How do we know . . . .

[racer]

Actually it is both... Is there a problem with that? Or are you trying to make it seem that the argument is flawed?

No, the argument made by OUSA is flawed. He made the assertion that Scripture was merely a compilation of the readings made during liturgical services. He asserted that if it wasn't to be read in a "liturgical" service, then it was not included in Scripture. Then he supplies me with a text, The Didache, as an example of an inspirational document that was not included in Scripture, presumably because what is contained in the Didache is not read during liturgical services?

I was just trying to clarify his argument.

 

[racer]

The Holy Eucharist (communion) is at the very center of The Liturgy, everything else revolves around it. Always has, always will.

Forgive me...

Then you have just negated your own argument that Scripture is a compilation of liturgical readings.

 

[racer]

I've recently became acquainted with a former theological scholar dating from the late 19th and early 20th century. George Salmon. He says some things that come very close to the very arguments I have made myself. Only, he was much more articulate. From his lectures on the Infallibility of the Church:

http://www.tracts.ukgo.com/george_salmon.htm

Lecture 3.​

THE ARGUMENT IN A CIRCLE.
​

. . . The craving for an infallible guide arises from men's consciousness of the weakness of their understanding. In temporal matters we are constrained to act on our own judgment. When we have important decisions to make we often feel ourselves in great doubt and perplexity, and some times the decision we ultimately make turns out to be wrong, and we have to pay the penalty in loss or other suffering. A loss, however, affecting only our temporal interests may be borne; but it seems intolerable to men that, when their eternal interests are at stake, any doubt or uncertainty should attend their decisions, and they look out for some guide who may be able to tell them, with infallible certainty, which is the right way. And yet it is easy to show that it is in the nature of things impossible to give men absolute security against error in any other way than by their being them selves made infallible; and I shall hereafter show you that when men profess faith in the Church's infallibility, they are, in real truth, professing faith in their own.

It is common with Roman Catholics to speak as if the use of private judgment and the infallibility of the Church were things opposed to each other. They are fond of contrasting the peace, and certainty, and assurance of him whose faith rests on the rock of an infallible Church, with the un certainty of him whose belief rests only on the shifting sands of his own fallible judgment. But it must be remembered that our belief must, in the end, rest on an act of our own judgment, and can never attain any higher certainty than whatever that may be able to give us. We may talk about the right of private judgment, or the duty of private judgment, but a more important thing to insist on is the necessity of private judgment. We have the choice whether we shall exercise our private judgment in one act or in a great many; but exercise it in one way or another we must. We may either apply our private judgment separately to the different questions in controversy—Purgatory, Transubstantiation Invocation of Saints, and soforth—and come to our own conclusion on each; or we may apply our private judgment to the question whether the Church of Rome is infallible, and, if we decide that it is, take all our religious opinions thenceforward on trust from her. But it is clear that our certainty that any of the things she teaches us is right cannot be greater than whatever certainty we have that our private judgment has decided the question rightly whether we ought to submit unreservedly to her teaching; and it will appear, before we have done, that this is at least as difficult a question as any in the controversy.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

No, the argument made by OUSA is flawed. He made the assertion that Scripture was merely a compilation of the readings made during liturgical services. He asserted that if it wasn't to be read in a "liturgical" service, then it was not included in Scripture. Then he supplies me with a text, The Didache, as an example of an inspirational document that was not included in Scripture, presumably because what is contained in the Didache is not read during liturgical services?

I was just trying to clarify his argument.

Either I have messed up my argument... or you misunderstand what I'm trying to convey to you.

Either way.. it's probably my fault.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

posts are all over the place again. I think I'll wait till later to respond... I hope they get this fixed. I can't keep up with the thread this way.

Forgive me...

 

[racer]

posts are all over the place again. I think I'll wait till later to respond... I hope they get this fixed. I can't keep up with the thread this way.

Forgive me...

I don't know if that's going to happen anytime soon . . . .

 

[racer]

Either I have messed up my argument... or you misunderstand what I'm trying to convey to you.

Either way.. it's probably my fault.

Forgive me...

I see what you mean . . . this post should be on the last page . . . .

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Hello Mathetes,

Review the list of books that were canonized. Does your Bible contain all of them?

There are many differences from western secular teaching in the catechumenate of the Eastern Orthodox Churches. In our schools it is taught so.

I belong to The Church of Antioch. This is what that Church teaches. I try never speak of my own opinion on Theology but from the position of The Orthodox Church, specifically The Church of Antioch of which I am taught.

Nice to meet you.

Forgive me...

The Apocrypha was not a part of the canonized corpus. Those were not accepted as canon until the 17th Cent in response to the Protestant Reformation.

Nice to meet you as well . . .

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

The Apocrypha was not a part of the canonized corpus. Those were not accepted as canon until the 17th Cent in response to the Protestant Reformation.

Nice to meet you as well . . .

For Ortho. USA

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

The Apocrypha was not a part of the canonized corpus. Those were not accepted as canon until the 17th Cent in response to the Protestant Reformation.

Nice to meet you as well . . .

For Ortho. USA . . . again

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

The Church of Antioch was a Christian, worshiping Church 30 years before the first epistle was written much less all the rest of the NT scripture. The Church of Antioch doesn't guess at why she did something. She knows.

Christ Jesus used the Septuagint. The Church of Antioch says that too. http://www.septuagint.net/ the Jews edited the Septuagint (Masoretic) because it supports Christianity. Western Christianity is working with a watered down OT.

Forgive me...

Actually the LXX (septuagint) has nothing to do with the texts of the OT that we have . . . all the translations that I know of are based on the Masoretic Text. And when the DSS's were found . . . they actually found that the Masoretic Text was almost EXACTLY the same as what was done 1000 years earlier. So I am not sure what you are trying to assert?

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

There's many proofs.
Even 'Scripture' has Paul saying to the churches to keep to the teachings he told by epistle, and by word of mouth.

He even quotes a saying of Jesus that's found no where else. Thus he knew it through it being taught to him, orally.

No it's not. It can be argued from Scripture that the Holy Spirit comes either from, or through the Son.

If I were to argue from the Bible alone, I could say only Peter got the keys from Jesus, even though Matthew 18:18 uses similar language, because literally the word 'keys' is absent.

I don't believe this to be the case because the Church Fathers understood that Matthew 18:18 gave others the keys.

Name a baseless accusation.

Show me by Scripture that they are 'unnecessary

D'oh! No they don't. That's exactly my point!

So a lot of people here say. All they do is tend to say this.

By the way, what's 'sola' mean?

I think the Paul quote of Christ is in Acts (it is more blessed to give than to recieve). But this does not prove an oral tradition . . . it very well could have been a prophetic utterance.

Regardless, even IF it WAS an oral tradition, NEVER do you have Paul speaking of what was handed down orally as having the same role as scripture. Oral traditions are not said to lead to salvation . . . nor are they theopneustos . . . traditions are ONLY said to be good for teaching . . . so they have AN authority . . . but NEVER are they given the same authority as Scripture . . . Paul argues from the Scriptures for the Christ . . . NOT THE TARGUMS.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

I think the Paul quote of Christ is in Acts (it is more blessed to give than to recieve). But this does not prove an oral tradition . . . it very well could have been a prophetic utterance.

Regardless, even IF it WAS an oral tradition, NEVER do you have Paul speaking of what was handed down orally as having the same role as scripture. Oral traditions are not said to lead to salvation . . . nor are they theopneustos . . . traditions are ONLY said to be good for teaching . . . so they have AN authority . . . but NEVER are they given the same authority as Scripture . . . Paul argues from the Scriptures for the Christ . . . NOT THE TARGUMS.

For Montablan . . .

 

[racer]

matches exactly?

Are you looking for something that hasn't matured over 2000 years?

Forgive me...

Oh, yeah, the old "development of doctrine" argument rears it's head . . . .

 

[racer]

There's many proofs.

That’s what I keep hearing, yet nobody can list even one proof. So, you’ll have to forgive my consternation.

Even 'Scripture' has Paul saying to the churches to keep to the teachings he told by epistle, and by word of mouth.

You’re adlibbing, that’s not what Paul said. What Paul says is this:

2Thes 2:15; Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

What is said is hold fast to the teachings you have been taught whether by word or by our epistles. The key to translating this verse is to recognize that Paul says whether by/or. He does not say to hold fast to the teachings you have been taught both by word and our epistle.

His reference is to the method in which those being taught received their teachings. He’s saying that whether a person has received these teachings by listening to a sermon or by reading and epistle, we must hold fast to them.

There is no reason to infer from this verse that he is implying that some teachings were written down and others were not.

He even quotes a saying of Jesus that's found no where else. Thus he knew it through it being taught to him, orally.

Remember Paul said this in an ”epistle” that is included in Scripture. That’s how you know that Jesus said this. To what verse in particular are you referring, though?

You’re still exhibiting you lack of understanding of the term Sola Scriptura.
No it's not. It can be argued from Scripture that the Holy Spirit comes either from, or through the Son.

If I were to argue from the Bible alone, I could say only Peter got the keys from Jesus, even though Matthew 18:18 uses similar language, because literally the word 'keys' is absent.

If anyone were arguing that the Scripture is always explicit in it’s meaning and intent this comment might show some relevance to this conversation. Otherwise, I’m not sure what point you are making. Let’s look at Matt 16:19:

Matt 16:19; And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

What does one infer from this verse? What comes with possession of the keys? What authority does possession of the keys bestow upon the “key keeper?” Does it not signify the authority to “bind and loose?” So, let’s look at verse 18:18;

Matt 18:18; Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Now, how do you propose the other twelve can “bind and loose” without possession of the keys? Here’s how St. Augustine explains it:

St. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book I

Chapter 18 - The keys given to the Church

He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be loosed in heaven; that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should believe, and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church. For he who does not believe that his sins can be pardoned, falls into despair, and becomes worse, as if no greater good remained for him than to be evil, when he has ceased to have faith in the results of his own repentance.

So, no, arguing the based upon the Bible alone does not establish that the keys were given to Peter alone. Yes, one can—and a whole faith—has constructed and perpetuated a flimsy argument for Petrine Primacy based upon what? Upon it’s own interpretation of the very verse that supposedly establishes the RCC’s sole authority to interpret Scripture. Oh—the circularity of it all.

I don't believe this to be the case because the Church Fathers understood that Matthew 18:18 gave others the keys.

That inference is significantly grounded in Scripture.

Name a baseless accusation.

Well, as you said there are many proofs in your first comment in this post—without listing even one—there are many baseless arguments made by Orthodox and Catholics regarding Protestant beliefs. But, I’ll give you an example or so: 1) Sola Sciptura causes confusion and leads to disunity. 2) Those who disagree with RCism/Orthodoxy or leave either faith misunderstand it. 3) Those who disagree with Catholic teaching are ignorant of the faith, don’t understand it, or are purposefully misrepresenting what it teaches. 4) Those who argue that certain church fathers even taught contrary to Orthodox or Catholic teachings are not reading/quoting in context; do not have a proper grasp on the historical context, 5) and those who are not RC or Orthodox are relying of private judgement while RCs and Orthodox do not rely on private judgement.

Do you need more?

Show me by Scripture that they are 'unnecessary

It is not a requirement of Sola Scriptura that what is not necessary for salvation be listed in Scipture. You show me where Scripture says these books are necessary? You really need to spend some time acquainting yourself with what Sola Scriptura is and what it isn’t.

D'oh! No they don't. That's exactly my point!

I was merely pointing out to you the absurdity of your question . . . .

So a lot of people here say. All they do is tend to say this.

By the way, what's 'sola' mean?

Sola means alone. Sola Scriptura means Scripture alone. Do you think that a term always speaks for itself that it requires no definition or defining limits to the term? If I give you the word “sola” it says alone, but it does not answer the question “What alone?” So then, Sola Scriptura, Scripture alone does not answer “What does Scripture do alone?” What is says is that Scripture alone is the measure we use to test what we are being taught. It is the source to which we turn to know if we are being fed a false gospel. It means that Scriptura alone provides sufficient information pertaining to the necessaties of our salvation.

So, do you simply feed upon the many inaccurate, poorly articulated, or incorrect definitions given by many lay Protestants, or have you taken some time to research the term and weighed the explanations and evidence for yourself?

I could sit here and give you numerous examples of Catholics who have given me incorrect explanations of Catholicism. “I” had to explain to a cradle Catholic that within the Catholic Church, the Eucharist is NOT symbolic.

 

[racer]

There's many proofs.

That’s what I keep hearing, yet nobody can list even one proof. So, you’ll have to forgive my consternation.

Even 'Scripture' has Paul saying to the churches to keep to the teachings he told by epistle, and by word of mouth.

You’re adlibbing, that’s not what Paul said. What Paul says is this:

2Thes 2:15; Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

What is said is hold fast to the teachings you have been taught whether by word or by our epistles. The key to translating this verse is to recognize that Paul says whether by/or. He does not say to hold fast to the teachings you have been taught both by word and our epistle. IOWs, he does not say both/and.

His reference is to the method in which those being taught received their teachings. He’s saying that whether a person has received these teachings by listening to a sermon or by reading and epistle, we must hold fast to them.

There is no reason to infer from this verse that he is implying that some teachings were written down and others were not.

He even quotes a saying of Jesus that's found no where else. Thus he knew it through it being taught to him, orally.

Remember Paul said this in an ”epistle” that is included in Scripture. That’s how you know that Jesus said this. To what verse in particular are you referring, though?

You’re still exhibiting you lack of understanding of the term Sola Scriptura.
No it's not. It can be argued from Scripture that the Holy Spirit comes either from, or through the Son.

If I were to argue from the Bible alone, I could say only Peter got the keys from Jesus, even though Matthew 18:18 uses similar language, because literally the word 'keys' is absent.

If anyone were arguing that the Scripture is always explicit in it’s meaning and intent this comment might show some relevance to this conversation. Otherwise, I’m not sure what point you are making. Let’s look at Matt 16:19:

Matt 16:19; And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

What does one infer from this verse? What comes with possession of the keys? What authority does possession of the keys bestow upon the “key keeper?” Does it not signify the authority to “bind and loose?” So, let’s look at verse 18:18;

Matt 18:18;Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Now, how do you propose the other twelve can “bind and loose” without possession of the keys? Here’s how St. Augustine explains it:

St. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book I

Chapter 18 - The keys given to the Church

He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be loosed in heaven; that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should believe, and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church. For he who does not believe that his sins can be pardoned, falls into despair, and becomes worse, as if no greater good remained for him than to be evil, when he has ceased to have faith in the results of his own repentance.

So, no, arguing the based upon the Bible alone does not establish that the keys were given to Peter alone. Yes, one can—and a whole faith—has constructed and perpetuated a flimsy argument for Petrine Primacy based upon what? Upon it’s own interpretation of the very verse that supposedly establishes the RCC’s sole authority to interpret Scripture. Oh—the circularity of it all.

I don't believe this to be the case because the Church Fathers understood that Matthew 18:18 gave others the keys.

That inference is significantly grounded in Scripture.

Name a baseless accusation.

Well, as you said there are many proofs in your first comment in this post—without listing even one—there are many baseless arguments made by Orthodox and Catholics regarding Protestant beliefs. But, I’ll give you an example or so: 1) Sola Sciptura causes confusion and leads to disunity. 2) Those who disagree with RCism/Orthodoxy or leave either faith misunderstand it. 3) Those who disagree with Catholic teaching are ignorant of the faith, don’t understand it, or are purposefully misrepresenting what it teaches. 4) Those who argue that certain church fathers even taught contrary to Orthodox or Catholic teachings are not reading/quoting in context; do not have a proper grasp on the historical context, 5) and those who are not RC or Orthodox are relying of private judgement while RCs and Orthodox do not rely on private judgement.

Do you need more?

Show me by Scripture that they are 'unnecessary

It is not a requirement of Sola Scriptura that what is not necessary for salvation be listed in Scipture. You show me where Scripture says these books are necessary? You really need to spend some time acquainting yourself with what Sola Scriptura is and what it isn’t.

D'oh! No they don't. That's exactly my point!

I was merely pointing out to you the absurdity of your question . . . .

So a lot of people here say. All they do is tend to say this.

By the way, what's 'sola' mean?

Sola means alone. Sola Scriptura means Scripture alone. Do you think that a term always speaks for itself that it requires no definition or defining limits to the term? If I give you the word “sola” it says alone, but it does not answer the question “What alone?” So then, Sola Scriptura, Scripture alone does not answer “What does Scripture do alone?” What is says is that Scripture alone is the measure we use to test what we are being taught. It is the source to which we turn to know if we are being fed a false gospel. It means that Scriptura alone provides sufficient information pertaining to the necessaties of our salvation.

So, do you simply feed upon the many inaccurate, poorly articulated, or incorrect definitions given by many lay Protestants, or have you taken some time to research the term and weighed the explanations and evidence for yourself?

I could sit here and give you numerous examples of Catholics who have given me incorrect explanations of Catholicism. “I” had to explain to a cradle Catholic that within the Catholic Church, the Eucharist is NOT symbolic.

 

[ScottBot]

The Church of Antioch was a Christian, worshiping Church 30 years before the first epistle was written much less all the rest of the NT scripture. The Church of Antioch doesn't guess at why she did something. She knows.

Christ Jesus used the Septuagint. The Church of Antioch says that too. http://www.septuagint.net/ the Jews edited the Septuagint (Masoretic) because it supports Christianity. Western Christianity is working with a watered down OT.

Forgive me...

THe Catholic Church uses the same canon as the Eastern Churches. Reformationist Christianity uses a watered down OT.

The Holy Eucharist (communion) is at the very center of The Liturgy, everything else revolves around it. Always has, always will.

Forgive me...

Amen.

 

[ScottBot]

The Church of Antioch was a Christian, worshiping Church 30 years before the first epistle was written much less all the rest of the NT scripture. The Church of Antioch doesn't guess at why she did something. She knows.

Christ Jesus used the Septuagint. The Church of Antioch says that too. http://www.septuagint.net/ the Jews edited the Septuagint (Masoretic) because it supports Christianity. Western Christianity is working with a watered down OT.

Forgive me...

THe Catholic Church uses the same canon as the Eastern Churches. Reformationist Christianity uses a watered down OT.

The Holy Eucharist (communion) is at the very center of The Liturgy, everything else revolves around it. Always has, always will.

Forgive me...

Amen.

 

[ScottBot]

The Church of Antioch was a Christian, worshiping Church 30 years before the first epistle was written much less all the rest of the NT scripture. The Church of Antioch doesn't guess at why she did something. She knows.

Christ Jesus used the Septuagint. The Church of Antioch says that too. http://www.septuagint.net/ the Jews edited the Septuagint (Masoretic) because it supports Christianity. Western Christianity is working with a watered down OT.

Forgive me...

THe Catholic Church uses the same canon as the Eastern Churches. Reformationist Christianity uses a watered down OT.

The Holy Eucharist (communion) is at the very center of The Liturgy, everything else revolves around it. Always has, always will.

Forgive me...

Amen.

 

[Trento]

If anyone were arguing that the Scripture is always explicit in it’s meaning and intent this comment might show some relevance to this conversation. Otherwise, I’m not sure what point you are making. Let’s look at Matt 16:19:

Matt 16:19; And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

What does one infer from this verse? What comes with possession of the keys? What authority does possession of the keys bestow upon the “key keeper?” Does it not signify the authority to “bind and loose?” So, let’s look at verse 18:18;

Matt 18:18;Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Now, how do you propose the other twelve can “bind and loose” without possession of the keys? Here’s how St. Augustine explains it:

St. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book I

Chapter 18 - The keys given to the Church

He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be loosed in heaven; that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should believe, and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church. For he who does not believe that his sins can be pardoned, falls into despair, and becomes worse, as if no greater good remained for him than to be evil, when he has ceased to have faith in the results of his own repentance.

So, no, arguing the based upon the Bible alone does not establish that the keys were given to Peter alone. Yes, one can—and a whole faith—has constructed and perpetuated a flimsy argument for Petrine Primacy based upon what? Upon it’s own interpretation of the very verse that supposedly establishes the RCC’s sole authority to interpret Scripture. Oh—the circularity of it all.


.

Based on this to start with.

"Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear 'I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven.'" St. Augustine of Hippo ("Sermon 295," c. 411 A.D.)

"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, 'Upon this rock I will build my Church...' Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus...." St. Augustine of Hippo ("Letter 53," 412 A.D.)