Catholic bashing....

[Edward65]

What exactly do you mean by that?

And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house—for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’” (Luke 16:27-31, ESV)

The rich man asked Abraham to send Lazarus back from the dead to warn his brothers about the awfulness of where he (the rich man) was now residing because he was under the impression that the Bible wasn’t self-authenticating. The rich man thought that something more was necessary in order to convince his brothers about the reality of which the Bible speaks, and that if Lazarus was resurrected from the dead to go and warn them, then his brothers would listen and be convinced. But Abraham replied that even if someone was to rise from the dead to go and warn them they still wouldn’t listen if they weren’t previously prepared to listen to Moses and the Prophets.

So this parable teaches that for those who are Christ’s sheep the bare Word of the Scriptures is all that’s needed to convince them of the truth of that which it teaches, because it authenticates itself in the minds of Christians as being the Word of God, and doesn’t need any external confirmation about its validity. So the Catholic idea that you have to have a committee of the faithful to decide what is and what isn’t the Word of God isn’t correct, because God’s Word is in itself self-authenticating to Christians.

 

[rockytopva]

It is my belief that the churches as seven...

1. Ephesus - Apostolic
2. Smyrna - Martyrs (note Foxes list the persecutions as ten as does the passage)
3. Pergamos - Orthodox (A Pygros is a tower, needed for the dark ages. As Constantinople)
4. Thyatira - Catholic - Jezebel is to control and to dominate
5. Sardis - A Sardius is a gem - elagant and hard (shelled) - Protestant
6. Philadelphia - To be Methodist was to acquire sanctification with love.
7. Laodicea - Word of Faith - Rich and increased with goods and have need of nothing?

So, I believe that Catholicism is indeed part of the church. Issues yes? But we all have issues. I do believe that the spirit of Jezebel has vacated this church for Islam. I for one do not want to see her raise her head in Christianity again. So, as we all have issues, none are perfect, I tend to treat the Catholics just as I would anyone else.

 

[steve_bakr]

Since I regard the RC church's teaching on justification as false, with eternal consequences for those who believe it, I don't accept that Catholic priests are in fact devoting their lives to God and His Church. Also if you follow your church's teaching on justification, which condemns and anathemitizes those who believe they are justified through faith alone (i.e. Council of Trent decrees), then you must regard those who believe in justification through faith alone as false Christians.

There can only be one conclusion which is that either the Gospel is the teaching that we are righteous through Christ's righteousness being credited to us through faith alone, or we become righteous through a process of infusion (i.e.faith plus works). I know which the Bible teaches and it is the former not the latter.

The Catholic view is that, through free will, man cooperates in God's plan of salvation.

 

[steve_bakr]

Yes if i did someone wrong, i should approach them and confess my sin to work it out, not go to a set person and tell them all my sins, when that priest cant forgive my sins.

Matthew 18:15

15 “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother.

You misunderstand Catholicism. In the Sacrament of Reconciliation, it is God who forgives sins though Christ, not the priest.

 

[steve_bakr]

The Bible is self-authenticating and doesn't derive its authority from man. The Church derives its authority from God's Word, not the other way round.

I don't know why you're disagreeing as a Catholic with the idea that the Papacy is a divine institution. That's what Catholicism holds (wrongly) in believing that Christ built the Church on Peter as the first pope.

I'm a catholic, but I'm not a Roman Catholic. True catholicism corresponds to the teaching of the Apostles. The Papacy is an alien institution which doesn't date back to the time of the Apostles but is an intruder into the church which has deceived millions of people.

The canon of scripture has come down to us as part of the tradition of the Church.

 

[steve_bakr]

And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house--for I have five brothers--so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' And he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'" (Luke 16:27-31, ESV)

The rich man asked Abraham to send Lazarus back from the dead to warn his brothers about the awfulness of where he (the rich man) was now residing because he was under the impression that the Bible wasn't self-authenticating. The rich man thought that something more was necessary in order to convince his brothers about the reality of which the Bible speaks, and that if Lazarus was resurrected from the dead to go and warn them, then his brothers would listen and be convinced. But Abraham replied that even if someone was to rise from the dead to go and warn them they still wouldn't listen if they weren't previously prepared to listen to Moses and the Prophets.

So this parable teaches that for those who are Christ's sheep the bare Word of the Scriptures is all that's needed to convince them of the truth of that which it teaches, because it authenticates itself in the minds of Christians as being the Word of God, and doesn't need any external confirmation about its validity. So the Catholic idea that you have to have a committee of the faithful to decide what is and what isn't the Word of God isn't correct, because God's Word is in itself self-authenticating to Christians.

As I said earlier, the New Testament has come down to us in the tradition of the Church. The Bible did not come down to us as "the Book" the way the Quran is believed to have come down from heaven. The New Testament is the testimony about the Word of God (Logos), which was incarnated in Jesus, who is called Christ.

 

[Edward65]

As I said earlier, the New Testament has come down to us in the tradition of the Church. The Bible did not come down to us as "the Book" the way the Quran is believed to have come down from heaven. The New Testament is the testimony about the Word of God (Logos), which was incarnated in Jesus, who is called Christ.

I don’t have a problem with this. I accept that the Bible is a compilation of books which didn’t as it were drop from heaven already bound with the inscription “This is the Word of God” written on the front cover. I don’t have any problem with the view that the Church recognised which books were the Word of God and witnessed to them as such, but what I don’t agree with is the view that the Church has the authority to determine what is God’s Word, as if an inspired text wouldn’t be the Word of God unless the Church determined that it was and declared it to be.

I’m not sure what you believe. Do you believe that the Church only recognises that which is God’s Word or do you believe something more - i.e. that somehow it determines what is God’s Word and it wouldn’t be God’s Word unless the Church so determined?

 

[Albion]

I don’t have a problem with this. I accept that the Bible is a compilation of books which didn’t as it were drop from heaven already bound with the inscription “This is the Word of God” written on the front cover. I don’t have any problem with the view that the Church recognised which books were the Word of God and witnessed to them as such, but what I don’t agree with is the view that the Church has the authority to determine what is God’s Word, as if an inspired text wouldn’t be the Word of God unless the Church determined that it was and declared it to be.

I’m not sure what you believe. Do you believe that the Church only recognises that which is God’s Word or do you believe something more - i.e. that somehow it determines what is God’s Word and it wouldn’t be God’s Word unless the Church so determined?

Given that this argument of steve's has been used by almost every Catholic apologist on CF, there's no doubt about it being a canned response; and it certainly does intend to say that the institutional church (always supposed by them to be the RCC) created the books of Bible. History shows, however, that all but a couple of them were considered, by the churches of the Christian world, to be inspired BEFORE there was any codification, and that they used them in worship and instruction, believing these books to be authoritative.

 

[Standing Up]

Originally Posted by Standing Up
It means it explains itself. We don't have to use bishop opinion (aka Sacred Tradition) to understand it.


Shouldn't "self authenticating" have something to do with authentication.

What you've described is "self explanatory" (which clearly the bible isn't or we wouldn't get the level of disagreement that we do).

Good distinction. On that note, the bible self-authenticates by prophesying and fulfilling (about Christ).

 

[Edward65]

Given that this argument of steve's has been used by almost every Catholic apologist on CF, there's no doubt about it being a canned response; and it certainly does intend to say that the institutional church (always supposed by them to be the RCC) created the books of Bible. History shows, however, that all but a couple of them were considered, by the churches of the Christian world, to be inspired BEFORE there was any codification, and that they used them in worship and instruction, believing these books to be authoritative.

Yes, Catholics believing that the Word of God is a product of their own church is their way claiming that everything that leads to spiritual life comes from their church under the Papacy.

All true Christians believe that salvation can only be obtained through the Christian Church, but what Catholics understand to be the Church (i.e. those in communion with the popes) isn’t the Christian Church. Those who are the true Church are those who follow the Apostles’ teaching not the popes’ teaching. The popes are intruders who have infiltrated the Church and deceived millions into believing that true catholicism is what they teach when that’s absolutely not the case.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Yes, Catholics believing that the Word of God is a product of their own church is their way claiming that everything that leads to spiritual life comes from their church under the Papacy.

All true Christians believe that salvation can only be obtained through the Christian Church, but what Catholics understand to be the Church (i.e. those in communion with the popes) isn’t the Christian Church. Those who are the true Church are those who follow the Apostles’ teaching not the popes’ teaching. The popes are intruders who have infiltrated the Church and deceived millions into believing that true catholicism is what they teach when that’s absolutely not the case.

I would agree. (That horse has been beat to death though.)

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[sunlover1]

Originally Posted by Standing Up
It means it explains itself. We don't have to use bishop opinion (aka Sacred Tradition) to understand it.


Shouldn't "self authenticating" have something to do with authentication.

What you've described is "self explanatory" (which clearly the bible isn't or we wouldn't get the level of disagreement that we do).

If you and I both see the same car wreck, we will have two different
stories to tell, from two different pov's.
Was the car wreck not "self explanatory"? Sure it was.

God's word was written FOR us, BY Him.
If one has a question, they can ask Him
and what He has done for others, He'll
continue to do in/for us.

Who did you 'think' should explain God's Word to you?

 

[Root of Jesse]

What is God’s Word isn’t determined by human decision, but rather God authenticates His Word through the internal witness of the Holy Spirit. Those books which are God-breathed and divinely inspired are able to inwardly convince Christians of their authenticity by their power to awaken them to the realities of spiritual life which ordinary books by human authors don't have. Christ said “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me” (John 10:27) and this is how Christians can tell which books are God’s Word - by being able to hear God speaking to them through them.

If this is true, then why did Martin Luther reject the books Judith, Baruch, Tobit, Wisdom and the Maccabees, along with calling the Letter of James 'a pile of straw'?

The Papacy didn’t exist in the early church. Paul for instance didn’t even meet Peter until three years after he started preaching the Gospel, so he (Paul) didn’t derive his authority to preach from Peter, which he (Paul) should have done if the Church was built on Peter as head of the Church. Also it’s plain from what Paul said that he didn’t regard Peter in any way as superior to himself (see Galatians 2). Also the popes don’t claim to be first among equals but to be supreme leaders of all Christians who have been invested with infallibility when teaching the faith.

Paul received his authority, as does every bishop and all the apostles, from God Himself-the Holy Spirit. Also, if your dispute is correct, why is one of the pope's titles "Servant of the Servants of God"? And if his authority comes from the Holy Spirit, how could he be allowed to teach erroneously?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Acts 8:30-31
And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[Edward65]

I would agree. (That horse has been beat to death though.)

I'm unsure what you mean when you say "that horse has been beat to death though". Do you mean that what I said had been said so many times before that it has become unnecessary to keep repeating it? If so I don't agree because there are so many people who are deceived by the popes, and those who defend the Papacy are so vociferous.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I'm unsure what you mean when you say "that horse has been beat to death though". Do you mean that what I said had been said so many times before that it has become unnecessary to keep repeating it? If so I don't agree because there are so many people who are deceived by the popes, and those who defend the Papacy are so vociferous.

It does come up all the time. After a few years here you'll see what I mean.

Still, most people will continue to start new threads on it. There's not much new in GT.

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Yes, Catholics believing that the Word of God is a product of their own church is their way claiming that everything that leads to spiritual life comes from their church under the Papacy.

All true Christians believe that salvation can only be obtained through the Christian Church, but what Catholics understand to be the Church (i.e. those in communion with the popes) isn’t the Christian Church. Those who are the true Church are those who follow the Apostles’ teaching not the popes’ teaching. The popes are intruders who have infiltrated the Church and deceived millions into believing that true catholicism is what they teach when that’s absolutely not the case.

Well, what we believe is that Christ instituted one Church. And from that Church proceeded the writings of the NT. Christ never told anyone to write down anything. After a period of time, the Church Fathers were inspired to write.
What we understand to be "the Church" is all Christians baptized in the Trinitarian formula. The pope is the successor of the apostle Peter. All the other bishops are successors of the other apostles.
Your last statement is just false?

 

[steve_bakr]

Given that this argument of steve's has been used by almost every Catholic apologist on CF, there's no doubt about it being a canned response; and it certainly does intend to say that the institutional church (always supposed by them to be the RCC) created the books of Bible. History shows, however, that all but a couple of them were considered, by the churches of the Christian world, to be inspired BEFORE there was any codification, and that they used them in worship and instruction, believing these books to be authoritative.

These books emerged within the context of Church tradition. To take them outside of this context is to dehistoricize them.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

These books emerged within the context of Church tradition. To take them outside of this context is to dehistoricize them.

Agreed most strongly. To remove them from the hours and the liturgy of The Church does them great harm.

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[Albion]

These books emerged within the context of Church tradition. To take them outside of this context is to dehistoricize them.

That's just self-serving terminology. In order to justify the notion of "Holy Tradition" as the process of by which we determine God's will, it's necessary to throw Scripture into the same mix as opinion, myth, and legend.

The Bible books actually stand on their own and were recognized that way long before anyone set out to canonize them.