St. Augustine
Constantine: You write, There is no official infallible commentary on the scriptures. That’s what I thought. So you are just doing what every Protestant does and relying on your own private interpretation. Therefore, I would ask you to acknowledge that fact and stop making your inaccurate accusations against us.
Are you calling St. Augustine a “rebel and a heretic”? Augustine certainly did oppose the bishop of Rome on several occasions but that did not make him a heretic! In fact, if you continue to call him one, you are in violation of your own sect, which call him a “Doctor” of the church. The fact is, as I said earlier, there is no primacy in Rome and there has never been.
BFHU: I am not using my own interpretation of Scriptures. Despite the fact that we don’t have an official infallible commentary we do have the writings of the early Christians who were taught by some of the apostles themselves. What I write here is not my own but the teaching of the apostles as handed on to other “faithful men able to teach.” That has been one of my favorite things about being Catholic. I don’t have to read the Bible and figure it out for myself. My own ego is not bound up in my interpretation of Scripture like that of a Protestant Bible student’s. It is so freeing to trust learned Christians and His apostles who have studied Scripture for 2000 years.
I did not say Augustine was a rebel and heretic. I did not say that disagreement with the pope and bishops equals heresy. It does not. St. Jerome also disagreed with many things. But once the pope and bishops made an official decree on a doctrinal subject these humble and faithful men submitted to the Vicar of Christ. Unlike Luther and Calvin, etc.
After a teaching on faith and/or morals is proclaimed officially THEN to disagree and teach others becomes heresy. Private disagreement should become a matter of prayer and request for understanding to align with Christ’s Church. We have many heretics in the Church today who vote for and/ or advocate for abortion, gay marriage, contraception, priestesses etc.
Filed under: heresy, The Church |
Bread From Heaven 
I have to agree with Constantine on one point and that is the unquestioning loyalty to men and their inerrancy. Each man born has about 30-40 years of study and work. Even though men have studied Scripture for 2000 years does not negate that reality. Men Re not born pre-programmed with an innate understanding of Scripture…They must study-as must you and I. So in the end what you are trusting is the new study’s of new men, over and over again. How do you determine that to be significantly different than me, or you? The only thing you can say is that you are trusting their conclusions about you are reading from those men.
BFHU, for some reason you Lump all the Prodesents into one Boat Why?
You famously don’t know what your talking about
We are not all the same , Reforms are very Different than Charismatic’s
Reforms study all the Fathers of the Western and Eastern Church, were as Charismatic’s don’t, Most Charismatic’s Pastors have a corticated that’s it as far as education. Were most Reformed Pastors (Presbys(Master Decgree Requiered), Lutheriens) Have Master Decrees and some have PhDs. And most catholic universities now such as Noter Dame, Berkley, and Jesuit colleges use Prodenst educators to tech religious studies. Your Own Videos on your site is one evadence of this.
As a former Protestant I do realize that there are many variations in Protestant denominations. The only thing they all agree about is that the Catholic Church is heretical.
You are certainly correct also about the variations in degree of education required for different denominations.
The only Catholic universities that use Protestant educators to teach theology are progressive and unorthodox, which Nortre Dame is. Berkley is not a religious institution. The Jesuits are famous for being unorthodox Catholics and yet there are some very faithful priests still hanging on in their ranks.
Catholics are secure enough in their faith to use truth whether it comes from a Catholic source or a Protestant source, or even an atheist source.
So wrong. Yes, you and I may only have “30-40 years of study and work” but the ancient wisdom of the church is 2000 years. That’s why your neighborhood Protestant church may disappear tomorrow, but the Catholic Church will remain and not prevailed by “the gates of Hades” by the promises of Christ. Protestants are constantly re-inventing the wheel but the church of God simply hands on the apostolic deposit of faith once delivered. No, it’s not like “new study’s of new men, over and over again” although it sure is the situation with Protestantism (like the bible says: “(being) puffed up in favor of one against another” (1 Cor 4:6) and “having itchy ears” (2 Tim 4:3)). It’ is a divine sign when the “Roman” church never falls into heresies and is always united in “one Lord, one faith and one baptism” throughout the age. You can’t say that for any of the other Christians bodies which are largely in apostasy right now. Free will is a funny thing.
Dear John,
Both Protestants and Catholics MUST trust tradition of some kind. Protestants trust the tradtion of the Catholic Church regarding the canon of scripture plus the tradition of Martin Luther regarding the removal of seven OT books and the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura which Luther invented because it is not found in the Bible.
Catholics trust the tradition of the canon of scripture plus the Teachings of Christ to His Apostles also known as SACRED TRADITION or Tradition for short. Our faith is not about trusting new men and new teaching based on scripture alone in each generation as are the Protestants.
Our teachings and doctrine are as old as the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ.
So, all Christians must finally decide which tradition to trust or trust themselves and the Lutherian canon of Scripture plus the extra Biblical tradition of Sola Scriptura invented a mere 500 years ago.
For myself, I will trust the Church that has been teaching the same thing for 2000 years. If, when I looked at what the ancient Christians belived from St. Agustine and before him, had resembled Protestantism I would not be Catholic today. But what I found was Catholicism right at the birth of Christianity.
I do not think I am anywhere near infallible in my interpretation of scripture. I will not trust myself and i did a lot of Bible study for 20 years as you can see from my conversion story. Either way it comes down to faith and which traditions to trust. I have chosen the tradition of the Church founded by Jesus and His apostles.
Protestants must trust the founders of denominations and/or themselves. I just could never do that again, once I found out the truth of Christian History.
seven OT books were never found in the Tanakh. If you can show me were these Books are written in CHaldee-Hebrew and apart of the Hebrew Oral Tradition I might change my mind. Romans do not have Authoity over the Tanakh (Old Testement for Catholics , Since Catholics think the Hebrew Langaunge is foul and hethen Languange) Just quoting the Majisterium.
One reason why I’m not a Catholic because it was apart and grew out of the Roman Empire. Most of the Traditions such civil ordinances were no different if Rome was Ruled by Papas or by Cesar. O and BTHW Cesar. is title not a name. Given to an Emprouer of Rome by the people or his peers. Suggestive reading for Catholics “Meeting the First Paul and Empire VS. Kingdom John Dominic Crossan (Ex- Catholic Monk)
Second Reason 7 childern were put to death for saying the Lords prayer not just saying it , but it was also recided in English. What ever Latin or English; people were not alound to Read the Bible or recite any thing from it. These childern and their mother were publicaly bruned at the stake thier mother was bruned naked and her privite parts scourge ;all done in public.
(Foxs Book of Marters)
The Catholic Church simply received the Greek OT known as the Septuagint. This was acceptable to the Jews until Christans began to use it to make Jewish converts to Christianity. You can read more about that –>Why Did the Catholic Church Remove Books of the Bible?
Catholics think no such thing about the Hebrew Language. And I would need to see the source you seem to think you are quoting. I would bet it is not at all in any official Church document. And the other information that you cite sounds like anti-Catholic hate literature which Fox’s Book of Martyrs was.
The bible used by Jesus, his apostles and all Christians up until the Protestant Reformation was the Septuagint. Protestants prefer to adopt the bible of Jews who rejected the Messiah. It’s not a trick question … which bible do you have?
Like everything else Protestant, Foxes’ Book of
Martyrs is now widely commonly known to be historically inaccurate and biased. I quote from Robert Williams’ conversion story “Why I became a Catholic”:
“Many of the “martyrs” in the reign of Mary Tudor were unorthodox and would have been burned in the reign of Protestant Queen Elizabeth. Indeed, Foxe supported a regime that tortured and killed Catholics who simply wanted to live in the faith of their ancestors. He also supported a regime that burned Evangelical Christians such as Baptists! It was Protestant Christians who had persecuted the Puritan Pilgrim Fathers of seventeenth-century England, and that group in turn, on settling in America, had persecuted fellow Bible believers!”
Wouldnt Robert Williams’ be a Baised statement
This is half Truth BTW
“Many of the “martyrs” in the reign of Mary Tudor were unorthodox and would have been burned in the reign of Protestant .” This conjecter.
Hey Name :Bloody Mary” Tortured The reformers, She was trying to get England back To Roman Catholism. She had many Reformers murderes.
“The ebb and flow of freedom continued through the 1540’s…and into the 1550’s. After King Henry VIII, King Edward VI took the throne, and after his death, the reign of Queen “Bloody” Mary was the next obstacle to the printing of the Bible in English. She was possessed in her quest to return England to the Roman Church. In 1555, John “Thomas Matthew” Rogers and Thomas Cranmer were both burned at the stake. Mary went on to burn reformers at the stake by the hundreds for the “crime” of being a Protestant. This era was known as the Marian Exile, and the refugees fled from England with little hope of ever seeing their home or friends again.”
“crime” of being a Protestant.
Its never been a crime to be Catholic
Both sides were all FreeMasons
The account is Also in The book “Reformations”
Felipe Fernandez-Armesto and Derek Wilson.
A Catholic Historian and a Protestant Historian.
But your only refute to all this information, is that is UNATHOATAIVE , and you list a reference from your own blog, because it doesn’t come from the Pope. Does the Pope decide every thing for you? Even the color of your TP? I think Catholics worship Men rather then Jesus.
BTW Jews do not need to be converted! Paul makes this clear. and vice versa Genitals do not need to be converted to Judaism.
If anything the conversion Paul describes is to a New Life In Christ. Not a new culture or religion,
The OrthoDox/CathOlIc/Christian names are identical. Romanists are not CathOlIcs. Byzantinists/Muscovitists and Coptists are not OrthoDoxes. protestants are not Christians. None of the post-“schism” “churches” are valid. Romanists are “MYSTERY BABYLON”. All other post-“schism” “churches” are the harlot daughters. jews a.k.a. ChristKillers are Babylonian gypsy pagans; not (Judahite) Judeans.
Catholics and Greek Orthodox , Protestants So your the only true Christian on this page? Only Evangelical Americans ? Those That make it up on Sundays? And Change Theological stances like the direction of the wind? Or there are no Christians? what is your point? Only You and Donald Trump right? Sounds more like you are the herotic. The Whore of Babylon is Corporations , Wall Street and those that support those. . Those that claim to be saving the Earth but actually destroying it (WEF). Those who read the Left Behind series and pedal Jesus like the latest fade . The Messiah is for sale and a place in Heaven can be bought with material earthly wares? Those That claim to Christian but do the work of Devil . Like you right right now. ? By Accusing and attacking others ? The exact opposite of what Jesus taught. There is a difference between honest discourse and disagreement. and just plain Trolling . I suspect you are the latter. But I could be wrong ?
All post-“schism” “churches” (which are now also nothing more than corporations) teach doctrines of devils. Romanism and Byzantinism are “syncretistic” and “œcumenistic”. Romanism is scholastic. Byzantinism is hesychastic. Coptism is either EuTychian or Nestorian. That’s just the tip of the iceberg. None of them are OrthoDox/CathOlIc/Christian. They’ve all changed their positions gradually as time went on. I probably am the only Christian on this page as the real Christians don’t visit desolate buildings but rather pray at home instead on Lord’s Day. Donald John Trump is not a Christian but a Mason and was sent with his “”New York” “values”” as controlled “opposition” by the jews. He had an almost all-jew cabinet, publicly declared himself an enemy of all enemies of all jews in 2017, and pushed the clot shot and gave $8,800,000 to Big Pharma in 2020 and 2021. Melania is a “VatiCan 2” Romanist. The apostate (specially “VatiCan 2” Roman cult is “MYSTERY BABYLON” (which is now also nothing more than a corporation). The apostate Byzantinist-Muscovitist and Coptist cults and all protestant cults are the harlot daughters (which are now also nothing more than corporations). An apostate AntiPope will be either the PseudoProPhet or the AntiChrist. Ivanka “married” a jew and became a jewess with Donald’s “blessing”. Eric became a jew with Donald’s “blessing”. The Roman cult has Greco-Roman pagan idols installed in the stolen Churches and it’s own “churches” eversince under the apostate AntiPope “Paschal II” in 1107. The apostate AntiPope “John Paul II” signed Agenda 21 in 1992. The apostate AntiPope “BeneDict XVI” called for 1 world “order” in 2009. The apostate AntiPope “Francis” openly pushes the sodomite agenda. Christians don’t “pray” with schismatics, heretics, or apostates lest we ourselves cease to be Christians thus also become schismatics, heretics, and/or apostates. I’ll let you take your complaints to Saint Judas Machabeus who slaughtered an apostate “priest” for the placement of Olympus in the Temple and launched a Crusade against AntiOchus or better yet to the Real Jesus HimSelf Who constantly called the jews and I quote “broods of vipers” then chased the usurers out the Judean Temple.
Next your going to say the Catholic Church never marterd Wyclifite, or Van ness or Tyndale , or Joan of Ark(Ya the Goverment carried it out at the Church approvel). the list is at endless. Other groups that had any disagreement with Rome. The marrige of Priest and Nuns. Most were put to death. Pergnent Nuns barried alive. Should I go on, And Current History all the sexual abuse that has gone on it recent years. Its not to say Prodesents havent done horrfics acts aginst man kind also. But most of us who know are History also know that the Cross is a literal symbol of forgiveness. (N.T. Wright) Bringing reconcelition to a broken and sinful world. To set right these horrfic wrongs that all ALL Men have done.
Well, actually Wycliff was not martyred. “John Wycliffe died in his sleep on December 31, 1384 at the age of fifty-six. ” this is from a Protestant site. but you can google -was wycliff martyred- for yourself.
Listen lets not play the game of who has the most martyrs. The Catholic church does but Protestants martyred Catholics and stole Catholic churches during the reign of King Henry the VIII and Queen Elizabeth. We are seeking the TRUTH here not who has the least sinners…uhmmmm that would be neither Protestant or Catholics. LOL.
In the spring of 1428 a group of churchmen dug up the bones of Wycliffe and burned them.
That was the sin of bitterness but it doesn’t exactly make Wycliffe a martyr.
The council of Jewish rabbis affirmed the Tanakh, as being the inspired word of the Lord to the Jewish people. They rejected the Apocrypha as uninspired.
The Council of Jamnia A.D. 90
This isnt Prodistiant History.
OK, they also rejected Jesus. If you are going to trust the Jewish rabbis who had Jesus crucified and rejected sacred books from the OT translated into Greek by Jewish scholars long before Jesus was born, be my guest.
It was Rome that put Him to death. Srue the Jewish leaders wanted Him dead but didnt have the Athority. PLUS
It was written Scriptrue He would be rejected and die on a tree; Isaiah
Robert,
You are dreaming. Pilate DID NOT WANT TO PUT THAT INNOCENT MAN TO DEATH. He only caved in to the Jews b/c they threatened to inform Ceasar that Pilate had let a man who claimed to be a king go. This would have been political suicide for Pilot. The Roman government was coerced to use her power to crucify Jesus at the manipulation of the Jewish leaders.
One can easily do a research on the so called Council of Jamnia and get the updated scholarship on the matter. It’s simply just another fanciful claim of the Protestants as justification for rejecting the established Christian canon. The “council” never existed; it was but a particular rabbinic school which had rejected Christ and the gospel of the New Testament. There was also no evidence that it even discussed the deuterocanonical books. I seriously wonder why a Christian would want to follow a hypothetical anti-Christian Jewish school instead of the Church of God established by Christ as the “pillar and foundation of truth.”
Of course any History that has been rejected by Rome is fabercated history. The only source of Truth is Rome dont you know. Rome has divine right to change History.
This whole web site is full of Prodistiant Hate, so when you accuse us of being Heritics, You youself encluding the Pope cant even follow you own tenats. Pull the Log out of your own eye before removing the spec out of your brothers.
Luther’s Theses became a declaration of independence from Papal authority
For those who dont know
This was the purpose of the reformation
Not to start a new Church, every thing after this was either reactionary or the will of God.
Papal authority
Can you show me in Scripture Justification for Papal authority?
I would need Old and New Testament Verses, Those verses would need to contextually to be in context of each Other? You would also need to Justify Papal authority by Jesus own words. And you can’t use the Catechism or The Magisteriam as source.
If You can proof this by Scripture I might start going to Mass.
What Biblical Authority Do Catholics have for Hierarchy?
Petros vs Petras
Where are the Pope and Bishops in Scripture?
The Rock
When will I hear you started going to Mass. 🙂
You gave me Commentary NOT the Verses???? The Smart thing would have given me links to the Actual https://www.usccb.org/sites/default/files/flipbooks/catechism/
“Everything after was either … a will of God? That’s the biggest joke. Your God must be a god of chaos and confusion. Paul wasted his time trying to address similar factious elements in the Corinth church and others.
Frankly, don’t put the cart before the horse. Tell me first where in the bible does it say that everything should be in the bible.
Were doe it say it has to come From the Papas?
It was a opened ended Question ?
Being a Catholic Web stite with a refute to every thing Reformed you ahould know that answer
Reformed what? No free will, man is totally depraved, God wills people to hell even without their culpability … frankly, it’s getting foolish.
More like a declaration of independence from God, not unlike our first parents in the garden of Eden who aligned with the serpent. The curse is the divisiveness and brokenness in Protestantism, not unlike a babel of tower.
Actually, everything is” Tradition.” The bible is simply the written strain of tradtion. But not everything is written down. You can read it in 1 Tess2 Tess 2:15.
Your statment doesnt answer the Question or even related about the office of Papas
I am asking you very plainly why I need to prove it from Bible Alone since this is what you are saying. You need to show me first that you sola scriptura doctrine is biblical first or why should I abide by your rules?
First they ant my rules , the word Doctrine means teaching something that is taught; teachings collectively: L. doctrina “teaching, ;
So one Group belifs are that One Man from Rome Rules all the souls in the world and and anther Belifs that God is Spirit and formless and is a person that has ruled all souls past persent and futrue.
So were differnt can we get along
Are you admitting that sola scriptura is a man-made tradition then?
Yes , but so is the Office of the Papas
Okay. I see the problem with mis-ordering of replies. Let’s make sure to click on last “Reply” instead of just straight posting to avoid the problem.
“Peters name in Greek Menas rock.
God is also called rock in the OT.
You could read this 2 diffrent ways.
Who decides ?”
The discernment process is:
Matt 16:18-19 is straight from Jesus’ mouth. It’s Jesus who changed Simon’s name to Peter for a divine purpose. It’s Jesus prophecizing about the Papal Office here. Rock is used as a personal name for the first time here by Jesus. The reference to God as Rock elsewhere is just a descriptive term.
Who decides? By the plain words of God of course. How plain can it be? … You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my church.
Moreover, “I will give YOU the keys of the kingdom of heaven”: It’s to Peter alone who’s given the keys.
What’s unclear about it?
Does it matter which church one attend? Definitely. Now, I am not saying that Protestants are not Christians or that they can’t go to heaven. I’m just saying that it’s important to follow Christ’s commandments and obey the divine design if one claims to be a true follower. There’s a lot of reasons to be united in one mind, one faith, one baptism and one Lord. I will mention three reasons: 1) God’s will; 2) A disunited Christianity is scandalous and an impediment to the spread of the gospel; and 3) Fullness of faith in the true church of God for the sanctification and growing of holiness of a Christian. I mean especially the seven Sacraments for the channeling of grace as ordained by Christ.
What are the keys to the kingdome of heaven?
I won’t go into too much deep theological explanation but it’s obviously recalling Isa 22.21-22 where Eliakim succeeded Shebnah as “master of the palace” and was described as having received the key of the house of David which he magisterially “opens” and “shuts.” By assigning Peter the role of the bearer of “the keys,” Jesus was clearly appointing Peter as his steward or vicar with full function of a regent to rule over the church.
Yes sola scriptura is a man made doctrine , but so is the Office of the Papas
Robert,
The Pope does not rule all the souls in the world. If he did we would have a much better world. But, he just doesn’t have that power. Catholics also believe that God is Spirit and He is the Eternal King of Kings of all souls. So, I think we agree on these things.
I Corinthians 4:6: Do not go beyond what is written.
And the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura does go beyond what is written. Because of the way you are interpreting this Protestantism needs to trash Sola Scriptura.
Constantine: 1 Thessalonians 2:15 says nothing about ongoing oral tradition. What it says is that the Thessalonians should “hold fast” to the Apostolic teaching they received – whether they received it orally or by written means. Because the apostles are all now dead, there is no more “oral” apostolic teaching. Ergo, sola scriptura.
BFHU Replies:
Constantine,
This verse validates oral Tradition unlike Sola Scripturist would have one believe. At least Oral Tradition is scriptural but there is no scripture that supports or validates Sola Scriptura. This so ironic. Protestants constantly demand for Catholic to “show them where it says that is scripture.” And yet this very foundational doctrine of Protestantism is totally baseless in scripture.
You are correct there is no Oral Tradition since the death of the apostles. What we call Oral Tradition, which has since been written down, but not in the Bible, is nothing less than the teaching of the apostles of Christ.
Nothing new has ever been added to this deposit of teaching.
If you truly believe in Sola Scriptura, then you need to show WHERE IN THE BIBLE does it say that “because the apostles are dead, there is NO MORE oral apostolic teaching.” You cannot come to such a conclusion extra-biblically without some clear proof especially when it goes against the beliefs of all Christians for 1600 years before the Reformers arrived at the scene. Otherwise, you risk incurring the curse of Rev 22:18 for “adding” to the bible …
(I wonder why I should be reminding Protestants of sticking to Bible Alone since they are the one making a big deal about it in the first place.)
ROBERT: Here is a Question for you that I can’t find a answer too.
Were all the Roman Catholic or even Eastern Orthodox, doctrines decided on by the Time of the Closing of the Cannon around the 4th Century or were their more Doctrines added afterwards?
It seems to me that after the closing of the Cannon of Scripture most or if not all the doctrines’ should have been decided on? IE Nicene Council
And if any were added why were they added?
If the NT is a copulation of Oral Tradition, and History and teaching; past from the Apostles (Eyewitness’) to be written down wouldn’t Scripture be enough in its self be a set of doctrines’ base on History, Events and Teachings, and if some things were so important that were not in Scripture, Why wouldn’t they be in their also?
Alright, this is a very sound and legitimate question for a change. I will try my best to explain.
All truths were revealed by Christ before his ascension to heaven.They were all passed on orally in the beginning (called apostolic preaching) until some were written down as NT as we know it today. As noted earlier, not everything were recorded in writing (Jn 21:25). St Paul would also allude to this fact in 2 Tess 2:15 when he instructed us to “hold on to the traditions (that is, all apostolic preaching or teaching) in both oral and written forms.
Now after the young church came out of the catacombs (due to early persecutions), she had a better opportunity to organize, which was almost out of necessity due to the growth and expansion of missions. She also had to respond formally to early heresies. That’s when the church had to define “doctrines” as each of the truths (mostly Christology including Trinity) were being challenged by heretics and apostacists.
The Church also grew in wisdom in her 2000 years of existence. This is because Christ had sent the Holy Spirit with the promise that “he will teach you all things. and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you” (Jn 14:26). Further along, Christ also said: “I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now … when the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth” (Jn 16:12-13). With guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church is also able to ponder the words of Her Master and be able to explain the truths more theological exact over time. This is called the development of doctrines … not new doctrines but the explanation of “old” truths as revealed by Christ in the original Deposit of Faith or Apostolic Preaching.
A good way of visualizing all this is with the so-called 3-legged stool. It comprises of the Bible, Sacred Tradition (or Deposit of Faith) and the Teaching Church or Magisterium. They are all inter-dependent. The Magisterium draws from her bosom, her family book – the Bible – and Sacred Tradition (all Christ’s teachings) so she can complete her great commission to “make disciples of all nations … teaching them to observe ALL that I have commanded you” (Matt28:19-20).
Protestantism took the Bible but left behind Sacred Tradition and the Teaching Church. The 1-legged is obviously unstable and lacking … thus created all the inherent problems of lack of authority, divisiveness, fragmentation, etc., etc.
One cannot understand the Bible properly without the aid of Sacred Tradition and Magisterium.
Yes, the Bible is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” 2 Tim 3:16-17). But the Bible never claims to be sufficient ALONE. Someone still has to interpret the Bible correctly. That’s why the Bible says to go the Church (not to the Scripture!) so the divinely instituted Church can be the final arbiter. And if one even refuse to “listen to the Church”, then the person should be ex-communicated (Matt 18:16).
So the proper question is not so much if we should second guess God for not including everything of importance in the Bible. In fact, the Bible does. The real problem is that human is rebellious and would not adhere to God’s design.
God did not leave you as “orphans” (Jn 14:18). There is the church of God which is the “pillar and buttress of truth” (1 Tim 3:15). Where can you find that Church today?
bfhu,
Let’s take a look a 2 Thess. 2: 15. Here it is….
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings[c] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
The Apostle Paul is very, very clear here. The Thessalonians are to hold fast to that which had already been “passed on” to them. Notice, what they are holding on to they already have. Paul is speaking in the past tense. What they have to hold on to they already have and it is not something in the future.
What Paul is saying is that they should hold on to what they have, whether they heard him say it or whether they received an epistle from him, an apostle.
If there were apostles today, we would be obligated to take their oral teaching with the same authority that we now take Paul’s. But there are no apostles so the only objectively reliable apostolic testimony we have is the Bible. Hence, sola scriptura.
This has nothing at all to do with an ongoing “oral” tradition. That is the clear meaning of this text.
Peace.
Oral Tradition is the original deposit of faith. It has nothing to do with “ongoing” oral tradition as you applied it.
DON’T MISS THE MARK !!!
Jn 21:25: “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written” = Not all the Oral Traditions (Christ’s teaching) were written down (in the Bible).
The Scripture is Tradition par-excellence, but it is not the WHOLE Tradition.
O Timothy, Guard the Deposit of Faith!
“O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid the godless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge, for by professing it some have missed the mark as regards the faith” (1 Tim 6:20-21)
Oral tradition is not the original deposit.
When God gave His Word to Moses He made sure that Moses “wrote it down”. When Moses, in a fit of fury, broke the first tablet, God wrote the commandments down again! God commands the adherence to His written Word in Exodus, Deuteronomy, Joshua, etc.
God commanded Jeremiah to “write in a book all that I have spoken to you” (Jeremiah 30:2)
So Sola Scriptura was the standard for thousands of years before the Apostles spoke their first words.
Peace.
ROBERT: Eph 1:13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,
Eph 1:14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.
(ESV)
Thee Holy Spirit, is the Deposit or promised
Some translations wil Use Deposit or down payment instead of promise, but it infurrs the same thing.
My dear bfhu,
What you wrote follows in italics:
Jesus, interestingly, NEVER, told His disciples to write anything down.
That’s just silly. Even the Roman Catholic Church holds to the inspiration of Scripture. And since Christ Jesus is coextensive with the Holy Spirit, it is a logical necessity that Jesus did, in fact, cause His disciples to write everything down. The only way to support your statement is to suppose that Jesus is not part of the Trinity.
We uphold the written Tradition which is Scripture.
No, you really don’t. God the Father declared the superiority of written Scripture and God the Son is in unity with Him through the work of the Holy Spirit. Additionally, Roman Catholic scholars have shown how Rome systematically withholds the majority of Scripture from the Mass, which shows that you don’t uphold the Scripture. You subject it to censorship.
Oral Tradition absolutely WAS the ORIGINAL DEPOSIT OF FAITH. Adam and Eve and Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, etc. = All Oral Tradition. And this Oral Tradition was passed down for several thousand years before Moses wrote these stories down.
Oh, really? What oral tradition do we have from Adam and Eve? What oral tradition is still extant from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? There is no extant oral tradition from any of these and all you know about them came from the written Scriptures. It is just so obvious.
The New Testament writings were separated by less than 100 years from the events they portray. Never-the-less for decades the Christian Oral Tradition inflamed the ancient world with Christian Faith and produced countless martyrs.
So what did Jesus mean when He accused the Pharisees of not knowing the Scriptures? (Matthew 22:29; Mark 12:24). Did He hold them accountable to Scriptures that had not been written yet? No! That is just silly. And as I have written here, before, the Apostles were under direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit so that their oral proclamation was different that anything that came after. The only objective, reliable way you now have to know what you know is the written Scripture.
Peace.
C: … since Christ Jesus is coextensive with the Holy Spirit, it is a logical necessity that Jesus did, in fact, cause His disciples to write everything down.
BFHU: I did not state that Jesus/God did not INSPIRE the disciples to write. I said Jesus NEVER SAID, “Write my teachings down.” To believe that God caused the disciple to write might be veering into heresy because God does nothing against our free will.
C: No, you really don’t. God the Father declared the superiority of written Scripture
BFHU: Where is this declaration?????
C. Additionally, Roman Catholic scholars have shown how Rome systematically withholds the majority of Scripture from the Mass, which shows that you don’t uphold the Scripture.
BFHU: Someone has been lying to you. In three years of Sunday mass attendance we hear nearly every thing in the scripture. Protestants do not hear nearly as much Scripture as Catholics at their service.
C. Oh, really? What oral tradition do we have from Adam and Eve? What oral tradition is still extant from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? There is no extant oral tradition from any of these and all you know about them came from the written Scriptures. It is just so obvious.
BFHU: NONE, of the stories about about Adam, Eve, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Joseph etc. Were written down UNTIL Moses wrote them down, as far as we know. All these stories were passed down by word of mouth from one generation to the next. We believe that God was able to preserve these in TRUTH for thousands of intervening years, b/c we both accept the OT as inerrant.
So, even Protestants believe that God was able to preserve TRUTH using oral Tradition, (Tradition only means “what is passed down.”) when it comes to the OT stories that covered 1000′s of years. But, for some reason they REJECT that God was able to preserve the TRUTH of Jesus’ teaching through oral Tradition for the first 400 years of Christianity.
Why is that?
Catholics believe that God can do all things. I know Protestants would agree but on what grounds do you KNOW God was unable to preserve the teachings of Jesus ORALLY for a mere 400 years?
C: So what did Jesus mean when He accused the Pharisees of not knowing the Scriptures? (Matthew 22:29; Mark 12:24). Did He hold them accountable to Scriptures that had not been written yet? No!
BFHU: I agree.
C: And as I have written here, before, the Apostles were under direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit so that their oral proclamation was different that anything that came after.
BFHU: Jesus taught them and they taught others what Jesus had taught them. Do you think those taught by the apostles were unable to teach what they had been taught?
C: The only objective, reliable way you now have to know what you know is the written Scripture.
BFHU: Scripture is precious but it cannot be interpreted in a vacuum. The teaching Church produced the NT Scripture. That same teaching Church has passed the original understanding of these scriptures down to us through the writings of the Fathers. These, in themselves are not inerrant or scripture but they show us how the earliest Christians understood many passages of Scripture. You are free to trust your own interpretation but I find what was believed and taught in the first four centuries to be closer to the TRUTH than my own attempts at interpretation, so far removed in time and culture .
Tell me where I need to do that from scripture ALONE first. Show me where in the bible does it teach sola scriptura.
I don’t know how many times you can ask for this, be given it and still persist in not seeing it? Here are some of the Biblical texts establishing the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
All of these quotes limit what God’s people should study and do but just the words “written in the book”. It just could not be any more clear.
Peace.
And Conversely, rejection of Sola Scriptura does not equal rejection of the authority of Scripture and our need to obey it.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The WORD came first not tradition
the LOGOS
The mind of Elohim
The second person of the Trinity is not the same as the written words of the bible. You are with a religion of the book. Are you saying your English translation of the bible existed eternally from the beginning?
I acually gave the Greek word also Logos- In a Greek mind set can mean the Mind of God
How does it show sola scriptura?
#
The word was God
The Word is God
The Word
Word our English translation of the bible existed eternally from the beginning
I never said that or implied that , I think most Engish Tranlations have a certian bais or theology attach to them But so does Vulgate
So what’s your point of John 1? If you continue to insist to say “show it in the bible”, I want to know how you derive that. Where does it say everything must be in the bible ALONE?
That’s a fair question.
Here you go:
Deut. 4:2: Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.
Deut. 28:58-59: If you do not carefully follow all the words of this law, which are written in this book, and do not revere this glorious and awesome name—the LORD your God— 59 the LORD will send fearful plagues on you and your descendants, harsh and prolonged disasters, and severe and lingering illnesses.
Joshua 1:8: Keep this Book of the Law always on your lips; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful.
Proverbs 30:6: Do not add to his words,
or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.
Jeremiah 30:2: “This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: ‘Write in a book all the words I have spoken to you.
I Corinthians 4:6: Do not go beyond what is written.
Revelation 22:18-19: I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.
Peace.
Dear Constantine,
Protestants love to quote this verse to condemn the Catholic teaching not found in Scripture.
Deut. 4:2: Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.
However, this verse proves too much. Because, the strict reading of this scripture would also condemn the New Testament.
The other verses you have quoted we agree with but they nowhere say all religious truth is found in Scripture. The Rev. passage is speaking about the “prophecy of this scroll”…the book of Revelation. It is not speaking about the OT and the NT. That would have been impossible since the NT was not yet canonized.
Dear bfhu,
I can’t believe that this thread is still active! How nice.
In your explanation of Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelation 22, are you relying on an authoritative Magisterial interpretation or is this just your private interpretation? To save time, I’ll answer. There is no “magisterial” interpretation of these verses so you are acting like a Protestant, by your own definition.
Secondly, Deuteronomy 4:2 does not prove too much because the Bible is one cohesive Scripture. Your first “pope”, Peter, said that Paul’s writings were divinely inspired (1 Peter 3:15) so the New Testament, on the authority of Scripture, is as much Scripture as Deuteronomy. The Deuteronomic principle is upheld by Paul in 1 Corinthians 4:6: “Do not go beyond what is written.”
Peace.
Constantine,
BFHU: Thanks Constantine for saving me time. I agree. Yes, I am interpreting these verses differently than Protestants. But i am certainly not acting like a Protestant because I am using scripture to defend the Catholic Church. Protestants do just the opposite. I am using scripture because Protestants dont give a hoot about magesterial documents. If they would accept them I would certainly use them.
Please note that this verse does not actually say that Paul’s writings were divinely inspired. I too believe they were but this scripture does not really say that clearly. I point this out not to argumentative but to explicate the fact that you are INTEPRETING scripture and not actually letting Scripture alone speak. Both Protestants and Catholics do this. The difference is that Catholics interpret scripture along with the historical teachings of what has always and everywhere been believed.
I do accept the OT and NT as scripture. However, when St. Paul wrote that there was no New Testament canon. So, an argument could be made that Paul was referring to the OT. Thus, using the Sola Scriptura doctrine both Deut. and this passage in I Cor. would, according to Sola Scriptura, make the New Testament illigitimate.
Not a single one of these passages teaches Sola Scriptura in any way.
It is clear from these passages that it is forbidden to add to the Scriptures. That isn’t what the Church is doing when interpreting the Scriptures through tradition.
The Bible has to be interpreted. It is to be interpreted through the Church, which Saint Paul calls “the pillar and ground of the truth” (not the Bible, the Church that gaves us the Bible) (I Timothy 3:15). What happens when individuals interpret the Bible individually, outside of the tradition handed down by the Apostles? The perversion of christianity represented by over 23,000 different factions and denominations, each claiming to be interpreting the Scriptures correctly.
Finally, I found your quotation of I Corinthians 4:6 to be the most interesting. In no way does the context of this passage support the teaching of Sola Scriptura. Paul is warning the Corinthians about dividing themselves into factions to follow competing human leaders. He is most likely referring to what is written about human nature in the Old Testament. Let’s keep in mind that in this stage in the Church’s history, very little of the New Testament was written or widely distributed.
Do you think that Paul was contradicting himself when he wrote the following?
“Hold to the standard of sound teaching that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.” – II Timothy 1:13
“You then, my child, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus; and what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well.” – II Timothy 2:1-2
“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you.” – I Corinthians 11:2
“So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.” – II Thessalonians 2:15
THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT:
TEXTUS RECEPTUS
If He is the Word , And was the Word , then the Word comes first not Tradition.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Who is He
and He was their then He knew the WORD because the word or Logos was first , that means tradition didn’t come until Adam (Man)
Textus Receptus…
Are you saying because Logos is eternal that the Christian bible existed before time also?
No the question was asked , that I belive that the Bible was written in English , I gave an example in Greek to give a clearer understanding of the word word or Greek Logos. I dont know what language God speaks , but I know its not Latin or English , It might be Hebrew , I dont know . I do know that God speaks and Speaks through the Bible. the Words are enternal in that sense.
You ask for proof of the Office of the Pope from the bible. I ask you where in the bible does it say that everything need to be proven from the bible. Show me one single good bible verse.
I just did your reading comperhension must be nill. John 1:1
I am beginning to wonder about your power of critical thinking.
In the beginning is the Word, and the Word was with God …. etc. So what’s your point? How does it prove the doctrine of Bible Alone. Does John 1 say directly or by inference of Bible Alone?
You either believe or don’t I can’t “Absolutely” prove it to you but John 1:1 is a percept in which to base that Doctrine or Teaching. Their is enough evidence in the Bible alone to justify it. If not then Pope Leo X who got to be pope by Politics not because he was a great leader or a really spiritual guy. He wasn’t even a Priest , He was Deacon (Catholic Encycolpia)and all he cared about was making money.” The Fairy Tale of Christ is making me a wealthy man”
If their is no eternal standard which the Bible obvisly is , I think we’ve both agreed on that. Being its over 6000 years old whether Orally or Written.
Even Calvin’s Doctrine can challenge by Scripture and Luther’s.
Example if you take the governmental style of Catholic Rome and compare it to the modern Corporation they match perfectly. They change the rules at will to suit them self’s for profit or power. Regardless at the cost of humans lives.
The danger is now we see a So called Evangelical movement in the states doing the same thing creating anther Rome. Im scared to Death. So Scripture based on those facts tells me that the Word of God is the only reliable source for God about God. Because an institution or institutions have declared themselves to be gods.
The Bible doesn’t tell me what books to read or what clothes to by or tell me how to vote , it does give me a moral Philosophy or Spirt that influences what I buy and how vote.
Unfortunately, your perceptions about Catholicism is very distorted. It’s not fair to come here and make assertions about Catholicism which are simply not true. Anyway, let’s talk about the Papal Office. What do you think of Matt 16:18-19 where Jesus said:
You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it … I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven…”
They are not , I grew up Catholic DUH!, My mom is still a Devoted Catholic , and by Romes definition of Salvation Iam saved.
I was Cristoned as a baby in a traditinal Catholic setting.
But I realized at a young age that the Roman Catholic is just a institutuion very Old yes. But it had nothing to with God. I refuded as a teenager to go to Catism. Iam glad i did. I was even reject to pray with a Preiest in my early 20s after my Father past away. I found Truth and understaning in The Gosple of Jesus Chirst. The Word of God the Bible. I never would have understood through Orginized religion such as the Catholic Church. Since Presbyterians have freedom to dicern the text for themselfs I found Home with the Reformed tradition and the Presbyterian church. I acually learned to respect my mothers belifs. And Vice Versa. So if shows you that The Spirit has the power. That reconcelltion is done by Jesus. not the paying of endolgenses or what the Catholic Chruch does now to raise money.
So as a young Catholic, you refused to grow in the Lord by learning the faith properly! And you now want to blame God and his church for failing you? If you’re happy being a Presbyterian and is steep in the tradition of Calvin and Knox, make peace with yourself. I’m quite sure that your Catholic mom has continue to pray for you like Monica did for St Augustine. We will pray for you here too.
surkiko; Please dont infurr any thing about me. YOU are not the Papas you a peasent.
Thats how the Paps would look at you.
Robert we Catholics believe that Jesus is the Eternal Word made flesh. But the fact is, the WORD in John1 IS GOD. Are you trying to say that since scripture is words that the Scripture is somehow equal to the Eternal Word of John 1?
If that were so then, since the WORD is Jesus and Jesus is God then the Scripture is God. And I am pretty sure you would not support the idea that we should worship Scripture b/c it is Jesus/God.
We wouldn’t worship Scripture, but the fact is that the Scripture is not the dead letter that Catholics take it to be.
As the Apostle Paul wrote, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.” (Romans 1:16)
The power of God is relayed by the Scriptures – which is why, they alone, are sufficient for faith and doctrine.
Peace.
Constantine,
The Scripture is NOT A DEAD LETTER to the Catholic Church. That is a Protestant Tradition. But it is not true of the Catholic Church. All the scripture quotes you have given are beautiful and accepted by the Catholic Church. But none of them contain the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
I dont know about that I scored in the top 1 percent in college in Comperhension and critical thinking.
Just Im a terribale writter and typer, LOL Its true
1 Corinthians 4:6 “Do not go beyond what is written.”
The Catholic Church is all about truth. If I were you, I will verify my source about Jamnia from a reliable source. There’s no excuse nowadays since info is so readily available everywhere. You don’t need to go a Catholic source by the way.
Seriously, you should update your info on so called “Council” of Jamnia. It is freely available on the internet. So also about the Book of Marthyrs (more like a book of lies and distortion).
You want biblical proof of the Office of Papas? Since you can’t answer me about sola scriptura, let me just give you the break. So what about Matthew 16:18-19 for a start?
Matthew 16:18 cannot be used by Catholics because it fails the test of the Creed of Pope St. Pius V which is one of only four authoritative creeds in the Roman Church.
Sorry.
I am sorry. The Logos is eternal does not assert that the bible is eternal too. Even if you insist on John 1, where does it say by Bible ALONE?
In other words it doesn’t matter what Church building I go to. Whether if it is Catholic or Presbyterian. The fact is am I trying to walk in Holiness with God, Is Jesus the Messiah of my life and World. As for Calvin Luther Jerome Augustine, Bernard, Pope John Paul, Mother Teresa; I can take what I want and leave the rest, they are great Teachers, even though their dead they are still teaching. Their words can guide me and challenge me. Are they Human yes? Can their words guide us to leave in community together yes? its in are Human make up to need rules to live as a society. But how can we check these rules I only know of one source the Bible. But now we have anther issue. The Questions never ends. I think if we stop asking the questions, then we stop looking. If ye shall SEEK then ye shall find!
Mat 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Ya
Peters name in Greek Menas rock.
God is also called rock in the OT.
You could read this 2 diffrent ways.
Who decides ?
Exactly. Protestants go with Martin Luther and other reformers who made their own decision about how to interpret this passage and many others, unhinged from the historic interpretation of the Catholic Church and 1500 years removed from the historic events.
I will go with the interpretation of the apostles and those that they taught a mere century or less removed from the time of the events and preserved in the historic teaching of the Catholic Church.
I just gave you Matt 16:18-19 to comment since you asked for a bible quote. You choose to ignore it. So what do you want really?
BTW, Pope Leo X was a priest and a cardinal. He was a junior Cardinal thus called a deacon Cardinal. Just to show all the deliberate misinformation out there.
Mat 16:13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”
Mat 16:14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
Mat 16:15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
Mat 16:16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
This is the Full Context , you can not begain a new thought with AND sorry so these are a series of thoughts or statments that point to one Idea.
Mat 16:16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus makes the statment
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my “Father who is in heaven”.
Father who is in heaven. (rock) and on this rock Peter
Mat 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter(Petrus), and on this rock(petra) I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
rock is not used as a proper noun here , so it isnt a name . Petros(Stone) is the proper noun in greek , petra is rock they mean the same but spell differntly in the greek, in the Greek is written as petra not Petros.
Peter,G4074 andG2532 uponG1909 thisG5026 rockG4073Thayer’s/Strong’s Number:
And petra is found in the LXX for rock. Petros or Petus are not.
Anthor note petra is femine; the Church is called the bride. MMM thats streching it thou.
Mat 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Its belived Jesus makes a quote from
Isa 22:22 And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
That Peter will steward the Church. Peter becomes the first apostle here in Matt. Not pope or papas which are Latin terms and Jesus if even speaking in Greek (More likley Aramaic)would have never inferred a Latin aspect or ideology.
Okay, we will say this ordering.
There’s nothing unclear here. Jesus spoke Aramaic. His words would be in Matt 16:18-19: Thou are Kepha (Rock) and upon this kepha (rock) I will build my church. To make it clearer, Jesus himself changed SImon’s name to Kepha (Mk 3:16). Paul also called Simon by Kepha or Cephas (See Gal 2:1-2). Petros is just a musculine rendering for Rock as a personal name in Greek. It’s believe that an original Aramaic or Hebrew version of Matthew existed first (according to Papias).
Yes, the “keys” is a reference to Isaiah to denote authority. What’s your problem with the term “Pope”? It just mean “Papa” or “Father”. Paul calls himself “father” too. What do you call your minister in your church anyway?
The oldest Aramaic or Hebrew copy of the New Testiment doesnt appear until aornd 500AD 200 after the greek texts. Probley because greek was more widley known and most of the early monistaries were coppie mills and greek was more so, And the Romans were out to distory everything hebrew. But know dout , my opinion thier was a copy at one time. Most scienist belive that all the greek copies are copies. the Orignal most liky in Aramaic. But were distored by the Romans.
the problem with pope is that its an office.
i call my pastor by first name and vice verca . Jesus siads i call you friend.
Its the conversiontion that Jesus is having with Peter before Jesus makes the delaration.
Peter not by Flesh and Boold knows that Jesus is the Chirst. Not by Fleah and Blood but by The Father in Heaven and on this Rock my church will be built . Not a Chruch of flesh and blood but by revelation God Himself reveal by the Spirit. Peter is to steward this be a servant. And all the Apostles are charge with the same later on but , this event is special becaues Peter is the First to Called.
Not true about the timing . Only an Aramaic or Hebrew Matthew was mentioned by Papia and that would be before the other gospels were written, that is in the early first century.
Also, not true that the other apostles were “charged with the same.” Yes, all the apostles were given the “power of binding and loosing” later in Matt 18:18) but it was to Peter alone of the keys of the kingdom and upon him alone that the church is built.
Yes, not “flesh and blood has revealed it but the Father in heaven.” That’s by the WILL OF THE FATHER about the founding of the church upon Kepha or Peter. You can’t say that for any other faith traditions: Lutherans (Martin Luther), Presbyterians (John Knox), Anglicanism (King Henry 8th), Methodisim (John Wesley), and on and on, all founded by a human person.
Like every other bible passages, there are different layers of meaning. But the main reason for the declaration of the founding of the church of God upon Kepha or Peter. There are other supporting bible passages if you are interested.
but any Aramaic writings or translations that we do know of were all translated from the Greek. Thats fact so all the speculation of a Orginal Hebrew NT is speculation. Acording to Hebrew Lingist experts. The Greek mainucripts are the Oldest NT that we have and know of everthing else is speclation and if the Pope said that he should have clarifyed that it was speculation.
I dont know were you got you information about the reformation. But most of what you say is a half truth. Of course your going to Just mimic the Papas. And not acually get Scholorly information or no baised no Rome information.
You must think that Non-Catholics are dumb stupid people , all hethen sinners. Well I dont know were you got that Idea from. Reformers are the only Prodistent sect that still respects and teaches are shared tradition. Yes The Catholic and reformers will always have a shared tradition. Or at lest a shared History. Early Chruch is also ours. The Church Fathers Eastern and Western are also ours. The Nicen Creed is a Shared creed , The Apostels Creed is a Shared Creed. But you seem to think that Reformers know nothing of catholism quite the opposite . What makes me angry is that Catholics will share commuion with Reformers and the disunity comes from the Pope ans catholics Not reformers, We have had many quest Preist come and speak on Sundays but they will not share in the Sacrament of Commuion, because of Polociy by the Office of the Paps of Rome. SO who in todays age with all are share history and conflicts wich side will not forgive , its not us.
It’s good that your church invites Catholics to speak. You know why Catholics cannot partake in the Holy Communion in Protestant services? Because Protestants have make a sacrilege of the Holy Communion. Protestants treat the H.C. as purely symbolic. It’s just as well they do cos they do not have a valid priesthood to celebrate a true H.C. anyway, and also by the disrespectful manner they treat the precious body and blood of Christ. Christ himself cannot be more clear in John 6 when he repeatedly declared that the H.C. is truly his body and blood. Yes, many followers even left Christ because they found it to be a “hard saying” at that time. Well, Protestants are doing the same and even worse. St. Paul warns us to not partake H.C. unworthily for “any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself (See 1 Corinthians 11:27, 29). So the fault lies on the Protestants. You are asking Catholics to deny a most important gift from God … his precious body an blood for eternal life (See John 6 again). That’s one of the good reasons why it is important to come home to the Catholic Church to be nourished by Christ’s body and blood. Don’t say it is not important. If Christ deems it is important for our salvation, then it’s important.
bfhu
If you going to Quote me Please Use the Whole Quote
THE oFFICE of PAPS is a man made office.
You should rename the stite to bashing non-catholics. We spread are Catholic Hate.com
I am not Pam, the site owner, and this place is for people who are seeking the truth with a clean heart. Just don’t come here to bash Catholics with all kinds of untruth. In this info age, there’s no excuse to not check your facts before you make a mockery of Holy Spirit.
I hate this bullitain Board all my responses came out in the wrong order
Make sure you click on “reply” of a particular message thread. If you simply post straight without linking, it will be treated as a brand new message and will end up in the wrong place like the bottom of the page. Don’t feel bad. I have made the same mistake too.
Im Misinformed about what?
Misinformed about the historicity of Jamnia, about Pope Leo X being just a lay deacon, etc. etc.
The Rock is the Father in Heaven , Not Peter, NOT Flesh and Blood read the passage in Context no Just 2 verses that will just mimic your mad man doctrine.
Read in context, my friend. Nothing about the Rock is the Father in heaven. Father in heaven revealed Christ’s divinity to Peter. Then Christ was talking directly with Peter, the Rock: You are Rock and upon this rock … Sorry, I cannot help you any more. Just be happy with your twisted interpretation as you please if you really don’t like Christ’s straight talking.
Surkiko,
You are quite wrong when you write, “Read in context, my friend. Nothing about the Rock is the Father in heaven.”
Remember, Jesus came to fulfill even the slightest pen stroke of the Old Testament (Matthew 5:17-21) and the OT says explicitly that only God is the Rock!
He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he. Deuteronomy 32:4
“There is no one holy like the LORD; there is no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God. 1 Samuel 2:2
My salvation and my honor depend on God ; he is my mighty rock, my refuge. Psalm 62:7
For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God? Psalm 18:31
There is no other “Rock” than God. Only the Roman church blasphemes God by taking His title and giving it to a man.
Peace.
Peter does not have more Athority than Jesus or the Father in Heaven.
If you continue to read , Peter makes a statement that Jesus will not die or suffer Jesus respons Get behind me satin. Peter has to Learn that if he wants to be the first he hast to be the last or the lest. I dont think peter or pual wore gold. I think Paul lost His head. and Peter was crusified upside down. Most Popes live in a shagerla palce. Paul preched in rags , not slik.. and of course this post will appear out of order so it looks like all the Non catholics on this site look like wakos.
No Catholic will tell you that Peter is more important than Christ or God the Father. Peter was merely a creature like you and me. Christ is the head of the church. He merely appointed Peter to be his vicar or representative on earth while he is gone.
you tell me I misinfored but most all of my sources comes from Catholics sources. So you Dont even belive yourown history told by your ancesters or your people.
Since when? I don”t have problem researching Catholic or secular resources, even credible Protestant ones. You just have to take the time to read them for yourself instead of relying on Protestants with an anti-Catholic agenda.
3. For although the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth, St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria; and Doctor of the Church; about 318 A.D.
What’s your point? I thought that you agreed that sola scriptura is a man’s invention. No one is arguing that scripture is not sufficient …
Sorry, all this is nonsensical. Even the best Protestant scholars and theologians have been unable to provide a good verse to support Sola Scriptura for 500 years since Reformation. You even finally admitted that it is man-made so why are you still trying so hard to prove Sola Scriptura from the bible again? Some bad habits? All you got is some loose verses which don’t even connect. Frankly, Robert, you can make better use of your time evangelizing pagans and people who has never heard the gospel. Go to a raw mission field instead of wasting time “converting” another Christian like Catholic. Take up the heavy cross like the great Catholic missionaries who brought the gospel to the most remote parts of the world, forsaking everything for Christ and for the sake of His kingdom. Not to worry, your devoted and pious Catholic mom is in good hand with the Lord. I also know that the best-versed “bible” Christians have nothing to prove unless they live a holy and righteous life. Ranting off scripture verses do not make one better than a simple Catholic who humbly listen to the church and follow her wise precepts to please God alone. You just be at peace with yourself whatever you do. Be a good Presbyterian and Calvinist if that’s your conviction. God bless you, Robert.
Foundational Scriptural Evidence for Sola Scirpta
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
Notice the word light , Gen 1:3 God said let there be light , then look at John 1:4 In him was life and the life was the light of men.
God spoke you and me and Creation into the world.
How do we know if God is speaking to us or through us? How can we check to see if its really God speaking, or is it are own egos or satin?
Even ST. Augustine check all of his inspirations to see; what did he use to check them? scripture. This was before the Catholic tradition was on paper. Christian Tradition grew out of the Holy Scripture not vice versa. Hebrew tradition grew out of oral teaching of the Law or Torah or instruction. But then later was written down. But Popes have misused this placing themselves even above their own tradition. Misreading of Matt 16. Which is really that God spoke the Church into existence by revelationof Chirst through Peter, when Peter said you are the Christ. There is no Office here, then Jesus Quotes IS 22:22 that Peter will steward the Church in. Not by making dogma but preaching the Gospel the Good News.
Their our 256 verse references for “word of the Lord”
There are none for “Tradition of the catholic Church”
Mat 15:2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.”
Mat 15:3 He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?
Mat 15:6 he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.
Mar 7:8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”
Mar 7:9 And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!
Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.
1Pe 1:25 but the word of the Lord remains forever.” And this word is the good news that was preached to you.
Through out my life I have talk to many Catholic Priest and never did I hear the good news.
It wasnt till I read Scriptrue that God Spoke to me.
Now Ive come to realiy on it . Thank God for is word.
Sola Scirpta while a man made doctrine it is a primary princeable I belive , If the Papas Acully used this to Defeat Luther with they would have won. They could have defeated him by his own Doctrine But instead of revieing the new reformed theology. The Pope threaten by it. They should have listen too Desiderius Erasmus, He was faithful to the Catholic Church, He wanted Luther to back down and wait . Desiderius Erasmus belived in some of the reforms, but reject alot og them like Perdestination. Erasmus and the Age of Reformation (Tr. F. Hopman and Barbara Flower; New York: Harper and Row, 1924), 190.
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/index.html
ALL Bible Quotes are From the English Standard Version or ESV Publish by Cossway:
As a princeable It takes more than One scriptrue passage . So Give anther for Justification for the Office Pope, Matt 16 is a MissReading and Wishfull thinking on your part to mean a certian thing to eastem Peter as a god would be a typical Roman view. For they viewed many human beings as gods. Jesus however how hard the Catholic Churcch makes him to look Roman. Jesus was Hebrew Jesus was Jewish. FACT IM drue you will mimic papas something. For you see the pope as a god. Wich is very Roman
Dear Robert,
You said:
But….Uhmmmm…..where is this principle in Scripture?
BTW thier is more evidaince in Holy Scriptrue for Sola Scriptor Than the Assumtion of Mary.
But as a Roman you would view Mary to be a god , that Idea is Roman.
I dont think you understand . You never will , example, Most Catholics who attend mass in Spain
Dont Belive Jesus exstied , they come to Mass because its part of their Spainish heritge. This intview was conducted by Sojenders Magazine in 2001. But Jim Wallis is heritic to you.
Do you see Catholics have been tuaght to worship tradition and cultrue over Jesus Chirst Himself.
Hello Robert,
If you have had been properly catechized, you will not make the same kind of outlandish statements about your childhood faith. You will not be taken seriously here if you continue to bash Catholics for something which is obviously a distortion of what they truly believe.
Regards,
bfhu,
Would you be kind enough to give us what you understand to be the definition of Sola Scriptura?
Peace.
All that may legitimately be believed for Christians must be contained in Sacred Scriptura.
If it isn’t in Scripture one must not believe it.
That is how I understood it as a Protestant.
Thanks, bfhu.
Your definition of sola scriptura helps me understand your misunderstandings.
But unfortunately you have a different understanding from Protestants. The better definition is that Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that states the Bible is the sole, infallible rule for faith and practice for any believers. And that does not mean that Christians must only believe what is in the Bible. You may remember that all the mainline Protestant denominations have confessional documents – like the Catholics have their Catechism – and we all believe those confessional documents. The difference is that we don’t believe the confessional docs are infallible – that attribute belongs to Scripture alone. To use your words, the confessions may be “legitimately” believed to be true but to be infallible.
I hope that will help as you seem to be very concerned about that doctrine.
Peace.
Right Constantine,
We don’t believe our Catechism to be infallible exactly either. But what it teaches is based on infallible documents and they are cited as footnotes (not all the footnotes are infallible docs though). But, the CCC is certainly trustworthy and when laypeople, priests or bishops try to change the faith, one can go to the CCC and show them where they err. I don’t think our understanding of Sola Scriptura is different.
Hi bfhu,
Our understanding of Sola Scriptura is fundamentally different.
Here is what you understand it to be:
All that may legitimately be believed for Christians must be contained in Sacred Scriptura.
If it isn’t in Scripture one must not believe it.
That is not a proper understanding. Protestants may “legitimately” believe things that are outside of the Scripture. Just as you believe your Catechism, Protestants hold to their Confessions. So it is really important that you understand this properly because you so regularly assail what you misunderstand it to be.
Sola Scriptura means that the 66 books of the written Scriptures are the sole, INFALLIBLE source for faith and practice for all believers. It does NOT mean that the Scriptures are the ONLY source. I hope that is clear for you because it will make your future posts more relevant.
Peace.
Constantine,
In the Protestant denomination I belonged to as a Protestant, no confessional document would be worth anything if what it offered for belief could not be found in scripture it would not be accepted. But you are correct about certain aspects of Protestant confessional statements, and that is the acceptance of many Protestant Traditions that most Protestants never realize are not explicitly in Scripture but are Oral Protestant Tradition and even some Catholic Oral Tradition.
Sola Scriptura means sola! Over time, most Protestants have come to the realization that Sola Scripura is unbiblical and not workable. So different people started to RE-INVENT Sola Scriptura including what Constantine has tried to explain it. Protestants will twist and distort Sola Scriptura in every shape or formpossible… just so long as they don’t have to admit that there is a Church which was founded by Christ to teach and govern the flock on earth as described in the bible.
And “sola” is NOT “solo”.
As we have just seen in my interaction with bfhu/Pam, Catholics set up a straw man misunderstanding of this doctrine and then attack us on that. We owe it to each other to at least get our definitions straight.
And I wish you would stop with your insulting, gratuitous swipes.
Please see my earlier comment about the church. The biblical church has nothing at all to do with the Roman church.
Surkiko writes,
The bible used by Jesus, his apostles and all Christians up until the Protestant Reformation was the Septuagint.
That is completely wrong. The Septuagint was used by Diaspora Jews in the Greek speaking world. There is absolutely no evidence that any of the original twelve, or Christ Himself, had any knowledge of Greek. So it is impossible that they used the Septuagint.
Secondly, Jesus Himself tells us He used the Hebrew Scriptures. In Luke 11:51, His ordering of the prophets was used only in the Hebrew Scriptures and not in the Septuagint.
Jesus, therefore, did not know of the Septuagint.
Peace.
Sorry to disappoint you. Even Protestant scholars will tell you that New Testament quotes the Old Testament about 350 times, and 300 of those times the quotation is taken from the Septuagint. For example, Jesus quoted Isa 29:13 i from Septuagint in Mark 7:6-8: “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.”
Since you are obviously not interested to learn about truth, this will be my last reply to you.
My dear surkiko,
I’m not at all disappointed. I am always invigorated to explore God’s truth so that He may be glorified.
Of course, the New Testament quotes the Old. But the New Testament also quotes pagan writings. Acts 17:28 quotes two pagan writers. Do you believe that because they were quoted, they are Scripture? Of course not. So the fact that something is quoted in the New Testament is not proof it is Scripture.
And Isaiah is in both the Hebrew and Greek versions so how can you know which version he quoted? Is there a difference?
But here’s the key. In Luke 11, Jesus gives us His interpretation. And as I mentioned before, it comes from the Hebrew Bible.
And I hope your frustration won’t keep you from commenting. We must contend for the truth.
I, like Robert, would appreciate it if you wouldn’t be so personal. You can’t know about my interest in the truth and to assume the worst without such knowledge is really not very Christian.
Peace.
Surkiko opines once more,
It’ is a divine sign when the “Roman” church never falls into heresies and is always united in “one Lord, one faith and one baptism” throughout the age. You can’t say that for any of the other Christians bodies which are largely in apostasy right now.
But the “Roman” church has fallen into heresy repeatedly. There is not enough room here to list them all but one will suffice.
In 417-418, Pope Zosimus declared Pelagianism to be acceptable. It was only after God used the secular emperor to stifle this heretic that the church was saved from immortal error.
So my dear Surkiko, you need to read your history more fully and faithfully.
Peace.
Pope Zosimus never declared Pelagianism to be the faith of the universal church. Even by your own words, “the church was saved from immortal error” … so did the “Roman” church fell into heresy or not? Make up your mind.
sufkiko,
No need to be so nasty.
Zosimus did indeed command Augustine and the North African bishops to accept Pelagius and Coelestius as orthodox. So, yes, the bishop of Rome led the charge into heresy.
And the fact that God used a secular emperor to correct the error is just one indication that Rome is NOT the one, true church.
My mind has always been made on this, my friend.
Peace.
You obviously don’t understand the dogma of Infallibility. And don’t you try to re-invent the dogma for Catholics and tell Catholics what to believe. I am not even addressing your poor reading of history. I am just challenging your allegation. So so did the “Roman” church fell into heresy or not? Did the Pope declare ex-cathedra on Pelagianism or not. That’s very different from (your words) “leading the charge”. So even if there was an intervening event to stop a pope from committing a formal heresy, doesn’t it just prove that God is watching over the Church and is keeping his promise to protect it from errors?
I think that you are very muddled on the issue.
I never said a word about infallibility. And the fact that you are attacking me on something I never said shows just how desperate you are.
If you take exception to my reading of history then I challenge you to stop your simple-minded ad hominem and interact with it.
If, by ex cathedra, you mean the precondition for the proclamation of an infallible dogma as defined by Vatican I, then you are hopelessly lost. Zosimus lived in the 5th century and could not have known what would not be promulgated until the 19th!
If, by ex cathedra, you mean a papal pronouncement regarding the “faith and morals” of the church universal, then the answer is “Yes.” Pope Zosimus issued two papal bulls – Magnum pondus and Postquam a nobis which assured the African bishops of the “absoluta fides” of both Pelagius and Coelestius and ordered them to be reinstated. Therefore, the bishop of Rome in his official capacity as leader of the church, endorsed a heresy – twice!
The importance of God using the secular Emperor to stop Rome is this: 1.) Pelagianism had already taken root in Rome but was stopped only when it spread from Rome to Africa, 2.) the bishop of Rome and the Roman church allowed the heresy to spread and even supported it, 3.) God intervened to stop this heresy in Africa in contradiction to Rome to show that He rules according to His will and NOT through the Roman Church.
Now, if you can interact with these historical facts without resorting to your nasty tactics, I wish you peace.
bfhu,
When your wrote,
Protestants trust the tradtion of the Catholic Church regarding the canon of scripture
what did you possibly mean? No Protestant trust the Roman church and certainly not its canon.
Peace.
The Bible was canonized by the Catholic Church in the late 300’s and early 400’s by popes and council. It was authoritatively closed to further speculation. All Christians used this canon for the next 1100 years, until Luther on his own authority removed 7 books from the OT. Protestants received the NT from the Catholic Church and Luther even acknowledges this:
-Luther’s Commentary on St John ch. 16.
In the same way the Catholic Church received the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures from the Jews. This translation was done long before many of the Jews rejected their Messiah. Luther accepted the OT canon of Jews 100 years after their rejection of the Messiah.
The Roman church did not claim to infallibly define the canon of Scripture before Trent, and yet people (both in the Roman communion and outside it) felt perfectly comfortable having a fallible canon. It worked for over 1500 years.
Ignatius was satisfied with a canon that was not based on a church having a gift of infallibility. So were all the church fathers and all the medieval theologians.
The North African councils produced a canon themselves rather than attempting to seek an ecumenical decision on the question. Before them, Athanasius provided a list of the canon of Scripture without even relying on a church council!
And then, after the Reformation comes along, Trent tries to infallibly define the canon. And when they define it, they contradict two leading cardinals of the immediately previous generation (Cardinals Ximenez and Cajetan) – cardinals who affirmed Jerome’s (and the Protestants’) canon.
So I don’t think its true, bfhu, that the canon was closed that early. Otherwise, you would have to say that Athanasius, Augustine and the other Fathers were wrong.
Peace.
Doctrine and Dogmas were never infallibly defined until there was so much confusion the the Church stepped in to infallibly define what must be believed as opposed to heresies or distortions of the TRUTH.
For instance, the belief that Marriage is between one man and one woman has never been infallibly defined. Because everyone accepted it in all cultures. But, in the West, this belief is seriously threatened and the homosexual agenda is causing confusion to the point that I would not be surprised if the Pope Infallibly defined marriage sometime soon.
Even though all the Christian writings portray this clearly it may need to be specifically defined AGAIN.
Surkiko jests,
The Catholic Church is all about truth.
Now that’s funny! Are you kidding? If we can learn anything about the recent child abuse scandal is that the “truth” is only something that can be dragged out of the Roman church at the point of a gun! How “much” truth was hidden and for how long just in this one instance?
Thanks for the laugh, Surkiko. It brightened my day!
Peace.
You won’t be laughing when you get to the Pearly Gate and Christ ask if you have been obedient to all his commandments. You will have to prove invincible ignorance so don’t get too cozy yet ….
Wow. You really don’t get it, do you?
The very reason that Christ came to the earth is because nobody can be “obedient to all his commandments.” So Christ would never ask such a stupid question.
The Apostle Paul says, “Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law” (Romans 3:19). But Christians are not under the Law – only the Jews were. We are under the covenant of grace! And that Covenant, sealed with the blood of Christ, means that we have been saved by grace, through faith – and that is a gift from God! (Eph. 2_8-9).
I pray that God will open your eyes for His glory so that you will be rescued from the damning theology you have learned from Rome.
There’s no such thing as “invincible ignorance”. The Roman cult made that up
DON’T MISS THE MARK !!!
Jn 21:25: “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written” = Not all the Oral Traditions (Christ’s teaching) were written down (in the Bible).
The Scripture is Tradition par-excellence, but it is not the WHOLE Tradition.
O Timothy, Guard the Deposit of Faith!
“O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid the godless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge, for by professing it some have missed the mark as regards the faith” (1 Tim 6:20-21)
The things that were not written down were the many things Jesus did. This says nothing about ongoing oral tradition.
Jesus did not write any book. So if Jesus taught many things, they are in ORAL form …. what would you call them? Oral Tradition or the handing down … Which part do you not understand?
Jesus DID many things …. He taught, demonstrate, illustrate, draw, …. which part of “DID” is so hard to grasp???
Surkiko
How do you know – today – what Jesus taught?
The only objective, verifiable source you have is the written Scriptures.
Why do you think Jesus established a teaching church? So Christians of all generations will know what Jesus’ teachings are, something you won’t understand if you are always standing outside and try to peek into the Mother Church as outsiders (like looking at stain glasses from the outside of the building).
No, relying on individuals reading and interpreting bible for themselves is a recipe for disaster. The end result is 34,000 Protestant denominations not counting the countless congregational and house churches. It does not work because it was not God’s design. It’s all subjectivity and individualism in the extreme. On the other hand, there is a Church officially organized by Christ to teach and govern. It’s there in the NT if you care to explore. (starting with Matt 16:18-19).
Where did Jesus say he established a teaching church? Your wishful thinking about Rome causes you to make such huge leaps of faith that can’t possibly be supported.
What Jesus said – quoting the Prophet Isaiah – was, “It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’” (John 6:45). The teaching is done by God the Holy Spirit.
And your harping about individual interpretation of the Bible shows a further lack of understanding. God promised to give wisdom to the wise (Daniel 2:21) and send His Spirit to remind us of all the things He taught (John 14:26). If that is the case, what is left for the Church to teach? The church has a very different function.
And please don’t use Matthew 16. You violate “Tradition” when you do!
Peace.
Pope St. Gregory the Great was a Sola Scirpturist!
This is from a wonderful book by an excellent scholar and I thought you would enjoy it.
Ekonomou, Andrew. Byzantine Rome and the Greek Popes, p. 12
Pope St. Gregory believed in Sola Scriptura!
Amen.
Peace.
It only shows that you have been reading stuff that’s worthless. Find a good book. One day, you may thank me for redirecting you away from all the junks. Pope Gregory was a Catholic and what do you think he believed? So was St. Augustine a Catholic who the Calvinists like to pretend that he was all so …. sola scripturist! Dream on. You obviously know how to use the internet. Good information is readily available so make use use of all the search engines!
Shame on you to defame legitimate scholars. You should stop reading the censored materials from Rome!
What do I think Pope St. Gregory believed? That is what I posted for you! But you are so blinded by your prejudice that you must resort to slandering a published scholar whose work has been peer reviewed. If you have anything substantive to say against it, please, by all means. But if all you can do is slander someone you have never met, then, well, we see how Catholicism has destroyed your Christian charity.
I call garbage as garbage. Shouldn’t you be at a place like a Calvinist group where all you like-mind can self-congratulate each other for having been specially elected and the rest of us be damned for lack of free will? You are not going to get a receptive audience here if you persist to talk trash with trash scholarship. You won’t get respect.
Garbage is all your offer, friend.
You are insulting and nasty and defame the name of Christ. You are not smart enough to call Dr. Ekonomou a “trash scholar” and you should be ashamed.
The good news is that everyone here can see what happens to a man’s spirit when he is a Roman Catholic. He becomes like the Inquisitors of old who feel that they can disregard the teachings of Christ as they spew hateful insults.
I pray that God will grant you repentance from your mean-spiritedness.
Calling Pope Gregory a sola-scripturist is like me insisting that you are a “papist” … which I know that you ain’t. and will be very irresponsible of me to call you by that. Just because someone quotes a lot of scripture does not begin to presume that he or she believes in sola scriptura. I can quote bible as much as you but unlike you, I happen to think sola scriptura is a major heresy which breeds errors with very grave eternal consequences. And I can see why too.
It’s not so much Dr. Ekonomou or whatever you are quoting from, it’s the abuse, insane and illogical deduction you are drawing from it. You are simply not a very clear thinking person. This will be my last response to you. You take care.
Please give me an example of an “insane and illogical” deduction.
And stop with the simple-minded insults. We already have all the examples we need of your nastiness.
I just did. If you disagree, show me why.
I think my last post answered your question. Because Sola Scriptura does not mean Solo Scriptura to deduce that Gregory was a sola scripturist is appropriate.
Our talking past each other resulted from an incorrect understanding of the term which I hope is now clearer.
It’s not that he quoted a lot of Scripture. It’s that he only quoted Scripture.
I know the fine points elude you.
Since I am still here, I will respond:
“intellectuals like Gregory retreated to an ALMOST complete reliance on Scripture alone in their
writings”
Now, is that “almost” the same as he “only” quoted Scripture?
That’s why we have so many communication problem.
Surkiko,
I think we’re making progress.
As I explained to our delightful host, bfhu, it seems taht the contributors to this website have a mistaken notion of Sola Scriptura. The “almost” that you so vigorously quote is perfectly in line with Sola Scriptura. Please don’t confuse SOLO with SOLA.
And if read a little further, you would have seen this: “By taking refuge in the sole authority of the Bible, Gregory could conceal his own educational shortcomings.”
Gregory, while quoting other sources (i.e. Pliney) relied on scripture alone as his infallible source.
That shows he was a SOLA scipturist and not a SOLO scripturist.
Peace.
I BFHU am posting the following for Surkiko b/cthe comments on this site are out of whack. I have emailed support twice. And it sort of looks like it is working but Surkiko is having difficulty posting. So…
SURKIKO Replies:
I think that it’s just as muddled as before. And here’s why …
WILL THE REAL SOLA SCRIPTURA STAND UP !!
Let me try to do this as gently as possible. No one believe in sola or solo scriptura: not Jesus, not the original twelve apostles, no patristic Fathers and no Christians for the first 1600 years of Christianity (until Martin Luther showed up and introduced the novel and strange doctrine). All this is a matter of history which can be verified. Pope Gregory was a Catholic and accordingly he was not a solo or sola scripturist. That’s what I meant when I asked what you think Pope Gregory believed. To say Pope Gregory or any Catholic (assuming he or she is properly catechized) believe in solo or sola scriptura will be like saying you, Costantine, is a “papist” because it is just not possible. So it’s only wishful thinking to try to assert that somehow Pope Gregory was a solo or sola scripturist. It is not reality.
I explained sola scriptura earlier. Basically, Protestants found out that the doctrine was unbiblical and unsound, so different Protestant apologists began re-invent the doctrine in the hope of adding more mileage to it. The result is that no one can ever hope to hold a real and meaningful conversation with a Protestant any longer because Protestants cannot even agree with each other on this supposedly principal tenat of Protestantism (That’s why Pam, a convert, and you can’t agree on the meaning of ‘sola scriptura’). There’s simply no unanimity for the definition of sola scriptura so it’s not uncommon for a Protestant to hold a very different view of sola scriptura than the man on the pulpit or another believer sitting right next in the pew.
“Solo” scriptura is the latest and most radical re-invention of sola scriptura yet … whereby the final authority in now invested in each individual believer. Every doctrine and practice is measured against a final standard of the individual’s personal judgment of what is and is not biblical. The result is subjectivism and relativism, the spirit of modern secularism. Thus,sola scriptura is no longer to mean Bible Alone but Me-Alone.
My dear bfhu,
Thank you for being gentle, but you could still not be more wrong when you write, “No one believe in sola or solo scriptura: not Jesus, not the original twelve apostles, no patristic Fathers and no Christians for the first 1600 years of Christianity (until Martin Luther showed up and introduced the novel and strange doctrine).”
The sufficiency of Scripture was settled OT doctrine. For your reference, please see Deut. 28:58-59, Deut. 30: 9-10, Joshua 1: 8, Joshua 23:6, 1 Kings 2: 1-3, Proverbs 30:5-6. And because Jesus affirmed every “jot and tittle” of the OT (see Matthew 5:17-21) Jesus most certainly did believe in the doctrine.
As far as the Patristics, you are just being silly:
And another scholar who is regularly quoted by Catholics:
I don’t know how you can read the Fathers – in this case Clement, Origen, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem – and miss that they taught Sola Scriptura. Kelly goes on to quote Augustine and Vincent of Lerins in the same vein. So your comment about no one for the first 1600 years taught or believed it is simply historically and factually wrong.
Peace.
Holding the Scriptures as infallible and authoritative, which the Catholic Church does, does not equal Sola Scriptura.
In Response to:surkiko, on April 19, 2011 at 7:27 pm said:
Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, anglicised as Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 220 AD),
Tertullian has been called “the father of Latin Christianity”[3] and “the founder of Western theology.”[4] the oldest extant Latin writer to use the term Trinity (Latin trinitas),[5] Ex communicated later for Joining Montanists
About this time the Old Roman Creed was formed, what we today know as the Apostils Creed (sixth-century Gallican version). Most likely the early fathers Like Tertullian, St. Irenaeus (ca. 125-202), Bishop of Lyons and others were refuting Gnosticism. We don’t know who wrote it, its first written form appeared (ca. A.D. 215). (We have fragments from it from this time period)
It is possible that The Original 12 could have orally formed this or The Elders that came recently afterwards, If was in the time that Nero was Cesar it is obvious why it wasn’t written down.
A small and Brief List of early Persecutions
1. Persecution under Nero (c. 64-68). Traditional martyrdoms of Peter and Paul.
2. Persecution under Domitian (r. 81-96).
3. Persecution under Trajan (112-117). Christianity is outlawed but Christians are not sought out.
4. Persecution under Marcus Aurelius (r. 161-180). Martyrdom of Polycarp.
5. Persecution under Septimus Severus (202-210). Martyrdom of Perpetua.
6. Persecution under Decius (250-251). Christians are actively sought out by requiring public sacrifice. Could buy certificates (libelli) instead of sacrificing. Martyrdoms of bishops of Rome, Jerusalem and Antioch.
7. Persecution under Valerian (257-59). Martyrdoms of Cyprian of Carthage and Sixtus II of Rome.
8. Persecution under Maximinus the Thracian (235-38).
9. Persecution under Aurelian (r. 270–275).
10. Severe persecution under Diocletian and Galerius (303-324).
11. Still being persecuted It has been estimated that more Christians have been martyred in the last 50 years than in the church’s first 300 years. {7}Everett Ferguson, “Did You Know?” Christian History, Issue 27 (Vol. XI, No. 3), Everett Ferguson Is a expert on Church History ESP. the Church Fathers.
Joh 21:25 Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
This verse is like the great clause in the Catholic Church; the keys words “What Jesus did” Were they all related to the Church? All the things He did? Maybe Jesus had personal life and we just don’t know. So even trying to intemperate this passage even if you’re an extant of the Catholic Church I don’t know if you can honestly justify any thing through this statement. One it’s a closing statement; so the writer obviously wants to use an exhortation to show readers how awesome and Magnificent Jesus was and is.
2Th 2:14 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2Th 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.
You have to read these together to start a sentence with “so” means that the writer wants to show that there is more. The main thought to me here is in verse 14 “Through our Gospel” Meaning (good news or good message) Most likely Paul is refereeing to the Jesus the Messiah, So you would have to Assume since Paul did most of his teachings from the OT that tradition would inferred to 2b) of the body of precepts, especially ritual, which in the opinion of the later Jews were orally delivered by Moses and orally transmitted in unbroken succession to subsequent generations, which precepts, both illustrating and expanding the written law, as they did were to be obeyed with equal reverence.
You can’t look at Paul as if He were born in Rome and Grew up in a Roman Culture that would be a huge mistake. Paul was a Roman Citizen Yes. But was born Jewish and grew up Jewish and educated Jewish. “I’m a Hebrew of Hebrews”
Joh 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.
The Holy Spirit teaches me all things.” bring to your remembrance “ this is key
This does come through Preaching; I have know doubt I have heard the Only Spirit speak to me directly while sitting in a pew on Sundays during the sermon. “How will they hear innless they have a preacher”
This statement in which you stated “the original Deposit of Faith “ Preaching is not the original deposit of Faith. Paul doesn’t say that.
Eph 1:13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,
Eph 1:14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.
Verse 14 it said “Who” Paul is talking about a person not the Church; The Church isn’t a Person. It’s a Body of Believers. With Christ has the head; the toe being no less important than the arm.
Verse 13, Sure the Early Christians heard it from Preaching, We still do, but Preaching is not a person.
This isn’t Just a Roman Catholic Tradition “Except this is not the Promise” Sacred Tradition (or Deposit of Faith)” Sorry you a dead wrong on this. Thiers no other way to explain it. The Promise is God himself entering to the hearts of men. “The Law will be written in you Hearts”
This is what leads us to repentance and sanctification which leads to Salvation. This whole process is purification. Which Jesus Himself made possible Once and for all on the Cross. We die Spiritually in His death(Baptism) with Him so we will be raised with Him.
The Holy Spirit conforms Us. Not the Church. No Law or Dogma can atone for sin IE doctrine or Tradition. If it did then their would have been no New Covent. The blood of bulls and goats would have been enough.
Rom 6:3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.
Rom 6:6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.
“Brought to nothing” Sanctification” Some translations read “done away with”
Sin (Self) will be brought to “nothing” Self Must die so sin is brought to nothing. We die spiritually, we eventually die physically the Hope is in the Resurrection.
Everything about the flesh; even if some fleshy things seem profitable (IE My Stock Portfolio). Don’t worry most Reformers cant handle this either. They still want to hold on to their “shagerla” in the country.
This the full expression of the thought.
Mat 18:15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.
Mat 18:16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
Mat 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Jesus is talking about sin hear
Your statement ““listen to the Church”,
Should be stated listen to the Holy Spirit.
If this person won’t listen to his brother or two witnesses, or the Church, then obviously, this person has not been baptized by Fire of Holy Spirit.
Remember this is before Jesus death and Resurrection, Some of Jesus statements can be viewed as Revelation, and this is one such passage. If the law (Church, 2 wittiness) will not bring this person to the knowledge of their own sin and conviction by the Holy Spirit Then this man should be treated like a US banker or a Wall Street Stock Broker. This Passage has nothing to do with If I believe this or that tradition.
Your statement “God did not leave you as “orphans” (Jn 14:18). There is the church of God which is the “pillar and buttress of truth” (1 Tim 3:15). Where can you find that Church today?
The Holy Spirit is Person; not a body or a group or an institution of believers. The Church is the people of God,
The Church is a gift from the Holy Spirit. Not Vice Versa.
Joh 4:24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”
You misquoted the passage again
Joh 14:18 “I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you
“I will come to you” I don’t have to go anywhere, but wait on the Lord.
Your Reading trhis out of Context Pual is Giving Timothy a Young Clergy Intruction on how to behave in church..
1Ti 3:15 if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.
The whole letter is about this.
1Ti 1:18 This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare,
1Ti 1:19 holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith,
1Ti 1:20 among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.
Paul even gives examples of good behavior in Church
1Ti 2:1 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people,
1Ti 2:2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.
1Ti 2:3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior,
1Ti 2:4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1Ti 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
A person not a Office.
“Still being persecuted It has been estimated that more Christians have been martyred in the last 50 years than in the church’s first 300 years. {7}Everett Ferguson”
Not sure what’s your point. Most Christians in the developed world still enjoy relative religious freedom but the early Christians were fed to the beasts!
“One it’s a closing statement; so the writer obviously wants to use an exhortation to show readers how awesome and Magnificent Jesus was and is”
It may be so “awesome and magnificent” but does not change the fact that Christ did many things which were not written down according to Jn 21:25.
“.. orally delivered by Moses and orally transmitted in unbroken succession to subsequent generations, which precepts, both illustrating and expanding the written law, as they did were to be obeyed with equal reverence”
In 2 Th 2:14, Paul was writing to the Thessalonian Christians, not unconverted Jews.
“Your statement ‘listen to the Church’, Should be stated listen to the Holy Spirit”
Why dance around “Catholic” verses? Matt 18:16 very PLAINLY says “Church” and not “Holy Spirit.” In any case, why should the spirit of Truth be separated from the true church of God? During the council of Jerusalem, the decision of the church was considered to be “good to the Holy Spirit and to US (i.e., the Church)” (Acts 15:28).
“Preaching is not the original deposit of Faith. Paul doesn’t say that … ”
Sermons you hear from your Protestant pastors are not apostolic preaching. They are just opinions of private person. Examples of true “apostolic preaching” and “deposit of faith”:
Apostolic preaching: The first Christians “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching” (Act 2:42)
Apostolic deposit of faith: “I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you” (1 Cor 11:23); and “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).
“Jesus is talking about sin hear Your statement ““listen to the Church”, Should be stated listen to the Holy Spirit…If this person won’t listen … then obviously, this person has not been baptized by Fire of Holy Spirit”
On whose authority have you qualified a sinner as one who “has not been baptized by Fire of Holy Spirit”? It’s certainly not biblical.
What is a sin? Pride? Willful disobedience? Heresies? Me-Jesus religiosity? Again, don’t dance around “Catholic” verses … your Bible says very PLAINLY to “listen to the Church” and not to the “Holy Spirit” (Matt 18:16). You just perverted the Bible by doing inserting something which is not there.
Heed the warning of Paul: “Not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up” (1 Cor 4:6).
“I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you “I will come to you” I don’t have to go nywhere, but wait on the Lord”
Yes, wait on the Lord and not to go church hopping with “itchy ears” ( 2 Tim 4:3).
“Pual is Giving Timothy a Young Clergy Intruction on how to behave in church..1Ti 3:15 if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth”
So very PLAINLY again, which is the pillar and buttress of the truth? The Church.
Yes, may be you should be behaving right in the household of God. All you are doing is causing a scandal and inciting strife and divisiveness by “disputing about words” which the Bible sternly warned not to do (2 Tim 2:14).
I just wrote to support. Replies were not being posted in the correct order, if the responder hit reply before writing. I think it may be fixed b/c it is now working.
All apostolic preaching
If most of the apostles including Jesus ;were using the OT for their preaching; wouldn’t that incur that our tradition meaning Christian tradition comes from
The Text themselves?
And what do Catholics think about the construction of The Written Torah beginning in Babylonia; while the Jews were exile. Why would the Jews have wanted to reconstruct the fragments of writings they had into a unified source?
Wouldn’t they have the same controversy over Texts? IE “Moses wrote it”, not the “JEPR” (HD) sources?
Why wouldn’t they have kept passing in down to every generation orally?
Why are Jews known as the “People of the Book” instead of “The people of the Tradition?”
I’m asking Catholics these Questions because they seem to have a answer for everything..
Apostolic preaching would be about Jesus, the Messiah, the new covenant and the good news (gospel). It’s essential the New Testament in “unwritten” form.
I’ll say Augustinus was a heretic. He was a heretic. He “allowed” “divorce” and “nfp” and taught “Baptism of blood/desire” which is a new “gospel”. He was also neoPlatonic. Hieronymus was a Ciceronian. Neither of them are Saints. Neither of them were Christians. “Canonizations” are an Augustinian invention.
That’s Stretching it a little to call Augustine a heretic.