Sola scriptura contradiction [Archive]

De Maria

Jul 27, 2008, 07:32 PM

How does sola scriptura contradict the Bible when it is meant to back up Church doctrine?

Sola Scriptura teaches that anyone can go to the Bible and interpret it correctly.

The Bible doesn't say that. The Bible says that the Bible can be misunderstood by people who are not familiar with Church Teaching.

Acts 8 27 And rising up, he went. And behold a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch, of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge over all her treasures, had come to Jerusalem to adore. 28 And he was returning, sitting in this chariot, and reading Isaias the prophet. 29 And the Spirit said to Philip: Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. 30 And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?

31 Who said: And how can I, unless some man show me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

I'll give you an example from regular life.

The United States Government has a very important document called the Constitution. Does the United States Government let anyone pick up the Constitution and decide what laws govern the land.

No. Only the Legislature can decide the law of the land. And only the Supreme Court can decide whether these laws are correct interpretations of the Constitution.

Why does the US Government limit who can interpret the Constitution?

Because if anyone and everyone could interpret the Constitution, we would live under anarchy.

And God is even wiser than the US Government. God has set up where God's document, the Bible, must be interpreted according to the Traditions of God which were taught by Jesus Christ and only by the Church of Jesus Christ which Jesus set up to teach His Words to the whole world.

If it contradicts the Bible then it isn't making sense to me.

Lets look at the definition which TJ provided:
the belief that scripture is the sole standard for doctrine.

OK. Now if that is so, then this doctrine, Sola Scriptura, should be found, or as you say, should be backed up, by Scripture and only Scripture.

In other words, Scripture alone should say that scripture is the sole standard for doctrine.

Show me where Scripture says that.

Church doctrine is suppose to be backed up by scripture not scripture made to fit church doctrine.

Wrong.

Church doctrine is the Word of God.

The Word of God is contained in both traditions, those of word and those of Scripture.

Therefore, Scripture backs up Tradition.
And Tradition backs up Scripture.

If anyone interprets Scripture in a way which is not reflected in Tradition, then that interpretation is wrong.

If anyone claims a tradition which is not in accordance with Scripture, then that tradition is wrong.

Therefore, the tradition of men, known as Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine, because it is neither found in Scripture NOR in Tradition.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Jul 27, 2008, 07:57 PM

Sola Scriptura teaches that anyone can go to the Bible and interpret it correctly.

See - you do not understand sola scriptura. You told me previously that you did. Sola scriptura requires that scripture interpret scripture in accordance with the Biblical command.

2 Peter 1:20-21
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
NKJV

Lets look at the definition which TJ provided:
the belief that scripture is the sole standard for doctrine.

OK. Now if that is so, then this doctrine, Sola Scriptura, should be found, or as you say, should be backed up, by Scripture and only Scripture.

It is but since you claim that there are addition sources to the canon (7 more books, tradition, etc.) the onus is on you to prove that these sources are the word of God.

Prov 30:5-6
5 Every word of God is pure;
He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
6 Do not add to His words,
Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.
NKJV

Since we already agree that the 66 books of the books originally accepted by the church are canonical, additions to that must be proven to have equal authority. You keep wanting to divert from that requirement.

Church doctrine is the Word of God.

Why don't you start with this claim?

Therefore, Scripture backs up Tradition.
And Tradition backs up Scripture.

Previously I provided you with several traditions that contradict scripture.

If anyone interprets Scripture in a way which is not reflected in Tradition, then that interpretation is wrong.

No, this claim contradicts scripture. Scripture says that no man is to interpret scripture.

N0help4u

Jul 27, 2008, 08:01 PM

***Sola Scriptura teaches that anyone can go to the Bible and interpret it correctly.
So if it is interpreted correctly what is the problem?

*no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, that is sola scriptura so what you are referring to is NOT sola scriptura.

***The Bible says that the Bible can be misunderstood by people who are not familiar with Church Teaching.
*That is why you take doctrine and back it up with scripture.
So then the ones that are interpreting the Bible wrongly are not sola scriptura
They are not taking a doctrine and backing it with the word they are coming to their own conclusions and making up their own doctrine.
I don't think that very many sola scriptura believers do that.
The majority are looking to the Bible to back what the church says and if it doesn't back it then they go by the Bible not the doctrine.
Whereas the sola scriptura believers that misuse it read the Bible and make up whatever they want by taking things out of context.

***In other words, Scripture alone should say that scripture is the sole standard for doctrine.
*All the Bible verses that teach Jesus' warning, "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in..

***Wrong.

Church doctrine is the Word of God.

*Wrong if it is not backed by the word of God

***Therefore, Scripture backs up Tradition.
And Tradition backs up Scripture.

*Wrong
You do not seem to understand that many traditions are man made and not backed up by the Bible. The Bible refers to two types of traditions and you seem to see all tradition as Gods tradition.

De Maria

Jul 27, 2008, 09:06 PM

So if it is interpreted correctly what is the problem?

None. The problem lies when it is misinterpreted. And as I showed before but you left that out, Scripture says that many will twist its message:

2 Peter 3 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

*no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, that is sola scriptura so what you are referring to is NOT sola scriptura.

You are confusing the false doctrine and Scripture itself.

The words you have highlighted are from Scripture, true. But Scripture alone is a false doctrine which says that Scripture is the sole standard of doctrine.

Have you found that for me in Scripture yet?

*That is why you take doctrine and back it up with scripture.

True. But there are some false doctrines which are so confusing which must be taken back to Tradition to see if anyone ever interpreted Scripture in that way. This happened when Arius and Athanasius debated over the Divinity of Christ many centuries ago.

The way the issue was resolved was to take the argument to the Church. Both claimed Scripture and both claimed the Holy Spirit. But Athanasius could also prove Tradition. Therefore, Arius was declared a heretic.

So then the ones that are interpreting the Bible wrongly are not sola scriptura
They are not taking a doctrine and backing it with the word they are coming to their own conclusions and making up their own doctrine.
I don't think that very many sola scriptura believers do that.

They all do.

The majority are looking to the Bible to back what the church says and if it doesn't back it then they go by the Bible not the doctrine.

In other words, they lean on their own understanding. I guarantee that if you and another Sola Scripturist disagree, you each will decide for yourselves what to believe. Never mind what the Church teaches.

But the Scriptures say that if you and a brother disagree, take him to the Church and if he listens not to the Church, let him be treated as a heathen (Matt 18:17).

Whereas the sola scriptura believers that misuse it read the Bible and make up whatever they want by taking things out of context.

Correct.

***In other words, Scripture alone should say that scripture is the sole standard for doctrine.
*All the Bible verses that teach Jesus' warning, "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in..

***Wrong.

Church doctrine is the Word of God.

*Wrong if it is not backed by the word of God

***Therefore, Scripture backs up Tradition.
And Tradition backs up Scripture.

*Wrong
You do not seem to understand that many traditions are man made and not backed up by the Bible. The Bible refers to two types of traditions and you seem to see all tradition as Gods tradition.

Then you disagree with Scripture, not with me. Because Scripture says, hold the traditions. (2 Thess 2:14)

Which traditions do you hold?

Sincerely,

De Maria

N0help4u

Jul 27, 2008, 09:32 PM

Yes I know many will misinterpret then that makes it really NOT sola scriptura BUT THEIR misinterpretation therefore it is not sola scriptura but their own human reasoning.
Just like in the law not knowing the law does not make you innocent of the law.

revdrgade

Jul 27, 2008, 09:46 PM

De Maria

Jul 28, 2008, 06:02 AM

N0help4u

Jul 28, 2008, 06:32 AM

Traditions that I hold?
Keep the sabbath for one, baptism by submersion, the power of the Holy Spirit,

God and His Word. Without that tradition is a powerless form without godliness where we have laid aside, rejected, and made God's Word of none effect in favor of our own traditions and values.

"This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me" (Mark 7:6). When we observe a tradition (or practice a doctrine or live an application) solely for outward show and not from the heart, we mock God. We can allow tradition to become a mere form, a duty we perform with no thought of God. Even our singing can degenerate to that level, becoming the vain worship so despised by God.

"Laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men" (Mark 7:8). A tradition can so absorb us that we disregard what the Bible teaches. This can happen quite unintentionally. God forbid we should ever allow any tradition to displace a zeal for knowing and obeying God's will as shown in His Word.

"Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition" (Mark 7:13). Some people, in their commitment to tradition, purposefully set aside what God Himself has to say about a given matter. For them what the Bible says does not matter anymore; they deem tradition to supersede what the Bible declares. Other people, with similar zeal for tradition, allow themselves to become that hard soil in which God's Word cannot sprout and develop into a fruitful plant. For them tradition has become the means and purpose of spirituality; they can no longer respond to the Scriptures.

The basic problem isn't with tradition but with our own flesh. When we allow God to create a new heart within us and daily renew our spirits, we will use (and respond to) tradition in a way that brings glory to the All Glorious One. So treasure the godly traditions you have.. . But keep a watch over your heart!

revdrgade

Jul 28, 2008, 04:31 PM

I'm very new on this site... as in yesterday, and I'm not sure who I am answering. I got a notice that De Maria had posted on what I said and have now read the whole discourse between the two of you.

I do believe in "Scripture Alone"/"Sola Scriptura" as the source and norm of all doctrine that agrees COMPLETELY with God.

The phrase "Scripture Alone" is a "theological construct". That is, Bible students and theologians created the phrase to use with those of a like mind who would know what they meant. Such constructs were formed as shortcuts covering accepted definitions of a topic. That does make it esoteric and certainly open to misinterpretation outside of the group of those who agreed on what it means.

Having read both of your give and takes, I believe we agree enough with each other that:

The Bible alone is what God wants us to believe fully.

Some traditions of the church(those called out by God... not the corporate entities) are good and some have flaws.

Theologians need to be careful to explain what they mean.

By the way: The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod has the motto: "Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide". I don't even want to get into what that means to those outside of that denomination.

N0help4u

Jul 28, 2008, 04:42 PM

I agree. It is when people decide they are going to interpret the bible on their own to fit what they want as the outcome to justify what they want to believe and therefore take things out of contrast that is when it becomes a problem. But that is not what sola scriptura means as De Marie seems to think it does.

Tj3

Jul 28, 2008, 04:49 PM

Revdrgade,

That was an excellent summary. And I am familiar with Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide!

De Maria

Jul 28, 2008, 04:58 PM

The phrase "Sola Scriptura" is used by some ONLY to say that ONLY Scripture reveals the teachings of God. That is, there is no other source of sound doctrine except the Bible.

Even if people receive prophecies, they still must in total agreement with the written Word of God.

Then is Scripture in error when it says:
Hebrews 13 7 Remember your prelates who have spoken the word of God to you; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation,

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria

Jul 28, 2008, 05:00 PM

N0help4u

Jul 28, 2008, 05:00 PM

Why would it be in error it says spoken the word of God and we are saying follow the word of God so where is the contradiction? Where is the error?

N0help4u

Jul 28, 2008, 05:01 PM

Good. I'm glad you recognize that Jesus did not condemn all traditions. But only those which contradict the Word of God.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Dah that is what I have been saying. There are God's traditions and man's traditions

De Maria

Jul 28, 2008, 05:03 PM

why would it be in error it says spoken the word of God and we are saying follow the word of God so where is the contradiction? Where is the error?

That is not quite what was said:
The phrase "Sola Scriptura" is used by some ONLY to say that ONLY Scripture reveals the teachings of God. That is, there is no other source of sound doctrine except the Bible.

Even if people receive prophecies, they still must in total agreement with the written Word of God.

He says,. ONLY Scripture reveals the teachings of God....

But Scripture itself says that our Prelates (leaders) reveal the Word of God also.

Who is right in your opinion?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Jul 28, 2008, 05:10 PM

Then is Scripture in error when it says:
Hebrews 13 7 Remember your prelates who have spoken the word of God to you; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation,

This is the problem - you have some idea in your head as to what Sola Scriptura is, and no matter how many times, or how many people tell you what it is, you continue to argue a strawman (which is a defined logical fallacy) based upon your own definition. If you would actually start discussing what we are saying, this discussion could be much shorter and much more value added, but as long as you continue to insist that your definitions are the only right ones, then progress is not possible.

BTW, Heb 13:7 is in complete agreement with Sola Scriptura.

Tj3

Jul 28, 2008, 05:14 PM

That is not quite what was said:
[I]The phrase "Sola Scriptura" is used by some ONLY to say that ONLY Scripture reveals the teachings of God. That is, there is no other source of sound doctrine except the Bible.

I have seen no one on this thread at all use that definition - but you.

But Scripture itself says that our Prelates (leaders) reveal the Word of God also.

"reveal"? You added to that verse. Let's see what it actually says:

Heb 13:7-8
7 Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct.
NKJV

I speak the word of God when I read the Bible at a Bible study, or when I am giving a talk. It does not mean that I have the right to create a new doctrine or alter an old one.

De Maria

Jul 28, 2008, 05:26 PM

[QUOTE=De Maria]That is not quite what was said:
[I]The phrase "Sola Scriptura" is used by some ONLY to say that ONLY Scripture reveals the teachings of God. That is, there is no other source of sound doctrine except the Bible.[/quotye]

I have seen no one on this thread at all use that definition - but you.

That was a direct quote from message #10 by Revdrgrad

"reveal"? You added to that verse. Let's see what it actually says:

Heb 13:7-8
7 Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct.
NKJV

I speak the word of God when I read the Bible at a Bible study, or when I am giving a talk. It does not mean that I have the right to create a new doctrine or alter an old one.

Did I say that anyone had the right to create a new doctrine?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Jul 28, 2008, 06:35 PM

Did I say that anyone had the right to create a new doctrine?

You are supporting your denomination's right to do so - that is why we are having this discussion.

Tj3

Jul 28, 2008, 09:40 PM

That is not quite what was said:
[i]The phrase "Sola Scriptura" is used by some ONLY to say that ONLY Scripture reveals the teachings of God. That is, there is no other source of sound doctrine except the Bible.
I have seen no one on this thread at all use that definition - but you.
That was a direct quote from message #10 by Revdrgrad

No, I was referring to your claim, which is

That is, there is no other source of sound doctrine except the Bible.

I have seen nowhere where revdrgade said that. If you have, give us the message number. Nor have I seen anyone on this thread at all use that definition - but you. God reveals sound doctrine in His word. There may be other sources that repeat the truth - the fact that there is only one standard of truth does not mean that other sources of truth do not exits, but to know that the doctrine being taught by other sources is the truth, we need to go back to the standard, the word of God (The Bible).

You also tried to tell me that the definition that I gave for sola scriptura was virtually identical to yours - which it wasn't.

Let's try to be honest in our debate and not put words into other people's mouths. You are welcome to defend your position, and to present your position. You are also welcome to ask if you have understood correctly by re-phrasing if you wish. But you do not do well when you try to tell people what it is that they believe.

JoeT777

Jul 29, 2008, 11:44 AM

to defend your position, and to present your position. .

Tj3, De Maria, et al

It seems to me that there is a problem in this discussion. In fact, there seems to be two problems. The first of which is we are to believe in the theories of Sola Scruptura, then the scriptures should clearly state so; or at the very least, a clear (written or spoken) where this authority derived its source. Secondly, as I understand it one faction here seems to hold scripture to be the sole authority of God’s revelation to man. Like G. K. Chesterton asking scripture we find that “[Catholicism] does not, in the conventional phrase, believe what the Bible says, for the simple reason that the Bible does not say anything. You cannot put a book in the witness-box and ask it what it really means. (G. K. Chesterton, Why I am a Catholic). So, where are the living witnesses? I believe that through chain of succession His Holiness the Pope is the authority we speak of.

From St. Augustine we see that this has always been the understanding of Catholics; “But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers and of similitudes”. FIFTEEN BOOKS OF AURELIUS AUGUSTINUS BISHOP OF HIPPO, ON THE TRINITY

St. Augustine how are we to view the authenticity and of scripture; “But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” St. Augustin, AGAINST THE EPISTLE OF MANICHAEUS CALLED FUNDAMENTAL.(1)[CONTRA EPISTOLAM MANICHAEI QUAM VACANT FUNDAMENTI.] A.D. 397. Chp 5

But, I’ve yet to read in this thread where sola scriptura is scriptural, chapter and verse – I’ve never read a credible and scriptural defense of Sola Scriptura anywhere. In fact, it’s not possible. Conversely, since Christ ascension we know that scripture is to be read and understood in context with the Tradition and the authority of the Catholic Church; this is scriptural. To go a step further, without the Catholic Church there wouldn’t be scripture.

JoeT

N0help4u

Jul 29, 2008, 01:08 PM

The first of which is we are to believe in the theories of Sola Scruptura, then the scriptures should clearly state so; or at the very least, a clear (written or spoken) where this authority derived its source.
Where is the authority for Purgatory doctrine?

Secondly, as I understand it one faction here seems to hold scripture to be the sole authority of God's revelation to man. But, I've yet to read in this thread where sola scriptura is scriptural,
NOBODY is saying scripture only we are all saying back the Church doctrine/tradition WITH scripture. WHY is that so hard to understand?

ScottRC

Jul 29, 2008, 02:35 PM

What I would like to see from those who advocate the Bible as the final authority on Christian teaching is how to settle a dispute when both parties use Scripture as their source.

What I mean is... when two groups/people/churches have a question about the validity of a specific doctrine, how do they decide who is right?

In the early Church (and today) we believe that Scripture is MATERIALLY sufficient to determine orthodoxy... but they are not FORMALLY sufficient.

A non-Catholic Christian that believes in sola scriptura MUST be able to prove that every teaching of the Bible is consistent and repeatable for anyone (in whatever age) who reads the Biblical record... and this (in my opinion) is not the case... therefore, they only have their OWN OPINIONS of what the Bible teaches, reducing Christianity to a pluralistic, intellectual exercise, as opposed to a unified, orthodox faith.

Looking forward to reading your charitable replies.

Tj3

Jul 29, 2008, 06:09 PM

Tj3, De Maria, et al
It seems to me that there is a problem in this discussion. In fact, there seems to be two problems. The first of which is we are to believe in the theories of Sola Scruptura, then the scriptures should clearly state so; or at the very least, a clear (written or spoken) where this authority derived its source.

Actually it is clear, but it is logically unnecessary to go into it in detail, and here is why.

All Christians and professing Christians agree on the original 66 books of the Bible as being canonical. The Roman Church chose to add more books and other sources that it claims to be authoritative.

We therefore have a common base of 66 books which we agree are the word of God. God says in His word:

Prov 30:5-6
5 Every word of God is pure;
He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
6 Do not add to His words,
Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.
NKJV

So we have a clear command not to add to His word. So, if anyone wishes to claim something else is to be added as the word of God, the onus is on them to establish it as such. That would address the issue quite straightforwardly and simply.

Secondly, as I understand it one faction here seems to hold scripture to be the sole authority of God's revelation to man. Like G. K. Chesterton asking scripture we find that “[Catholicism] does not, in the conventional phrase, believe what the Bible says, for the simple reason that the Bible does not say anything.

Really? Then you need to get a new Bible, because mine has a great deal to say every day.

You cannot put a book in the witness-box and ask it what it really means.

Actually that is exactly what investigators and researchers and students do every day. If we could not do that, then there would be no reason to have books at all.

Now if you are saying that it is impossible to get testimony from a source which has no oral ability, then you would be tossing out most evidence used in a court of law as well as dis-allowing those who have a physical inability to speak.

That would, of course, be silly.

From St. Augustine we see that this has always been the understanding of Catholics; “But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers and of similitudes”. FIFTEEN BOOKS OF AURELIUS AUGUSTINUS BISHOP OF HIPPO, ON THE TRINITY

Do you like Augustine? Here are some more quotes from him:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This Mediator, having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Wake up a little, I beseech you, and see the harmony of both Testaments, making it quite plain and certain what should be the manner of life in our conduct, and to what all things should be referred. To the love of God we are incited by the gospel, when it is said, "Ask, seek, knock;"[3] by Paul, when he says, "That ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend;" (4) by the prophet also, when he says that wisdom can easily be known by those who love it, seek for it, desire it, watch for it, think about it, care for it. The salvation of the mind (5) and the way of happiness is pointed out by the concord of both Scriptures; and yet you choose rather to bark at these things than to obey them."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conversely, since Christ ascension we know that scripture is to be read and understood in context with the Tradition and the authority of the Catholic Church; this is scriptural.

Really? Now since you are choosing to go beyond the canon accepted by all Christians, the onus is on you to justify that claim. I have yet to see any scriptural validation of using extraBiblical traditions. Perhaps you could show us this scriptural justification for using manmade traditions as equal to God's word.

ScottRC

Jul 29, 2008, 06:35 PM

All Christians and professing Christians agree on the original 66 books of the Bible as being canonical. The Roman Church chose to add more books and other sources that it claims to be authoritative.
Not quite right... the Roman Catholic Church was around for some 1500 years before any of the "Protestant"/non-catholic Christian groups came to be.

But more importantly, the Church did not "add" any books, those groups that came after the Reformation removed these books from the Canon.

The Bible came out of the Catholic Church around the end of the 4th century. The Synods of Hippo, 393 A.D. and Carthage, 397 A.D. and later, Carthage 419 A.D. ( along with the Traditional Bible or Latin Vulgate ( LV ), 406 A.D. by Saint Jerome ),gave us the canon of Sacred Scripture as Catholics know it today. The Ecumenical Council of Florence again affirmed the list of inspired books in 1442 A.D. about 100 years before the Council of Trent. The "Decretum pro Jacobitis" by Pope Eugenius IV lists the inspired books, and according to the common teaching of theologians, these documents are infallible states of doctrine.

The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D....

ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:

It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun.
The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), one book; Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, one book; Micheas, one book; Joel, one book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc, one book; Sophonias, one book; Aggeus, one book; Zacharias, one book; Malachias, one book. Likewise, the list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books.
Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament.
Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Council of Hippo in 393 reaffirmed the canon put forth by Pope Damasus I...

AD 393:
Council of Hippo. "It has been decided that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.
But the canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon (included Wisdom and Ecclesiastes (Sirach)), the twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books."
(canon 36 A.D. 393). At about this time St. Jerome started using the Hebrew text as a source for his translation of the Old Testament into the Latin Vulgate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Third Council of Carthage reaffirmed anew, the Canon put forth by Pope Damasus I...

AD 397:
Council of Carthage III. "It has been decided that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach), twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees."
(canon 47 A.D. 397).

It is to be noted that the book of Baruch was considered by some Church Fathers to be a part of the book of Jeremiah and as such was not listed separately by them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Fourth Council of Carthage in 419 again reaffirmed the Canons as defined in previous councils...

CANON XXIV. (Greek xxvii.)
"That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture.
ITEM, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows: * Genesis * Exodus * Leviticus * Numbers * Deuteronomy * Joshua the Son of Nun * The Judges * Ruth * The Kings (4 books) * The Chronicles (2 books) * Job * The Psalter * The Five books of Solomon (includes Wisdom and Sirach) * The Twelve Books of the Prophets * Isaiah * Jeremiah * Ezechiel * Daniel * Tobit * Judith * Esther * Ezra (2 books) * Maccabees (2books).
The New Testament: * The Gospels (4 books) * The Acts of the Apostles (1 book) * The Epistles of Paul (14) * The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle (2) * The Epistles of John the Apostle (3) * The Epistles of James the Apostle (1) * The Epistle of Jude the Apostle (1) * The Revelation of John (1 book).
Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, [Pope] Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church."
[This is Canon xxxvj. of Hippo., 393. The last phrase allowing the reading of the "passions of the Martyrs" on their Anniversaries is omitted from the African code.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It would seem that the truth is opposed to the notion that the Catholic Church "added" anything to the Bible... but it should be clear that those who have removed these books from the Bible have done so at the risk of their eternal souls.

Tj3

Jul 29, 2008, 06:49 PM

Not quite right... the Roman Catholic Church was around for some 1500 years before any of the "Protestant"/non-catholic Christian groups came to be.

Sigh! Nothing was Roman Catholic until 325AD.

But more importantly, the Church did not "add" any books, those groups that came after the Reformation removed these books from the Canon.

Let's look at a Catholic source to resolve this issue.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries... For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent”
(Source: The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know why such as well established historic fact is disputed so often.

ScottRC

Jul 29, 2008, 07:06 PM

Sigh! Nothing was Roman Catholic until 325AD.
Okey dokey... it was Catholic... Roman/Orthodox were later distinctions.

It certainly was not a "Bible-only" Protestant-style church like we see today in modern non-Catholic Christians groups, of that I'm quite certain.

Let's look at a Catholic source to resolve this issue.
It does not resolve anything...

What you seem to miss is that your quote NEVER mentions that the books were "added", only that the canon was not officially decided upon.

The Catholic Council of Trent, called to counter changes made by Martin Luther, again reaffirmed the canonicity of all 46 books of the Old Testament... this was only needed because some Protestant reformers who attended, tried to get the Church to accept the list of books which the Jewish rabbis had chosen at Jamnia.

It does NOTHING to prove your assertion that the books were added, but in fact shows that the books were REMOVED by those who left the Church.
I don't know why such as well established historic fact is disputed so often.
Only by non-Catholic Christians...

It is surprising that I never hear objections to the Orthodox Canon... or the Ethopian Canon... but I guess those are not as interesting. ;)

JoeT777

Jul 29, 2008, 07:09 PM

N0help4u

where is the authority for Purgatory doctrine?
Purgatory is from the Latin "purgare", to make clean, to purify. While the word “purgatory” doesn't appear in scripture the doctrine is based both on Scripture as well as Tradition. Both the Council of Florence in 1431 and the Council of Trent in 1547 (Session VI) asserted the doctrine. It roots of purgatory can be found in both the old and the New Testament.

Judas, the commander of Israel found it right and holy to make sacrifices in the temple at Jerusalem and to pray for the souls of the dead: 45 And because he considered that they, who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. 46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. 2 ( Maccabees 12:43-46)

In the New Testament we have (Matthew 12:32): "And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come." Why mention the forgiveness of sins in the next world if there is no purgatory?

From 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 many Catholics have come to believe that purgatory was a fiery place. “15 If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.” His Holiness John Paul II taught that it was as much a state of being as it was a place.

Tradition has it that Tertullian "De corona militis" mentions prayers for the dead as an Apostolic ordinance, and in "De Monogamia" (cap. x, P. L. II, col. 912) he advises a widow "to pray for the soul of her husband, begging repose for him and participation in the first resurrection" St. Augustine also argues "that some sinners are not forgiven either in this world or in the next would not be truly said unless there were other [sinners] who, though not forgiven in this world, are forgiven in the world to come" (De Civ. Dei, XXI, xxiv).

Other early Church fathers held a conviction of a purgatory; see the following:

St. Ambrose (commentary on the text, and Sermo xx in Ps. Cxvii),
St. Jerome, (Comm. In Amos, c. iv),
St. Augustine (Comm. In Ps. Xxxvii),
St. Gregory (Dial. IV, xxxix), and
Origen (Hom. vi in Exod.)

Where can we find the doctrine of Sola Scriptura in the New or Old Testament?

NOBODY is saying scripture only we are all saying back the Church doctrine/tradition WITH scripture. WHY is that so hard to understand?
Yes, you're right; it is hard to understand. What was said was,
how does sola scriptura contradict the Bible when it is meant to back up Church doctrine?
In a general sense, Sola Scriptura contradicts scripture. It's an error to assume that such an unclear creed, used by the individual(s) to formulate a few standard rules, or principles, bearing on the sources of faith to constitute a church based solely on scripture. Why after a few centuries you'd end up with 30,000 or more denominations! So why would any denomination want to rest on such an error? Yes, I do find it somewhat bewildering.

JoeT

Tj3

Jul 29, 2008, 07:13 PM

Okey dokey... it was Catholic... Roman/Orthodox were later distinctions.

The church was catholic only insofar as it was universal. As your Cardinal John Henry Newman says, it was Constantine who created the new religion by mixing pagan and Christian elements, and created what we know today as the Roman Catholic Church.

It certainly was not a "Bible-only" Protestant-style church like we see today in modern non-Catholic Christians groups, of that I'm quite certain.

I am not a protestant, so if you are trying to attack my position, you missed. But what are you attacking - church which are protestant, or churches who believe what God said in the Bible? Please clarify.

It does not resolve anything...

Only if you reject what it says out of hand.

What you seem to miss is that your quote NEVER mentions that the books were "added", only that the canon was not officially decided upon.

That means that they were not part of the canon because no decision was made to add them. You may wish to study events at the Council of Trent.

The Catholic Council of Trent, called to counter changes made by Martin Luther, again reaffirmed the canonicity of all 46 books of the Old Testament...

Wrong - as you even just admitted - no decision had been made by your denomination prior to the Council of Trent to declare those additional books canonical.

It is surprising that I never hear objections to the Orthodox Canon... or the Ethopian Canon... but I guess those are not as interesting. ;)

Maybe it is because we do not have folk from those denominations on this thread. On the other hand, I have debated this topic with those from the Orthodox denominations.

Tj3

Jul 29, 2008, 07:19 PM

N0help4u
Judas, the commander of Israel found it right and holy to make sacrifices in the temple at Jerusalem and to pray for the souls of the dead: 45 And because he considered that they, who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. 46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. 2 ( Maccabees 12:43-46)

You do know that even the writer of Maccabees did not claim inspiration for his work, don't you? As a result, it is not the word of God, nor can we base doctrine on it.

In the New Testament we have (Matthew 12:32): "And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come." Why mention the forgiveness of sins in the next world if there is no purgatory?

No it does not speak of forgiveness of sins in the world to come - it says that there is none. Which means that if you have hopes in purgatory, then your hope is in vain, because nowhere does scripture says that there is forgiveness of sins in the next world.

From 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 many Catholics have come to believe that purgatory was a fiery place. [B][I]“15 If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.”

This speaks of works, not of purging of sins.

Tradition has it...

Tradition is subject to testing by scripture. Therefore you cannot use tradition as a primary source or standard for doctrine.

Other early Church fathers held a conviction of a purgatory; see the following:

This would make it a doctrine of men, not of God.

ScottRC

Jul 29, 2008, 07:24 PM

The church was catholic only insofar as it was universal.
Universal... amen to that.

It also was Catholic in doctrine as well... the struggles about the date of Pasha long before Nicea and Constantine should make this clear.

As your Cardinal John Henry Newman says, it was Constantine who created the new religion by mixing pagan and Christian elements, and created what we know today as the Roman Catholic Church.
I know Newman is your "go to guy", but he does not speak for the Church... he simply gave his personal opinon... I'll give you MY personal interpretation, but I doubt you'll be quoting that to other Catholics anytime soon.:)

I am not a protestant, so if you are trying to attack my position, you missed.
Huh?

I guess I'll continue to call you a Protestant until you give me the name of your Church.

That means that they were not part of the canon because no decision was made to add them.
Huh, yet again?

If they were never there to begin with, then how do you explain the fact that they are, and always have been, in the Latin Vulgate, which has been in use by the Catholic Church for over 1500 years?

Tj3

Jul 29, 2008, 07:32 PM

It also was Catholic in doctrine as well... the struggles about the date of Pasha long before Nicea and Constantine should make this clear.

Depends upon what you mean by Catholic - if you are using catholic as in universal (Bible based) I agree, if you mean as in your denomination of Roman Catholicism, that is not possible since that denomination did not exist until 325AD. If you are saying that errors were already creeping into the church, then I would agree.

I know Newman is your "go to guy", but he does not speak for the Church... he simply gave his personal opinon... I'll give you MY personal interpretation, but I doubt you'll be quoting that to other Catholics anytime soon.:)

Actually, God is my "go to guy". Newman is your guy. And there are others who are willing to acknowledge the history of the church both inside and outside of your denomination.

I guess I'll continue to call you a Protestant until you give me the name of your Church.

Ah, so you would call me by a name which you know is not true - is that your definition of respect? Maybe I should call you a Mormon. I am a Christian - plain and simple. It was good enough for Paul and the early church, it is good enough for me.

If they were never there to begin with, then how do you explain the fact that they are, and always have been, in the Latin Vulgate, which has been in use by the Catholic Church for over 1500 years?

I am sure that you are aware that Jerome opposed their inclusion, but as for reference material being added to Bible, I have a couple of study Bibles with additional reference material - is everything bound within the covers canonical?

Be consistent!

JoeT777

Jul 29, 2008, 09:57 PM

You do know that even the writer of Maccabees did not claim inspiration for his work, don't you? As a result, it is not the word of God, nor can we base doctrine on it.
That’s funny it was in the canonized scriptures used by Luther before his revolt. Do you reckon he didn’t like the implication?

Matthew 12:32: No it does not speak of forgiveness of sins in the world to come - it says that there is none. Which means that if you have hopes in purgatory, then your hope is in vain, because nowhere does scripture says that there is forgiveness of sins in the next world.
Yes it’s of the world to come, and if you transgress against Jesus, you’ll be forgiven. If you transgress against the Holy Spirit you won’t be forgiven in this world or the next. Again, why mention forgivingness of sins in the next world if there are none under any conditions?

St. Augustine uses the same phraseology in describing purgatory. “As also, after the resurrection, there will be some of the dead to whom, after they have endured the pains proper to the spirits of the dead, mercy shall be accorded, and acquittal from the punishment of the eternal fire. For were there not some whose sins, though not remitted in this life, shall be remitted in that which is to come, it could not be truly said, ‘They shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, neither in that which is to come.’”

1 Corinthians 3:11-15: This speaks of works, not of purging of sins.
Yes this speaks of works; “so faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. “(James 2:17)

In regard to: Tradition has it that Tertullian "De corona militis" mentions prayers for the dead as an Apostolic ordinance, and in "De Monogamia" (cap. x, P. L. II, col. 912) he advises a widow "to pray for the soul of her husband, begging repose for him and participation in the first resurrection" St. Augustine also argues "that some sinners are not forgiven either in this world or in the next would not be truly said unless there were other [sinners] who, though not forgiven in this world, are forgiven in the world to come" (De Civ. Dei, XXI, xxiv).
TJ3 said: Tradition is subject to testing by scripture. Therefore you cannot use tradition as a primary source or standard for doctrine.
Yes, we should always careful, “lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ” (Col 2:8). Which is precisely why I follow the Traditions of the Kingdom of God which tells us to, “stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. “ (2 Thes 2:14) less someone beguile the light of Truth under a basket.

This would make it a doctrine of men, not of God.
Ditto

JoeT

JoeT777

Jul 29, 2008, 10:05 PM

Actually it is clear, but it is logically unnecessary to go into it in detail, and here is why.

Please do explain in some detail. Its not logically evident.

JoeT

ScottRC

Jul 30, 2008, 01:45 AM

Depends upon what you mean by Catholic -
I think we have different definitions.

I use the same definition of Ignatius of Antioch:

"I beseech you, therefore, do nothing in a spirit of division, but act according to Christian teaching. Indeed, I heard some men saying, 'If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures (OT), I will not believe the Gospels.' On my saying to them, 'It is written,' they answered me, 'That remains to be proved.' But to me Jesus Christ is in the place of all that is ancient: His cross, and death and resurrection, and the FAITH which is by Him are undefiled monuments of antiquity." Epis Phil 8,2

"Follow the Bishop, all of you, as Jesus Christ follows his Father, and the presbyterium as the Apostles. As for the deacons, respect them as the Law of God. Let no one do anything with reference to the Church without the Bishop. Only that Eucharist may be regarded as legitimate which is celebrated with the bishop or his delegate presiding. Where the Bishop is, there let the community be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Epis Smyrn 8,1-2

And there are others who are willing to acknowledge the history of the church both inside and outside of your denomination.
I'm sure there is... but I loathe apologists and prefer to stick to historians.

Ah, so you would call me by a name which you know is not true
How do I know it is not true... it makes no sense to me... if you are not Catholic/Orthodox I refer to you as a Protestant.

We're ALL Christians... so if I referred to everyone using that things would get a bit confusing.

You can whine about it, or give me another (logical) title to use... non-Catholic Christian, evangelical, fundamentalist, etc.

I am sure that you are aware that Jerome opposed their inclusion,
There certainly was a bitter debate between St. Jerome, who felt the seven books were not canonical, and St. Augustine who said they were. It has been my experience that NCC who write about this will invariably mention St. Jerome and his opposition, and conveniently omit the support of St. Augustine. I must point out here that Church Father's writings are not infallible statements, and their arguments are merely reflections of their own private opinions. When some say St. Jerome was against the inclusion of the seven books, they are merely showing his opinion of them. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. However, A PERSONS PRIVATE OPINION DOES NOT CHANGE THE TRUTH AT ALL. There are always three sides to every story, this side, that side, and the side of truth. Whether Jerome's position, or Augustine's position was the correct position, had to be settled by a third party, and that third party was the Catholic Church.

That the Church was still arguing about what was to be included in Scripture some 400 years after Christ shows clearly that the early church did NOT practice a faith that was remotely similar to the one you practice today... how could they?

But I would AGAIN like to point out that you have given NOTHING that comes close to proving that the books were added to the Bible. The Apostles used the Septuagint (which contained those "extra" books) and were quoted by the early church fathers who were directly tought by the Apostles... I'm not sure why you and your group decided you had the authority to remove books from the Bible.

Tj3

Jul 30, 2008, 07:22 AM

Please do explain in some detail. Its not logically evident.

JoeT

I notice that the Roman Catholics discussing this topic always want to get into great detail on this side of the issue, but appear to avoid dealing with the fact that the onus is on this to valid their additions to the canon.

JoeT777

Jul 30, 2008, 09:30 AM

I notice that the Roman Catholics discussing this topic always want to get into great detail on this side of the issue, but appear to avoid dealing with the fact that the onus is on this to valid their additions to the canon.

Great dodge! So you blame the Bible for not wanting to explain?

If I remember my history correctly it was Wyclif and the Lollards (circa 1380), Jan Hus (circa 1400) and Martin Luther (circa 1520) who came up with Sola Scriptura along with host of other errors. To my knowledge Wyclif and Hus never mention deleting books from the Cannon.

Even still I’m looking forward to seeing a logical explanation of Sola Scriptura; I’ve never seen one. It seems to me that since I’m not a proponent and don’t understand Sola Scriptura the burden to explain its scriptural validity is yours.

JoeT

N0help4u

Jul 30, 2008, 09:37 AM

If it is not explained in the Bible maybe it is because it is not Biblical
So why would the Bible explain something that didn't exist?
That would be like saying it is the Bibles fault that it doesn't explain Mormon's teaching on Jesus and Lucifer being brother angels.

Tj3

Jul 30, 2008, 11:23 AM

Great dodge! So you blame the Bible for not wanting to explain?

No, that is not it at all, but the OP was:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does sola scriptura contradict the Bible when it is meant to back up Church doctrine?
If it contradicts the Bible then it isn't making sense to me.

Church doctrine is suppose to be backed up by scripture not scripture made to fit church doctrine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based upon a claim that Sola Scriptura contradicted the Bible. The onus would be on those who support that claim to validate that claim. But it seems that those who support extraBiblical sources of doctrine do not wish to validate their beliefs.

JoeT777

Jul 30, 2008, 03:37 PM

Church doctrine is suppose to be backed up by scripture not scripture made to fit church doctrine.

N0help4u:

I agree Holy Scriptures were written by men who were inspired by God to reveal his Truth. So as to discern Scripture from other writings we look to the authority of the Catholic Church. Thus we find that Roman Catholic Church doctrines harmonize with apostolic teachings (tradition) as well as Holy Scriptures.

This is why, when speaking of doctrine, St. Augustine says, “But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers and of similitudes”. FIFTEEN BOOKS OF AURELIUS AUGUSTINUS BISHOP OF HIPPO, ON THE TRINITY

If by asserting, “Church doctrine is suppose to be backed up by scripture not scripture made to fit Church doctrine” we are affirming the same concepts in different ways, then yes I agree. Just to be perfectly clear, your statement as written here, does not consider Sola Scriptura; which is a concept I do not hold.

JoeT

JoeT777

Jul 30, 2008, 05:08 PM

No, that is not it at all, but the OP was

While I disagree with your assertion here, being new to the forum, I'll start with the Catholic view.

The Roman Catholic holds that both Scripture and tradition must be a harmonious foundation for the rule of faith to be infallible. Consequently, this makes Apostolic tradition usually in the form of papal and councils decrees to be the only legitimate and infallible interpreter of the Bible.

On the other hand, we have a view (primarily Protestant) that canonical Scripture are the only infallible basis for the rule of faith. Each individual holding the principle of Sola Scriptura asserts the right to interpret the Scripture. Most Protestants form distinct groups of likeminded sole arbitrators of the rule of faith, i.e. Lutheran, Calvinist, Methodist, etc. Since each individual has the same rights to authenticate what the Scriptures represent then there can be as many different rules of faith as there are Protestant denominations; for that matter hypothetically we could end up with as many denominations as there are Protestants. Only one can represent an absolute truth; which is infallibly right and which isn't?

We see that Protestantism isn't 'one' faith and can never be 'one' given that each is the arbitrator of his own faith. So when we come to (John 17:11): as you may recall Christ prayed, “And now I am not in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name whom thou hast given me: that they may be one, as we also are.”

I've indicated the Catholic position; so how is it that that the theory of Sola Scriptura can be scripturally and infallibly authenticated?

JoeT

De Maria

Jul 30, 2008, 05:50 PM

No, that is not it at all, but the OP was:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does sola scriptura contradict the Bible when it is meant to back up Church doctrine?
If it contradicts the Bible then it isn't making sense to me.

Church doctrine is suppose to be backed up by scripture not scripture made to fit church doctrine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based upon a claim that Sola Scriptura contradicted the Bible. The onus would be on those who support that claim to validate that claim. But it seems that those who support extraBiblical sources of doctrine do not wish to validate their beliefs.

You've a short memory TJ. I've demonstrated over and over that Sola Scriptura not only contradicts the Bible but it also contradicts itself.

Lets go over it again. We'll use your definition of Sola Scriptura.

See Scripture alone? Thread, page 20, message #194 wherein you defined Sola Scriptura as:

the belief that scripture is the sole standard for doctrine.

Now lets hold that belief up to the Biblical standard:

Scripture says:
Hebrews 13 7 Remember your prelates who have spoken the word of God to you; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation,

Obviously, if you are supposed to follow the faith taught by your prelates, your leaders in the Church, then the oral teaching of the prelates is your standard.

This is confirmed elsewhere:
1 Corinthians 2 13 Which things also we speak, not in the learned words of human wisdom; but in the doctrine of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

So, the doctrine which they learned was spoken to them. Therefore ANOTHER standard for doctrine is oral teaching.

And the Bible also says:
Matthew 18 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

So obviously, if we must go to the Church to settle doctrinal disputes, then the Church must also be a standard for doctrine.

So, if the Bible did teach that scripture is the sole standard for doctrine, it would contradict Itself. But It doesn't teach that doctrine. Sola Scriptura is a doctrine of men which contradicts Scripture.

And since Scripture nowhere says that scripture is the sole standard of doctrine, that means that the doctrine named Sola Scriptura, contradicts itself.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Jul 30, 2008, 07:30 PM

The Roman Catholic holds that both Scripture and tradition must be...

The OP once again was:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does sola scriptura contradict the Bible when it is meant to back up Church doctrine?
If it contradicts the Bible then it isn't making sense to me.

Church doctrine is suppose to be backed up by scripture not scripture made to fit church doctrine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The question is not about your denomination's position.

On the other hand, we have a view (primarily Protestant) that canonical Scripture are the only infallible basis for the rule of faith.

Let's once again stick to scripture, not to your denomination, nor any other.

Each individual holding the principle of Sola Scriptura asserts the right to interpret the Scripture

This is the same mis-representation that De Maria posted. How can anyone claim to be able to evaluate sola scriptura if you do not know what it is?

BTW, before you point fingers with an accusation such as this, does your denomination claim the right to interpret scripture?

Tj3

Jul 30, 2008, 07:36 PM

the belief that scripture is the sole standard for doctrine.

We're making progress!

Now lets hold that belief up to the Biblical standard:

Scripture says:
Hebrews 13 7 Remember your prelates who have spoken the word of God to you; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation,

Obviously, if you are supposed to follow the faith taught by your prelates, your leaders in the Church, then the oral teaching of the prelates is your standard.

Using a better translation it states:

Heb 13:7-8
7 Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct.
NKJV

It may be yours, but not mine. Note that the men of Berea did not consider the oral preaching of Paul to be their standard, but rather Paul's words were tested by going to scripture - and Paul commended them.

Acts 17:10-12
10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
NKJV

And the Bible also says:
Matthew 18 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

So obviously, if we must go to the Church to settle doctrinal disputes, then the Church must also be a standard for doctrine.

This says nothing of the sort. This refers to judging actions, and has nothing to do with establishing doctrine. Read the passage just before to see the context:

Matt 18:15-16
15 "Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother.
NKJV

It is important to understand what doctrine is.

savedsinner7

Jul 30, 2008, 09:27 PM

The Bible is the authoritative standard we are to live by.

Ecclesiastes 3:14
And I know that whatever God does is final. Nothing can be added to it or taken from it. God's purpose is that people should fear him.

Isaiah 55:11
So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.

God tells us by His Word and His Spirit what we need to live by.

Job 28:20
“From where then does wisdom come?And where is the place of understanding?

Psalm 119:104
Through Your precepts I get understanding;Therefore I hate every false way.

Psalm 119:130
The entrance of Your words gives light;It gives understanding to the simple.

Psalm 119:144
The righteousness of Your testimonies is everlasting;Give me understanding, and I shall live.

Psalm 119:169
[ ת TAU ] Let my cry come before You, O LORD;Give me understanding according to Your word.

Proverbs 2:6
For the LORD gives wisdom; From His mouth come knowledge and understanding;

Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding;

Proverbs 3:19
The LORD by wisdom founded the earth; By understanding He established the heavens;

Proverbs 9:10
“ The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

Deuteronomy 4:2
You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Deuteronomy 12:28
Observe and obey all these words which I command you, that it may go well with you and your children after you forever, when you do what is good and right in the sight of the LORD your God.

2 Chronicles 6:10
So the LORD has fulfilled His word which He spoke,

2 Chronicles 6:17
And now, O LORD God of Israel, let Your word come true,

2 Chronicles 11:2
But the word of the LORD came

Ezra 9:4
Then everyone who trembled at the words of the God of Israel

Proverbs 30:5
Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.

Isaiah 40:8
The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”

De Maria

Jul 30, 2008, 10:15 PM

We're making progress!

I didn't endorse your interpretation. I have simply proved again that it is not to be found in Scripture.

Using a better translation it states:

Heb 13:7-8
7 Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct.
NKJV

It says the same thing. The Scripture is telling you to follow the standard of Church teaching.

It may be yours, but not mine. Note that the men of Berea did not consider the oral preaching of Paul to be their standard, but rather Paul's words were tested by going to scripture - and Paul commended them.

Acts 17:10-12
10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
NKJV

That's because you can't see the forest for the trees. Obviously, Paul and Silas represent the Teaching Church. The Magisterium. They are not here saying, look it up in Scripture alone. They have taught the Bereans the traditions by word which they look for in Scripture.

Therefore the teaching of the Catholic Church is depicted here. The Teaching Church, aka, the Magisterium teaches the traditions by word and epistle.

This says nothing of the sort. This refers to judging actions, and has nothing to do with establishing doctrine. Read the passage just before to see the context:

Matt 18:15-16
15 "Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother.
NKJV

It is important to understand what doctrine is.

But it has everything to do with obeying and interpreting doctrine.

Doctrine is Teaching. In respect of the Church, it is Church teaching. And the Church teaches the word of God. This brother has sinned by offending the word of God.

Hamartanō
1) to be without a share in

2) to miss the mark

3) to err, be mistaken

4) to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong

5) to wander from the law of God, violate God's law, sin
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G264&t=kjv)

Otherwise the Church would not be brought into the fray:

Luke 12 13 And one of the multitude said to him: Master, speak to my brother that he divide the inheritance with me. 14 But he said to him: Man, who hath appointed me judge, or divider, over you?

Sincerely,

De Maria

JoeT777

Jul 30, 2008, 10:29 PM

does your [Church] claim the right to interpret scripture?

Matthew 16:19, Mat18:18, John 21:15-19

JoeT

Wondergirl

Jul 30, 2008, 11:15 PM

Mark 7:13

Tj3

Jul 31, 2008, 07:03 AM

I didn't endorse your interpretation.

I did not say that you did - but it is the first time that you actually acknowledged the correct definition.

I have simply proved again that it is not to be found in Scripture.

Perhaps in your own mind, you have, but not in reality.

It says the same thing. The Scripture is telling you to follow the standard of Church teaching.

No it does not - how you managed to get that interpretation out of that verse is beyond me. You comment emphasizes the danger of private interpretation.

That's because you can't see the forest for the trees. Obviously, Paul and Silas represent the Teaching Church. The Magisterium. They are not here saying, look it up in Scripture alone. They have taught the Bereans the traditions by word which they look for in Scripture.

Wow - can you build a story where it doesn't exist.

Doctrine is Teaching. In respect of the Church, it is Church teaching.

Doctrine is one thing which can be taught, yes, but to say that by teaching something orally it becomes the standard of doctrine is not true at all. Indeed rarely if ever true. You have made a stretch of logic not supported either by the facts at hand or by the rules of logic.

Tj3

Jul 31, 2008, 07:06 AM

Matthew 16:19, Mat18:18, John 21:15-19

JoeT

First of all you did not answer the question (yes or no would do fine), and second, just posting verses does not explain anything - you need to tell us your intent.

JoeT777

Jul 31, 2008, 08:18 AM

The OP once again was:

Savedsinner7, Tj3, et al

Savedsinner7 lists a series of verses claiming they are biblical proof of authoritative standard to live by. I would agree that they are standards benefitting our holiness. On the other hand, none are authoritative verification of the Sola Scriptura theory.

Tj3 said that it was so clear and logical that it was “unnecessary to go into it in detail.” However, I find it unclear and illogical that a book can authenticate itself. The Apostle Thomas had a doubting nature; Christ never reproached him for his nature. When asked a question by a doubting Thomas, I don’t recall Christ saying “it’s unnecessary to go into it in detail.”

How am I to understand that each time I ask this question it’s dodged or ignored? Is it that the authority for the idea of Sola Scriptura can’t be shown to be scriptural? Please do explain how you find Sola Scriptura to be scripturally based in some detail. It’s not logically evident.

How is it that that the theory of Sola Scriptura can be scripturally and infallibly authenticated?

JoeT

JoeT777

Jul 31, 2008, 08:36 AM

First of all you did not answer the question (yes or no would do fine), and second, just posting verses does not explain anything - you need to tell us your intent.

Tj3 Good, good, I didn't know we were playing dodge ball.

Let's once again stick to scripture,

Your words not mine. Do you mean that the verses need to be explained? Should we get an "authority" in to explain it to you? Maybe the Pope?

Your it!

JoeT

De Maria

Jul 31, 2008, 08:57 AM

Doctrine is one thing which can be taught, yes, but to say that by teaching something orally it becomes the standard of doctrine is not true at all. Indeed rarely if ever true. You have made a stretch of logic not supported either by the facts at hand or by the rules of logic.

You see, here's the point you keep missing. The New Testament was first SPOKEN. First by Jesus Christ. Then by the Apostles.

If the spoken word being taught was not the standard of doctrine then, what was?

Of course, the spoken word was then written in the New Testament. Did the Church stop teaching after the doctrines it was teaching were written down?

NO! That never happens. Even today, math is still taught. Yet how many books have written down the knowledge that 1+1=2?

And to whom do we run to learn math? To a book, or to a teacher?

A very simple example is the assemby instruction that comes with a new toy which you must assemble for your child. How often do those instructions wind up in the trash because they are difficult to follow?

Isn't it ALWAYS better to have someone teach you who knows rather than to try to figger it out from "instructions"?

Read the Scripture:

2 Peter 3 15 And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you:

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

Acts Of Apostles 8 27 And rising up, he went. And behold a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch, of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge over all her treasures, had come to Jerusalem to adore. 28 And he was returning, sitting in this chariot, and reading Isaias the prophet. 29 And the Spirit said to Philip: Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. 30 And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? 31 Who said: And how can I, unless some man show me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

32 And the place of the scripture which he was reading was this: He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb without voice before his shearer, so openeth he not his mouth. 33 In humility his judgment was taken away. His generation who shall declare, for his life shall be taken from the earth? 34 And the eunuch answering Philip, said: I beseech thee, of whom doth the prophet speak this? of himself, or of some other man? 35 Then Philip, opening his mouth, and beginning at this scripture, preached unto him Jesus.

And that is why the Sciptures always depict the Apostles teaching:
Romans 10 14 How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher?

1 Timothy 2 7 Whereunto I am appointed a preacher and an apostle, (I say the truth, I lie not,) a doctor of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

2 Timothy 1 11 Wherein I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and teacher of the Gentiles.

That is why one can't divorce Tradition and Scipture. The Mass is a perfect example:

Acts Of Apostles 2 42 And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers.

From the time of the Apostles, we read the Scriptures and remember Our Lord's Sacrifice, partake of the Flesh and Blood of our Lord all in an atmosphere of prayer and worship.

This is why Scripture says of the Mass:
1 Corinthians 11 26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come.

Sincerely,

De Maria

JoeT777

Jul 31, 2008, 09:03 AM

Mark 7:13

The RCC isn’t creating tradition unto its own; it is fulfilling Christ’s commission. There is a marked difference.

JoeT

N0help4u

Jul 31, 2008, 09:12 AM

Jesus' commission was to win disciples

De Maria

Jul 31, 2008, 09:27 AM

Jesus' commission was to win disciples

By teaching:

Matthew 28 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Sincerely,

De Maria

ScottRC

Jul 31, 2008, 10:02 AM

It may be yours, but not mine. Note that the men of Berea did not consider the oral preaching of Paul to be their standard, but rather Paul's words were tested by going to scripture - and Paul commended them.
This is a common mistake made by those who wish to force their view of sola scriptura on the text.

Seems everyone skips the context...

A Berean is someone who accepts the faith as preached, finding the pertinent Scriptures. The Thessalonians searched the SAME Scriptures and did not believe Paul's interpretation. The Bereans did believe. Not because they were smarter, had more Bible college graduates, had Thayer's Greek Lexicon, or had a superior "personal relationship" with God! God has not required that people be really smart to understand Scriptures. He has given apostles, evangelists, preachers, etc. for that purpose.

It's also important to note that Acts doesn't hold Paul accountable to the Bereans. Nor is Scriptures holding Paul accountable to Scriptures. Have you read Galatians 1? Who is Paul accountable to? Certainly not the Galatians or THEIR interpretations of Scriptures...

When one considers the REST of the Bible, that thesis is promptly destroyed. Acts 15 is the pinnacle of proof of that concept - and Paul states it quite clearly in Gal 1:8-10 that HIS GOSPEL, not some Berean's INTERPRETATION of the Bible, was the Truth.

Jesus very clearly tells that Apostles that "he who hears you hears me". The Apostles were given authority. The Apostles were given the power to bind and loosen. Rejecting the Apostles' teachings were akin to rejecting Christ (Luke 10:16, for example).

You advocating that men of Berea did not consider the oral preaching of Paul to be their standard is ludicrous, because it make the BEREANS authoritative over Paul.

Tj3

Jul 31, 2008, 11:25 AM

Tj3 said that it was so clear and logical that it was “unnecessary to go into it in detail.”

Joe,

If you are going to claim that I said something - quote it - don't take a snippet out of context and mis-represent me. That is not what I said at all. I said that there is no need because of the fact that we all agree on the 66 books of the Bible that were originally accepted as canon, and thus, based upon Proverbs 30:5-6 and others, the onus is on you if you wish to argue other sources to be God's word.

However, I find it unclear and illogical that a book can authenticate itself.

Are you arguing that the 66 original books of the canon are NOT the word of God?

How am I to understand that each time I ask this question it’s dodged or ignored?

It isn't. How come each time that I ask you questions, they are dodged or ignored?

Tj3

Jul 31, 2008, 11:29 AM

You see, here's the point you keep missing. The New Testament was first SPOKEN. First by Jesus Christ. Then by the Apostles.

Not all of it, but parts, yes. So?

If the spoken word being taught was not the standard of doctrine then, what was?

Now I see where you are mis-understanding. If I got this right, you think that anything spoken is doctrine then. Perhaps you could validate why you believe that. The men of Berea tested paul's words using scripture. Paul did not claim his spoken words to be the standard of doctrine, but rather commended the Bereans for checking what he said by testing it with scripture. When Jesus was on earth in the flesh, he validated doctrine by going to scripture.

Of course, the spoken word was then written in the New Testament.

Now we have what is written and scripture tells us not to go beyond what is written.

Tj3

Jul 31, 2008, 11:37 AM

A Berean is someone who accepts the faith as preached, finding the pertinent Scriptures. The Thessalonians searched the SAME Scriptures and did not believe Paul's interpretation. The Bereans did believe.

Read the context. They checked what Paul said to see if what he said was true. That is a test of true or false, and how do you test - you use a standard which you know is always true - the scriptures.

When one considers the REST of the Bible, that thesis is promptly destroyed.

Really? You must be reading quite a different Bible than I am. Do you allow the Bib le to interpret itself or do you accept your denomination's private interpretation?

Acts 15 is the pinnacle of proof of that concept - and Paul states it quite clearly in Gal 1:8-10 that HIS GOSPEL, not some Berean's INTERPRETATION of the Bible, was the Truth.

His gospel is what he was inspired to write. This says nothing about it being his gospel verses how his gospel aligns with the Bibklical interpretation of it. If his words were inspired by the Holy Spirit (and they were), then allowing the Bible to interpret will give us the right understanding because the Hioly Spirit does not contradict Himself.

On the other hand, private interpretations by men (i.e. leaders of a denomination) can indeed get it wrong.

ScottRC

Jul 31, 2008, 11:51 AM

Read the context. They checked what Paul said to see if what he said was true.
To think that the Bereans had AUTHORITY over Paul is absurd...

Are you saying that if they read the OT and decided Paul was wrong they could just ignore his teachings and toss him out of town?

Hardly screams respect for the Bible.

On the other hand, private interpretations by men (i.e. leaders of a denomination) can indeed get it wrong.
Yet again, I'll point out the contradiction of this... you are interpreting the Bible... you can say the Bible is doing it by "itself", but anyone above the age of 3 understands that you are simply giving your opinion.

N0help4u

Jul 31, 2008, 12:01 PM

To think that the Bereans had AUTHORITY over Paul is absurd...

Are you saying that if they read the OT and decided Paul was wrong they could just ignore his teachings and toss him out of town?

Hardly screams respect for the Bible.

That is right the Bible does say anybody that teaches contrary to the Bible is not to be followed and it also says study to show yourself approved and so you do not follow false doctrine. By questioning Paul it is not so much to prove him wrong but that it is good study habits to back up what Paul said. No disrespect. And as you said the Bible was not written until hundreds of years later but now you want to use the Bible to back up your point of them respecting the Bible.

ScottRC

Jul 31, 2008, 12:04 PM

That is right the Bible does say anybody that teaches contrary to the Bible is not to be followed and it also says study to show yourself approved and so you do not follow false doctrine.
You seem to be forgetting that the Bereans were referring to the OLD Testament... I would challenge you to find PROOF of the New Testament from the writings of the Old.

Please show me where in the Old Testament does it say that we are no longer bound by the Law of Moses.

You can't... these teachings were NEW and some CONTRARY to the clear teaching of the OT and Judaism... the notion that all Christian teaching needed to be supported by the Jewish OT is kind of foolish.

N0help4u

Jul 31, 2008, 12:06 PM

What laws are we bound to and what laws are we not bound to?
Because I have noticed everybody seems to pick.

The 10 commandments sure we are to live by them.

ScottRC

Jul 31, 2008, 12:14 PM

What laws are we bound to and what laws are we not bound to?
Because I have noticed everybody seems to pick and choose.
Again... please show me in the Old Testament that our salvation is not tied to meeting the standard of the Law of Moses.

You break one law, you break them all... and must go to the Jewish high priest to attone for your sins, right?

Please... just like the Bereans... show me in the OLD Testament why you don't need to any longer.

N0help4u

Jul 31, 2008, 12:39 PM

Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law: Matt. 5:17, "...I am not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill..." He fulfilled the Commandments by living perfectly under the Law. His impeccability and perfect life fulfilled Code I. The Ordinances, Code II, were fulfilled by Christ's death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and session. The Judgments, Code III, were fulfilled by Christ as He observed the law of the land; he lived under divine institutions and establishment.

Jesus Christ is the "end of the Law" for believers: Rom. 10:4.

Believers in the church age are under a higher law of spirituality: Rom. 8:2-4; Gal. 5:18,22,23; I Cor. 13. The believer who functions under the filling of the Holy Spirit takes up where Christ left off and fulfills the Law.

Limitations of the Mosaic Law

The Law cannot provide justification either for individuals or for groups: Gal. 2:16; Rom. 3:20; Rom. 3:28; Acts 13:39; Phil. 3:9.

The Law cannot give life: Gal. 3:21.

The Law cannot give God the Holy Spirit nor the divine power and energy from the Holy spirit: Gal. 3:2.

The Law cannot solve the problem of the Sin Nature: Rom. 8:3. While there were laws of punishment in varying degrees, and fear of punishment helps keep people in line, the Law does nothing to provide victory over sin.

Present Purpose of Mosaic Law

The Commandments provide laws of human freedom and provide a divine standard to which the sinner can compare himself and his actions and recognize that he is a sinner and needs a Saviour: Rom. 3:20,28; 1 Tim. 1:8,9.

Jesus fulfilled the law so now we are to do the law intent but through love for Christ rather than obligation to the law.

Jesus said something along the lines of I give one command to love others and in all that all the other laws are met.

ScottRC

Jul 31, 2008, 01:05 PM

Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law: Matt. 5:17, "...I am not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill..."
Again... please show me LIKE THE BEREANS DID... the teaching of the Old Testament that confirms this.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tj3, you're invited to show me as well:

Read the context. they checked what Paul said to see if what he said was true. That is a test of true or false, and how do you test - you use a standard which you know is always true - the scriptures.
Please show me, like the Bereans did, that was Jesus was God and died for your sins.

Please show me, like the Bereans did, that Peter's claim that we could toss out the food laws.

Please show me, like the Bereans did, that physical circumsision is no longer required.

If you can't find proof of these from the OT, like the Bereans did, then by your own standard they must be FALSE.

Tj3

Jul 31, 2008, 06:16 PM

Tj3, you're invited to show me as well:

Please show me, like the Bereans did, that was Jesus was God and died for your sins.

Please show me, like the Bereans did, that Peter's claim that we could toss out the food laws.

Please show me, like the Bereans did, that physical circumsision is no longer required.

If you can't find proof of these from the OT, like the Bereans did, then by your own standard they must be FALSE.

Usually I deal with questions like this from atheists who are trying to discredit Christianity. I have spent time researching question such as this many times, but unless you are questioning whether the NT and the OT are canonical, this is simply playing games, and is a tactic that I see used often to keep your opponent in a debate tied up on wild goose chases while you get away with ignoring the real question. The approach which would resolve this isssue is:

- We agree on the original (common) 66 books as canonical. So lets not play games and waste each others time in that regard.
- I presume that you agree with scripture which says that we are not to add to God's word (Prov 30:5-6).

So the onus is on you to validate addition to the Bible. Why do I see so many folk opposed to sola scriptura run when I ask this each time?

Tj3

Jul 31, 2008, 06:17 PM

To think that the Bereans had AUTHORITY over Paul is absurd...

I never said that. I said that God's word had authority over us all.

Tj3

Jul 31, 2008, 06:18 PM

You seem to be forgetting that the Bereans were referring to the OLD Testament.... I would challenge you to find PROOF of the New Testament from the writings of the Old.

You know, I once was a person who asked that same question, until I studied scripture in more detail, and I was amazed at how much of the NT is found in the OT. What the NT added was primarily more detail regarding the fulfillment of OT prophecy.

ScottRC

Jul 31, 2008, 06:34 PM

So the onus is on you to validate addition to the Bible. Why do I see so many folk opposed to sola scriptura run when I ask this each time?
No, history shows ample evidence that the canon INCLUDED those "additions"... the onus is on YOU to try to show why Luther and non-Catholic Christians REMOVED those books.

ScottRC

Jul 31, 2008, 06:37 PM

What the NT added was primarily more detail regarding the fulfillment of OT prophecy.
Which does not come close to answering my questions...

I never said that. I said that God's word had authority over us all.
... but NOT over an APOSTLE.

Too many people seem to ignore that the Bereans did not accept Paul at his word, something I doubt many Christians would support.

Tj3

Jul 31, 2008, 07:01 PM

No, history shows ample evidence that the canon INCLUDED those "additions"... the onus is on YOU to try to show why Luther and non-Catholic Christians REMOVED those books.

Even the New Catholic Encyclopedia which I have posted up here a number of times acknowledges the facts of history. I have other Roman Catholic books that do also. Why then, do so many Roman Catholics refuse to acknowledge that the books were added at the Council of Trent?

Tj3

Jul 31, 2008, 07:02 PM

Which does not come close to answering my questions....

... but NOT over an APOSTLE.

Really? Would you care to show us scripture which says that an Apostle has authority over the word of God? This is like saying that an Apostle does not need to submit to God.

ScottRC

Aug 1, 2008, 02:00 AM

Really? Would you care to show us scripture which says that an Apostle has authority over the word of God? This is like saying that an Apostle does not need to submit to God.
Let's just stick with one error at a time...

Have you ever even read the Council of Trent?

Council of Trent
SESSION THE FOURTH
DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES

But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.

One more time:

HAVE BEEN USED (past tense)

AS THEY ARE CONTAINED IN THE VULGATE (from 404 AD)

PART OF CHRISTIAN TRADITION

All Trent did was make it official IN RESPONSE to the heresy of Luther and his removal of books from the Bible.

ScottRC

Aug 1, 2008, 03:42 AM

Tj3.... a few more things to consider:

The canon of Scripture, Old and New Testament, was finally settled at the Council of Rome in 382, under the authority of Pope Damasus I. It was soon reaffirmed on numerous occasions. The same canon was affirmed at the Council of Hippo in 393 and at the Council of Carthage in 397. In 405 Pope Innocent I reaffirmed the canon in a letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse. Another council at Carthage, this one in the year 419, reaffirmed the canon of its predecessors and asked Pope Boniface to "confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church."

All of these canons were identical to the modern Catholic Bible, and all of them included the deuterocanonicals.

This same canon was implicitly affirmed at the seventh ecumenical council, II Nicaea (787), which approved the results of the 419 Council of Carthage, and explicitly reaffirmed at the ecumenical councils of Florence (1442), Trent (1546), Vatican I (1870), and Vatican II (1965).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since you brought up Jerome before, you might be interested in the commentary from Protestant patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly:
"For the great majority, however, the deutero-canonical writings ranked as Scripture in the fullest sense. Augustine, for example, whose influence in the West was decisive, made no distinction between them and the rest of the Old Testament . . . The same inclusive attitude to the Apocrypha was authoritatively displayed at the synods of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 respectively, and also in the famous letter which Pope Innocent I dispatched to Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse, in 405" (Early Christian Doctrines, 55-56).

"It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and morecomprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament].. . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deutero-canonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was.. . The Greek translation known as the Septuagint.. . Most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew.. . In the first two centuries.. . The Church seems to have accept all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture. Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas.. . Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon [i.e. the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel], and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary" (Early Christian Doctrines, 53-54).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Council of Rome
"Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus, one book.. . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books" (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).

Council of Hippo
"[It has been decided] that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books.. . " (canon 36 [A.D. 393]).

Council of Carthage
"[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach], twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees.. . " (canon 47 [A.D. 397]).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A good article to read from a Catholic scholar: Dr. Sippo utterly refutes Webster on the Canon (http://art-of-attack.blogspot.com/2008/01/dr-sippo-utterly-refutes-webster-on.html)... in it he answers your question about the Catholic Encyclopedia and will help clear up this error about the "additions" of books to the Bible.

Hope it helps... the truth will set you free!:D

sndbay

Aug 1, 2008, 05:14 AM

Again... please show me LIKE THE BEREANS DID... the teaching of the Old Testament that confirms this.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tj3, you're invited to show me as well:

Please show me, like the Bereans did, that was Jesus was God and died for your sins.

Please show me, like the Bereans did, that Peter's claim that we could toss out the food laws.

Please show me, like the Bereans did, that physical circumsision is no longer required.

If you can't find proof of these from the OT, like the Bereans did, then by your own standard they must be FALSE.

The king of Salem and priest of the most high God, who lived in the days of Abraham was the King of all righteousness. Hebrews 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need [was there] that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Hebrews 7:14-16 For [it is] evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
Hebrews 7:17 For he testifieth, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
Hebrews 7:19-22 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope [did]; by the which we draw nigh unto God. And inasmuch as not without an oath [he was made priest]: (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec: By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
Hebrews 7:28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, [maketh] the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

N0help4u

Aug 1, 2008, 05:29 AM

Tj3

Aug 1, 2008, 06:24 AM

Let's just stick with one error at a time...

Have you ever even read the Council of Trent?

Yes, and not only that other Catholic books about it. How about you?

BTW, it is interesting to note that if we disagree with your denomination, it is defined by you as an error.

One more time:

HAVE BEEN USED (past tense)

AS THEY ARE CONTAINED IN THE VULGATE (from 404 AD)

PART OF CHRISTIAN TRADITION

All Trent did was make it official IN RESPONSE to the heresy of Luther and his removal of books from the Bible.

Your opinion. I have not doubt, in fact I would agree that the addition of the books was a reaction to the fact that the reformation was making knowledge of the Bible more readily available and it was becoming clear that without these books, many of the Roman Catholic doctrines could not be supported.

As for being contained in the Vulgate, that is not relevant because, first, Jerome opposed their inclusion, and second, these and many other books have been bound with the canon over the centuries as reference material. I have a couple of good study Bibles here with reference documents bound with the Bible itself - is everything in those covers canon, just because it is there?

And here, if it disagrees with your denomination, even if the New Catholic Encyclopedia and other Roman catholic sources say so, it is a heresy if it disagrees with your denomination. And you argument that you were not telling us that you were promoting the teachings of your denomination as mandatory?

ScottRC

Aug 1, 2008, 07:36 AM

The king of Salem and priest of the most high...
Mmmkay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scott: What DO you believe about the food laws?
I follow the teachings of the Church.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW, it is interesting to note that if we disagree with your denomination, it is defined by you as an error.
"We"?

It has nothing to do with my "denomination", but you are wrong and history proves it... if you choose to reject those books for theological reasons, fine. But to assert they were added is just ignorant.

and it was becoming clear that without these books, many of the Roman Catholic doctrines could not be supported.
Your opinion... and you're half right... Luther took the book out because they did support Catholic teachings.

As for being contained in the Vulgate, that is not relevant because, first, Jerome opposed their inclusion, and second, these and many other books have been bound with the canon over the centuries as reference material.
Certainly relevant... and ONE man's initial opposition means nothing... I provided you with hundreds of years of examples that the books were IN THE CANON... and I have no clue why any "Bible" would include heretical books as reference materials... make little sense to me my friend.

And here, if it disagrees with your denomination, even if the New Catholic Encyclopedia and other Roman catholic sources say so, it is a heresy if it disagrees with your denomination. And you argument that you were not telling us that you were promoting the teachings of your denomination as mandatory?
I give you an A for effort... good dodge... but as I explained, an intelligent person looks at ALL the sources to get the truth... it's kind of foolish to use one source and ignore all the others because they don't suit your agenda... even secular sources prove you wrong.

And once again with the red herring... (lie we'll call it) that I said it was heresy or that it is mandatory. All I'm doing is providing you with ample evidence to refute your error that the books were added to the canon. No more, no less... so either produce some of these independent and scholarly sources that show me a Catholic Bible without these books or retract your statement. Easy, right?

N0help4u

Aug 1, 2008, 07:42 AM

You follow the teachings of the church... I figured that much but what is the teaching of the church?

ScottRC

Aug 1, 2008, 09:30 AM

You follow the teachings of the church......I figured that much but what is the teaching of the church?
Umm... you really don't know? :confused:

Christians do not follow the laws of Kashrut.

Anything else? I am a Jew by birth, so I'd be happy to explain if you need more info.

N0help4u

Aug 1, 2008, 09:37 AM

Oh the way you were questioning it I thought you had some special Catholic answer that I was unaware of.

sndbay

Aug 1, 2008, 10:02 AM

Christians do not follow the laws of Kashrut.

Yet Christians do follow the Light... Romans 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Proverbs 6:23 For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life:

JoeT777

Aug 1, 2008, 11:09 AM

Joe,

If you are going to claim that I said something - quote it - don't take a snippet out of context and mis-represent me. That is not what i said at all. I said that there is no need because of the fact that we all agree on the 66 books of the Bible that were originally accepted as canon, and thus, based upon Proverbs 30:5-6 and others, the onus is on you if you wish to argue other sources to be God's word.

Did you know that the original King James version was based on work by Catholic scholars. "...[Support for the] King James is based on the only perfect set of manuscripts we have (a false claim; there is no perfect set of manuscripts; and the ones used for the KJV were compiled by a Catholic, Erasmus), that it is the only translation that avoids modern, liberal renderings, and that its translators were extremely saintly and scholarly men. Since the King James is also known as "the Authorized Version" (AV), its advocates sometimes argue that it is the only version to ever have been "authorized." To this one may point out that it was only authorized in the Anglican church, which now uses other translations. For a still-in print critique of King James-onlyism, see D. A. Carson, The King James Version Debate, A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979)." Catholic Answers Catholic.com

I don't care which bible you use; how does that help in your defense of Sola Scriptura? Apparently the King James tells the same truth, just less perfictly and less thoroughly .

JoeT

Tj3

Aug 1, 2008, 11:16 AM

I follow the teachings of the Church.

What church? Do you mean your denomination?

Tj3

Aug 1, 2008, 11:17 AM

Did you know that the orginal King James version was based on work by Catholic scholars. "...[Support for the] King James is based on the only perfect set of manuscripts we have (a false claim; there is no perfect set of manuscripts; and the ones used for the KJV were compiled by a Catholic, Erasmus), that it is the only translation that avoids modern, liberal renderings, and that its translators were extremely saintly and scholarly men. Since the King James is also known as "the Authorized Version" (AV), its advocates sometimes argue that it is the only version to ever have been "authorized." To this one may point out that it was only authorized in the Anglican church, which now uses other translations. For a still-in print critique of King James-onlyism, see D. A. Carson, The King James Version Debate, A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979)." Catholic Answers Catholic.com

I don't care which bible you use; how does that help in your defense of Sola Scriptura? Apparently the King James tells the same truth, just less perfictly and less thoroughly .

JoeT

What are you arguing about the KJV translation for?

JoeT777

Aug 1, 2008, 11:24 AM

N0help4u

Aug 1, 2008, 11:28 AM

The Scripture Old or new is THE WORD, Jesus is THE WORD, how can he go against himself or contradict himself. Remember the Bible says rightly dividing THE WORD not adding words to THE WORD.

Tj3

Aug 1, 2008, 11:31 AM

The Scripture Old or new is THE WORD, Jesus is THE WORD, how can he go against himself or contradict himself. Remember the Bible says rightly dividing THE WORD not adding words to THE WORD.

Exactly. And in every place in scripture where Jesus was validating doctrine, He went to the scriptures to do so.

Tj3

Aug 1, 2008, 11:50 AM

It has nothing to do with my "denomination", but you are wrong and history proves it... if you choose to reject those books for theological reasons, fine. But to assert they were added is just ignorant.

Then I guess that you assert that all the historical evidence and the historians, even those from your denomination who you state this are "ignorant". That is in addition to your claim that we are all "stupid", and we "lie" because we disagree with your denomination.

Certainly relevant... and ONE man's initial opposition means nothing... I provided you with hundreds of years of examples that the books were IN THE CANON...

No, you provided evidence which shows that they were bound with or collected topgether with the canonical books. That is no different that assuming that reference material in my study Bible is canonical because it is in between the same covers with the Bible. That is an important difference that I have raised a number of times, and it appears that you have just ignored it.

an intelligent person looks at ALL the sources to get the truth...

Including those that disagree with them, and seeks to find truth. That is my approach. That is why I have a catechism, a Roman catholic history of the Church, a copy of the Council of Trent, as well as dozens of other books from your denomination sitting right by my desk.

it's kind of foolish to use one source and ignore all the others because they don't suit your agenda... even secular sources prove you wrong.

Exactly my point. It would be foolish just to follow what your denomination teaches and not check out the facts from independent sources.

ScottRC

Aug 1, 2008, 04:20 PM

Tj3

Aug 3, 2008, 07:44 PM

I see that a new thread on the topic of the canon has been started in the Religious Discussions area.

JoeT777

Aug 4, 2008, 10:08 AM

I see that a new thread on the topic of the canon has been started in the Religious Discussions area.

So when do we get a response to the question, "How is it that that the theory of Sola Scriptura can be scripturally and infallibly authenticated?"

JoeT

Tj3

Aug 4, 2008, 10:08 AM

So when do we get a response to the question, "How is it that that the theory of Sola Scriptura can be scripturally and infallibly authenticated?"

JoeT

How many times do you need it answered - it seems to me that there have been a number of responses already.

I have a couple of questions that may help us to move forward on this point:

1) Do you consider scripture itself to be the word of God and infallible?

2) What do you consider sola scriptura to be? Please provide your definition.

JoeT777

Aug 4, 2008, 11:07 AM

How many times do you need it answered - it seems to me that there have been a number of responses already.

I have a couple of questions that may help us to move forward on this point:

1) Do you consider scripture itself to be the word of God and infallible?

2) What do you consider sola scriptura to be? Please provide your definition.

Ok, I'll bite.

Scriptures were written by men who were inspired by God.

Sola Scriptura: “The [first] objective [or formal] principle proclaims the canonical Scriptures, especially the New Testament, to be the only infallible source and rule of faith and practice, and asserts the right of private interpretation of the same…”

Roman Catholic view of Scripture: “…declares the Bible and tradition are to be co-ordinate sources and rule of faith, and makes tradition, especially the decrees of popes and councils, the only legitimate and infallible interpreter of the Bible.”

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm

JoeT

Tj3

Aug 4, 2008, 11:19 AM

Ok, I’ll bite.

Scriptures were written by men who were inspired by God.

Interesting that you did not answer the questions to whether you consider scripture to be infallible and the word of God.

Please answer those questions.

Sola Scriptura: “The [first] objective [or formal] principle proclaims the canonical Scriptures, especially the New Testament, to be the only infallible source and rule of faith and practice, and asserts the right of private interpretation of the same…”

How about we not take the Roman Catholic New Advent quote - and deal with what sola scriptura really is. If we are not going to agree to define sola scriptura the way that it is truly defined, then we are not even talking about the same thing.

As for private interpretation - I am opposed to private interpretation because it is contrary to scripture. Scripture says that no man is to interpret scripture and that would mean you, me, your priest, my pastor, the pope or anyone else.

N0help4u

Aug 4, 2008, 11:25 AM

They can't get past sola scriptura and private interpretation being two totally different separate issues and as long as they can't do that it is IMPOSSIBLE to get anywhere with this.

Tj3

Aug 4, 2008, 11:55 AM

They can't get past sola scriptura and private interpretation being two totally different separate issues and as long as they can't do that it is IMPOSSIBLE to get anywhere with this.

Agreed. They are not dealing honestly with the issue. The approach that they are using is a logic fallacy of putting up a strawman argument. Claiming that our position is something that it is not and then shooting it down based upon their definition, rather than dealing with what our position really is.

JoeT777

Aug 4, 2008, 11:57 AM

They can't get past sola scriptura and private interpretation being two totally different separate issues and as long as they can't do that it is IMPOSSIBLE to get anywhere with this.

No, not at all. As a Catholic I can interpret Scripture so long as it is harmony with the Roman Catholic Church. Then and only then do I find them to be an infallible right rule of my faith. Its then and only then do I see a harmony between New and Old Testament and the RCC’s doctrine. It’s the only way that Scriptures can be read and when done properly Scriptures do become the sole rule of faith.

You see the important thing isn’t how I want to think of God, but how God thinks of me

Tj3

Aug 4, 2008, 12:03 PM

No, not at all. As a Catholic I can interpret Scripture so long as it is harmony with the Roman Catholic Church. Then and only then do I find them to be an infallible right rule of my faith. Its then and only then do I see a harmony between New and Old Testament and the RCC’s doctrine. It’s the only way that Scriptures can be read and when done properly Scriptures do become the sole rule of faith.

So this points out the key difference between sola scriptura and Roman Catholicism. In sola scriptura, God's word (scripture) is the standard of truth in doctrine, and in Roman Catholicism, it is the Roman Catholic Church organization.

JoeT777

Aug 4, 2008, 12:08 PM

Interesting that you did not answer the questions to whether you consider scripture to be infallible and the word of God.

Please answer those questions.

How about we not take the Roman Catholic New Advent quote - and deal with what sola scriptura really is. If we are not going to agree to define sola scriptura the way that it is truly defined, then we are not even talking about the same thing.

As for private interpretation - I am opposed to private interpretation because it is contrary to scripture. Scripture says that no man is to interpret scripture and that would mean you, me, your priest, my pastor, the pope or anyone else.

No I don't worship a book, I don't worship in a book, and a book doesn't minister to me with the real body and blood of Christ.

JoeT

JoeT777

Aug 4, 2008, 12:23 PM

So this points out the key difference between sola scriptura and Roman Catholicism. In sola scriptura, God's word (scripture) is the standard of truth in doctrine, and in Roman Catholicism, it is the Roman Catholic Church organization.

Yes it does point to some very critical differences. But, if there is a Scriptural basis for Sola Scriptura, then it will be there despite those differences. All that’s been done thus far is to assert Sola Scriptura without any authoritative proof, if it’s there shouldn’t you be able to spell it out here?

JoeT

ordinaryguy

Aug 4, 2008, 12:31 PM

Scripture says that no man is to interpret scripture and that would mean you, me, your priest, my pastor, the pope or anyone else.
It seems preposterous to me that meaning can be derived from written language without any interpretation at all. To me, interpretation is what goes on in the mind of the reader as they formulate thoughts about the words that are read. What do you mean by interpretation?

Tj3

Aug 4, 2008, 12:34 PM

It seems preposterous to me that meaning can be derived from written language without any interpretation at all.

Who said that it could?

To me, interpretation is what goes on in the mind of the reader as they formulate thoughts about the words that are read. What do you mean by interpretation?

Interpretation means to understand the original intent.

Tj3

Aug 4, 2008, 12:38 PM

Yes it does point to some very critical differences. But, if there is a Scriptural basis for Sola Scriptura, then it will be there despite those differences. All that's been done thus far is to assert Sola Scriptura without any authoritative proof, if it's there shouldn't you be able to spell it out here?

JoeT

Why do you keep asking with all the responses that you have seen on the list? Do we have to repeat it over and over?

Why won't you tell us if you consider scripture itself to be the word of God and infallible?

JoeT777

Aug 4, 2008, 01:07 PM

Who said that it could?

Interpretation means to understand the original intent.

And who would be the arbiter of what the original intent is 2,000 years after the fact without Apostolic Teachings?

I'll ask the question again, if the principle of Sola Scriptura asserts the right to be the sole arbiter of the interpretation Scripture, How do we discern which is absolute and infallible truth; which isn't? How then do we become one in our faith like Christ is with the Father?

(John 17:11): as you may recall Christ prayed, “And now I am not in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name whom thou hast given me: that they may be one, as we also are.”

JoeT

Tj3

Aug 4, 2008, 01:23 PM

And who would be the arbiter of what the original intent is 2,000 years after the fact without Apostolic Teachings?

First, let's deal with your assumption that we have gone 2000 years without Apostolic teachings. I have 66 books of them. Don't you have access to the Bible?

Why won't you answer the question that I keep asking?

Do you consider scripture itself to be the word of God and infallible?

JoeT777

Aug 4, 2008, 01:51 PM

First, let's deal with your assumption that we have gone 2000 years without Apostolic teachings. I have 66 books of them. Don't you have access to the Bible?

Why won't you answer the question that I keep asking?

Do you consider scripture itself to be the word of God and infallible?

You got your answer in post 26:

It's from the authority of the Catholic Church.

St. Augustine how are we to view the authenticity and of scripture; “But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” St. Augustin, AGAINST THE EPISTLE OF MANICHAEUS CALLED FUNDAMENTAL.(1)[CONTRA EPISTOLAM MANICHAEI QUAM VACANT FUNDAMENTI.] A.D. 397. Chp 5

In the same post you were asked how Sola Scriptura was authenticated in Scripture. We're up to post 113. So, when do we get a response to the question, "How is it that that the theory of Sola Scriptura can be scripturally and infallibly authenticated?" Are we to take it you don't have a response, that Sola Scriptura isn't authenticated in Scripture?

JoeT

Tj3

Aug 4, 2008, 01:55 PM

You got your answer in post 26:
It’s from the authority of the Catholic Church.

I am asking for your answer, not from false claims of authority made by any religious organization.

Do you consider scripture itself to be the word of God and infallible?

In the same post you were asked how Sola Scriptura was authenticated in Scripture. We're up to post 113; so when do we get a response to the question, "How is it that that the theory of Sola Scriptura can be scripturally and infallibly authenticated?" Are we to take it you don't have a response, that Sola Scriptura isn't authenticated in Scripture?

I can only assume that you have not been reading the posts on this thread.

JoeT777

Aug 4, 2008, 02:10 PM

I am asking for your answer, not from false claims of authority made by any religious organization.

Do you consider scripture itself to be the word of God and infallible?

I can only assume that you have not been reading the posts on this thread.

Again, No I don't worship a book, I don't worship in a book, and a book doesn't minister to me with the real body and blood of Christ. Again, Scripture was written by man and inspired by God.

Scriptures were written by men who were inspired by God.

Sola Scriptura: “The [first] objective [or formal] principle proclaims the canonical Scriptures, especially the New Testament, to be the only infallible source and rule of faith and practice, and asserts the right of private interpretation of the same…”

Roman Catholic view of Scripture: “…declares the Bible and tradition are to be co-ordinate sources and rule of faith, and makes tradition, especially the decrees of popes and councils, the only legitimate and infallible interpreter of the Bible.”

Are you saying that only people "elected" can understand Scripture as you do?

JoeT

Wondergirl

Aug 4, 2008, 02:25 PM

Roman Catholic view of Scripture: “…declares the Bible and tradition are to be co-ordinate sources and rule of faith, and makes tradition, especially the decrees of popes and councils, the only legitimate and infallible interpreter of the Bible.”
So then, what is tradition, but only the words of men.

Tj3

Aug 4, 2008, 02:28 PM

Again, No I don't worship a book, I don't worship in a book, and a book doesn’t minister to me with the real body and blood of Christ. Again, Scripture was written by man and inspired by God.

Who does worship a book or in a book? I assume that what you are saying is that, no you do not consider the Bible to be the word of God, and no, you do not consider it to be infallible.

Now, do you consider your church to be infallible?

Sola Scriptura: “The [first] objective [or formal] principle proclaims the canonical Scriptures, especially the New Testament, to be the only infallible source and rule of faith and practice, and asserts the right of private interpretation of the same…”

First, why do you keep posting this dishonest distortion of what sola scriptura is and what non-Catholics believe? Do you not want to have a serious, honest discussion of the issue?

Are you saying that only people "elected" can understand Scripture as you do?

Absolutely not. I am saying that no man can interpret scripture.

2 Peter 1:20-21
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
NKJV

Are you claiming that men in the leadership of your church can interpret scripture contrary to what the Bible says?

Wondergirl

Aug 4, 2008, 02:28 PM

Are you saying that only people "elected" can understand Scripture as you do?
Are you saying you do not have the capacity to understand Scripture unless other men explain it to you?

ScottRC

Aug 4, 2008, 03:07 PM

Are you saying you do not have the capacity to understand Scripture unless other men explain it to you?
I certainly can... at least I hope I can... but I certainly would not claim that my understanding is right for you.

It all boils down to this (IMO): When two people, both using Scripture to support their claims, have differing interpretations of a Christian teaching, how in the world do they decide who is right?

Without an authority to decide--- protected by the Holy Spirit from error--- all we have is Biblical relativism... everyone has their own personal views and no one knows what is the truth.

Hope that helps you understand what my personal "trouble" is with the Protestant faith...

Wondergirl

Aug 4, 2008, 03:25 PM

Without an authority to decide--- protected by the Holy Spirit from error--- all we have is Biblical relativism... everyone has their own personal views and no one knows what is the truth.
And who deemed which inerrent authority is to decide for you? And who is/are those inerrent authorities?

As Tom has said, Scripture interprets and supports itself. No relativism, no personal view is involved.

Tj3

Aug 4, 2008, 03:33 PM

I certainly can... at least I hope I can... but I certainly would not claim that my understanding is right for you.

Are you saying that you believe in a relativistic gospel? It changes depending upon who reads it?

It all boils down to this (IMO): When two people, both using Scripture to support their claims, have differing interpretations of a Christian teaching, how in the world do they decide who is right?

That is exactly the point. Scripture (God's word) interprets scripture. Mis-interpretations arise when men try to take the place of God.

ScottRC

Aug 4, 2008, 04:14 PM

And who deemed which inerrent authority is to decide for you? And who is/are those inerrent authorities?
I believe that answer is quite clear when one takes an unbiased look at scripture and history.

As Tom has said, Scripture interprets and supports itself. No relativism, no personal view is involved.
The rest of the world calls this "circular logic"... I'm glad it works for you folks, but I hope you can appreciate why some of us can't support such a logical fallacy.

Tj3

Aug 4, 2008, 04:39 PM

I believe that answer is quite clear when one takes an unbiased look at scripture and history.

I, for one, have. And having done so, it is not sufficient for you to simply tell us that we are wrong.

The rest of the world calls this "circular logic"... I'm glad it works for you folks, but I hope you can appreciate why some of us can't support such a logical fallacy.

I trust that you are aware that the Bible is not just one book, nor one written by men. As a result, we know two things about this book which are not true about other single books:

1) It is not an individual book. Even by the world's logic, using third party sources to validate another work is adequate evidence. In this case, we can validate a doctrine found in one book, or indeed interpret a doctrine found in one book by 66 other books, written by many different authors separated by many centuries, in many different locations. Even in the secular world, ignoring the divine nature of this book, that would be considered overwhelming evidence of a fact.

2) The book has numerous human authors, but we also have the evidence of the supernatural inspiration of the book by the fact that the book does not contradict itself. That being the case, we can use one book in the Bible to test, clarify and validate another book in the Bible, knowing that each provides an infallible perspective on a part of the whole of God's word.

If we were to ignore the involvement of the Holy Spirit in the creation of this book, it would be like having a set of books, written by a number of people who had been lecture by one man, and each sat down and wrote what this man taught them from their notes. In so doing, each would have a single source of information, therefore would not contradict, but at the same time, each would write from a different perspective. This would allow us to better understand one teaching found in one book, by using the others to interpret it. In human terms, that would be consider good enough to establish the truth of what this man taught. When we add the perfect revelation, inspiration and guidance of God upon the hands and minds of those who penned scripture, and the promise of the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth (the same Holy Spirit who indwells all believers), we can trust God's word to inpret itself.

Not circular logic even in human terms, and indeed the approach is not only sound in secular terms, but it is a standard approach to study and research used every day by students and researchers in all fields of study around the world every day.

ordinaryguy

Aug 4, 2008, 04:47 PM

Who said that it could?
You did.

Scripture says that no man is to interpret scripture and that would mean you, me, your priest, my pastor, the pope or anyone else.

I am saying that no man can interpret scripture.

Interpretation means to understand the original intent.
And how could this process which leads to understanding occur anywhere else than in the mind of the person who reads the words?

Scripture interprets and supports itself

Scripture (God's word) interprets scripture.
Unless you have a different meaning of "interprets" than the one given by Tj above (to understand the intent behind the words), these statements are nonsensical, i.e. "The written word understands the intent of the written word" Please! The written word is ink on paper. It understands nothing. Interpretation and understanding are acts of thought that happen in the human mind. If you had said that only a Spirit-led human mind can properly interpret scripture, I wouldn't disagree, but to say that "no (hu)man can interpret scripture" is just preposterous. Reading scripture and interpreting its meaning are mental acts that are so closely interwoven as to be inseparable.

Tj3

Aug 4, 2008, 04:51 PM

You did.

No I did not. If you want to claim otherwise, post the quote and the message # that it came from.

What I did say is that scripture interprets itself.

See also post #124.

Wondergirl

Aug 4, 2008, 04:55 PM

No I did not. If you want to claim otherwise, post the quote and the message # that it came from.

What I did say is that scripture interprets itself.

See also post #124.
Tom, give him an example of how that would work, how it would be accomplished, that scripture interprets scripture.

ScottRC

Aug 4, 2008, 05:03 PM

Unless you have a different meaning of "interprets" than the one given by Tj above (to understand the intent behind the words), these statements are nonsensical, i.e., "The written word understands the intent of the written word" Please!
Well said... I really don't understand how anyone could believe that their interpretation of Scirpture is someone not their own personal understanding.

When we look at the basic description of the process:
Exegesis
(from the Greek ἐξηγεῖσθαι 'to lead out')
....involves an extensive and critical interpretation of an authoritative text."

... one is hard pressed to toss this out in favor of "it interprets itself".

So either I'm not getting a proper explanation from those who believe this, or you are quite correct that it is "nonsensical".

Thank you for your contribution to this thread.

ScottRC

Aug 4, 2008, 05:05 PM

Tom, give him an example of how that would work, how it would be accomplished, that scripture interprets scripture.
Please... that would be very helpful... but I would ask you to copy it down for me since I have that member on "ignore" and won't be able to see the post.

Thanks for your help Wondergirl!:)

Wondergirl

Aug 4, 2008, 05:09 PM

I have that member on "ignore" and won't be able to see the post.
Good grief!! This is the Christianity Board!! Now, as your penance, sing the Barney song three times.

If Tom doesn't cough up an example, I will.

*going to the kitchen to make a chocolate ice cream cone*

ordinaryguy

Aug 4, 2008, 05:16 PM

What I did say is that scripture interprets itself.
Yes, and you said

I am saying that no man can interpret scripture.

Tom, give him an example of how that would work, how it would be accomplished, that scripture interprets scripture.
Do you really not see the fallacy here? Any "example" you cite, and the meaning that you attach to it is you, using your mind, making your choices about how to accurately interpret scripture, not "scripture interpreting itself". Written words are inanimate objects that are not capable of interpreting themselves or anything else. Interpretation is an activity of the human mind. It's OK. Why are you so insistent on denying that you do it?

Wondergirl

Aug 4, 2008, 05:20 PM

Why are you so insistent on denying that you do it?
But Tom is correct. Scripture supports and interprets Scripture. What do the words in Scripture say?

ScottRC

Aug 4, 2008, 05:23 PM

But Tom is correct. Scripture supports and interprets Scripture. What do the words in Scripture say?
Do you have an example yet?

I really think that would help.

Maybe pick a topic... the Eucharist... baptismal regerneration... justification... anything... and please show me how the Bible can interpret itself and communicate what it interpreted to you and I.

ordinaryguy

Aug 4, 2008, 05:54 PM

Scripture supports and interprets Scripture.
Scripture doesn't interpret scripture, people interpret scripture.

What do the words in Scripture say?
The words "say" many things. But until a real, live, thinking person interprets them, they mean nothing. Meaning is a creation of the reader's mind, not an attribute of the words.

I really don't understand this aversion to taking responsibility for your own interpretation. You can say that the Holy Spirit guides you to the right one if you want, but what's the point of clinging to this silly notion that you aren't doing any interpreting? It's patently absurd.

ordinaryguy

Aug 4, 2008, 06:07 PM

Thank you for your contribution to this thread.
You're quite welcome, but I don't agree that the Catholic Church is the final arbiter of the "true" interpretation of scripture or anything else. As far as I'm concerned, it's a large, human-created and human-run organization, not substantively different from the U.S. Government, General Motors, or the United Nations, just a little older.

ScottRC

Aug 4, 2008, 06:13 PM

You're quite welcome, but I don't agree that the Catholic Church is the final arbiter of the "true" interpretation of scripture or anything else.
Fair enough... I still appreciate your contributions.:D

... but that does beg the question: How would you suggest that we determine what the "true" interpretation of Scripture is?

ordinaryguy

Aug 4, 2008, 06:42 PM

How would you suggest that we determine what the "true" interpretation of Scripture is?
I would suggest that we not spend another moment trying to determine what the "true" interpretation of Scripture is. It is useful and meaningful to different people in different circumstances with different personal histories and different beliefs for a variety of purposes. I'm happy to leave it at that.

ScottRC

Aug 4, 2008, 06:51 PM

I would suggest that we not spend another moment trying to determine what the "true" interpretation of Scripture is. It is useful and meaningful to different people in different circumstances with different personal histories and different beliefs for a variety of purposes. I'm happy to leave it at that.
Well I'm certain that's just fine for an observer... but for those of us who live our lives as Christians, CORRECT understanding of Christian orthodoxy is of paramount importance.

I'm sure that you understand that for those of us who are Christians, we believe that knowing what God wants for us to do in this life is pretty darn important... and without a objective standard for determining orthodoxy---- there can be only confusion.

And that just won't do.

But thanks again for your opinion.

Tj3

Aug 4, 2008, 07:01 PM

Tom, give him an example of how that would work, how it would be accomplished, that scripture interprets scripture.

Okay, to make it easy to understand, let's look at an example from the secular world, just to show that what we are talking about is nothing out of the ordinary.

If one was asked to find out accurately what an historic figure, let’s say Winston Churchill, believed or taught about certain events in history, how would you go about it?

Well, there are a few options:
- Talk to the person, but in the case of Churchill, he is dead, so that is not an option.
- Talk to people who may have interviewed or known him very well. Again, few if any people who fall into that category would still be available, so we need to discount that also.
- Read what people who have done similar studies say about what he thought. This is a real option, but it is important to realize that any writings like this will have biases, but their thoughts may provide some pointers.
- Read what he actually wrote. Even if you read what others have to say about the topic, to verify the accuracy of what they say, you will want to go back and verify this from the source.

This is the typical approach that any student would take to determine that
They have an accurate understand for any area of study, yet so many people will say that this just isn’t possible with the Bible. Why not? I would suggest that not only is it possible, for the sake of accuracy, it is essential.

Further, unlike other topics, we have an additional promise from God that comes into effect when those who have received Jesus as Saviour study His word.

John 16:13-15
13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all
Truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.
NKJV

Thus since all scripture is inspired by God, we who have received Jesus as Saviour can effectively be guided into understanding the truth by the author, further helping to ensure accuracy of our understanding.

Tj3

Aug 4, 2008, 07:07 PM

Yes, and you said

I would ask you to aim for accuracy when you make such claims. Here is what you accused me of (quote from message #108)

"It seems preposterous to me that meaning can be derived from written language without any interpretation at all"

Note you accused me of saying that the written language can have no interpretation at all.

That is much different than what I said. Please, in the future provide the quote if you are going to respond to something that I said. Gross mis-representations do not move forward our understanding nor the credibility of your position.

Tj3

Aug 4, 2008, 07:10 PM

Well I'm certain that's just fine for an observer.... but for those of us who live our lives as Christians, CORRECT understanding of Christian orthodoxy is of paramount importance.

I'm sure that you understand that for those of us who are Christians, we believe that knowing what God wants for us to do in this life is pretty darn important... and without a objective standard for determining orthodoxy---- there can be only confusion.

And that just won't do.

But thanks again for your opinion.

Exactly. That is why God said in His word that no man is to interpret scripture - that means not you, not me, not your priest, not my pastor, and not the pope - no man.

We are to use scripture as our standard.

ordinaryguy

Aug 4, 2008, 07:40 PM

Well I'm certain that's just fine for an observer....
Who you callin' an observer? I'm a down-and-dirty participant in life in all its delightful chaos.

without a objective standard for determining orthodoxy---- there can be only confusion.

And that just won't do.
Well, sure, if you really can't tolerate it, then choose your objective standard, wrap it tightly around yourself and hunker down. It may protect you from confusion, or it may just suffocate you. It seems to work for some people, but I tried it fair and square and decided that a little confusion was a small price to pay to feel the wind on my face.

ordinaryguy

Aug 4, 2008, 07:53 PM

This is the typical approach that any student would take to determine that
they have an accurate understand for any area of study, yet so many people will say that this just isn’t possible with the Bible. Why not? I would suggest that not only is it possible, for the sake of accuracy, it is essential.
Thanks. You've provided a good example of how interpretation is done. You've even acknowledged that it's how you go about interpreting the Bible. But it IS YOU doing the interpreting, not the Bible "interpreting itself".

Thus since all scripture is inspired by God, we who have received Jesus as Saviour can effectively be guided into understanding the truth by the author, further helping to ensure accuracy of our understanding.Well, that's fine to acknowledge spiritual help in arriving at a satisfactory interpretation, just stop with this silly idea that you aren't doing any interpretation.

Tj3

Aug 4, 2008, 08:01 PM

Thanks. You've provided a good example of how interpretation is done. You've even acknowledged that it's how you go about interpreting the Bible. But it IS YOU doing the interpreting, not the Bible "interpreting itself".

There is no interpreting. It is reading what is there - nothing more, nothing less.

Now if I had said, you take what someone else said, that would be an interpretation. Or if I said that you should read one document and extrapolate to fill in any gaps, that would be interpretation. But if I read that that the person believes X, and I respond by saying that he believes X - I have done no more than reflect accurately what was said.

If I was a painter and my boss said to paint the walls of the house blue, and I painted the walls of the house blue - there is no interpretation. If I decided to go and paint the trim white also, that would be an interpretation (I would have gone beyond what I was told and assumed what he meant).

Wondergirl

Aug 4, 2008, 08:01 PM

Originally Posted by ScottR=CORRECT understanding of Christian orthodoxy is of paramount importance
And who provides this?

ordinaryguy

Aug 4, 2008, 08:10 PM

Note you accused me of saying that the written language can have no interpretation at all.

That is much different than what I said. Please, in the future provide the quote if you are going to respond to something that I said. Gross mis-representations do not move forward our understanding nor the credibility of your position.
My apologies. I should have accused you of saying that no man can interpret scripture, that scripture interprets itself, as I see it, a not much different and equally preposterous thing to say.

Tj3

Aug 4, 2008, 08:14 PM

My apologies. I should have accused you of saying that no man can interpret scripture, that scripture interprets itself, as I see it, a not much different and equally preposterous thing to say.

Except that allowing scripture to interpret itself is what we are required to do since the Bible commands men not to interpret it.

Now if you think that that is not what God meant, then you are altering what scripture says with you own personal interpretation.

ordinaryguy

Aug 4, 2008, 08:33 PM

There is no interpreting. It is reading what is there - nothing more, nothing less.Oh, please! By your own definition, if you read the words and use them to arrive at an understanding of the writer's intent, you're interpreting. It's not a sin (is it?), so why the irrational denial that you're doing it? I really don't get it.

Now if I had said, you take what someone else said, that would be an interpretation.
That would be taking their interpretation instead of your own.

Or if I said that you should read one document and extrapolate to fill in any gaps, that would be interpretation.
That would be interpolation.

But if I read that that the person believes X, and I respond by saying that he believes X - I have done no more than reflect accurately what was said.
That would be an accurate interpretation.

If I was a painter and my boss said to paint the walls of the house blue, and I painted the walls of the house blue - there is no interpretation.
Yes, there is an accurate interpretation of what your boss said.

If I decided to go and paint the trim white also, that would be an interpretation (I would have gone beyond what I was told and assumed what he meant).
That would be extrapolation based on assumption.

JoeT777

Aug 4, 2008, 08:36 PM

But Tom is correct. Scripture supports and interprets Scripture. What do the words in Scripture say?

Yes the Old Testament “supports” the New Testament. But there hasn’t been a book written that can authenticate and interpret itself. We’ve proved that with this discussion. Obviously, If it did do these things we wouldn’t be arguing. The point of the matter is you cannot have fullness of the faith without an Apostolic Tradition along with the Scriptures.

JoeT

Wondergirl

Aug 4, 2008, 08:46 PM

you cannot have fullness of the faith without an Apostolic Tradition along with the Scriptures.
What does that mean?

Tj3

Aug 4, 2008, 08:50 PM

Oh, please! By your own definition, if you read the words and use them to arrive at an understanding of the writer's intent, you're interpreting.

See now that is interpreting what I said. When a person interprets, they take what is there, and massage it to fit a new profile of some sort. I said nothing of the sort. I said to take what he wrote - go right back to the source. If you do not go beyond what it written, there is no interpretation.

If you call it that, then you are making up your own definitions.

That would be taking their interpretation instead of your own.

Nonetheless, it is an interpretation.

That would be interpolation.

True, but once again it is an interpretation.

That would be an accurate interpretation.

This is the root of the problem. You are not familiar with the boundaries of what constitutes an interpretation.

Tj3

Aug 4, 2008, 08:51 PM

The point of the matter is you cannot have fullness of the faith without an Apostolic Tradition along with the Scriptures.
JoeT

If it were so essential, surely we would have been told that in scripture, rather than being commanded not to go beyond what is written. Did God err?

ordinaryguy

Aug 4, 2008, 09:02 PM

Except that allowing scripture to interpret itself is what we are required to do since the Bible commands men not to interpret it.
We are not required to do the impossible. In order to understand the meaning of written words, we must interpret them according to the vocabulary and grammar of the language employed. Perhaps your interpretation of what "the Bible commands" is erroneous.

Maybe I am starting to understand where you're coming from. You interpret the Bible to mean that you should not interpret it, therefore you must deny that's what you're doing.

Now if you think that that is not what God meant, then you are altering what scripture says with you own personal interpretation.
No, I am just interpreting it differently than you do. You are forgetting that what you call "what scripture says" is actually your interpretation of words in a book. I'm sorry, but there is just no way to go from words on a page to meaning and understanding without going through the process of interpretation. But thanks for helping me understand, at least a little, why this unavoidable process is so vehemently denied by some "Bible believers".

JoeT777

Aug 4, 2008, 09:06 PM

Except that allowing scripture to interpret itself is what we are required to do since the Bible commands men not to interpret it.

Now if you think that that is not what God meant, then you are altering what scripture says with you own personal interpretation.

Tj3:

You know it’s really funny you should argue that scriptures interpret scripture. I suppose that you got your PE it was by reading an engineering book. Then I suppose when you went in to take your PE exam you told the proctor that you would write the test?

I would suggest that you spent at least 4 years, maybe five, in the presence of many teachers, all of which bore marks of authority. When you took the exam you didn’t interpreted the questions the way you wanted to interpret them, you interpreted them in the tradition of your field of science. You know as well as I do that once you’ve gotten licensed you’re still not free of higher authorities. Your computations are subject to peer review as well as code review. At which time you’re obligated to show how your algorithms produce the “traditionally” accepted answers.

The same holds true for the Scriptures.

Your entire argument of scripture interpreting scripture is specious. It’s evident in the fact that you ignore history, which could be recited by a school boy, that it was the Catholic Church that brought the bible intact, unchanged since the first century when they were in individual books to the third century when the Catholic Church canonized them, to our present age.

JoeT.

Tj3

Aug 4, 2008, 09:13 PM

We are not required to do the impossible. In order to understand the meaning of written words, we must interpret them according to the vocabulary and grammar of the language employed. Perhaps your interpretation of what "the Bible commands" is erroneous.

What you are suggesting would inhibit us from communicating with each other on here or in person even if we spoke the same language. If you keep following the path that you are on, you end up with post modernism which believes that we cannot know anything and that everyone can decide for themselves what everything means, and no one is ever wrong

Maybe I am starting to understand where you're coming from. You interpret the Bible to mean that you should not interpret it, therefore you must deny that's what you're doing.

Maybe you are already a post-modernist! You sound like it. So when the weatherman says that it is raining outside, why don't you interpret that to mean sunny and see what happens :D

Have you read the ten suggestions in Exodus 20 lately? :D

ordinaryguy

Aug 4, 2008, 09:17 PM

This is the root of the problem. You are not familiar with the boundaries of what constitutes an interpretation.
Here are your exact words (post #110):

Interpretation means to understand the original intent.
Understanding the intent of the writer is a mental process that occurs in the mind of the reader. The Bible (an inanimate material object) cannot understand itself. Understanding is a function of conscious, thinking beings. Do you want to revise your definition of interpretation?

Tj3

Aug 4, 2008, 09:21 PM

Tj3:
I would suggest that you spent at least 4 years, maybe five, in the presence of many teachers, all of which bore marks of authority. When you took the exam you didn’t interpreted the questions the way you wanted to interpret them, you interpreted them in the tradition of your field of science. You know as well as I do that once you’ve gotten licensed you’re still not free of higher authorities. Your computations are subject to peer review as well as code review. At which time you’re obligated to show how your algorithms produce the “traditionally” accepted answers.

If you say that you always just interpret things the way that a higher authority wants you to, I would never want you working for me. The reason? In engineering, facts are important and it is important to get personal biases out of the way.

When I study, I look at as many sources as I need to get a full picture of topic, so that what I am seeing is not me, the learner or researcher filling in the pieces (interpreting), but rather that I am validating what I believe, rather than just going which what I believe to be true.

Your entire argument of scripture interpreting scripture is specious. It’s evident in the fact that you ignore history, which could be recited by a school boy, that it was the Catholic Church that brought the bible intact,

A schoolboy indoctrinated in a Roman Catholic school perhaps.

unchanged since the first century when they were in individual books to the third century when the Catholic Church canonized them, to our present age.

Odd - you omitted the addition of a number of books at the Council of Trent.

Tj3

Aug 4, 2008, 09:25 PM

Here are your exact words (post #110):

Understanding the intent of the writer is a mental process that occurs in the mind of the reader.

The key is how you reach that understanding. Do you simply read what is said and take it at face value, or do you bend it to fit your beliefs. The first is not interpretation - the second is.

Like I said, I think that we have identified the root problem here. And that is that you have chosen to interpret the word "interpret" for yourself.

The Bible (an inanimate material object) cannot understand itself. Understanding is a function of conscious, thinking beings. Do you want to revise your definition of interpretation?

The Bible provides us with God's word and provides us with an understanding of what God wants us to know.

JoeT777

Aug 4, 2008, 09:37 PM

If you say that you always just interpret things the way that a higher authority wants you to, I would never want you working for me.

And if you if you were working for me I wouldn’t want you reinventing the Ohm meter every time you did a project.

The reason? In engineering, facts are important and it is important to get personal biases out of the way.
Precisely the facts outweigh your dislike for the RCC.

When I study, I look at as many sources as I need to get a full picture of topic, so that what I am seeing is not me, the learner or researcher filling in the pieces (interpreting), but rather that I am validating what I believe, rather than just going which what I believe to be true.
So you do rely on an authority, strange. But again proves my point.

Odd - you omitted the addition of a number of books at the Council of Trent.
?

JoeT

Tj3

Aug 4, 2008, 09:43 PM

And if you if you were working for me I wouldn’t want you reinventing the Ohm meter every time you did a project.

Exactly my point. Nor would I would you to re-interpret how an ohmmeter works, or how to read one or what an ohm is.

Precisely the facts outweigh your dislike for the RCC.

Always, there is always someone who cannot handle it when things don't go their way and takes it out on those who disagree with them.

So you do rely on an authority, strange. But again proves my point.

Never said that I didn't God is my authority and His word is my authority. That is been the point of this whole discussion. Some folk make the RCC their authority on doctrine, others turn to the Bible.

ordinaryguy

Aug 5, 2008, 05:21 AM

The key is how you reach that understanding. Do you simply read what is said and take it at face value, or do you bend it to fit your beliefs. The first is not interpretation - the second is.
First you said that "Interpretation means to understand the original intent." Now you say that interpretation means to "bend it to fit your beliefs". Which is it?

Like I said, I think that we have identified the root problem here. And that is that you have chosen to interpret the word "interpret" for yourself.
You have changed your definition of the word in mid-discussion.

N0help4u

Aug 5, 2008, 05:23 AM

He is making the distinction, not saying that that is what it is but saying there is a distinction which Scottrc and them do not seem to understand. I don't see where he is changing anything but that he is pointing out that they are

ordinaryguy

Aug 5, 2008, 10:58 AM

He is making the distinction, not saying that that is what it is but saying there is a distinction which Scottrc and them do not seem to understand.
I don't have a dog in the fight between the Protestants and the Catholics. According to Tj3, that lays me wide open to the charge of (Gasp! ) "post modernism". I don't know what post-modernism is. He may be right.

I don't see where he is changing anything
OK, look at it this way: The phrase "to understand the original intent" in the first quote is synonymous with the phrase "read what is said and take it at face value" in the second. Yet in the first statement, this correct understanding is said to be interpretation, while in the second, it is said not to be interpretation.

Conversely, the phrase "bend it to fit your beliefs" in the second statement surely means to misunderstand the original intent. So in the first statement, it is accurate understanding that is defined as interpretation, while in the second, it is erroneous understanding that is so identified.

If this contradiction in meaning between these two statements is still invisible to you, I am ready to accept that there is nothing more I can say that will open your eyes to it.

Tj3

Aug 5, 2008, 11:50 AM

First you said that "Interpretation means to understand the original intent." Now you say that interpretation means to "bend it to fit your beliefs". Which is it?

If your position cannot be defended without dishonesty in how you treat what another person said, then you have undermined the credibility of your own position.

Tj3

Aug 5, 2008, 11:52 AM

I don't have a dog in the fight between the Protestants and the Catholics. According to Tj3, that lays me wide open to the charge of (Gasp!!) "post modernism". I don't know what post-modernism is. He may be right.

I don't have a dog in the fight between protestants and RCC either. I am neither. I stand on what the Bible has to say, not on what any denomination requires as part of their doctrinal stance.

JoeT777

Aug 5, 2008, 09:06 PM

Okay, to make it easy to understand, let's look at an example from the secular world, just to show that what we are talking about is nothing out of the ordinary.

If one was asked to find out accurately what an historic figure, let’s say Winston Churchill, believed or taught about certain events in history, how would you go about it?

Well, there are a few options:
- Talk to the person, but in the case of Churchill, he is dead, so that is not an option.
- Talk to people who may have interviewed or known him very well. Again, few if any people who fall into that category would still be available, so we need to discount that also.
- Read what people who have done similar studies say about what he thought. This is a real option, but it is important to realize that any writings like this will have biases, but their thoughts may provide some pointers.
- Read what he actually wrote. Even if you read what others have to say about the topic, to verify the accuracy of what they say, you will want to go back and verify this from the source.

This is the typical approach that any student would take to determine that
they have an accurate understand for any area of study, yet so many people will say that this just isn’t possible with the Bible. Why not? I would suggest that not only is it possible, for the sake of accuracy, it is essential.

Further, unlike other topics, we have an additional promise from God that comes into effect when those who have received Jesus as Saviour study His word.

John 16:13-15
13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all
truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.
NKJV

Thus since all scripture is inspired by God, we who have received Jesus as Saviour can effectively be guided into understanding the truth by the author, further helping to ensure accuracy of our understanding.

Scripture cannot interpret scripture, as the above illustrates; nor, can scripture authenticate itself; nor is Scripture a church as Tertullian illustrates below:

Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called the rock on which the church should be built, who also obtained the keys of the kingdom of heaven, with the power of loosing and binding in heaven and on earth? Was anything, again, concealed from John, the Lord's most beloved disciple, who used to lean on His breast (John 21:20) to whom alone the Lord pointed Judas out as the traitor, whom He commended to Mary as a son in His own stead? (John 19:26) Of what could He have meant those to be ignorant, to whom He even exhibited His own glory with Moses and Elias, and the Father's voice moreover, from heaven? (Matthew 17:1-8) Not as if He thus disapproved of all the rest, but because by three witnesses must every word be established. After the same fashion, too, (I suppose,) were they ignorant to whom, after His resurrection also, He vouchsafed, as they were journeying together, to expound all the Scriptures. (Luke 24:27) No doubt He had once said, I have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot hear them now; but even then He added, When He, the Spirit of truth, shall come, He will lead you into all truth. (John 16:12-13) He (thus) shows that there was nothing of which they were ignorant, to whom He had promised the future attainment of all truth by help of the Spirit of truth. And assuredly He fulfilled His promise, since it is proved in the Acts of the Apostles that the Holy Ghost did come down. Now they who reject that Scripture can neither belong to the Holy Spirit, seeing that they cannot acknowledge that the Holy Ghost has been sent as yet to the disciples, nor can they presume to claim to be a church themselves who positively have no means of proving when, and with what swaddling-clothes this body was established. Of so much importance is it to them not to have any proofs for the things which they maintain, lest along with them there be introduced damaging exposures of those things which they mendaciously devise. Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics 22

JoeT

Tj3

Aug 5, 2008, 10:18 PM

Scripture cannot interpret scripture, as the above illustrates;

Deny as you wish - God commands that men not interpret scripture.

nor, can scripture authenticate itself;

Are you saying that scripture is not the word of God? I thought that amongst those who profess Christ, that would be a given.

nor is Scripture a church

Strawman argument. No one said that it was.

Wondergirl

Aug 5, 2008, 11:16 PM

Scripture cannot interpret scripture
Of course it can, and does. You yourself have used it in that way.

ordinaryguy

Aug 6, 2008, 04:49 AM

God commands that men not interpret scripture.
Unless God's command was delivered to you verbally, this is your interpretation of scripture.

ordinaryguy

Aug 6, 2008, 05:04 AM

Scripture cannot interpret scripture
Of course it can, and does.
Tj3's latest definition of "interpret" is to "bend it to fit your beliefs". But apparently you have a different definition in mind. What is your definition of the word "interpret", as used in the statement "scripture can interpret scripture"?

N0help4u

Aug 6, 2008, 07:12 AM

ordinaryguy

Aug 6, 2008, 08:23 AM

Wondergirl

Aug 6, 2008, 09:11 AM

If this post is directed to me, you're missing the point entirely. I'm not suggesting, as the Catholics are, that the RCC's interpretation of scripture is better than yours. I am insisting that there is no interpretation without a human mind involved, and therefore the notion that any written source can "interpret itself" is nonsense. Yes, YOU can interpret scripture without referring to any other source, but YOU are still doing the interpreting.
I think we all need to take a step back and define "interpretation."

Much of the Bible is easily understood. The OT stories, for instance, tell us about God's people who messed up their lives in various ways and thus caused lots of trouble for others, but, when they repented, God forgave. The OT wisdom literature can be read for its clarity and common sense. Many of the passages/stories in the Gospels are forthright and teach us how to live ("The Good Samaritan" and the Beatitudes, for instance).

When we come across something we don't understand or it may seem to have various meanings, we use Scripture to interpret Scripture. The Catholic Church has always done this for its members. Martin Luther put forth the amazing idea that anyone can read the Bible and allow it to interpret itself (and not depend on someone or something else to do it for them). That's why he used the new invention of the printing press to get the Bible printed in the German language so the German people could read the Bible for themselves. He had translated part of the Bible into German by using Erasmus's second edition (1519) of the Greek New Testament. (Later, with others, Luther translated the entire Bible into German.)

Gnmagazine.org discusses this type of interpretation, how "Scripture interprets Scripture" --

"The Bible itself tells us that we are to understand it as a unit; all Scripture is inspired and a divine guide for human conduct. By putting together all the scriptures on a given subject, we allow the Bible to interpret itself and give us a complete and coherent view of God's instruction on specific areas of life.

Viewing every passage in a different context renders the Bible little more than a conflicting, contradictory collection of human writings rather than a divine revelation. Paul's instruction in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 shows us the correct way to interpret the Bible: All of it is God's inspired revelation."

Dr. David L. Cooper, the founder of The Biblical Research Society, had a "Golden Rule of Interpretation":

When the plain sense of Scripture

makes common sense,

seek no other sense;

Therefore, take every word

at its primary, ordinary,

usual, literal meaning

Unless the facts

of the immediate context,

studied in the light

Of related passages and

axiomatic and fundamental truths

indicate clearly otherwise.

Tj3

Aug 6, 2008, 11:31 AM

Unless God's command was delivered to you verbally, this is your interpretation of scripture.

Really? So you would believe the verbal word of God, but not the written word of God?

How did you you come to that interpretation?

Tj3

Aug 6, 2008, 11:33 AM

Tj3's latest definition of "interpret" is to "bend it to fit your beliefs". But apparently you have a different definition in mind. What is your definition of the word "interpret", as used in the statement "scripture can interpret scripture"?

I never said that was my intertpretation - how much longer are you going to continue to repeat that mis-representation? You have been corrected on this previously.

If the truth is not adequate to defend your position, then is your position worth defending?

Tj3

Aug 6, 2008, 11:35 AM

Yes, YOU can interpret scripture without referring to any other source, but YOU are still doing the interpreting.

Who said anyhthing about not referring to another source? There are 66 books in the Bible.

JoeT777

Aug 6, 2008, 01:06 PM

Try getting a Thompson Chain Reference and put aside all church teachings and just do a topic study on things and you will see that scripture does interpret and support itself.
What are people who never heard of Catholicism or lived before Catholicism and believe in God suppose to do if all they have is the Bible and have to figure it out? Are they doomed to understanding the Bible because they don't have this 'higher power' connection from the Pope???

I REALLY REALLY don't see how God in his infinite wisdom meant for some denomination to come 325 yrs after Christ and say they have some totally new meaning to what the Bible actually says.

If this post is directed to me, you're missing the point entirely. I'm not suggesting, as the Catholics are, that the RCC's interpretation of scripture is better than yours. I am insisting that there is no interpretation without a human mind involved, and therefore the notion that any written source can "interpret itself" is nonsense. Yes, YOU can interpret scripture without referring to any other source, but YOU are still doing the interpreting.

N0help: If, as you say, “Scripture is to interprets Scripture”, why would the first thing be to read a Thompson Chain Reference? This doesn’t make sense. What I “interpret” you to be saying is that I have to read what Mr. Thompson says before I can “self interpret” the Scriptures. That’s dumb as snake oil. Or are you saying that a pseudo-pope, i.e. Thompson, has a better interpretation than the real Pope? Let me point out that the Pope doesn’t sit down and write out a treatise on “how to interpret the Bible” for every single line such as Thompson. He confines his infallible opinion only to those things that have become a matter of faith at the time, always based on Apostolic Tradition and Scripture. So, as an example, being a Catholic doesn’t mean that I can or can’t believe in the literal interpretation in a 6-day creation.

The RCC didn’t come into being 325 years after Christ. It came into being when Christ ascended to Heaven [Matthew 28 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.] This is known through Apostolic Tradition and to us through teaching Magisterium of the Church. The early Catholic Church was a bit busy with martyrdom to worry about Synods and Councils prior to 325 AD.

Consequently, we don’t find our faith or our Catholic understanding of Scripture to be “better” than others because most Christian faith entails some elements of God’s truth, but not necessarily the “fullness of faith” found in the RCC - if it did contain the same fullness then it would be the same faith.

Ordinaryguy’s comments: everything we read is interpreted for understanding of the content and measured against our life’s experiences; this would also include the Scriptures. Such “interpretation” is part of our intellectual reasoning. It’s pure human nature. Surly you’re not suggesting that we sleep on the Bible and learn by osmoses? Or are you suggesting that we should learn by word of mouth through our Bishops? Or should we abandon our faith and just follow you?

JoeT

N0help4u

Aug 6, 2008, 01:20 PM

ScottRC

Aug 6, 2008, 01:28 PM

I REALLY REALLY don't see how God in his infinite wisdom meant for some denomination to come 325 yrs after Christ and say they have some totally new meaning to what the Bible actually says.
Ummm... this kind of begs the question how did Christians understand their faith for the hundreds of years before there was a Bible to "say" anything... and simply avoids the history that shows there was considerable debate for 500+ years as to what books should even be CONSIDERED the bible.

The Church and the Christian faith were around a LONG TIME before there was a Bible that included the OT and the NT... I'm not sure how you can avoid these facts.

JoeT777

Aug 6, 2008, 01:30 PM

Okay what does Mr Thompson add that is not already in the scriptures?
If he added it then I would also question it before I accept it as 100% infallible.
But it is a good reference for finding and studying related scriptures.

Don't know, and don't care to know, because it's your point that scripture interprets scripture; not Mr Thompson, not mine

JoeT

N0help4u

Aug 6, 2008, 01:32 PM

Ummm... this kinda begs the question how did Christians understand their faith for the hundreds of years before there was a Bible to "say" anything... and simply avoids the history that shows there was considerable debate for 500+ years as to what books should even be CONSIDERED the bible.

The Church and the Christian faith were around a LONG TIME before there was a Bible that included the OT and the NT.... I'm not sure how you can avoid these facts.

How? They were going by what was passed down through history and THEN the Catholics came along with their teachings.

ScottRC

Aug 6, 2008, 01:33 PM

Tj3's latest definition of "interpret" is to "bend it to fit your beliefs". But apparently you have a different definition in mind. What is your definition of the word "interpret", as used in the statement "scripture can interpret scripture"?
Well said as usual... and I'm wondering if I have missed an example of this "self-interpretation" on this thread..?

I'm wondering if those who believe in this, could show an example using a bible verse.

ScottRC

Aug 6, 2008, 01:34 PM

How? They were going by what was passed down through history and THEN the Catholics came along with their teachings.
This is simply just your unsupported opinion... but does not refute the point I was making... there was NO BIBLE, but yet they were just fine with the oral teaching of the Bishops... hardly a "proof" for the Bible as the final authority.

N0help4u

Aug 6, 2008, 01:35 PM

ScottRC

Aug 6, 2008, 01:40 PM

I am still looking for the explanation of how sola scriptura is self interpretation from a personal point of view.
Seems to me that anything that is not Catholic is considered as wrong as what you call sola scriptura
Not at all... the Biblical relativism of sola scriptura can certainly be "right"... but it is not a objective standard.

I'm really not sure how ALL of our threads together can't show you this... we BOTH read Scripture... but yet we BOTH read it differently... the Purgatory thread is a great example.

You PERSONALLY interpret the Bible from your point of view... and I do the same... the difference is, I don't claim that mine is not personal--- and you and yours just avoid this OBVIOUS fact.

N0help4u

Aug 6, 2008, 01:42 PM

What obvious fact? I say your 'facts' are not obvious but read in between the lines to come to your Vatican's conclusions.

JoeT777

Aug 6, 2008, 01:59 PM

what obvious fact? I say your 'facts' are not obvious but read in between the lines to come to your Vatican's conclusions.

Not at all N0help, if you take an objective look Scripture, history, the teachings of the Apostles, the teachings of the Church, you’ll find them to be objectively one and the same Truth.

ScottRC

Aug 6, 2008, 03:49 PM

what obvious fact? I say your 'facts' are not obvious but read in between the lines to come to your Vatican's conclusions.
While Joe is right is his comments, the "fact" I was referring to was that you PERSONALLY interpret the Bible from your point of view... and again, (contrary to you and yours), I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with that, but simply offering that opinion is not the way to determine orthodox Christian teachings.

JoeT777

Aug 6, 2008, 03:59 PM

Viewing every passage in a different context renders the Bible little more than a conflicting, contradictory collection of human writings rather than a divine revelation. Paul's instruction in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 shows us the correct way to interpret the Bible: All of it is God's inspired revelation."

2 Tim 3:16-17 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice: That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

Catholics hold Scripture to be sacred also 2Tim doesn't show that we should throw away the Church. First, the only scriptures that could be referenced in 2 Tim is the Old Testament Scripture. Second, he's saying its “profitable" for teaching, for criticizing, for correcting and for instruction of social morals which Catholics hold too. But it doesn't say that it's the only inspiration God is allowed to make. I wouldn't think Paul (The-Blinded-By-Christ's-Light, Paul) would suggest to Timothy that the Scripture is the only way he can receive God's revelation; that he live by the laws of the Old Testament ONLY? Without Apostolic Traditions and the Catholic Church's interpretation the true meaning of Paul's letter would be lost.

Not that I want to get into a different argument, but doesn't the reference to “good work” cause a problem for you?

JoeT

cogs

Aug 6, 2008, 04:44 PM

I can honestly say I did not read all 19 pages of this, just maybe half.
From what I did read:
"Tj3: Do you consider scripture itself to be the word of God and infallible?"

no. but I have something that will help you to understand the typed words.

"JoeT777:And who would be the arbiter of what the original intent is 2,000 years after the fact without Apostolic Teachings?"

Who indeed. Jesus said he would send his spirit, and not leave us as orphans, and the father said he would write his law on the hearts of men. Scripture did not become that. Men's words did not become the word of god. So something else is at work here. Especially in the area of interpretation.
It's confusing, cause we see paul interpreting scripture to the ethiopian. So we might think a man has the answer to interpretation. And jesus, as a human, seemingly 'interpreted' as well. But wasn't jesus always pointing to what he heard his father say? Were these men somehow smarter than every other man, that they knew exactly the way god wanted the scripture to be taken?
We are missing something big: the living god. I say living, because he's not a book, he's not some human brainpower. He didn't give some group special privileges to only them, so they could tell others what to do.
We all have a chance to have god speak his word to us. Then we won't need scriptures, or someone's helpful interpretation. We will have our teacher tell us exactly what he wants. I think after we learn that, we'll see scripture for what it really is. I'll keep this short, but let me ask you if you believe god is alive. If he's alive, shouldn't we be able to hear his own words? Wouldn't those words have such power in them, that:
Hbr 4:12 For the word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart.

ordinaryguy

Aug 6, 2008, 04:52 PM

I think we all need to take a step back and define "interpretation."
Tj3 has already defined it--twice, in contradictory ways. That's why I asked what your definition was (post #170).

When we come across something we don't understand or it may seem to have various meanings, we use Scripture to interpret Scripture.
The key word here is "we". To be more precise, you might have said "we use [other parts of] Scripture to [help us accurately] interpret [those parts of] Scripture [that we find difficult or confusing]". If that's what you mean, I have no problem with it, because it is clear that the reader is the interpreter. The words do not interpret themselves, I/we/you, the readers of the words, are the interpreters.

Martin Luther put forth the amazing idea that anyone can read the Bible and allow it to interpret itself (and not depend on someone or something else to do it for them).
No, Luther's idea was that individuals could read and interpret the Bible for themselves (and not depend on someone or something else to do it for them).

gnmagazine.org discusses this type of interpretation, how "Scripture interprets Scripture" --

"The Bible itself tells us that we are to understand it as a unit; all Scripture is inspired and a divine guide for human conduct. By putting together all the scriptures on a given subject,
And who is it that selects and decides which scriptures are relevant to a given subject?

Oh yes, there's that "we" again.

we allow the Bible to interpret itself and give us a complete and coherent view of God's instruction on specific areas of life.
No, we compare various parts of the Bible to other parts that we deem relevant to formulate for ourselves "a complete and coherent view of God's instruction on specific areas of life."

Dr. David L. Cooper, the founder of The Biblical Research Society, had a "Golden Rule of Interpretation":
This "rule" is clearly intended to be used by readers of the Bible (not the book itself), to arrive at a correct understanding, i.e. an accurate interpretation, of its meaning.

When the plain sense of Scripture

makes common sense [to us],

[we should] seek no other sense;

Therefore, [we should] take every word

at its primary, ordinary,

usual, literal meaning

Unless the facts [as we know them]

of the immediate context [as we understand it],

studied [by us] in the light

Of [what we understand to be] related passages and

[what we believe to be] axiomatic and fundamental truths

indicate clearly [to us] otherwise.

ordinaryguy

Aug 6, 2008, 07:13 PM

I never said that was my intertpretation - how much longer are you going to continue to repeat that mis-representation? You have been corrected on this previously.
You did say, in Post #158,
Do you simply read what is said and take it at face value, or do you bend it to fit your beliefs. The first is not interpretation - the second is.

Earlier, in post #110 you did say,
Interpretation means to understand the original intent.

Now, as definitions of the term interpretation, "understand the original intent" is contradictory and inconsistent with "bend it to fit your beliefs".

I have pointed out this inconsistency in your usage of the word, but I have not misrepresented what you said.

But whichever definition you use, interpretation is something that the reader does. It is not something that the text itself can do, independent of the mind of the reader.

Tj3

Aug 6, 2008, 07:53 PM

The Church and the Christian faith were around a LONG TIME before there was a Bible that included the OT and the NT.... I'm not sure how you can avoid these facts.

I note the arrogance with which some folk use the phrase "The Church", as their denomination is "The Church".

The Christian church was around from the 1st century, but your denomination was not around until well after the OT and NT were written.

Tj3

Aug 6, 2008, 07:56 PM

Not at all... the Biblical relativism of sola scriptura can certainly be "right" .... but it is not a objective standard.

Notice how you redefine things. Those who have a rock solid unchanging standard of truth, you say believe in "relativism".

Your denomination follows the teachings of men which have changed and have even reversed themselves over the years, and you claim that to be a standard.

Tj3

Aug 6, 2008, 07:57 PM

Not at all N0help, if you take an objective look Scripture, history, the teachings of the Apostles, the teachings of the Church, you’ll find them to be objectively one and the same Truth.

Really? Where do you find your version of what you define as the "teachings of the Apostles"?

Tj3

Aug 6, 2008, 08:04 PM

You did say, in Post #158,

I notice that when you choose to deliberately mis-represent what I say, you neglect to provide the quote. Coincidence? I think not. Let's see what actually was said:

I SAID:
The key is how you reach that understanding. Do you simply read what is said and take it at face value, or do you bend it to fit your beliefs. The first is not interpretation - the second is.

Now note, I was giving a contrast and at no point did I say or suggest that it was a definition.

Now can we continue this discussion by handling views that you don't agree with some degree of honesty? I asked you once before because of mis-representation of what I said to quote me if you plan to refer to what I said, and you chose not to do so once again when you decided to mis-represent me.

If you cannot back you claims with the truth, then is your position worth defending?

ordinaryguy

Aug 6, 2008, 08:05 PM

The RCC didn’t come into being 325 years after Christ. It came into being when Christ ascended to Heaven
I'm OK with the idea that "The Church", the mystical body of Christ, came into being at the ascension, or maybe even long before that. But to equate the Roman Catholic Church, a religious organization, with the mystical body of Christ is crass institutional arrogance.

Consequently, we don’t find our faith or our Catholic understanding of Scripture to be “better” than others because most Christian faith entails some elements of God’s truth, but not necessarily the “fullness of faith” found in the RCC - if it did contain the same fullness then it would be the same faith.
Oh, of course not. It would be just wrong to think that fullness is "better" than partly-fullness.

Ordinaryguy’s comments: everything we read is interpreted for understanding of the content and measured against our life’s experiences; this would also include the Scriptures. Such “interpretation” is part of our intellectual reasoning.Agreed.

It’s pure human nature. Well, maybe not entirely pure, but pure enough.

Surly you’re not suggesting that we sleep on the Bible and learn by osmoses?No.

Or are you suggesting that we should learn by word of mouth through our Bishops?No.

Or should we abandon our faith and just follow you?Oh, God no!

ScottRC

Aug 6, 2008, 08:16 PM

I'm OK with the idea that "The Church", the mystical body of Christ, came into being at the ascension, or maybe even long before that.
So which then, is the true Church?

Or is the Christian faith an amorphous mob of like-minded believers?

But to equate the Roman Catholic Church, a religious organization, with the mystical body of Christ is crass institutional arrogance.
For almost a THOUSAND years after the death of Christ there was only ONE Church... and even after the Schism, the basic foundation of what makes us THE Church (Apostolic Succession) is still found in the Orthodox faith... so I really don't see how your claim of " institutional arrogance" fits with history... after all, without that "religious organization" I'm curious as to know how in the world we would have ANY IDEA as to what was the Bible or what the "basics" were of the Christian faith as defined by the Ecumenical Councils.

I guess I'm just hoping to hear what you believe is the final authority is for determining orthodoxy since it seems you reject both the Bible and the Church....???

Wondergirl

Aug 6, 2008, 08:48 PM

2 Tim 3:16-17 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice: That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

Not that I want to get into a different argument, but doesn’t the reference to “good work” cause a problem for you?
Want to start a new thread? I'm game.

JoeT777

Aug 6, 2008, 09:05 PM

Want to start a new thread? I'm game.

NO! Its my fault for bring it up. I’m neglecting my work as it is with my participation here. Maybe another time.

Tj3

Aug 6, 2008, 09:09 PM

So which then, is the true Church?

Or is the Christian faith an amorphous mob of like-minded believers?

The body of Christ.

1 Cor 12:27-28
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.
NKJV

Nowhere does scripture say that we must be members of any denomination.

For almost a THOUSAND years after the death of Christ there was only ONE Church...

That is not true in the sense that you are referring to "The Church" (Your denomination).

JoeT777

Aug 6, 2008, 09:25 PM

I'm OK with the idea that "The Church", the mystical body of Christ, came into being at the ascension, or maybe even long before that. But to equate the Roman Catholic Church, a religious organization, with the mystical body of Christ is crass institutional arrogance.
No arrogance was intended, the RCC does hold that the Church here on earth is the Mystical Body of Christ.

Pope Paul VI described the “Mystical Body of Christ” as follows:

We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church built by Jesus Christ on that rock which is Peter. She is the Mystical Body of Christ; at the same time a visible society instituted with hierarchical organs, and a spiritual community; the Church on earth, the pilgrim People of God here below, and the Church filled with heavenly blessings; the germ and the first fruits of the Kingdom of God, through which the work and the sufferings of Redemption are continued throughout human history, and which looks for its perfect accomplishment beyond time in glory. The Credo of the People of God , Pope Paul VI on June 30, 1968

By the “fullness of faith” I meant to imply the fullness as described here: “…Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. Decree on Ecumenism, Vatican II, UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO, 21 November 1964

With that said the RCC holds that other faiths…”have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (ibid)

JoeT

Tj3

Aug 6, 2008, 09:37 PM

No arrogance was intended, the RCC does hold that the Church here on earth is the Mystical Body of Christ.

That is arrogant - to suggest that a denomination IS the body of Christ.

ordinaryguy

Aug 6, 2008, 10:21 PM

I guess I'm just hoping to hear what you believe is the final authority is for determining orthodoxy since it seems you reject both the Bible and the Church....???
I think determining orthodoxy is a game that religious institutions and the people who inhabit them play to determine who is IN and who is OUT. This game and the rules by which it is played consumes a substantial share of the attention of those who think it's very important to be IN. To those of us who don't care about being IN, the game is irrelevant. It's up to those of you who care about being IN to decide among yourselves who has the authority to determine what orthodoxy is. It's really none of my business.

I don't "reject" either the Church or the Bible, I just don't accept either one as the sole source of spiritual guidance.

ScottRC

Aug 6, 2008, 10:34 PM

I think determining orthodoxy is a game that religious institutions and the people who inhabit them play to determine who is IN and who is OUT.
So the nascent Church was simply "playing a game" when they spread the Gospel?

That's a new one for me...

This game and the rules by which it is played consumes a substantial share of the attention of those who think it's very important to be IN. To those of us who don't care about being IN, the game is irrelevant. It's up to those of you who care about being IN to decide among yourselves who has the authority to determine what orthodoxy is. It's really none of my business.
So orthodoxy has nothing to do with a sincere desire to seek the truth, but is simply a "game"?

I don't "reject" either the Church or the Bible, I just don't accept either one as the sole source of spiritual guidance.
Again, you've made it quite clear what you REJECT, but I'm wondering if you'd offer up what you DO accept at your sole source of spiritual guidance... please.

ordinaryguy

Aug 6, 2008, 10:44 PM

No arrogance was intended, the RCC does hold that the Church here on earth is the Mystical Body of Christ.
Yeah, the most repugnant thing about it is that the arrogance is unintended and unrecognized.

By the “fullness of faith” I meant to imply the fullness as described here: “…Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. Decree on Ecumenism, Vatican II, UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO, 21 November 1964

With that said the RCC holds that other faiths…”have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (ibid)

JoeT
Well, see, to me salvation is not the point. If there is an afterlife, and I wake up in it, I'll consider it a bonus and a pleasant surprise. But there are far more useful and important things to do with this life than to obsess about the next one.

ScottRC

Aug 6, 2008, 10:52 PM

Yeah, the most repugnant thing about it is that the arrogance is unintended and unrecognized.
Other than just the name calling... any chance you can explain why you believe these things?. I just can't see the logic behind these unsupported opinions.

But there are far more useful and important things to do with this life than to obsess about the next one.
Agreed...

ordinaryguy

Aug 6, 2008, 11:00 PM

So the nascent Church was simply "playing a game" when they spread the Gospel?You didn't mention spreading the gospel. You asked who I thought had the final authority to determine orthodoxy. Whole different subject.

That's a new one for me... Maybe you should get out more.

So orthodoxy has nothing to do with a sincere desire to seek the truth, but is simply a "game"?Not for me. But if it does for you, go for it.

Again, you've made it quite clear what you REJECT, but I'm wondering if you'd offer up what you DO accept at your sole source of spiritual guidance... please.
Again, I don't REJECT anything except the notion that any one source has a monopoly on spiritual truth.

ordinaryguy

Aug 6, 2008, 11:30 PM

Other than just the name calling... I haven't called you or anybody else names. I'm just telling you that I find the RCC's claim to be the mystical body of Christ arrogant, and that this arrogance is all the more repugnant for being unrecognized. Kind of like a person who says, "Oh, no, I'm not a racist. Some of my best friends are colored folks."

any chance you can explain why you believe these things?
Probably not to somebody like yourself who cares a lot about orthodoxy. If I thought you truly, TRULY cared and genuinely wanted to understand my thinking, and weren't just trying to convert or convince me that you're right and I'm wrong, I might be persuaded to try, but we're not even close to that point yet.

... I just can't see the logic behind these unsupported opinions.
Well, there you go. That's exactly why I doubt it would be productive for either of us.

ScottRC

Aug 6, 2008, 11:56 PM

I haven't called you or anybody else names. I'm just telling you that I find the RCC's claim to be the mystical body of Christ arrogant, and that this arrogance is all the more repugnant for being unrecognized.
Just a figure of speech... calling the claim "arrogant" and the follow up "repugnant" is simply non-productive without offering any explanation or support.

Kind of like a person who says, "Oh, no, I'm not a racist. Some of my best friends are colored folks."
This red herring is just as bad... I really could care less what you think it is "kind of like" when you have yet to explain your reasoning behind your assertion that the claim is "arrogant".

If I thought you truly, TRULY cared and genuinely wanted to understand my thinking,
I'm not going to beg... ;)

and weren't just trying to convert or convince me that you're right and I'm wrong, I might be persuaded to try, but we're not even close to that point yet.
I can assure you I have no interest in converting you... and while I understand that it's a lot easier to just shoot down the beliefs of others, sometimes it is just good manners to explain your own beliefs when you feel the need to interject your two cents into a discussion.

ordinaryguy

Aug 7, 2008, 05:54 AM

I notice that when you choose to deliberately mis-represent what I say, you neglect to provide the quote. Coincidence? I think not. Let's see what actually was said:I quoted you accurately and verbatim, and I did not misrepresent what you wrote.

I SAID:
The key is how you reach that understanding. Do you simply read what is said and take it at face value, or do you bend it to fit your beliefs. The first is not interpretation - the second is.

Now note, I was giving a contrast and at no point did I say or suggest that it was a definition.

Whether you label it as a "definition" or not, the plain meaning of your words and the point of your "contrast" is that to "read what is said and take it at face value" is not interpretation, whereas to read it and "bend it to fit your beliefs is interpretation. The contradiction between this meaning of the word and your earlier usage of it, "Interpretation means to understand the original intent" is clear. Your continuing refusal to explain or even acknowledge this contradiction belies your feigned indignation at being misrepresented.

Now can we continue this discussion by handling views that you don't agree with some degree of honesty? I asked you once before because of mis-representation of what I said to quote me if you plan to refer to what I said, and you chose not to do so once again when you decided to mis-represent me.

If you cannot back you claims with the truth, then is your position worth defending?
I have been honest and truthful throughout this discussion, and I will to continue to be so.

Tj3

Aug 7, 2008, 06:27 AM

I quoted you accurately and verbatim, and I did not misrepresent what you wrote.

You claimed that it was a definition, and no one can honestly make such a claim. Even if you had a bad day and mis-read what was said, it has been explained to you a few times, and yet you still deliberately carry on mis-representing it.

ordinaryguy

Aug 7, 2008, 11:30 AM

You claimed that it was a definition, and no one can honestly make such a claim. Even if you had a bad day and mis-read what was said, it has been explained to you a few times, and yet you still deliberately carry on mis-representing it.
Ohh, for crying out loud! If you think this discussion is about whether that particular statement of yours meets the criteria for "a definition", we really do have here a failure to communicate.

The discussion is about is whether the process of reading a sacred text like the Bible, formulating an understanding of its meanings, and considering their implications for our behavior, is encompassed by the commonly-used and generally-agreed meaning of the word "interpretation". I think that it is.

Without a doubt, some interpretations are more accurate, (feel free to insert other synonyms here... correct, true, right, reasonable, complete, convincing, persuasive, etc.) than others. I don't dispute that. What I do dispute is the notion that a human mind, yours, mine, or anyone else's, can understand the meaning of a printed text, sacred or not, without performing an act of interpretation. It is cognitively impossible. Reading is interpretation which, done successfully, leads to comprehension and understanding.

Your usage (notice, I'm not saying that you called it "a definition") of the word, in answer to my very first question, "What do you mean by interpretation?", was the closest you've come to making sense in this whole discussion. You said:
Interpretation means to understand the original intent--post #110I'm sure you try to do that when you read the Bible, and that you succeed most of the time.

Tj3

Aug 7, 2008, 11:37 AM

Ohh, for crying out loud! If you think this discussion is about whether or not that particular statement of yours meets the criteria for "a definition", we really do have here a failure to communicate.

We do indeed. Please read what I said more carefully and maybe we can avoid further "failures to communicate.". Again, it would help if, when you wish to refer to csomething that I said, if you take the time to quote it, rather than give your variant understanding / modification of what I said. Now as to what this discussion is about is one thing, but you were the one who made a false claim about how I defined interpretation. That was not me who went off on this sidetrack.

After all, if you think that I am wrong, then you would be far more effective in your argument to validate that belief if you deal honestly and straightforwardly with what I actually said, and in context. If you manipulate what I said, and then argue against that, it weakens your argument because it appears that you are unable to refute what I actually said. Just a bit of free advice!

Now can we move forward without further discussion on this point, and get back to the topic at hand?

ordinaryguy

Aug 7, 2008, 12:22 PM

Again, it would help if, when you wish to refer to csomething that I said, if you take the time to quote it, rather than give your variant understanding / modification of what I said.
I have quoted your statements, carefully and accurately, without modification or distortion of meaning.

After all, if you think that I am wrong, then you would be far more effective in your argument to validate that belief if you deal honestly and straightforwardly with what I actually said, and in context.
I have done so scrupulously in the past, and will continue to do so in the future.

If you manipulate what I said, and then argue against that, it weakens your argument because it appears that you are unable to refute what I actually said.I have not done so in the past and will not do so in the future.

Just a bit of free advice!I am grateful for your generosity.

Now can we move forward without further discussion on this point, and get back to the topic at hand?Yes.

JoeT777

Aug 7, 2008, 04:46 PM

The body of Christ.

1 Cor 12:27-28
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.
NKJV

Nowhere does scripture say that we must be members of any denomination.

That is not true in the sense that you are referring to "The Church" (Your denomination).

It’s interesting that you should mention 1 Cor 12, but only quote a few words. It supports that the Catholic Church is one body. Not a group of likeminded churches or a group of likeminded people in a room. But a body with Christ at the head. A hierarchy with a list of offices; Apostles, prophets, theologians etc…Clearly depicted is one “Mystical Body of Christ”; only one church. Not Lutherans, plus Calvinists, plus Baptist, plus Methodists, etc or plus any of 30,000 other post-Protestant era congregations; at least not until the schism is healed

1 Cor 12: 12 For as the body is one and hath many members; and all the members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body: So also is Christ. …13 For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free: and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink. [The real presence of Christ] 14 For the body also is not one member, but many…27 Now you are the body of Christ and members of member. 28 And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors? 30 Are all workers of miracles? Have all the grace of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But be zealous for the better gifts. And I show unto you yet a more excellent way.

Sorry if my previous statement about the “Mystical Body of Christ” seemed arrogant. I can be when the need arises, but that wasn’t the case here.

JoeT

ScottRC

Aug 7, 2008, 05:45 PM

It’s interesting that you should mention 1 Cor 12, but only quote a few words. It supports that the Catholic Church is one body. Not a group of likeminded churches or a group of likeminded people in a room. But a body with Christ at the head.
Well said Joe... even a look at the church described in Acts shows that the notion that Chrisianity is meant to be a unified body is quite evident:

Acts 15:2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.

There were false teachers in Judea and how did the early church settle the issue?

By looking for a scripture to "interpret itself"?

Nope... the went to their LEADERS... the Apostles and elders.

And after these LEADERS decided upon the issue, it was settled:
Acts 16:4 Now while they were passing through the cities, they were delivering the decrees which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem, for them to observe.

"for them to observe." They were not to look for a verse in scripture and decided for themselves, they were ORDERED by those in authority to follow their decisions...

Why? James makes it clear that their decisions were equal to the Holy Spirit:
Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials... "

Tj3

Aug 7, 2008, 07:53 PM

I have quoted your statements, carefully and accurately, without modification or distortion of meaning.

Actually, you did not. You pulled an excerpt out of one sentence, and using that claimed that I said something that I did not. Now have a little shame and just admit that you erred or something and let's move on. Defending the indefensible does not enhance your credibility.

Tj3

Aug 7, 2008, 07:54 PM

It’s interesting that you should mention 1 Cor 12, but only quote a few words. It supports that the Catholic Church is one body.

No, it does not. There were no denominations at that time, the Roman denomination was formed in 325AD and this passage speaks of the body of Christ, the body of all believers, not a denomination.

If you wish for me to believe otherwise, show me anywhere in the NT where we find a denomination.

JoeT777

Aug 7, 2008, 08:51 PM

No, it does not. There were no denominations at that time, the Roman denomination was formed in 325AD and this passage speaks of the body of Christ, the body of all believers, not a denomination.

If you wish for me to believe otherwise, show me anywhere in the NT where we find a denomination.

No I don't wish for you to believe on my account. But I'd rather you believe on Christ's account. No, not on my account at all, but on account of God's love. (Jer 31:3), (Is 54: 10; cf. 54:8) A God who it is said 'so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son for God is love' (John 3:16), (1 John 4:8, 16.)

Therefore what you believe is something between you and God. For me, a fallible human, I've found the Roman Church a reliable refuge, a place of strength. Pope Paul VI best describes our faith as follows:

The Credo of the People of God (in part)

Put above all, we place our unshakable confidence in the Holy Spirit, the soul of the Church, and in theological faith upon which rests the life of the Mystical Body.

To the glory of God most holy and of our Lord Jesus Christ, trusting in the aid of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the holy apostles Peter and Paul, for the profit and edification of the Church, in the name of all the pastors and all the faithful, we now pronounce this profession of faith, in full spiritual communion with you all, beloved brothers and sons.

WE BELIEVE in one only God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, creator of things visible such as this world in which our transient life passes, of things invisible such as the pure spirits which are also called angels, and creator in each man of his spiritual and immortal soul.

God alone can give us right and full knowledge of this reality by revealing Himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in whose eternal life we are by grace called to share, here below in the obscurity of faith and after death in eternal light.

We believe then in the Father who eternally begets the Son, in the Son, the Word of God, who is eternally begotten; in the Holy Spirit, the uncreated Person who proceeds from the Father and the Son as their eternal love.

We believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, who is Lord, and Giver of life, who is adored and glorified together with the Father and the Son. He spoke to us by the prophets; He was sent by Christ after His resurrection and His ascension to the Father; He illuminates, vivifies, protects and guides the Church; He purifies the Church's members if they do not shun His grace.

We believe that Our Lord Jesus Christ, by the sacrifice of the cross redeemed us from original sin and all the personal sins committed by each one of us, so that, in accordance with the word of the apostle, "where sin abounded grace did more abound."

We believe in one Baptism instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church built by Jesus Christ on that rock which is Peter. She is the Mystical Body of Christ; at the same time a visible society instituted with hierarchical organs, and a spiritual community; the Church on earth, the pilgrim People of God here below, and the Church filled with heavenly blessings; the germ and the first fruits of the Kingdom of God, through which the work and the sufferings of Redemption are continued throughout human history, and which looks for its perfect accomplishment beyond time in glory. In the course of time, the Lord Jesus forms His Church by means of the sacraments emanating from His plenitude. By these she makes her members participants in the Mystery of the Death and Resurrection of Christ, in the grace of the Holy Spirit who gives her life and movement.

We believe that the Church founded by Jesus Christ and for which He prayed is indefectibly one in faith, worship and the bond of hierarchical communion.

We believe that the Church is necessary for salvation, because Christ, who is the sole mediator and way of salvation, renders Himself present for us in His body which is the Church. But the divine design of salvation embraces all men, and those who without fault on their part do not know the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but seek God sincerely, and under the influence of grace endeavor to do His will as recognized through the promptings of their conscience, they, in a number known only to God, can obtain salvation.

This mysterious change is very appropriately called by the Church transubstantiation.

We believe in the life eternal.

We believe that the multitude of those gathered around Jesus and Mary in paradise forms the Church of Heaven, where in eternal beatitude they see God as He is, and where they also, in different degrees, are associated with the holy angels in the divine rule exercised by Christ in glory, interceding for us and helping our weakness by their brotherly care.
So, the things I've been writing aren't original thought. They're not new (obviously being 2,000 years old). Rather I've been telling you of those things which I've come to love, albeit with my imperfect humanity.

Tj3

Aug 7, 2008, 08:54 PM

No I don't wish for you to believe on my account. But I'd rather you believe on Christ's account. No, not on my account at all, but on account of God's love. (Jer 31:3), (Is 54: 10; cf. 54:8) A God who it is said 'so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son for God is love' (John 3:16), (1 John 4:8, 16.)

Therefoe what you beleive is something between you and God. For me, a fallible human, I've found the Roman Church a reliable refuge, a place of strenght. Pope Paul VI best describes our faith as follows (only part of the e Credo is printed here):

I am a beliver in the gospel of Jesus Christ and I put my faith solely in Him, not in traditions of men nor in any denomination or organization of men.

If you choose to do, that is your choice, but don't expect me to stop warning others against following men rather than God.

Now you say that you believe that your church is a denomination founded by Christ, but you failed to show me where any denomination existed in the 1st century, let alone yours, and certainly not that Jesus wanted to start a denomination. And indeed, you have failed to show how your denomination founded in 325AD by Constantine could be the one and only true church. That is entirely contrary to scripture. And posting a belief statement about your denomination is not going to convince me to turn from scripture. These are just a few of the questions that you would need to address.

JoeT777

Aug 7, 2008, 09:04 PM

I am a beliver in the gospel of Jesus Christ and I put my faith solely in Him, not in traditions of men nor in any denomination or organization of men.

If you choose to do, that is your choice, but don't expect me to stop warning others against following men rather than God.

Now you say that you believe that your church is a denomination founded by Christ, but you failed to show me where any denomination existed in the 1st century, let alone yours, and certainly not that Jesus wanted to start a denomination. That is entirely contrary to scripture. And posting a belief statement about your denomination is not going to convince me to turn from scripture.

By all means warn them Paul Reverie. Ride out - "the Cathlics are coming"

If you can twist my words that badly (actually the Pope's word), only God knows what you could do to Scripture.

JoeT

Tj3

Aug 7, 2008, 09:11 PM

By all means warn them Paul Reverie. Ride out - "the Cathlics are coming"

If you can twist my words that badly (actually the Pope's word), only God knows what you could do to Scripture.

JoeT

Joe, I stand on scripture - not the words of your church leadership. I believe that God's words are infallible, man's words are fallible.

JoeT777

Aug 7, 2008, 09:25 PM

Joe, I stand on scripture

Maybe its time to step down off the Bible and read it instead?

Tj3

Aug 7, 2008, 09:26 PM

Maybe its time to step down off of the Bible and read it instead?

Joe,

Nice try, but I would love to see you get into God's word instead of trying to covert us to what the men in your denomination teach as part of their tradition.

JoeT777

Aug 7, 2008, 09:28 PM

Joe,

Nice try, but I would love to see you get into God's word instead of trying to covert us to what the men in your denomination teach as part of their tradition.

I'm not trying to convert you. That's not my job! I'm a pew warmer for crying out loud.

Tj3

Aug 7, 2008, 09:31 PM

I'm not trying to convert you. That's not my job! I'm a pew warmer for crying out loud.

Good! Because you will never convince me to turn from God's word.

JoeT777

Aug 7, 2008, 09:35 PM

Good! Because you will never convince me to turn from God's word.

You hate Catholics so bad, I’d be willing to bet you’ll be one within a year or two. You’re convicting yourself.

JoeT

Wondergirl

Aug 7, 2008, 09:39 PM

You hate Catholics so bad
How do you get "hate" out of this thread? Just because someone disagrees with you, that means he hates you?

Tj3

Aug 7, 2008, 09:41 PM

You hate Catholics so bad, I’d be willing to bet you’ll be one within a year or two. You’re convicting yourself.

JoeT

Why do Roman Catholics so often use the "hate" card against anyone who disagrees with their doctrines?

Why can they not accept that there are some who accept the Bible at face value and do not and will not agree with them?

Why can they not accept that people can disagree and yet care for them?

JoeT777

Aug 7, 2008, 09:45 PM

How do you get "hate" out of this thread? Just because someone disagrees with you, that means he hates you?

Why do Roman Catholics so often use the "hate" card against anyone who disagrees with their doctrines?

Why can they not accept that there are some who accept the Bible at face value and do not and will not agree with them?

Why can they not accept that people can disagree and yet care for them?

Ok change "hate" to "dislike." My bad for using too strong a word.

Tj3

Aug 7, 2008, 09:48 PM

Ok change "hate" to "dislike." My bad for using too strong a word.

Dislike is not true also.

If you said that I strongly disagree with Roman Catholicism as a religion, I would agree, but disliking Romans Catholics is so far off base. If only you knew my background. But rather you chose to prejudge me because I disagree with you.

JoeT777

Aug 8, 2008, 08:47 AM

Ok change "hate" to "dislike." My bad for using too strong a word.

Ok Tom, it’s time to pony up.

Let’s hear a “reasoned” explanation on why you think the Catholic Church didn’t start till 325AD. Where applicable base your explanation on scripture and history; and use references – I’d like to verify them. Personally, I haven’t seen anything except your opinion – “the tradition of men”. It would even be more appropriate to discuss how “Scripture interprets Scripture” is scripturally based. Actually, it would be better still if you could give a Scriptural argument of how "Sola Scriptura" is authoritatively scripturally based.

JoeT

Tj3

Aug 8, 2008, 12:13 PM

Ok Tom, it’s time to pony up.

Let’s hear a “reasoned” explanation on why you think the Catholic Church didn’t start till 325AD. Where applicable base your explanation on scripture and history; and use references – I’d like to verify them. Personally, I haven’t seen anything except your opinion – “the tradition of men”. It would even be more appropriate to discuss how “Scripture interprets Scripture” is scripturally based. Actually, it would be better still if you could give a Scriptural argument of how "Sola Scriptura" is authoritatively scripturally based.

JoeT

Sigh! I have posted information many times on this. I am not on my home computer right now, but later I can post some information again. I am surprised that you are not aware of history surrounding your denomination and the Roman Empire. Here is something that one of your Cardinals wrote on the topic:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are told in various ways by Eusebius that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and those dedicated to the particular saints, and ornamented on occasion with branches of trees, incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness, holy water, asylums, holy days and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant and the Kyrie Eleison are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by adoption into the Church.
(Source: An Essay On The Development Of Christian Doctrine)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JoeT777

Aug 8, 2008, 01:02 PM

Sigh! I have posted information many times on this. I am not on my home computer right now, but later I can post some information again. I am surprised that you are not aware of history surrounding your denomination and the Roman Empire. Here is something that one of your Cardinals wrote on the topic:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are told in various ways by Eusebius that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and those dedicated to the particular saints, and ornamented on occasion with branches of trees, incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness, holy water, asylums, holy days and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant and the Kyrie Eleison are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by adoption into the Church.
(Source: An Essay On The Development Of Christian Doctrine)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok - well I've got most of the weekend to research through my history books. Which Eusebius are we discussing; as I recall one was a bishop another was a historian but lived a hundred years or so apart?

JoeT

PS: Newman: "the Church of the Fathers might be corrupted into Popery, never into Protestantism."

Tj3

Aug 8, 2008, 05:40 PM

Ok - well I've got most of the weekend to research through my history books. Which Eusebius are we discussing; as I recall one was a bishop another was a historian but lived a hundred years or so apart?

Eusebius of Caesarea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius_of_Caesarea)

Eusebius was an advisor to Constantine and was present at the Council in 325AD.

Tj3

Aug 8, 2008, 07:01 PM

Joe,

I'd like to comment on a few of these items that you listed

{quote]To the glory of God most holy and of our Lord Jesus Christ, trusting in the aid of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the holy apostles Peter and Paul, for the profit and edification of the Church, in the name of all the pastors and all the faithful, we now pronounce this profession of faith, in full spiritual communion with you all, beloved brothers and sons.

I trust in Jesus Christ alone, not in those who are dead in the flesh, and who, like myself were sinners saved by grace through the death and resurrection on the cross. Scripture never says to put our trust in men, but in God alone:

Ps 16:1
Preserve me, O God, for in You I put my trust.
NKJV

Ps 71:5
5 For You are my hope, O Lord GOD;
You are my trust from my youth.
NKJV

Heb 2:12-13
"I will declare Your name to My brethren;
In the midst of the assembly I will sing praise to You."

13 And again:

"I will put My trust in Him."
NKJV

God alone can give us right and full knowledge of this reality by revealing Himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in whose eternal life we are by grace called to share, here below in the obscurity of faith and after death in eternal light.

Roman Catholicism says that His grace comes to us only through the Roman Catholic Church.

We believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God.

And who came to earth to make us God and gods.

For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81
(CCC #460)

We believe in one Baptism instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

Baptism does not save - it is Jesus' sacrifice on the cross that saves and remits our sins.

We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church built by Jesus Christ on that rock which is Peter. She is the Mystical Body of Christ;

The errors in this are just so many.

- There is one church, but not a denomination
- Peter is not nor ever was the Rock - scripture is clear, abundantly explicit that it is Jesus.
- A denomination cannot be the body of Christ. All who are in the body of Christ are saved. Membership in a denomination does not save.

And there are so many other errors in this one paragraph alone.

We believe that the Church founded by Jesus Christ and for which He prayed is indefectibly one in faith, worship and the bond of hierarchical communion.

But you believe it is a denomination.

We believe that the Church is necessary for salvation,

And you believe that you denomination is necessary for salvation! This is denominationalism at its worst. There were no denominations in the 1st century, so what happened before 325AD?

This mysterious change is very appropriately called by the Church transubstantiation.

This doctrine is explicitly referred to as a betrayal of Christ in John 6.

De Maria

Aug 10, 2008, 10:23 PM

I trust in Jesus Christ alone, not in those who are dead in the flesh, and who, like myself were sinners saved by grace through the death and resurrection on the cross. Scripture never says to put our trust in men, but in God alone:

That is an incomplete understanding of Scripture. From the time of Moses, God has put authority in men that men may trust in man.

Exodus 19 9 The Lord said to him: Lo, now will I come to thee in the darkness of a cloud, that the people may hear me speaking to thee, and may believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people to the Lord.

And Moses accepted that authority:
15 And Moses answered him: The people come to me to seek the judgment of God.

Moses was literally God's vicar. God's representative who went in place of God to Pharoa:
Exodus 7 1 And the Lord said to Moses: Behold I have appointed thee the God of Pharao: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

And this is what Jesus has done with Peter and the Church. Peter literally means Rock. And the only Rock mentioned in Scripture is Jesus.

1 Corinthians 10 4 And all drank the same spiritual drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.)

Therefore when Jesus named Simon, Rock, the meaning is clear. Peter is representing Jesus to us.

Matthew 16 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Roman Catholicism says that His grace comes to us only through the Roman Catholic Church.

Correct. All grace flows through the Body of Christ.

And who came to earth to make us God and gods.

For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81
(CCC #460)

That is correct. That is straight from Scripture.

2 Peter 1 4 By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature: flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world.

Baptism does not save

Scripture says it does:

1 Peter 3 21 Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

- it is Jesus' sacrifice on the cross that saves

That is true. If Jesus hadn't died on the Cross, we could not repent and be baptized for our salvation. Baptism is the application of Jesus' grace.

Colossians 2 12 Buried with him in baptism, in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him up from the dead.

and remits our sins.

Not if we don't cooperate with His grace:

John 8 24 Therefore I said to you, that you shall die in your sins. For if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin.

The errors in this are just so many.

- There is one church, but not a denomination

The Catholic Church.

- Peter is not nor ever was the Rock - scripture is clear, abundantly explicit that it is Jesus.

Only if you twist the Scripture:

John 1 42 And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.

Cephas means Rock in Aramaic.

- A denomination cannot be the body of Christ. All who are in the body of Christ are saved. Membership in a denomination does not save.

If membership in the Kingdom of Heaven does not save, then membership in a Church does not save either:

Matt 13:
24 Another parable he proposed to them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seeds in his field. 25 But while men were asleep, his enemy came and oversowed cockle among the wheat and went his way.

26 And when the blade was sprung up, and had brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle. 27 And the servants of the goodman of the house coming said to him: Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence then hath it cockle? 28 And he said to them: An enemy hath done this. And the servants said to him: Wilt thou that we go and gather it up? 29 And he said: No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it. 30 Suffer both to grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn.

And there are so many other errors in this one paragraph alone.

The errors are yours.

But you believe it is a denomination.

Apparently you have your own definition of "denomination".

# a group of religious congregations having its own organization and a distinctive faith
# a class of one kind of unit in a system of numbers or measures or weights or money; "he flashed a fistful of bills of large denominations"
# appellation: identifying word or words by which someone or something is called and classified or distinguished from others
Wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

It is a simple word which means "name" or "designation".

Obviously, our set of beliefs can be distinguished from other Christian denominations by the term Catholic Church.

But the fact that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Jesus Christ can be proven both Scripturally and historically.

And you believe that you denomination is necessary for salvation!

Why yes. If Jesus Christ had not established a Church, there would be no salvation. All the graces of Jesus Christ flow through His Church.

This is denominationalism at its worst. There were no denominations in the 1st century, so what happened before 325AD?

Well, yes there was. There was one. The Catholic Church.

This doctrine is explicitly referred to as a betrayal of Christ in John 6.

That is your misunderstanding of the Scripture. The Scripture is clear that he who betrayed Christ did not believe in transubstantiation which Christ had just explained:

John 6 56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.

Sincerely,

De Maria

JoeT777

Aug 10, 2008, 10:47 PM

he who betrayed Christ did not believe in transubstantiation

How do we know this?

JoeT

ordinaryguy

Aug 11, 2008, 04:47 AM

But the fact that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Jesus Christ can be proven both Scripturally and historically.Your standard of "proof" is abysmally low. But you probably don't really expect anyone who doesn't already believe it to be persuaded.

De Maria

Aug 11, 2008, 04:32 PM

N0help4u ,

Comments on this post
N0help4u agrees:... AND YET to be proven!!

Now you are siding with an atheist? Lol!! :eek:

Hey, Ordinary Guy, unless you have suddenly been born again, I suggest you take your comments to the member discussions where the Atheists belong. That is how the moderators of this forum have decided to handle trolls and Christian baiters.

And to tell you the truth, the Christian forum is a lot more enjoyable without you. Thanks moderators!!

Sincerely,

De Maria

ScottRC

Aug 11, 2008, 04:40 PM

Now you are siding with an atheist? Lol!!!:eek:
Hehe... good point... and I'm evidence that non-Catholics can certainly be "persuaded"... the circular reasoning of sola scriptura led me out of the Protestant faith... praise God!

Keep on posting De Maria!

De Maria

Aug 11, 2008, 04:53 PM

Hehe... good point... and I'm evidence that non-Catholics can certainly be "persuaded".... the circular reasoning of sola scriptura led me out of the Protestant faith... praise God!

Keep on posting De Maria!

Thanks be to God!!

I don't have anything against Cradle Catholics (Well, actually, I was once one). They are wonderful and their steadfastness is worthy of emulation. But God knew what he was doing, when like Joseph of many colors, He allowed us to be drawn to a different world in order that we might think about why we believe and what is the value of it.

Like you, I was a non-Catholic, I was born Catholic, converted to atheism and reverted after a short stint trying to believe Sola Scriptura. The problem was, I couldn't understand the Scriptures ALONE. I mean, I needed help. And I couldn't keep lying to myself. So here I am, back in the Church that I once despised. Isn't God wonderful!!

Keep up the good work Scott!!

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Aug 11, 2008, 06:34 PM

That is an incomplete understanding of Scripture. From the time of Moses, God has put authority in men that men may trust in man.

Men are put in a position of limited authority in the church under God. We are to trust them only so far as they are following God faithfully. Nowhere does scripture say that we are to follow men and trust them blindly.

And this is what Jesus has done with Peter and the Church. Peter literally means Rock. And the only Rock mentioned in Scripture is Jesus.

You claim it, but scripture says otherwise. This is an example of where I must trust God's word over man. Peter means "stone" BTW. Then you argue against yourself in the last sentence.

Correct. All grace flows through the Body of Christ.

All grace comes from Jesus. The Roman catholic church is not the body of Christ. That is blasphemous. There may be members of the body of Christ within the Roman Church, but it is NOT the body of Christ.

That is correct. That is straight from Scripture.

2 Peter 1 4 By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature: flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world.

I missed where it says that we are made God. Could you please point that out specifically. I am suspecting that you may be extrapolating on that verse a bit.

Scripture says it does:

1 Peter 3 21 Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Read the context. This is referring to baptism as an anti-type of that which saves - the blood of Jesus.

1 Peter 3:21-22
21 There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him.
NKJV

The Catholic Church.

As I pointed out, the one true church is not a denomination, not yours or anyone's denomination.

Only if you twist the Scripture:

I quoted it. If you don't like it, that is not my issue.

If membership in the Kingdom of Heaven does not save, then membership in a Church does not save either:

Interesting - you don't think membership in the Kingdom of heaven means that you are saved.

But the fact that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Jesus Christ can be proven both Scripturally and historically.

Odd - neither you nor anyone else has been able to show this to date. Show me where denominations are found in the NT.

Why yes. If Jesus Christ had not established a Church, there would be no salvation. All the graces of Jesus Christ flow through His Church.

So you think that if Constantine had not started your denomination, Jesus' sacrifice on the cross would have been a dead loss.

[QUOTE]That is your misunderstanding of the Scripture. The Scripture is clear that he who betrayed Christ did not believe in transubstantiation which Christ had just explained:

John 6 56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.

Why do Roman Catholics never read past that verse to see how Jesus explained it?

JoeT777

Aug 11, 2008, 09:50 PM

Thanks be to God!!!

I don't have anything against Cradle Catholics (Well, actually, I was once one). They are wonderful and their steadfastness is worthy of emulation. But God knew what he was doing, when like Joseph of many colors, He allowed us to be drawn to a different world in order that we might think about why we believe and what is the value of it.

Like you, I was a non-Catholic, I was born Catholic, converted to atheism and reverted after a short stint trying to believe Sola Scriptura. The problem was, I couldn't understand the Scriptures ALONE. I mean, I needed help. And I couldn't keep lying to myself. So here I am, back in the Church that I once despised. Isn't God wonderful!!!

Keep up the good work Scott!!!

Sincerely,

De Maria

The following is a rendering of the above quote according to sola read-ology:

De Maria and Scott are going to throw mud at JoeT because he was raised in a barn painted with “See Rock City” in multicolor letters!

JoeT

ordinaryguy

Aug 12, 2008, 05:39 AM

Now you are siding with an atheist?
I'm not an atheist, I just think your Catholic God is way too small.

De Maria

Aug 12, 2008, 07:22 AM

I'm not an atheist,

You're not an atheist?

You're a believer?

Ok then I guess that qualifies you to join this discussion. Welcome.

If you addressed the OP, I must have missed it. Where do you stand on Sola Scriptura?

I just think your Catholic God is way too small.

Perhaps, but this thread is not about what you call "your Catholic God". Its about:

How does sola scriptura contradict the Bible when it is meant to back up Church doctrine?
If it contradicts the Bible then it isn't making sense to me.

Church doctrine is suppose to be backed up by scripture not scripture made to fit church doctrine.

So, where do you stand on that issue?

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria

Aug 12, 2008, 07:49 AM

Ok - well I've got most of the weekend to research through my history books. Which Eusebius are we discussing; as I recall one was a bishop another was a historian but lived a hundred years or so apart?

JoeT

PS: Newman: "the Church of the Fathers might be corrupted into Popery, never into Protestantism."

Joe,

This is from Cardinal Newman's treatise on the development of doctrine. The new religion of which he speaks is Christianity. It is not one developed by Constantine but one which Constantine believes and with which he supplants the old Roman religion. In other words, he gets rid of Caesar worship and replaces it with the true religion of faith in Christ. Which is already in that day and age known as the Catholic Church.

Here's the entire document:

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/chapter8.html

That site was working when I used it. But it didn't work just now. Maybe its just temporary.

I happened to notice an article in This Rock when I was googling it though:
USING NEWMAN'S ARGUMENT TODAY (This Rock: February 1996) (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9602fea3.asp)

I haven't read it yet, but it is probably worthwhile. They haven't disappointed me yet.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria

Aug 12, 2008, 08:25 AM

Men are put in a position of limited authority in the church under God. We are to trust them only so far as they are following God faithfully. Nowhere does scripture say that we are to follow men and trust them blindly.

That's true. Nor does the Church teach that we must follow Churchmen blindly. However, Scripture does say that the Church is the pillar of truth (1 Tim 3:15) and that we must hear the Church or be treated as heathen (Matt 18:17).

Therefore, we believe that the Church is infallible and that we must obey her precepts.

And the Scripture also tells us to obey our leaders in the Church:
Hebrews 13 7 Remember your prelates who have spoken the word of God to you; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation,...17 Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.

So, based on the Scriptures, I think we have a reasonable attitude of our relationship towards the Church.

You claim it, but scripture says otherwise. This is an example of where I must trust God's word over man. Peter means "stone" BTW. Then you argue against yourself in the last sentence.

No, Peter means "rock". The idea that petra means large stone and that petros means small stone is, according to Greek experts, a misunderstanding. If, they say, St. Matthew wanted to say that Peter was a small stone, he would have said, "lithos".

Petros is simply the male version of the Greek noun for "rock". Petra being the feminine.
March/April 1997 - Nuts & Bolts (http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.2/nutsandbolts.html)

All grace comes from Jesus. The Roman catholic church is not the body of Christ. That is blasphemous. There may be members of the body of Christ within the Roman Church, but it is NOT the body of Christ.

Well its either your Church which is the Body of Christ or ours. But it can't be both. Isn't it you who said that the Catholic Church was described in Rev 17. That means you believe the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon.

But I have proven from Scripture that the Catholic Church is described in the Body of the New Testament because we keep:

The Traditions and the Scriptures (2 Thess 2:14)
The Mass (Acts 2:46)
The belief that the Church is infallible (1 Tim 3:15)
The belief that we should obey the Church (Matt 18:17)
The belief in one Shepherd placed here by Jesus in His name (Matt 16:18)
The belief in faith and works (James 2:20)

And many other distinctives which put together describe the Catholic Church even today.

I missed where it says that we are made God. Could you please point that out specifically. I am suspecting that you may be extrapolating on that verse a bit.

Not me. That teaching is from the Church Fathers:
St. Clement of Alexandria:

The Word of God became man, that you may learn from man how man may become God.

St. Athanasius of Alexandria:

For he was made man that we might be made God…and…he himself has made us sons of the Father, and deified men by becoming himself man.

St. Gregory the Theologian:

Let us become as Christ is, since Christ became as we are; let us become gods for his sake, since he became man for our sake.

St. Gregory of Nyssa:

…the Word became incarnate so that by becoming as we are, he might make us as he is.

St. John Chrysostom:

He became Son of man, who was God’s own Son, in order that he might make the sons of men to be children of God.

St. Ephrem the Syrian:

He gave us divinity, we gave him humanity.

St. Hilary of Poitiers (in the West):

For when God was born to be man the purpose was not that the Godhead should be lost, but that, the Godhead remaining, man should be born to be god.

St. Ambrose of Milan:

For [the Son] took on him that which he was not that he might hide that which he was; he hid that which he was that he might be tempted in it, and that which he was not might be redeemed, in order that he might call us by means of that which he was not to that which he was.

St. Augustine of Hippo:

God wanted to be the Son of Man and he wanted men to be the Sons of God.

Pope St. Leo the Great (5th century):

[The Savior] was made the son of man, so that we could be the sons of God…and…He united humanity to himself in such a way that he remained God, unchangeable. He imparted divinity to human beings in such a way that he did not destroy, but enriched them, by glorification.

Even in Protestant writers…

Martin Luther in a Christmas sermon:

For the Word becomes flesh precisely so that the flesh may become word. In other words: God becomes man so that man may become God.

John Calvin, rather eloquently:

This is the wonderful exchange which, out of his measureless benevolence, he has made with us; that, by his descent to earth, he has prepared an ascent to heaven for us; that, by taking on our mortality, he has conferred his immortality upon us; that, accepting our weakness, he has strengthened us by his power; that, receiving our poverty unto himself, he has transferred his wealth to us; that, taking the weight of our iniquity upon himself (which oppressed us), he has clothed us with his righteousness.
A Common Faith « Glory to God for All Things (http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/a-common-faith/)

Read the context. This is referring to baptism as an anti-type of that which saves - the blood of Jesus.

1 Peter 3:21-22
21 There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him.
NKJV

Something that is symbolized or represented by a type
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/antitype

It's a good thing you don't know what antitype means. Otherwise you would know that you have just proved my case. The type represents the antitype. The type is the sign. The antitype is the real thing.

Therefore, the flood is the sign which points to Baptism, the real thing.

As I pointed out, the one true church is not a denomination, not yours or anyone's denomination.

Again, because you don't really understand the meaning of the term "denomination."

I quoted it. If you don't like it, that is not my issue.

You quoted it then you misrepresented what you quoted. That is your issue.

Interesting - you don't think membership in the Kingdom of heaven means that you are saved.

Scripture tells us so:
Philippians 2 12 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation.

Odd - neither you nor anyone else has been able to show this to date. Show me where denominations are found in the NT.

I think I've done so repeatedly. The fact that you don't like it is not my issue.

So you think that if Constantine had not started your denomination, Jesus' sacrifice on the cross would have been a dead loss.

TJ, Are you still beating your wife?

What a loaded question! First of all, Constantine did not start the Catholic Church. And it is you who are calling Jesus' sacrifice a dead loss, not I.

Why do Roman Catholics never read past that verse to see how Jesus explained it?

But I've explained it to you thoroughly many times.

Here we go again:

Jesus always refers to His flesh in the Bread of Life discourse:
John 6 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.

57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.

Of course if His flesh avails to eternal life, then His flesh profits much. Notice that He doesn't say that His flesh profiteth nothing. He says,

When He says 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth:THE flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.

So, it is clear, Jesus flesh profiteth much, ordinary flesh or "the" flesh profiteth nothing.

Sincerely,

De Maria