The Bible is not a Catechetical Book!

[JesusLovesOurLady]

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

Oh cool! So some Protestants are open having more added to Divine Revelation, and yet we Catholics get accused of adding to Divine Revelation?

Still don't see the problem with Sola Scriptura here?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Good Day

BTW still waiting... Athanasius and the source of the OT
Maybe this will help you....

Cardinal Ratzinger
“It is important to note that only Scripture is defined in terms of what is: it is stated that Scripture is the word of God consigned to writing. Tradition, however, is described only functionally, in terms of what it does: it hands on the word of God, but is not the word of God.” See Joseph Ratzinger’s “The Transmission of Divine Revelation” in Herbert Vorgrimler, ed., Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969), Vol. 3, p. 194.

Long-term oral transmission=tradition by its very nature is most supremely subject to corruption and additions, and was not God's chosen means of preservation.

• And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book.. (Exodus 17:14)
• And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. (Exodus 34:27)
• And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing.. (Deuteronomy 10:4)
• And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: (Deuteronomy 17:18)
• And thou shalt write upon them all the words of this law,..(Deuteronomy 27:3)
• And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, (Deuteronomy 31:24)
• Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your • God, that it may be there for a witness against thee. (Deuteronomy 31:26)
• Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: (Isaiah 30:8; cf. Job 19:23)
• This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success. (Joshua 1:8)
• "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:31) "
• Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter; (Revelation 1:19)
• "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. (Revelation 20:12) "
• "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:15) "

And thus it was not because of faithful oral transmission that the king of Israel ripped his clothes in repentance over, but the hearing of the written word, this being the standard for obedience and testing Truth claims, upon which the NT church established its claims.

And Shaphan the scribe shewed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes. (2 Kings 22:10-11)

Go ye, enquire of the Lord for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found: for great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us. (2 Kings 22:13)

While before the Word was written, the oral transmission was the standard, but with God only expressly revealing His will in a very limited degree to a very limited amount of people. But after manifestly revealing Himself in holiness and power to an entire people, and entering into covenant with them, the Lord provided His word extensively and preserved it in writing, which became the standard for obedience and testing and establishing Truth claims, a pattern which the NT church would follow.

Peter states that Scripture is the more sure word of God, and is what even the devil used as being the authoritative word of God, and which the Lord reproved him and traditions of men by, yet Rome thinks that whatever she declares is the word of God out of the amorphous body of oral transmission is equal to Scripture, under the premise of ensured magisterial infallibility. In contrast, we know what valid Biblical oral tradition is, by its inclusion in wholly inspired-of-God Scripture. Thank God.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Apart from one very poor attempt, you never once defended Sola Scriptura. While your attempt is better than most, you have, like countless others, dodged my arguments, mainly Sola Scriptura doesn't work, and can't be defended.

I do try giving Protestants patience with that. After all, I used to be one of them.

It isn't easy though because I eventually discovered the truth about Mother Church and the reflexive response I had was outrage that I had been lied to about the true faith.

But still, sola scriptura is the default from which a lot of Protestants begin. Showing them how illogical, counter-intuitive and unworkable sola scriptura is may take a while.

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

That is clear...

Would you care to show me how, in the countless passages in the Holy Gospel where Jesus tells to obey Him 100%, He's not telling us to obey Him 100%?

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

You wish.

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

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

Could you explain your question please?

 

[thecolorsblend]

Long-term oral transmission=tradition by its very nature is most supremely subject to corruption and additions, and was not God's chosen means of preservation.

Whaaa? The ancient world prized oration above prose. This is undeniable. A speaker was more accepted than a letter because a speaker could be questioned and then provide answers. What you wrote is so ahistorical that I just can't even.

In modern times, we typically trust the written word because we subconsciously associate it with authority. But the ancients had the total opposite view. On that basis alone they wouldn't have accepted sola scriptura.

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

And so somehow Catholicism solves this? In all her history, has Rome ever published an official commentary on the whole Bible? And do you affirm the veracity of the notes and helps in your officially sanctioned NAB?

I don't follow the NAB, it has a blasphemous translation of St. Luke 1:28 (Not that we're debating that!) and many other problems, let alone the modernist, and outright atheistic notes and helps.

I follow versions that follow the Vulgate, namely the Douay-Rheims and Knox Version, although I do tolerate the RSV-CE.

And on ground level where it counts, just what do Catholics profess versus "Bible Christians."

Off-topic, Ad Ignominiam, and probably the vast majority of "catholics" in that study were modernist heretics, and cafeteria-catholics.

[QUOTE="PeaceByJesus, post: 71843006, member: 325380"
Meanwhile, where do you see an infallible church being essential for common people assuredly ascertaining what/who is of God?[/QUOTE]
The same way fallible scholars and preashers are necessary for your ecclesial communities.

 

[redleghunter]

Could you explain your question please?

Yes Irenaeus made it clear that the traditions the apostles handed to them were once voiced in public and then written down later as Holy Scriptures. See quote under pic in signature below.

 

[Episaw]

I don't follow the NAB, it has a blasphemous translation of St. Luke 1:28 (Not that we're debating that!) and many other problems, let alone the modernist, and outright atheistic notes and helps.

I follow versions that follow the Vulgate, namely the Douay-Rheims and Knox Version, although I do tolerate the RSV-CE.


Off-topic, Ad Ignominiam, and probably the vast majority of "catholics" in that study were modernist heretics, and cafeteria-catholics.

[QUOTE="PeaceByJesus, post: 71843006, member: 325380"
Meanwhile, where do you see an infallible church being essential for common people assuredly ascertaining what/who is of God?

Having read your posts since my last one it is very clear to me that you are not a teacher and not teachable so saying anything in response to what you claim is a waste of time as all it will do is give you another opportunity to rubbish the protestant church and try to give us the idea that you are some authority on doctrine and faith which you are not.

If I corrected everything you have said since my last post I would need a whole page to do it as your theology, your sarcasm and you're holier than thou attitude is not at all endearing to the readers and what you espouse is sadly lacking in any ability to do exegesis of scripture and your unwillingness to answer the questions asked of you is plain for all to see.

Therefore responding to your writing is a wasted experience so it won't be happening again and I am sure you will fire back with a sarcastic response to prove everything I have said.

 

[Major1]

Goatee, in fairness to @Major1 he is not bashing anyone or any religion. He is actually debating points. What you post above is actually what you accuse him of.

Debating assertions or arguments of others is not bashing. The OP is actually a huge assertion begging an argument in return.

Knowing the difference between an assertion and an argument is key to any good discussion or debate. Sometimes assertions need to be addressed for what they are....statements without evidence.

Thank you for the comment!

Mr. Goatee and I go back a long way. I can not help him as he is way to involved in the personal aspect of the conversation instead for debating the particulars of said subject.

 

[Major1]

Having read your posts since my last one it is very clear to me that you are not a teacher and not teachable so saying anything in response to what you claim is a waste of time as all it will do is give you another opportunity to rubbish the protestant church and try to give us the idea that you are some authority on doctrine and faith which you are not.

If I corrected everything you have said since my last post I would need a whole page to do it as your theology, your sarcasm and you're holier than thou attitude is not at all endearing to the readers and what you espouse is sadly lacking in any ability to do exegesis of scripture and your unwillingness to answer the questions asked of you is plain for all to see.

Therefore responding to your writing is a wasted experience so it won't be happening again and I am sure you will fire back with a sarcastic response to prove everything I have said.

I agree. Unfortunately, as is seen on this thread along with all others, is that when anyone is shown to be Biblically in error, they will and have always then resorted to sarcasm and personal attacks.

If you will notice, that is what happens on every single thread when it comes to religion replaceing the Word of God.

 

[Major1]

On the contrary, as you acknowledge scripture permits -- even encourages -- the faithful to pray for each other. There's no real reason that I can see that the dead cannot pray for us since they're even more alive than we are.

Arguing from silence that the communion of the saints doesn't exist is, with respect, a flimsy argument in my view.

The reason is in 1 Timothy 2:5 .............
"there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus".

 

[thecolorsblend]

I did not say they who sat in the seat of Moses set the OT Canon, but that they evidently held to a body of authoritative books, which were established without an infallible magisterium.

You know, this is an issue where I don't think the Protestants have really pondered the ramifications. The ancient jews didn't have an authoritative canon of sacred writings, as you obviously already know.

So think that through. What does that suggest about ancient jewish religious customs? Well, for one thing it's clear that they didn't hold to any similar notion of sola scriptura. Their unity was expressed other ways.

But they also had a living and active sacred tradition of their own. Hanukkah is a good example, in fact. It's not easy to find authoritative written sources (inspired or otherwise) regarding the revolt. And yet, this hasn't hindered the observance of Hanukkah too much. It's still regarded as an authoritative holy day for jews based on oral tradition.

The issue is not whether the magisterial office is valid, which the Westminster Confession (seeing this thread is about SS) affirms*, but whether that office possesses ensured infallibility (thus disallowing valid dissent)

This is something about the Magisterium that I don't think very many Protestants really understand. Considering the narrow parameters wherein infallibility could apply, the vast majority of any given Pope's public statements are not binding upon the faithful. Specific Catholic doctrines are not up for debate, sure, but when Pope Francis talks about this or that political issue, I'm welcome to either agree or disagree with him as I see fit since those cannot possibly be ex cathedra.

The same holds true for any of the other bishops, really.

This may be a distinction you're already well aware of (I wouldn't know) but I get the suspicion that most Protestants aren't aware of it.

I follow versions that follow the Vulgate, namely the Douay-Rheims and Knox Version, although I do tolerate the RSV-CE.

Same here.

Meanwhile, where do you see an infallible church being essential for common people assuredly ascertaining what/who is of God?

That was the only way to ensure continuity of the faith from one generation to the next considering how expensive Bibles have been through the millennia and how widespread illiteracy was until relatively recently.

So where do I see it an infallible church being essential for common people assuredly ascertaining what/who is of God? I see it in history.

 

[thecolorsblend]

The reason is in 1 Timothy 2:5 .............
"there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus".

Is there a difference between intercession and mediation?

(I already know the answer to this; I'm asking for your benefit, not mine)

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Opinion......

Tell me where else people repeatedly ask Jesus to retract & he re-emphasises?
He re-emphasises graphically changing the greek word from "eat" to gnaw" when challenged. And even though many turn away at this impossible saying He will not withdraw it or say "OK guys I meant it figuratively after all!"
----------------------------------

Christ's literality was absolutely clear...because the listeners kept challenging & eventually deserting Him.

Your examples are spurious (are you playing games?) ....nobody says to Jesus "Do you really mean you are an actual gate (Shepherd/Vine etc)".

So John 6 is clearly different. The Gospel writer repeats the challenges & Christ's insistence on its literal meaning.

Why do Protestants demand "Show me in the bible"....re Mary or Papacy .....but, when you do show them, as clear as crystal, a Catholic Doctrine (Real Presence) in the Bible.....they get out their opaque goggles to read.
Why not let the plain meaning of this passage prevail instead of the meaning from your man-made tradition?

Clear as crystal?! Rather it is only Catholics who can see mud as crystal for neither the demigoddess Mary of Catholicism and or the perpetuated infallible Caesario-papacy of Rome is what is contextually manifest in the NT, as is that Christ was speaking literally in John 6, and the Cath insistence that this is what the NT believed depends upon isolationist eisegesis.

As regards John 6, ignoring the rest of what John writes for now, and the use of metaphorical use of language by him and in the rest of Scripture, and record of what the NT church believed, first off, if you really take John 6 literally, then what do you not believe John 6:53 is as much an absolute imperative as other "verily verily" statements?

For since it states, "Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you," (John 6:53) then this not only makes taking part in the Lord's supper (LS) essential for obtaining life in oneself (which is what happens in regeneration), but it excludes all others who deny the Catholic "Real Presence" (RP) ().

Therefore I am demanding you be consistent and affirm that believing in and receiving the Catholic (for which apparently the "Real Presence" was originally an Anglican term) RP is necessary for regeneration and that Christians who choose not to believe in this RP have no life in themselves, and will not have eternal life based on John 6:54. If you deny that this is the import of a literally reading of the text then forget about contending for the rest.

Going outside of John 6 is this what we see, that of the LS being preached or shown as the means of obtaining spiritual life, or by hearing the gospel, and with the word of God being described a spiritual food for those who hear and believe it? Where in the life of the church is the LS presented as spiritual food, with the dispensing of it being the primary unique active function of Cath "priests" (which distinctive sacerdotal class of hiereus is itself not what is seen).

Instead the primary work of NT pastors is that of prayer and preaching. (Act 6:3,4; 2 Tim.4:2) by which they “feed the flock” (Acts 20:28; 1Pt. 5:2) for the word is what is called spiritual food, "milk," (1Co. 3:22; 1Pt. 1:22) and "meat," (Heb. 5:12-14) which is said to "nourish" the souls of believers and build them up, (1 Timothy 4:6; Acts 20:32) and believing it is how the lost obtain life in themselves. (Acts 15:7-9; cf. Psalms 19:7)

Nor does John elsewhere ever teach that partaking of the LS is the means by one obtains spiritual and eternal life, but he teaches that it is by believing in the person of Christ that one obtains this life, even before John 6 ( John 4:14; John 5:24). And all of which perfectly corresponds to John 6:63, in which literally eating food does not profit spiritually, but the Lord's words which are consumed are spirit and life.

(Moreover, in contrast to the priestly paramount central Cath sacrament for the baptized, the LS itself is not even manifestly mentioned in the inspired record of the life of the church except as mere breaking of bread in Acts and the mention of the "feast of charity" in Jude 1:12 and with the only description of much substance being in 1Co. 10,11, and the latter book does not teach the Cath Eucharist either.)

Likewise, if this is literal, just where does Christ teach the Catholic metaphysical Eucharistic body of christ which appearance does not correspond to the manifestly incarnated body of Christ, whose physicality John emphasis elsewhere (s in 1 John 1:2,3; 5:6-8, etc.) versus a docetist Christ who only looked and behaved as having a tangible real body of flesh and blood, but which body was not real?

How does taking literally "the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world...For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:51,55) translate into a christ who looks, smells, behaves, tastes, etc, and scientifically would test as mere bread and wine, but which (at the out-of-time moment when the powerful priest utters words) no longer exists but is "really" the same body of Christ that was broken/bruised and the blood that was shed, until the non-existent bread and wine begins to decay, and at which this christ no longer exists either (under the deceptive appearance)?

Going back to John 6, Catholics emphasize the use of the word "indeed" in "For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed," (John 6:55) as if the Lord was emphasizing this as literal flesh and blood, even if unbloody and by all tests of physicality is mere bread and wine. Instead, the Lord is not saying emphasizing that the meat He will give is His flesh indeed, but that it is food, as the word of God is nourishing "milk" and "meat" as said elsewhere.

Next, Catholics imagine that the use of the word trōgō ("chew/gnaw") in "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him" (John 6:56) shows that this is literal, as trōgō refers to the act of eating, (John 13:18; Mt. 24:38) but which Catholics do not do, for this chewing of flesh hardly corresponds to receiving the metaphysical contrived Eucharistic christ on one's tongue, which they are forbidden to actually chew/gnaw, and thus once again Catholics are inconsistent with their own claim taking the words of Christ as plainly literal.

Instead, the use of metaphorical language means using literal terms which have spiritual correspondence, When Zephaniah 3:3 says that "her [Jerusalem's] princes within her are roaring lions; her judges are evening wolves" who gnaw bones, it does not mean they are cannibals. Likewise John 6 is only rightly understood on the light of the abundant use of metaphorical language by God, including for eating and drinking, and in fact it is only the metaphorical understanding of John 6 that easily conflates with the rest of Scripture:

Such as,
And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord. And he said, Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. (2 Samuel 23:16-17)

To be consistent with their plain-language hermeneutic Catholics insist a plain-language reading of such words requires in the gospels, then they should also insist this was literal. As well as when God clearly states that the Canaanites were “bread:
• Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” (Num. 14:9)
Other examples of the use of figurative language for eating and drinking include,
• The Promised Land was “ a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof.” (Num. 13:32)
• David said that his enemies came to eat up my flesh.” (Ps. 27:2)
• And complained that workers of iniquity ”eat up my people as they eat bread , and call not upon the Lord.” (Psalms 14:4)

• And the Lord also said, “I will consume man and beast; I will consume the fowls of the heaven, and the fishes of the sea, and the stumblingblocks with the wicked; and I will cut off man from off the land, saith the Lord.” (Zephaniah 1:3)

• While even arrows can drink: “I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh ; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy.' (Deuteronomy 32:42)

• But David says the word of God (the Law) was “sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. (Psalms 19:10)

• Another psalmist also declared the word as “sweet:” “ How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!” (Psalms 119:103)

• Jeremiah likewise proclaimed, “Your words were found. and I ate them. and your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (Jer. 15:16)

• Ezekiel was told to eat the words, “open thy mouth, and eat that I give thee...” “eat that thou findest; eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” (Ezek. 2:8; 3:1)

• John is also commanded, “Take the scroll ... Take it and eat it.” (Rev. 10:8-9 )

And Scripture refers to Christ being spiritual food and drink which even OT believers consumed:

• And did all eat the same spiritual meat; "A nd did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." (1 Corinthians 10:3-4)

• And Christ's word in Jn. 6, "I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst," (John 6:35) are correspondent to,

"Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness. Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David." (Isaiah 55:2-3)

• Moreover, like as bread is broken, Is. 53:10 states that " it pleased the Lord to bruise him," and the word for "bruise" (da^ka^') means to crumble, to break..., (Strong's). And like as wine is poured out, so Is. 53:12 also states of Christ, "he hath poured out his soul unto death," both of which are correspondent to the words of the Last Supper regarding bread and wine.

And which use of figurative language for Christ and spiritual things abounds in John, using the physical to refer to the spiritual:

• In John 1:29, Jesus is called “ the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” — but he does not have hoofs and literal physical wool.

• In John 2:19 Jesus is the temple of God: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” — but He is not made of literal stone.

• In John 3:14,15, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21) who must “be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal” (vs. 14, 15) — but He is not made of literal bronze.

• In John 4:14, Jesus provides living water, that “whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life,” — but which was not literally consumed by mouth.

• In John 7:37 Jesus is the One who promises “He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water” — but believers were not water fountains, but He spoke ” of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive.” (John 7:38)

• In Jn. 9:5 Jesus is “the Light of the world” — but who is not blocked by an umbrella.

• I n John 10, Jesus is “the door of the sheep,” and “ the good shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep” , “ that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” vs. 7, 10, 11) — but who again, is not literally an animal with cloven hoofs.

• In John 15, Jesus is the true vine — but who does not physically grow from the ground nor whose fruit is literally physically consumed.

Thus even a partial examination reveals that such use of figurative speech especially abounds in John, with over 35 instances of such even before the use of "meat" and drink" in chapter 6. And which gospel characteristically contrasts the physical with the spiritual, as is the case contextually in chapter 6.

Next, Jesus said in John 6:57,

As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. (John 6:57)

Thus believers are to live by Christ as Christ lived by the Father. And how did Christ lived by the Father? Not by physically consuming His body and blood, but as His words are spirit and life, thus "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God," (Matthew 4:4) and thus doing the Father's will was the Lord's "meat:" "I have meat to eat that ye know not of...My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." (John 4:32,34)

Thus once again we only have the metaphorical use being consistent with the words her in John 6.

Next, Catholics point to those who were offended by His words as evidence that that were literal, which is absurd. For at best all this can show is that some carnally-minded souls understood this as being literal, which souls also did in imagining that the use of metaphorical language by Christ - which He used to weed out the carnal or to require deeper searching - was literal when He spoke of Him destroying the temple in John 2, and of being reborn in John 3, and of water in John 4. And in each case the true meaning was only reveled as one continued with Christ.

In John 2, the Lord allowed souls to hold to their erroneous literal understanding without immediate correction, and which later became a charge at the Lord's trial. In John 3, as Nicodemus continued to seek, after being offended by Christ apparently requiring a second literal birth, then the Lord cursorily conveyed that this was a spiritual birth, but which required further revelation is see.

Likewise in John 4, living water is though to be literal, but which use of metaphor is used to induce further seeking, and the spiritual meaning. Yet which is only given a basic interpretation, and which is that this living water is eternal life, received by believing, not some metaphysical understanding of the nature of the water to be literally drank. Yet this spiritual meaning requires further revelation to properly comprehend.

Likewise the case in John 6. Having weeded out the carnal seekers, who would have though that Christ was presently going to provide them this flesh, the Lord states that He will soon by no longer bodily present, and consuming physical food does not benefit them spiritually, but that His words are spirit and life. And which the true disciples understood, that "thou hast the words [not the physical food] of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. (John 6:68-69) For as John elsewhere only teaches, believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, is how one receives eternal life.

For a more comprehensive examination of this issue by the grace of God, see here.

I will not have time till tonite for much more on this thread.

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

Having read your posts since my last one it is very clear to me that you are not a teacher and not teachable so saying anything in response to what you claim is a waste of time as all it will do is give you another opportunity to rubbish the protestant church and try to give us the idea that you are some authority on doctrine and faith which you are not.

If I corrected everything you have said since my last post I would need a whole page to do it as your theology, your sarcasm and you're holier than thou attitude is not at all endearing to the readers and what you espouse is sadly lacking in any ability to do exegesis of scripture and your unwillingness to answer the questions asked of you is plain for all to see.

Therefore responding to your writing is a wasted experience so it won't be happening again and I am sure you will fire back with a sarcastic response to prove everything I have said.

You can ignore my arguments but you cannot ignore God's arguments.

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

Has anyone explained the following yet, and explained what the words "divorce" and "fornication" mean?:

"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​

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

Yes Irenaeus made it clear that the traditions the apostles handed to them were once voiced in public and then written down later as Holy Scriptures. See quote under pic in signature below.

Ah, yes! Thank you!

So in regards to St. Irenaeus' quote and Written Tradition, it's quite simple really. As I've mentioned earlier, the Holy Bible is materially sufficient, that is, it contains all the things that the Catholic teaches (Mary, Purgatory, the Papacy etc.) but it's not spelled out. The Apostles did write-down all that is sufficient for Salvation in Sacred Scriptures, but they did it short-hand, and didn't spell it out, they expected to have their successors, the priests and bishops explain thins for them.

Case in point:

Whaaa? The ancient world prized oration above prose. This is undeniable. A speaker was more accepted than a letter because a speaker could be questioned and then provide answers. What you wrote is so ahistorical that I just can't even.

In modern times, we typically trust the written word because we subconsciously associate it with authority. But the ancients had the total opposite view. On that basis alone they wouldn't have accepted sola scriptura.

If you like I can explain it more later, but keep in mind I have a busy today. Also Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary, the day that Catholics, with the help of Our Lady and her angelic psalter, save Europe from a Muslim invasion, so I kind of what to relax and celebrate today.

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

Which Catholic Faith? We have traditionalists who pick and and choose from Vatican 2 and other modern teaching based upon their judgment of what historical RC teaching says (including that Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus means former RCs as myself are presently lost), and basically require submission to all public papal teaching, but criticize or reject modern popes while telling us we need one.

And then we have modern RCs who calls us brethren, and like their pope, in word or deed sometimes manifest that they share a liberal interpretation of what Catholic teaching means.

Then you have variations in btwn, with all them engaging in varying degrees of interpretation of what Catholic teaching means, all of whom Rome counts and treats as members in life and in death (even with ecclesiastical funerals), thus manifesting her interpretation of Scripture and canon law.

And Scripturally, what one does and effects constitutes the evidence of what one truly believers. (Mt. 7:20; Ja. 2:18)


I was once a lost (raised devout, later weekly mass-going) RC, and only after heartfelt repentance and faith in the risen Lord Jesus to save me on my account did I have an earnest ongoing desire to read Scripture and began to understand it, evangelical radio helping much in my hunger.

Actually is is irrelevant, since SS does not mean all Scripture is easily understood, but that "those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them." (Westminster Confession, cp. 1)

And a Reformed site states,

Question 88 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism asks, “What are the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption?” Answer:

The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption are his ordinances, especially the Word, sacraments and prayer; all of which are made effectual to the elect for salvation.

And,
What the church does when it gathers on the Lord’s Day is not incidental; it is vital for the salvation and sanctification of God’s people. The Word, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and prayer are, after all, Christ’s ordinances.

And is seems evident that your idea of what SS means was based more on "Catholic Answers" type propaganda or fringe views than some research.

Since your premise of what SS means is false, then so is your argument.

Wrong, for while it is true that correctly understanding the Scriptures overall requires one to be born from above by believing the Scriptural gospel, yet "Sacred Tradition" is not whatever Catholicism says it is, but must be subject to Scripture, which is the established substantive wholly inspired standard.

Is "profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct" refers to its instrumental use, while since "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God," (Romans 10:17) then Scripture is how a man comes to be a man of God. Thus as said just before your quote

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (2 Timothy 3:15)

And the NT church received OT Scriptures to which it appealed from the Jews, but which did not mean that the historical magisterial stewards of wholly inspired writings were essential for recognizing what was of God, nor what such meant. Remember this fundamental reality.

Which is contradictory, for is one can become a new creature in Christ by believing the gospel of Scripture, as one could be by reading and believing a text such as Acts 10:36-43, then he already is found Scripture to be profitable.

Which again, it because that is not what SS means.


That is a poor imitation of the style of Aquinas, and your description is still is not SS, but which is basically defined as meaning,

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. (Westminster Confession , cp. 1)

And again, while what is necessary may be deduced from Scripture, this does mean all have the same exegetical ability and exclude teachers, and Westminster also says:

Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]

There are even SS continuationists (who believe all spiritual gifts can still be in use, including the word of wisdom, etc.)

What kind of argument is that? SS does not believe interpreters of Scripture must possess some charism of infallibility, but that souls "may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them" by study.

Where do we see an infallible magisterium being essential in order to know and understand what is of God? Don't try to extrapolate it out of "guide thee into all Truth" because the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility is not there.

Which is also a problem in Catholicism, as while holding to a few core Truth, both Caths and evangelicals (leaving out liberal Prots since SS is the issue here) can variously interpret their respective doctrinal sources. Yet for years evangelicals have testified to being more unified in basic truths than the fruit of Catholicism.

Actually, SS does not hold that all that is necessary for the life of faith obvious, but it holds that "those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation" is either clearly propounded or by one may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them in a due use of the ordinary means. Which includes the church.

Westminster also says:

It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word.[4] (Chapter XXXI)

Manifestly Wrong and blasphemous! Only by your primary heresy, that of the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, meaning that Scripture only consists of and means what Rome autocratically says it does.

For 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.


Verses? You cannot even find on prayer being made to anyone else in Heaven but God - except by pagans - despite the Holy Spirit inspiring the recording of over 200.

Indeed, and contrary to the Catholic premise that being the stewards of express Divine Revelation,and the inheritor of promises of God's presence and guidance means that such is the infallible interpreter of Divine Revelation, the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved by Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

And which is certainly not opposed to magisterial authority, but the authority of the NT church was under men of supreme Scriptural integrity "not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2 Co. 4:2) "in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God..." (2 Co. 6:4)


Wrong again, you already argued for the necessity of Sacred Tradition as the alternative to (your strawman) SS, but the veracity of Sacred Tradition is based upon the novel and unScriptural premise of autocratic ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.

Which is as manifestly absurd as arguing that if one differed with though to sat in the seat of Moses than he could not be in the faith. Scripture is the only wholly inspired transcendent preserved substantive authority, by which even the veracity of the apostles preaching was subject to.

Writing, not oral tradition, is God's manifest means of preservation, (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19; Ps. 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Lk. 24:44,45)

As is abundantly evidenced that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

Which is also manifestly absurd, as evidenced by the multitudes who have left Rome and found Christ, and and atheists who also became evangelicals.

You can argue that we hold to certain common Truths as expressed in the CF Statement of
faith, but that does not mean we must submit to all else Rome proffers.

Which is a fundamental fallacy! Are these writings wholly inspired of God as Scripture is? No. Does even Rome affirm all that each believed? No.

Instead, what the (incomplete) writings of so-called "church fathers" reveal is not simply that of holding to basic Truths we also find to be Scriptural, and pious faith and morals, but a gradual accretion of traditions of men.

Which are revealed as such in the light of the only wholly inspired substantive record of what the NT church believed, in particular Acts onward, which helps us see how they understood the gospels.

Rather than subjecting Scripture to the uninspired words of men, what Scripture reveals is that the NT church not a church which,

1. Was not based upon the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility of office as per Rome, which has presumed to infallibly declare that she is and will perpetually be 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.

2. Never promised or taught ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility was essential for preservation of truth, including writings to be discerned and established as Scripture, and for assurance of faith, and that historical descent as the stewards of Scripture means that such possessed ensured infallibility.

3. Never was a church that manifested the Lord's supper as being the central means of grace, around which all else revolved, it being “the source and summit of the Christian faith” in which “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” by which one received spiritual life in themselves by consuming human flesh, so that without which eating one cannot have eternal life (as per RC literalism, of Jn. 6:53,54). In contrast to believing the gospel by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and desiring the milk (1Pt. 2:2) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) by hearing the word of God and letting it dwell in them, (Col. 3:16) by which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34) And with the Lord's supper, which is only manifestly described once in the life of the church, focusing on the church being the body of Christ in showing the Lord sacrificial death by that communal meal.

4. Never had any pastors titled "priests" as they did not engage in any unique sacrificial function, that of turning bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the people, or even dispensing bread as their primary ordained function, versus preaching the word. (2Tim. 4:2)

5. Never differentiated between bishops and elders, and with grand titles ("Most Reverend Eminence," “Very Reverend,” “Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord,” “His Eminence Cardinal,” “The Most Reverend the Archbishop,” etc.) or made themselves distinct by their ostentatious pompous garb. (Matthew 23:5-7) Or were all to be formally called “father” as that would require them to be spiritual fathers to all (Mt. 23:8-10 is a form of hyperbole, reproving the love of titles such as Catholicism examples, and “thinking of men above that which is written, and instead the Lord emphasizes the One Father of all who are born of the Spirit, whom He Himself worked to glorify).

6. Never required clerical celibacy as the norm, (1Tim. 3:17) which presumes all such have that gift, (1Cor. 7:7) or otherwise manifested that celibacy was the norm among apostles and pastors, or had vowed to be so. (1Cor. 9:4; Titus 1:5,6)

7. Never taught that Peter was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 upon which the church is built, interpreting Mt. 16:18, rather than upon the rock of the faith confessed by Peter, thus Christ Himself. (For in contrast to Peter, 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) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)

8. Never taught or exampled that all the churches were to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome, as the first of a line of supreme heads reigning over all the churches, and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church.

9. Never recorded or taught any apostolic successors (like for James: Acts 12:1,2) after Judas who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) or elected any apostolic successors by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff)

10. Never recorded or manifested (not by conjecture) sprinkling or baptism without repentant personal faith, that being the stated requirement for baptism. (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38)

11. Never preached a gospel of salvation which begins with becoming good enough inside (formally justified due to infused interior charity), via sprinkling (RC "baptism") in recognition of proxy faith, and which thus usually ends with becoming good enough again to enter Heaven via suffering in purgatory, commencing at death.

12. Never supported or made laws that restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity (contrary to Chrysostom), if able and available, sometimes even outlawing it when it was.

13. Never used the sword of men to deal with its theological dissenters.

14. Never taught that the deity Muslims worship (who is not as an "unknown god") is the same as theirs.

15. Never had a separate class of believers called “saints.”

16. Never prayed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, or were instructed to (i.e. "our Mother who art in Heaven") who were able to hear and respond to virtually unlimited prayers addressed to them (a uniquely Divine attribute in Scripture).

17. Never recorded a women who never sinned, and was a perpetual virgin despite being married (contrary to the normal description of marriage, as in leaving and sexually cleaving) and who would be bodily assumed to Heaven and exalted (officially or with implicit sanction) as [/FONT]

• an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,

• whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,

• who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"

• and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain affinity with the Heavenly Father,"
• and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"

• for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"

• "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"

• so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."

• and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"

• for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"

• Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"

• and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"
• including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"

• whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"

• and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"

• and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation." Sources and more.​

So after all this it is a hit and run.

Bookmark: [URL="https://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-bible-is-not-a-catechetical-book.8030034/page-7#post-71838564"]The Bible is not a Catechetical Book![/URL]

I'll respond to this, either later today, or tomorrow, depending on my availability, like I said, I have a busy day today, and it's the Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary, and I want celebrate it. I see a lot of strawmans in this argument.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

And somehow those doctrines spread over the entire Christian world in less than a few decades without ever being stamped out by the bishops or spoken against in scripture (which was still being written at that time)?

What doctrines spread over the entire Christian world you taking about? There simply were none of the Catholic distinctives spread over the entire Christian world by 90AD, and the later accretion of which was progressive, including the Roman papacy and Catholic priesthood, and since such as these began with them, they would hardly be stamped out by them.

But I would actually like to see a compilation of prayers to created beings (PTCBIH) in Heaven by the majority of early "church fathers."

Seems pretty thin. Especially when one considers that the communion of the saints is basically the recognition of the bond that exists between believers through Our Lord.

That is what is thin, for the issue is not the bond that exists between believers through the Lord, but what this means, as manifest in the inspired record of the church, and which leaves you trying to read prayer to created beings in Heaven (PTCBIH) into it since the Holy Spirit leave it out, and only teaches addressing God in prayer.

The best counter-arguments for the communion of the saints is arguing from silence vis a vis sacred scripture. Apparently I'm supposed to believe that the same Early Church that had a noted and famous allergy toward anything that even hinted at heresy somehow dropped the ball... but only on the issues that johnny-come-lately Protestants have with traditional Christian thought. Again, seems thin. The Early Church combated heresy every moment of every day for centuries.

As the premise that PTCBIH was spread over the entire Christian world in the NT church era is false, so is your conclusion that it would be reproved. Since there is no record of it in the inspired record of what the NT believers practiced, then why would we see correction of it? Go find one example among the over 200 prayers in all of Scripture, and you will only find it negatively recorded.

Even the most dogmatic Protestant is usually willing to grant at least that much. Why is it that they only failed on the issues that Protestants happen to disagree with?

What issues? Some were subject of debate from early one, while others were those which the very ones who would have reproved them had adopted them themselves. Regarding the former, to this very day tradition-based "Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional." - Orthodox apologist and author Clark Carlton: THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135.

And there are more, while contrary to Cath sanitizing propaganda of her past, there is testimony to variant positions from ancient times relative to certain Protestant protestations. Pelikan attested,

“...To prepare books like the Magdeburg Centuries they combed the libraries and came up with a remarkable catalogue of protesting catholics and evangelical catholics, all to lend support to the insistence that the Protestant position was, in the best sense, a catholic position... "

“If we keep in mind how variegated medieval catholicism was, the legitimacy of the reformers' claim to catholicity becomes clear."

"Substantiation for this understanding of the gospel came principally from the Scriptures, but whenever they could, the reformers also quoted the fathers of the catholic church. There was more to quote than their Roman opponents found comfortable" - Jaroslav Pelikan, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1959) p 46-49).

Is it really that difficult for Protestants to consider the possibility that they're wrong?

Of all people it should not be, for contrary to faithful Catholics who are not to ascertain the veracity of official Catholic teaching by examination of the warrant for it, for true Protestants it is the weight of Scriptural substantiation that must be the basis for their assurance of Truth. We are to go wherever the Truth leads, with wholly inspired Scripture being the wholly assured word of God. And which is why I left Rome while yet being a weekly mass-going RC, who had recently served as a CCD teacher and lector.

And I will boldly assert that I would and will return if indeed that is what Scripture attests the NT church was. But instead the more I have read Scripture 40 years after actually becoming born again by the grace of God, then i see more clearly I have seen that it is actually Catholic distinctives that are missing from the inspired record of what the NT church believed.

And which is why reliance upon Scripture as the supreme standard is attacked by RCs, who cannot even admit an infallible magisterium is not essential to know and understand what is of God!