Catholics CAN'T Answer This Question!!!

[prodromos]

I consider the canon to be closed. Don't you?

My question has nothing to do with the canon of Scripture. Are you able to answer or are you not willing to answer?

 

[bbbbbbb]

My question has nothing to do with the canon of Scripture. Are you able to answer or are you not willing to answer?

Perhaps you might enlighten us by defining exactly what your question is about. If it is merely that people can, and do, write "inspiring" literature, then it all depends on what is meant by "inspiring".

 

[Albion]

My question has nothing to do with the canon of Scripture. Are you able to answer or are you not willing to answer?

I was simply fielding the question that I thought you were asking. There's no reason to become immediately combative. So if you instead were asking if God occasionally inspires people today in various ways NOT including the writing of something that the church would recognize as Scripture, then sure.

 

[prodromos]

I was simply fielding the question that I thought you were asking. There's no reason to become immediately combative. So if you instead were asking if God occasionally inspires people today in various ways NOT including the writing of something that the church would recognize as Scripture, then sure.

If that is the case then how can you confidently dismiss as "common legends and folklore" and "the opinions of Saint Soandso"?

 

[Albion]

My question has nothing to do with the canon of Scripture.

If that is the case then how can you confidently dismiss as "common legends and folklore" and "the opinions of Saint Soandso"?

Apparently your question did deal with the canon of Scripture after all. If it did not, that is still the issue that was under consideration.

Certainly God can inspire anyone he wants, but that doesn't make the inspiration be revelation in the sense that Scripture is.

Therefore, whatever a legend or custom or the opinion of St. Soandso happens to be, it's not the equal of Holy Scripture and not the basis for the creation of new dogmas. Not even if a classy term like "Sacred Tradition" is pasted over it.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

If one is of the opinion that sundry Christians can write at the same level of inspiration as the authors of the Bible, then why is it that your Bible has remained unchanged since it was canonized? I find this odd coming from an Orthodox Christian. I might expect something like this from a Catholic Christian, whose Church has embraced extra-biblical Tradition and proclaims it unashamedly as equal to, or perhaps, superior to, the Bible itself.

Actually RC theologians do not hold that even the pope is speaking as wholly inspired of God when speaking (as they imagine) in a way that the charism of infallibility kicks in. EOs tend to be less technical about such.

But both effectively presume to superior to the Bible itself, which issue has seen much press on this thread in case you missed it.

Meanwhile, whether Trent actually closed the canon is a matter of discussion among Catholics, and the EO canon (though not uniformly precise it seems) is slightly larger than that of Rome (whom they can thus charge with removing books).

Too tired to provide details now.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

If one is of the opinion that sundry Christians can write at the same level of inspiration as the authors of the Bible, then why is it that your Bible has remained unchanged since it was canonized? I find this odd coming from an Orthodox Christian. I might expect something like this from a Catholic Christian, whose Church has embraced extra-biblical Tradition and proclaims it unashamedly as equal to, or perhaps, superior to, the Bible itself.

Actually RC theologians do not hold that even the pope is speaking as wholly inspired of God when speaking (as they imagine) in a way that the charism of infallibility kicks in. EOs tend to be less technical about such.

But both effectively presume to superior to the Bible itself, the reproof of which presumption has seen much press on this thread in case you missed it.

Meanwhile, whether Trent actually closed the canon is a matter of discussion among Catholics, and the EO canon (though not uniformly precise it seems) is slightly larger than that of Rome (whom they can thus charge with removing books).

Too tired to provide details now.

 

[Darrel Slugoski]

Ignoring/mot interacting with responses or misrepresenting them and reiterating elitist amateur propaganda is arrogant.

You tried this before, and what i told you then remains the fact, that rather than Luther attempting to remove books (from a uniform indisputable canon), "Actually, while largely established, the final, indisputable canon of the Bible for RCs did not occur until after the death of Luther." And that "believing this book [2 Mac] was Scripture proper was not required until after Luther died, almost 1400 years after the last book was penned."

And if you had cared to go to the linked page you could have seen that scholarly doubts and disagreements about such books were permissible and continued down thru the centuries and right into Trent, which provided the first indisputable canon for Catholics (which EOs do not consider themselves bound by).

Moreover, Luther's canon was not binding, and he actually includes apocryphal books in his translation.

Instead you just ignore all that and parrot the ignorant and refuted propaganda of others.

You also said this before and to which I responded at length, for this existed in Catholicism also, and most of it still does (though she lost her unScriptural use of the sword of men). But you just go on with the same charge. Why then should i spend much more time with you?

I said "evangelicals."Lutherans, Anglicans and most paeobaptist denominations are not. And which conflates with what i said but which you fail to quote, which is, "Hardly any evangelicals believe in baptism as more than symbolic."

Once again you do not quote what you are supposed to be responding to, and in which i said "details of Predestination is an unresolved debate in your own church, which even the post could not reconcile, but forced a truce." and which you are not going to know (along with a whole lot more) from your Catechism. And which is not infallible and can and has erred, and thus some RCs correct it.

Meanwhile, the details i was referring to was that of the reconciliation of the efficacy of grace with human freedom, which is key aspect in predestination. In the 16th century the Dominicans, who seemed to lean towards Calvinism strongly disagreed with Jesuits on this issue, and parties of both engaged in vehement debate.

Finally, as Wikipedia provides,

after twenty years of discussion public and private, and eighty-five conferences in the presence of the popes, the question was not solved but an end was put to the disputes. The pope's decree communicated on 5 September 1607 to both Dominicans and Jesuits, allowed each party to defend its own doctrine, enjoined each from censoring or condemning the opposite opinion, and commanded them to await, as loyal sons of the Church, the final decision of the Apostolic See. That decision, however, has not been reached, and both orders, consequently, could maintain their respective theories, just as any other theological opinion is held. The long controversy has aroused considerable feeling, and the pope, aiming at the restoration of peace and charity between the religious orders, forbade by a decree of the Inquisition (1 December 1611) the publication of any book concerning efficacious grace until further action by the Holy See.

Thus that was the best Rome could do on this unresolved issue.

Sig. Just what kid of argument is this? All it is mere assertion in response to my details and substantiated postings which show the Church of Rome with its Bishop has NOT been around since the beginning, but standards in distinctive contrast to the NT church, based upon the only wholly inspired and substantive record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the gospels), as revealed in Acts thru Revelation,

Again, this is not an argument, and while Caths assert they take this literal, but if they do then they must exclude Christians who disagree with Catholicism on this from having spiritual life in them, and eternal life, since a literal understanding of John 6:53 requires believing and taking part in the Lord's supper to have both, but which is never what the NT church preached.

And as told you before and ignored, I do not have to agree with the symbolic [metaphorical] viw, "except that is the only interpretation is easily conflated with the rest of Scripture. . See here by God's grace."


I do not block people, but put them on notice that after significant long-suffering, they have warranted being basically put on the ignore list, such as are manifestly unreason-able, and ignore what refutes them and resort to sophistry and or mere continued argument by assertion.

Ya , I have yo kick it up a notch . You are a better debater , It would be interesting to see you debate someone like Staples... I will try and respond to this post once i figure out how to insert comments . Yes I can see some of your frustration with a weaker debater .

I believe the propaganda and teachings of the Catholic Church ( eg Ekuerist , confession ,baptism , holy orders , primacy of Rome , apostolic succession...........) reach back 2000 years and can be referenced in the early Church Fathers and the Councils , who were witnesses of early Church history and many of them went to their deaths holding to these documented beliefs . I hardly see that as propaganda but a written ( well documented ) record of history that can't be ignored or blown off . You may not believe some of our teachings but it was believed by them and they used both scripture interpreting ( John 6 as literal ) and tradition/oral teachings of the Apostles . There Church services centered around the Eucharist and practices ( infant baptism, anointing of the sick......) are documented in the first 400 years .

Again I don't see this a a weak unsubstantiated argument based on propaganda , but a reality of historical documented fact . Written not by amateurs , but by the very Bishops , who were martyred and died for their beliefs while spreading Christianity through their witness . Historical precedence is on the side of The Orthodox and Catholic faith regarding many beliefs that we hold together in common .
That is a reality . To counter that buy providing me with a anti Catholic book by an anti Papist Orthodox does not substantiate that the Orthodox and Catholics are so extremely different which is in itself is propaganda ( the enemy of my enemy is my friend ), biased and a weak argument .It is documented fact that the Orthodox and Catholic Churches sare more in common then we would with yourself .

It is no different than your argument then yours that other Christians believe salvation ( through Grace and faith ) . You may share some commonalities amongst yourselves since the Reformation . However, there are less commonalities that you would share with the Orthodox and Catholic Churches of antiquity . It is our Churches that can go back to the first 400 years of Christianity and use Church Fathers and Councils , with documentation , to support our commonalities . As our Churches split Rome developed docturen which the Orthodox rejected , but that does not negate the fact we share many beliefs ( together as mentioned above ) that you don't share with us .

The best you can do is to claim we were not historical NT churches and ignore that these Churches were the only Churches around for 1500 years . And ignore the Early Church fathers and Councils . And then claim there is no church has the corner on truth . But you go future and seem to be against denominationalism of any kind ?

Don't have to respond to my post until I can figure how to insert my comments into yours .

 

[Albion]

Meanwhile, whether Trent actually closed the canon is a matter of discussion among Catholics, and the EO canon (though not uniformly precise it seems) is slightly larger than that of Rome (whom they can thus charge with removing books).

Too tired to provide details now.

But the point made by bbbbbbb still remains. Catholics here criticize Protestants for considering the Bible to be more authoritative than the writings of various church leaders over the centuries after the Bible was canonized, arguing that there's no reason God cannot continue to reveal himself in the way that he did with the OT and the Gospels, but the RCC doesn't itself add any such writings to the canon. In practice, it is not different in this respect from any Protestant church.

 

[Major1]

When one continually fails to see (or acknowledge) the difference btwn the authority on Truth btwn sinners who are speaking as wholly inspired of God and those who are simply in positions of authority then it testifies to a continual cause/problem.

Agreed.

Cause and Effect typology.

 

[Major1]

Ya , I have yo kick it up a notch . You are a better debater , It would be interesting to see you debate someone like Staples... I will try and respond to this post once i figure out how to insert comments . Yes I can see some of your frustration with a weaker debater .

I believe the propaganda and teachings of the Catholic Church ( eg Ekuerist , confession ,baptism , holy orders , primacy of Rome , apostolic succession...........) reach back 2000 years and can be referenced in the early Church Fathers and the Councils , who were witnesses of early Church history and many of them went to their deaths holding to these documented beliefs . I hardly see that as propaganda but a written ( well documented ) record of history that can't be ignored or blown off . You may not believe some of our teachings but it was believed by them and they used both scripture interpreting ( John 6 as literal ) and tradition/oral teachings of the Apostles . There Church services centered around the Eucharist and practices ( infant baptism, anointing of the sick......) are documented in the first 400 years .

Again I don't see this a a weak unsubstantiated argument based on propaganda , but a reality of historical documented fact . Written not by amateurs , but by the very Bishops , who were martyred and died for their beliefs while spreading Christianity through their witness . Historical precedence is on the side of The Orthodox and Catholic faith regarding many beliefs that we hold together in common .
That is a reality . To counter that buy providing me with a anti Catholic book by an anti Papist Orthodox does not substantiate that the Orthodox and Catholics are so extremely different which is in itself is propaganda ( the enemy of my enemy is my friend ), biased and a weak argument .It is documented fact that the Orthodox and Catholic Churches sare more in common then we would with yourself .

It is no different than your argument then yours that other Christians believe salvation ( through Grace and faith ) . You may share some commonalities amongst yourselves since the Reformation . However, there are less commonalities that you would share with the Orthodox and Catholic Churches of antiquity . It is our Churches that can go back to the first 400 years of Christianity and use Church Fathers and Councils , with documentation , to support our commonalities . As our Churches split Rome developed docturen which the Orthodox rejected , but that does not negate the fact we share many beliefs ( together as mentioned above ) that you don't share with us .

The best you can do is to claim we were not historical NT churches and ignore that these Churches were the only Churches around for 1500 years . And ignore the Early Church fathers and Councils . And then claim there is no church has the corner on truth . But you go future and seem to be against denominationalism of any kind ?

Don't have to respond to my post until I can figure how to insert my comments into yours .

You do not have to this comment my friend.

I like many others have been reading your back and forth with PBJ and others and we see exactly what the difference is.

It is NOT that he is or anyone else is a better debater or a better speaker.

It is that what he is telling you is the TRUTH FROM GOD'S WORD and no one can debate that!!!!!!!!

NO ONE you chose can not respond correctly to the Bible facts PBJ has placed before you because the TRUTH can not debated. YOU can reject it.

The truth of God's Word convicts the sinner and always points him to the Lord Jesus Christ and that act alone make one feel his inadequacies and inability for respond correctly because the Bible, God's Word IS CORRECT.

 

[Arsenios]

I consider the canon to be closed. Don't you?

I consider it to be ESTABLISHED...

Nor do I slam the door in God's Face...

God is not for us merely to READ ABOUT, but to ENCOUNTER...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

The answer is very easy brother.............

II Peter 1:20-21........
"You must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

So you believe the sinner Peter, and because of that you want me to believe YOU??

The Holy Spirit revealed to the prophets the messages of Scripture. The writers of the Bible wrote not according to their own will or whim, but only as they were moved, or controlled, by the Spirit of God. The Bible is God's own book!/

Do you want me, a sinner, to believe you, another sinner?

II Timothy 3:16-17........
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

And now you want be to believe the words your sinner Timothy wrote because they are found in a book written by sinners who are claiming the Holy Spirit?

The Holy Bible affects human beings so profoundly, because "all" the Bible is "God-breathed."

That is what the sinners who wrote it, according to YOUR false theory, wrote down about the words they and other sinners wrote...

You see, if ALL the Bible is but a work of sinners who are no different from the rest of us sinners who claim to speak and write from the Holy Spirit, then we are but sinners exhorting sinners to believe sinners, and claim the Holy Spirit while we are doing so... And thereby BY YOUR FALSE THEORY, the Bible has become a blind guide leading the blind...

And this you claim, when the Bible tells you it is the Holy Men of God who wrote Holy Scripture... Sinners become Holy Men, my Brother, and as Paul recorded: "For me, to Live: Christ! To die: Gain!"

Scripture was written by men whose witness to God came from their holy lives, and these words were recorded and kept by the worshipping community from which they arose... Yes, God did cause them to be written, and they were then handed down to us, and God does indeed speak to us through them, not because of the words, nor by the words, but therough the words...

By claiming the final authority of written words, which have no authority for the unGodly, you falsely deny the Final Authority of God Who is speaking to you in your heart when you read them...

It's more than a nice collection of moral principles; it's more than a great book; it's an inspired document, God's book. The prophets who wrote the Bible related what they saw and heard in human language, but their message came directly from God.

You are right - It is a Holy Book...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

One is treading on dangerously thin ice to believe in an open canon of scripture.

And yet you cannot infer from the establishment of the Canon of Scripture that thereby we can take that Canon of Scripture and tape God's Mouth shut...

He gave that Scripture so that we might be able to HEAR Him...
Reading ABOUT Him is a START...

Arsenios

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Ya , I have yo kick it up a notch . You are a better debater , It would be interesting to see you debate someone like Staples...

I have a ways to go myself, but by the grace of God i do have the advantage of having time to write thousands of posts dealing with Catholics and their assertions (mostly on another forum with judicious moderators), and to do research in such, plus having been a weekly mass-going Catholic for years, including after being born again and realizing its profound basic changes in heart and in life, and with a hunger to know how to please God from the Scriptures. To whom God is to get all credit for what is good.

As for Staples, he would not show up here (invite him!) since hat risks being exposed as the propagandist and sophist that he is, which "Catholic Answers" with its zealous censorious mods works to prevent. I have taken the time to refute some of his stuff which was posted by others, and debated his comrade Dave Armstrong on his own web site, who deleted my responses without any notice. Your error apparently is uncritically relying on them for your arguments.

I will try and respond to this post once i figure out how to insert comments . Yes I can see some of your frustration with a weaker debater .

Part of what makes on a weaker debater is the rookie mistake is that of continually engaging in "argument by assertion," as if stating the same things that you believed made them true, and not substantively and reasonably interacting with that which challenges them.

I believe the propaganda and teachings of the Catholic Church ( eg Ekuerist , confession ,baptism , holy orders , primacy of Rome , apostolic succession...........) reach back 2000 years and can be referenced in the early Church Fathers and the Councils , who were witnesses of early Church history and many of them went to their deaths holding to these documented beliefs . I hardly see that as propaganda but a written ( well documented ) record of history that can't be ignored or blown off . You may not believe some of our teachings but it was believed by them and they used both scripture interpreting ( John 6 as literal ) and tradition/oral teachings of the Apostles . There Church services centered around the Eucharist and practices ( infant baptism, anointing of the sick......) are documented in the first 400 years .

The error here is, as told you before,

"the uninspired post-scriptural selected writings of so-called church "father" are not determinitive of what the early church believed in the only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the gospels). And when in conflict with Scripture the writings of ECFs reveal the degree of accretion of traditions of men, which you cannot anachronistically impose upon the NT church."

But that than dealing with my response, you just reiterate standard Catholic apologetics.

Likewise regarding John 6, to which I said,

"while Caths assert they take this literal, but if they do then they must exclude Christians who disagree with Catholicism on this from having spiritual life in them, and eternal life, since a literal understanding of John 6:53 requires believing and taking part in the Lord's supper to have both, but which is never what the NT church preached.

And as told you before and ignored, I do not have to agree with the symbolic [metaphorical] viw, "except that is the only interpretation is easily conflated with the rest of Scripture. . See here by God's grace."

Thus rather than invoking what non-inspired men as determinitive of what John 6 means, and v. 53,54 in particular, you need to show in the inspired record of what the NT church believed where taking part in the Lord's suppers is how one obtains spiritual life in them, and eternal life.

Again I don't see this a a weak unsubstantiated argument based on propaganda , but a reality of historical documented fact . Written not by amateurs , but by the very Bishops , who were martyred and died for their beliefs while spreading Christianity through their witness . Historical precedence is on the side of The Orthodox and Catholic faith regarding many beliefs that we hold together in common .

Which is simply reliance upon non-inspired men as determinitive of what wholly inspired Scripture teaches, which is the only wholly inspired and substantive historical documented facts of what the NT church believed, which Catholic distinctives stand in the most manifest contrast to.

Historical precedence is thus on NOT on the side of The Orthodox and Catholic faith regarding distinctives beliefs i listed, while the many beliefs that we hold together in common with you are due to the Scriptural warrant for them.

That is a reality . To counter that buy providing me with a anti Catholic book by an anti Papist Orthodox does not substantiate that the Orthodox and Catholics are so extremely different which is in itself is propaganda ( the enemy of my enemy is my friend ), biased and a weak argument .It is documented fact that the Orthodox and Catholic Churches sare more in common then we would with yourself . It is no different than your argument then yours that other Christians believe salvation ( through Grace and faith ) . You may share some commonalities amongst yourselves since the Reformation . However, there are less commonalities that you would share with the Orthodox and Catholic Churches of antiquity.

It is not propaganda since it it not provided as evidence of which side is correct, but only that disagreements and division exists. And which extends to within your own church, btwn those she considers and treats as members in life and in death.

Thus it remains that you can only claim a limited degree of unity along with substantial irreconcilable difference. Which simply means that as I basically said the difference btwn the unity of "Bible Christians" and Catholics is a matter of scope and degrees. Which means that if unity is the basis for validity, then if we find even one denomination whose members testify to a great unity of scope and degrees then they would win the validity contest, which would not be Rome. And the unity that matters most if that of unity in salvific Truths, in which there is unity in Truths as well as unity in error.

However, your unity argument is also in vain since unlike you, I am not promoting any one denomination as uniquely or comprehensively correct, but am defending a faith as Scripturally substantiated. Thus rather than which church is correct, the debate must be what faith is correct.

Your church enters into this since Catholic faith rests upon the premise that your church is the supreme authority, as possessing ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which itself is a novel and unScriptural premise.

In contrast, my premise is that Scripture is that only wholly inspired and substantive standard, 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. As abundantly evidenced

It is our Churches that can go back to the first 400 years of Christianity and use Church Fathers and Councils , with documentation , to support our commonalities . As our Churches split Rome developed docturen which the Orthodox rejected , but that does not negate the fact we share many beliefs ( together as mentioned above ) that you don't share with us .

Which is the same argumentum ad antiquitatem (argument from antiquity) fallacy as before, which is only valid if the antiquity referenced is assuredly totally correct, which Scripture uniquely is as concerns Truth and what the NT church manifestly believed.

In the light of which your assertion that "our Churches that can go back to the first 400 years of Christianity" is false, since Catholic distinctives are what is missing from the the only wholly inspired and substantive record of what the NT church believed. For one, show me where a most basic common Catholic practice, that of praying to created beings in Heaven, is seen in the life of the NT church or anyplace else in Scripture by believers, despite the Spirit inspiring the recording of over 200 prayers, and of this being a most basic practice, and despite there always being plenty of created beings to pray to, and occasions for it since the Fall. Instead, the only prayers or offerings in Scripture to anyone else in the spiritual world is by pagans, including to the only Queen of Heaven see therein.
And note that the attempts to justify this tradition from Scripture have already been refuted.

The best you can do is to claim we were not historical NT churches and ignore that these Churches were the only Churches around for 1500 years . And ignore the Early Church fathers and Councils .

The best i can do is show that these Churches were NOT the only Churches around for 1500 years since they were not the NT church, and rather than have a definite beginning, Catholicism was a matter or progressive deformation. And yet this was not to the degree that they ceased to hold to salvific Truths among her vain traditions whereby some penitent pious souls could cast all their faith on the Lord Jesus to save them on His merits, not their own, and thus the body of Christ, which is the only one true church, could continue against the gates of Hell. Yet overall she has become as the gates of Hell for multitudes, as has liberal Protestantism.

And then claim there is no church has the corner on truth . But you go future and seem to be against denominationalism of any kind ?

I do not think church has all their doctrine 100% correct, nor do any exclusively have the Biblical "corner" on salvation, but some are closer in overall in heart and word to the NT church was when obedient to Scriptural preaching under the uniquely manifest apostle of God. (2 Corinthians 6:4-10) And no, I do not go future and oppose denominationalism of any kind since separation is necessary (1 Corinthians 11:19; 2 Corinthians 6:14-18) However, to be further Scriptural there should be a central magisterium of wise and mature holy men of God, who are as close to the apostles in word and in power as we can find.

But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, 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 Corinthians 4:2)

Don't have to respond to my post until I can figure how to insert my comments into yours .

You can select individual portions of the text (place cursor | at the end of the section you want to select and hold your left mouse button down and drag the mouse to the beginning of what you want to select. Or click at the end of the text you want to select, and down the Shift key and then left click with your mouse at the beginning of the text to be selected) from a poster that you want to reply to and choose "Quote" on the option that pops up. Then hit (left click on) "Reply" at the bottom, and then left click on "Insert quotes" in the text box that has opened up after you hit Reply, and respond to each of them.

Or you can hit Reply at the bottom of the post you want to respond to, and then in the text box that opens up with the other person's post, go to the bottom and cut the [ / QUOTE] "tag" (which will be without the spaces seen here) and paste it at the end of the first portion of the post you want to reply to. That will ensure the top quote will have a link back to the post you are responding to.

If you are going to respond to another portion of the post after that, then just select the text and then on the toolbar at the top of the text box left click on the + icon, and choose Quote. That will "wrap" the selected text in the necessary BB code quote tags that this forum uses.
While the text is selected then you can also use the options provided on the toolbar to change the size, color, fonts etc. of the selected text.

That way the person you are responding to can see what you are addressing. With to my stiff arthritic, typo-making fingers I use some shortcuts to copy and paste, but this is enough to get you started.

 

[Albion]

I consider it to be ESTABLISHED...

Nor do I slam the door in God's Face...

God is not for us merely to READ ABOUT, but to ENCOUNTER...

Arsenios

OK. However, I do have to ask, then, what the purpose could be for "Holy Tradition?"

The theory is that a longstanding belief which is not based on Scripture but, rather, on the opinion of the people (or some of them), constitutes a second stream of divine revelation alongside the Bible.

Why not just take someone's alleged inspiration about something or other, commit it to writing, and call it a new addition to the canon of Scripture? That would seem to be where your own argument about such things leads.

 

[Darrel Slugoski]

I could be wrong, but it looks like you missed his point which, I believe, was that the Bible is God's word (almost all churches agree to that, even the ones that talk a lot about "Tradition"), so it has to be more authoritative and/or more reliable than the religious musings of sinful men (which is what doctrines based upon "Holy Tradition" rely upon). God used and continues to use sinful men for various tasks, but creating doctrines isn't one of them.

All Churches interpret scripture, which in fact is doctrine (Websters Dictionary -:teaching.instruction.:a principal or position or the body of principals in a branch of knowledge or system of belief .) Each church interprets scripture and defines it . Scripture requires an interpreter . Each church has a tradition of interpretation in written form .( Scripture is not self interpreting ).

 

[Arsenios]

OK. However, I do have to ask, then, what the purpose could be for "Holy Tradition?"

The theory is that a longstanding belief which is not based on Scripture but, rather, on the opinion of the people (or some of them), constitutes a second stream of divine revelation alongside the Bible.

Why not just take someone's alleged inspiration about something or other, commit it to writing, and call it a new addition to the canon of Scripture? That would seem to be where your own argument about such things leads.

The Acts of the Apostles is but chapter 1 of Holy Tradition, which is itself the movement of the Holy Spirit in the Lives of the Body of Christ... It is the actions of the Church as it impacts the nations through the Discipling of the Apostles teaching and baptizing, as Christ commanded them to do... There is a difference between Holy Tradition and pious traditions... And the purpose of the former is to give us ALL that Christ had commanded the Apostles to be teaching the nations to observe - Because that command is never given a list in Scripture, and yet you will find, in ALL the Services of the Church, the same identical structure of worship Services and the praxis of the Faith for the first thousand years... And in Orthodoxy, in the first two thousand years...

Had it been otherwise, you would see a great variety of styles of praxis and services as you do in the western churches today, but instead you find the same ones in all the Apostolic Churches and their descendents for the first thousand years of this Faith, with variations being minor and local...

Arsenios

 

[Darrel Slugoski]

I have a ways to go myself, but by the grace of God i do have the advantage of having time to write thousands of posts dealing with Catholics and their assertions (mostly on another forum with judicious moderators), and to do research in such, plus having been a weekly mass-going Catholic for years, including after being born again and realizing its profound basic changes in heart and in life, and with a hunger to know how to please God from the Scriptures. To whom God is to get all credit for what is good.

As for Staples, he would not show up here (invite him!) since hat risks being exposed as the propagandist and sophist that he is, which "Catholic Answers" with its zealous censorious mods works to prevent. I have taken the time to refute some of his stuff which was posted by others, and debated his comrade Dave Armstrong on his own web site, who deleted my responses without any notice. Your error apparently is uncritically relying on them for your arguments.

Part of what makes on a weaker debater is the rookie mistake is that of continually engaging in "argument by assertion," as if stating the same things that you believed made them true, and not substantively and reasonably interacting with that which challenges them.

The error here is, as told you before,

"the uninspired post-scriptural selected writings of so-called church "father" are not determinitive of what the early church believed in the only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the gospels). And when in conflict with Scripture the writings of ECFs reveal the degree of accretion of traditions of men, which you cannot anachronistically impose upon the NT church."

But that than dealing with my response, you just reiterate standard Catholic apologetics.

Likewise regarding John 6, to which I said,

"while Caths assert they take this literal, but if they do then they must exclude Christians who disagree with Catholicism on this from having spiritual life in them, and eternal life, since a literal understanding of John 6:53 requires believing and taking part in the Lord's supper to have both, but which is never what the NT church preached.

And as told you before and ignored, I do not have to agree with the symbolic [metaphorical] viw, "except that is the only interpretation is easily conflated with the rest of Scripture. . See here by God's grace."

Thus rather than invoking what non-inspired men as determinitive of what John 6 means, and v. 53,54 in particular, you need to show in the inspired record of what the NT church believed where taking part in the Lord's suppers is how one obtains spiritual life in them, and eternal life.

Which is simply reliance upon non-inspired men as determinitive of what wholly inspired Scripture teaches, which is the only wholly inspired and substantive historical documented facts of what the NT church believed, which Catholic distinctives stand in the most manifest contrast to.

Historical precedence is thus on NOT on the side of The Orthodox and Catholic faith regarding distinctives beliefs i listed, while the many beliefs that we hold together in common with you are due to the Scriptural warrant for them.

It is not propaganda since it it not provided as evidence of which side is correct, but only that disagreements and division exists. And which extends to within your own church, btwn those she considers and treats as members in life and in death.

Thus it remains that you can only claim a limited degree of unity along with substantial irreconcilable difference. Which simply means that as I basically said the difference btwn the unity of "Bible Christians" and Catholics is a matter of scope and degrees. Which means that if unity is the basis for validity, then if we find even one denomination whose members testify to a great unity of scope and degrees then they would win the validity contest, which would not be Rome. And the unity that matters most if that of unity in salvific Truths, in which there is unity in Truths as well as unity in error.

However, your unity argument is also in vain since unlike you, I am not promoting any one denomination as uniquely or comprehensively correct, but am defending a faith as Scripturally substantiated. Thus rather than which church is correct, the debate must be what faith is correct.

Your church enters into this since Catholic faith rests upon the premise that your church is the supreme authority, as possessing ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which itself is a novel and unScriptural premise.

In contrast, my premise is that Scripture is that only wholly inspired and substantive standard, 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. As abundantly evidenced


Which is the same argumentum ad antiquitatem (argument from antiquity) fallacy as before, which is only valid if the antiquity referenced is assuredly totally correct, which Scripture uniquely is as concerns Truth and what the NT church manifestly believed.

In the light of which your assertion that "our Churches that can go back to the first 400 years of Christianity" is false, since Catholic distinctives are what is missing from the the only wholly inspired and substantive record of what the NT church believed. For one, show me where a most basic common Catholic practice, that of praying to created beings in Heaven, is seen in the life of the NT church or anyplace else in Scripture by believers, despite the Spirit inspiring the recording of over 200 prayers, and of this being a most basic practice, and despite there always being plenty of created beings to pray to, and occasions for it since the Fall. Instead, the only prayers or offerings in Scripture to anyone else in the spiritual world is by pagans, including to the only Queen of Heaven see therein.
And note that the attempts to justify this tradition from Scripture have already been refuted.

The best i can do is show that these Churches were NOT the only Churches around for 1500 years since they were not the NT church, and rather than have a definite beginning, Catholicism was a matter or progressive deformation. And yet this was not to the degree that they ceased to hold to salvific Truths among her vain traditions whereby some penitent pious souls could cast all their faith on the Lord Jesus to save them on His merits, not their own, and thus the body of Christ, which is the only one true church, could continue against the gates of Hell. Yet overall she has become as the gates of Hell for multitudes, as has liberal Protestantism.

I do not think church has all their doctrine 100% correct, nor do any exclusively have the Biblical "corner" on salvation, but some are closer in overall in heart and word to the NT church was when obedient to Scriptural preaching under the uniquely manifest apostle of God. (2 Corinthians 6:4-10) And no, I do not go future and oppose denominationalism of any kind since separation is necessary (1 Corinthians 11:19; 2 Corinthians 6:14-18) However, to be further Scriptural there should be a central magisterium of wise and mature holy men of God, who are as close to the apostles in word and in power as we can find.

But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, 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 Corinthians 4:2)

You can select individual portions of the text (place cursor | at the end of the section you want to select and hold your left mouse button down and drag the mouse to the beginning of what you want to select. Or click at the end of the text you want to select, and down the Shift key and then left click with your mouse at the beginning of the text to be selected) from a poster that you want to reply to and choose "Quote" on the option that pops up. Then hit (left click on) "Reply" at the bottom, and then left click on "Insert quotes" in the text box that has opened up after you hit Reply, and respond to each of them.

Or you can hit Reply at the bottom of the post you want to respond to, and then in the text box that opens up with the other person's post, go to the bottom and cut the [ / QUOTE] "tag" (which will be without the spaces seen here) and paste it at the end of the first portion of the post you want to reply to. That will ensure the top quote will have a link back to the post you are responding to.

If you are going to respond to another portion of the post after that, then just select the text and then on the toolbar at the top of the text box left click on the + icon, and choose Quote. That will "wrap" the selected text in the necessary BB code quote tags that this forum uses.
While the text is selected then you can also use the options provided on the toolbar to change the size, color, fonts etc. of the selected text.

That way the person you are responding to can see what you are addressing. With to my stiff arthritic, typo-making fingers I use some shortcuts to copy and paste, but this is enough to get you started.

Thankyou . I am out classed as a debater I have to admit that , I would be nice to see A Catholic apologist who could match your level it would be fun to watch . I will keep trying though . I sincerely ask your forgiveness for calling you arrogant .

 

[Arsenios]

Perhaps you might enlighten us by defining exactly what your question is about. If it is merely that people can, and do, write "inspiring" literature, then it all depends on what is meant by "inspiring".

"It all depends on how you define what the word 'IS' is"
Bill Clinton - Post-Modern America...

fwiw, I get floundered from time to time trying to answer a question as it is asked too...
Some days more than others...

Arsenios