@JesusDisciple777 ok seriously....Jesus did not ask them to be "cannibals"....follow the verbs and you will see that "eating" "drinking" "believing" are all different ways of talking about faith....the verbs are synonymous
@leviksu if you know logic, then you surely must know that all claims of ultimate authority are ultimately circular or assume their point. For instance, you cannot prove "Reason" from reason alone, you must revert to irrationality. The same goes for empiricism...empiricism cannot prove empiricism....
if you belief rests on logic, then do you not have to first assume the law of non-contradiction? How do you prove the law of non-contradiction? Isn't that, again, just a circular argument ??
You're not even addressing Paleocrat's point. Everything you say is STILL UP TO YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION!
Why is the Bible even valid at all? Is it because it says it is? That is the epitome of circular logic and one of the main reasons I left the craziness of Protestantism for the unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam ecclesiam.
"Who has the more scriptural argument"... how is that answering the problem of no objective authority?
@leviksu If you want to base the authority of Scripture on the authority of reason, then my friend, you have named your god. Why is it wrong to take God's word for it that the SCriptures are indeed true? Does it not follow that if an Almighty, sovereign, omnipotent being has revealed himself truly (for he has no falsehood) that if His revelation says it is true to take it as true? Why do you seek a higher authority than God?
The argument against protestantism is historical and practical. A sensible look at history leads one to Catholicism, as does a deep look at the Church Fathers (see John Cardinal Newman and Scott Hahn). The problem of private interpretation is that there is no final authority! You end up with thousands of denoms all claiming they have it right! It ends in relativism of the most hilarious kind
@leviksu thats if you take "history" as the authority and not God's word - which is obviously a fundamental error of all false religions....to look at something other than God as authorative.
I think you need to get beyond the caricatures that RC's make of "private interpretation" and actually read something on hermeneutics and see how we see to be faithful to God's word as it is presented in the text and in the original languages my friend....you seem learned, do some research.
Further, how can you say that the Bible is legit? Even if I were to grant your circular logic, where in the Bible does it SAY that the Bible is sufficient (not USEFUL... not GOOD... but COMPLETELY SUFFICIENT). IT DOESNT! And even if one of the books of the Bible did, it can't possibly be referring to the entire Bible because they all preceeded it by like 400 years!
@leviksu actually there are a few passages including 2 Tim 3:16-17 "....complete and thoroughly equipped" Is it your position against Scripture that "all Scripture" cannot make the man of God "complete" and "thoroughly equipped"? That we need something more? Remember.....if you say yes, you are saying Scripture and God who gave it, are lying....
Also, remember that sufficiency in Sola Scriptura is not exhaustive but only for matters of salvation and holy living....its not an encyclopedia
e. Perspicuity of Scripture is just dealing with being saved. Convenient as it is unbiblical. Still, it boils down to who is reading, who is interpreting, etc. Wowza.
f. Infallibility and fallibility. This is telling. The issue is with an ecclesiastical court of appeals. Is my personal decision to submit fallible? Sure. But this by no means minimized or invalidates the verdict being infallible.
e. If you really understood Sola Scriptura, you would understand this. See 2 Tim. 3:15 "...the Scriptures which are able to make you wise for salvation." That is the ability of Scripture.
f. granted your falliblity doesn't invalidate the verdict being infallible, but neither does it grant it either. =)
e. I do understand Sola Scriptura, though, it is rather amazing to see how many Protestants view Sola Scriptura differently. Wax nose really. It, like all other doctrines, is contingent upon the "authority" interpreting it.
f. I never said it did. One point for Paleocrat. Hey, tell your friends that the "infallible choice" argument is lame. : )
That is humorous, isn't it interesting to hear what sola scriptora "really" is? The basis of sola scriptora is the liberalism of interpretation. Period.
There is either one church, with authority, that does not contradict, in which truth matters, and doctrine or dogma matters. Or there is multiple churches with a "spiritual chain" in which doctrine can contradict, major aspects of truth can cotnradict, and without an authoritative position.
That actually a false dichotomy and a horrible play of logic on your part to decieve people into thinking that...
obviously such a dichotomy is meant to not allow people to think for themselves the options that are available....didn't that one Church have 3 popes at one time? Allow Hitler to get away with the holocaust almost? At one time was ruled by Arian popes? hmmmmm.....
Actually the simple answer to every single question you have just asked is a resounding no. The Papal question was handled appropriately. As for the holocaust question which is absolutely absurd when considering Pius XII record on this matter. It is ridiculous and unfortunately many protestants have mislead others in relation to this subject.
Or is that secular historians who have a problem with the universal sense of authority that Christ's Church commands and therefore their judgement and accuracy of reporting are biased?
If you cannot see this then you obviously haven't been through the same types of schools as I.
the problem is that the evidence is irrefutable....sure they have their problems with religion but the reason they do is not just because they are totally depraved and hate God, but because they find stuff like this....even the TBN preachers give Christianity a bad name
not just that issue friend, the Crusades is a huge one, religious persecutions in the name of the Catholic Church...needless to say, this is a side issue from our current dealings....but these go to show that Rome is not as infallible as you suppose.
Do you consider yourself to be an infallible or a fallible person??
Key words "in the name of" are you aware of how many Catholics were excommunicated prior to the most callous displays of terror? Are you unaware of what the teaching of infallibility actually means? Are you reading the absolutely intellectually vapid writing of Dave hunt on these issues? Pity on the person who does.
No, I've read Vatican I for myself....I read about 50 pages of Dave Hunts book "A Woman Rides the beast" and wasn't very impressed with the scholarship....I think I gave that book away!!
I actually have many of the official documents of Rome printed out or I have books like Trent, the Catechism, Ludwig Ott, Scott Hahn, Sungenis, Keating and some others I got at a Catholic book store...I go to the sources when I can (ad fontes...like a true Protestant :) )
We shouldn't diverge from the fact that bear a tremendous burden of attempting to defend sola scriptura, not playing with strawman arguments (which I could easily dispell if you'd like) the burden rightfully falls on you.
If sola scritura permeated the early christian culture, lifestyle, and studies it should be widely reflected in the Bible (not once), early christian writings (not once again) and historical accounts also.
my argument is not the historicity of the doctrine but its foundation from Scripture....there are teachings that one will not find historically that appear later, like Anselms ransom theory of the atonement....prior to that there was the ransom to Satan theory and other nonsense that has since been rejected...history is not an infallible authority ;)
Yes but when speaking about sola scriptura a person either would have to either believe that the earliest christians did not understand the sacred scripture, sacred traditon, and the role of the Church, or what the Church was, as well as you or I 2,000 yrs later. Did no proper "christians" practice the faith?
Did Martin Luther arrive to revive early christian beliefs or is it a reflection of his views irregardless of the Church history?
well technically the "earliest" Christians did not need Sola Scriptura because revelation was still being given through the Apostles and last Scripture of the NT had not been written until 95 AD (if you accept the late date for Revelation). Sola Scriptura is something that came into effect with the passing of the last apostle and the cessation of revelation.
Also take into account that the completed canon was not available immediately....it took centuries to recognize the full canon
But you see, without an authoritative interpreter which the earliest Christians acknowledged it is a specious and circular claim.
In my time outside the Church I experience far more often people whose creativity, intellect, and demeanor influenced their understanding of scripture and served primarily as a reinforcement to their won preconceptualized notions of reality. It was not an awakening.
I also noticed personally an attempt to provide solace for their failings instead of overcoming.
If there was an "authorative interpreter" how could there be so many opinions among the fathers? For instance, the majority of the Fathers intepret the "Rock" in Matt 16:18 to be Peter's Confession....behind that, Peter's Faith and least of all, Peter as the Rock but in a non pro-Papal sense....for instance, Peter as the Rock in the sense that he was first to preach to the Gentiles...or the first to preach...or the first among equals...no Father interpreted Peter as universal head of the Church
c. We can go to the text to see who is handling it better? Amazing. 30,000 denominations later. Every group says the same thing! And they believe it. I smoked this argument in my post.
d. And you think you don't have an agenda? Your arguments (if they can be called that) have been left in the dust, and yet you repeat the same nonsense over and over.
c. And we have the Scriptures to verify who is faithful to Scripture and who is not. You act as if simply making a claim means the claim is true. Test it.
d. I'm not claiming I don't have a "preference". I am a presuppositionalist so I won't hide behind that. However, that does not mean I can't be faithful to Scripture simply because I presuppose its authority over Rome's.
c. This is a vicious circle. John MacArthur says it. Sproul says it. White says it. Wilson says it. Bahnsen said it. North says it. Jordan says it. Geisler says it. The Adventists say it. On and on we go. Everyone saying the others just aren't being faithful to Scripture. 30,000 denominations later...
d. Presuppositionalism. I went to Bahnsen Theological. Actually, I have my own little theory about presuppositionalism leading to Rome, but that is off topic. Maybe another time.
Another point is that I could arrive at the conclusion of Jesus "really" being a man alone, and the Holy Spirit was in essence just working through him, and that any references to scripture of him being a savior were really just references to the Holy Spirit and you being guided by sola scriptora would have to agree that my view holds as much weight as yours.
Sounds ridiculous because it is, as is sola scriptora.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here....Clearly Athanasius and others since have appealed to Scripture alone to defend the doctrine of the deity and the humanity of Jesus Christ....that whole "kenosis" theory is based on Gnostic presuppositions and not a Biblical worldview....
Sola Scriptura, on the other hand is derived from passages of Scripture and biblical principles and patterns of revelation and covenant documents
Peter was a first among equals. He held no authority over any other apostles. He was charged by Christ with the responsibility (not leadership) of feeding and tending "his sheep". I find no evidence in Scripture of Peter having a special authority over any other apostles...especially in light of the rebuke he took from Paul, his equal in authority in the Church.
Yes, they did utilize the scriptures to teach, but all completely disagreed with you as it being the sole basis of sufficient instruction. Useful? yes. Sufficient? No.
"But you are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and you have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. for it has come down to you from apostolic tradition..."- Athanasius
see Athanasius 39th Festal Letter.....If I remember correctly he uses the word sufficient....or something to that effect....I'd have to look it up again
a. Ecclesiastical authority is not needed to settle doctrinal or hermeneutical disputes? 30,000 denominations later...
b. John 6. Wow, are back to the beginning! We disagree over emphasis, context, etc. Who decides? Oh, the Bible, of course. But that is where we came from and where our disagreement lies! Absurdity.
a. Doctrinal disputes, yes. Disputes over dogma? What does this prove? That some people refuse to submit to the verdict of the Church. Disputes over issues that are not dogma? No problem.
b. Every single heretic says the say thing. The Jeho's tell me this. The Adventists tell me this. The Oneness people tell me this. You tell me this. In fact, we tell YOU that! See how far that "alone" has gotten us...
Imagine this, Jesus establishes one Church, in which we all are one, and his command is that we venture into the world, to spread his faith. Am I supposed to believe he established a Church to then disintegrate it and allow for unlimited interpretation?
You could give your personal interpretation of even what sola scriptora and it's confines and regulations are but then I could find literally a billion others who would disagree most likely.
there is always going to be people that disagree, even within Rome....even doctrines like Papal Infallibility were not immediately recieved and Rome had to wait for that generation to die off to really press it home.
Reality...Jesus did establish one Church and he and his apostle prophesied that false teachings would come out from her ranks...for Protestants those false teachings are the sacramental system, Marian dogmas, justification through faith and works,etc...we are returning to Christ
Really, I would agree. It is really amazing to appeal to the original Church established by Christ yet deny the lionshare of the beliefs of those who lived amongst the apostles, or were taught by the apostles, or from those who were taught by the apostles.
What protestants are you speaking of? Which of the 30,000 denominations which contradict eachother are you speaking of ?
well the fact is that there was no "unanimous consent" amongst the fathers in many doctrines except monotheism....there were even varying interpreations of Matt 16:18-19!
LOL wow...you went with the 30000 denom argument....do you even know what that is based on??? What is the source for that stat???
The problem and fatal flaw of your argument is that you provide a view, which was almost unknown to the early church (sola scriptura), early christians, and if it was widely practiced I would like to see the quotations. I could bury this board with quotations which point to the obvious opposite conclusion if you'd like.
the same could easily be said about Transubstantiation, the Marian Dogmas, Papal Infallibility and several other doctrines....
The burden lies on the person making the positive claim...so if Rome says that such teachings were always in her "tradition" she should be able to prove them.
Again, we go to Scripture....see my articles on Sola Scriptura
No, you cannot assert that your particular interpretation of scripture alone is sufficient to justify the idea that christians taught and believed what you do by using your particular interpretation of scripture.
It's like me "proving" salvation by works alone (which is ridiculous) and then referencing my view of scripture as proof.
I can easily prove to you that these practices were in fact quite common along with John the Baptist teaching infant baptism outiside of scripture as well!
but its not my particular view...this is the view that came out of the Reformation...read Calvin on Scripture, read the Reformed tradition on Scripture Alone.....I have not redefined it my friend.
And my point is not to prove what others believe but what should be believed...I make no case that the early fathers were "Protestant" in any sense of the word....they were what they were in their period of time. period.
How can you say that the early christian fathers believed but I do not? Are you really attempting to say that the people who learned directly from the Holy inspired mouths of the apostles, or their students, 2,000 years ago, when or shortly after Christ walked the earth do not have the same Holy insight as you today?
Do you think that just may be something that you might not want to say?
my point, again, is not to prove what others beleived or did not believe....my point is to prove what ought to be believed...
It is a fact that the earliest Christian communities, probably up to the near 4th century did not have or know a completed canon of SCripture. There were early Christian communities who did not know of Paul or his teachings, or of John's or James, etc...it was not until later that some of their works were spread throughout all Christendom.
I thought that they were guided by the apostles? You contradict yourself with convenience. First you state that tradition is unneeded because of the apostles, then, when I display what the apostes taught those christians you state that what they really needed was the Bible to be as informed as apparently us modern folk are.
it is a clear statement which I personally would not maintain the hubris to make.
I think you missed the point. First you tell me that the early christians did not need the strict Bible alone theory of sola scriptura while the apostles were living but then when you learn that amongst the things you might agree with, they also teach the same doctrines you disregard to the early layman and women you tell me we have to "go to the scriptures".
It's like saying if I do not like the actual reality of their teachings I can just return to my comfort zone of my own interpretation.
ok, Sola Scriptura does not mean "strict Bible alone"....that's the big problem here is that you are defining that term incorrectly. See my video on what Sola Scriptura is not or my debates or articles on the subject.
That is your personal interpretation but why can I not utilize it in the manner in which I desire? After all, we are all free to interpret and claim Holy inspiration as we see fit.
If you choose differently, well, that's just your personal interpretation.
I believe that we have a RESPONSIBILITY (not freedom) to correctly interpret Scripture...to "rightly divide the word of truth"....
seriously, if you think you have the right to create strawman arguments because it is your conscience that you can beat the wind, go ahead....but if you choose to do that understand that you are willfully dodging my personal position and arguing with your own notions of what you think I believe....which really doesn't get you anywhere... =/
You act as if scripture if responsibly interpreted is somehow a simplistic task yet 30,000 denominations and literally a billion or so people's individualistic interpretations later the philosophy of sola scriptura lies in ruins by it's dried fruitlessness of fragmentation and discord.
1) can you demonstrate how you arrived at the number 30000.
2) what factors were taken in making the divisions of denominations?
you know that the supposedly same source that has the number or Protestant denominations (Barrett's World Christian Encyclopedia) lists as much as 233 denominations (by the same standards it applied to making Protestant denomination!!! How convenient you only post one side but not the other...see the work for yourself how the numbers were determined
The point is missed. Whether you consider something a denomination or not, it is the fragmentation and discord between doctrine which is what is important and either way it is a violation of the "one Church" Christ spoke of and established to spread the good word.
well when you consider that since Baptist consider themselves Congregationalist when it comes to Church polity and each Baptist Church is considered a separate "denomination" by Barrett, yet each Baptist church is united by doctrine, the supposed "divide" goes away because its based on geography and not theological concerns.
it actually is not my source and if you truly believe that when you walk into each baptist church you will hear the equivalent message you are laughably mistaken! The differences amplify with each individual church. A good/bad example is inner city baptist churches.
The unbelievable reinterpetation of scripture along racial lines is unique to say the least. I am a white man who primarily grew up with black people inmy environment so it has been so gravely exemplified in my youth.
so you're basically parroting off an erroneous argument based on misunderstood information correct?
Is it your assertion that I can talk to any number of Catholic priests and they will all say the same thing in response to set questions or hold the exact same theological and liturgical positions? I wonder if Rome demonstrates the unity that you demand of Protestants....hmmmm
I am still waiting for a list of books, contained within the Bible, as to which books are to be contained within the Bible from the protestants. I am still waiting for a list in the Bible which discriminates between "essential" beliefs and teachings and "inessential" beliefs and teachings. I am still witing for a reason the Christ apparently stressed the truth, commanded us to one, yet apparently decided fragmentation after the last apostle expired. I wonder if he thought about "inessentials"?
and you will get no list of books....the canon is not itself revelation it is an artifact of revelation.
Sola Scriptura is not a statement about the canon either....if you want to discuss the canon, read my papers on it and then engage those arguments and presentations
Another good example is not whether each individual church holds doctrinal agreement but the position itself of sola scriptura when enacted in a private setting.
A good example in reference again to inner city churches that I personally heard was a pastor from prayer to the Holy Spirit referencing early chapter of genesis 2:7 being a reflection of the race of early man; the race of Christ; and the "chosen race" of africans (not just black in general) and the need to repatriate to Africa.
A good example I have lately is whether Peter is referred to as "mountainous rock" as in Jesus' original aramaic language, or "pebble", or whether it is an expression of Peter's faith in God which is labeled as such.
All people, all reading the same text, all coming to differing conclusions which lead to fragmentation indefinitely.
It's a fork in the road in which a first the divergence is small and insignificant, yet as times goes on the roads travel further and further and further...
LOL...ok, lets look at this historically...Eusibius, Augustine, Jerome, John Chyrsostom, Bede, John of Damascus, Ephrem the Syrian and other said Christ was the Rock.
Ambrose, Hilary of Potiers, John Cassian, Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, Basil the Great, Pope Gregory the Great and other said that Peter's Confession/Faith was the "Rock"
And finally Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen and Firmilian interpreted Peter as the "Rock" and each in different senses.....
Which basically proves that up until that point the Church had not ruled upon it which actually proves my point while you LOL. Let me ask if they conformed to the teachings of the Church? In an official pronouncement. Just like Anthanasius, and Jerome.
First we hear that the scriptures were not needed during the apostolic times, then after the canon, you then insist upon, when confronted with contrary teachings and authority, you ask to return to your view of scripture. A circular task.
but the problem is that NOBODY in Church history before Vatican I in 1870 interpreted Matthew 16:18 in such a manner? Where was the "unanimous consent of the Fathers" that Trent and Vatican I said Scripture should not be interpreted against????
I am not speaking of unanimous consent. Popularity does not equal accuracy. Authority when exercised in a proper and clear manner equals accuracy. Dispute resolution does not equal popular consent as such in most protestant "denominations".
When I show you teachings of the apostles and their students there is actually a unanimous consent but because of instruction.
When something is not adressed as an official teaching it will inevitable misunderstanding.
A Christian is a person who has been elected by God from the foundations of the world according to the good pleasure and grace of God, called by God through the Gospel, regenerated by the Holy Spirit, given the gift of faith which is then placed in the person and work of Jesus Christ alone for justification from God for their sins and then perseveres in holiness until death or the return of the Lord.
Its to say that they are only because they are not relying on Jesus Christ alone for their salvation but also upon their own merit as well as the merit of the saints from the treasury of merit....they are relying on their adherence to the commandments, in their ability to show/do charitable works, to participate in the sacraments especially the man.....somewhere in there, faith in Christ alone gets smothered..."The just shall live by faith" echoed Paul from the prophet Habakkuk.
I read Athanasius 39th Festal Letter contextualized. Protestants utilize it to show that somewhere, someone, thought as they did to at least provide a modicum of validity to their belief systems I also found this:
"The very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning was preached by the apostles and preserved by the fathers. On this the Church was founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian." -Athanasius
So where have we departed? We believe in the Trinity...we believe Christ is the only savior and way to God....
Now, here is where it gets tricky because I'm pretty sure you want to say we dont believe certain things....again, it must be demonstrated that the earliest Christians believed things like Papal Infallibility, the Marian Dogmas, transubstantiation, etc...beginning with Scripture because those are the earliest Christians teachings and revelation from God.
The problem with this view is that you incorrectly state that the Bible contains every teaching, clearly articulated, and defined. When I show you clearly the writings of the early christians which contradict this you then revert back to your private interpretation.
Similiar to how I showed you clearly the writings of the early church on mary. It;s a circle which often ends more with you than the word of God.
uh...I didn't state the Bible contains "every teaching clearly articulated and defined"...I believe it contains what is sufficient to be believed unto salvation and its teaching may be deduced either explicitly or implicitly according to the analogy of faith....
seriously....drop the caricatures....it doesn't help...
I still haven't seen any evidence at all from the early christians who lived during the time of the apostles, following the apostles, prior to the canon, and following the canon.
There would have to be evidence or else it would appear that virtually ALL christians are in the same position as the Catholics in your mind.
Unless of course you believe that were essentially no true christians following Christ until 1517.
I'm really not sure what this comment about not having seen any evidence is in reference too....perhaps how I'm viewing it is not connected to the comment to which you are replying to and its throwing me off....
what evidence are you asking for that is "during the time of the apostles, following the apostles, prior to the canon, and following the canon."?
It is humorous that early christians; practicing christians believed and lived within the confines of Catholic teaching and culture yet you then question their authenticity as christians!
It is a wonder to me how many of the early christians are saved within Christ right now if that is the case.
It is the equivalent of a desolate church within the woods in Virginia claiming to the authentic church of Christ because they say so.
Another point is there are definite differentiations involving all segements of the baptist "denomination" that you are not acknowledging. Debate over a second coming is of course huge, local control over scriptural discourse is obviously huge as well, doctrine of separation, the nature of gospel huge, King James only movement, Calvinism/Arminism, Biblical eschatology ect.
the same differences plague Rome....and individual Roman Catholics as well....how many Hail Mary's does it take to do penance for X sin? Doesn't that vary from priest to priest? Aren't there Catholic who do not agree with the vernacular pronunciations of Vatican II and want all Latin? What is the official Roman position on Eschatology? I have talked with Catholic who affirm the exact predestination of Augustine (Jay Dyer) yet Trent rejects the mystery of predestination?
The Church is in fact silent upon any issues. There is no contradiction there at all. I nor any Catholic I know claims that every single Catholic is led to Christ with proper guidance and prudence by Christ's bride; the Catholic Church.
For instance, there is no pronouncement regarding the acceptance of evolutionary theory. As long as at some point God infused the spirit of God, you are free to believe as you wish.
If in fact the Church did further elaborate beyond this, it is so.
The problem is uou ask if I can trace the writing but you will only accept scripture as if teaching cannont be elaborated in much greated detail personally. It's like myself distributing a boxing lesson book and then showing you additional techniques in person, you testifying to such, and then another person discarding the teachings 2,000 years later because they are not in the book regardless of how many people were at the gym that day and learned first hand, and wrote about it later ect.
well the problem for you and your claims is that you say all these teachings came from the apostles and you have no way to trace it....the only records that we have of the apostles teachings are in the Scriptures....especially the ones that came from their hands....and they don't mention the dogmas that Rome requires to be believed unto salvation
By what authority do you claim to have as to what ought to be believed? You are saying once again that those who were taught directly by the Holy inspired instructions of the apostles, or their students have an inferior understanding and less ability to give witness to truth.
so its not that anybody today or later than the earliest Christians has "more insight" or a "different spirit" but there is more access to the preserved revelation of God. Keep in mind also that the Scriptures were initially illegal in the Roman provinces; the Scriptures had to be hidden and smuggled to different communities...we have today the luxury of a completed canon and the freedom of religion that was not initially available to Christians...
Listen to this, the earliest christians clearly articulate the authority of Christ, the apostolic traditions, the authority of the Church in matters of faith and morals, and then Peter's primacy, his succession to Linus, then later Clement, and you reply with "I know more than they do".
the funny thing is though that you can't trace the teaching that you say are apostolic to the apostles themselves!
Where did Peter, Paul, James, Thomas, Jude, or any other apostle teach the Marian Dogmas? Can you please point these dogmas out from Scripture?? Can you demonstrate let say, Polycarp's teaching on the Assumption of Mary???
You fail to understand that they ALL conformed to the notion of infallible authority, apostolic succession, apostolic tradition, and conformed to the teachings.
Do you want strictly scriptural references? I can provide those as well but that is a sidestep for the points I am proving.
I would like these teaching explicated from the words of father in the manner in which they were later defined in their dogmatic statements....since these "traditions" were alway part of the Church, it is not unreasonable to demand these clear teachings demonstrated 1) from Scripture 2) from the earliest of the Fathers.
"You alone and your mother are more beautiful than all others. For there is no blemish upon you nor stains upon your mother. Who can compare in beauty to these?" -Ephraim
"Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption." -Timothy
"And from that time all knew that the spotless and precious body had been transfered to paradise." -John
"So the Virgin became a mother...she labored without pain for a purpose
these do my no good without documentation.....where are these quotes from so I can research????? See the context....see what time period they wrote in, etc....
"Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported he to the regions of her assumption."-Timothy of Jersualem
"...and from that time all knew that the spotless and precious body had been transferred to paradise." -John
"So the Virgin became mother...she labored and bore the son but without pain because it had a purpose..."- Odes of Solomon
"Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transprted her to the regions of her assumption." Timothy of Jerusalem
"You alone and your mother are more beautiful than others for there is no blemish in you nor any stains upon your mother. Who else can compare in beauty to those?" Ephraim
"So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies...but without pain for a purpose." Odes of Solomon
You are now side stepping the fact that those closest to God believed far differently than you. You are disregarding the fact that sola scriptura was in fact regarded as heresy. The authority of the Church, it's sacred mission, and apostolic tradition and authority ruled out any notion of sola scriptura b/c not control but correct interpretation was needed for one Church to be in communion with truth.
Again, I would note Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter in which after his mention of the canon he says, "These are the springs of salvation, in order that he who is thirsty may fully refresh himself with the words contained in them. In them alone is the doctrine of piety proclaimed. Let no one add anything to them or take anything away from them... "
Well, that is exactly my point. How can you even type such a statement without seriously questioning the gamut of protestant denominations and nondenominational churches which do both with abandon.
As a matter of fact entire pillars of the protestant reformation were virtually alien to christians who laboed from the days of Christ in the quest for eternity.
I wouldn't say they were alien but they were already presupposed and not challenged....there are plenty of quotes from the Fathers about the practice and doctrine of using Scripture as the ultimate authority for faith and doctrines. These can be found in David King's and William Webster's work "Holy SCripture: The Ground and Pillar of our faith" (3 volume set).
I have respect for Calvin's intellect, I just disagree with some of his positions. I also have objection to sitting in a protestant church as I do not agree with everything that I hear but I can at least appreciate the zeal often. I just chose to convert to Catholicism and my faith opened up and blossomed to an entirely different spectrum and level.
Infant Baptism: St. Polycarp who was trained directly by St. John, taught Irenaeus who spoke that Christ came to save those who are "born again in God" through Baptism, including "infants and children."
The reason being that scared tradition dictates that when entire households (1 Cor 1:16) were baptized it included both infants and servants, as well as servant's families also.
uhh....I'm Presbyterian so I believe in infant baptism as a sign of membership into the covenant community....
of course, we reject baptismal regeneration.
And you don't need "tradition" to tell you that "households" included infants and servants...it is implicit within the text itself and the cultural context...just part of hermeneutics my friend.
Can you demonstrate that John in fact taught regeneration comes through baptism?
Did not John teach that we are not born of God through the will of the flesh, or through the will of man (even somebody else will, in this case the parents), but of God's own will (see John 1:12-13)? Did not this John teach the sovereignty of the Spirit in regeneration in John 3:7-8 and not at the command of a sacrament ?
Could you quote Polycarp on this please and list the source?
"I had heard, sir, I (to the sheperd), that there is no repentence except that which took place when we went down into the water, and obtained the remission of our former sins. He said to me, you have heard rightly, for it is so." -Hermas
"Heretics bring sentence upon themselves sunce they, by their own choice withdraw from the Church, a withdrawal which, since they are aware of it, constitutes damnation. Between heresy and schism there is this difference: that heresy involves perverse doctrine, while schism involves and separates one from the Church on account of disagreement with teh Bishop. Nevertheless, there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify it's departure from the Church." - Jerome
"You alone and your mother are more beautiful than all others for there is no blemish upon you nor any stains upon your mother. Who else can compare in beauty to these?"-Ephraim the Syrian
So technically you can't provide Polycarps actual teachings or what John taught him in regards to regeneration and Baptism is that correct? You can only assume that Ireneaus was explicating exactly what John did through Polycarp?
Does Ireneaus say explicitly that he learned that particularly teaching from Polycarp?
"But you are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of aith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from apostolic tradition, and frequently accursed envy has wished to unsettle it, but has not been able."-Athanasius
Imagine for instance, a corporation in which the president of the company has established a h.r. department, board of directors, and a ceo for the sole express purpose of correctly running the company to both his wishes and to ensure fruitfulness of the company.
Upon his death his last wish is for the company's borad of directors, ceo, h.r. department and any other regulatory office to cease functioning. What would the company look like in 10 years? This is essentially the same argument.
hardly the same argument...God is a sovereign God and is directing and governing all things according to his providence and eternal decree....there is never a moment in which God is not in control or God did not determine how all things would end up.
"But, beyond these sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teachings,and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the fathers kept"
"...sectaries, who have fallen away from the teaching of the Church, and made a shipwreck of their faith."
"It was for our own sake that Christ became man, taking flesh from birth through the virgin Mary, Mother of God."
I'd need to see the larger context of such quotes to see if Athanasius taught the PERPETUAL virginity, not merely that Mary was a virgin in conception of Christ....
I could look and find a quote(s) for that also. I am doing a great deal of online courses so my time is always strained.
Don't get me wrong, Jesus is the reason here so please do not misinterpret me as attempting to insult you or your beliefs. I just wanted to make that clear as it would be a disservice to Christ and his mission.
well I'm sure there's plenty of online resources and people who have already done the homework ;)
Of course, Catholic Scholars like Ludwig Ott pretty much admit that evidence for many of the Marian Dogmas is lacking...hence, Cardinal Newman's "Living Tradition" vs. what Trent defined as "Tradition" which was the "unanimous consent of the Fathers"....it was according to that rule that no Scripture was to be interpreted against...
The point is missed here. The earliest christians such as Anthansius, Ireneous, Polycarp, and all the others understood that both sacred tradition and scripture are an everflowing and sacred river converge into the glorious nature of Christ and his teachings. If they recognize the authority of the Church they recognize Papal pronouncements as well.
Can you demonstrate where they believed "Tradition" was the equivalent of revelation from God? Can you demonstrate where they explicitly stated that SCripture should be interpreted "in the sense of holy mother church" or accoridng to the "unanimous consent of the Fathers" or at least according to that given by the Magisterium or through the seat of Peter? Can you demonstrate from their writing the acceptance of Papal pronouncement as infallible? What of the Arian ascendancy and Athanasius?
"It is needful to make use of sacred tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred scripture. The Holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition." -Epiphanius
"Be it known to you, my Lord, the Simon (Peter), who, for the sake of the true faith, and most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, renamed Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the son, whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed, the called, the elect."- Clement written to James
"Be it known to you, my Lord, the Simon (Peter), who, for the sake of the true faith, and most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the father revealed the son, whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, the elect." -Clement
the context of chapter 6 is that people abandon Jesus because he asks them to be canibals.
JesusDisciple777 9 months ago
@JesusDisciple777 ok seriously....Jesus did not ask them to be "cannibals"....follow the verbs and you will see that "eating" "drinking" "believing" are all different ways of talking about faith....the verbs are synonymous
prchdaword 9 months ago
To a "fallible choice":
Our belief rests on logic. Yours rests on circular logic. End of story.
leviksu 2 years ago
@leviksu if you know logic, then you surely must know that all claims of ultimate authority are ultimately circular or assume their point. For instance, you cannot prove "Reason" from reason alone, you must revert to irrationality. The same goes for empiricism...empiricism cannot prove empiricism....
if you belief rests on logic, then do you not have to first assume the law of non-contradiction? How do you prove the law of non-contradiction? Isn't that, again, just a circular argument ??
prchdaword 2 years ago
haha! nice try. the only thing that makes sense is the Triune Christian God (see presuppositional apologetics)
leviksu 2 years ago
@leviksu I am a presuppositionalist
prchdaword 2 years ago
You're not even addressing Paleocrat's point. Everything you say is STILL UP TO YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION!
Why is the Bible even valid at all? Is it because it says it is? That is the epitome of circular logic and one of the main reasons I left the craziness of Protestantism for the unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam ecclesiam.
"Who has the more scriptural argument"... how is that answering the problem of no objective authority?
leviksu 2 years ago
@leviksu If you want to base the authority of Scripture on the authority of reason, then my friend, you have named your god. Why is it wrong to take God's word for it that the SCriptures are indeed true? Does it not follow that if an Almighty, sovereign, omnipotent being has revealed himself truly (for he has no falsehood) that if His revelation says it is true to take it as true? Why do you seek a higher authority than God?
God speaks clearly in Scripture. Just listen....
prchdaword 2 years ago
The argument against protestantism is historical and practical. A sensible look at history leads one to Catholicism, as does a deep look at the Church Fathers (see John Cardinal Newman and Scott Hahn). The problem of private interpretation is that there is no final authority! You end up with thousands of denoms all claiming they have it right! It ends in relativism of the most hilarious kind
leviksu 2 years ago
@leviksu thats if you take "history" as the authority and not God's word - which is obviously a fundamental error of all false religions....to look at something other than God as authorative.
I think you need to get beyond the caricatures that RC's make of "private interpretation" and actually read something on hermeneutics and see how we see to be faithful to God's word as it is presented in the text and in the original languages my friend....you seem learned, do some research.
prchdaword 2 years ago
Further, how can you say that the Bible is legit? Even if I were to grant your circular logic, where in the Bible does it SAY that the Bible is sufficient (not USEFUL... not GOOD... but COMPLETELY SUFFICIENT). IT DOESNT! And even if one of the books of the Bible did, it can't possibly be referring to the entire Bible because they all preceeded it by like 400 years!
leviksu 2 years ago
@leviksu actually there are a few passages including 2 Tim 3:16-17 "....complete and thoroughly equipped" Is it your position against Scripture that "all Scripture" cannot make the man of God "complete" and "thoroughly equipped"? That we need something more? Remember.....if you say yes, you are saying Scripture and God who gave it, are lying....
Also, remember that sufficiency in Sola Scriptura is not exhaustive but only for matters of salvation and holy living....its not an encyclopedia
prchdaword 2 years ago
Confusing stuff =/
Nabs07 4 years ago
e. Perspicuity of Scripture is just dealing with being saved. Convenient as it is unbiblical. Still, it boils down to who is reading, who is interpreting, etc. Wowza.
f. Infallibility and fallibility. This is telling. The issue is with an ecclesiastical court of appeals. Is my personal decision to submit fallible? Sure. But this by no means minimized or invalidates the verdict being infallible.
paleocrat 4 years ago 2
e. If you really understood Sola Scriptura, you would understand this. See 2 Tim. 3:15 "...the Scriptures which are able to make you wise for salvation." That is the ability of Scripture.
f. granted your falliblity doesn't invalidate the verdict being infallible, but neither does it grant it either. =)
prchdaword 4 years ago
e. I do understand Sola Scriptura, though, it is rather amazing to see how many Protestants view Sola Scriptura differently. Wax nose really. It, like all other doctrines, is contingent upon the "authority" interpreting it.
f. I never said it did. One point for Paleocrat. Hey, tell your friends that the "infallible choice" argument is lame. : )
paleocrat 4 years ago 3
That is humorous, isn't it interesting to hear what sola scriptora "really" is? The basis of sola scriptora is the liberalism of interpretation. Period.
There is either one church, with authority, that does not contradict, in which truth matters, and doctrine or dogma matters. Or there is multiple churches with a "spiritual chain" in which doctrine can contradict, major aspects of truth can cotnradict, and without an authoritative position.
It's really that simple.
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
That actually a false dichotomy and a horrible play of logic on your part to decieve people into thinking that...
obviously such a dichotomy is meant to not allow people to think for themselves the options that are available....didn't that one Church have 3 popes at one time? Allow Hitler to get away with the holocaust almost? At one time was ruled by Arian popes? hmmmmm.....
prchdaword 2 years ago
Actually the simple answer to every single question you have just asked is a resounding no. The Papal question was handled appropriately. As for the holocaust question which is absolutely absurd when considering Pius XII record on this matter. It is ridiculous and unfortunately many protestants have mislead others in relation to this subject.
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
ok, now I know you're not going to deny there was 3 popes at one time....
and its not Protestants per se doing this...its secular historians who have problems with religion because of things like that =/
prchdaword 2 years ago
Or is that secular historians who have a problem with the universal sense of authority that Christ's Church commands and therefore their judgement and accuracy of reporting are biased?
If you cannot see this then you obviously haven't been through the same types of schools as I.
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
the problem is that the evidence is irrefutable....sure they have their problems with religion but the reason they do is not just because they are totally depraved and hate God, but because they find stuff like this....even the TBN preachers give Christianity a bad name
prchdaword 2 years ago
What exactly is irrefutable? Pius XII has actually an outstanding record of providing safety and refuge to those oppressed.
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
not just that issue friend, the Crusades is a huge one, religious persecutions in the name of the Catholic Church...needless to say, this is a side issue from our current dealings....but these go to show that Rome is not as infallible as you suppose.
Do you consider yourself to be an infallible or a fallible person??
prchdaword 2 years ago
Key words "in the name of" are you aware of how many Catholics were excommunicated prior to the most callous displays of terror? Are you unaware of what the teaching of infallibility actually means? Are you reading the absolutely intellectually vapid writing of Dave hunt on these issues? Pity on the person who does.
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
No, I've read Vatican I for myself....I read about 50 pages of Dave Hunts book "A Woman Rides the beast" and wasn't very impressed with the scholarship....I think I gave that book away!!
I actually have many of the official documents of Rome printed out or I have books like Trent, the Catechism, Ludwig Ott, Scott Hahn, Sungenis, Keating and some others I got at a Catholic book store...I go to the sources when I can (ad fontes...like a true Protestant :) )
prchdaword 2 years ago
We shouldn't diverge from the fact that bear a tremendous burden of attempting to defend sola scriptura, not playing with strawman arguments (which I could easily dispell if you'd like) the burden rightfully falls on you.
If sola scritura permeated the early christian culture, lifestyle, and studies it should be widely reflected in the Bible (not once), early christian writings (not once again) and historical accounts also.
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
my argument is not the historicity of the doctrine but its foundation from Scripture....there are teachings that one will not find historically that appear later, like Anselms ransom theory of the atonement....prior to that there was the ransom to Satan theory and other nonsense that has since been rejected...history is not an infallible authority ;)
prchdaword 2 years ago
Yes but when speaking about sola scriptura a person either would have to either believe that the earliest christians did not understand the sacred scripture, sacred traditon, and the role of the Church, or what the Church was, as well as you or I 2,000 yrs later. Did no proper "christians" practice the faith?
Did Martin Luther arrive to revive early christian beliefs or is it a reflection of his views irregardless of the Church history?
It is a fairly specious and weakened argument
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
well technically the "earliest" Christians did not need Sola Scriptura because revelation was still being given through the Apostles and last Scripture of the NT had not been written until 95 AD (if you accept the late date for Revelation). Sola Scriptura is something that came into effect with the passing of the last apostle and the cessation of revelation.
Also take into account that the completed canon was not available immediately....it took centuries to recognize the full canon
prchdaword 2 years ago
But you see, without an authoritative interpreter which the earliest Christians acknowledged it is a specious and circular claim.
In my time outside the Church I experience far more often people whose creativity, intellect, and demeanor influenced their understanding of scripture and served primarily as a reinforcement to their won preconceptualized notions of reality. It was not an awakening.
I also noticed personally an attempt to provide solace for their failings instead of overcoming.
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
If there was an "authorative interpreter" how could there be so many opinions among the fathers? For instance, the majority of the Fathers intepret the "Rock" in Matt 16:18 to be Peter's Confession....behind that, Peter's Faith and least of all, Peter as the Rock but in a non pro-Papal sense....for instance, Peter as the Rock in the sense that he was first to preach to the Gentiles...or the first to preach...or the first among equals...no Father interpreted Peter as universal head of the Church
prchdaword 2 years ago
c. We can go to the text to see who is handling it better? Amazing. 30,000 denominations later. Every group says the same thing! And they believe it. I smoked this argument in my post.
d. And you think you don't have an agenda? Your arguments (if they can be called that) have been left in the dust, and yet you repeat the same nonsense over and over.
paleocrat 4 years ago
c. And we have the Scriptures to verify who is faithful to Scripture and who is not. You act as if simply making a claim means the claim is true. Test it.
d. I'm not claiming I don't have a "preference". I am a presuppositionalist so I won't hide behind that. However, that does not mean I can't be faithful to Scripture simply because I presuppose its authority over Rome's.
prchdaword 4 years ago
c. This is a vicious circle. John MacArthur says it. Sproul says it. White says it. Wilson says it. Bahnsen said it. North says it. Jordan says it. Geisler says it. The Adventists say it. On and on we go. Everyone saying the others just aren't being faithful to Scripture. 30,000 denominations later...
d. Presuppositionalism. I went to Bahnsen Theological. Actually, I have my own little theory about presuppositionalism leading to Rome, but that is off topic. Maybe another time.
paleocrat 4 years ago
Another point is that I could arrive at the conclusion of Jesus "really" being a man alone, and the Holy Spirit was in essence just working through him, and that any references to scripture of him being a savior were really just references to the Holy Spirit and you being guided by sola scriptora would have to agree that my view holds as much weight as yours.
Sounds ridiculous because it is, as is sola scriptora.
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
I'm not sure what you're getting at here....Clearly Athanasius and others since have appealed to Scripture alone to defend the doctrine of the deity and the humanity of Jesus Christ....that whole "kenosis" theory is based on Gnostic presuppositions and not a Biblical worldview....
Sola Scriptura, on the other hand is derived from passages of Scripture and biblical principles and patterns of revelation and covenant documents
prchdaword 2 years ago
That is exactly the point. One question, did Peter hold an authority over his fellow apostles?
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
Peter was a first among equals. He held no authority over any other apostles. He was charged by Christ with the responsibility (not leadership) of feeding and tending "his sheep". I find no evidence in Scripture of Peter having a special authority over any other apostles...especially in light of the rebuke he took from Paul, his equal in authority in the Church.
prchdaword 2 years ago
Yes, they did utilize the scriptures to teach, but all completely disagreed with you as it being the sole basis of sufficient instruction. Useful? yes. Sufficient? No.
"But you are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and you have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. for it has come down to you from apostolic tradition..."- Athanasius
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
see Athanasius 39th Festal Letter.....If I remember correctly he uses the word sufficient....or something to that effect....I'd have to look it up again
prchdaword 2 years ago
I am amazed that you actually posted this.
a. Ecclesiastical authority is not needed to settle doctrinal or hermeneutical disputes? 30,000 denominations later...
b. John 6. Wow, are back to the beginning! We disagree over emphasis, context, etc. Who decides? Oh, the Bible, of course. But that is where we came from and where our disagreement lies! Absurdity.
paleocrat 4 years ago
a. Rome does not have the unity you suppose it does or professes. There are still doctrinal disputes amongst catholic to this day as well.
b. "study to show thyself approved..."
prchdaword 4 years ago
a. Doctrinal disputes, yes. Disputes over dogma? What does this prove? That some people refuse to submit to the verdict of the Church. Disputes over issues that are not dogma? No problem.
b. Every single heretic says the say thing. The Jeho's tell me this. The Adventists tell me this. The Oneness people tell me this. You tell me this. In fact, we tell YOU that! See how far that "alone" has gotten us...
paleocrat 4 years ago
Imagine this, Jesus establishes one Church, in which we all are one, and his command is that we venture into the world, to spread his faith. Am I supposed to believe he established a Church to then disintegrate it and allow for unlimited interpretation?
You could give your personal interpretation of even what sola scriptora and it's confines and regulations are but then I could find literally a billion others who would disagree most likely.
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
there is always going to be people that disagree, even within Rome....even doctrines like Papal Infallibility were not immediately recieved and Rome had to wait for that generation to die off to really press it home.
Reality...Jesus did establish one Church and he and his apostle prophesied that false teachings would come out from her ranks...for Protestants those false teachings are the sacramental system, Marian dogmas, justification through faith and works,etc...we are returning to Christ
prchdaword 2 years ago
Really, I would agree. It is really amazing to appeal to the original Church established by Christ yet deny the lionshare of the beliefs of those who lived amongst the apostles, or were taught by the apostles, or from those who were taught by the apostles.
What protestants are you speaking of? Which of the 30,000 denominations which contradict eachother are you speaking of ?
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
well the fact is that there was no "unanimous consent" amongst the fathers in many doctrines except monotheism....there were even varying interpreations of Matt 16:18-19!
LOL wow...you went with the 30000 denom argument....do you even know what that is based on??? What is the source for that stat???
prchdaword 2 years ago
The problem and fatal flaw of your argument is that you provide a view, which was almost unknown to the early church (sola scriptura), early christians, and if it was widely practiced I would like to see the quotations. I could bury this board with quotations which point to the obvious opposite conclusion if you'd like.
The burden does not lie on the Catholic Church.
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
the same could easily be said about Transubstantiation, the Marian Dogmas, Papal Infallibility and several other doctrines....
The burden lies on the person making the positive claim...so if Rome says that such teachings were always in her "tradition" she should be able to prove them.
Again, we go to Scripture....see my articles on Sola Scriptura
prchdaword 2 years ago
No, you cannot assert that your particular interpretation of scripture alone is sufficient to justify the idea that christians taught and believed what you do by using your particular interpretation of scripture.
It's like me "proving" salvation by works alone (which is ridiculous) and then referencing my view of scripture as proof.
I can easily prove to you that these practices were in fact quite common along with John the Baptist teaching infant baptism outiside of scripture as well!
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
but its not my particular view...this is the view that came out of the Reformation...read Calvin on Scripture, read the Reformed tradition on Scripture Alone.....I have not redefined it my friend.
And my point is not to prove what others believe but what should be believed...I make no case that the early fathers were "Protestant" in any sense of the word....they were what they were in their period of time. period.
prchdaword 2 years ago
How can you say that the early christian fathers believed but I do not? Are you really attempting to say that the people who learned directly from the Holy inspired mouths of the apostles, or their students, 2,000 years ago, when or shortly after Christ walked the earth do not have the same Holy insight as you today?
Do you think that just may be something that you might not want to say?
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
my point, again, is not to prove what others beleived or did not believe....my point is to prove what ought to be believed...
It is a fact that the earliest Christian communities, probably up to the near 4th century did not have or know a completed canon of SCripture. There were early Christian communities who did not know of Paul or his teachings, or of John's or James, etc...it was not until later that some of their works were spread throughout all Christendom.
prchdaword 2 years ago
I thought that they were guided by the apostles? You contradict yourself with convenience. First you state that tradition is unneeded because of the apostles, then, when I display what the apostes taught those christians you state that what they really needed was the Bible to be as informed as apparently us modern folk are.
it is a clear statement which I personally would not maintain the hubris to make.
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
ok, I'm not sure where you get that I said "tradition is unneeded".....could you tell me where I said that?
prchdaword 2 years ago
I think you missed the point. First you tell me that the early christians did not need the strict Bible alone theory of sola scriptura while the apostles were living but then when you learn that amongst the things you might agree with, they also teach the same doctrines you disregard to the early layman and women you tell me we have to "go to the scriptures".
It's like saying if I do not like the actual reality of their teachings I can just return to my comfort zone of my own interpretation.
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
ok, Sola Scriptura does not mean "strict Bible alone"....that's the big problem here is that you are defining that term incorrectly. See my video on what Sola Scriptura is not or my debates or articles on the subject.
prchdaword 2 years ago
That is your personal interpretation but why can I not utilize it in the manner in which I desire? After all, we are all free to interpret and claim Holy inspiration as we see fit.
If you choose differently, well, that's just your personal interpretation.
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
uhh.....no.
I believe that we have a RESPONSIBILITY (not freedom) to correctly interpret Scripture...to "rightly divide the word of truth"....
seriously, if you think you have the right to create strawman arguments because it is your conscience that you can beat the wind, go ahead....but if you choose to do that understand that you are willfully dodging my personal position and arguing with your own notions of what you think I believe....which really doesn't get you anywhere... =/
prchdaword 2 years ago
You act as if scripture if responsibly interpreted is somehow a simplistic task yet 30,000 denominations and literally a billion or so people's individualistic interpretations later the philosophy of sola scriptura lies in ruins by it's dried fruitlessness of fragmentation and discord.
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
1) can you demonstrate how you arrived at the number 30000.
2) what factors were taken in making the divisions of denominations?
you know that the supposedly same source that has the number or Protestant denominations (Barrett's World Christian Encyclopedia) lists as much as 233 denominations (by the same standards it applied to making Protestant denomination!!! How convenient you only post one side but not the other...see the work for yourself how the numbers were determined
prchdaword 2 years ago
The point is missed. Whether you consider something a denomination or not, it is the fragmentation and discord between doctrine which is what is important and either way it is a violation of the "one Church" Christ spoke of and established to spread the good word.
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
well when you consider that since Baptist consider themselves Congregationalist when it comes to Church polity and each Baptist Church is considered a separate "denomination" by Barrett, yet each Baptist church is united by doctrine, the supposed "divide" goes away because its based on geography and not theological concerns.
Read your source....
prchdaword 2 years ago
it actually is not my source and if you truly believe that when you walk into each baptist church you will hear the equivalent message you are laughably mistaken! The differences amplify with each individual church. A good/bad example is inner city baptist churches.
The unbelievable reinterpetation of scripture along racial lines is unique to say the least. I am a white man who primarily grew up with black people inmy environment so it has been so gravely exemplified in my youth.
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
so you're basically parroting off an erroneous argument based on misunderstood information correct?
Is it your assertion that I can talk to any number of Catholic priests and they will all say the same thing in response to set questions or hold the exact same theological and liturgical positions? I wonder if Rome demonstrates the unity that you demand of Protestants....hmmmm
prchdaword 2 years ago
I am still waiting for a list of books, contained within the Bible, as to which books are to be contained within the Bible from the protestants. I am still waiting for a list in the Bible which discriminates between "essential" beliefs and teachings and "inessential" beliefs and teachings. I am still witing for a reason the Christ apparently stressed the truth, commanded us to one, yet apparently decided fragmentation after the last apostle expired. I wonder if he thought about "inessentials"?
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
and you will get no list of books....the canon is not itself revelation it is an artifact of revelation.
Sola Scriptura is not a statement about the canon either....if you want to discuss the canon, read my papers on it and then engage those arguments and presentations
prchdaword 2 years ago
Another good example is not whether each individual church holds doctrinal agreement but the position itself of sola scriptura when enacted in a private setting.
A good example in reference again to inner city churches that I personally heard was a pastor from prayer to the Holy Spirit referencing early chapter of genesis 2:7 being a reflection of the race of early man; the race of Christ; and the "chosen race" of africans (not just black in general) and the need to repatriate to Africa.
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
obviously he is not practicing Sola Scriptura if he is bringing in race issues to an ancient text that new nothing of those issues....
prchdaword 2 years ago
A good example I have lately is whether Peter is referred to as "mountainous rock" as in Jesus' original aramaic language, or "pebble", or whether it is an expression of Peter's faith in God which is labeled as such.
All people, all reading the same text, all coming to differing conclusions which lead to fragmentation indefinitely.
It's a fork in the road in which a first the divergence is small and insignificant, yet as times goes on the roads travel further and further and further...
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
LOL...ok, lets look at this historically...Eusibius, Augustine, Jerome, John Chyrsostom, Bede, John of Damascus, Ephrem the Syrian and other said Christ was the Rock.
Ambrose, Hilary of Potiers, John Cassian, Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, Basil the Great, Pope Gregory the Great and other said that Peter's Confession/Faith was the "Rock"
And finally Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen and Firmilian interpreted Peter as the "Rock" and each in different senses.....
soo............
prchdaword 2 years ago
Which basically proves that up until that point the Church had not ruled upon it which actually proves my point while you LOL. Let me ask if they conformed to the teachings of the Church? In an official pronouncement. Just like Anthanasius, and Jerome.
First we hear that the scriptures were not needed during the apostolic times, then after the canon, you then insist upon, when confronted with contrary teachings and authority, you ask to return to your view of scripture. A circular task.
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
but the problem is that NOBODY in Church history before Vatican I in 1870 interpreted Matthew 16:18 in such a manner? Where was the "unanimous consent of the Fathers" that Trent and Vatican I said Scripture should not be interpreted against????
prchdaword 2 years ago
I am not speaking of unanimous consent. Popularity does not equal accuracy. Authority when exercised in a proper and clear manner equals accuracy. Dispute resolution does not equal popular consent as such in most protestant "denominations".
When I show you teachings of the apostles and their students there is actually a unanimous consent but because of instruction.
When something is not adressed as an official teaching it will inevitable misunderstanding.
Thus, protestantism!
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
What is a christian?
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
A Christian is a person who has been elected by God from the foundations of the world according to the good pleasure and grace of God, called by God through the Gospel, regenerated by the Holy Spirit, given the gift of faith which is then placed in the person and work of Jesus Christ alone for justification from God for their sins and then perseveres in holiness until death or the return of the Lord.
prchdaword 2 years ago
Are practicing Catholics christians?
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
Its to say that they are only because they are not relying on Jesus Christ alone for their salvation but also upon their own merit as well as the merit of the saints from the treasury of merit....they are relying on their adherence to the commandments, in their ability to show/do charitable works, to participate in the sacraments especially the man.....somewhere in there, faith in Christ alone gets smothered..."The just shall live by faith" echoed Paul from the prophet Habakkuk.
prchdaword 2 years ago
I read Athanasius 39th Festal Letter contextualized. Protestants utilize it to show that somewhere, someone, thought as they did to at least provide a modicum of validity to their belief systems I also found this:
"The very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning was preached by the apostles and preserved by the fathers. On this the Church was founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian." -Athanasius
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
So where have we departed? We believe in the Trinity...we believe Christ is the only savior and way to God....
Now, here is where it gets tricky because I'm pretty sure you want to say we dont believe certain things....again, it must be demonstrated that the earliest Christians believed things like Papal Infallibility, the Marian Dogmas, transubstantiation, etc...beginning with Scripture because those are the earliest Christians teachings and revelation from God.
prchdaword 2 years ago
The problem with this view is that you incorrectly state that the Bible contains every teaching, clearly articulated, and defined. When I show you clearly the writings of the early christians which contradict this you then revert back to your private interpretation.
Similiar to how I showed you clearly the writings of the early church on mary. It;s a circle which often ends more with you than the word of God.
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
uh...I didn't state the Bible contains "every teaching clearly articulated and defined"...I believe it contains what is sufficient to be believed unto salvation and its teaching may be deduced either explicitly or implicitly according to the analogy of faith....
seriously....drop the caricatures....it doesn't help...
prchdaword 2 years ago
I still haven't seen any evidence at all from the early christians who lived during the time of the apostles, following the apostles, prior to the canon, and following the canon.
There would have to be evidence or else it would appear that virtually ALL christians are in the same position as the Catholics in your mind.
Unless of course you believe that were essentially no true christians following Christ until 1517.
There really is no other plausible explanation.
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
I'm really not sure what this comment about not having seen any evidence is in reference too....perhaps how I'm viewing it is not connected to the comment to which you are replying to and its throwing me off....
what evidence are you asking for that is "during the time of the apostles, following the apostles, prior to the canon, and following the canon."?
prchdaword 2 years ago
It is humorous that early christians; practicing christians believed and lived within the confines of Catholic teaching and culture yet you then question their authenticity as christians!
It is a wonder to me how many of the early christians are saved within Christ right now if that is the case.
It is the equivalent of a desolate church within the woods in Virginia claiming to the authentic church of Christ because they say so.
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
Another point is there are definite differentiations involving all segements of the baptist "denomination" that you are not acknowledging. Debate over a second coming is of course huge, local control over scriptural discourse is obviously huge as well, doctrine of separation, the nature of gospel huge, King James only movement, Calvinism/Arminism, Biblical eschatology ect.
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
the same differences plague Rome....and individual Roman Catholics as well....how many Hail Mary's does it take to do penance for X sin? Doesn't that vary from priest to priest? Aren't there Catholic who do not agree with the vernacular pronunciations of Vatican II and want all Latin? What is the official Roman position on Eschatology? I have talked with Catholic who affirm the exact predestination of Augustine (Jay Dyer) yet Trent rejects the mystery of predestination?
prchdaword 2 years ago
The Church is in fact silent upon any issues. There is no contradiction there at all. I nor any Catholic I know claims that every single Catholic is led to Christ with proper guidance and prudence by Christ's bride; the Catholic Church.
For instance, there is no pronouncement regarding the acceptance of evolutionary theory. As long as at some point God infused the spirit of God, you are free to believe as you wish.
If in fact the Church did further elaborate beyond this, it is so.
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
So....how come Protestants can't have the freedom to believe as they wish as long as the fundamentals are there like you are asserting in Rome?
prchdaword 2 years ago
The problem is uou ask if I can trace the writing but you will only accept scripture as if teaching cannont be elaborated in much greated detail personally. It's like myself distributing a boxing lesson book and then showing you additional techniques in person, you testifying to such, and then another person discarding the teachings 2,000 years later because they are not in the book regardless of how many people were at the gym that day and learned first hand, and wrote about it later ect.
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
well the problem for you and your claims is that you say all these teachings came from the apostles and you have no way to trace it....the only records that we have of the apostles teachings are in the Scriptures....especially the ones that came from their hands....and they don't mention the dogmas that Rome requires to be believed unto salvation
prchdaword 2 years ago
By what authority do you claim to have as to what ought to be believed? You are saying once again that those who were taught directly by the Holy inspired instructions of the apostles, or their students have an inferior understanding and less ability to give witness to truth.
That is a tremendous burden for you to carry.
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
so its not that anybody today or later than the earliest Christians has "more insight" or a "different spirit" but there is more access to the preserved revelation of God. Keep in mind also that the Scriptures were initially illegal in the Roman provinces; the Scriptures had to be hidden and smuggled to different communities...we have today the luxury of a completed canon and the freedom of religion that was not initially available to Christians...
prchdaword 2 years ago
Listen to this, the earliest christians clearly articulate the authority of Christ, the apostolic traditions, the authority of the Church in matters of faith and morals, and then Peter's primacy, his succession to Linus, then later Clement, and you reply with "I know more than they do".
It's really amazing actually.
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
the funny thing is though that you can't trace the teaching that you say are apostolic to the apostles themselves!
Where did Peter, Paul, James, Thomas, Jude, or any other apostle teach the Marian Dogmas? Can you please point these dogmas out from Scripture?? Can you demonstrate let say, Polycarp's teaching on the Assumption of Mary???
prchdaword 2 years ago
You fail to understand that they ALL conformed to the notion of infallible authority, apostolic succession, apostolic tradition, and conformed to the teachings.
Do you want strictly scriptural references? I can provide those as well but that is a sidestep for the points I am proving.
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
I would like these teaching explicated from the words of father in the manner in which they were later defined in their dogmatic statements....since these "traditions" were alway part of the Church, it is not unreasonable to demand these clear teachings demonstrated 1) from Scripture 2) from the earliest of the Fathers.
prchdaword 2 years ago
"You alone and your mother are more beautiful than all others. For there is no blemish upon you nor stains upon your mother. Who can compare in beauty to these?" -Ephraim
"Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption." -Timothy
"And from that time all knew that the spotless and precious body had been transfered to paradise." -John
"So the Virgin became a mother...she labored without pain for a purpose
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
these do my no good without documentation.....where are these quotes from so I can research????? See the context....see what time period they wrote in, etc....
prchdaword 2 years ago
These quotes span the time period from the earliest days to 500 a.d.
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
so just provide the resources that you went to so I can check them out and research them =)
thanks
prchdaword 2 years ago
"Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported he to the regions of her assumption."-Timothy of Jersualem
"...and from that time all knew that the spotless and precious body had been transferred to paradise." -John
"So the Virgin became mother...she labored and bore the son but without pain because it had a purpose..."- Odes of Solomon
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
"Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transprted her to the regions of her assumption." Timothy of Jerusalem
"You alone and your mother are more beautiful than others for there is no blemish in you nor any stains upon your mother. Who else can compare in beauty to those?" Ephraim
"So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies...but without pain for a purpose." Odes of Solomon
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
You are now side stepping the fact that those closest to God believed far differently than you. You are disregarding the fact that sola scriptura was in fact regarded as heresy. The authority of the Church, it's sacred mission, and apostolic tradition and authority ruled out any notion of sola scriptura b/c not control but correct interpretation was needed for one Church to be in communion with truth.
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
Again, I would note Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter in which after his mention of the canon he says, "These are the springs of salvation, in order that he who is thirsty may fully refresh himself with the words contained in them. In them alone is the doctrine of piety proclaimed. Let no one add anything to them or take anything away from them... "
prchdaword 2 years ago
Well, that is exactly my point. How can you even type such a statement without seriously questioning the gamut of protestant denominations and nondenominational churches which do both with abandon.
As a matter of fact entire pillars of the protestant reformation were virtually alien to christians who laboed from the days of Christ in the quest for eternity.
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
I wouldn't say they were alien but they were already presupposed and not challenged....there are plenty of quotes from the Fathers about the practice and doctrine of using Scripture as the ultimate authority for faith and doctrines. These can be found in David King's and William Webster's work "Holy SCripture: The Ground and Pillar of our faith" (3 volume set).
prchdaword 2 years ago
Is thise an absolutely fraudulent reference to 1 Tim 3:15!?
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
read the books
prchdaword 2 years ago
I have respect for Calvin's intellect, I just disagree with some of his positions. I also have objection to sitting in a protestant church as I do not agree with everything that I hear but I can at least appreciate the zeal often. I just chose to convert to Catholicism and my faith opened up and blossomed to an entirely different spectrum and level.
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
Actually I meant to write that I have no objection to sitting in a protestant church. Sorry, typo which is why the sentence made no sense.
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
Infant Baptism: St. Polycarp who was trained directly by St. John, taught Irenaeus who spoke that Christ came to save those who are "born again in God" through Baptism, including "infants and children."
The reason being that scared tradition dictates that when entire households (1 Cor 1:16) were baptized it included both infants and servants, as well as servant's families also.
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
uhh....I'm Presbyterian so I believe in infant baptism as a sign of membership into the covenant community....
of course, we reject baptismal regeneration.
And you don't need "tradition" to tell you that "households" included infants and servants...it is implicit within the text itself and the cultural context...just part of hermeneutics my friend.
prchdaword 2 years ago
You are directly contradicting Polycarp who learned directly from John of the regeneration of infant baptism.
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
Can you demonstrate that John in fact taught regeneration comes through baptism?
Did not John teach that we are not born of God through the will of the flesh, or through the will of man (even somebody else will, in this case the parents), but of God's own will (see John 1:12-13)? Did not this John teach the sovereignty of the Spirit in regeneration in John 3:7-8 and not at the command of a sacrament ?
Could you quote Polycarp on this please and list the source?
prchdaword 2 years ago
"I had heard, sir, I (to the sheperd), that there is no repentence except that which took place when we went down into the water, and obtained the remission of our former sins. He said to me, you have heard rightly, for it is so." -Hermas
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
So that's not Polycarp right?
prchdaword 2 years ago
"Heretics bring sentence upon themselves sunce they, by their own choice withdraw from the Church, a withdrawal which, since they are aware of it, constitutes damnation. Between heresy and schism there is this difference: that heresy involves perverse doctrine, while schism involves and separates one from the Church on account of disagreement with teh Bishop. Nevertheless, there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify it's departure from the Church." - Jerome
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
funny....you'll quote Jerome there but not as rejecting the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture....interesting.
prchdaword 2 years ago
"You alone and your mother are more beautiful than all others for there is no blemish upon you nor any stains upon your mother. Who else can compare in beauty to these?"-Ephraim the Syrian
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
"And from that time all knew that the spotless and precious body had been tranferred to paradise." John
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
Sure, it is from "against heresies" by Ireneous who learned directly from St. John mentored Polycarp. Polycarp taught him.
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
Sure it is written in in Iraneus' "Against heresies" who himself was trained by Polycarp, who was directly mentored by St. John.
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
So technically you can't provide Polycarps actual teachings or what John taught him in regards to regeneration and Baptism is that correct? You can only assume that Ireneaus was explicating exactly what John did through Polycarp?
Does Ireneaus say explicitly that he learned that particularly teaching from Polycarp?
prchdaword 2 years ago
"But you are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of aith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from apostolic tradition, and frequently accursed envy has wished to unsettle it, but has not been able."-Athanasius
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
Imagine for instance, a corporation in which the president of the company has established a h.r. department, board of directors, and a ceo for the sole express purpose of correctly running the company to both his wishes and to ensure fruitfulness of the company.
Upon his death his last wish is for the company's borad of directors, ceo, h.r. department and any other regulatory office to cease functioning. What would the company look like in 10 years? This is essentially the same argument.
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
hardly the same argument...God is a sovereign God and is directing and governing all things according to his providence and eternal decree....there is never a moment in which God is not in control or God did not determine how all things would end up.
prchdaword 2 years ago
Are we to imagine Christ as doing the same?
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
I'm not sure I'm following your question here....could you expand this?
prchdaword 2 years ago
"But, beyond these sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teachings,and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the fathers kept"
"...sectaries, who have fallen away from the teaching of the Church, and made a shipwreck of their faith."
"It was for our own sake that Christ became man, taking flesh from birth through the virgin Mary, Mother of God."
"...pure and unstained, a virgin"
-Anthanasius
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
I'd need to see the larger context of such quotes to see if Athanasius taught the PERPETUAL virginity, not merely that Mary was a virgin in conception of Christ....
could you provide the source for that ?
prchdaword 2 years ago
I could look and find a quote(s) for that also. I am doing a great deal of online courses so my time is always strained.
Don't get me wrong, Jesus is the reason here so please do not misinterpret me as attempting to insult you or your beliefs. I just wanted to make that clear as it would be a disservice to Christ and his mission.
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
well I'm sure there's plenty of online resources and people who have already done the homework ;)
Of course, Catholic Scholars like Ludwig Ott pretty much admit that evidence for many of the Marian Dogmas is lacking...hence, Cardinal Newman's "Living Tradition" vs. what Trent defined as "Tradition" which was the "unanimous consent of the Fathers"....it was according to that rule that no Scripture was to be interpreted against...
prchdaword 2 years ago
The point is missed here. The earliest christians such as Anthansius, Ireneous, Polycarp, and all the others understood that both sacred tradition and scripture are an everflowing and sacred river converge into the glorious nature of Christ and his teachings. If they recognize the authority of the Church they recognize Papal pronouncements as well.
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
Can you demonstrate where they believed "Tradition" was the equivalent of revelation from God? Can you demonstrate where they explicitly stated that SCripture should be interpreted "in the sense of holy mother church" or accoridng to the "unanimous consent of the Fathers" or at least according to that given by the Magisterium or through the seat of Peter? Can you demonstrate from their writing the acceptance of Papal pronouncement as infallible? What of the Arian ascendancy and Athanasius?
prchdaword 2 years ago
"It is needful to make use of sacred tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred scripture. The Holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition." -Epiphanius
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
does Epiphanius ever identify the things handed down in tradition?
prchdaword 2 years ago
"Be it known to you, my Lord, the Simon (Peter), who, for the sake of the true faith, and most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, renamed Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the son, whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed, the called, the elect."- Clement written to James
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago
"Be it known to you, my Lord, the Simon (Peter), who, for the sake of the true faith, and most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the father revealed the son, whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, the elect." -Clement
REBEWEOJ 2 years ago