[Tj3]

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]

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]

[QUOTE=Tj3]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.