@jorgecarrillo2 actually, if you look at the source of that statistic the way it counts what is a "denomination" would reveal that "Protestantism" is not "30,000" denominations....do you know the source of that argument and statistic?
@jorgecarrillo2 enlighten....look it up yourself...you should have no problem looking up the source of your own argument...that is, unless you are just repeating stuff without knowledge. David Barrett's "World Christian Encyclopedia"....223 Roman Catholic Denominations are listed in this source which is the source of the supposed 30,000 denomination argument.....read the source and it will also reveal that over 20000 of those aren't eve Protestant
@jorgecarrillo2 well again, if you read the source a "denomination" is defined by Barrett as "any ecclesial body that retains a 'jurisdiction'...in other words, Barrett's definition is not based on differences of belief. So technically, those 223 RC denominations separate from Rome in some way jurisdictionally...now, this is an unfair distinction because it is NOT based on beliefs. Interestingly enough, Barrett does NOT separate evangelicals but treats them as a whole but breaks down Rome...
@jorgecarrillo2 ...into at least 4 major categories which are Charismatic Catholics, Christo-pagan Catholics, Evangelical Catholics, and Spiritist Catholics. He further breaks them down into "moderate Roman Catholics" "Conservative Roman CAtholics" "Traditional Roman Catholics" and even includes the "Sedavacantist" (Those who believe the Chair of Peter is currently vacant)....you're source isn't yielding the unity you want to say those who hold to Sola Scriptura don't have
Even Anglicans proclame to be Catholic church. But they aren't , Orthodox do the same claim, but they are not, To be catholic is to be in communion with the bishop of Rome, and thus to be in communion with the ful church.
any group that proclaim to be catholic and is not in communion with the bishop of Rome, is not catholic. they might be Heretical as Protestants are, or Schimatical as Orthodox and SSPX.
@jorgecarrillo2 historicallly speaking "catholic" means "universal" so when I say I am "catholic" or an Anglican says they are "catholic" (little c) they are referring to the fact that they are part of the one universal body of Christ that exists in the whole world under its diverse expressions. This is the same meaning that the early fathers had in mind when they said they were "catholic" as well. East and West did not split till the 12th century
No, Catholic means, Go To all the world Preaching the Gospel to all criatures and teaching the all what the Lord has taught us. That is te real meaning of Catholic, it is not to be holistic, it is not to give room to every independent interpretation of the Bible, No, to be Catholic is to teach the truth, What the lord has taught us.
The best way tounderstand what is the meaning of catholic, go to the street and ask for a catholic church, they will refer you to a roman church.
@jorgecarrillo2 look my friend, I'm simply quoting you the history of the usage of the word "catholic"...you are free to research the usage of the word yourself and what it meant in Church history....it has only been in more modern times that Catholic has come to be used only to mean "Roman Catholic"....do the research. All the answers are out there....FYI, Catholic priests themselves know that "catholic" means "universal" ;)
@jorgecarrillo2 I'm not arguing that it does.....universal means "universal"...if there is a church it is part of the ONE BODY of Christ in the world....so no Church is its own body...every local church and congregation is part of the larger body of Christ spread out across the world. That is what "catholic" means....universal....I'm not arguing for "holistic" so I'm not quite sure where you are getting that from
No, The only body of Christ is the one that obveis his comandments from the begining, All the others are either Heretics or Schismaticals. Paul preventes Titus from those who are not in full communion with The REal church, those who argue against the authority of Titus. and by extention to all the Authorities that share the same consecration by hands imposition.
@jorgecarrillo2 So you're saying that the body of Christ is NOT the ELECT that He has chosen from the foundation of the world to be His like the Bible teaches (Eph. 1:3-6)? Is that correct? The Bible is not true in that regards? Please help me understand your position in accordance with Scripture...
@jorgecarrillo2 well first of all Scripture does not designate any particular expression of Christianity as the elect religion to be part of. Rather, it would refute that concept even as the Jews thought they the ONLY people of God but little did they know cause they didn't pay attention to their Scriptures that God had people from the whole world....so the next question to you is to demonstrate FROM SCRIPTURE that only Roman Catholics are God's chosen?
@jorgecarrillo2 now, this is already interesting on your part because if you believe God has elected anybody you are already at odds with the Council of Trent which denied the doctrine of predestination.........kinda puts you out of bounds with your own church don't ya think?
@prchdaword no, chosen ones is the Ones that have heared the voice of the Lord, and have recognized it shepherd, thay are in the one flock that is under the care of St. Peter, Until The Lord is Back.
To be a chosen one means only that to me, to be able to recognize the voice of the Lord in his only one flock the catholic Church. You may say that you also hear his voice, but you are not in his flock because of your rejection to be obedient. and submit to the only Church of the Lord.
@prchdaword no, chosen ones are the Ones that have heared the voice of the Lord, and have recognized it shepherd, thay are in the one flock that is under the care of St. Peter, Until The Lord is Back.
To be a chosen one means only that to me, to be able to recognize the voice of the Lord in his only one flock the catholic Church. You may say that you also hear his voice, but you are not in his flock because of your rejection to be obedient. and submit to the only Church of the Lord.
@prchdaword I beleive in the Sacred Scripture that sais that God wants everybody to be saved. and for that will of god to be posible, then there should be the posibility for men to decide, because if we weren't unable to be saved, ¿How would God desire that every body can be saved? that would be a contradiction to your interpretation of the scripture.
1 Tim 2, 3 - 4
This is good and pleasing to God our savior, who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth.
@jorgecarrillo2 If you read that verse in its context, the reference to "everyone" or "all men" in other translations is a reference to categories of men...in verse 1-3 we see that Christians are commanded to pray for rulers and authorities which are classes of people and thus our prayers should extend even to them cause God wants all kinds of men to be saved. Note also, that your interpretation of the text leaves the very real possibility that the Lord's will cannot come to pass
@jorgecarrillo2 That is, If its God's will that every single individual be saved (rather than some from all categories of men) then notice that God's will is now dependent upon the will of the creature....who is really God here?
@jorgecarrillo2 in any case, there is a false comparison going on here....one needs to compare "Sola Scriptura Churches" to Rome and not merely traditionally Protestant Churches.....if you are fair enough to do that, you will find that Churches who do in fact hold to Sola Scriptura are more unified that Roman Catholic Churches my friend.
@prchdaword ¿Unity among Sola Scriptura Churches?, Are you kidding me?
¿What chuches Sola scriptura are you considering?, Even the Luterans proclame Sola scriptura. Are you speaking of Baptis alone?, Because there are black Baptist Churches, and White KKK baptist churches. ¿Westboro Baptist Church is in union with black Community churches?
@jorgecarrillo2 Do they speicifically and doctrinally profess the orthodox historical doctrine of Sola Scriptura or are they just using Scripture to justify their own personal Jesus? If the latter, they are probably not worth being called Christian much less Protestant...Baptist today hardly profess the historical doctrine as stated but are closer to a "Me and my bible and nobody else" depending on what kind of Baptist. Point being, it takes more research to know if they actually teach SS or not
as an ex catholic, studing of the bible is truth, Calvinism just means in pursuit of truth from the bible. thats why calvinists always talk from scripture.
The Church Fathers would have laughed at the reformers doctrines. You wont find a calvinist in history until the 16th century. The fathers word for word taught the 7 sacraments, apostolic succession, church authority, the authority of the pope, infused justification, a grace enabled faith working through love and so forth. The calvinist church was founded by men in the 16th century and has no more authority to interpret scripture then the mormons. Period.
@SetonsH4ll well I will point out that it has never been my argument that the early fathers were Calvinist, nor would I argue that so that is really a strawman you are attacking there. Secondly, I would like you please email me with all the documentation from early fathers "word for word" mirroring the teachings of Trent, of Vatican I and II, of teaching the assumption of Mary and the Immaculate conception especially....This should be interesting. I recently got my early father books ;)
SetonsH4ll's point was what he wrote at the end of his post: the Calvinist Church was founded in 1555 by John Calvin. Therefore, Calvinism and all of the Protestant denominations that came after the Reformation have absolutely no authority to teach and interpret Scripture, only the Catholic Church, founded in 33 by Jesus.
@singapore7773 The Bible is God-breathed by the Spirit of God and all of God's elect are privileged with the Holy Spirit, not just the Roman Church my friend. Perhaps they might not lose sleep and that is not the point...in the end, eterna life is at stake, not sleep....believing a lie over believing the truth...just remember, on judgment day, the Pope isn't gonna stand next to you...its gonna be you and Jesus Christ, and he's gonna demand an account from each of us. That is the issue
the Bible alone? too bad the pope canonized the new test. just a little speed bump in your beliefs. Rome has to interpret the bible it made. and has been interpreting for 2000yrs. without the little 1500yr absence. ...................... the PCA started by self assuming........ the early church fathers were catholic... yikes
@singapore7773 The Pope has no authority to make God's word God's word, only God has that authority and it is done by virtue of Him revealing and leaving an artifact of revelation. Eeks! Despite Rome's claim to infallibly interpret the Bible, she has NOT interpreted but a few passages. Gulp!!! The Early Fathers hardly had Rome's beliefs as defined dogmatically by Trent! Yikes! Some like Augustine even taugh predestination abhorred by Trent! Ruh ROH!!!!!
@singapore7773 In reality, there are but a few texts of the entire Bible that have been dogmatically defined by Rome. Those would include Matt 16:16-19 on the Infallibility of the Pope in 1870!!! Gee, what took them so long to "infallibly" say what it meant??? hmmmm.....The other passages concern the Eucharist especially John 6:52-58, again these are defined late in history relative in history. Other passages concern the Marian Dogmas of hte Assumption and Immaculate Conception (1854, 1950)
@singapore7773 Consider also the the infallibly pronouncement of the Canon was NOT even made until April 8, 1546 at the Council of Trent; again a late declaration of the "infallible canon".Why so late? You act as if Rome has been teaching with authority and certainty the doctrines proclaimed today back then; but this is not so. You will not find discussion of the necessity of believing the Marian Dogmas in the Earliest writings of the FAthers at all.
@singapore7773 Also, concerning some of the above mentioned text, Matthew 16:16-19 for instance, there were varying interpretation amongst the Fathers NONE of which were in a Pro-Papal sense. Some said Christ was the Rock; some Said Peter's Confession/Faith was the Rock; Other said Peter was the Rock but also in different senses BUT NEVER AS THE SOLE INFALLIBLE HEAD OF THE CHURCH!!! YOU WILL NOT FIND THAT INTERPRETATION IN THE FATHERS
@singapore7773 Now, according to The Council of Trent, "Tradition" is defined as the "Unanimous consent of the Fathers"....if this is true, then the burden of proof is certainly upon Rome to demonstrate that the Fathers unanimously interpret ALL OF SCRIPTURE in the same way and in the same sense. But even a cursory reading of the Fathers will reveal many differences....why Origen taught a "universalism" that even the Devil was gonna be saved!!!
@singapore7773 My friend, I don't say the Fathers were Roman Catholic or Protestant....they simply were who they were in the history of the Church when no such distinctions had even existed. For you to apply your own modern theology to them is to read them in an anachronistic eisegetical manner and is unbecoming of any scholarly inquiry into their works. Thanks for you inquiry =)
Your average Catholic in the world does not even believe that Jesus was and IS God himself. Catholics believe Jesus is God’s Son only, not that Jesus is the Son and God himself. Note, I did not say “A” God, but that Jesus is God himself.
I converted from Calvinizm to Catholicism. Because our Savior, Jesus Christ is with the Catholic Church. This is the truth and undeniable. If you are ouside the Catholic Chuch and denounce the Catholic faith, it is apparent that you just envy the Catholic Church. No matter how hard you try to criticize the Catholic Church, it will be the main stream of Christianity eternally as it has been since the very time of its foundation by the hand of Jesus Christ.
There are no sects or groups of Catholics: Liberal, pre-Vatican II and such. They may as well be called Protestants. That being said, I hardly believe there are any more than 25 million true and faithful Catholics worldwide lol.
well first of all, its important to state that Scripture is Scripture/God's Word NOT BY OUR AUTHORITY, but by God's. For instance, Romans was Scripture immediately when it was penned through the guidance of the Holy Spirit and did not "become" Scripture later.
What happened later was merely the recognition of Scripture by the people of God. Hence, the "authority" to recognize Scripture does not rest upon one person but upon the whole people of God as a community of believers.
@ILS73alum God determines which works are His...those writings that are "God-breathed" are Scripture according to 2 Tim. 3:16...letters and books did not become Scripture through Church councils, etc....the moment they were penned under the direction of the Holy Spirit they were by nature God's word. A human pronouncement didn't make them so. Hence, the Church and God's people RECOGNIZE God in the works and we recognize them as Scripture. But they do not become Scripture cause the Church says so
@ILS73alum Great question. Well there was no "divine table of contents" so the early Church had several "tests" to recognize the authority of God in the letters of the apostles. First, the apostles alone were commissioned with a unique authority so whatever was to be believed as Scripture must have come from an apostles or a close companion authorized by them (i.e. Mark with Peter; Luke with Paul). Secondly, the NT letter could not contradict the prior revelation about God, namely the OT.
@ILS73alum Since God is truth, and consistency is a mark of truth, the theology of the letters of the NT could not contradict the OT revelation. Hence, many writings in the early Church period were rejected because of their Gnostic theology and non-conformity to the OT. And finally, the works needed to be recognized and accepted by the people of God everywhere. This part took time because the transmission of the Scriptures was illegal at times and slow in copying. Also letters were not....
@ILS73alum produced in the same locations. Some started in Jerusalem and had to slowly spread. Others in other locations...then they had to be copied and sent to different churches so they could copy them and pass them along, etc...this was an "ordinary" process guided by God's providence. But again, these writing THE MOMENT they were penned were always Scripture; They did not start off as "non Scripture" and then became Scripture later. Consider that Rome's first INFALLIBE PRONOUNCEMENT
@ILS73alum on the canon was not given till April 8, 1546!!! Is it your position that the people of God did not know what the Word of God was UNTIL Rome said so so late in history??? Look at 2 Peter 3:16 where Peter is already calling Paul's letter to be included in the "rest of the Scriptures"! Clearly Peter had already recognized that Paul's writings were Scripture! Also in I Tim. 5:18 where Paul quote Scripture to prove his point. He quotes Deut. 25:4 AND Luke 10:7!!!!
@ILS73alum so even as early as the mid 60"s when Paul wrote I Timothy, he was already quoting Luke's Gospel AS SCRIPTURE!!! Surely there was no "ecumenical council" that was held to let the apostles know what was Scripture and what was not!!!!
@ILS73alum it was a common recognition by all the people of God, not merely its leaders....again, the universal consensus plays here. But also the origin of the work as apostolic is testimony to its truthfulness and inspiration and its consistency with prior revelation. The Church RECOGNIZES but does not MAKE the canon of Scripture. Scripture is Scripture because it is God-breathed as 2 Timothy 3:16 states and not because "the Church" says so.
@prchdaword We agree that the Church tells us which books are inspired, But which Church tells us infallibly what are the inspired books and which are the non-inspired?
@ILS73alum so before you try to "corn hole" me into saying the "Roman Catholic Church" again, I have already pointed out that canonical works were being recognized by the "catholic" church (this would include the whole Church before the EAst and WEst schism even to the apostles). The "Roman Catholic Church" did not pronounce their dogmatic statement of the canon until April 8, 1546 at the 6th session of the Council of Trent. So if you want to say Rome, then there is 1500yr gap to be dealt with.
@ILS73alum in my previous posting I listed how Peter knew that Paul's letters were already counted as Scripture and that Paul was already citing the Gospel of Luke as Scripture.....can you tell me how these works were recognized as Scripture? In your view, what ecumenical council took place that authorized them dogmatically as Scripture?
@prchdaword I am not trying to do anything, I am interested (as a Catholic) to see how you as a Calvinist, that believes in "Sola Scriptura" arrives at establishing an infallible cannon of scripture; relax, I am not here to "win arguments" just to make enquiries.
@ILS73alum well Protestant don't claim to have an "infallible canon" of Scripture...we would openly admit that we have a fallible collection of infallible books. In regards to having an infallible pronouncement on the canon, it does not do any good unless your can also guarantee that your choice to believe in Rome's authority is infallible. That is, a Catholic is a fallible person with fallible faith. So regardless of the claim for an infallible canon, it will not go further than infalible faith
@prchdaword Does that line: "A fallible collection of infallible books" make any sense to you? If we are not certain that all of the books included in the Canon belong there and are inspired, or that there are inspired books that are missing, then our rule of faith is defective. no?
@ILS73alum well you don't need to be infallible to have certainty....as individual human beings we are all fallible creatures (which is why I pointed out that you have no more certainty in believing in an infallible authority cause your choice is a fallible one itself unless you are infallible!). My certainty for the canon is not based on the Church but in the providence of God and the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church. So my faith rests in God on the matter, not the Church.
@prchdaword I think logically we are not in the same position; you said earlier that the Cannon of Scripture was determined by "the Church", but at the same time you hold that the Church is not infallible, so that the Cannon of Scripture that you have is fallible and therefore suceptible to being incomplete or even mistaken.
@ILS73alum Fallibility does mean with POSSIBILITY of mistake, but possibility is not a guarantee of actuality. Hence, I can logically assert that the Church did indeed recognize the correct books and letters that make up the Canon of Scripture as Scripture through God's providence and guidance by His Holy Spirit among all the peoples of God. Yes it is susceptible to mistakes, but susceptibility doesn't necessarily mean that one has been made.
@ILS73alum I don't believe I've said I have an "Infallible canon"....again, I have said that at best we have a fallible collection of infallible books. But I don't believe the body of Christ has erred in their recognition of Scripture in admitting the right books and rejecting the correct one based on God's providential guidance of His Church. The earliest canonical list are from 367 from Athansius' 39th Festal Letter. Jerome also followed the canon that Protestants recognize.
@ILS73alum But even in Athanasius list, there are discrepancies between his list and Jerome's by 1 book I believe (Baruch). The lists established at Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 are also different from the canon laid out by Rome in the Council of Trent (3 Esdras is missing). Rome, technically did not Dogmatically establish her canon until 1546. There were, actually, still debates about the validity of some books like Revelation, 2 Peter, James, Hebrews and other because of authorship issues
@ILS73alum So theologically speaking, the canon was established with the writing of the last book of the NT which is in the late first century. Historically, it took time for all the letters to be copied and spread throughout all the Christian Church especially in light of the persecution they were under for the first 300 years of the Church. The Couldn't email the letters...a copying transmission PROCESS had to take place to spread God's word so all could have all the NT documents.
@ILS73alum so historically, when the the Church establish the canon that I follow? The earliest list I can point to is Athanasius in 367 AD followed by Jerome in the late 4th and early 5th century. Jerome's endeavor was actually at the request of Pope Damasus at the Council of Rome (381 AD I believe) and the canon he brought back was the product of his studies in Jerusalem findout out that the Deuterocanonical works were never accept by the Jews as God's word in the Old Covenant.
@prchdaword So you follow the Canon of St. Jerome; how do you square this with your affirmation that it was the Church that established the cannon? St. Jerome's Cannon does not appear to be followed by many in his time or latter; when was his Cannon made official by the Church? Why not the Carthaginian cannon? At least you have a large number of bishops representing the Church in Africa voting for this Cannon.
@ILS73alum Jerome's canon was not made "dogmatic" and I wouldn't argue for that....Hippo and Carthage were provincial councils, not ecumenical ones that spoke for the whole Church....now, I have also already pointed out, there is a discrepancy between the canons of Carthage and Hippo with the one of rome today in that 3 Esdras is missing from todays but was included in ones of Hippo and Carthage.
@ILS73alum Augustine rejected Jerome's canon because it rejected the Deuterocanonicals that were included in the Septuagint (LXX). Augustine erroneously concluded that since they were all in the same book (they were included as useful writings because it was expensive to make books and hence a sepate volume would have been more expensive) that they were part of the Jewish canon. Jerome, through research, conluded otherwise.
@ILS73alum Augustine, being a much larger figure in the Church at the time basically "won" by his authority, but not through research which Jerome was able to do himself being trained by the Jews in Hebrew in Jerusalem. Admittingly, Augustine knew nothing of the Hebrew tongue being trained in the Greek, which explains why he made use of the LXX
@prchdaword earlier you stated: "it was a common recognition by all the people of God, not merely its leaders....again, the universal consensus plays here. But also the origin of the work as apostolic is testimony to its truthfulness and inspiration and its consistency with prior revelation. The Church RECOGNIZES but does not MAKE the canon of Scripture." What I am asking is when did the cannon of St. Jerome attain "universal consensus" and when did The Church "recognize(s)" ?
@ILS73alum Jerome's canon was a recognition, as was Athanasius's....they were not "ecumenicalized" if you want to put it that way, but neither was Augustine's being that Hippo and Carthage were local councils, and not ecumenicals ones. The main books in question were the Deuterocanonicals....Rome did not infallibly accept these as Scripture until April 8, 1546. But again, theologically speaking, the recognition does not make a book canonical either...by its own nature it stands as God's word.
@prchdaword We agree completely that a book is inspired when it is written, and Rome does not claim to make a book inspired by its reconition, Rome does however claim to have the authority to infallibly pronounce what books are inspired and which ones are not, ei, to determine "canonicity"; otherwise how can we determine which books are or are not?
Thank you for your patience in answering my questions.
@ILS73alum Curious, but what is the mechanism by which Rome infallibly recognizes the canon of Scripture? Also, if it is true that Rome's pronouncement does not make a book Scripture, then really what does the recognition do? Can you legitimately use the term "determine" in any sense of causality if the nature of the writings from God is what determines canonicity? Historically, 3 test were employed for the NT....the infallibility of the canon rest on the fallibility or infallibity of these
@prchdaword A. q.1: The Charism of Infallibility given to the Church by Our Lord. A.q.2: To determine that this book was indeed written by (for example) St. Peter, and it does belong in the cannon of Scripture. A.q. 3. Again who determines that it is from God? Ultimately the Church; see test #3. The test are not infallible, or else orthodox Churchmen would not have differed on the contents of the canon.
@ILS73alum Now obviously, the dispute is not the NT for Catholics and Protestant alike agree on the writings of the NT....the only books in questions are the Deuterocanonicals of the OT....Protestants argue that since God revealed his truth to Israel in the OT, they would know the "oracles of God" (cf. Rom. 3:2) as they were given to them. So did God's Covenant people of the OT count the Deuteros as canonical? The historical answer is no. This is what Jerome discovered when he went to Jerusalem
@prchdaword The 'historical answer" is not at all "no"; the Seventy and the Jews that lived in Alexandria and outside of Palestine accepted the Deutero canonicals; The Evangelist and St. Paul also quoted from the Septuagint, this is at least an implicit acceptance of the canonical nature of the books it contained. Also if the Apostles had rejected them as apocryphal, then why didn't their disciples transmit this teaching? Finally your test #3. Shows that a greater part of the Church accepted.
@ILS73alum to study Hebrew amongst the Jews. Deuteros were historical and some romantic Jewish literature and wisdom, but they were never counted as the "oracles of God". The Jewish Canon originally was 22 books (now 39 through dividing them in various ways) and was divided into parts known as "the Law, the Psalms and the Prophets" sometimes simply called "the Law and the Prophets". In the NT, these are the writings that we find affirmed as Scripture and authorative (cf.Matt11:13; Luke24:44 etc
@prchdaword according to the Catholic Encyclopedia,in the three fold division of the Jewish bible, the category of 'writtings'' included the books not comprised by "the law'" or "the prophets", such as Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Canticle etc. even to this day.
Also that according to the Babylonian Talmud, parts of the Palestinian Bible (Esther, Ecclesiastes, Canticle) were disputed by some Rabbis as late as the 2nd c. A.D.; (Mishna, Yadaim, III, 5; Megilla, fol.7
@prchdaword: You don't really think that the earliest listing of the scriptures is by Athanasius do you? I do wish people who have no understanding of the Early Church Fathers wouldn't reference them. I was recently in discussion w/ a Mormon "apologist" re: the ECF. Yeach! He was trying to Shanghai Athanasius too. How sad it must be for this faithful bishop of Alexandria to be abused this way. St. Augustine wasn't a Calvinist, neither was Athanasius.
@ILS73alum I've addressed it several time, but you keep pushing for an infallible church to make an infallible pronouncement for the canon, but how do you get beyond your own individual fallibility and the fallible choice that you have to make to choose to fallibly believe in an infallible Church? Do you believe that you are still on sure grounds without having to view yourself or at the very least, your own choice, as infallible? Or is your choice fallible?
@ILS73alum Now, it does not necessarily follow that if there are missing books that our rule of faith is "defective". That would mean that nothing in the canon today is true. None of the truth revealed in any of the God-breathed writings was like that. One would not argue that the OT was "defective" because the NT wasn't around...or even when the NT was being written, one wouldn't argue that "Matthew" was defective until Revelation was written. There is no logical sense to that.
@prchdaword The Old Testament is defective in that revelation is not complete; many things that Our Lord revealed to us when He came on Earth had not been disclossed to the Jews. "Sola Scriptura" holds that the totallity of revelation is contained in Sacred Scripture and nowere else; the consequence of not having a complete collection of all the inspired books would be to not to be in the possesion of all of revelation. I believe this is a logical argument.
@ILS73alum First, its obvious we are equivocating "defective"...sure it is not the "complete" revelation but it was not defective in that what was in the OT was negated UNTIL the NT. Surely what was revealed was true and authorative even as Moses' works were as soon as they were penned and not waiting for the fulness of revelation till they were authorative. No one is denything the progress of revelation that peaked in Jesus Christ.
@ILS73alum Secondly, your definition of Sola Scriptura is false. Sola Scriptura is a statement about the unique nature and authority of Scripture and its sufficiency to address matters to which it speaks. It does not teach that "all revelation" is contained in Scripture. Sola Scriptura does not deny that God's word was even in oral form. Rather it answers the question: "Where is God's word preserved for us today?". We say along with Scripture that it is in Scripture and that alone.
@prchdaword You state that my definition is false and I can accept that; but I do not see how your definition is different from mine, in the end: "God's word is preserved in Scripture and that alone", seems to say the same thing; maybe you can clarify.
@ILS73alum just seeing this question.....in other words, in Rome's view God's word is found in 2 places: Oral Tradition and Holy Scripture. According to Protestants, God's word today is only found in Holy Scripture.
Regarding 8.36, this is what the Magisterium states:
Can 17, Council of Trent, Session VI,13/1/1547 under Pope Paul III:
If anyone says that the grace of justification is shared by those only who are predestined to life, but that all others who are called are called indeed but receive not grace, as if they are by divine power predestined to evil, let him be anathema".
Catholic have another concept of predestination.
"Roma locuta, causa finita" (Rome has spoken, the matter is ended).
- As long as someone submits himself and his works to the Church he's not anathema. He just brought fw his private interpretation on a issue that AT THAT time could be debated.
His doctrine was developed BEFORE the council of Trent.
- if he did this after the Council, to be anathema it must be made sure the teachings DELIBERATELY and with full knowledge go against the Magisterium in a tribunal. I'm not sure of this.
So when a Protestant teaches what Augustine believed in regards to predestination, even though it is within the teaching tradition of the Catholic Church, it is anathema?
What of a movement within Rome today that accepts Augustines view of predestination? (again, I was informed of this by a person who was exploring Rome after leaving the Reformed tradition because there was a sect that held to predestination as defined by Augustine)?
To answer your question, I should carefully study Augustine's (and Calvin) views on predestination, see if they contrast the magisterium and why, explain well what is anathema, how and if it applies to protestants. The space here is very limited, therefore it's inappropriate in my opinion to give a short answer that could mislead the readers. I will answer you privately in a day.
@prchdaword You should read a bit more of the predestination of Augustine. And that predestination is reproduced in Summa Theologica.
Predestination as DOUBLE PREDESTINATION is a satanic doctrine, making God look unfair, since we are not guilty of ourselves, as Scriptures states, but because of Him. Is God evil, thus?
@pedrohqb barely reading this....Double predestination in the ASYMMETRICAL sense is not evil, Double Predestination in the SYMMETRICAL sense surely would render God as authoring Evil.
There are still some issues debated in the Roman Catholic Ch, but when the Magisterium issues an official teaching to which we give full assent of faith, the debate will be over (ie Purgatory, Council of Trent). There are also other teachings of the Magisterium that require Religious submission of intellect and will (an example is priesthood for women).
Until a teaching of the Magisterium is issued, discussions are open.
Disagreeing with a teaching of the Magisterium is a mortal sin.
the source for the OT canon is the fact of inspiration itself. Again, I believe that the books of the Bible were Scripture the moment they were written down under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I believe men came to recognize them in different historical ways, but clearly the works of Moses were recieved as covenant documents and Scripture immediately without consultation,etc...I do not believe Jamnia "settled" the OT canon at but reaffirmed the canonicity of the Song of Solomon and another...
Exactly, men came to recognize them in different historical ways! Goodness. Why there's such a fuss about the Church recognizing the canon through a decree I'll never know. The Tradition of the Jews gave them their canon :) In the same way, the Apostolic Tradition gave us our Bible.
who said it created the canon? the ecumenical councils, notably trent in this case, formalized the canon. But it is by Apostolic Tradition that we know which books are theopneustos. Oh, and it took a while too because there were many OT books that were missing from early canons, and other books that were added to the NT - so the Church took time to learn which should be in the canon.
so at the very least you will admit that there is a "theological canon" that exist apart from any apostolic tradition/historical regognition but exist simply by God's act of inspiriation and then a "historical canon" that included the process of recognizing the "theological canon".....would that at least be accurate?
the "theological canon" cannot exist without the apostolic tradition, because our very canon IS PART of the AP. Every God-breathed word was given to the Church's Leaders: the first being the Apostles, which Authority they gave to their Successors up until this day. The very God-breathed word is Apostolic Tradition, which the Apostles equated with Scripture, and therefore it became Scripture. All Scripture and Tradition is known in heaven, but was revealed over time in the Church. We agree here.
mmmm...but the text says that the Scripture, the graphe, - not the kerygma or the paradosis - is God-breathed.
If it is part of the AP, as you suggest, then that also suggest that the authors of Scripture were fully conscious that they were writing Scripture and not merely letters...would you go that far in your stance? If so, how is it that books from apostes were questioned early on like Jude, 2 Peter, the epistle of John and REvelation, James, Hebrews?
And the same text says the Holy Spirit guide the teaching authorities of the Church, making them infallible :) Whether the authors knew or not they were writing Scripture doesnt truly matter here, at least not for Rome and Antioch :) - As Ive said before, the Church took time in learning what books consisted of the canon. This is AP - because the Tradition is carried on from the Successors of the Apostles, who are in every sense Apostolic.
I agree that the HOly Spirit guides the teaching authorities and would add that He using Scripture in maintaining her doctrinal purity. I also agree that the Church took her time identifying the canonical writings and had several "tests" that Eusebius mentions, one of them being Apostolic Origin (which is why they had a rough times with the above mentioned books because their authorship was not clear).
Scripture identifies apostles as those who have seen the risen Christ...not their succ.
The Holy Spirit is not bound to Scripture alone to maintain doctrinal purity - the early church understood this. Though He did and does use Scripture, He also uses AT, the orally transmitted Word from the Apostles and their Successors. No one said the Successors are Apostles, but rather are Apostolic. The Catholic-Orthodox Churches are the only ones built on the Apostles, visibly and invisbly, while Protestant and the cults lean only on the 'invisible', since they have no succession.
but the problem is that we can't identify a single word that they spoke outside of Scripture!!
To my knowledge, the Catholic Church has not identified any words of Jesus that are not in the Bible alone. The CAtholic Church has not identified any words of the apostles outside of Scripture either. This is the problem and also how false teaching crept in..."well an apostle said this, see this book bears his name!!!" and there was Gnosticism.
Awesome! Glad to hear you admit that prayers to the saints, maryology, the papacy, veneration of icons, found in Scripture if only implicitly, because that is most certainly what is found in the holy fathers and the ecumenical councils. I'm sorry but we have numerous quotes from the fathers that speak of what the apostles said and did. Gnostism failed because they had no apostolic succession....
LOL...not sure that I admitted prayer to the saints or mariology at all as I explicitly reject those things as not even contained in Scripture implicitly.
Now, I am not arguing that the early fathers were "Protestants" either...they were who they were in their times and thats it. I think they were wrong on many things and right on others. I also think there are some topics that they didn't think through for varying circumstances like salvation and the fact that they were being persecuted.
Then we do indeed identify more than a single word that they spoke outside of Scripture :) See, lol, im sorry but i see this all the time with every Protestant....you cant take the holy fathers as a whole. I can. I gladly can. Kelly and other patristic scholars say the evidence is on my side. Rather than saying "they were in their times" I say "They are the fathers of the Holy Catholic Church." Rome and Antioch have more than one witness to substantiate their bold assertions.
But even then, if you take them "as a whole" a teaching like Universal salvation is to be included as part of the apostolic tradition since Origen believed that all will be saved. Likewise, there are varying canons - including the Protestant list within the apostolic tradition. Wouldn't it be perfectly logical to say then that the canon we follow - since it can be found with the fathers (like Jerome) to be part of the "Tradition"? Augustine's predestination and view of grace?
Not at all because Origen was universally regarded as not technically being in doctrinal error, but philosophical error. The canon of Scripture is testifed by the Ecumenical Councils to be as the same Roman canon today. This is Tradition :) Augustine often used hyperbole, oh and he adhered to Rome and said he wouldnt believe the Gospels unless it were for the Catholic Church :) Jerome submited to the Church and included the 7 books. The Protestant canon today cannot be considered part of the AT.
"doctrinal" vs. "philosophical" error is merely rhetorical way of getting around things...clever.
Actually, and Gary Michuta has acknowledged this, the canons of Trent and those of Hippo and Carthage are different in 3 Esdras I believe...
What does Hyperbole have to do with his clear belief in predestination?
Augustine accepted the Deuterocanonicals because he didn't know any better as they were included in the LXX as a matter of convenience, not canonicity
Nope. The philosophical error Origen held didn't tie in too much with his doctrine. Even if it did, as I specifically said before, it is universally accepted that either way he was in error. Hippo and Carthage are not Ecumenical Councils :) but merely witnesses to the fact the Catholic/Orthodox canon is the traditional one. Augustine was a Catholic, so why you even try to use him for predestination (which is clearly NOT in Scripture, but his own hyperbole) is beyond me.
That is interesting that you say that Hippo and Carthage were not Ecumenical. There are quite a few Catholics on YouTube and Apologist who would disagree with you there.
Again, the Fathers were who they were...their theological development is useful for future ages but they are not infallible. I think, personally, that given enough time, Augustine would have worked out of sacramentalism as he became more consistent with his teaching on grace and predestination. Luther and Calvin followed...
Then those Catholics (like 99.9% of Protestants) really need to do their history :) Protestants frequentally misunderstand the very reason Carthage and Hippo are even used in discussions concerning the canon. I'm sure you will follow history and say these are provincial councils, not Ecumenical. Totally disagree on your take of the holy fathers. Again, as a Protestant you must make that assertion. Antioch has no worries, neither does Rome because we follow suit.
I totally agree that they were provincial councils...but tell that to the majority of CAtholic apologist and even lay Catholics who believe otherwise. I think they do so because historically then, the Protestant defined their canon before Rome (1546) so they play the Carthage and Hippo cards, and some even point to the Council of Rome under Damasus
As witnesses to the fact the early church accepted the deuterocanonical books as Scripture. And because Protestants look to Hippo and Carthage for the settlement of the NT canon. At least, thats what Protestant apologists tell me :)
curious, but which Protestant apologist? I could see them saying that, but the facts are too that several books of the NT were not readily accepted even up to the time of Reformation...even Luther did not think James was "gospel" enough to be part of the canon. Other books still contended till the Reformation were Revelation, Jude, 2 Peter and even Hebrews because of authorship issues.
But there are fathers also who clearly did not accept the Deuteros like Athanasius, Jerome and others...
Erwin Lutzer as one example. In other words, we need the Ecumencial Council to make the decree :) Jerome cited them as Scripture, and though he didnt see them as OT, he used them as authoritative and submitted to the Roman Bishop. Athanasius also didnt accept Esther as Scripture.
well shame on Erwin Lutzer!! LOL Yes, Jerome quotes them as authorative but not as Scripture; I think Athanasius also accepted Baruch as Scripture if I remember correctly....
lol, right. You're the first Protestant to acknowledge Athansius' acceptance of Baruch. See the holy fathers are witnesses to the canon - the ecumenical councils formally ratify the known tradition.
I actually have several works regarding the canon that I have written partinly in response to The Da Vinci Code and to the Gospel of Judas that might give you an idea of where I"m coming from...if you have time, look at my website under "Seminars" and you should see some presentations that I did regarding the historical formation of the canon
Sure I'd love to. It'll be over a period of time since I'm doing other studies too, one right now on the 4 gospels (have a mid-exam in 2 days). Looking fwd to see in detail where you're coming from regarding the canon :)
...but all the words of the apostles not mentioned in Scripture were believed by the early church because they were retained in the apostolic church by succession. Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Cyprian too I believe are but 3 of the holy fathers that quite explicitly reveal this in their writings. When the Gnostics said "An apostle said this..." the Church did not believe them because the Gnostics had no succession of bishops from the apostles themselves.
but not only that, the Fathers when to the Scriptures!! Curious, but could you identify verbatum what Paul said about the Trinity, let say, that is not recorded in Scripture?
And they also looked to 1) the oral words of the Apostles, and/or 2) earlier Fathers :) I cant show you something Paul said on the Trinity, but I can show you his actions in Rome with Peter, and for example their dispute with Simon Magnus.
but where are those "oral words" now? Again, if you can't quote them verbatum, how have they been preserved? Did the apostle Paul teach the immaculate conception? Did they teach the Assumption of Mary?
Those oral words are contained in the writings of the holy fathers :) No Apostle taught original sin, and hence could not teach the Immaculate Conception. But the Apostles as a whole, and their disciples, St. Luke for instance, shows us how the OT has types of Mariology which are fulfilled in the NT, including her all-holiness and her assumption.
but "types" are expliclity fulfilled in the NT somewhere...that is actually how we recognize that they are types and shadows.
Umm...surely the apostles were familiar with the OT and even Paul's summation of humanity in sin in Rom 3:10-18 (which would include Mary) demonstrates that they understood clearly the plight that humanity was in and their need for redemption.
Paul's summaration of humanity is understood of persons who have knowledge of their sin. Babies are mankind, yet they cannot sin, for instance, neither can they mentally ill. These are excepted. St. Luke's parallel of Mary to the OT Ark of the Covenant, along with the holy fathers' commentaries on the subject show from earliest times the all-holiness of Mary in ancient Christendom. Rome and Antioch alone retain this historical teaching.
sure babies don't sin physically, but they do have the taint of sin in them, or the seed of sin that develops naturally in them as they grow. We don't have to teach our kids how to lie ;)
Luke doesn't even imply a parallel to the Ark...Jesus was not the condemning law. This is clearly not according to the historical-grammatical method of interpretation but is clearly allegorical and not warranted as allegory by Luke himself.
I agree about babies :) That's why we entrust them into God's care if they die without baptism. And as for St. Luke's parallel....wow, the holy fathers would disagree with you. The ancient usage of parallel the writers used was common in the day....and this is seen quite clearly with Mary in the Bible. Rome, Antioch, even England, stand firm here. I'll take their early view as opposed to modern-day Protestantism.
That's ok if the Early Fathers disagree with me...I think they have no historical-grammatical grounds that Luke intended any such parallel. Such is clearly an allegorical interpretation....correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say that the historical-grammatical way was the most accurate and that "heretics" appeal to allegory to make stuff fit???
And I think you're incorrect :) respectfully of course. Why such allegorical interpretation I wonder....ah, compare with the allegory between Messiah and the Passover lamb. And yes you must be corrected because I never said heretics appeal to allegory to make things fit. I said they must diregard all history and Tradition and substitute their unique allegorical views though. And "later" doesnt make it true either :) Early makes it reliable =D
but the difference is that SCripture itself explicitly makes the connection between the passover lamb and Jesus. "Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world..." Nobody looked at Mary and said, "behold the ark of God...." And the lamb-Christ understanding is not "allegorical" but a type/shadow that is explicitly created in Scripture, especially in Hebrews.
Here you go again with the "it must have explicit wording for it to be true" - just because the exact wording is not there makes it no less true - the concept is too clear to be denied. Thats the trouble with looking at ancient eastern texts with a modern western mindset. The parallel of the very language itself is enog to make it clear........
Its only "too clear" because you are already starting with the concept and eisegeting it into the text! I'm sorry but the connection you are making is a forced one upon the text and all of Scripture...
why do you keep thinking I'm "modern"? I'm aware of the "hermeneutical gap" and the cultural barrier that exists and do my work to get beyond that my friend...
During the Reformation, the Protestant doctrines were the modern heresies of the day. To you, thats orthodoxy...Protestant orthodoxy yes, but not Christian orthodoxy. Obviouslly I dont see Protestantism as true Christianity, rather a heretical movement with Catholic undertones, however the individual Protestant may be a Christian certainly, albeit in error. Seeing as how Protestantism drifts from historical Christendom in various ways, it can be labeled "modern" or "liberal" perhaps....
Curious, but how do you reconcile your current belief about Protestants with what Vatican 2 teaches about Protestants as "separated brethren" and not as "heretics" anymore?
Quite easily. V2 spoke of individual persons - not the religious systems. Bishop Sheen and others of his day, and even before, spoke on the same issue, so this isnt a unique V2 teaching. Protestantism was, is, and always will be heretical. Protestant individuals may rightly be called Christian because of your baptism and belief in the Triune God and Merits of Christ. You are of course Christians ill-informed, in doctrinal error, in innocent ignorance for the lack of a better expression.
Seeing as how no one can read anyone else's hearts, I can only guess about what prevents you from entering the Catholic Church, i.e., the facts made available to you are incomplete, a modern mind set, or whatever. As Catholics it is our mission to Protestants to bring them back into the Fold.
Oh for goodness sakes, lol, if that was said with all seriousness then there's a multitude of errors. Majority of Protestant scholars know the Roman Church is not the Whore. In fact, if the Pope is Antichrist, why has not the Rapture occurred? Or, if you dont believe the Rapture, why havent the Witnesses appeared? Where are the plagues that will come when he is revealed?
scriptures alone have lead protestantism to 30,000 different churches.
jorgecarrillo2 1 year ago
@jorgecarrillo2 actually, if you look at the source of that statistic the way it counts what is a "denomination" would reveal that "Protestantism" is not "30,000" denominations....do you know the source of that argument and statistic?
prchdaword 1 year ago
@jorgecarrillo2 have you seen what that same source says about how many "factions" there are in Roman Catholicism?
prchdaword 1 year ago
@prchdaword inlight me please
jorgecarrillo2 1 year ago
@jorgecarrillo2 enlighten....look it up yourself...you should have no problem looking up the source of your own argument...that is, unless you are just repeating stuff without knowledge. David Barrett's "World Christian Encyclopedia"....223 Roman Catholic Denominations are listed in this source which is the source of the supposed 30,000 denomination argument.....read the source and it will also reveal that over 20000 of those aren't eve Protestant
prchdaword 1 year ago
@prchdaword Ok, so there are 10,000 denominations, So, which is the true?
at least you know that the 223 so called "Catholic" denominations must be in communion with Rome to be really and fully catholics. ¿Are they?
jorgecarrillo2 1 year ago
@jorgecarrillo2 well again, if you read the source a "denomination" is defined by Barrett as "any ecclesial body that retains a 'jurisdiction'...in other words, Barrett's definition is not based on differences of belief. So technically, those 223 RC denominations separate from Rome in some way jurisdictionally...now, this is an unfair distinction because it is NOT based on beliefs. Interestingly enough, Barrett does NOT separate evangelicals but treats them as a whole but breaks down Rome...
prchdaword 1 year ago
@jorgecarrillo2 ...into at least 4 major categories which are Charismatic Catholics, Christo-pagan Catholics, Evangelical Catholics, and Spiritist Catholics. He further breaks them down into "moderate Roman Catholics" "Conservative Roman CAtholics" "Traditional Roman Catholics" and even includes the "Sedavacantist" (Those who believe the Chair of Peter is currently vacant)....you're source isn't yielding the unity you want to say those who hold to Sola Scriptura don't have
prchdaword 1 year ago
@prchdaword
Even Anglicans proclame to be Catholic church. But they aren't , Orthodox do the same claim, but they are not, To be catholic is to be in communion with the bishop of Rome, and thus to be in communion with the ful church.
any group that proclaim to be catholic and is not in communion with the bishop of Rome, is not catholic. they might be Heretical as Protestants are, or Schimatical as Orthodox and SSPX.
jorgecarrillo2 1 year ago
@jorgecarrillo2 historicallly speaking "catholic" means "universal" so when I say I am "catholic" or an Anglican says they are "catholic" (little c) they are referring to the fact that they are part of the one universal body of Christ that exists in the whole world under its diverse expressions. This is the same meaning that the early fathers had in mind when they said they were "catholic" as well. East and West did not split till the 12th century
prchdaword 1 year ago
@prchdaword
No, Catholic means, Go To all the world Preaching the Gospel to all criatures and teaching the all what the Lord has taught us. That is te real meaning of Catholic, it is not to be holistic, it is not to give room to every independent interpretation of the Bible, No, to be Catholic is to teach the truth, What the lord has taught us.
The best way tounderstand what is the meaning of catholic, go to the street and ask for a catholic church, they will refer you to a roman church.
jorgecarrillo2 1 year ago
@jorgecarrillo2 look my friend, I'm simply quoting you the history of the usage of the word "catholic"...you are free to research the usage of the word yourself and what it meant in Church history....it has only been in more modern times that Catholic has come to be used only to mean "Roman Catholic"....do the research. All the answers are out there....FYI, Catholic priests themselves know that "catholic" means "universal" ;)
prchdaword 1 year ago
@prchdaword
Universal doesn´t mean Holistic.
jorgecarrillo2 1 year ago
@jorgecarrillo2 I'm not arguing that it does.....universal means "universal"...if there is a church it is part of the ONE BODY of Christ in the world....so no Church is its own body...every local church and congregation is part of the larger body of Christ spread out across the world. That is what "catholic" means....universal....I'm not arguing for "holistic" so I'm not quite sure where you are getting that from
prchdaword 1 year ago
@prchdaword
No, The only body of Christ is the one that obveis his comandments from the begining, All the others are either Heretics or Schismaticals. Paul preventes Titus from those who are not in full communion with The REal church, those who argue against the authority of Titus. and by extention to all the Authorities that share the same consecration by hands imposition.
jorgecarrillo2 1 year ago
@jorgecarrillo2 So you're saying that the body of Christ is NOT the ELECT that He has chosen from the foundation of the world to be His like the Bible teaches (Eph. 1:3-6)? Is that correct? The Bible is not true in that regards? Please help me understand your position in accordance with Scripture...
prchdaword 1 year ago
@prchdaword What is the difference from what I jhust said?, Catholics are the chosen ones, that is all.
jorgecarrillo2 1 year ago
@jorgecarrillo2 well first of all Scripture does not designate any particular expression of Christianity as the elect religion to be part of. Rather, it would refute that concept even as the Jews thought they the ONLY people of God but little did they know cause they didn't pay attention to their Scriptures that God had people from the whole world....so the next question to you is to demonstrate FROM SCRIPTURE that only Roman Catholics are God's chosen?
prchdaword 1 year ago
@jorgecarrillo2 now, this is already interesting on your part because if you believe God has elected anybody you are already at odds with the Council of Trent which denied the doctrine of predestination.........kinda puts you out of bounds with your own church don't ya think?
prchdaword 1 year ago
@prchdaword no, chosen ones is the Ones that have heared the voice of the Lord, and have recognized it shepherd, thay are in the one flock that is under the care of St. Peter, Until The Lord is Back.
To be a chosen one means only that to me, to be able to recognize the voice of the Lord in his only one flock the catholic Church. You may say that you also hear his voice, but you are not in his flock because of your rejection to be obedient. and submit to the only Church of the Lord.
jorgecarrillo2 1 year ago
@prchdaword no, chosen ones are the Ones that have heared the voice of the Lord, and have recognized it shepherd, thay are in the one flock that is under the care of St. Peter, Until The Lord is Back.
To be a chosen one means only that to me, to be able to recognize the voice of the Lord in his only one flock the catholic Church. You may say that you also hear his voice, but you are not in his flock because of your rejection to be obedient. and submit to the only Church of the Lord.
jorgecarrillo2 1 year ago
@jorgecarrillo2 So you don't believe Scripture when it says that the "elect" are those "chosen from the foundation of the world"? Is that correct?
prchdaword 1 year ago
@prchdaword I beleive in the Sacred Scripture that sais that God wants everybody to be saved. and for that will of god to be posible, then there should be the posibility for men to decide, because if we weren't unable to be saved, ¿How would God desire that every body can be saved? that would be a contradiction to your interpretation of the scripture.
1 Tim 2, 3 - 4
This is good and pleasing to God our savior, who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth.
jorgecarrillo2 1 year ago
@jorgecarrillo2 If you read that verse in its context, the reference to "everyone" or "all men" in other translations is a reference to categories of men...in verse 1-3 we see that Christians are commanded to pray for rulers and authorities which are classes of people and thus our prayers should extend even to them cause God wants all kinds of men to be saved. Note also, that your interpretation of the text leaves the very real possibility that the Lord's will cannot come to pass
prchdaword 1 year ago
@jorgecarrillo2 That is, If its God's will that every single individual be saved (rather than some from all categories of men) then notice that God's will is now dependent upon the will of the creature....who is really God here?
prchdaword 1 year ago
@jorgecarrillo2 in any case, there is a false comparison going on here....one needs to compare "Sola Scriptura Churches" to Rome and not merely traditionally Protestant Churches.....if you are fair enough to do that, you will find that Churches who do in fact hold to Sola Scriptura are more unified that Roman Catholic Churches my friend.
prchdaword 1 year ago
@prchdaword ¿Unity among Sola Scriptura Churches?, Are you kidding me?
¿What chuches Sola scriptura are you considering?, Even the Luterans proclame Sola scriptura. Are you speaking of Baptis alone?, Because there are black Baptist Churches, and White KKK baptist churches. ¿Westboro Baptist Church is in union with black Community churches?
jorgecarrillo2 1 year ago
@jorgecarrillo2 Do they speicifically and doctrinally profess the orthodox historical doctrine of Sola Scriptura or are they just using Scripture to justify their own personal Jesus? If the latter, they are probably not worth being called Christian much less Protestant...Baptist today hardly profess the historical doctrine as stated but are closer to a "Me and my bible and nobody else" depending on what kind of Baptist. Point being, it takes more research to know if they actually teach SS or not
prchdaword 1 year ago
as an ex catholic, studing of the bible is truth, Calvinism just means in pursuit of truth from the bible. thats why calvinists always talk from scripture.
philip2260 1 year ago
@philip2260 =)
prchdaword 1 year ago
The Church Fathers would have laughed at the reformers doctrines. You wont find a calvinist in history until the 16th century. The fathers word for word taught the 7 sacraments, apostolic succession, church authority, the authority of the pope, infused justification, a grace enabled faith working through love and so forth. The calvinist church was founded by men in the 16th century and has no more authority to interpret scripture then the mormons. Period.
SetonsH4ll 1 year ago
@SetonsH4ll well I will point out that it has never been my argument that the early fathers were Calvinist, nor would I argue that so that is really a strawman you are attacking there. Secondly, I would like you please email me with all the documentation from early fathers "word for word" mirroring the teachings of Trent, of Vatican I and II, of teaching the assumption of Mary and the Immaculate conception especially....This should be interesting. I recently got my early father books ;)
prchdaword 1 year ago
SetonsH4ll's point was what he wrote at the end of his post: the Calvinist Church was founded in 1555 by John Calvin. Therefore, Calvinism and all of the Protestant denominations that came after the Reformation have absolutely no authority to teach and interpret Scripture, only the Catholic Church, founded in 33 by Jesus.
cci15 1 year ago
ROME is guided by the Holy Spirit, and rome has its own way of doing things. they will not b losing sleep over someone elses interpretation.
singapore7773 1 year ago
@singapore7773 The Bible is God-breathed by the Spirit of God and all of God's elect are privileged with the Holy Spirit, not just the Roman Church my friend. Perhaps they might not lose sleep and that is not the point...in the end, eterna life is at stake, not sleep....believing a lie over believing the truth...just remember, on judgment day, the Pope isn't gonna stand next to you...its gonna be you and Jesus Christ, and he's gonna demand an account from each of us. That is the issue
prchdaword 1 year ago
the Bible alone? too bad the pope canonized the new test. just a little speed bump in your beliefs. Rome has to interpret the bible it made. and has been interpreting for 2000yrs. without the little 1500yr absence. ...................... the PCA started by self assuming........ the early church fathers were catholic... yikes
singapore7773 1 year ago
@singapore7773 The Pope has no authority to make God's word God's word, only God has that authority and it is done by virtue of Him revealing and leaving an artifact of revelation. Eeks! Despite Rome's claim to infallibly interpret the Bible, she has NOT interpreted but a few passages. Gulp!!! The Early Fathers hardly had Rome's beliefs as defined dogmatically by Trent! Yikes! Some like Augustine even taugh predestination abhorred by Trent! Ruh ROH!!!!!
prchdaword 1 year ago
@singapore7773 In reality, there are but a few texts of the entire Bible that have been dogmatically defined by Rome. Those would include Matt 16:16-19 on the Infallibility of the Pope in 1870!!! Gee, what took them so long to "infallibly" say what it meant??? hmmmm.....The other passages concern the Eucharist especially John 6:52-58, again these are defined late in history relative in history. Other passages concern the Marian Dogmas of hte Assumption and Immaculate Conception (1854, 1950)
prchdaword 1 year ago
@singapore7773 Consider also the the infallibly pronouncement of the Canon was NOT even made until April 8, 1546 at the Council of Trent; again a late declaration of the "infallible canon".Why so late? You act as if Rome has been teaching with authority and certainty the doctrines proclaimed today back then; but this is not so. You will not find discussion of the necessity of believing the Marian Dogmas in the Earliest writings of the FAthers at all.
prchdaword 1 year ago
@singapore7773 Also, concerning some of the above mentioned text, Matthew 16:16-19 for instance, there were varying interpretation amongst the Fathers NONE of which were in a Pro-Papal sense. Some said Christ was the Rock; some Said Peter's Confession/Faith was the Rock; Other said Peter was the Rock but also in different senses BUT NEVER AS THE SOLE INFALLIBLE HEAD OF THE CHURCH!!! YOU WILL NOT FIND THAT INTERPRETATION IN THE FATHERS
prchdaword 1 year ago
@singapore7773 Now, according to The Council of Trent, "Tradition" is defined as the "Unanimous consent of the Fathers"....if this is true, then the burden of proof is certainly upon Rome to demonstrate that the Fathers unanimously interpret ALL OF SCRIPTURE in the same way and in the same sense. But even a cursory reading of the Fathers will reveal many differences....why Origen taught a "universalism" that even the Devil was gonna be saved!!!
prchdaword 1 year ago
@singapore7773 My friend, I don't say the Fathers were Roman Catholic or Protestant....they simply were who they were in the history of the Church when no such distinctions had even existed. For you to apply your own modern theology to them is to read them in an anachronistic eisegetical manner and is unbecoming of any scholarly inquiry into their works. Thanks for you inquiry =)
prchdaword 1 year ago
Your average Catholic in the world does not even believe that Jesus was and IS God himself. Catholics believe Jesus is God’s Son only, not that Jesus is the Son and God himself. Note, I did not say “A” God, but that Jesus is God himself.
hemet92544 1 year ago
I converted from Calvinizm to Catholicism. Because our Savior, Jesus Christ is with the Catholic Church. This is the truth and undeniable. If you are ouside the Catholic Chuch and denounce the Catholic faith, it is apparent that you just envy the Catholic Church. No matter how hard you try to criticize the Catholic Church, it will be the main stream of Christianity eternally as it has been since the very time of its foundation by the hand of Jesus Christ.
bookishman 2 years ago 2
@bookishman "it is apparent that you just envy the Catholic Church"?? Are you serious? this is a lame reason and critique
prchdaword 1 year ago
There are no sects or groups of Catholics: Liberal, pre-Vatican II and such. They may as well be called Protestants. That being said, I hardly believe there are any more than 25 million true and faithful Catholics worldwide lol.
FriskyGhost 2 years ago
Well done video.
But I'm curious where you think that the Bible came from? Who - or what - had the authority to put it together?
King James? Calvin? Luther?
Dystopiologist 2 years ago
well first of all, its important to state that Scripture is Scripture/God's Word NOT BY OUR AUTHORITY, but by God's. For instance, Romans was Scripture immediately when it was penned through the guidance of the Holy Spirit and did not "become" Scripture later.
What happened later was merely the recognition of Scripture by the people of God. Hence, the "authority" to recognize Scripture does not rest upon one person but upon the whole people of God as a community of believers.
prchdaword 2 years ago
@prchdaword Who then determines what books (for the "Bible" is a collection of varius books) are to be included in the Canon of Scripture?
ILS73alum 1 year ago
@ILS73alum God determines which works are His...those writings that are "God-breathed" are Scripture according to 2 Tim. 3:16...letters and books did not become Scripture through Church councils, etc....the moment they were penned under the direction of the Holy Spirit they were by nature God's word. A human pronouncement didn't make them so. Hence, the Church and God's people RECOGNIZE God in the works and we recognize them as Scripture. But they do not become Scripture cause the Church says so
prchdaword 1 year ago
@prchdaword How do we know which books were "God-breathed" and which were not?
ILS73alum 1 year ago
@ILS73alum Great question. Well there was no "divine table of contents" so the early Church had several "tests" to recognize the authority of God in the letters of the apostles. First, the apostles alone were commissioned with a unique authority so whatever was to be believed as Scripture must have come from an apostles or a close companion authorized by them (i.e. Mark with Peter; Luke with Paul). Secondly, the NT letter could not contradict the prior revelation about God, namely the OT.
prchdaword 1 year ago
@ILS73alum Since God is truth, and consistency is a mark of truth, the theology of the letters of the NT could not contradict the OT revelation. Hence, many writings in the early Church period were rejected because of their Gnostic theology and non-conformity to the OT. And finally, the works needed to be recognized and accepted by the people of God everywhere. This part took time because the transmission of the Scriptures was illegal at times and slow in copying. Also letters were not....
prchdaword 1 year ago
@ILS73alum produced in the same locations. Some started in Jerusalem and had to slowly spread. Others in other locations...then they had to be copied and sent to different churches so they could copy them and pass them along, etc...this was an "ordinary" process guided by God's providence. But again, these writing THE MOMENT they were penned were always Scripture; They did not start off as "non Scripture" and then became Scripture later. Consider that Rome's first INFALLIBE PRONOUNCEMENT
prchdaword 1 year ago
@ILS73alum on the canon was not given till April 8, 1546!!! Is it your position that the people of God did not know what the Word of God was UNTIL Rome said so so late in history??? Look at 2 Peter 3:16 where Peter is already calling Paul's letter to be included in the "rest of the Scriptures"! Clearly Peter had already recognized that Paul's writings were Scripture! Also in I Tim. 5:18 where Paul quote Scripture to prove his point. He quotes Deut. 25:4 AND Luke 10:7!!!!
prchdaword 1 year ago
@ILS73alum so even as early as the mid 60"s when Paul wrote I Timothy, he was already quoting Luke's Gospel AS SCRIPTURE!!! Surely there was no "ecumenical council" that was held to let the apostles know what was Scripture and what was not!!!!
prchdaword 1 year ago
@prchdaword Then, it is "The Church" which tells us which writtings are inspired, and which ones are not, is that correct?
ILS73alum 1 year ago
@ILS73alum it was a common recognition by all the people of God, not merely its leaders....again, the universal consensus plays here. But also the origin of the work as apostolic is testimony to its truthfulness and inspiration and its consistency with prior revelation. The Church RECOGNIZES but does not MAKE the canon of Scripture. Scripture is Scripture because it is God-breathed as 2 Timothy 3:16 states and not because "the Church" says so.
prchdaword 1 year ago
@prchdaword We agree that the Church tells us which books are inspired, But which Church tells us infallibly what are the inspired books and which are the non-inspired?
ILS73alum 1 year ago
@ILS73alum so before you try to "corn hole" me into saying the "Roman Catholic Church" again, I have already pointed out that canonical works were being recognized by the "catholic" church (this would include the whole Church before the EAst and WEst schism even to the apostles). The "Roman Catholic Church" did not pronounce their dogmatic statement of the canon until April 8, 1546 at the 6th session of the Council of Trent. So if you want to say Rome, then there is 1500yr gap to be dealt with.
prchdaword 1 year ago
@ILS73alum in my previous posting I listed how Peter knew that Paul's letters were already counted as Scripture and that Paul was already citing the Gospel of Luke as Scripture.....can you tell me how these works were recognized as Scripture? In your view, what ecumenical council took place that authorized them dogmatically as Scripture?
prchdaword 1 year ago
@prchdaword I am not trying to do anything, I am interested (as a Catholic) to see how you as a Calvinist, that believes in "Sola Scriptura" arrives at establishing an infallible cannon of scripture; relax, I am not here to "win arguments" just to make enquiries.
ILS73alum 1 year ago
@ILS73alum well Protestant don't claim to have an "infallible canon" of Scripture...we would openly admit that we have a fallible collection of infallible books. In regards to having an infallible pronouncement on the canon, it does not do any good unless your can also guarantee that your choice to believe in Rome's authority is infallible. That is, a Catholic is a fallible person with fallible faith. So regardless of the claim for an infallible canon, it will not go further than infalible faith
prchdaword 1 year ago
@prchdaword Does that line: "A fallible collection of infallible books" make any sense to you? If we are not certain that all of the books included in the Canon belong there and are inspired, or that there are inspired books that are missing, then our rule of faith is defective. no?
ILS73alum 1 year ago
@ILS73alum well you don't need to be infallible to have certainty....as individual human beings we are all fallible creatures (which is why I pointed out that you have no more certainty in believing in an infallible authority cause your choice is a fallible one itself unless you are infallible!). My certainty for the canon is not based on the Church but in the providence of God and the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church. So my faith rests in God on the matter, not the Church.
prchdaword 1 year ago
@prchdaword I think logically we are not in the same position; you said earlier that the Cannon of Scripture was determined by "the Church", but at the same time you hold that the Church is not infallible, so that the Cannon of Scripture that you have is fallible and therefore suceptible to being incomplete or even mistaken.
ILS73alum 1 year ago
@ILS73alum Fallibility does mean with POSSIBILITY of mistake, but possibility is not a guarantee of actuality. Hence, I can logically assert that the Church did indeed recognize the correct books and letters that make up the Canon of Scripture as Scripture through God's providence and guidance by His Holy Spirit among all the peoples of God. Yes it is susceptible to mistakes, but susceptibility doesn't necessarily mean that one has been made.
prchdaword 1 year ago
@prchdaword Then why don't you say you have an infallible cannon of Scripture, if that is what you really believe?
Second question: When did the Church establish your Cannon of Scripture?
ILS73alum 1 year ago
@ILS73alum I don't believe I've said I have an "Infallible canon"....again, I have said that at best we have a fallible collection of infallible books. But I don't believe the body of Christ has erred in their recognition of Scripture in admitting the right books and rejecting the correct one based on God's providential guidance of His Church. The earliest canonical list are from 367 from Athansius' 39th Festal Letter. Jerome also followed the canon that Protestants recognize.
prchdaword 1 year ago
@ILS73alum But even in Athanasius list, there are discrepancies between his list and Jerome's by 1 book I believe (Baruch). The lists established at Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 are also different from the canon laid out by Rome in the Council of Trent (3 Esdras is missing). Rome, technically did not Dogmatically establish her canon until 1546. There were, actually, still debates about the validity of some books like Revelation, 2 Peter, James, Hebrews and other because of authorship issues
prchdaword 1 year ago
@ILS73alum So theologically speaking, the canon was established with the writing of the last book of the NT which is in the late first century. Historically, it took time for all the letters to be copied and spread throughout all the Christian Church especially in light of the persecution they were under for the first 300 years of the Church. The Couldn't email the letters...a copying transmission PROCESS had to take place to spread God's word so all could have all the NT documents.
prchdaword 1 year ago
@ILS73alum so historically, when the the Church establish the canon that I follow? The earliest list I can point to is Athanasius in 367 AD followed by Jerome in the late 4th and early 5th century. Jerome's endeavor was actually at the request of Pope Damasus at the Council of Rome (381 AD I believe) and the canon he brought back was the product of his studies in Jerusalem findout out that the Deuterocanonical works were never accept by the Jews as God's word in the Old Covenant.
prchdaword 1 year ago
@prchdaword So you follow the Canon of St. Jerome; how do you square this with your affirmation that it was the Church that established the cannon? St. Jerome's Cannon does not appear to be followed by many in his time or latter; when was his Cannon made official by the Church? Why not the Carthaginian cannon? At least you have a large number of bishops representing the Church in Africa voting for this Cannon.
ILS73alum 1 year ago
@ILS73alum Jerome's canon was not made "dogmatic" and I wouldn't argue for that....Hippo and Carthage were provincial councils, not ecumenical ones that spoke for the whole Church....now, I have also already pointed out, there is a discrepancy between the canons of Carthage and Hippo with the one of rome today in that 3 Esdras is missing from todays but was included in ones of Hippo and Carthage.
prchdaword 1 year ago
@ILS73alum Augustine rejected Jerome's canon because it rejected the Deuterocanonicals that were included in the Septuagint (LXX). Augustine erroneously concluded that since they were all in the same book (they were included as useful writings because it was expensive to make books and hence a sepate volume would have been more expensive) that they were part of the Jewish canon. Jerome, through research, conluded otherwise.
prchdaword 1 year ago
@ILS73alum Augustine, being a much larger figure in the Church at the time basically "won" by his authority, but not through research which Jerome was able to do himself being trained by the Jews in Hebrew in Jerusalem. Admittingly, Augustine knew nothing of the Hebrew tongue being trained in the Greek, which explains why he made use of the LXX
prchdaword 1 year ago
@prchdaword earlier you stated: "it was a common recognition by all the people of God, not merely its leaders....again, the universal consensus plays here. But also the origin of the work as apostolic is testimony to its truthfulness and inspiration and its consistency with prior revelation. The Church RECOGNIZES but does not MAKE the canon of Scripture." What I am asking is when did the cannon of St. Jerome attain "universal consensus" and when did The Church "recognize(s)" ?
ILS73alum 1 year ago
@ILS73alum Jerome's canon was a recognition, as was Athanasius's....they were not "ecumenicalized" if you want to put it that way, but neither was Augustine's being that Hippo and Carthage were local councils, and not ecumenicals ones. The main books in question were the Deuterocanonicals....Rome did not infallibly accept these as Scripture until April 8, 1546. But again, theologically speaking, the recognition does not make a book canonical either...by its own nature it stands as God's word.
prchdaword 1 year ago
@prchdaword We agree completely that a book is inspired when it is written, and Rome does not claim to make a book inspired by its reconition, Rome does however claim to have the authority to infallibly pronounce what books are inspired and which ones are not, ei, to determine "canonicity"; otherwise how can we determine which books are or are not?
Thank you for your patience in answering my questions.
ILS73alum 1 year ago
@ILS73alum Curious, but what is the mechanism by which Rome infallibly recognizes the canon of Scripture? Also, if it is true that Rome's pronouncement does not make a book Scripture, then really what does the recognition do? Can you legitimately use the term "determine" in any sense of causality if the nature of the writings from God is what determines canonicity? Historically, 3 test were employed for the NT....the infallibility of the canon rest on the fallibility or infallibity of these
prchdaword 1 year ago
@prchdaword A. q.1: The Charism of Infallibility given to the Church by Our Lord. A.q.2: To determine that this book was indeed written by (for example) St. Peter, and it does belong in the cannon of Scripture. A.q. 3. Again who determines that it is from God? Ultimately the Church; see test #3. The test are not infallible, or else orthodox Churchmen would not have differed on the contents of the canon.
ILS73alum 1 year ago
@ILS73alum Now obviously, the dispute is not the NT for Catholics and Protestant alike agree on the writings of the NT....the only books in questions are the Deuterocanonicals of the OT....Protestants argue that since God revealed his truth to Israel in the OT, they would know the "oracles of God" (cf. Rom. 3:2) as they were given to them. So did God's Covenant people of the OT count the Deuteros as canonical? The historical answer is no. This is what Jerome discovered when he went to Jerusalem
prchdaword 1 year ago
@prchdaword The 'historical answer" is not at all "no"; the Seventy and the Jews that lived in Alexandria and outside of Palestine accepted the Deutero canonicals; The Evangelist and St. Paul also quoted from the Septuagint, this is at least an implicit acceptance of the canonical nature of the books it contained. Also if the Apostles had rejected them as apocryphal, then why didn't their disciples transmit this teaching? Finally your test #3. Shows that a greater part of the Church accepted.
ILS73alum 1 year ago
@ILS73alum to study Hebrew amongst the Jews. Deuteros were historical and some romantic Jewish literature and wisdom, but they were never counted as the "oracles of God". The Jewish Canon originally was 22 books (now 39 through dividing them in various ways) and was divided into parts known as "the Law, the Psalms and the Prophets" sometimes simply called "the Law and the Prophets". In the NT, these are the writings that we find affirmed as Scripture and authorative (cf.Matt11:13; Luke24:44 etc
prchdaword 1 year ago
@prchdaword according to the Catholic Encyclopedia,in the three fold division of the Jewish bible, the category of 'writtings'' included the books not comprised by "the law'" or "the prophets", such as Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Canticle etc. even to this day.
Also that according to the Babylonian Talmud, parts of the Palestinian Bible (Esther, Ecclesiastes, Canticle) were disputed by some Rabbis as late as the 2nd c. A.D.; (Mishna, Yadaim, III, 5; Megilla, fol.7
ILS73alum 1 year ago
@prchdaword: You don't really think that the earliest listing of the scriptures is by Athanasius do you? I do wish people who have no understanding of the Early Church Fathers wouldn't reference them. I was recently in discussion w/ a Mormon "apologist" re: the ECF. Yeach! He was trying to Shanghai Athanasius too. How sad it must be for this faithful bishop of Alexandria to be abused this way. St. Augustine wasn't a Calvinist, neither was Athanasius.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@ILS73alum I've addressed it several time, but you keep pushing for an infallible church to make an infallible pronouncement for the canon, but how do you get beyond your own individual fallibility and the fallible choice that you have to make to choose to fallibly believe in an infallible Church? Do you believe that you are still on sure grounds without having to view yourself or at the very least, your own choice, as infallible? Or is your choice fallible?
prchdaword 1 year ago
@ILS73alum Now, it does not necessarily follow that if there are missing books that our rule of faith is "defective". That would mean that nothing in the canon today is true. None of the truth revealed in any of the God-breathed writings was like that. One would not argue that the OT was "defective" because the NT wasn't around...or even when the NT was being written, one wouldn't argue that "Matthew" was defective until Revelation was written. There is no logical sense to that.
prchdaword 1 year ago
@prchdaword The Old Testament is defective in that revelation is not complete; many things that Our Lord revealed to us when He came on Earth had not been disclossed to the Jews. "Sola Scriptura" holds that the totallity of revelation is contained in Sacred Scripture and nowere else; the consequence of not having a complete collection of all the inspired books would be to not to be in the possesion of all of revelation. I believe this is a logical argument.
ILS73alum 1 year ago
@ILS73alum First, its obvious we are equivocating "defective"...sure it is not the "complete" revelation but it was not defective in that what was in the OT was negated UNTIL the NT. Surely what was revealed was true and authorative even as Moses' works were as soon as they were penned and not waiting for the fulness of revelation till they were authorative. No one is denything the progress of revelation that peaked in Jesus Christ.
prchdaword 1 year ago
@ILS73alum Secondly, your definition of Sola Scriptura is false. Sola Scriptura is a statement about the unique nature and authority of Scripture and its sufficiency to address matters to which it speaks. It does not teach that "all revelation" is contained in Scripture. Sola Scriptura does not deny that God's word was even in oral form. Rather it answers the question: "Where is God's word preserved for us today?". We say along with Scripture that it is in Scripture and that alone.
prchdaword 1 year ago
@prchdaword You state that my definition is false and I can accept that; but I do not see how your definition is different from mine, in the end: "God's word is preserved in Scripture and that alone", seems to say the same thing; maybe you can clarify.
ILS73alum 1 year ago
@ILS73alum just seeing this question.....in other words, in Rome's view God's word is found in 2 places: Oral Tradition and Holy Scripture. According to Protestants, God's word today is only found in Holy Scripture.
prchdaword 1 year ago
Itchy ears would cause one to go to the Church of the dead woman.
CBALLEN 2 years ago
lol--sola scriptura is a farce
benjaminz6 2 years ago
The Roman Catholic caricatures of it are the real farce ;)
prchdaword 2 years ago
Regarding 8.36, this is what the Magisterium states:
Can 17, Council of Trent, Session VI,13/1/1547 under Pope Paul III:
If anyone says that the grace of justification is shared by those only who are predestined to life, but that all others who are called are called indeed but receive not grace, as if they are by divine power predestined to evil, let him be anathema".
Catholic have another concept of predestination.
"Roma locuta, causa finita" (Rome has spoken, the matter is ended).
michelexyz 2 years ago
Does that mean the condemn Augustine as anathema?
prchdaword 2 years ago
St Augustine is not anathema because:
- a Saint can't be anathema.
- As long as someone submits himself and his works to the Church he's not anathema. He just brought fw his private interpretation on a issue that AT THAT time could be debated.
His doctrine was developed BEFORE the council of Trent.
- if he did this after the Council, to be anathema it must be made sure the teachings DELIBERATELY and with full knowledge go against the Magisterium in a tribunal. I'm not sure of this.
michelexyz 2 years ago
So when a Protestant teaches what Augustine believed in regards to predestination, even though it is within the teaching tradition of the Catholic Church, it is anathema?
What of a movement within Rome today that accepts Augustines view of predestination? (again, I was informed of this by a person who was exploring Rome after leaving the Reformed tradition because there was a sect that held to predestination as defined by Augustine)?
prchdaword 2 years ago
To answer your question, I should carefully study Augustine's (and Calvin) views on predestination, see if they contrast the magisterium and why, explain well what is anathema, how and if it applies to protestants. The space here is very limited, therefore it's inappropriate in my opinion to give a short answer that could mislead the readers. I will answer you privately in a day.
Thank you for your question.
michelexyz 2 years ago
Not a problem at all and I appreciate your willingness to study =)
God bless!!!
prchdaword 2 years ago
@prchdaword You should read a bit more of the predestination of Augustine. And that predestination is reproduced in Summa Theologica.
Predestination as DOUBLE PREDESTINATION is a satanic doctrine, making God look unfair, since we are not guilty of ourselves, as Scriptures states, but because of Him. Is God evil, thus?
pedrohqb 1 year ago
@pedrohqb barely reading this....Double predestination in the ASYMMETRICAL sense is not evil, Double Predestination in the SYMMETRICAL sense surely would render God as authoring Evil.
prchdaword 1 year ago
There are still some issues debated in the Roman Catholic Ch, but when the Magisterium issues an official teaching to which we give full assent of faith, the debate will be over (ie Purgatory, Council of Trent). There are also other teachings of the Magisterium that require Religious submission of intellect and will (an example is priesthood for women).
Until a teaching of the Magisterium is issued, discussions are open.
Disagreeing with a teaching of the Magisterium is a mortal sin.
michelexyz 2 years ago
Thanks for that information =)
prchdaword 2 years ago
Just realized I responded under my mother's username (she didnt sign out and i just noticed) but all those comments are mine :)
DeiVerbum777 2 years ago
the source for the OT canon is the fact of inspiration itself. Again, I believe that the books of the Bible were Scripture the moment they were written down under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I believe men came to recognize them in different historical ways, but clearly the works of Moses were recieved as covenant documents and Scripture immediately without consultation,etc...I do not believe Jamnia "settled" the OT canon at but reaffirmed the canonicity of the Song of Solomon and another...
prchdaword 2 years ago
Exactly, men came to recognize them in different historical ways! Goodness. Why there's such a fuss about the Church recognizing the canon through a decree I'll never know. The Tradition of the Jews gave them their canon :) In the same way, the Apostolic Tradition gave us our Bible.
DeiVerbum777 2 years ago
but the decree does not create the canon...God's act of inspiration does. God gave us the Bible....men only accepted it with the empty hands of faith
prchdaword 2 years ago
who said it created the canon? the ecumenical councils, notably trent in this case, formalized the canon. But it is by Apostolic Tradition that we know which books are theopneustos. Oh, and it took a while too because there were many OT books that were missing from early canons, and other books that were added to the NT - so the Church took time to learn which should be in the canon.
DeiVerbum777 2 years ago
so at the very least you will admit that there is a "theological canon" that exist apart from any apostolic tradition/historical regognition but exist simply by God's act of inspiriation and then a "historical canon" that included the process of recognizing the "theological canon".....would that at least be accurate?
prchdaword 2 years ago
the "theological canon" cannot exist without the apostolic tradition, because our very canon IS PART of the AP. Every God-breathed word was given to the Church's Leaders: the first being the Apostles, which Authority they gave to their Successors up until this day. The very God-breathed word is Apostolic Tradition, which the Apostles equated with Scripture, and therefore it became Scripture. All Scripture and Tradition is known in heaven, but was revealed over time in the Church. We agree here.
mom19551 2 years ago
mmmm...but the text says that the Scripture, the graphe, - not the kerygma or the paradosis - is God-breathed.
If it is part of the AP, as you suggest, then that also suggest that the authors of Scripture were fully conscious that they were writing Scripture and not merely letters...would you go that far in your stance? If so, how is it that books from apostes were questioned early on like Jude, 2 Peter, the epistle of John and REvelation, James, Hebrews?
prchdaword 2 years ago
And the same text says the Holy Spirit guide the teaching authorities of the Church, making them infallible :) Whether the authors knew or not they were writing Scripture doesnt truly matter here, at least not for Rome and Antioch :) - As Ive said before, the Church took time in learning what books consisted of the canon. This is AP - because the Tradition is carried on from the Successors of the Apostles, who are in every sense Apostolic.
DeiVerbum777 2 years ago
I agree that the HOly Spirit guides the teaching authorities and would add that He using Scripture in maintaining her doctrinal purity. I also agree that the Church took her time identifying the canonical writings and had several "tests" that Eusebius mentions, one of them being Apostolic Origin (which is why they had a rough times with the above mentioned books because their authorship was not clear).
Scripture identifies apostles as those who have seen the risen Christ...not their succ.
prchdaword 2 years ago
The Holy Spirit is not bound to Scripture alone to maintain doctrinal purity - the early church understood this. Though He did and does use Scripture, He also uses AT, the orally transmitted Word from the Apostles and their Successors. No one said the Successors are Apostles, but rather are Apostolic. The Catholic-Orthodox Churches are the only ones built on the Apostles, visibly and invisbly, while Protestant and the cults lean only on the 'invisible', since they have no succession.
DeiVerbum777 2 years ago
but the problem is that we can't identify a single word that they spoke outside of Scripture!!
To my knowledge, the Catholic Church has not identified any words of Jesus that are not in the Bible alone. The CAtholic Church has not identified any words of the apostles outside of Scripture either. This is the problem and also how false teaching crept in..."well an apostle said this, see this book bears his name!!!" and there was Gnosticism.
prchdaword 2 years ago
Awesome! Glad to hear you admit that prayers to the saints, maryology, the papacy, veneration of icons, found in Scripture if only implicitly, because that is most certainly what is found in the holy fathers and the ecumenical councils. I'm sorry but we have numerous quotes from the fathers that speak of what the apostles said and did. Gnostism failed because they had no apostolic succession....
DeiVerbum777 2 years ago
LOL...not sure that I admitted prayer to the saints or mariology at all as I explicitly reject those things as not even contained in Scripture implicitly.
Now, I am not arguing that the early fathers were "Protestants" either...they were who they were in their times and thats it. I think they were wrong on many things and right on others. I also think there are some topics that they didn't think through for varying circumstances like salvation and the fact that they were being persecuted.
prchdaword 2 years ago
Then we do indeed identify more than a single word that they spoke outside of Scripture :) See, lol, im sorry but i see this all the time with every Protestant....you cant take the holy fathers as a whole. I can. I gladly can. Kelly and other patristic scholars say the evidence is on my side. Rather than saying "they were in their times" I say "They are the fathers of the Holy Catholic Church." Rome and Antioch have more than one witness to substantiate their bold assertions.
DeiVerbum777 2 years ago
But even then, if you take them "as a whole" a teaching like Universal salvation is to be included as part of the apostolic tradition since Origen believed that all will be saved. Likewise, there are varying canons - including the Protestant list within the apostolic tradition. Wouldn't it be perfectly logical to say then that the canon we follow - since it can be found with the fathers (like Jerome) to be part of the "Tradition"? Augustine's predestination and view of grace?
prchdaword 2 years ago
Not at all because Origen was universally regarded as not technically being in doctrinal error, but philosophical error. The canon of Scripture is testifed by the Ecumenical Councils to be as the same Roman canon today. This is Tradition :) Augustine often used hyperbole, oh and he adhered to Rome and said he wouldnt believe the Gospels unless it were for the Catholic Church :) Jerome submited to the Church and included the 7 books. The Protestant canon today cannot be considered part of the AT.
DeiVerbum777 2 years ago
"doctrinal" vs. "philosophical" error is merely rhetorical way of getting around things...clever.
Actually, and Gary Michuta has acknowledged this, the canons of Trent and those of Hippo and Carthage are different in 3 Esdras I believe...
What does Hyperbole have to do with his clear belief in predestination?
Augustine accepted the Deuterocanonicals because he didn't know any better as they were included in the LXX as a matter of convenience, not canonicity
prchdaword 2 years ago
Nope. The philosophical error Origen held didn't tie in too much with his doctrine. Even if it did, as I specifically said before, it is universally accepted that either way he was in error. Hippo and Carthage are not Ecumenical Councils :) but merely witnesses to the fact the Catholic/Orthodox canon is the traditional one. Augustine was a Catholic, so why you even try to use him for predestination (which is clearly NOT in Scripture, but his own hyperbole) is beyond me.
DeiVerbum777 2 years ago
That is interesting that you say that Hippo and Carthage were not Ecumenical. There are quite a few Catholics on YouTube and Apologist who would disagree with you there.
Again, the Fathers were who they were...their theological development is useful for future ages but they are not infallible. I think, personally, that given enough time, Augustine would have worked out of sacramentalism as he became more consistent with his teaching on grace and predestination. Luther and Calvin followed...
prchdaword 2 years ago
Then those Catholics (like 99.9% of Protestants) really need to do their history :) Protestants frequentally misunderstand the very reason Carthage and Hippo are even used in discussions concerning the canon. I'm sure you will follow history and say these are provincial councils, not Ecumenical. Totally disagree on your take of the holy fathers. Again, as a Protestant you must make that assertion. Antioch has no worries, neither does Rome because we follow suit.
mom19551 2 years ago
I totally agree that they were provincial councils...but tell that to the majority of CAtholic apologist and even lay Catholics who believe otherwise. I think they do so because historically then, the Protestant defined their canon before Rome (1546) so they play the Carthage and Hippo cards, and some even point to the Council of Rome under Damasus
prchdaword 2 years ago
As witnesses to the fact the early church accepted the deuterocanonical books as Scripture. And because Protestants look to Hippo and Carthage for the settlement of the NT canon. At least, thats what Protestant apologists tell me :)
DeiVerbum777 2 years ago
curious, but which Protestant apologist? I could see them saying that, but the facts are too that several books of the NT were not readily accepted even up to the time of Reformation...even Luther did not think James was "gospel" enough to be part of the canon. Other books still contended till the Reformation were Revelation, Jude, 2 Peter and even Hebrews because of authorship issues.
But there are fathers also who clearly did not accept the Deuteros like Athanasius, Jerome and others...
prchdaword 2 years ago
Erwin Lutzer as one example. In other words, we need the Ecumencial Council to make the decree :) Jerome cited them as Scripture, and though he didnt see them as OT, he used them as authoritative and submitted to the Roman Bishop. Athanasius also didnt accept Esther as Scripture.
DeiVerbum777 2 years ago
well shame on Erwin Lutzer!! LOL Yes, Jerome quotes them as authorative but not as Scripture; I think Athanasius also accepted Baruch as Scripture if I remember correctly....
prchdaword 2 years ago
lol, right. You're the first Protestant to acknowledge Athansius' acceptance of Baruch. See the holy fathers are witnesses to the canon - the ecumenical councils formally ratify the known tradition.
DeiVerbum777 2 years ago
I actually have several works regarding the canon that I have written partinly in response to The Da Vinci Code and to the Gospel of Judas that might give you an idea of where I"m coming from...if you have time, look at my website under "Seminars" and you should see some presentations that I did regarding the historical formation of the canon
prchdaword 2 years ago
Sure I'd love to. It'll be over a period of time since I'm doing other studies too, one right now on the 4 gospels (have a mid-exam in 2 days). Looking fwd to see in detail where you're coming from regarding the canon :)
mom19551 2 years ago
...but all the words of the apostles not mentioned in Scripture were believed by the early church because they were retained in the apostolic church by succession. Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Cyprian too I believe are but 3 of the holy fathers that quite explicitly reveal this in their writings. When the Gnostics said "An apostle said this..." the Church did not believe them because the Gnostics had no succession of bishops from the apostles themselves.
DeiVerbum777 2 years ago
but not only that, the Fathers when to the Scriptures!! Curious, but could you identify verbatum what Paul said about the Trinity, let say, that is not recorded in Scripture?
prchdaword 2 years ago
And they also looked to 1) the oral words of the Apostles, and/or 2) earlier Fathers :) I cant show you something Paul said on the Trinity, but I can show you his actions in Rome with Peter, and for example their dispute with Simon Magnus.
DeiVerbum777 2 years ago
but where are those "oral words" now? Again, if you can't quote them verbatum, how have they been preserved? Did the apostle Paul teach the immaculate conception? Did they teach the Assumption of Mary?
prchdaword 2 years ago
Those oral words are contained in the writings of the holy fathers :) No Apostle taught original sin, and hence could not teach the Immaculate Conception. But the Apostles as a whole, and their disciples, St. Luke for instance, shows us how the OT has types of Mariology which are fulfilled in the NT, including her all-holiness and her assumption.
DeiVerbum777 2 years ago
but "types" are expliclity fulfilled in the NT somewhere...that is actually how we recognize that they are types and shadows.
Umm...surely the apostles were familiar with the OT and even Paul's summation of humanity in sin in Rom 3:10-18 (which would include Mary) demonstrates that they understood clearly the plight that humanity was in and their need for redemption.
prchdaword 2 years ago
Paul's summaration of humanity is understood of persons who have knowledge of their sin. Babies are mankind, yet they cannot sin, for instance, neither can they mentally ill. These are excepted. St. Luke's parallel of Mary to the OT Ark of the Covenant, along with the holy fathers' commentaries on the subject show from earliest times the all-holiness of Mary in ancient Christendom. Rome and Antioch alone retain this historical teaching.
DeiVerbum777 2 years ago
sure babies don't sin physically, but they do have the taint of sin in them, or the seed of sin that develops naturally in them as they grow. We don't have to teach our kids how to lie ;)
Luke doesn't even imply a parallel to the Ark...Jesus was not the condemning law. This is clearly not according to the historical-grammatical method of interpretation but is clearly allegorical and not warranted as allegory by Luke himself.
Also, many things are "historical" but not true.
prchdaword 2 years ago
I agree about babies :) That's why we entrust them into God's care if they die without baptism. And as for St. Luke's parallel....wow, the holy fathers would disagree with you. The ancient usage of parallel the writers used was common in the day....and this is seen quite clearly with Mary in the Bible. Rome, Antioch, even England, stand firm here. I'll take their early view as opposed to modern-day Protestantism.
mom19551 2 years ago
That's ok if the Early Fathers disagree with me...I think they have no historical-grammatical grounds that Luke intended any such parallel. Such is clearly an allegorical interpretation....correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say that the historical-grammatical way was the most accurate and that "heretics" appeal to allegory to make stuff fit???
Early doesn't make it true... ;)
prchdaword 2 years ago
And I think you're incorrect :) respectfully of course. Why such allegorical interpretation I wonder....ah, compare with the allegory between Messiah and the Passover lamb. And yes you must be corrected because I never said heretics appeal to allegory to make things fit. I said they must diregard all history and Tradition and substitute their unique allegorical views though. And "later" doesnt make it true either :) Early makes it reliable =D
DeiVerbum777 2 years ago
but the difference is that SCripture itself explicitly makes the connection between the passover lamb and Jesus. "Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world..." Nobody looked at Mary and said, "behold the ark of God...." And the lamb-Christ understanding is not "allegorical" but a type/shadow that is explicitly created in Scripture, especially in Hebrews.
prchdaword 2 years ago
Here you go again with the "it must have explicit wording for it to be true" - just because the exact wording is not there makes it no less true - the concept is too clear to be denied. Thats the trouble with looking at ancient eastern texts with a modern western mindset. The parallel of the very language itself is enog to make it clear........
DeiVerbum777 2 years ago
Its only "too clear" because you are already starting with the concept and eisegeting it into the text! I'm sorry but the connection you are making is a forced one upon the text and all of Scripture...
why do you keep thinking I'm "modern"? I'm aware of the "hermeneutical gap" and the cultural barrier that exists and do my work to get beyond that my friend...
prchdaword 2 years ago
If you're Protestant, you're modern :) Antioch and Rome already went beyond the gap, matter of fact they've got the bridge over it :)
DeiVerbum777 2 years ago
lol well now, that would depend on how you define "modern"...
prchdaword 2 years ago
During the Reformation, the Protestant doctrines were the modern heresies of the day. To you, thats orthodoxy...Protestant orthodoxy yes, but not Christian orthodoxy. Obviouslly I dont see Protestantism as true Christianity, rather a heretical movement with Catholic undertones, however the individual Protestant may be a Christian certainly, albeit in error. Seeing as how Protestantism drifts from historical Christendom in various ways, it can be labeled "modern" or "liberal" perhaps....
mom19551 2 years ago
Curious, but how do you reconcile your current belief about Protestants with what Vatican 2 teaches about Protestants as "separated brethren" and not as "heretics" anymore?
prchdaword 2 years ago
Quite easily. V2 spoke of individual persons - not the religious systems. Bishop Sheen and others of his day, and even before, spoke on the same issue, so this isnt a unique V2 teaching. Protestantism was, is, and always will be heretical. Protestant individuals may rightly be called Christian because of your baptism and belief in the Triune God and Merits of Christ. You are of course Christians ill-informed, in doctrinal error, in innocent ignorance for the lack of a better expression.
DeiVerbum777 2 years ago 2
Seeing as how no one can read anyone else's hearts, I can only guess about what prevents you from entering the Catholic Church, i.e., the facts made available to you are incomplete, a modern mind set, or whatever. As Catholics it is our mission to Protestants to bring them back into the Fold.
DeiVerbum777 2 years ago 2
LOL and it is our job to say , "Babylon is fallen!! Come out of her!!"
prchdaword 2 years ago
Oh for goodness sakes, lol, if that was said with all seriousness then there's a multitude of errors. Majority of Protestant scholars know the Roman Church is not the Whore. In fact, if the Pope is Antichrist, why has not the Rapture occurred? Or, if you dont believe the Rapture, why havent the Witnesses appeared? Where are the plagues that will come when he is revealed?
DeiVerbum777 2 years ago
no, I don't believe in the pretribulation rapture of the Church...I'm an Amillenniallist...in the line of Augustine =P
prchdaword 2 years ago
That's good :) Well at least you're in some good line of doctrine. There's hope! =P j/k
DeiVerbum777 2 years ago
LOL
prchdaword