DeoOmnisGloria.com

And here is another fruitless exercise. Using the Bible alone determine the canon of scripture.

Jay,

You are like a broken record on Sola Scriptura.
God is a God of order and balance. The Catholic church ( The institution) tends to place more importance ( an imbalance) on Oral and Church tradition to the point that it is almost more important then the scripture.

God uses oral communication and the written word to convey his message. But neither one should contradict the other and one is not more important than the other. Jay if the written word was not important then why did God command Moses to write the first five books of the bible ? Why did God Write the ten commandments with His finger ? Why did Jesus continually Say it is written?

Jay if the bible is not as important as oral tradition then Stop quoting from it and using it to make your points.. Stop quoting the early church fathers because they wrote things down...

There is a place for both Oral and written communication. Traditions are fine if they are not contrary to the teaching of Christ..

The prayer, the our Father was supposed to be a model on the manner on how we should pray to the Father, it was not meant as an actual prayer to be said like a montra.. Prayer is simply speaking your heart to God.. It was never meant to be scripted...

Yet the church has come up with these scripted prayers and various rituals and ceremonies ..
God does not want religion but a relationship with us. That relationship was broken by Adam and Eve. Jesus came to restore that relationship with us..

I know that you don't agree but the Catholic Church ( The Institution) has gotten so far away from the Apostolic church that Jesus started.
Rituals and ceremonies and dogma's that were never a part of that spirit filled first century church.

In closing the written word (The Bible) is more reliable then the oral word. If oral communication is so reliable then why do we write anything down ?

Your Brother in Christ.

Clem

Clem,
I'm like a broken record because the Truth doesn't change. It's just that simple.

You say "Traditions are fine if they aren't contrary to the teachings of Christ." But, Clem, most of Christ's teachings were oral! Jesus specifically says He has much to teach, but the people were not ready for it yet (this is just before His crucifixion).

Then you go off on rituals and ceremonies. Again, Clem, I strongly suggest you read the early Church Fathers that led the "spirit filled first century Church" (your words). You'll be stunned. Also, what did it mean when the Apostles in Acts "dedicated themselves to the breaking of bread"? As a Catholic, I understand that passage, but as a protestant I thought it was crazy. Did they sit around breaking meaningless, symbolic bread? Or did they worship the Eucharist?

Just another passage you seem to overlook, Clem.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

Good Question. Did they worship the bread and the wine or the Savior the bread and wine represent? I would guess the latter ..
To worship the elements would be idolotry ...

When Jesus says where two or more are gathered in my Name I am there in their midst. Is He physically present or is He there in Spririt ?

You assume because the Early church fathers write it or the RCC interprets it , that it is automatically Truth. Jesus communicated Orally but much of what He spoke was written down..
Why would He quote from old testament scriptures that were written down and why did He resist the
temptations of Satan by saying it is written??

Jesus did not say not one of my oral teachings, but said not one Jot or Tittle, denoting a written word, will not pass away until all is accomplished.

I say that we need both and that both are equally important to the spreading of the Gospel and that they should be in harmony and should not contradict the other ? Where is there any
error. Isn't that in harmony with what Jesus and the apostles taught? Or did they teach that oral tradition was more important and had more weight
them the OT scriptures ??

Your Brother in Christ.

Clem

Clem,
So what does the Bible mean when it says the "dedicated themselves to the breaking of bread"? Please explain what this means.

Second, the Bible teaches the same thing the Catholic Church does: the Oral Tradition and Written Word are equal - both are True. See 2 Tim 1:13, 2 Tim 2:2, 1 Thess 2:13, and 2 Thess 2:15 for example.

Look forward to your answer.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

There is so much I want to write here, but I just don’t have time right now. I did want to address one point, and then I might post later on other points.

You said, “I would appreciate anyone letting me know of any verse that teaches Sola Scriptura - - I don't mean a verse that says that Scripture is "profitable" or good, but a verse that specifically teaches that "Scripture is the primary authority of Christian Doctrine.”

We all agree that the Apostles preached and wrote the gospel and the doctrines surrounding the gospel correctly. We believe this because of who Jesus is and the authority he gave to his Apostles. We also know that what is included in the Bible is the writings of those Apostles and their close and immediate associates. On the other hand, aside from two or three verses which you quote regarding the truth of the Church, which I could argue could mean any number of things, we do not know that what the Church teaches outside the Bible is necessarily what the Apostles taught. It might be but it also might not. Thus to believe that the Church teaches what the Apostles did is to just take the Church’s word for it. Now this may be a valid way of looking at things, but at least admit that that is exactly what you are doing. To me it is foolish to just accept the doctrines the Church teaches as the Gospel without at least comparing it to what the Apostles wrote to see if it matches up. By doing this comparison you are setting up the Scriptures as the measuring stick of all doctrine. (Which is what the word "Canon" means.)

Now given all of this, here is the verse that you seek.

“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!” Galatians 1:8-9

Who is the “we” in the quote above? Please tell me. It is certainly not the church of the second century or thereafter. It is the leaders of the first century church, ie the Apostles and their immediate associates. Do you see the difference between Paul’s thinking and Augustine’s?

“Indeed, I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.”

Please read and compare the two. Who was right?

This is one of the many reasons why I believe in Sola Scriptura.

In Christ,

Thomas

Jay,

Without researching it and taking it at face value, It appears to be saying they dedicated themselves to administering the bread and the wine in remembrance of what Jesus commanded them to do. Am I correct ?

Also what exactly does the RCC mean by Oral tradition? I am not clear how the RCC defines it.

Is it what Jesus and the Apostles taught orally or is it something else ?

Grace & Peace to you,

Clem

Suppose, as the Apostle Paul wrote, Scripture alone is "profitable" and is the primary source and authority of Christian doctrine, then we have a major problem - a large part of the New Testament was not written when St Paul wrote his epistle to Timothy i.e. if we are to believe what St Paul said about Scriptures alone being the primary (even sole) authority for faith and morals, then it proves too much - that only the Hebrew Scriptures that St Paul was referring to is sufficient, making the New Testament and in fact the entire Canon of the Bible as we know it today as redundant.

Kenny,

Yet Paul never stated that the Scriptures were closed. In other words he left open the possibility that further inspired Scriptures would be written. In this sense Paul's statements do include all of Scripture.

To take your interpretation, what then did Paul intend to say when he wrote this? Did the Church error (gasp) in "creating" more Scripture?

In Christ,

Thomas

Thomas & Kenny,

Remember that when Jesus and the twelve apostles talked about scripture or said it is wriiten they were talking about the OT.. Remember the ONLY book that God/Jesus commanded to be written was the book of Revelation. The Gospels, Acts and the various letters are more a history of the time of Christ and the early church.

I am NOT saying they are not inspired I am saying they were not commanded to write these letters or the Gospels..

When Paul made the statement about all scripture,
as you pointed out, he had to be speaking of the
OT. My personal opinion is that the Apostles NEVER considered their writtings sacred scripture.

Paul's letters were letters to local churches and they were letters of encouragement and letters of correction. The Gospels were the apostles perspective on the life of Christ.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that the New Testament is not scripture. The point I am trying to make is that when Jesus, the apostles and Paul talked about scripture they were referring to the Old Testament scriptures...
Lets take things in the context they were said..
They could NOT be speaking about the NT because it did not exist when they made their statements..

I think we need to define WHAT the Apostle Paul
meant when he used the term "Church".

Was he taking about the body of believers in Jesus or Was he taking about this Institution of
a Pope and Magisterium that the church developed into a couple of centuries after he made the statement...?

It seems that Jay and others want to apply statements that were made by Paul about the church to a church that did not exist when He made it....

The RCC wants us to believe that they are the sames as the church of the first century. Yet there were no Clergy as we define clergy today in the first century. There was no liturgical mass as there is today. There was no doctrine of
Immaculate conception or Mary veneration .

I could go on but you get the picture. I contend the Catholic church of today is NOT anything like the first century church described by Jesus, the apostles and Paul.

The Roman Catholic was influenced by Constantine, Greek philosophy and Pagan rituals.. So were the early church fathers. I am not saying that some good things have not come out of this church. The bible was put together during the time of the second and third century church. That was a good thing.

But leven crept into the church and that is why I feel more comfortable going back to the bible,
the people who were there at the time to check and see if what the modern day church, be it Catholic or Protestant is teaching me, is in harmony with what Jesus and His chosen apostles and people there at the time were teaching..

There is no perfect Chruch.. I don't think any denomination of today be it Catholic or Protestant measures up to to the Church of Philadelphia in the book of Revelation. That was the only Church Jesus found no fault with..

Can any Denomination Catholic or Protestant honestly say they are the church of Philadelphia ? I believe that the demominations of today fall more in line with one of the other six churches Jesus described...

But of course Jay, Joe and Dave and the
leadership of the Catholic church or the leadership of any Protestand demomination would Never admitt it..

God's Grace & Peace to you,

Clem

Clem,
We have numerous articles showing that God intended to form a physical church. Here's a start: Matthew's View of 'Church'.

Again, you should also read the early Church fathers - they clearly understood that Christ wanted a physical, unified Church.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

See either I am not being articulate enough or you are missing what I am trying to say? I NEVER said that Christ did not intend for there to be a physical church. Obviously He did want a unified physical church... The apostles went out and planted physical churches...

1. The question is Jay did Jesus intend for the Institutional churches we have today ??

2.Did He intend for the Institutional church to make doctrines that did not exist during the first century church and are contrary to scripture ?

3.Is the Catholic Church or any institutional church IE Protestant Churches, the of Philadelphia found in Revelation. The only church Jesus found NO fault with ?

If you are honest Jay,regarding question #3 you would have to answer NO ...

The early church fathers were tainted with the bias or influence of Greek Philosophy.. The
teaching of our souls being immortal is a Greek
philosophy. It is not found in scripture.

We only gain immortality through Jesus Christ.
Apart from Him their is NO everlasting life..
Tertillian, an early church father admitted that the concept of an immortal soul was not based in scripture but from the Greek Philosophers..

You want to ignore history and say that the church has not been tained by Pagan ideas and pagan rituals... There is credible evidence out there that the church WAS influenced by non inspired lines of thought...

The Church of today is not the pure church that Jesus started and the Apostles planted...

His Grace and Peace to you.

Clem

Clem,
Now you've gone off the deep end . . . again. First, Christ used pagan practices, Clem. For example, baptism was a pagan practice (see the Old Testament). The question is: Can God take a pagan practice and make it holy? If you answer "No" then you probably should find another, non-Christian religion, because you don't believe in God!

Second, I don't want to hear any other claims from you about the early Church until you actually read something about it. You're just making this up! The early Church was very Marian, very Sacramental, very dedicated to the Catholic Church - we've posted much of this here, but I guess you're just ignoring what you don't agree with. You have no idea what the early Church was like, Clem, you haven't done any studying to find out. So stop pretending the early Church was anything like any protestant Church today - it isn't true.

Second, the Churches in Revelation are essentially dioceses, not individual churches in the protestant sense. By the way, the key to Revelation is the Mass, so don't start reading it until you understand the Mass or you'll end up with wild theories . . . wait, I guess that's where we started!

Again and again and again: Go read the early Church fathers.

God bless,
Jay

Some bibliography for folks interested in the early church & the bible-and-early church.

Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew
Oxford University Press (August 1, 2003)

Lost Scriptures: Books That Did Not Make It into the New Testament
Oxford University Press (August 1, 2003)

The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament
Oxford University Press; Reprint edition (February 1, 1996)

All three are by Bart Ehrman. An outstanding historian and biblical scholar who teaches at UNC, Chapel Hill.

As a Catholic, I agree with your dissertation on Sola Scriptura.

Martin Luther (d.1546) would stress the uniqueness of the individual. In his day, I too would have protested and rejected the contemporary medieval spirituality of some people if it encompassed emotionalism, superstition, and inordinate reverence for material objects like "relics". I would have protested and rejected these things in Martin Luther's day because I do so today if I were to see reverence for the relic over reverence to God. But in my life-long Catholic experience I've not witnessed this. (Although I have witnessed the bearing of false witness by "good" Christians because of misunderstanding and thereby creating scandal). Some Christians become Christians through the "intercession" of other people of Good-will (Chrstian or Not), yet, it seems to me these same Christians should revere God and not the "televangelists" or "priests" or "pastors", nor the Ratzingers, nor the Luthers, nor the Bushes, nor the Kerrys.

Martin Luther stressed the individual believer's relationship with God and the realm of personal conscience (sola fides, "faith alone"). His recourse to the Word of God in Sacred Scripture (sola Scriptura, "Scripture alone") was his attempt at finding a direct approach to Christ, one where the individual is shown the way by the interior witness of the Holy Spirit (sola gratia, "grace alone").

This wasn't obvious during the medieval ages, but it is a matter of our own principle as Catholics that a believer's relationsip with God is a "mediated" relationship; not only through the biblical Word, but in and through the community of faith in which that Word is proclaimed. I do not know of God's "Word" (Scriptura) until I am told of it through others and/or discover it on my own.

God reveals himself by more than his Word, by more than my faith, by more than by Martin Luther, or others.

God bless all of us,
I welcome your replies.

Eric Reyes MAEd

Jay,

I HAVE read various portions from some of the early church fathers like Clement of Rome and Polycarp and some excerpts from Justin Martyr.
I have NOT done an extensive study of each early church father. Some of their writings seem to be variations on the Apostle Paul's letters. I suppose you HAVE studied them extensively ?

I have a question, have you read their writings or the scriptures with an unbiased eye? Do you read a scripture or a writing and try and see what it says without the bias of what the Catholic churches interpretation says the verse or passage says it means ?

For example, you said in one of your posts that the key to the book of Revelation is the Mass.
Yet here is what the Catholic encyclopedia on line says about the Mass :
Liturgy of the Mass: A. Name and Definition

The Mass is the complex of prayers and ceremonies that make up the service of the Eucharist in the Latin rites. As in the case of all liturgical terms the name is less old than the thing. From the time of the first preaching of the Christian Faith in the West, as everywhere, the Holy Eucharist was celebrated as Christ had instituted it at the Last Supper, according to His command, in memory of Him.

*** Note what comes next ***
"But it was not till long afterwards that the late Latin name Missa, used at first in a vaguer sense, became the technical and almost exclusive name for this service."

In the first period, while Greek was still the Christian language at Rome, we find the usual Greek names used there, as in the East. The commonest was Eucharistia, used both for the consecrated bread and wine and for the whole service. Clement of Rome (d. about 101) uses the verbal form still in its general sense of "giving thanks", but also in connection with the Liturgy (I Clem., Ad Cor., xxxviii, 4: kata panta eucharistein auto).

All these were destined to be supplanted in the West by the classical name Missa. The first certain use of it is by St. Ambrose (d. 397)
************************************************
So the term or word mass was not used until 397 AD. The word Eucharist was used to describe the Lord's supper and to describe the the service. The Eucharist simply means "Giving Thanks"

But explain to me how the Mass which was NOT known as the mass until 397 AD can be the key to the book of Revelation which was written sometime
between 69-96 AD..? Now the term Eucharist was used around 101 AD. So if you want to say the Eurcharist is the key to Revelation that might be more accurate.

Do you take the scriptures or the writings of the early church fathers at face value. Or do you look at them through the understanding and the eye of the writer and the ear and understanding of the intended audience.

The Jews had customs and a particular style of speaking and writing that was unique to that time and to that culture.

When I read the scriptures I am trying to read them not at face value but to try and get a sense of all these other factors...

Again Jesus said if your eye causes you to sin.
Pluck it out and if your hand causes you to sin cut it off. Was He speaking literally or figuratively?

Finally I Know that God used pagan practices and made them holy. It's one thing for God to command it. It's another thing for a group of men
(Pope and Bishops) or Constantine taking a pagan practice and using it as a Christian ceremony or holy day.. They aren't God..

His Grace & Peace to you..

Clem

My final say,

The Bible clearly says that ALL SCRIPTURE IS GOD BREATHED, and is FOR TEACHING...AND CORRECTING. Correcting and error or an improper teaching. Because that is what correction is. Therefore if someone teaches something that contradicts or is not in the Word of God...the Word will correct that error. All Scripture is of God...and is to be used for teaching, rebuking and correcting. One thing we can say is that God is not a incomplete God and He
is infallible. Scripture is used for correcting. That is clearly biblical. If it corrects, than that makes it authoritative.
It does not say to neglect the church, for God said do not neglect the assembly. However it is used for correction. Therefore, if something is in disagreement with Scripture it is false. If God did not mention it, it is false.
The problem that I have noticed is that a lot of our Roman Catholic brothers pay attention to what is not even said in the Bible.
Examples
1. Prayers to saints
2. The church being infallible
3. Infantile baptism
4. Mary being prayed to(see example #1)

I could go on. My point is that these items are not found at all in the Bible. However the Bible does say that Scripture is for teaching and correcting. So if there is ever a doubt, you can go to the Scriptures. If you want to label it Sola Scriptura, go right ahead.

God Bless

Jeff,
I have a question: what was the Paul talking about when he wrote that? Since at that time the New Testament wasn't written, he was obviously talking about the Old Testament, would you agree? It wasn't until 350+ years later that we even had the New Testament. So, are you arguing that only the Old Testament is profitable for correction? Just curious.

So you would say that anything used for correction is therefore the primary source for truth? So a schoolbook can be a primary source for truth? A law book can be a primary source for truth? To suggest that because it can be used as a tool for correction it suddently becomes our sole (sola) source for truth is outright silly. By the way, the Bible also tells us to obey the oral teachings of the apostles, which is Christian Tradition.

Second, the Infallible Bible calls the Church the "pillar and foundation of Truth." But it never calls Scripture this (Note: this also rejects your claim #2). Through the Church (not the Bible) Scripture tells us that the "wisdom of God is made known." Read this article to dispute the prayers to Saints point. Read this article to dispute your infant baptism point. Finally, Mary was still alive when the Bible was written - of course they wouldn't pray to her! But devotion to Mary shows up in the earliest of Christian writings and even the Bible notes that Christians should always call her "blessed."

The question, Jeff, is why did it take God 1,500 years before He could convince Christians that Sola Scriptura was correct? Why didn't the Protestant Reformation occur 1,000 years earlier, just after the Church put together the Bible? And if the Bible is perfect, how is okay for Martin Luther to remove books and insert words?

Sola Scriptura is not Scriptural. Period. And, thus, according to your beliefs, it should not be believed.

God bless,
Jay

I just wanted to mention that Evangelicals and Roman Catholics have much in common when it comes to things like the Scriptures. The document Evangelicals and Catholics togethers lists numerous points of solidarity. As Pope John Paul II says, "that which unites us is greater than that which divides us". In particular, both Evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics take a "high view" of Scripture which sets these two apart from almost every other identifiable group in this world.

In particular, there is a coherent view of Scripture which both the Evangelical and the Catholic can share. For example, both the Catholic and Evangelical can agree on the following two points:

1. the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone fully comprise God's public reveleation to the faithful.

2. the Scriptures are the primary and ultimate (notice I did not say only) source of moral authority in the Church and in the world.

Scholarly exegesis on the Council of Trent suggests that a Catholic can legitimately adopt one of two interpretations of the Council of Trent concerning the role of Sacred Tradition.

1. the older interpretation is to treat Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture as two separate founts of Divine Revelation.

2. the newer interpretation is to treat the Magisterium and Sacred Tradition as the faithful guardians of the correct interpretation of scripture.

In some sense Roman Catholics merely contend that the Holy Spirit has gifted its leaders with a correct interpretation of what God has publicly revealed in the Scriptures (If you think about it, they make no greater claims about their leaders than Protestants do about their own leaders such as Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Cromwell).

Thus, when Protestants challenge Catholics to find Scriptural evidence of dogmas such as the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Mary, transubstantiation, the efficacy of asking Mary and the Saints to intercede for the faithful, the old response would be to reject the need to defend Catholic dogmas from Scripture while the new response would be to point to the Scriptures which convinced the Church Fathers of these doctrines in the first place (and to silently offer Our Lord a prayer of thanksgiving for sending apologists such as Scott Hahn, Steve Wood, Peter Kreeft, Ignatius of Loyola, Francis de Sales, Augustine, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and of course Jerome).

Another point of agreement between Evangelicals and Catholics is that the Early Church enjoyed, among other things, two gifts which were given to the original apostles:

1. The authority to write Scripture.
2. The authority to infallibly interpret Scripture.

Both Evangelicals and Catholics agree that the first gift ended with the death of the last apostle. A dynamic canon was a phenomenon unique to the Early Church.

Both Evangelicals and Catholics agree that the second gifts was most definitely enjoyed by the original apostles. When controversy raged in the Early Church around whether converts must receive circumcision, whether believers could eat meat sacrificed to idols, and what sorts of marriages were lawful, the apostles of the Early Church ruled on the matter authoritatively and correctly (despite their human weakness) on behalf of the Holy Spirit.

If we pause for a moment and reflect, we will see that we have much in common, that what we have in common comes as a gift from Our Lord, and that almost no other identifiable group in this world shares this "high view of Scripture" with us. I suggest the great unity we have here form our discussion of the essentials differences between Catholics and Evangelicals concerning the Scripture and "Sola Scriptura"

Protestants contend that the second charism of infallibly interpreting scripture also ended with the death of the last apostle. Catholics contend that this charism continues to this day.

I think Protestants and Catholics would agree that without the charism of infallibly interpreting Scripture, no Church today could possibly even remotely resemble the Early Church. Evangelicals simply learn to accept this gloomy situation while Catholics rejoice that God has not left us orphaned because he promised not to.

Pax Tecum.

Richard,

Jay made a good point regarding the verse stating that all scripture is profitable for
teaching and reproof. The only recognized scripture at the time this was written was the Old Testament. The only new testament book ordered to be written was the book of Revelation.
The rest are historical books and letters of correction and encouragement written to various local church communities.

My question is what Church was Paul talking about when he said it was the Pillar and foundation of truth? There wasn't an Institutional church in the first century .
The church consisted of the Apostles and believers in various local communities in the mediteranean Sea region.

They didn't belong to an organization or to a denomination. They were simply followers of Jesus
Christ. James was the leader of the church in Jerusalem. The church moved from Jerusalem to Rome probably due to the persecution of the Jews and the destruction of Jewish temple in 70 AD. When did the Institutional church come into being?

Scripture talks about the qualifications of Elders and Deacons. When did the formal priesthood begin? There were no orders of priests as there are today or a tribe set aside like the levites in the OT. If there were priests in the first century church who ordained them?

The celebration of the Eucharist was not referred to as the Mass until around 397 AD (Source Catholic Encyclopedia on line). The apostles obviously distributed the Bread and wine at their meetings, but when did the liturgical Mass that is celebrated today come into existence ? They didn't read the Gospel because most of them hadn't been written yet. From What I have read they gathered together to Preach, break bread and Worship God.

Jay, says I should not comment until I have read the early church fathers. I have read excerpts from some of them but I have not studied them.
What I have read about them is that they sometimes contradict some accepted church teachings or doctrine. The church only accepts portions of their writings, the ones that agree with their teachings.

Is there a non biased book out there that will give me an accurate picture of the church fathers. I feel if I get the information from the Catholic Church it will be biasd. Is there any material out there that would give an accurate account while still being something the
RCC would not refute ..? If the writing styles of the Early Chuch fathers is anything like the bible some of their writings may be subject to interpretation or the preconceived biases of the reader ?

I look forward to your reply to my questions.

Your Brother in Christ,

Clem

Clem,
I think we've proven enough times that there absolutely was an institutional church in the first century. It was founded by Christ in Matthew 16:18 around 33 A.D. Read the early Church Fathers, Clem.

Also, there is a visible hierarchy within the Bible, not just in the early Church Fathers (which repeatedly admonish Christians to adhere to the teachings of Bishops). I thought I had posted that somewhere, if not I'll do a post specifically showing it in Scripture.

You keep pushing that the word "Mass" wasn't used until 397 A.D. - I'll have to look into that. However, that doesn't mean the Mass wasn't celebrated before then. The book of Revelation is based on the structure of the Mass. Remember, the Bible wasn't put together until about 395 A.D., so don't get too far ahead of yourself. Just becaue the word wasn't used, doesn't mean the Eucharist wasn't celebrated in the same way as it is today.

Finally, go read the Eerdmans (spelling?) version of the early Church Fathers if you're so worried about a Catholic conspiracy! Eerdmans only does one thing weird: when the Fathers use the word "Catholic," they always try to add some footnote explaining how that means "universal" (even when it's clear the Fathers are talking about an institutional church).

Good luck, Clem. It sounds to me like you simply have a chip on your shoulder and you'll only listen to negative views of the Catholic church. You pretty much ignore all the evidence we put out there in favor of crazy theories and bad Scriptual exegesis.

God bless,
Jay

"The word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12.)

Jay, you have to ignore the prophetic wisdom of the Bible to come to your view.
If you take the approach that Paul was not referring to ALL Scriptures, including the ones to come, then you must also accept that when it is said that "every knee shall bow and confess the name of the Lord" that it only meant for those people living at the time.

Lets analyze your view. Your view is that Paul is only referring to the OT. If that was true, Paul would have preached and teached about the Mosaic laws, all the dietary constraints, the sabbath days and so forth. But he did not. He actually preached about being free from the law,the sabbath days and about repentence through Christ as opposed to a dead ram. Paul preached about Christ the man.
The Old Testament teaches about the prophecy of Christ.Ultimately it boils down to this Jay. Do you believe that Paul was inspired by God? Yes or no? If not, then you should discard the NT and ignore what Paul said. If you do believe that Paul was inspired by God, then you have to ask yourself..did God forsee the future and still inspire Paul to write what he wrote?
Do you mean to tell me that you believe that when God inspired Paul to use the word all...that he only meant the Old Testament?
That even though, today, we read the word all in the BIBLE...that that "all" excludes Paul's writings? Jay, in a round about way, you are saying that Paul's writings is not God breathed. Therefore an atheist can negate your misrepresentation of the church being the foundation and source of truth. An atheist can say, since you do not believe that ALL SCRIPTURE is GOD breathed...then if you quote the Bible and say "the pillar and foundation," then that is also not God breathed. The way I see it Jay, you will say that Scripture is God breathed when it fits your argument.
As for Mary...yes Mary was blessed. Blessed does not equate sinlessness. Blessed does not equate to being prayed to either.

Gal 1:9 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Paul, Peter, and all of the apostles did not preach Marian doctrine at all. They don't even acknowledge her in the fashion as the RCC does. You can give the excuse that she was alive...but point blank...the teaching of Marian doctrine is another gospel. A perveted doctrine. Bottom line...it was not taught by Christ, or by the apostles. Of course, if you don't believe that Paul was inspired, then you can believe in Marian doctrine or any other gospel. God Bless

As a Lutheran of Norwegian hertiage, all I have to say is " Uff-Da".

Jay, I'm having trouble seeing your argument. Sola Scriptura claims that anything in violation of scripture is to be discarded but that other sources are fine as long as we realize that they're not infallible. How then is it a problem if your claim were true that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not in scripture? The argument you're giving commits a logical fallacy. Claiming something to be without possibility of error and inviolable does not amount to claiming that no truth can be supported by other things. All it takes is a quick glance through the Carnival of the Reformation posts to see that pointed out over and over again. One post had that as its main theme, and it happened to be the one you commented on, missing the whole point.

I don't agree with your premise anyway. There isn't a one-verse prooftext argument for much of anything, and this doctrine is unsurprisingly like most of the others in needing a real biblical theology developed from the clear principles across scripture.

As I continued through the Carnival, I discovered that David Mobley has done what I just said i wasn't going to take the time to do. He presents a biblical argument for the claims Sola Scriptura makes about scripture.

Jay,

First Thank you for the tip on the book. I will get it and read it so I will be better versed on the early church fathers.

Regarding your proof. Many of the articles you post are the point of view of the church. With their bias. For example your post said that the Key to Revelation is the mass. The mass did not exist when revelation was written. The breaking of the Bread or the Lord's supper existed . Now I know that the Lord's supper or what was later called the Eucharist is the central theme of the mass but the mass has a liturgy that did not exist when John wrote Revelation.

If I have a chip on my shoulder you seem more than willing to knock it off ...

I bring up valid points, the same points others have posted on this BLOG but you decide to call them crazy theories and bad scriptural exegesis, heresy or going off the deep end ..

Yet you take one verse Matthew 16:18 and say that Peter was the Rock that Jesus built His church on, thus ignoring a ton of Old and New Testament scripture that says that Jesus is the Rock. So why would evey other scipture referring to the rock be about Jesus exept for this one ?

Here is a website that gives some good reasons with scriptural backup that makes a good case against the Primacy of Peter.

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/peter-primacy.html

I am sure you will not agree with their logic either.. Most of the New Testament was written in Greek. Yet I have seen it posted that Matthew 16:18 is exception, It was posted that it was written in Aramaic .

The word in the Greek Jesus uses to name Peter is Petros and the Greek word used to describe the rock that the church is built on is Petra. If Peter was that rock then why didn't
it follow through to leave no question that Jesus was talking about Peter in both cases.
I don't know Greek grammar structure. To me it would make sense that If Petros referred to Peter and Peter was the one who the church was built on, shouldn't both words be the same?
That is logical. Why would the writer use two different words if the Rocks were one in the same?

You believe every dogma and teaching without question, That's your business.. You set up this blog to proclaim what YOU BELIEVE is GOD's Truth.
Anyone who disagrees with your point of view is automatically wrong because the Church is Never wrong on its doctrine ... Also further down on the website listed above on the same page there is an interesting article on How Do Human Leaders Gain Control?

Jay, you have me pegged as being obstinant or
anti Catholic. I am not.. I was brought up a Catholic and the last thing I want is to tear the church down.. However, I am going to point out inconsistencies when I see them ..

There are a lot of Good things in the Catholic church. There are also things that don't line up
with scriptures. There was an organizational structure set up by Jesus and the apostles. You can not have any group without their being some type of structure. I don't question the structure,I question the Instituion. Do you really think Jesus invisioned the vatican and the wealth and the politics in the church ? You probably do... I have my doubts ..

Thanks again for the book suggestion,

Your Brother in Christ,

Clem

Jay,

I went on line and foud Eerdmans. That is the correct spelling. The book on the early church fathers you suggested is out of print and there is no substitute. I asked if there was a book that listed what each of the church fathers positions were on various topics but according to the person I spoke to he does not believe such a book exists.

I have the Early church fathers on CD, I have read excerpts from Clement of Rome and Justin Martyr and from Polycarp. But I have not read each extensively..

In this age of technology someone should put out a CD that lists what each of the early church fathers wrote by subject matter..

Thanks for the suggestion anyway..

Grace & Peace to You,

Clem

Jay,

Are you sure your'e going down the right path with this site? Lets flip this a little. Lets says I had a site and was former Catholic who became Protestant. On this site I derided the Virgin Mary and other Saints. Would you as a reader want to change your position? More importantly how would I be judged by God, would he accept my words of negativity even though he called her blessed among woman, this is how you treat scripture (the living word of God). Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just becauses you have a gripe with Luther doesn't mean the bible is simply a historical account. Scripture is Sacred ask the Pope!!!

Stan, thats not fair! Jay is open to truth and attempts to speak it 100% of the time. We do not need to agree on all things, but if you consider this website and look at "THE BASICS" section under "Why We Do This", you will see the basis for this awesome forum of Catholic and Open discussion; Apologetics.

Notice also that Jay is not closed 100% to ANYBODY. Jay is open to Non-Catholics as well as people of Good-will. Jay is respectful. Jay is an intellectual. And in my opinion a very worthy apologist.

My point is this; Jay, by virtue of being Catholic and a former Protestant, remains a man who embraces Christianity without closing the door on anybody. And if some Catholics don't like what other Catholics or non-Catholics say, it is still done in the name of "truth".

Apologetics is a very High Art-Form of reason, and faith seeking reason (theology).

But I do understand this can be scary Stan, but it must be done, and I applaud Jay. Not because we agree with each other, but for the very reason that we do not always agree with each other. Why? Because we continue to reason and debate, not merely to support what our "ISM" teaches but to challenge it.

I believe that God wants us to reason our faith and not merely through the use of His Word; but through the use of the faculty he gave us. We are not robots. We do not use God's Word as a computer software program which creates mindless robotics. We are FREE to think and FREE to choose and FREE to reason our Faith! To reason that "Only Scripture" leads us to God is foolish because .... well.... just read the threads from the beginning. Or if you want we could start over.

God bless us all.

May the Grace and Peace of The Holy Spirit be with us Always!

Eric Reyes

Pardon this tangential interuption, but here is a link (below) to a "live" video/lecture of Jurgen Moltmann at Yale this past September. In it he deals with Trust, and a bit into political theology.

I believe Moltmann is the most important theologian of the 2nd half of the 20th Century. It was his writings, especially THE CRUCIFIED GOD and THE COMING OF GOD that brought me back to the Catholic faith!

Perhaps this little look & listen at/to a little bit of his (political) theology will get some of you to dig deeper into his work.

Caveat: You'll need a fast connection, and sound system to enjoy this.

http://www.yale.edu/divinity/video/moltmann.htm

Blessings!

Here is a website which takes quotes from the
early church fathers Iraneaus and Tertillian
and various church historians that CONTRADICTS
the claim made on this Blog that the early church DID NOT hold SCRIPTURE as the HIGHEST AUTHORITY Over Oral tradition. The Author of this article is William Webster. This article is backed up with extensive footnotes.

This does not deny the use of Oral communication
but re-enforces the fact that ALL oral teaching and church doctrine has its basis in and could be backed up by the Written Scriptures.

It further states that any Church doctrine that can NOT be backed up with scripture is NOT valid.

http://www.christiantruth.com/solascriptura.html

In Christ,

Clem

I think we've repeatedly shown the outright errors made on that website, Clem. Why don't you take ten minutes and read what the early Church fathers really said? I don't understand why you would believe this stuff when you could go to the actual source and read for yourself.

God bless,
Jay

Post a comment