a table of contents for “you” to know what books belong in it and are inspired and what books are not.

    The only way you know this is by relying on the Catholic councils in the late 4th century. You just won’t admit it. Since you needed to go to a outside source for that, then Sola scriptura goes out the door.


    You said

    When Asked about how you know what scripture is you just said

    I know what it isn't*

    my answer

    Your dodging the question. The Muslim may say the same thing. But he would not consider the new testament to be scripture. The Truth is you have no way to know. Unless you accept the decrees of the Councils and traditions that preceded you in the Catholic Church.

    You said, Speaking of the 2nd epsitle of Peter

    The early Christians and i both receive it as such. It itself is palpably not a forgery, as many others before me have realized; and carries the sense, authority, and tone of Peter and of Scripture. Do u or Catholicism contend that 2 P is not Scripture and/or not inspired?*

    My answser

    Historical biblical and theological scholars would be shocked at your answer. As I have shown 2 Peter wasn’t considered inspired scripture by the vast majority of Christians until maybe the early to mid 300’s.

    This is a problem for you. How can you know the Canon but they did not? Simple, the canon of Scripture hadn’t been fixed yet by the Catholic Church. Once it had everyone was bound to believe it. as all do today. Again you owe your allegience for the canon to the Catholic church.

    You said

    historically, the NT was written, and received by its recipients, from about 150-90 years before the muratorian canon. 150-90 years. That's alot of time. Hebrews, James, 1 P, and 2 P were written, and received by their rcipients, from 332-315 years before the year 382 and its council. 332-315 years. That's over 3 centuries. Equivalent to the distance between the years 1674-1691 and us (2006). That's alot of time*

    my answer.

    Wow. Ok you need to read history. In the years between 33 ad -160 Ad(this would compromise a time when some of the apostles were still alive, like John) not all the books you have in your bible were ever considered scripture or inspired.

    For example. the new testament was not clearly distinguished from other Christian writings. The Gospels generally became accepted by the year 130. But the book of acts was scarcely even known or quoted by the Apostolic fathers at that time. Much of the Pauline corpus became accepted too around 130 AD but the quotations were rarely introduced as scriptural.

    the Book of Hebrews at this time was not considered canonical. The book of James was not considered canonical. Both 1 and 2 Peter were not considered canonical. 1,2,3 John were not considered canonical. Jude and Revelation was not considered canonical.

    Other books such as the Shepherd of Hermas, The didache, and the epistle of Barnabus were considered scripture and even read in public worship by the early Christians community. It wouldn’t be until much later on around the time of St Athanasius 367 Ad that he would give a list of what he thought the new testament would be.

    And even then it wouldn’t be until 382 at the council of Rome under Pope Damusus I that we would have a official authrotiative new testament canon list. All Christians follow this new testament canon of Damasus. You seem to have the false belief that as soon as a apostle wrote something then people just automatically knew it was scripture.

    Thats false, as history attest too. People even back then did not automatically know something was just part of the canon. They did not have a “burning in the bosom” like you and the mormons seem to think you have.

    They did not just know Cause God Showed them in their heart like you say you have. Remember some of these fathers were taught by the apostle themselves and they still didn’t know the new testament canon. They had to rely on Apostolic tradition and the Catholic church to tell them , just like you do without even knowing it


    When Asked how you could tell if the bible was inspired you said

    t's not me. It's God. His Spirit both inspired His Scriptures, and lives in me*

    my answer

    again your avoiding the question. How do you know what constitutes scripture if those early Christians didn’t always? Uh God just doesn’t tell you! You basically rely on your upbringing and your index in your bible with its table of contents which was taken from the Catholic Church and its Papal decrees and councils.

    If you say you do not then you would have to have read all the other books that were believed to be Christians scripture such as the epsitle of Barnabus and decide for your self. Have you read all the other books? if so How did you come to your conclusion when the early church couldn’t?


    you said

    Although many early, post-apostolic Christians used the word 'universal' ('catholic') to describe the church, just as i do in my language, my Bible and historical research shows me that Catholicism, a Church centered around Rome or a self-proclaimed Bishop of Rome, is neither the church who authored the NT, nor is it even the church in existence in 382 in Rome. Catholic Church didn't fully commence until Gregory 1 and Justinian's laws around AD 600*

    My answer

    Wow this is almost not even worth answering. I would gladly rejoice in showing you tons of historical evidence of the writings of the fathers and secular historical sources like Merruim websters encyclopedia that would prove you wrong. I will even use protestant historical sources like “The Oxford dictionary of Popes” to show you this. Maybe you need a good history lesson. But not on this subject. We are here to debate sola scriptura and your just avoiding the issue.

    Again you haven’t answered my previous questions.

    You said

    "Infant baptism" is both absent from the Bible and is counter-apostolic, counter-Scriptural. It's also not a matter of the faith

    My answer

    LoL, This sentence proves my point that sola scriptura does not work practically. Lutherans,and other Christians who go by the Bible alone would disagree with you. They would say that infant baptism is indeed in scripture and is a matter of faith. So whos right? YOu said you go by Bible alone as your authority. They do too.

    Can’t the bible alone tell the man of God what is right doctrine? If you disagree with them, then on what authority can you? Scriptural? They say the same thing to you. And yet you both come to different conclusions. Do you see what bankrupt system sola scriptura is?? Thank God that Jesus left us a infallible Church and oral apostolic Tradition to be able to know interpret the scriptures correctly.

    also What passage teaches sole sufficiency of scripture in the bible? Show me? 2 tim 3:16-17 certainly doesn’t anywhere.

    Ahh again Study history mr Writer it will help you a great deal. To become deep in history is to cease to be protestant---John Henry Newmann
     
  10. writer

    writer Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    514
    Ratings:
    +16
    229 Study history mr Writer
    Likewise Mr Athanasius

    To become deep in history is to cease to be protestant
    Altho that's true, it's only half the story. To become deep in history's also to 'cease to be Catholic'

    Again you have totally avoided the question.
    'gain, i've answered your question, despite any seemin silliness on its part

    You know that those books comprise Pauls writings because your bible has a table of contents that tell you so.
    To contrary, Romans-Philemon themselves state that they're from Paul. Have you ever read 'em Mr A? Hebrews includes mention of Timothy, and also locations Paul was (amung other things)

    ...it's not like this for the the early church
    To contrary: Paul wrote his own name, and his coworkers' names (eg "Paul, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ...") in his letters: Romans-Philemon. As well as the name(s) of those to whom he addressed them and those in the churches he greeted. And Paul was a member of the early church. Unless you're thinking of some other church

    nowhere in 2 Peter does he list all of Pauls writings by name. You said he does list the canon of the bible in 2nd Peter and that is simply not true and you won’t admit it.
    Respectfully dear sir: 2 P 3:15-16 reads: "all" of Paul's letters. Which 1 or more o' Romans-Hebrews do you, or Catholicism, exclude from "all"? In any case: Paul's letters, as well as the NT, as well as all Scripture; need no table of contents 2 b Paul's letters, the NT, and Scripture
     
  11. athanasius

    athanasius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,573
    Ratings:
    +123
    Mr writer,

    You said

    To become deep in history is to also cease to be Catholic*

    My answer

    My dear Mr writer. How can you ignore all the historians and historical evidences for the Catholic faith. The Protestant “Oxford Dictionary of the Popes”written by JND Kelly goes through all the historic Popes from Peter to our Current Pope.

    This list is also in secular historical sources such as Merrium webster encyclopedia. The Fathers themselves called the Church “Catholic” Such as Ignatius who was taught by the apostle John himself. Ignatius also talked about the authority of the church of Rome and the Papal presidency.

    Ignatius and the other early Christians believed that the eucharist was and became the flesh and blood of Christ(Just like Catholics teach). They(Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Ireneaus, etc...) all taught the Mass to be a “Sacrifice”, which is also what Catholics teach.

    They Spoke on the Authority of Apostolic Tradition and not just scripture alone, which is also what Catholics teach. They prayed for the dead, which is what Catholics do. They Prayed to Mary and the saints, Which is what Catholics do. They practiced infant baptism, just like Catholics. The Proof is in the pudding.

    If you really think that the early church wasn’t catholic you must be blinded by your own prejudice. I would be happy to demonstrate at length from the writings of these fathers that they were completely in line with Catholic teachings and called themselves Catholics.

    I would also use protestant sources to show this. You sir really have bitten off more than you can chew with that question. But you are trying to side track the issue, the real issue is Sola scriptura, I won’t let you forget it.

    When I said you needed the table of contents in your bible to know what books belong in the bible ,you said


    To the contrary, Romans-Philemon themselves state that they're from Paul

    My answer

    Again, its very nice that these books state that they are from the Apostles, but so did many other writings that claimed to be scripture. The Gospel of thomas was supposed to be written by Thomas etc...

    The only way you really know that these books were apostolic is from the Catholics churches Tradition telling you so. You still haven’t answered me. Have you read all the other books that were believed to be Christians scripture such as the epistle of Barnabus and decide for your self. Have you read all the other books? if so How did you come to your conclusion when the early church couldn’t?

    You said

    To the contrary: Paul wrote his own name

    my answer

    Uh huh. How do you know it was the Paul of the apostles or really Paul at all and not a imposter. You must rely on tradition outside of the bible for that and the Catholic churches authority. Again, sola scriptura historically goes out the door.


    Mr Writer you might as well admit defeat. No christian has ever believed in sola scriptura in history in the first 1300 or so years. No father of the church ever taught it. I challenge you to show me one

    You cannot answer why you believe that the 27 books of the new testament are scripture. You cannot answer why you accept the historical canon. You say that you do because those books say they are written by a apostle. I showed how you only know they were because of Tradition and the Catholic decrees of councils.

    You said that You also knew they were scriptural because God gave you a spiritual insight. I showed that the muslim and mormon say the same thing. That argument goes out the door. Ultimately the way you know what the canon is is by reading your table of contents in the bible. That info was taken historically from the Catholic church and her traditions.

    Hence you rely on the Catholic Church and her apostolic traditions to even know what the canon of the new testament is. Therefore Sola scriptura is false. You say that I need to study history.

    Well, if what Im saying is false then show me historically. You haven't done so yet. I have shown you. And I have even given you Catholic, Secular and Protestant historical resources to find this info but you gave me no answer.

    Again, I am going to ask you this question that you keep ignoring. Mr Writer, if Sola Scriptura is true then answer me this:

    you said

    "Infant baptism" is both absent from the Bible and is counter-apostolic, counter-Scriptural. It's also not a matter of the faith

    My answer

    LoL, This sentence proves my point that sola scriptura does not work practically. Lutherans,and other Christians who go by the Bible alone would disagree with you. They would say that infant baptism is indeed in scripture and is a matter of faith. So who’s right? YOu said you go by Bible alone as your authority. They do too.

    Can’t the bible alone tell the man of God what is right doctrine? If you disagree with them, then on what authority can you? Scriptural? They say the same thing to you. And yet you both come to different conclusions. Do you see what bankrupt system sola scriptura is?? Thank God that Jesus left us a infallible Church and oral apostolic Tradition to be able to know interpret the scriptures correctly.

    also What passage teaches sole sufficiency of scripture in the bible? Show me? 2 tim 3:16-17 certainly doesn’t anywhere.

    Its understandable why you have been avoiding this question for the past 3 times I have ask it. Its because you do not have a good answer. This is again another nail in the Coffin of the false protestant doctrine of Sola scriptura.

    Looking forward to hearing from you again.

    In Jesus through Mary Bless you
     
  12. athanasius

    athanasius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,573
    Ratings:
    +123
    Mr writer,

    You said

    To become deep in history is to also cease to be Catholic*

    My answer

    My dear Mr writer. How can you ignore all the historians and historical evidences for the Catholic faith. The Protestant “Oxford Dictionary of the Popes”written by JND Kelly goes through all the historic Popes from Peter to our Current Pope.

    This list is also in secular historical sources such as Merrium webster encyclopedia. The Fathers themselves called the Church “Catholic” Such as Ignatius who was taught by the apostle John himself. Ignatius also talked about the authority of the church of Rome and the Papal presidency.

    Ignatius and the other early Christians believed that the eucharist was and became the flesh and blood of Christ(Just like Catholics teach). They(Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Ireneaus, etc...) all taught the Mass to be a “Sacrifice”, which is also what Catholics teach.

    They Spoke on the Authority of Apostolic Tradition and not just scripture alone, which is also what Catholics teach. They prayed for the dead, which is what Catholics do. They Prayed to Mary and the saints, Which is what Catholics do. They practiced infant baptism, just like Catholics. The Proof is in the pudding.

    If you really think that the early church wasn’t catholic you must be blinded by your own prejudice. I would be happy to demonstrate at length from the writings of these fathers that they were completely in line with Catholic teachings and called themselves Catholics.

    I would also use protestant sources to show this. You sir really have bitten off more than you can chew with that question. But you are trying to side track the issue, the real issue is Sola scriptura, I won’t let you forget it.

    When I said you needed the table of contents in your bible to know what books belong in the bible ,you said


    To the contrary, Romans-Philemon themselves state that they're from Paul

    My answer

    Again, its very nice that these books state that they are from the Apostles, but so did many other writings that claimed to be scripture. The Gospel of thomas was supposed to be written by Thomas etc...

    The only way you really know that these books were apostolic is from the Catholics churches Tradition telling you so. You still haven’t answered me. Have you read all the other books that were believed to be Christians scripture such as the epistle of Barnabus and decide for your self. Have you read all the other books? if so How did you come to your conclusion when the early church couldn’t?

    You said

    To the contrary: Paul wrote his own name

    my answer

    Uh huh. How do you know it was the Paul of the apostles or really Paul at all and not a imposter. You must rely on tradition outside of the bible for that and the Catholic churches authority. Again, sola scriptura historically goes out the door.


    Mr Writer you might as well admit defeat. No christian has ever believed in sola scriptura in history in the first 1300 or so years. No father of the church ever taught it. I challenge you to show me one

    You cannot answer why you believe that the 27 books of the new testament are scripture. You cannot answer why you accept the historical canon. You say that you do because those books say they are written by a apostle. I showed how you only know they were because of Tradition and the Catholic decrees of councils. You said that You also knew they were scriptural because God gave you a spiritual insight. I showed that the muslim and mormon say the same thing. That argument goes out the door. Ultimately the way you know what the canon is is by reading your table of contents in the bible. That info was taken historically from the Catholic church and her traditions. Hence you rely on the Catholic Church and her apostolic traditions to even know what the canon of the new testament is. Therefore Sola scriptura is false. You say that I need to study history. Well, if what Im saying is false then show me historically. You haven't done so yet. I have shown you. And I have even given you Catholic, Secular and Protestant historical resources to find this info but you gave me no answer.

    Again, I am going to ask you this question that you keep ignoring. Mr Writer, if Sola Scriptura is true then answer me this:

    you said

    "Infant baptism" is both absent from the Bible and is counter-apostolic, counter-Scriptural. It's also not a matter of the faith

    My answer

    LoL, This sentence proves my point that sola scriptura does not work practically. Lutherans,and other Christians who go by the Bible alone would disagree with you. They would say that infant baptism is indeed in scripture and is a matter of faith. So who’s right? YOu said you go by Bible alone as your authority. They do too.

    Can’t the bible alone tell the man of God what is right doctrine? If you disagree with them, then on what authority can you? Scriptural? They say the same thing to you. And yet you both come to different conclusions. Do you see what bankrupt system sola scriptura is?? Thank God that Jesus left us a infallible Church and oral apostolic Tradition to be able to know interpret the scriptures correctly.

    also What passage teaches sole sufficiency of scripture in the bible? Show me? 2 tim 3:16-17 certainly doesn’t anywhere.

    Its understandable why you have been avoiding this question for the past 3 times I have ask it. Its because you do not have a good answer. This is again another nail in the Coffin of the false protestant doctrine of Sola scriptura.

    Looking forward to hearing from you again.

    In Jesus through Mary Bless you
     
  13. writer

    writer Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    514
    Ratings:
    +16
    231 The Protestant “Oxford Dictionary of the Popes”written by JND Kelly goes through all the historic Popes from Peter to our Current Pope
    Peter wuz ne'er a Pope. As his Lord said: Don't call anyone on earth your father, for One's your Father, He who's in the heavens. As Paul wrote: Paul and Timothy, slaves of Christ Jesus, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the overseerS and deacons. And spoke to the elders of the church in Ephesus: Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among whom the Holy Spirit has placed you as overseerS to shepherd the church of God, which He obtained through His own blood [emphasis added]. The episkopos per local church, per the apostles, and others, were always plural in number. Never a singular bishop. Nor is any church the headquarters church in the NT, or its elders/overseers any positional leaders of the church on the whole earth. Lastly, as Luke and Paul recorded, Peter even no longer took the lead in the church in Jerusalem eventually, as indicated by Acts 15:7, 13; Galatians 2:11-14

    This list is also in secular historical sources such as Merrium webster encyclopedia.
    Thnx. I find the NT to be a more accurate, and more trustworthy source, concerning the apostolic teaching and pattern

    The Fathers themselves called the Church “Catholic” Such as Ignatius who was taught by the apostle John himself.
    'ddressed this in last para o' 226

    Ignatius also talked about the authority of the church of Rome and the Papal presidency.
    Perhaps u could quote his words so that we can examine them publicly. In any case, where Ignatius contradicts the apostles, i'm forced, dear A, to choose the apostles

    Ignatius and the other early Christians believed that the eucharist was and became the flesh and blood of Christ(Just like Catholics teach).
    Other early Christians, such as the apostles, and Augustine (to jump to the late 300s), did not. God is uncreated. He's not created in a fantasy-Eucharist ritual. Nor's Jesus Christ dumb, speechless, motionless, piece of physical bread (like many Catholics apparently teach)

    They(Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Ireneaus, etc...) all taught the Mass to be a “Sacrifice”, which is also what Catholics teach.
    The Lord's Table, His Supper, in the NT is never called, and never is, a 'Mass.' I'd be curious too if you're claming Ign, JM, or Iren ever used your word 'Mass.' Did they? As the apostle Paul wrote: Don't be carried away by various strange teachings, for it is good for the heart to be confirmed by grace, NOT by the food of sacrifices, by which those who walk were not profited (see also his King's statement concerning outward, physical, foods, in Mark 7:15; and 1 Cor 6:13). This kind of statement by Paul indicates just how much Catholicism attempts to be a kind of sad, different, reversion to Judaism and the old covenant in its superstitious, formalized, outward kind of worship. And how much just such a sad tendency might exist in all believers.
    Paul also wrote, nearby: Through Him then let us offer up a sacrifice of praise continually to God, that is, the fruit of lips confessing His name (Heb 13:15). And: Present your bodies a living sacrifice (Rom 12:1). Us Christians' entire being and life should be a sacrifice. Surely this includes the Lord's Supper and during that meeting.
    Christ's own, living, Body sacrifices itself to her Head. That bread represents Him Himself (Mt 26:26), 1stly. And His Body His church 2ndly (1 Cor 5:7; 10:17; Jn 12:24). However it is a gross distortion, and distraction from the living God and Christ Himself, who is present in Spirit and in resurrection and indwelling His saints, to suggest that the church, or anyone who breaks the bread, is thereby 'sacrificing' the bread itself to God, as some kind of outward, physical, objective, literal sacrifice. This is Judaistic and ridiculous at best. As Paul wrote in Hebrews 10:9-10: He then has said, Behold, I've come to do Your will. He takes away the first that He may establish the second, by which will we've been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
    Take care sir
     
  14. athanasius

    athanasius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,573
    Ratings:
    +123
    Mr Writer you said

    Peter was never a Pope. As his Lord said: Don't call anyone on earth your father, for One's your Father, He who's in the heavens.

    My answer

    I quoted form you several historical sources to find such things. You simply ignore the historical sources. You blind yourself to the truth and ignore all the evidence.

    I would be happy to show your scripturally how this is on ANOTHER forum page that deals with this specific issue, but right now your avoiding the real issue, which is SOLA SCRIPTURA. I do not have to prove the Papacy on this forum. YOU however DO have to prove Sola Scriptura.

    You haven’t even begun to answer my questions I posed to you. Again I understand why, its because you can’t answer them. So lets try this again. Your doctrine(Sola Scriptura) is on trial here. So I would argue that Sola scriptura is not practical and not workable. I argue this on the basis of this question:

    You said, that"Infant baptism" is both absent from the Bible and is counter-apostolic, counter-Scriptural. It's also not a matter of the faith

    My answer

    LoL, This sentence proves my point that sola scriptura does not work practically. Lutherans,and other Christians who go by the Bible alone would disagree with you. They would say that infant baptism is indeed in scripture and is a matter of faith. So who’s right? YOu said you go by Bible alone as your authority. They do too.

    Can’t the bible alone tell the man of God what is right doctrine? If you disagree with them, then on what authority can you? Scriptural? They say the same thing to you. And yet you both come to different conclusions.

    Do you see what bankrupt system sola scriptura is?? Thank God that Jesus left us a infallible Church and oral apostolic Tradition to be able to know interpret the scriptures correctly.

    You are also incorrect about not calling anyone father. Jesus was referring to not making anyone equal to the heavenly father. Catholics do not make anyone equal to the heavenly father.

    But we do have spiritual fathers, just like we have normal fathers. Now let me ask you this Mr writer. Do you ever call your Dad “Father”? Instead of saying” happy Fathers day”, do you say “Happy male Parents day” out of fear of violating Jesus command? Jesus himself calls Abraham father in (Luke 16:24) in his parables.

    St Paul who was a Apostle himself was a spiritual father to his congregation.

    “ For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).


    John also addresses men in his congregations as "fathers" (1 John 2:13–14).

    And so did Stephen (Acts 7:2), where Stephen refers to "our father Abraham.”


    Just like Paul who considered himself to have a spiritual fatherhood with his flock, so do we Catholics consider the Pope our spiritual father(NOT heavenly Father). So your just wrong.

    The REAL subject of this debate is sola scriptura. YOu need to prove it. I am holding you to it.

    Again, You cannot answer why you believe that the 27 books of the new testament are scripture. You cannot answer why you accept the historical canon. You say that you do because those books say they are written by a apostle.

    Again, its very nice that these books state that they are from the Apostles, but so did many other writings that claimed to be scripture. I showed how you only know they were scripture because of Tradition and the Catholic decrees of councils.

    You said that You also knew they were scriptural because God gave you a spiritual insight. I showed that the muslim and mormon say the same thing. That argument goes out the door.

    Ultimately the way you know what the canon is is by reading your table of contents in the bible. That info was taken historically from the Catholic church and her traditions.

    Hence you rely on the Catholic Church and her apostolic traditions to even know what the canon of the new testament is.

    You still haven’t answered me. Have you read all the other books that were believed to be Christians scripture such as the epistle of Barnabus and decide for your self. Have you read all the other books?

    if so How did you come to your conclusion when the early church couldn’t? Therefore Sola scriptura is false.

    Well, if what Im saying is false then show me historically. You haven't done so yet. I have shown you. And I have even given you Catholic, Secular and Protestant historical resources to find this info but you gave me no answer.


    You said

    Perhaps you could quote his words so that we can examine them publicly. In any case, where Ignatius contradicts the apostles, i'm forced, dear A, to choose the apostles

    My answer

    Well you have a clever way of phrasing this. First you say show me the proof from Ignatius historically. Thats cool I can. But then you say, If ignatius contradicts the apostles your forced to disregard it.

    Of coarse ignatius doesn't contradict the gospels, but WHAT YOUR REALLY SAYING is

    “If you show me a quote where Ignatius does consider the Bishop of Rome to Have primacy and Presidency over the church I will just disregard it anyway because I don’t want to believe it.”

    That is what you really mean. That is very slick wording. I could very well give you a quote that would show my point, but why bother, either which way you would just disregard it because it contradicts what you want to believe. This is sad because you cannot even look to objective historical evidence.(As jesus would say, why cast pearls....)

    Either way, Again this Forum isn’t about the Pope, its About SOLA SCRIPTURA. I am going to hold you to that. How about another question you keep avoiding. “Where does the bible teach sola scriptura”? You seem to imply that it is in (2 tim 3:16-17). Ok here is your glaring moment.

    Here is you chance to prove to all the Catholics that this passage does. Show me. Show me how it does. Remember Your the one on trial here with the burden of proof, not me. YOu havn’t been able to answer my questions.


    You said

    Other early Christians, such as the apostles, and Augustine, did not. He's not created in a fantasy-Eucharist ritual.


    My answer

    Again MR Writer the Topic is Sola scriptura not the eucharist. Augustine believied in the same thing that Catholics do about the eucharist. You have to read Augustines writings as a whole and not just piecemeal.

    He said

    “Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body he said, ‘this is my Body’ For he carried that Body in his hands.”(Augustine Ad 410 exposition on the psalms)

    He also said in regards to the Eucharist.

    “That bread which you see on the alter, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS the BODY OF CHRIST. ...What you see is the bread and chalice; that is what your eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread IS the BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.”(Augustine AD 411 Sermon 272)

    So your wrong Augustine did believe in the same thing we catholics teach about the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. YOur not fooling anybody who has actually read the fathers.

    But this does bring up something very interesting. Why are you quoting a 4th century Catholic Bishop? If you view his statements to be authoritative on the eucharist, then why not agree with him on the other issues he rasies.

    Augustine also said

    “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)”


    Would you agree with Augustine on this? He certainly doesn’t seem to be teaching sola scriptura.

    If Sola scriptura is true, then what do you do with the Lutheran who adheres to the bible alone as thier sole authority and dissagrees with you over the nature of the eucharist.

    YOu do not believe that the real body of christ is present in the eucharist. YOu believe in a mere spiritual presence of his body but, the Lutheran does believe that the real Body of christ is present in the eucharist(along with bread and Wine).

    The Lutheran say s that when jesus Said this is my Body, he meant it. He gave us his actual body(along with bread and wine). But you do not agree. The baptist also take this one step further and say that the bread and wine are just symbolic.

    The Lutheran, the Baptist, and yourself all dissagree about what communion really is. Who is right? Are you right? If so by what authority do you have to make that decsion?

    By Biblical authority alone and the Holy spirit guiding you? The Lutheran and Baptist will say the same thing. Yet you all come to different conclusions. How can that be?

    You are all going by the bible alone, and all asking the Holy spirit to guide you? Can’t scripture(the sole rule of faith) guide you into correct doctrine? Do you see how Sola scriptura doesn’t work?

    The truth is scripture alone cannot. That is why God gave us a infallible and authoritative Church(Luke 10:16, Matt 18:15-19) to speak for him. That is also why we need to adhere to the complete word of God in tradition(2 thess 2:15) too.


    If it took the Catholic church and her apostolic traditions to give us the canon of the new testament as protestant and Catholic historical sources show(Which you have ignored) then how could the bible alone be our sole source for doctrine.





    God bless you in Jesus through Mary
    You said
     
  15. writer

    writer Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    514
    Ratings:
    +16
    234 I quoted form you several historical sources to find such things. You simply ignore the historical sources
    To the contrary: i didn't ignore your quotes. I responded to them. Directly. Even quoting them. Furthermore: r u suggesting that the NT is not a 'historical source'? Nor 4 u? Not 4 Catholicism?

    You blind yourself to the truth and ignore all the evidence.
    To the contrary, i've humbly sought to quote to you the Scriptural sources and truth as evidence to respond to your comments

    your avoiding the real issue, which is SOLA SCRIPTURA.
    i've not avoided it. We've discussed it. Much. No?

    YOU however DO have to prove Sola Scriptura.
    Prove Scripture's preeminent as God's written authority? What else is?

    You haven’t even begun to answer my questions I posed to you.
    To contrary: i've answered all that i can as slow as i am. Pleze forgive me
     
  16. athanasius

    athanasius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,573
    Ratings:
    +123
    When I said I used Catholic, Protestant and secular historical sources to prove writer was wrong he said

    on the contrary: i didn't ignore your quotes. I responded to them. Directly. Even quoting them. Furthermore: r u suggesting that the NT is not a 'historical source'? Nor 4 u? Not 4 Catholicism?

    My answer
    When did you ever really respond to the historical sources, such as the oxfords dictionary of Popes or the the book "Where we got the bible our debt to the catholic church"? Better yet when have you ever quoted these sources to me?

    When have you ever quoted the fathers to me? I showed in the last post how you missused Augustine writings and falsey believed he taught something other than the Catholic understadning of the eucharist. I disporved you? Did you quote me him??

    I don't think you have ever read him. He was a Catholic Bishop who honered the Pope and the Churches Authrotiative traditions.

    The only thing that you really said to me is that you dissagree with all of these guys(The Fathers) becuase you think they go against your private understadning of how the bible needs to be interpreted.

    You really haven't quoted or shown me any evidence why I shouldn't believe in the Oxford Dictionary of Popes as a historical referecneor the Websters Encyclopedia all of which show Peter historically being the first Pope.

    I know this is not what the discussion is supposed to be about. I just thought I would point that out to you since you have made such dubious statements. We must stick to the discussion of sola scriptura and not get side tracked.

    When have you shown me my historical sources for disproving sola scriptura are not true. Have you read "Where we got he Bible our debt to the Catholic church"? I would say no! You have shown me absolutly no historical evidence for your position.

    Can you historically disprove that the Council of Rome and Hippo and Carthage didn't close the canon? Can you prove to me that the early Chrsitians knew what the entire canon of the new testament was before 382 or at least 367 A.D.?? I have given you tons of evidnece for the canon which you ignored.

    So Maybe I should ask you. What Father of the church taught Sola Scriptura? Can you give me a quote? A Name? Did anybody teach this before the 1300's? If you can show me a example , we might be able to dialgue.

    You say that you studied the Fathers, here's your chance to prove it! If you cannot show me one, then this means that sola scriptura is a late doctrine...a novel doctrine, a man made doctrine never in church history seen before.

    Hence if nobody has ever taught this before its false. Its about 1300 hundred years to late. If noone has ever taught this and if it took Catholic tradition and the Catholic councils to show us what books belong to the new testament canon(as Protestant and Catholic historical sources show) then why on earth would someone believe in Sola Scriptura?

    Now the other questions you have been avoiding. For the 6th time I will ask you both of them again. I hope sola scriptura can answer this for me:

    You said, that"Infant baptism" is both absent from the Bible and is counter-apostolic, counter-Scriptural. It's also not a matter of the faith

    My answer

    LoL, This sentence proves my point that sola scriptura does not work practically. Lutherans,and other Christians who go by the Bible alone would disagree with you. They would say that infant baptism is indeed in scripture and is a matter of faith. So who’s right? YOu said you go by Bible alone as your authority. They do too.

    Can’t the bible alone tell the man of God what is right doctrine? If you disagree with them, then on what authority can you? Scriptural? They say the same thing to you. And yet you both come to different conclusions.

    Do you see what bankrupt system sola scriptura is?? Thank God that Jesus left us a infallible Church and oral apostolic Tradition to be able to know interpret the scriptures correctly.

    If Sola scriptura is true, then what do you do with the Lutheran who adheres to the bible alone as thier sole authority and dissagrees with you over the nature of the eucharist.

    YOu do not believe that the real body of christ is present in the eucharist. YOu believe in a mere spiritual presence of his body but, the Lutheran does believe that the real Body of christ is present in the eucharist(along with bread and Wine).

    The Lutheran say s that when jesus Said this is my Body, he meant it. He gave us his actual body(along with bread and wine). But you do not agree. The baptist also take this one step further and say that the bread and wine are just symbolic.

    The Lutheran, the Baptist, and yourself all dissagree about what communion really is. Who is right? Are you right? If so by what authority do you have to make that decsion?

    By Biblical authority alone and the Holy spirit guiding you? The Lutheran and Baptist will say the same thing. Yet you all come to different conclusions. How can that be?

    You are all going by the bible alone, and all asking the Holy spirit to guide you? Can’t scripture(the sole rule of faith) guide you into correct doctrine? Do you see how Sola scriptura doesn’t work?

    The truth is scripture alone cannot. That is why God gave us a infallible and authoritative Church(Luke 10:16, Matt 18:15-19) to speak for him. That is also why we need to adhere to the complete word of God in tradition(2 thess 2:15) too.

    again, You cannot answer why you believe that the 27 books of the new testament are scripture. You cannot answer why you accept the historical canon. You say that you do because those books say they are written by a apostle.

    Again, its very nice that these books state that they are from the Apostles, but so did many other writings that claimed to be scripture. I showed how you only know they were scripture because of Tradition and the Catholic decrees of councils.

    You said that You also knew they were scriptural because God gave you a spiritual insight. I showed that the muslim and mormon say the same thing. That argument goes out the door.

    Ultimately the way you know what the canon is is by reading your table of contents in the bible. That info was taken historically from the Catholic church and her traditions.

    Hence you rely on the Catholic Church and her apostolic traditions to even know what the canon of the new testament is.

    You still haven’t answered me. Have you read all the other books that were believed to be Christians scripture such as the epistle of Barnabus and decide for your self. Have you read all the other books?

    if so How did you come to your conclusion when the early church couldn’t? Therefore Sola scriptura is false.

    Well, if what Im saying is false then show me historically. You haven't done so yet. I have shown you. And I have even given you Catholic, Secular and Protestant historical resources to find this info but you gave me no answer.

    Can you refute the protestant historical sources like the book "Early Christians doctrines" or "the Oxford dictionary of the Popes" by Kelly who show that Catholic Tradition is resposnsible for our knoweldge of the Canon? Can you refute the catholic historical sources such as "Where we Got the bible, our debt to the Catholic church" By Graham. Can you refute the fathers and councils themselves in thier writings on tradition ? You say your studied Church history and fathers? Go ahead show me.

    Also How about another question you keep avoiding. “Where does the bible teach sola scriptura”? You seem to imply that it is in (2 tim 3:16-17). Ok here is your glaring moment.

    Here is you chance to prove to all the Catholics that this passage does. Show me. Show me how it does. Remember Your the one on trial here with the burden of proof, not me. YOu havn’t been able to answer my questions.

    I was going to dialgue with you on the blessed Virgin in the Other forums, but it seems clear that if you do not know what divine revelation is in its totallity(Scripture and Tradition 2:thess 2:15) then you will not be able to even remotely understand the fullness of Gods word about the virgin. or really any other topic. Authority must be the first topic to be resolved. and you havn't resolved it. You havn't answered my questions or refuted the historical evidences I brought up.

    So until then I cannot debate you on another thread*(though it is tempting). Once we understand authority(is it scripture alone or is it Scripture and tradition with the Guidence of the Catholic church). Then we can go onto other areas.

    I do not think you have fooled anybody here. Your doctrine is still on trial. Sola Scriptura has still not been proved. And until then, we can't begin to answer the other questions with clarity. I can't waite to hear from you

    Bless you in Jesus through Mary
     
  17. writer

    writer Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    514
    Ratings:
    +16
    236 When did you ever really respond to the historical sources, such as the oxfords dictionary of Popes...
    pg 24, post 233, para 1

    ...or the the book "Where we got the bible our debt to the catholic church"?
    Pg 23, post 226, para 12

    Better yet when have you ever quoted these sources to me?
    Az abuv-mentioned specific posts indicate: i find New Testament to be more authoritative, and accurate, a source then Oxford's Dictionary of Popes and Where We Got the Bible Our Debt to the Catholic Church

    You really haven't quoted or shown me any evidence why I shouldn't believe in the Oxford Dictionary of Popes as a historical referecneor the Websters Encyclopedia all of which show Peter historically being the first Pope
    To the contrary: my quoted evidences in post 233, para 1 were Matthew 23:9; Philippians 1:1; Acts 20:28. And my cited evidences were Acts 15:7, 13; and Galatians 2:11-13

    When have you ever quoted the fathers to me?
    (I quoted Athanasius once somewhere. Otherwise i haven't.) Is the point u seek to make, dear friend, that so-called 'fathers' r more authoritative than the apostles, the New Testament? If so: i disagree. Furthermore i disagree that in all cases so-called 'fathers' interpretations r necessarily more apostolic or accurate. Az illustrated in many specific topics we've addressed

    234 Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body he said, ‘this is my Body’ For he carried that Body in his hands
    Christ both could not, and did not need to, carry His own literal body in His hands. Christ's hands ARE His own body. Parts of it. Nor did His disciples physically bite off His hands. Nor would they need to. Nor would it do them, or anyone, any good if they had. Az the Lord Jesus said (and did) in another context as a summary: It's the Spirit who gives life [and 1 Cor 15:45b]. The flesh profits nothing. The words which I speak to you are spirit and are life (Jn 6:63). Nor does Augustine, by repeating a symbol (This's My body, Mt 26:26), mean that Mt 26:26's not Christ utilizin symbolism

    236 He was a Catholic Bishop...
    Catholicism as it is today: w/ a laffable office or man claming to be headquarters or head of Christ's Body on earth, didn't xist in Augustine's time

    234 That bread which you see on the alter, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS the BODY OF CHRIST. ...What you see is the bread and chalice; that is what your eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread IS the BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.
    Symbolically 'tis (Mt 26:26)

    236 The only thing that you really said to me is that you dissagree with all of these guys(The Fathers) becuase you think they go against your private understadning of how the bible needs to be interpreted.
    To contrary: in addition to disagreeing with their wrong, or counter-Scriptural statements only; i've quoted my Scriptural basis and pointed out exactly how statements of theirs in question contradict the Scripture, the apostles

    234 Why are you quoting a 4th century Catholic Bishop?
    I didn't quote Augustine yet. U did. I've merely duplicated the quotes you copied. To respond

    If you view his statements to be authoritative on the eucharist, then why not agree with him on the other issues he rasies.
    As i've tried to mention to you: The Lord and apostles in the NT r more authoritative than Augustine. Indeed, Augustine, just like you and i, has zero authority in regard to teaching except what's derived from them.
    In regard to your question about 'other issues': i'm glad to discuss teachings on a teaching by teaching (issue by issue) basis. In fact, that's kinda what we've begun doing

    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"
    What observances?
    Thanx Mr A
     
  18. athanasius

    athanasius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,573
    Ratings:
    +123
    Dear Mr writer

    When I asked you when you responded to my historical sources Writer said he did in Post post 233, para 1.

    My answer
    YOU did not respond to how you can historically disprove the oxford dictionary of Popes. Its a protestant publication, so its not really Catholic friendly in many ways.

    All you have done is quote what you think scripture says. Well there are alot of people who would quote scripture too but not agree with you, as Dr Kelly does in his book. They can see that Peter in Scripture had a clear leadership role with a clear office of Primacy.

    They go by the scriptures? Are they wrong? With what authority do you have to say that they are? Biblical authority? They would say the same thing.

    You see this is why you need to go and look to the fathers and history because without the traditions of the fathers, you can just argue back and forth all day long about how to interpret a passage.

    We need to see how this passage was historically exegeted and lived in the early Christian community. This is why tradition is so important. When early Heresies arose(Like Arianism) the fathers of the church(Like Athanasias) often times could not just use scripture to defend orthodox positions(Like the Divinity of Christ).

    Why? Because many times the heretical group itself would use the same scriptures and just put a twist to them. So the Fathers of the Church often times had to use Catholic Tradition to show what is true Christian teaching. This is why Sola scriptura simply doesn’t work.

    All the early heresies prove my point. The Church to know what the new testament canon was would look to the books that didn’t contradict the oral Catholic tradition of faith they had been taught then decide if it was inspired and scripture or not.

    This historical point is brought up over and over again in Protestant works like JND Kelly’s book “Early Christian Doctrines” on Pages 40, 49, and 50. Eventually once all the books had become recognized in the 300’s then councils were held to Authoritatively declare the canon and to throw out the other books that were believed to be part of scripture like the epistle of Barnabus.

    Ok you see why you really haven’t answered the question. Your answer does nothing but quote scripture to me. As Dr Kelly and other historians show that doesn’t work because you only know those books of scripture are authoritative and part of the canon because your index and table of contents tells you so.

    But, the table of contents which you have in your bible that shows the new testament canon got its information historically from the Catholic church and its Catholic Traditions. This is why Sola scriptura don’t work

    Do you understand that is just a historical fact? So just quoting scripture doesn’t answer the questions. Remember you cannot prove that scripture alone is the sole source just by quoting scripture alone. Remember, the Heretics in the early church would use the same tactic you do.

    YOu have to use what the Christian Catholic Church has historically always used from the earliest times to test true doctrine. YOu must use Apostolic Catholic tradition. Hence, sola scriptura is false. History proves it.

    If you want to answer this question then you must show me in history where the any one of the early fathers ever taught sola scriptura. You must also show me where history shows that all early christians believed in the same new testament canon you do. I have already shown that they didn’t via..the many canons they had such as the Mutorian fragment.

    If they didn’t even know the entire new testament canon and they had to rely on Catholic tradition outside of the canon to give you the canon, then how can sola scriptura be believed by them?

    I am going to ask you another question(we will just add it to the list you already haven't answered). If sola scriptura is true, then why do you have 30,000 different protestant denominations. All of them claim to go by the bible alone. All of them claim to be led by Gods Holy Spirit.

    All of them teach different doctrine. Again how can this be? Can you disagree with them? If so by what authority? biblical authority and the Holy Spirit ? They would say the same thing to you. In reality you have real way of getting to truth of doctrine.

    All you can do is just give it the old college try and if someone disagrees with you, you can just say “ I think this is what this pasage means" or "Thats not what this passage means” and start your own church. Its a bankrupt system.

    You do not have a the advantage of Tradition, which is essentially 2000 years of hindsight from those who have been taught by apostles and have interpreted these passages before you.

    You also have no infallible Authoritative church to look to the scripture and the tradition and make authoritative statements about doctrine and other issues( Matt 18:15-19; Acts 15). You just have the bible alone and your best guess.

    The Catholic church has the historical advantage of tradition and the Church to help us know and interpret what scripture really is and means.

    Again I asked you honestly, If sola Scriptura is true:
    You said, that "Infant baptism" is both absent from the Bible and is counter-apostolic, counter-Scriptural. It's also not a matter of the faith

    My answer

    LoL, This sentence proves my point that sola scriptura does not work practically. Lutherans,and other Christians who go by the Bible alone would disagree with you. They would say that infant baptism is indeed in scripture and is a matter of faith. So who’s right? YOu said you go by Bible alone as your authority. They do too.

    Can’t the bible alone tell the man of God what is right doctrine? If you disagree with them, then on what authority can you? Scriptural? They say the same thing to you. And yet you both come to different conclusions.

    Do you see what bankrupt system sola scriptura is??

    If Sola scriptura is true, then what do you do with the Lutheran who adheres to the bible alone as their sole authority and disagrees with you over the nature of the eucharist.

    YOu do not believe that the real body of christ is present in the eucharist. YOu believe in a mere spiritual presence of his body but, the Lutheran does believe that the real Body of christ is present in the eucharist(along with bread and Wine).

    The Lutheran say s that when jesus Said this is my Body, he meant it. He gave us his actual body(along with bread and wine). But you do not agree. The baptist also take this one step further and say that the bread and wine are just symbolic.

    The Lutheran, the Baptist, and yourself all disagree about what communion really is. Who is right? Are you right? If so by what authority do you have to make that decision?

    By Biblical authority alone and the Holy spirit guiding you? The Lutheran and Baptist will say the same thing. Yet you all come to different conclusions. How can that be?

    You are all going by the bible alone, and all asking the Holy spirit to guide you? Can’t scripture(the sole rule of faith) guide you into correct doctrine? Do you see how Sola scriptura doesn’t work?

    The truth is scripture alone cannot. That is why God gave us a infallible and authoritative Church(Luke 10:16, Matt 18:15-19) to speak for him. That is also why we need to adhere to the complete word of God in tradition(2 thess 2:15) too.

    again, You cannot answer why you believe that the 27 books of the new testament are scripture. You cannot answer why you accept the historical canon. You say that you do because those books say they are written by a apostle.

    Again, its very nice that these books state that they are from the Apostles, but so did many other writings that claimed to be scripture. I showed how you only know they were scripture because of Tradition and the Catholic decrees of councils.

    You said that You also knew they were scriptural because God gave you a spiritual insight. I showed that the muslim and mormon say the same thing. That argument goes out the door.

    Ultimately the way you know what the canon is is by reading your table of contents in the bible. That info was taken historically from the Catholic church and her traditions.

    Hence you rely on the Catholic Church and her apostolic traditions to even know what the canon of the new testament is.

    You still haven’t answered me. Have you read all the other books that were believed to be Christians scripture such as the epistle of Barnabus and decide for your self. Have you read all the other books? if so How did you come to your conclusion when the early church couldn’t? Therefore Sola scriptura is false.

    Can you refute the protestant historical sources like the book "Early Christians doctrines" or "the Oxford dictionary of the Popes" by Kelly who show that Catholic Tradition is responsible for our knowledge of the Canon? Can you refute the catholic historical sources such as "Where we Got the bible, our debt to the Catholic church" By Graham. Can you refute the fathers and councils themselves in thier writings on tradition ? You say your studied Church history and fathers? Go ahead show me.

    Also How about another question you keep avoiding. “Where does the bible teach sola scriptura”? You seem to imply that it is in (2 tim 3:16-17). Ok here is your glaring moment.

    Here is you chance to prove to all the Catholics that this passage does. Show me. Show me how it does. Remember Your the one on trial here with the burden of proof, not me. YOu haven't been able to answer my questions.
     
  19. writer

    writer Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    514
    Ratings:
    +16
    238 YOU did not respond to how you can historically disprove the oxford dictionary of Popes.
    To the contrary: i find that Mt 23:9; Philip 1:1; Ac 20:28; 15:7, 13 and Gal 2:11-13 historically disprove its statement. At least to me

    Its a protestant publication, so its not really Catholic friendly in many ways.
    What does that have to do with its statement u mentioned?

    All you have done is quote what you think scripture says.
    To the contrary: i quoted Mt 23:9; Philip 1:1; Ac 20:28 verbatim. In English

    there are alot of people who would quote scripture too but not agree with you, as Dr Kelly does in his book.
    What Scripture?

    They can see that Peter in Scripture had a clear leadership role with a clear office of Primacy.
    Do u mean Acts 15:7, 13 and Galatians 2:11-13 which show Peter behind James in leadership in the church in Jerusalem?

    They go by the scriptures?
    Which?

    Are they wrong?
    If you're talkin about the statement "Peter was the first Pope": they're wrong. Nor's that statement going by Scripture

    With what authority do you have to say that they are? Biblical authority?
    Yes

    They would say the same thing.
    So mite u

    You see this is why you need to go and look to the fathers and history...
    The apostles history precedes and takes precedence over your "fathers" and their history. That's just history

    ...because without the traditions of the fathers, you can just argue back and forth all day long about how to interpret a passage.
    I have the traditions of your "fathers." In their writings. And i'm arguing with u. Over several days. But more to the point: What passage?

    We need to see how this passage was historically exegeted and lived in the early Christian community.
    a) What passage?
    b) The earliEST Christian community is recorded in the New Testament

    This is why tradition is so important.
    This's why the Bible is

    When early Heresies arose(Like Arianism) the fathers of the church(Like Athanasias) often times could not just use scripture to defend orthodox positions(Like the Divinity of Christ).
    To the contrary: Scripture's XACTLY and PREEMINENTLY what Athanasius, Hilary, Augustine, and others utilized. Rightly so

    Why? Because many times the heretical group itself would use the same scriptures and just put a twist to them.
    Twists don't change Scriptures. They change the poor folks who make the twists

    So the Fathers of the Church often times had to use Catholic Tradition to show what is true Christian teaching.
    R u saying that, based on the Bible alone, u agree with Arians? If so, perhaps u could share a passage you're thinking of and we could help u on it

    This is why Sola scriptura simply doesn’t work.
    To the contrary: Christ and His apostles' teaching in the NT crushes, and has nothing to do with, Arianism

    All the early heresies prove my point.
    Nothing i've seen proves your point. In fact, i'm thinkin u may be unsure what your point is. Earlier we agreed that what seems to be one of your favorite terms: "Sola Scriptura;" is properly understood as "Prima Scriptura"

    ...the oral Catholic tradition of faith they had been taught then decide if it was inspired and scripture or not.
    a) What oral tradition of faith?
    b) The Scripture was inspired, and became Scripture, when its writers wrote it. Not when its readers decided it

    This historical point is brought up over and over again in Protestant works like JND Kelly’s book “Early Christian Doctrines” on Pages 40, 49, and 50. Eventually once all the books had become recognized in the 300’s then councils were held to Authoritatively declare the canon and to throw out the other books that were believed to be part of scripture like the epistle of Barnabus.
    My historical point ("b" above)'s been repeated over and over again in this thread. Altho i don't call myself "Protestant." The epistle of Barnabas was never, never is, and never will be, Scripture. No matter what any of its readers ever thought. Altho it is good, in my estimation; it's also palpably not as high, Spiritual, dignified, clean, simple, straight, and pure as the New Testament. Read it and see if you're not sure

    Ok you see why you really haven’t answered the question.
    To the contrary: i find that Mt 23:9; Philip 1:1; Ac 20:28; 15:7, 13 and Gal 2:11-13 historically disprove your Oxford Dictionary of Popes' statement.
    Thanx
     
  20. athanasius

    athanasius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,573
    Ratings:
    +123
    Mr Writer

    You said

    on the contrary: i find that Mt 23:9; Philip 1:1; Ac 20:28; 15:7, 13 and Gal 2:11-13 historically disprove its statement. At least to me

    My answer

    Ok I do not find anything anywhere in those passages that in the least disprove the historical Papacy. Even if you think that scripture doesn’t teach it, you still have the historical problem that the Oxford dictionary of Popes gives you. You say the Papacy was started in the year 600.

    Well the oxford dictionary of Popes actually historically list each Pope and gives a detailed history of his life. This dictionary proves historically that there were historical Popes before 600 A.D. In fact it shows that the concept of Popes goes back to the first century. You may disagree that Scripture doesn’t teach the papacy but you must at least admit as this historical work shows that the early Church had Popes in Rome.

    And these Popes(Which you say did not exist) are responsible for recognizing and Declaring the canon of the new Testament to all Christians via apostolic tradition. If your going to disprove this you have to say that the entire oxford dictionary of Popes is just made up and none of them ever existed. Do you realize that?

    Can you discredit a well known protestant church historian such as Dr Kelly? What historical evidence do you have that in the 2nd century there were no popes??? Dr Kelly list and gives a name and history for each. Even if you dont agree that the Papacy is in with scripture, you must at least realize that historically its just a fact that in the 1st and 2nd century you had Popes.

    I think you problem is that you do not understand what Canon is. You are under the belief that everyone in the first century believed all the new testament books you have in your bible to be the inspired word of God. This is where you error. The immediate congregations that some of these books were written to did recognize them to be authoritative. For example, when Pauls wrote to the Hebrews, it of coarse was authoritative. He was a apostle. It is also true that some of the congregations may have been aware of his other letters, although not all of them were. But as history shows, the “Church as a whole” outside of the Hebrew congregation that Paul wrote too(In his epistle to the Hebrews) did not know that his letters to the Hebrews were inspired scripture. History shows this as I have shown. that why before the 4th century Hebrews was not considered canonical for the vast majority of Christians in the universal church. Also 1 2nd 3rd John, 1 and 2nd Peter, James, and Revelation had the same problem.

    Also in the early church the early christians accepted books you do not. Like the Aposcalypse of Peter or the Shepherd of Hermas or the didache. Some of these books were used in the early Liturgies and treated as scripture.

    So what had to happen was the early Church had to find out which writings go back to the apostles and which ones had apostolic authority and which ones didn’t. As historians like Dr Kelly have shown the early church did this by testing the books against apostolic Tradition and seen which books matched up.

    It took nearly 4 centuries to come to a conclusion what belonged int he canon and what didn’t. It was historically then that the Canon of the new testament was Authoritatively declared for christians(382, Rome, 393 Hippo, 397 Carthage) By the Catholic church under Pope Damasus I. What I am showing you is admitted by Catholic and Protestant historians alike . Unless you like to make up your own history, you must agree to this.

    My point is how can the scripture be the sole sufficient rule of faith when it took the Catholic Church, her councils , Popes and apostolic traditions to give us what the new testament even is. This fact alone disproves sola scriptura

    You said

    To the contrary: Scripture's XACTLY and PREEMINENTLY what Athanasius, Hilary, Augustine, and others utilized. Rightly so

    My answer

    have you ever studied the fathers? Or church history? Your wrong. when early heresies arose, the fathers may have used scripture, but they didn’t use scripture alone because the heretics would use the same scriptures. Primarily what was used was apostolic tradtiion to decide if these heretics were going against the Chrsitian faith.

    As a matter of fact athanasias used both scripture and tradition as a test and not primarily scripture alone. This is a point that Dr Kellys makes in his historical book page 42, 40, 49, 50. Can you disprove Dr Kellys statements about athanasius? Do you want proof? Ok I ‘ll give you proof.

    Augustine


    "[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).

    "But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation" (ibid., 5:26[37]).

    "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]).


    athanasius said

    In A.D. 359 he says "but what is also to the point, let us note that the very Tradition, teaching, and Faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning was preached by the Apostles and preserved by the fathers. On this the church was founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is, nor any longer ought to be called, a Christian".(Letters to Serapion 1,28 ad 359)

    But you are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from apostolic tradition(Festal Letters 29 [A.D. 330]).


    You said

    we agreed that what seems to be one of your favorite terms: "Sola Scriptura;" is properly understood as "Prima Scriptura"

    My answer

    No I never agreed that Sola scriptura was the same as prima scriptura. I thought you were mistaking the one for the other. As I have already explained from another post

    (Post 214) ....Prima scriptura is not what the reformers said. Sola Scriptura or scripture alone is what they taught. Have you ever heard of the solas” Sola fide, Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia etc. It wasn’t Prima Scriptura, Prima Fide etc. Catholics may teach prima scriptura. Hence scripture has a certain sense of primacy but not a ultimate one.

    Tradition is needed too and so is the Church because it took the church and tradition to give us Scriptura. Athanasius is a great example of a person who believed in prima scriptura(as Catholic may) but he also held to the authority of Catholic tradition and the Catholic church, hence not sola scriptura. Ok your confused.

    You still haven't answered my questions. This is because you know that they are the bullet that puts the false doctrine of sola scriptura to rest.

    If Sola scriptura is true, then what do you do with the Lutheran who adheres to the bible alone as their sole authority and disagrees with you over the nature of the eucharist.

    YOu do not believe that the real body of christ is present in the eucharist. YOu believe in a mere spiritual presence of his body but, the Lutheran does believe that the real Body of christ is present in the eucharist(along with bread and Wine).

    The Lutheran say s that when jesus Said this is my Body, he meant it. He gave us his actual body(along with bread and wine). But you do not agree. The baptist also take this one step further and say that the bread and wine are just symbolic.

    The Lutheran, the Baptist, and yourself all disagree about what communion really is. Who is right? Are you right? If so by what authority do you have to make that decision?

    By Biblical authority alone and the Holy spirit guiding you? The Lutheran and Baptist will say the same thing. Yet you all come to different conclusions. How can that be?

    also Again I asked you to honestly, If sola Scriptura is true:
    You said, that "Infant baptism" is both absent from the Bible and is counter-apostolic, counter-Scriptural. It's also not a matter of the faith

    My answer

    LoL, This sentence proves my point that sola scriptura does not work practically. Lutherans,and other Christians who go by the Bible alone would disagree with you. They would say that infant baptism is indeed in scripture and is a matter of faith. So who’s right? YOu said you go by Bible alone as your authority. They do too.

    Can’t the bible alone tell the man of God what is right doctrine? If you disagree with them, then on what authority can you? Scriptural? They say the same thing to you. And yet you both come to different conclusions.

    Do you see what bankrupt system sola scriptura is?? Thank God that Jesus left us a infallible Church and oral apostolic Tradition to be able to know interpret the scriptures correctly.
     
Loading...