The Bible is not a Catechetical Book!

[redleghunter]

But what the New Testament is in itself (Ie the books included) comes from Catholic Tradition.
It comes from the authority of the Catholic Bishops in Councils, as divinely guaranteed shepherds, to discern infallibly what is (& what wasn't) "canonical scripture".
Luther took out books from the OT 1300 years later, and he wanted to remove James from the NT, but wiser councils prevailed.

The above argument would mean Sir Isaac Newton invented gravity.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

When anyone posts so much information at one time, they are saying.........
"here, I am going to hit you over the head with so much stuff that you can not respond so then I must be right".

If you would like to shorten your comment so we could assimilate it, I would be glad to respond to you.

So when a RC posts a over 1400 word polemic which is not even responding to another poster on the thread, and then even says he is leaving it up to others to argue while he is preoccupied, I must respond to it in piecemeal?

If that is what you require, then you should be able to do so yourself in regards to my response, which deals with the RCs apologetic consecutively.

That could be more fitting in dealing with rebuttals, but such a prolix polemic warrant a wholesale refutation to start, versus one that may be broken up by the software into one or more pages.

What would be useful is a feature that enables one to see all the particular replies to a particular post.

But perhaps you could at least show that writing was not overall God's chosen means of preservation of His express Divine revelation, and that as written, Scripture did not become the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God and substantive body of it.

And that instead the Catholic Church is the supreme assuredly infallible source of Truth as the historical magisterial discerners and stewards of Divine revelation, and without which man cannot assuredly know what Divine revelation consists of and means, which Scripture does not provide for otherwise. Thus to dissent from her is rebellion against God (and perhaps face Hell if they die unconverted).

That should suffice for now.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The above argument would mean Sir Isaac Newton invented gravity.

Or that he must be the assuredly infallible authority on it, for the Catholic premise is that that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)\

And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God.

Would any Catholic here disagree with that?

 

[redleghunter]

Thank you for the Vatican II quote.
Could you possibly have any issue with that?

When I was saying you misunderstood some things, I was referring to you saying
"The process is only the RCC's way of trying to make Mary equal to Jesus as the co-redeemer"
That is untrue.
The RCC Church is not trying, (And never ties) to make Mary equal to Jesus.

That's the point. There can only be One redeemer.

“knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.” (1 Peter 1:18-19)

 

[redleghunter]

This is the repetitive chord of Protestant objections/heresies to historic (Catholic/Orthodox Christianity).
Stop raising these false dichotomies........It's both/and

I'd be a bit careful calling cooperation with God's Grace as ancient church teachings. The Council of Orange is quite clear that any "goodness" or cooperation we seem to bring is by itself an act of The Holy Spirit.

Council of Orange 579 AD

CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me" (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).

CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).

CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism -- if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.

CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).?

Just a few of the canons. Worth reading them all.

Historic Church Documents at Reformed.org

What you are presenting is what the council of Trent presented . Orange and Trent don't line up. That's a problem for a church which claims consistent teachings throughout history.

 

[Episaw]

Sacred Scripture is profitable for the “man of God” for someone who already knows the basics of the Faith.

You have read into it something that is not there. The word "man" in Greek is "anthropos", where we get our word anthropology, simple means a human created by God. It has nothing at all to do with their spiritual standing.

 

[Episaw]

Where did he get it? From Sacred Tradition via the Church, this where the person got the teaching to be a man of God and receive the profitabilities of Sacred Scripture.

Once again an incorrect translation and reading into it what is not there. The word scripture in Greek is "graphe" where we get the word graphic from. In other words, a document written on so there is no mention of the church.

 

[Episaw]

Objection 1: No Protestant believes that one can just whip through the Bible and just know the Faith! Nor does Sola Scriptura teach that Bible clearly states that everything in it. Sola Scriptura simply states that it’s the infallible authority.

This paragraph does not make sense.

"Nor does Sola Scriptura teach that Bible clearly states that everything in it."

What do you mean "states that everything in it?" States what about everything in it?

 

[Episaw]

Objection 2: 2 Timothy 3:16-17, clearly says that scripture is sufficient!

I Reply: Materially sufficient, not formally sufficient. The Catholic position is that Sacred Scripture is materially sufficient, that means that the Holy Bible does contain all that is necessary for Salvation, but it is not obvious. (formally sufficient) The Holy Bible contains all the teachings of the Catholic Church including; the Papacy, the Sacraments, Devotion to Mary, Purgatory ect. ect./

 

[Episaw]

I Reply: Materially sufficient, not formally sufficient. The Catholic position is that Sacred Scripture is materially sufficient, that means that the Holy Bible does contain all that is necessary for Salvation, but it is not obvious. (formally sufficient) The Holy Bible contains all the teachings of the Catholic Church including; the Papacy, the Sacraments, Devotion to Mary, Purgatory ect. ect.

I have been studying scriptures for 63 years and have degrees to boot but as yet have not found any of these teachings in it. Can you point our the verses that supposedly teach these things?

 

[Episaw]

I Reply: First of all, notice that this doesn’t solve the problem at all. If the Catholic Church doesn’t have the correct interpretation of Divine Revelation and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, well, then Christianity is finished! It is as Blessed Cardinal John Henry Newman said, it’s either Catholicism or Atheism! If one rejects Catholicism and follows this rejection of Catholicism to it’s logical conclusion, one will become an Atheist.

Sorry to say your conclusion is not logical. What makes one an atheist is that you believe that God does not exist. NOT that the Catholic church does not exist.

An atheist would not be so stupid as to say the Catholic church does not exist because there is one in every town.

And in case you had not noticed Christianity is not finished even though the Catholic church is not infallible. There are billions of Christians outside of the Catholic church that confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord. If the Catholic church disappeared tomorrow in its entirety, the Christian faith would still continue to grow.

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

Which Sacred Traditions did Jesus teach that are not recorded in Holy Scriptures? Do you have a list?

The Tradition that Divine Revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, for starters, that's not found anywhere in Sacred Scriptures yet all you Protestants believe it. (I hope!)

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

I'm going to be busy tomorrow, so I won't have time to respond here, to new responses to my arguments. I call on fellow-Catholics to continue the debate for me while I'm gone. For now I'll leave with the following argument:

Sola Scriptura means Scripture alone, that means Scripture alone, is the sole infallible authority. That means should be able to stand on it's own and make clear authoritative teachings regarding faith and morals. Now that being said, I want all of you to tell me, what the following passages clearly say, and specifically, what Our Lord meant by "fornication" and "divorce?":

"But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery."
- St. Matthew 5:32 DR

And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.
- St. Matthew 19:9 DR
​

Have fun! I'll see you all Thursday!

As anyone, answered this yet?

A lot as happened since I was away, I don't have time to read all of it.

 

[Episaw]

Now in regards to one can know if the Catholic Church has the correct understanding of Divine Revelation? Well, I’ll approach this from the view of Catholicism vs Atheism, and see if I can find the truth. First I’ll see whether or not there is a God, I examine the arguments for and against God, I find that without God, reality doesn’t make any sense. Next, I see whether or not Jesus Christ really existed, and I find that Jesus Christ truly was an historical character. I examine the historicity of Jesus Resurrection, and I find that, in a sense, it would be easier for one to try and disprove the existence of God, than to prove that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead. Finally I turn to what Jesus taught, what is His message to us? For that, I turn to the writings of the early Christians, what did they believe Our Lord’s message was? I find that they believed quite a number of things: They believed in praying for the dead; they believed in having authority figures over their communities called “bishops;” they believed in worshipping Jesus in very special way, headed by a consecrated priest, and that when that priest spoke special words over the bread and wine on the altar, that bread and wine became the really became the body, blood, soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ truly present under the guise of bread and wine! Thus, the early Christians believed everything the Catholic Church teaches, and thus the Catholic Church, is the One True Church established by Jesus Christ. (Albeit, is the question of the Orthodox Churches, and other Churches that accept Sacred Tradition, but that’s a whole other topic for another time.)

This last claim is the most laughable of the lot.

One. Finding out if what the church is true we compare Christianity v atheism. Strewth. Since when have atheists been an authority on the teachings of scripture?

Two. "I find that without God, reality doesn’t make any sense." The atheist world is quite happy without the existence of God.

Three. "I find that Jesus Christ truly was a historical character." The atheist does not find that Jesus was a historical character.

Four. "For that, I turn to the writings of the early Christians, what did they believe Our Lord’s message was? I find that they believed quite a number of things:" And the most important one you have left out and that was to go into all the world and make disciples of all nations.

Five. "they believed in worshipping Jesus in very special way, headed by a consecrated priest, and that when that priest spoke special words over the bread and wine on the altar, that bread and wine became the really became the body, blood, soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ truly present under the guise of bread and wine!" Did they? After 63 years studying scripture I have yet to find any such thing.

Six. "Thus, the early Christians believed everything the Catholic Church teaches." How can they believe what the Catholic church teaches as it did not exist when they taught what they did.

Seven. "and thus the Catholic Church, is the One True Church established by Jesus Christ." Jesus did not establish any church. That was the job of his disciples which were known as apostles. Apart from the first one which was established by the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost.

All in all your post is a very poor attempt to rubbish the protestant church and create some kind of magical authority for the catholic church which it created for itself.

if you want to see what the true story of the Catholic church is like I can give it to you but it won't make for very good reading as it contains some very sordid material with bloodthirsty popes; children being sired by popes and other dignitaries in the church; priests treating the plebs like dirt; buying yourself a few days off in purgatory with indulgences: and not to mention all the pedophiles in the ranks of the priesthood.

Need I say more?

 

[Episaw]

*Disclaimer: I am not a Theologian,

That is one thing that is true in your post.

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

Okay, I don't have time to deal with everything here, so I'll just respond to two of them:

Under the correcting and illuminating efforts of God's Spirit.

And how do you know you have the Holy Spirit? Like I've said earlier, Sola Scriptura weakens the Authority of God, it places the power of the Holy Spirit on equal footing with the folly and/or the deception of Man, and the influence of Satan!

The pot calling the kettle black here, I think. And what's more, an obvious Strawman. In reality, Missionary Alliance, Evangelical Free, Nazarene, Baptist, Plymouth Brethren, and Presbyterian denominations - to name only a few - all hold the same fundamental doctrines and theology in common. The fractured doctrinal landscape you're trying paint of Protestant denominations is largely a convenient distortion. What's more, Catholics like to slip in among Protestant denominations religions that, denying fundamental tenets of the Christian faith, are not Protestant or Christian (ie. Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, Iglesia ni Cristo, etc.)



See above. Essentially a Strawman argument here.



Again, a glaring Strawman. I have been in the Protestant community for fifty years and have observed far more agreement doctrinally among the various denominations - especially upon the basic tenets of the faith - than disagreement.

And what are these basic tenets? And how do you justify it? I'm for emphasizing The Trinity, and the Resurrection, as key Dogmas of the Faith, but what other teachings, like the one I touch-on below:

I'm going to be busy tomorrow, so I won't have time to respond here, to new responses to my arguments. I call on fellow-Catholics to continue the debate for me while I'm gone. For now I'll leave with the following argument:

Sola Scriptura means Scripture alone, that means Scripture alone, is the sole infallible authority. That means should be able to stand on it's own and make clear authoritative teachings regarding faith and morals. Now that being said, I want all of you to tell me, what the following passages clearly say, and specifically, what Our Lord meant by "fornication" and "divorce?":

"But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery."
- St. Matthew 5:32 DR

And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.
- St. Matthew 19:9 DR
​

Have fun! I'll see you all Thursday!

Also, and more importantly, why you settling for just "the basic tenets" of the Faith? Why not go for, oh say, 100% of the Faith! Do you really think Our Lord will satisfied with you just holding the "basic tenets" I'm pretty sure the Holy Gospel said just the opposite. Or maybe I'm just interpreting wrong!

 

[Episaw]

The Tradition that Divine Revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, for starters, that's not found anywhere in Sacred Scriptures yet all you Protestants believe it. (I hope!)

Another mistaken claim. All Protestants do not believe it. Some do.

 

[Episaw]

Or maybe I'm just interpreting wrong!

That is clear as you have a very one-eyed view of everything which is nothing more than the dogma of the Catholic church.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

But what the New Testament is in itself (Ie the books included) comes from Catholic Tradition.

And so your argument is that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is the assuredly infallible magisterium on what it consists of and means?

It comes from the authority of the Catholic Bishops in Councils, as divinely guaranteed shepherds, to discern infallibly what is (& what wasn't) "canonical scripture".

Without resorting to extrapolative eisegesis based on promises of God's guidance, presence, preservation, just where do you see ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility promised or established in Scripture, or essential for God's guidance, presence and preservation?

Luther took out books from the OT 1300 years later, and he wanted to remove James from the NT, but wiser councils prevailed.

Luther did nothing new, but had substantial Catholic scholarly support for his (non-binding) doubts and judgments here, for contrary to RC propaganda, there simply was no indisputable canon until after the death of Luther, and doubts and disagreements continued through the centuries and right into Trent, which provided the first indisputable canon for Catholics (though even that of the EOs is not wholly uniform with it, nor does Protestantism wholly conform to Luther's canon, while his Bible included most of the deuteros).

Since the Table-of-Contents is not in the Bible, but is a list discerned by Catholic Councils.........is it infallible?

It is as infallible as the body of established inspired books were which the Lord and NT church often invoked for substantiation, which body was never a manifest matter of dispute with those who sat in the seat of Moses (and who it is though held to the Palestinian canon which excluded the deuteros).

The issue here is, just what makes something infallible? If it is wholly inspired of God then it must be infallible, but so-called infallible decrees of popes and councils are not wholly inspired of God as Scripture is.

Thus you are back to arguing that man cannot ascertain what is of God without your infallible magisterium, and that it infallible because (fill in the blanks____)

It is not consistent to accept The Catholic Church as infallible in interpreting infallibly what should be in The Bible but not infallible in interpreting it!

Which presupposes an infallible magisterium is essential to ascertain what writings and men are of God, which is a false presupposition.

Tell me upon what basis common souls could assuredly ascertain both men and writings were of God prior to their being a church of Rome which presumed it was essential for this.

Yet even if that was accepted, according to some of your own apologists Rome hardly claims to have infallibly interpreted any texts of Scripture. And while many texts can be invoked in support of teachings such as well both concur with, and many contrary things can be excluded, yet within the basic parameters of Catholic teaching RCs have a great deal of liberty to interpret in attempting to support Cath traditions of men.

Yet seeing as the veracity of Catholic teaching does not rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation then such attempts are often done in condescension to evangelical types in seeking to convert them, with the end result being that they cease to ascertain the veracity of Catholic teaching does not rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation. For Church Law is considered to be supreme.

If you don't accept Christ's creation, His Church, as infallible to discern what is the word of God (& interpret it) you are left with (at best) What R.C. Sproul considered to be “a fallible collection of infallible books.” Which means you have no certain ground at all.

Which logic means one must have an infallible basis to warrant accepting the Catholic Church as infallible, and since an infallible church is essential to know what the word of God is and means, and thus who is speaking it, then before the Catholic church arrived people could not ascertain what was of God.

Of course if they could, and any body of Scripture, however limited, was established as authoritative then your house of cards falls down.

That the Catholic Church as "tradition" precedes the canon is historical fact.
That the Catholic Church as "tradition" decided the canon on its authority is historical fact.

Which no more makes them the infallible authority on what is of God then being the magisterial stewards of OT writings did for those who sat in the magisterial seat of Moses.

The tradition (and the living organic fact) of The Church, is wider & deeper than scripture. Scripture is "The Family History Library" of The Catholic Church.

The former statement conflicts with the latter, for Catholic distinctives are not manifest in the inspired record of what the NT church believed (Acts onward), conflict with it.

So scripture is "normative & formative" and is not contradicted by the Church which decides scripture & interprets it.

Meaning because Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

John 21:25 "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."

Which no more warrants make such fables as the Assumption to be binding beliefs than it does Mormonic fantasy. That there is more that can be known does not mean God has chosen to reveal such, nor give someone a blank check to declared what it is.

In Acts 20:35 it says "Lord Jesus himself said: 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" If you look in the Gospels, you will not see this phrase. So the apostle obviously received this orally, by someone who knew Jesus and quotes from this tradition.

So just how does this make whatever Rome declares to be Divine revelation to be so? We know this statement by Christ because it was recorded as wholly inspired writing, which words of popes are not.

The New Testament is plainly not written as a Church-Creating-Manual....but that is how many Protestant reformers have treated it since 17th Century of Christianity, especially in America.
The Epistles make far more sense as happenstantial survivals of letters from authority to deal with local problems.

Your marginalization of Scripture is not surprising seeing as Catholic distinctives are an addition to Scripture and often rely in wresting statements from the gospels in isolation, for in reality Acts and the epistles reveal how the NT church understood the gospels, and were not Catholic!

This structure, authority & oral tradition come directly from Judaism.....which Christianity is.
You will understand this far more if you realise The Catholic Church (Kingdom-of-God) is "Judaism-fulfilled" not a new religion. Jesus "came to fulfil theLaw not to abolish it"
It is Jewish.....The Apostles didn't need to say this. They just got on doing things the Jewish way and The Jews had The Torah, Law & Prophets scriptures but also the oral Talmud/Mishnah.

Which is why both Judaism and Catholicism conflict with Scripture, with both invoking oral tradition and uninspired writings in so doing. Moreover, despite having magisterial authority, nowhere was OT magisterial authority promised ensured perpetual infallibility as per Rome.

And in the times of The Davidic Kings there was a Royal Steward to rule as the King's deputy. Jesus as the Davidic Messiah-King deliberately reinstitutes this (See & Compare Matt16:18 & Is 22:20-23)

Which is simply you engaging in fallible interpretation, without getting into details as i have elsewhere here this prophecy is actually contrary to Peter being that Eliakim and if there is any unfulfilled prophecy here it will be in Christ.

And nowhere interpretive of Mt. 16 is Peter called or described as the Rock upon which the church was built. Instead, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or “stone” (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8)

But neither is the papal Peter of Rome that of R. Catholicism, which even the EOs rightly reject.

 

[redleghunter]

The Tradition that Divine Revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, for starters, that's not found anywhere in Sacred Scriptures yet all you Protestants believe it. (I hope!)

That did not answer the question. Which traditions do you speak of which are not recorded in the writings of the apostles?