Monday, February 4, 2013

Successor of Peter



Greco said,
The basic problem here is that Catholics are assuming that St John means the same thing by “successor of Peter” as what the modern RCC view of the papacy take it to mean. However, there is every reason to believe that St John did not mean this in the same sense.
The basic problem is not that Catholics assume that St. John is accepting the proper interpretation of the phrase, “successor of Peter”.
The problem is that those who disagree with the Catholic Church on this point, are assuming the modern and erroneous view of the Papacy.
I think to properly understand this from an Orthodox perspective, we need to go back to Matthew 16:18-24.
That is precisely what we need to do in order to understand the term correctly. I agree.
According to Whelton (p.61), the 17th century RCC scholar Jean de Launoy surveyed the Fathers and found that 17 considered Peter to be the rock, 44 considered his confession to be the rock, 16 considered it to be Christ and 8 considered it to be the apostles. However, what these raw statistics fail to show is that these interpretations are all interlinked: In reality, the rock is all of these:-Christ is the rock (this is known from elsewhere).-The confession is the rock because it is a confession about Christ, Who is the rock.-Peter is the rock because he made this confession.-The apostles are also the rock because they made the same confession.

I would disagree. Jesus is the Rock, in another Biblical metaphor. But in Matt 16:18-19, Jesus is speaking to Simon and the Apostles, about Simon Bar Jonah. And Jesus is describing Simon as “the Rock” upon whom He will build His Church. He is not speaking about anyone else. And when He gives away the keys, He uses a singular pronoun, addressing the person to whom He gives the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Simon Bar Jonah, aka as Cephas, Rock or Peter. He does not hand the keys to anyone else. He is not describing anyone else.
But the important thing to note about all of these interpretations is that they centre on the confession, and not on the person of Peter.
On the contrary, by centering on the confession, you center upon the man who uttered the confession. St. Peter is not the first man to utter this confession in the New Testament. Nathaniel does it the very first time he sees Jesus:
John 1:47-49
King James Version (KJV)
47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!
48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
Yet Jesus does not give Nathaniel any keys.
Another man also does it, Thomas:
John 20:28
And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.
So, the simple confession is not enough. The confession was uttered by a particular man and that man is the subject and object of the Master’s lesson.
And its not as though Jesus Christ only did this once. What I mean is that, this is not the only time Jesus singled out St. Peter and made it clear that He considered St. Peter the Leader of the Apostles and of His Church.
Luke 22:30-32
King James Version (KJV)
30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
John 21:15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. 17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
If Jesus had only done it once, it could be dismissed as coincidence. But Jesus reiterated the fact that He considered St. Peter the Leader of His Church, several times. Here’s another:
Matthew 17:27
King James Version (KJV)
27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.
For me and thee.
But wait. In order to understand this verse, you must understand the verse you are questioning. Why did Jesus give Simon the name, “Rock”? Perhaps you never wondered. Here’s why.
Because He wanted all to know that Simon would be he to whom all must turn who want to know God’s will. There is a precedent for this in Scripture:
Exodus 7:1
King James Version (KJV)
7 And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
Exodus 18:13-15
King James Version (KJV)
13 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses sat to judge the people: and the people stood by Moses from the morning unto the evening.14 And when Moses’ father in law saw all that he did to the people, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even?15 And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to enquire of God:
Exodus 19:9
King James Version (KJV)
9 And the Lord said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people unto the Lord.
God put Moses in a position of authority over the people. Jesus has done the same thing with Simon. God covered Moses with the Cloud, Jesus gave Simon His own name, Rock along with the keys to the Kingdom (Matt 16:18-19) and appointed him Shepherd over the Church (John 21:15-17).
Jesus has appointed Simon as Shepherd over His flock. And in order to bring this point home, Jesus gave Simon His own name, “Rock” or “Peter”.
This is to signify the type of authority which Jesus has given to Simon. He has the authority to bind and loose in the God’s name.
And that is why, the coin is for Jesus and for Peter. Because Jesus knows that Peter is His representative to all mankind. Amongst men, St. Peter is the person of Christ in a very special way.
Peter, being the first to make this confession (remembering that the Latin for first is prima) quite literally has the primacy.
The primacy falls to him for other reasons. But not for being the first to make that confession. Nathaniel made it first as already mentioned.
Those that made the same confession after him are his successors.
Nope. He whom he appointed was his successor and the one appointed by that person, his successor.
And given that Peter’s authority rests on the confession that he made, his successors have the same authority that Peter does.
Many have made the same confession. But to none but St. Peter did Jesus turn and say, “you are Rock”, “I give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven”, “strengthen your brethren”, “this coin is for you and I”, and also, “feed my sheep”.
But the important thing to note in the above is the answer to the following question: who is Peter’s successor? ….
Non sequitur. That which you mentioned above is your line of reasoning. YOU proposed it. Now you are arguing against it. It is a classic “straw man argument.”
According to the above line of reasoning, those who made this confession is a successor of Peter. In short, every bishop is a successor of Peter – not just the bishops of Rome. Every bishop is a shepherd and must “feed Christ’s sheep” – that is, the Church that is placed under his guidance.
Nope. Successors of Peter are those who sit on the See of Rome. They are the ones to whom the Keys are passed down.
This understanding of the “successor of Peter” (which is also the Orthodox understanding) is also reflected in the writings of St Cyprian (another oft-miscited Father) – who uses the phrase “Chair of Peter” to refer to an episcopate. As far as St Cyprian is concerned, every bishop is the successor of St Peter.
I’d have to see the writings to which you refer. I believe it was St. Cyprian who wrote eloquently about the authority of the Pope. Until he found himself at odds with the Pope. Then, he changed his tune. But the fact that he recognized the truth until it was inconvenient to do so, proves that he understood the doctrine correctly before he changed his mind. The fact that he is considered one of our Saints, proves that he accepted the truth in the end.
There is every reason to assume that this is exactly the same interpretation that St John Chrysostom himself had in mind here, and Ray (and Pope Leo) are jumping to conclusions and not considering the wider context.
Not if the comment which Ray posted is compared to John 21:15-17. The reference to Jesus appointing Peter as the Shepherd of the entire Church, is unmistakable.
And just to put the final nail into the coffin,
You’ve put to rest the EO’s erroneous understanding. The Catholic doctrine stands tall.
and confirm that the Orthodox reading of St John Chrysostom is the correct one, let me tell you a little story…The most sensible way to understand his above words, then, is not as an argument for papal supremacy, but in-line with the Orthodox view – that is, every bishop is a successor of Peter (and not just the bishop of Rome).
Since you have shown a propensity to misunderstand the Scripture and the words of St. John Chrysostom, I take that story of yours with a mouthful of salt.
The argument which you attribute to the EO, has been proven false by a very simple review of the Scriptures and by referring St. John Chrysostom’s statement back to the Scripture to which he was obviously making reference.
The only way to come to the conclusion which you draw is by ignoring the Scripture to which St. John was referring and by purposesly rejecting Jesus’ intent in naming St. Peter the Leader of His Church and Shepherd over His Flock.
Sincerely,
De Maria

70 comments:

  1. If Peter is their supreme leader of the entire church why doesn't he refer to himself as such anywhere in the New Testament? Why don't the apostles refer to him as such?

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousFebruary 4, 2013 at 4:05 PM
    If Peter is their supreme leader of the entire church why doesn't he refer to himself as such anywhere in the New Testament?


    1. Because Jesus was clear enough and all Christians are aware of the Tradition and the Scriptures.
    2. Because he is a humble man.


    Why don't the apostles refer to him as such?

    They do so when they refer to him as Cephas, the rock upon whom Jesus built His Church.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It is not clear enough that Peter was regarded as the supreme leader of the church. He never saw himself as such. He never appealed to any teaching of Christ that he was the supreme leader of the church after Christ. If there was such teaching of Christ that he was the supreme leader of the church then he should have made that clear. After all, he was bold in letting others know he was an apostle. See 1 Peter 1:1 for example. Only the Lord Jesus is the supreme leader of the church. No man could ever be.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousFebruary 5, 2013 at 10:18 AM
    It is not clear enough that Peter was regarded as the supreme leader of the church.


    It is not clear enough FOR YOU. But its clear enough for me.

    He never saw himself as such.

    Does he say that somewhere? Listen to St. Peter:
    Acts 5:3
    But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

    Ananias was not speaking to the Holy Spirit. But St. Peter said that when Ananias lied to him, he lied to the Holy Spirit. Why? Because St. Peter is God's representative on earth.

    He never appealed to any teaching of Christ that he was the supreme leader of the church after Christ. If there was such teaching of Christ that he was the supreme leader of the church then he should have made that clear

    Jesus Christ made that clear. He didn't need to do anything else.

    . After all, he was bold in letting others know he was an apostle. See 1 Peter 1:1 for example. Only the Lord Jesus is the supreme leader of the church. No man could ever be.

    Jesus appointed St. Peter as leader of the Church, whether you like it or not:
    John 21:15-17
    King James Version (KJV)
    15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

    16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

    17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

    It couldn't be more clear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are reading into the texts of Scripture RC doctrines. Peter was a leader in the NT church but not the only one with authority. Paul, John and James also had authority and none of them ever appeal to Peter as the supreme head of the entire church. In Acts 15 for example, it is James who makes the final decision on what will be done and not Peter. See Acts 15:19

      Delete
  5. AnonymousFebruary 6, 2013 at 2:26 PM
    You are reading into the texts of Scripture RC doctrines.


    New Testament Scripture is based upon Catholic Doctrine. Christ did not write Scripture. He established the Church and commanded the Church to teach His Doctrines. It is these Doctrines upon which the New Testament Scripture is based.

    Protestants read their doctrines into Scripture. Catholic Doctrine is actually in Scripture.

    Peter was a leader in the NT church but not the only one with authority. Paul, John and James also had authority and none of them ever appeal to Peter as the supreme head of the entire church. In Acts 15 for example, it is James who makes the final decision on what will be done and not Peter. See Acts 15:19

    Let's look at more context. Acts 15:
    6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

    7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

    St. Peter rose up and the matter was settled. St. James merely added a few words.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Roman Catholic doctrine is not Scripture. No one takes papal pronouncements or the catechism as inspired-inerrant.


    Can you name a couple of Protestant doctrines that we read into Scripture?

    Nice try with Peter " rose up and the matter was settled." That kind of reasoning won't work here because we know without a doubt who made the final decision. It was James- Acts 15:19

    ReplyDelete
  7. AnonymousFebruary 6, 2013 at 9:44 PM
    Roman Catholic doctrine is not Scripture.


    Scripture is based upon Catholic Doctrine.

    No one takes papal pronouncements or the catechism as inspired-inerrant.

    If the Papal pronouncement is from the Chair of Peter, they do.


    Can you name a couple of Protestant doctrines that we read into Scripture?

    Any Protestant doctrine which disagrees with Catholic Doctrine also disagrees with Scripture.

    Let's start with Sola Scriptura:
    Hebrews 13:7
    King James Version (KJV)
    7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

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

    Nice try with Peter " rose up and the matter was settled." That kind of reasoning won't work here because we know without a doubt who made the final decision. It was James- Acts 15:19

    St. Peter made the decision. He is both the Apostle to the Hebrews and the Apostle to the Gentiles.

    Acts 15:7-10
    King James Version (KJV)
    7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

    8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

    9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

    10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

    St. James, as Bishop of Jerusalem, would have been the chairperson over the meeting held in Jerusalem. But he merely agreed with that which St Peter decided.

    14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

    15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

    16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

    17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

    18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

    19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

    20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

    21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

    22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren:

    But I'm really glad that you show some interest in talking about the non-biblical doctrines of the Protestants. When can we go through them? I'd like to start with Sola Scriptura, if you don't mind?

    ReplyDelete
  8. James did agree with Peter and the others but it was James who made the final decision. See verse 19.

    Let's start with sola scriptura. Define it so l will know exactly what you mean.

    ReplyDelete
  9. AnonymousFebruary 8, 2013 at 3:44 PM
    James did agree with Peter and the others but it was James who made the final decision. See verse 19.


    As I told you, St. Peter made the decision. James merely agreed with it as did all the elders.

    ReplyDelete
  10. AnonymousFebruary 8, 2013 at 3:44 PM

    Let's start with sola scriptura. Define it so l will know exactly what you mean.


    I don't believe in Sola Scriptura. You do. Therefore, you need to define it so that I know exactly what you mean and provide the chapter and verse which supports it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't believe a lot of what your church teaches yet I can articulate what its doctrines are. You have written quite a bit against it so you must know what it is. That is why I am asking you to define it.

      Delete
  11. on the other blog, you asked this question

    Bob says:
    February 7, 2013 at 11:17 pm
    De Maria,
    I honestly don’t know how you arrive at your conclusions that “church always upholds the truth” by using I Tim 3:15.
    How could the church always uphold the truth considering the warnings of false teachers in the church that would lead the church astray?


    That is not what that verse says. Here is the exact quote:
    2 Peter 2
    King James Version (KJV)
    2 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

    This says there shall be false teachers and is a prophecy of many heretics, such as the Protestants. They have come into the Church and have tried to destroy the Church. But they have not succeeded. Nor will they ever.


    All you can give me with your interpretation of Scripture is your own private interpretations. I wish I knew what the official interpretation is. That way we could see if your interpretations are correct. Without this, there is no way for you t o determine which interpretation is the correct one.

    You are confusing the Catholic Church with Protestant preachers who begin to confuse the Word of God with their own words.

    The Catholic Church does not micro manage Scripture interpretation. She has given guidelines. The interpretation of Scripture must be in line with Church Tradition. That is all.

    My interpretations of Scripture uphold Church Tradition. Therefore they are in accordance with Church Teaching.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I know you think Protestants are heretics. I'm not sure that your church officially does at least in modern times. After all, would you call a heretic a "separated brethren"?

    You do have false teachers. St. Alphonsus Marie de Liguori would be one. He wrote the Glories of Mary and there is some false teachings in that work.

    Would it be true to say that no RC can say to have the definitive interpretation of any verse since your church only gives you guidelines that must be within Church Traditions (whatever those supposedly are)? Rev 12 in whom the woman is would be an example of different interpretations. There is no way to know definitively if this is Mary, the church or Israel. Correct?

    ReplyDelete
  13. AnonymousFebruary 9, 2013 at 10:30 AM
    I know you think Protestants are heretics.


    The original Protestants were heretics. Luther, Calvin and those which broke away from Christ's Church. You and the modern Protestants are followers of the heretics.


    I'm not sure that your church officially does at least in modern times. After all, would you call a heretic a "separated brethren"?

    Yes. The reason you are "separated brethren" is because Protestant Baptism, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, remains valid.

    You do have false teachers. St. Alphonsus Marie de Liguori would be one.

    On the contrary, St. Alphonsus Marie de Liguori is a Doctor of the Church. That is a title of great honor. He is one of the greatest Catholics that ever lived.

    He wrote the Glories of Mary and there is some false teachings in that work.

    That is one of the greatest books ever written.

    Would it be true to say that no RC can say to have the definitive interpretation of any verse since your church only gives you guidelines that must be within Church Traditions (whatever those supposedly are)?

    Would it be true to say that no Protestant has a definitive interpretation of any verse since your denomination is not infallible nor are you?

    Here's the difference. You have no real guideline.

    We have the guidance of the Church and Tradition. Although you don't know what is the Living Tradition of the Church, we do. And therefore our guideline is true and our understanding of Scripture correct.

    Whereas you make things up as you go along. That is why there are more than 25,000 denominations of Protestants today.

    Rev 12 in whom the woman is would be an example of different interpretations. There is no way to know definitively if this is Mary, the church or Israel. Correct?

    You are mistaken again.

    We hold as many interpretations as do not contradict the Tradition of the Church.
    1. The Woman of Rev 12 is a metaphor for Mary.
    2. The Woman of Rev 12 is also a metaphor for the Church.
    3. The Woman of Rev 12 is also a metaphor for the nation of Israel.

    All three fit. But the best fit is Mary.

    Whereas, your denomination accepts one and discards the others. We accept all three and see truth in all three.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The problem with holding to 3 interpretations is that they all can't be correct. You claim it's Mary but your church has never officially said so. You only it prefer it and it's against Roman Catholic scholarship who are more qualified on this than you.

    I do want to discuss with you about Ligouri. Are you up for it?

    ReplyDelete
  15. AnonymousFebruary 9, 2013 at 3:52 PM
    The problem with holding to 3 interpretations is that they all can't be correct.


    They are all correct on different levels of spiritual interpretation.

    You claim it's Mary but your church has never officially said so.

    Not exactly. Our Church has said so "officially" many times. But not from the Chair of Peter in an extraordinary definition. That is what Protestants normally ask for. An extraordinary definition.

    Here, let me show you an official declaration by the Church.

    1. Remember that we have Feasts to celebrate Mary's Titles.
    2. On her Feast Days, in the Mass, we read some of the Scriptures that speak of that event.
    3. Follow this link to the Readings for the Feast of the Assumption of Mary.
    4. Note the first reading begins with Rev 11:19 and ends with Rev 12:10.
    5. The reason for that is because the Woman in Rev 12 is Mary, who has been assumed into heaven.

    You only it prefer it and it's against Roman Catholic scholarship who are more qualified on this than you.

    Here is a teaching from the premier Catholic Scholars in the United States today.

    I hope that proves to you that Catholics are in agreement concerning this matter and that I am in agreement with all Catholics and with the Church concerning this matter.

    I do want to discuss with you about Ligouri. Are you up for it?

    I hope so. I consider him one of my Patrons and I named myself "De Maria" partially to follow his example and partially for St. Louis Marie de Montfort. Please read this article and comment there, The Glories of Mary.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous, Did you forget that you wanted to discuss Sola Scriptura?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. I`m waiting for you to define it. When I ask Catholics to define it they never have gotten it right. It makes me think they are attacking a straw man. Maybe you will prove me wrong.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousFebruary 10, 2013 at 2:36 AM
      No. I`m waiting for you to define it. When I ask Catholics to define it they never have gotten it right.


      More the reason for you to define it for me. That way we can avoid all the problems and go straight to the correct definition. Come on, define it.

      It makes me think they are attacking a straw man. Maybe you will prove me wrong.

      Perhaps YOU don't know what it means. Is that the problem?

      Delete
  17. Here is what I found you wrote about Sola Scriptura:
    "1st, Sola Scriptura is not wrong because it causes division, even Christ causes division (Luke 12:51) and He is all Truth (John 14:6).
    2nd, Sola Scriptura is wrong because it contradicts Scripture (Matt 18:17; 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Thess 2:15; Heb 13:7;17).
    3rd, Sola Scriptura is also wrong because it is illogical. It contradicts itself because it claims that all valid doctrines must be explicit in Scripture. Yet, Sola Scriptura is not only absent from Scripture, but contradicts Scripture." http://washedsanctifiedandjustified.blogspot.com/search/label/Sola%20Scriptura

    Now please give me your definition of what the definition is. If you are claiming something is wrong then you must now what the definition is for something. If I tell you the immaculate conception of Mary is a false doctrine you have every right to expect me to know what the definition of the immaculate conception is. The same would go for purgatory or indulgences. You have every right to ask me to define according to your terms so you can see if I understand it correctly. That is why I am asking you for the definition of Sola Scriptura. So please tell me what it is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous said:
      Now please give me your definition of what the definition is. If you are claiming something is wrong then you must now what the definition is for something. If I tell you the immaculate conception of Mary is a false doctrine you have every right to expect me to know what the definition of the immaculate conception is. The same would go for purgatory or indulgences. You have every right to ask me to define according to your terms so you can see if I understand it correctly. That is why I am asking you for the definition of Sola Scriptura. So please tell me what it is.


      The problem is that Protestants all have a different definition for Sola Scriptura.

      In that debate, Lutero was totally against traditions. Whereas, some Protestants claim that certain traditions are allowed by Sola Scriptura. If you agree with Lutero in that debate, perhaps you can respond there in defense of his version of Sola Scriptura?

      Or you can define your version of Sola Scriptura here in order to prevent me defining it in a manner with which you disagree.

      Which would you prefer to do?

      Delete
  18. Ok. Let's start here: do you believe that the scripture alone is inspired-inerrant? Since we would agree that at least 66 books are. Agreed? If you think something else is inspired-inerrant then you are going to need to demonstrate that is the case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousFebruary 10, 2013 at 2:35 PM
      Ok. Let's start here: do you believe that the scripture alone is inspired-inerrant?


      Is that your definition of Scripture alone? That Scripture alone is inspired-inerrant?

      Scripture says that God inspired Holy Men to write Scripture without error. Therefore, the Scripture says that Holy Men were inspired by God, not Scripture alone.

      2 Peter 1:19-21

      But if that is your definition, please provide the verse which EXPLICITLY says that Scripture alone is inspired-inerrant.

      Since we would agree that at least 66 books are. Agreed?

      There are 73 inspired books in the Bible. Even the number of books gives you a spritual lesson.

      6 is the spiritual number of incompleteness. Therefore, your canon is telling you that your canon is incomplete.

      Whereas, 7 is the number of Covenant. And 3 is the number which represents God. Therefore the Catholic Canon is telling you that the Catholic Bible contains God's covenant with man.

      If you think something else is inspired-inerrant then you are going to need to demonstrate that is the case.

      The Catholic Church is infallible as Scripture attests (1 Tim 3:15).
      And Tradition is the Word of God and therefore also without error, as Scripture also attests (1 Thess 2:13; Heb 13:7).

      Delete
  19. If you prove something else is also inspired-inerrant besides the scripture then you will have defeated sola scriptura. For you to prove this you will need examples that can be shown to be independent of Scripture and carries just as much weight as scripture throughout the entire church which includes protestants and the orthodox.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousFebruary 10, 2013 at 2:42 PM
      If you prove something else is also inspired-inerrant besides the scripture then you will have defeated sola scriptura.


      As I said above, Scripture says that Holy Men of God were inspired to write Scripture without committing error. 2 Pet 1:19-21

      For you to prove this you will need examples that can be shown to be independent of Scripture and carries just as much weight as scripture throughout the entire church which includes protestants and the orthodox.

      Where is that rule written? Did you just make it up?

      As for me, I believe the Word of God in Tradition and Scripture as taught by the Catholic Church. You have to demonstrate that Scripture teaches that "Scripture alone is inspired-inerrant." I need to see an explicit teaching in Scripture because that is what you always demand of me. You claim that unless the Scripture says something explicitly, then it isn't there. For instance, you want Scripture to say, "Mary didn't sin." Although, the Scripture doesn't say, "Mary sinned", yet you believe that tradition of men without any Scripture to back it up.

      Therefore, please provide the explicit Biblical teaching, chapter and verse, where Scripture says, "Scripture alone is inspired-inerrant".

      Delete
  20. Sola means alone. That's why I'm asking you if there are other things that are also inspired-inerrant. Do we not agree that Scripture is inspired-inerrant? Isn't that what your church teaches?

    Does your church also teach that something else is inspired-inerrant? If yes, what and how do you know it is?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. De MariaFebruary 11, 2013 at 8:38 AM
      Hi Anonymous,

      We're sort of going in circles on this question. You don't want to define Sola Scriptura. I wouldn't either if I were in your shoes. Here are the reasons:

      1. You won't find the words "Sola" and "Scriptura" together in Scripture anywhere.
      2. In your case specifically, you won't find the words, "inspired-inerrant" together in Scripture either.
      3. Nor will you find any statement saying, "Scripture alone is inspired-inerrant".

      So, you're in a pickle there.

      When you can find those words in Scripture, get back to me on this question. Otherwise, I think we're done on the question of where to find Sola Scriptura in Scripture.

      Would you like to try to prove Sola Fide next?

      ReplyDelete

      Delete
  21. It appears then that we agree on the first plank for Sola Scriptura. Only the Scripture is inspired-inerrant. Only the Scripture is the Word of God. What this means is that the Scripture is the highest authority for man. It has no equal.

    Sola Scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. All other authorities in the church are fallible. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. Only the Bible is God-breathed which means it is God speaking which by definition makes it the highest authority.

    What this means in practice is that all doctrines and practices are to be compared and judged by Scripture to determine if a doctrine or practice is biblical and binding. If not, then it is the doctrine of men. This is why we test the doctrines of your church in light of Scripture and find them to be in many cases not grounded in Scripture.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousFebruary 11, 2013 at 9:30 AM
      It appears then that we agree on the first plank for Sola Scriptura. Only the Scripture is inspired-inerrant. Only the Scripture is the Word of God.


      Where is that in Scripture?

      I see where Scripture says that the Teaching of the Church is the Wisdom of God: Ephesians 3:10

      I see where Scripture says that the Teaching of our Leaders in the Church is the Word of God: Heb 13:7

      Where does Scripture say that "Scripture alone" is the Word of God? Show it to me.

      I have already shown you where Scripture says that men are inspired. Show me where Scripture says that "Scripture alone" is inspired?

      And I have shown you where Scripture says that the Church always upholds the truth. 1 Tim 3:15

      Show me where Scripture says that "Scripture alone" upholds the truth. I want to see it with my own eyes.

      What this means is that the Scripture is the highest authority for man. It has no equal.

      Scripture says that we must hear the Church: Matt 18:17

      Scripture says that we must obey our rulers in the Church: Heb 13:17

      Scripture says we must hold Tradition: 2 Thess 2:15

      Where does Scripture say that Scripture is the highest authority for man?

      Sola Scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church.

      Show me that definition in Scripture. I want to see it. Please provide the Chapter and verse.

      All other authorities in the church are fallible. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures.

      How does the Scripture correct a man's error? If we look through history, we find many instances like this. Arius and Athanasius

      They disputed about their interpretation of Scripture. They took it to the Church. The Church declared that Arius interpretation was heretical. And that Athanasius was orthodox.

      It has happened that way countless times in history. The Church judges whether a doctrine is in accordance with Scripture.

      The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church.

      Scripture doesn't say that. If it does, point to the chapter and verse.


      Only the Bible is God-breathed

      Is Jesus God?
      John 20:22
      And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

      which means it is God speaking which by definition makes it the highest authority.

      God speaks through His Church in Tradition and Scripture.

      What this means in practice is that all doctrines and practices are to be compared and judged by Scripture to determine if a doctrine or practice is biblical and binding.

      Who does the comparing and judging? Scripture or man?

      See, that's where you get confused. It is you who are comparing your interpretation of Scripture to another interpretation of Scripture.

      If not, then it is the doctrine of men.

      But your interpretation of Scripture is many times a doctrine of men.

      This is why we test the doctrines of your church in light of Scripture and find them to be in many cases not grounded in Scripture.

      That is where you get confused. You are comparing the Doctrines of the Church to your interpretation of Scripture. Whereas the Doctrines of the Church are the Word of God. Therefore you are claiming that the Word of God is not grounded in Scripture.

      The Church compares the interpretations of men, such as Luther's to the Word of God in Tradition and Scripture as taught by the Magisterium.

      That is how the Church determined that a great deal of Protestant theology is not grounded in Scripture.

      Delete
  22. Only Scripture is the inerrant Word of God. If there is another inerrant Word of God what is it and how do you know?

    How did the OT Jews know that Isaiah was Scripture? There is nothing in Isaiah that says its Scripture yet the OT Jews believed it was. How did they know that?

    Must a book of the Bible say specifically it is the inerrant Word of God to be the Word of God?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousFebruary 11, 2013 at 11:21 AM
      Only Scripture is the inerrant Word of God. If there is another inerrant Word of God what is it and how do you know?


      Tradition. Heb 13:7

      Tradition and Scripture both tell me that Tradition and Scripture are the Word of God and by definition, the Word of God is without error.

      How did the OT Jews know that Isaiah was Scripture? There is nothing in Isaiah that says its Scripture yet the OT Jews believed it was. How did they know that?

      By their tradition. The Jews also held to tradition and Scripture.

      It is Catholic Tradition which tells you which books should be in the Canon of the Bible.
      It was Jewish tradition which said which books would be included in the OT Scripture.

      Must a book of the Bible say specifically it is the inerrant Word of God to be the Word of God?

      No. The Church tells us which books are included in Scripture.

      Delete
    2. Was it the Roman Catholic church that determined the Canon of the New Testament? Did a pope determine which books belonged in the New Testament Canon?

      Delete
    3. Anonymous
      Was it the Roman Catholic church that determined the Canon of the New Testament?


      Yes.

      Did a pope determine which books belonged in the New Testament Canon?

      The Pope assigned that duty to St. Jerome. St. Jerome compiled the Vulgate Bible which was the Bible used by all of Christendom for many centuries. The Council of Trent confirmed the Canon of Scripture in the Vulgate when it was challenged by the Protestants.

      Moreover, the same holy council considering that not a little advantage will accrue to the Church of God if it be made known which of all the Latin editions of the sacred books now in circulation is to be regarded as authentic, ordains and declares that the old Latin Vulgate Edition, which, in use for so many hundred years, has been approved by the Church, be in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions held as authentic, and that no one dare or presume under any pretext whatsoever to reject it.

      Delete
  23. Are your Traditions inspired-inerrant? Are they God-breathed in the same way the Scripture is? If so, which ones?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous
      Are your Traditions inspired-inerrant?


      God inspired men to Preach and then to Write. 2 Pet 1:19-21

      Are they God-breathed in the same way the Scripture is?


      Yes. But men expressed those God breathed Traditions in two ways.

      1. By Teaching. Handing down Tradition.
      2. By Writing. Handing down Scripture.

      See 2 Thess 2:15

      If so, which ones?

      All of them.

      Delete
  24. Can you give me a couple of examples of Traditions that were handed down by the apostles that are not recorded in Scripture?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are all in Scripture either explicit or implied.

      Sola Scriptura contradicts Scripture. Catholic Tradition is always in line with Scripture because Scripture is based upon Catholic Tradition.

      Delete
    2. If something is either explicit or implied in Scripture then scripture can be used to justify anything. It's implied in Scripture that Mary was all knowing since it never mentions a sin. So was Stephen since he was full of grace and power.
      Do you know Muslims use your same argument to claim Muhammad is predicted in the gospels?

      What apostle handed down the hail Mary?


      Delete
    3. Anonymous
      If something is either explicit or implied in Scripture then scripture can be used to justify anything.


      On the contrary. Look at Sola Scriptura. It isn't in Scripture. But Protestants believe it and use it to justify all kinds of sins.

      It's implied in Scripture that Mary was all knowing since it never mentions a sin.

      No. You're building more straw men to knock down. It is you saying that Mary is all knowing. Catholic Doctrine is bound with Tradition and Scripture. There is not any Catholic doctrine which says that Mary is all knowing.

      Anyway, I've already answered this. So, I hope you don't keep repeating it.

      So was Stephen since he was full of grace and power.

      Again, that is your doctrine. The Catholic Church teaches that St. Stephen was the first martyr and a great man. But She does not teach that he is all knowing. And I have already answered this as well.

      Do you know Muslims use your same argument to claim Muhammad is predicted in the gospels?

      Not true. It is Protestants who use Muslim tactics. Sola Scriptura contradicts Scripture. But Protestants claim it is taught in Scripture.

      What apostle handed down the hail Mary?

      St. Luke was not an Apostle, but he is an author of Scripture who knew the Apostles and was taught by them:

      Hail Mary full of grace, the Lord with with thee, blessed art thou amongst women (Luke 1:28) and blessed the fruit of the womb (Luke 1:42).


      Luke 1:28
      Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
      28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

      Luke 1:42
      Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
      42 And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

      Delete
    4. I am discussing sola scriptura but your understanding of it is incorrect. I knew this would be the case with you just by your writings about it. I have yet to meet a Roman Catholic who does.

      I am saying Mary is all knowing because of the way you interpret hail favored one. Since you refuse the definition as defined in Greek New Testament lexicon then I can also make it mean anything I want to.

      Where does your church officially teach that Stephen sinned? After all he was full of grace and power. He must have been full of grace and power since his conception because scripture does not says he was not.

      Muslims do indeed believe Muhammad is the advocate that Jesus promised in John's gospel. They to, like you claim it's implied. There is no way for you to argue against it since you don't use exegetical principles and methods to determine the meaning of Scripture.

      What apostle taught that Mary would pray for a person at the hour of death?

      Delete
    5. AnonymousFebruary 11, 2013 at 5:56 PM
      I am discussing sola scriptura but your understanding of it is incorrect.


      You defined it. You said, and I quote:
      Sola Scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church.

      I simply pointed out that your definition is not in Scripture.

      I knew this would be the case with you just by your writings about it. I have yet to meet a Roman Catholic who does.

      I have yet to meet a Protestant who can produce a Scripture to support Sola Scriptura.

      I am saying Mary is all knowing

      You are saying it. That is precisely true. I'm not saying any such thing.

      because of the way you interpret hail favored one.

      In the parlance of debate, you are making a straw man and a non sequitur error.

      Since you refuse the definition as defined in Greek New Testament lexicon then I can also make it mean anything I want to.

      I have used the definition used by people who actually speak Greek. The definition of Greek Scholars:
      " 'Highly favoured' (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians 1:6 . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena [full of grace] "is right, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast received'; wrong, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast to bestow' " (A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, p. 14)

      "It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace." (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament).

      Where does your church officially teach that Stephen sinned?

      It doesn't. Whether St. Stephen sinned or not is between St. Stephen and God.

      After all he was full of grace and power. He must have been full of grace and power since his conception because scripture does not says he was not.

      Scripture does not say that he was "kecharitomene". Scripture describes him as "charitoos". Big difference.

      Muslims do indeed believe Muhammad is the advocate that Jesus promised in John's gospel. They to, like you claim it's implied.

      I never said anything about Muhammad. You brought them into this conversation. The reason you brought them into this conversation is because you can't find any Scripture to uphold your false doctrines.


      There is no way for you to argue against it since you don't use exegetical principles and methods to determine the meaning of Scripture.

      I use the exegetical principles taught in Scripture:

      2 Corinthians 3:6

      What apostle taught that Mary would pray for a person at the hour of death?

      That is understood by the fact that all the Saints are praying for us. This is taught in Scripture:
      1 Timothy 2:1
      I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

      Delete
    6. True the definition is not found in Scripture. It does follow from the nature of Scripture that scripture alone is infallible as the ultimate rule for the church because it alone is inspired-inerrant.

      It h is true I am arguing about Mary being far more than you want her to be based on your way of thinking. I am also arguing for others in the same way. You see I can make the scripture say anything I want when I don't have to apply sound exegetical principles. I am just following your example.

      Does not matter what the word means when it says he was full of grace and power. I take it to mean He was without sin his entire life since conception. If you can say that about Mary then there is nothing to say it's not true of Stephen also. Again, I'm just arguing like you.

      I brought up Muhammad to show how non Christians argue like you do. You have no way to argue against a Muslim when he tells you that Muhammad is the advocate that Christ predicted.

      1 Timothy 2:1 has nothing to do with the dead praying for you or you praying to the dead.

      2Corinthians 3:6 has nothing to do with exegetical principles. Just look at the context.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous
      True the definition is not found in Scripture.....


      Thanks for that admission. I just want to highlight, all by itself, that Protestants insist that Catholic Doctrines must all be found EXPLICIT in Scripture. But when it comes to their own doctrines, they don't even have to be in Scripture at all, and still they believe them.

      In the case of Sola Scriptura, it contradicts Scripture and they believe it anyway.

      Delete
    8. AnonymousFebruary 12, 2013 at 1:40 AM
      True the definition is not found in Scripture. It does follow from the nature of Scripture that scripture alone is infallible as the ultimate rule for the church because it alone is inspired-inerrant.


      Not true. That is all Protestant tradition of men which you have added unto Scripture.

      1st. Scripture never uses the term "Scripture alone". In fact, Scripture refers to the Traditions by word and epistle: 2 Thess 2:15

      2nd. Scripture does say that the Scripture can not be broken John: 10:35
      But Scripture also says that the Church always upholds the truth: 1 Tim 3:15
      And that the Church always teaches the Word of God: Eph 3:10
      And that Tradition (i.e. Teaching) is the Word of God: Heb 13:7

      Therefore, Scripture teaches that the Church, Tradition and the Scriptures are all infallible. Not Scripture alone.

      3rd. Scripture does not say that Scripture is the ultimate anything. It says that Scripture is "profitable" for teaching: 2 Tim 3:16
      But it does not teach that Scripture is necessary.

      Whereas, Scripture says that the Church is the ultimate authority which we must obey or we may be treated as the heathen: Matt 18:17
      And Scripture says that we must obey our rulers in the Church: Heb 13:17
      And Scripture says that the Teachings passed down by word are the Word of God: 1 Thess 2:13

      Therefore, the ultimate authority for Christians are our rulers in the Church.

      Therefore, the nature of the Biblical message is that Scripture is not alone and that the Church is the ultimate authority for Christians. This is further emphasized by the fact that Jesus established a Church and commanded it to teach His commandments: Matt 16:18; Matt 28:19-20

      If Christ had wanted the Scriptures to be the ultimate authority, He would have written them. But He didn't. He established a Church and put within that Church a hierarchy. One man to lead them all: Matt 16:18-19

      and a board of directors; Matt 18:18

      The Church is essentially Christ's Corporation: Col 1:18; 1 Corinthians 12:28

      It h is true I am arguing about Mary being far more than you want her to be based on your way of thinking. I am also arguing for others in the same way. You see I can make the scripture say anything I want when I don't have to apply sound exegetical principles. I am just following your example.

      That is precisely why there are over 25000 Protestant denominations today. Because they can make Scripture say whatever they want.

      The doctrine of Scripture alone is a shell game. You claim to believe only what is in Scripture. But the doctrine of Scripture alone is not in Scripture, as you have admitted. And you believe it anyway.

      You believe only what you make up because you don't submit to a God given authority which will constrain the imaginations of your mind. Therefore, you believe only those things that you want, whether they are in Scripture or not and you call that Scripture alone.

      Delete
    9. Does not matter what the word means when it says he was full of grace and power. I take it to mean He was without sin his entire life since conception. If you can say that about Mary then there is nothing to say it's not true of Stephen also. Again, I'm just arguing like you.

      Not at all.

      1. I follow the Tradition of the Catholic Church. What church tradition do you base your interpretation upon? Not the Catholic Tradition, because the Catholic Tradition says nothing about Stephen as you have made up.

      2. As I have shown, the Doctrines of Mary have been taught by the Early Church Fathers, the Bishops of the Church, from earliest times. Where is your tradition which you just made up about Stepehen?

      No, you simply built a silly straw man which fits nothing but your imagination. In your imagination you believe you have made a valid point. But it is without any validity at all.


      I brought up Muhammad to show how non Christians argue like you do.

      Stil wrong. Show me where any of the Early Church Fathers taught that Muhammad was in the Bible? Show me teaching from any Christians, even Protestants, which say that Muhammad is in the Bible?

      Without them, you have nothing but these silly straw men that you build.

      You have no way to argue against a Muslim when he tells you that Muhammad is the advocate that Christ predicted.

      I argue just as effectively against Muslims as I do against Protestants.

      1 Timothy 2:1 has nothing to do with the dead praying for you or you praying to the dead.

      Are you insinuating that those who believe in Christ will not live after they die? John 11:26

      2Corinthians 3:6 has nothing to do with exegetical principles. Just look at the context.

      The context is clear. The understanding and teaching of the New Testament.

      Delete
    10. Just because you have some Tradition that says that Mary was without sin does not mean its true. Just because some "Early Church Fathers, the Bishops of the Church" may have believed this about her does not make it true. These fallen men are not apostles and they can and have believed error. There is nothing in Scripture that says they would be protected from error. They are teaching falsely because what they said about Mary cannot be found in Scripture and what they said about her contradicts Rom 3:9,23, 5:12 and 14. If they are right, then the Scripture has lied to us.

      Just because people who die in Christ still live (John 11:26) does not mean we can communicate with them or that they are aware of this world. John 11:26 nor any verse of Scripture makes any claim of the dead hearing prayers of the living. Secondly, there is no NT teaching that teaches or commands us to pray to the dead. Not even Peter or Paul before their deaths exhorted believers to pray to them after they died. What we are commanded to do is to pray to Christ and in His name. John 14:14.

      Delete
    11. You wrote:
      "But Scripture also says that the Church always upholds the truth: 1 Tim 3:15"
      It is not true that your I Tim 3:15 "always" upholds the truth.. here is the verse again--But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.--there is nothing in here about always. We already know from Acts 20:29, 2 Peter 2:1 and Rev 2:14-16 that there would be false teachers in the church that would deceive. No church is protected from error.


      You wrote:
      "And that the Church always teaches the Word of God: Eph 3:10"
      Same problems as above. What is this "wisdom of God" that Paul refers to? It certainly is not indulgences, purgatory, the papacy nor the Marian dogmas since none of these things are found in the Scripture.

      You wrote:
      "And that Tradition (i.e. Teaching) is the Word of God: Heb 13:7"

      The Word of God that Hebrews is referring to is not the Marian dogmas, purgatory, indulgences, praying to the dead, the papacy etc. These things did not exist in this period. The Word of God would have encompassed the gospels and the writings of the apostles and even perhaps the oral teachings of the apostles if they had heard it.

      Delete
    12. You wrote:
      "Therefore, the ultimate authority for Christians are our rulers in the Church."

      Remember: your rulers have at times brought great evil on the world. Just read the histories of the popes. It was your rulers that created the inquisitions that tortured and murdered people for centuries. In the modern day, you have rulers of your church that have done great harm to the name of Christ by allowing the priest scandal that flourish.

      If you want to trust the leaders of your church blindly, then that is your business. Your rejection of Sola Scriptura makes it impossible for you to hold them accountable since you believe they are equal to Scripture in authority.

      Delete
  25. I wrote -"True the definition is not found in Scripture....."

    You wrote:
    "Thanks for that admission. I just want to highlight, all by itself, that Protestants insist that Catholic Doctrines must all be found EXPLICIT in Scripture. But when it comes to their own doctrines, they don't even have to be in Scripture at all, and still they believe them."

    Again, this is why I wanted you to define what Sola Scriptura means. You keep using what you think it means instead of what I told you it means. Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura because only the Scripture is inspired-inerrant Word of God. Nothing else is. Because this is so, only the Scripture is the final authority for doctrine and practice for the church. Only its teachings are binding and true. All doctrines that are not grounded in Scripture are not binding and are the teachings of men.


    You can claim your "Traditions" are but you never gave an example of a "Tradition" that is not found in Scripture that is said officially by your church to be inspired-inerrant. For example: is eating meat on Fridays an inspired-inerrant Tradition? If so, where does your church officially claim this?


    You wrote:
    "In the case of Sola Scriptura, it contradicts Scripture and they believe it anyway."

    How can Sola Scriptura contradict Scripture when it affirms the nature and authority of Scripture?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You said,

      Again, this is why I wanted you to define what Sola Scriptura means. You keep using what you think it means instead of what I told you it means.

      That's not true. You defined the term. You said:
      Sola Scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. (AnonymousFebruary 11, 2013 at 9:30 AM).

      You could not show where any of that is in Scripture. That is why you admitted that is not in Scripture.

      How can Sola Scriptura contradict Scripture when it affirms the nature and authority of Scripture?

      It doesn't affirm the nature and authority of Scripture. I already proved from Scripture that Scripture says:

      1st. Scripture never uses the term "Scripture alone". In fact, Scripture refers to the Traditions by word and epistle: 2 Thess 2:15

      2nd. Scripture does say that the Scripture can not be broken John: 10:35
      But Scripture also says that the Church always upholds the truth: 1 Tim 3:15
      And that the Church always teaches the Word of God: Eph 3:10
      And that Tradition (i.e. Teaching) is the Word of God: Heb 13:7

      Therefore, Scripture teaches that the Church, Tradition and the Scriptures are all infallible. Not Scripture alone.

      3rd. Scripture does not say that Scripture is the ultimate anything. It says that Scripture is "profitable" for teaching: 2 Tim 3:16
      But it does not teach that Scripture is necessary.

      Whereas, Scripture says that the Church is the ultimate authority which we must obey or we may be treated as the heathen: Matt 18:17
      And Scripture says that we must obey our rulers in the Church: Heb 13:17
      And Scripture says that the Teachings passed down by word are the Word of God: 1 Thess 2:13

      Therefore, the ultimate authority for Christians are our rulers in the Church.

      Therefore, the nature of the Biblical message is that Scripture is not alone and that the Church is the ultimate authority for Christians. This is further emphasized by the fact that Jesus established a Church and commanded it to teach His commandments: Matt 16:18; Matt 28:19-20

      If Christ had wanted the Scriptures to be the ultimate authority, He would have written them. But He didn't. He established a Church and put within that Church a hierarchy. One man to lead them all: Matt 16:18-19

      and a board of directors; Matt 18:18

      The Church is essentially Christ's Corporation: Col 1:18; 1 Corinthians 12:28

      But you keep posting your non-biblical opinions as though repeating them will make them true. But they remain false.

      Delete
  26. It is true that "Sola Scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church." The reason is that there is nothing else that is inspired-inerrant. Nothing else that can be rightfully called the Word of God. This means that only the Scripture CAN BE THE ONLY INFALLIBLE RULE OF FAITH FOR THE CHURCH. All other rules can only be in submission to the Scripture. For example take the creeds. The creeds are not inspired but are based on the Scripture.

    The doctrine of Sola Scriptura does not require any verse in the Bible to say Scripture alone is the only infallible Word of God. It is the nature of Scripture to be inspired-inerrant. All orthodox Christians recognize this.

    If Christ had intended "One man to lead them all: Matt 16:18-19" then why is there no office of the papacy in Scripture where the structure of the church is mentioned? Why is it that none of the other apostles defer to Peter as being the supreme leader of the church? The fact is that the papacy did not exist in the NT church.

    Are not eating meat on Fridays during lent and a celibate leadership examples of Traditions?

    BTW- church leaders do have authority and they should only be listened to and obeyed when they teach the truth that is found in Scripture. They are to be rebuked when they do not. When a church does not rebuke teacher then it share in its sins. Ligouri is one example of your church failing to rebuke a false teacher. The Glories of Mary is an example of false teachings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous

      It is true that "Sola Scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church."


      That's not in Scripture.

      The reason is that there is nothing else that is inspired-inerrant.

      That's not in Scripture either.

      Nothing else that can be rightfully called the Word of God.

      Scripture calls the teaching of men the Word of God: Heb 13:7; 1 Thess 2:13
      Scripture calls the teaching of the Church the Wisdom of God. Is the Wisdom of God not the Word of God? Eph 3:10

      This means that only the Scripture CAN BE THE ONLY INFALLIBLE RULE OF FAITH FOR THE CHURCH.

      That is not in Scripture.

      You're in a pickle. If Scripture alone is the rule of faith for the Church, then somewhere in Scripture it should say that Scripture alone is the sole rule of faith for the Church. Otherwise, you are making it up or following the teaching of someone else who made it up.

      All other rules can only be in submission to the Scripture.

      That's not in Scripture either.

      For example take the creeds. The creeds are not inspired but are based on the Scripture.

      They are based upon the Word of God in Tradition and Scripture. Let me show you:

      I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
      the only begotten Son of God,
      begotten of the Father before all ages,
      God from God, Light from Light,
      of one being with the Father.

      Where is that in Scripture? I can find it in the Council of Nicea. But I don't see it in Scripture. But perhaps you can point to it.

      The doctrine of Sola Scriptura does not require any verse in the Bible to say Scripture alone is the only infallible Word of God.

      Then it contradicts itself. Sola Scriptura requires that every rule of faith must be in the Bible but itself is not in the Bible.

      It is the nature of Scripture to be inspired-inerrant. All orthodox Christians recognize this.

      Whether they do or not does not change the fact that the statement is not found in Scripture.

      If Christ had intended "One man to lead them all: Matt 16:18-19" then why is there no office of the papacy in Scripture where the structure of the church is mentioned?

      Because Jesus revealed it in Matt 16:18-19 and in John 21:15-17.

      Why is it that none of the other apostles defer to Peter as being the supreme leader of the church?

      What do you want them to do? Grovel?

      However Scripture depicts St. Peter first in almost every instance: Matt. 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:3; 2:37; 5:29

      Matt. 17:24-27 Jesus pays the tax for Himself and Peter.

      The fact is that the papacy did not exist in the NT church.

      The fact is it did but you simply refuse to believe it.

      Are not eating meat on Fridays during lent and a celibate leadership examples of Traditions?

      No, they are examples of disciplines.

      BTW- church leaders do have authority and they should only be listened to and obeyed when they teach the truth that is found in Scripture. They are to be rebuked when they do not. When a church does not rebuke teacher then it share in its sins. Ligouri is one example of your church failing to rebuke a false teacher. The Glories of Mary is an example of false teachings.

      1. St. Alphonsus Marie de Liguori is a shining star amongst the Catholic Saints.
      2. To which church leader do you submit and obey knowing that they are responsible for your soul? Heb 13:17

      3. The Church has rebuked many heretics through the centuries. The Protestant Reformer chief amongst them.

      Delete
    2. The creeds are taken from Scripture but they are not inspired-inerrant.

      You wrote:
      "I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
      the only begotten Son of God,
      begotten of the Father before all ages,
      God from God, Light from Light,
      of one being with the Father.

      Where is that in Scripture?"
      There is only one Lord Jesus Christ. Begotten of the Father can be found in John 3:16; Hebrews 1:5. God from God, Light from Light can be found in John 1:1-3, 8:12.
      "of one being with the Father" can be found in John 10:30

      BTW- Jesus does not tell His disciples the structure of the church. Paul is the only one that describes church structure and he never mentions a papacy.

      What is the difference between a discipline and a tradition?

      Delete
    3. AnonymousFebruary 12, 2013 at 7:12 PM
      The creeds are taken from Scripture but they are not inspired-inerrant.


      The creeds are from Tradition and Scripture. And they are the Word of God. They are infallible Teaching.

      There is only one Lord Jesus Christ. Begotten of the Father can be found in John 3:16; Hebrews 1:5. God from God, Light from Light can be found in John 1:1-3, 8:12.
      "of one being with the Father" can be found in John 10:30


      But you learned all that from Catholic Tradition. The Catholic Church compiled all that information for you. Where is it in Scripture all together?

      BTW- Jesus does not tell His disciples the structure of the church. Paul is the only one that describes church structure and he never mentions a papacy.

      Did St. Paul learn from Jesus or not?

      What is the difference between a discipline and a tradition?

      Not much. A discipline and a tradition are imposed by the Church for the good of the children of God.

      But there is a great big difference between, disciplines, traditions and Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition is the Word of God alive in the Church. The Sacred Scriptures also come alive within Sacred Tradition but are dessimated within the traditions of men passed down by your Protestant denominations.

      Delete
    4. Catholic and Roman Catholic are not the same things. The creeds are not inspired-inerrant. They were not written by an apostle or prophet nor was given by divine revelation.
      They are true because they accurately reflect what the Scripture says. Something can only be infallible if it accurately presents the truth. It is not infallible if something does not accurately present the truth.

      Jesus revealed Himself to Paul and revealed things to him that are not in the gospels. Church structure is one such example.

      Can a discipline-tradition be considered good if it contradicts Scripture?

      Is there an official list somewhere of all the disciplines in your church?

      Delete
    5. Anonymous
      Catholic and Roman Catholic are not the same things.


      They are actually. The difference is not that which Protestants know anything about. At least, most of them don't know anything about it and they are surprised when they hear it.

      The Catholic Church is bigger than the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is organized in two parts. The Eastern and Western rites.

      The Eastern rites include the Alexandrian, Antiochian, Armenian, to name just the A's.

      The Western rites of the Catholic Church are known as the Roman Catholic Church. They include Anglican use (Anglican converts to the Catholic Church) and the Dominican.

      Both Eastern and Western rites submit to the Pope.

      The creeds are not inspired-inerrant.

      But they are part of the infallible Teaching of the Church.

      They were not written by an apostle or prophet nor was given by divine revelation.

      Their Teaching was handed down to us by Jesus through the Church.


      They are true because they accurately reflect what the Scripture says.


      They are true because they accurately reflect what Jesus taught.

      Something can only be infallible if it accurately presents the truth. It is not infallible if something does not accurately present the truth.

      Correct. Protestant teaching is not infallible. Catholic Teaching is infallible.

      Jesus revealed Himself to Paul and revealed things to him that are not in the gospels. Church structure is one such example.

      Thank you. Jesus did not just reveal that to St. Paul, but to all the Church. The Church was alive and well before St. Paul converted.

      Can a discipline-tradition be considered good if it contradicts Scripture?

      Only Protestant disciplines and traditions contradict Scripture. Catholic disciplines and traditions are all in accord with Scripture.

      Is there an official list somewhere of all the disciplines in your church?

      Probably. But I'm not a student of the disciplines of the Church. I am a student of the Word of God in the light of Sacred Tradition and Scripture.

      Delete
  27. You wrote--"Scripture calls the teaching of men the Word of God: Heb 13:7; 1 Thess 2:13
    Scripture calls the teaching of the Church the Wisdom of God. Is the Wisdom of God not the Word of God? Eph 3:10"

    Are you saying that when your church teaches something that it is inspired-inerrant as the Scripture is? If so, where does your church say this?

    Are your bishops and popes equal in authority as the apostles were? When they write something, is it inspired-inerrant like Paul's letter to the Romans? Are their writings revelations from God?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous

      Are you saying that when your church teaches something that it is inspired-inerrant as the Scripture is? If so, where does your church say this?


      In Scripture for one. Heb 13:7; Eph 3:10

      Are your bishops and popes equal in authority as the apostles were? When they write something, is it inspired-inerrant like Paul's letter to the Romans? Are their writings revelations from God?

      They teach the same thing the Apostles taught: 1 Thess 2:13; Tim 2:2; Matt 28:18:20; Eph 3:10

      Delete
  28. The Word of God can only come from an apostle, one associated closely with an apostle (Luke) or a prophet. The wisdom of God is found only in the Scripture. God is not making new Scripture today and has not for 2000 years.

    Your bishops and popes teach far more than the apostles ever did. Doctrines such as indulgences, purgatory, and the Marian dogmas were never taught by the apostles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous
      The Word of God can only come from an apostle , one associated closely with an apostle (Luke) or a prophet.

      The Word of God was passed down by Christ through the Church.

      The wisdom of God is found only in the Scripture.

      Scripture says that the Wisdom of God is taught by the Church: Eph 3;10

      God is not making new Scripture today and has not for 2000 years.

      That is true. But it is through the Church that one comes to a true understanding of the Scripture which the Church wrote and compiled by the guidance of the Holy Spirit 2000 years ago.

      Your bishops and popes teach far more than the apostles ever did.

      But it is all based upon their Doctrine, just like the Creeds.

      Doctrines such as indulgences,

      Matthew 19:21
      Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

      purgatory,

      1 Corinthians 3:15
      King James Version (KJV)
      15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

      and the Marian dogmas

      Mary, Mother of God;
      Luke 1:43
      And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

      Mary, Queen of Heaven:
      Revelation 12:1
      King James Version (KJV)
      12 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

      All the Marian Doctrines are in Scripture, implied or explicit.

      were never taught by the apostles.

      Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide were never taught by the Apostles and in fact, contradict Apostolic Teaching.

      Delete
    2. Doesn't purgatory have to do with cleansing you from sin? If so, then why use I Cor 3:15 to support that when I Cor never speaks of sin?

      Delete
    3. Anonymous
      Doesn't purgatory have to do with cleansing you from sin? If so, then why use I Cor 3:15 to support that when I Cor never speaks of sin?


      It does. Works of gold are virtuous and righteous works.
      Works of wood and other materials are tainted by sin. When they are burned away, the effects of sins are burned off.

      Delete
  29. If "it is through the Church that one comes to a true understanding of the Scripture which the Church" then why hasn't your church ever infallibly or officially provided you with an interpretation of all the Scripture so you could understand them correctly? You claim for example that Matthew 19:21 teaches indulgences. Where has your church officially interpreted the meaning of this verse to mean that?

    Secondly, where does the Scripture identify the church as being headquartered in Rome?

    Not all your doctrines are taught in Scripture. I have given you a number of examples of those.

    Paul speaks of traditions in 2 Thes 2:15. What specifically are those traditions and how do you know?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousFebruary 13, 2013 at 1:59 PM
      If "it is through the Church that one comes to a true understanding of the Scripture which the Church" then why hasn't your church ever infallibly or officially provided you with an interpretation of all the Scripture so you could understand them correctly?

      Because it isn't necessary. Protestants place the Bible above all else. Whereas for the Catholic Church there are two sources of the Word of God, Tradition and Scripture. And it is through the Church that these two speak.

      You claim for example that Matthew 19:21 teaches indulgences. Where has your church officially interpreted the meaning of this verse to mean that?

      I'm not aware of an official interpretation of that verse.

      Secondly, where does the Scripture identify the church as being headquartered in Rome?

      It doesn't. It doesn't say that the Church will not be headquartered in Rome, either.

      Not all your doctrines are taught in Scripture.

      True. But your doctrines contradict Scripture.

      I have given you a number of examples of those.

      The ones you gave are actually in Scripture. But Sola Scriptura, as you admitted, is not.

      Paul speaks of traditions in 2 Thes 2:15. What specifically are those traditions and how do you know?

      They are the Traditions passed down to the Church by Jesus Christ. I know because the Church tells me in Tradition and Scripture.

      Delete
  30. If your doctrines are not taught in Scripture then you cannot claim those that are not are apostolic. They are the teachings of men. Purgatory is a denial of Col 2:13-14 where it says:
    13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

    This passage tells us that our sins have all been canceled out and the debt has been paid in full. That means we can never be punished again for sin. Purgatory also denies I John 1:7--but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.

    The blood of Christ CLEANSES us from ALL SIN.

    This is why purgatory contradicts Scripture.

    Can you give me an example of a Tradition that was passed down to your church that is not found in Scripture?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. meyuFebruary 13, 2013 at 7:25 PM
      If your doctrines are not taught in Scripture


      Catholic Doctrines are in Scripture either explicit or implied.

      then you cannot claim those that are not are apostolic.

      If you are referring to the Creeds, they were taught by the Apostles and are all explicit or implied in Scripture.


      They are the teachings of men. Purgatory is a denial of Col 2:13-14 where it says:
      13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

      This passage tells us that our sins have all been canceled out and the debt has been paid in full.


      Not quite. It must be understood in context of the rest of Scripture. First, you left out v.11-12

      11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

      12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

      Now, in the context of what is written, he is saying that the Baptized are forgiven of their sins, if they repent of them:
      Mark 16:16
      He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

      Your interpretation would make all men saved. But all men are not saved. Only those that do the righteous works commanded by God in obedience of Christ.

      That means we can never be punished again for sin.

      You are still wrong. Scripture is clear that those who commit sin will be punished. All you have to do is turn the page. St. Paul, still speaking to the same group of baptized Christians says:
      Col 3:24 Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.

      25 But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons

      In other words, God doesn't care if you are Christian, Protestant, Catholic or whatever. If you do not do the righteous works He has commanded and turn to sin, you will be punished.

      Purgatory also denies I John 1:7--but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.

      The blood of Christ CLEANSES us from ALL SIN.


      He's talking about the Eucharist. Do you drink the Blood of Our Lord in the Eucharist? How do you get the Blood of Christ to cleanse your sin? Do you kill Jesus again? Do you wipe your own soul with His Blood?

      It is when we participate in the Eucharist that Christ washes our sins away in His Blood.
      1 Corinthians 10:
      16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

      Delete
    2. Meyu also said:
      This is why purgatory contradicts Scripture.

      On the contrary, this is why your traditions contradict Scripture. There is nothing in the Doctrine of Purgatory which is not perfectly in line with Scripture. Here we have a verse which confirms that God allows Satan to punish Christians for a time:
      Revelation 2:10
      Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.

      Here we have another which shows that our faith is purified, cleansed by fire:
      1 Peter 1:7
      That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:

      Can you give me an example of a Tradition that was passed down to your church that is not found in Scripture?

      They are all either or implied in Scripture. We just spoke of Purgatory. The Holy Trinity is another. You won't find those words in Scripture. But the Teaching is there.

      But here's a tradition which is passed down from Luther to your denomination which is not in Scripture: Sola Scriptura.

      Anonymous couldn't define it, at first. And when he did, he couldn't find that definition in Scripture. Then after he admitted that it wasn't in Scripture, he claimed it didn't need to be.

      What do you say, Meyu?

      Delete
  31. I agree with Meyu. There is nothing in Scripture that defines what the scope of Scripture should be and yet we know what it is. Did you also know there is no definition in Scripture what Tradition is?

    What is the context of I Peter 1:7? Is Peter speaking of a process after we die?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. meyu
      I agree with Meyu.

      I would expect Meyu to agree with Meyu. Did you mean to agree with someone else?

      There is nothing in Scripture that defines what the scope of Scripture should be and yet we know what it is. Did you also know there is no definition in Scripture what Tradition is?

      I have no idea what you're talking about.

      First of all, Tradition and Scripture are the oracles of God. The first to receive the Word of God were the Jews:

      Romans 3:2
      Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

      Then, they were cut off and Christians became the oracles of God:
      1 Peter 4:11
      If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

      Noun
      A priest or priestess acting as a medium through whom advice or prophecy was sought from the gods in classical antiquity.
      A place at which such advice or prophecy was sought.

      Secondly, these oracles have revealed the Will of God to mankind. That is the scope.
      And Tradition is explained many places but chiefly for Christians in these two verses:

      Matthew 28:18-20
      King James Version (KJV)
      18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

      2 Timothy 2:2
      King James Version (KJV)
      2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

      What is the context of I Peter 1:7? Is Peter speaking of a process after we die?

      Yes. But it is spiritually discerned. If you don't believe me, then answer this question, where is the jail to which the devil will send righteous people in this life: Revelation 2:10

      Scripture does not contradict itself. That jail is in the afterlife, we call it Purgatory. 1 Peter 3:19

      Delete

Thanks for contributing.