- This topic is empty.
- Posts
CatholicApologist wrote:
Quote Please show me ONE Scripture supporting Sola Scriptura. You haven't yet.
Just because you choose to be too blind to accept the evidence does not mean there is no evidence.
In a similar situation Paul declared:
Acts 28:25-27(NIV) reads:
Quote They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: “The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers when he said through Isaiah the prophet:
” 'Go to this people and say,
“You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.”
For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.That sounded rather harsh to me so I wonder why he chose to do it.
CatholicApologist wrote:
Quote Who are YOU to unilaterally declare anyone a heretic.
We are instructed to test the spirit of what we hear.
CatholicApologist wrote:
Quote And, by the way, apart from the Church you don't have a CLUE what Jesus did or did not say.
I tested the spirit of the Roman Catholic Church and they do not preach a message the fulfills the promise of righteousness.
CatholicApologist wrote:
Quote You also haven't been able to substantiate why the Canon of Scripture should be what it is.
What I know is that scripture is useful for teaching, correcting, rebuking, and training in righteousness and that is enough.
Kerwin………..Good response to CA. And is true many ever learn but never understand or perceive what they read or hear. It is the Spirit that searches the deep things of GOD, The Spirit (ITSELF) is the true teacher, we need to learn to Hear what the Spirit is saying. Most are novice and have not applied their hearts to understand what is said, but with GOD help we will all eventually come to understand all things. The confusion of Religions are far worse now then in the beginning, of Christan, as witnessed here time and time again. Without GOD'S Spirit of Truth it is impossible to sort it out specially today. IMO
peace and love to you and yours……………gene
Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 28 2009,21:01) CatholicApologist wrote: Quote Please show me ONE Scripture supporting Sola Scriptura. You haven't yet.
Just because you choose to be too blind to accept the evidence does not mean there is no evidence.
CatholicApologist wrote:
Quote You also haven't been able to substantiate why the Canon of Scripture should be what it is.
What I know is that scripture is useful for teaching, correcting, rebuking, and training in righteousness and that is enough.
You did not give evidence for the claim that Scripture is the “only” standard to determine what we should believe and do.I'm not blind. You are just not producing evidence.
Quote Acts 28:25-27(NIV) reads: Quote They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: “The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers when he said through Isaiah the prophet:
” 'Go to this people and say,
“You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.”
For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.That sounded rather harsh to me so I wonder why he chose to do it.
You are avoiding the questions. What Scripture says “And thou oh believer must use the Scriptures alone to determine what thou must believe and anything outside of Scripture thou must reject”. Not there, is it?
Quote CatholicApologist wrote:
Quote Who are YOU to unilaterally declare anyone a heretic.
We are instructed to test the spirit of what we hear.
Go read the whole passage. We pass that test. BTW, you are not included in your “we”. You are not part of the Church.
Quote
CatholicApologist wrote:Quote And, by the way, apart from the Church you don't have a CLUE what Jesus did or did not say.
I tested the spirit of the Roman Catholic Church and they do not preach a message the fulfills the promise of righteousness.
No. You read the Bible and came to your own conclusions about what you think it means. That is something quite different. If you really heard from God using the Bible alone, it would be self-authenticating. And we would all come to the same conclusions about everything. It would be easy. But in the real world what this has produced is chaos.
Quote
CatholicApologist wrote:Quote You also haven't been able to substantiate why the Canon of Scripture should be what it is.
What I know is that scripture is useful for teaching, correcting, rebuking, and training in righteousness and that is enough.
No. It's not enough. You are avoiding my question. Please substantiate what books belong in the Canon of Scripture. Until you do, you don't even know WHAT SCRIPTURE IS. If you don't know what it is, you can you know where to go to find what is useful for teaching…etc.
BTW, “useful” is merely stating that something is beneficial toward reaching a goal. This does not say that the Bible is the “only” useful rule. There are no claims of exculsivity for the Bible in the Bible.
Self-refuting claim there.
Hi CA,
You should join the church.
You must repent and be baptised in the name of Jesus for the remission of your sins and you will receive the Holy Spirit.Empty Catholic triumphalism is sickening.
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 28 2009,16:32) It can be said here, a thought to which we shall return later, that the man who declares that he accepts only the Bible as his authority in religious matters does not really mean it. For he really believes in what he himself thinks any given passage of the Bible to mean, which might not be what the Bible means at all. For such a person, the only ultimate authority in religious matters is not that of the Bible, but that of his own judgment concerning it, and he has no assurance that his own judgment is any more reliable than that of others whose interpretation differs from his and who honestly believe his interpretation to be quite mistaken.
I don't see what the difference is between men having their own interpretations, and the Catholic church (men) interpretating scripture/oral traditions/letters for other men?One says the have the God-given right to do so.
The other says they have God's Spirit who teaches them.Which is more, less?
CA
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 28 2009,17:19) [No. You read the Bible and came to your own conclusions about what you think it means. That is something quite different. If you really heard from God using the Bible alone, it would be self-authenticating. And we would all come to the same conclusions about everything. It would be easy. But in the real world what this has produced is chaos.
I appreciate many of your post, and think that in most cases you are being fair.But I think the point you made here is lacking also because the scriptures also do not support that men can only “understand” what scriptures say by a man or a group of men!
You have yourself said that John was the “Last Apostle” yet now you want us to believe that the Pope or a council has Apostolic Authority and is infallible.
There is nothing in the scriptures (Which the CC has determined as the highest authority because of inspiration), that states that only Apostles of the Church can interpret scriptures.
In fact the evidense of Authority is the Holy Spirit of Truth that guides and leads all men into the truth!
John said…
But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth.1 John 2:20
As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit–just as it has taught you, remain in him. 1 John 2:27
Are you saying that no one apart from the CC can have the Holy Spirit and be saved?
If so, then I say that is a lie because I have been saved and filled with the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues and I know in whom I have believed, and he has done many miracles in my life!
Where is the scritpure that says a man cannot be saved apart from the CC, and that only through the CC a man can have revelation by the Spirit of God?
I have not responded to you in the past because I am studying the History of the CC, and will have some questions in the future about the “Orthodox and the Catholics, since you say there is always unity of faith in the CC. Yet so far I am not seeing this as true, but in fact seeing divisions like the Protestants, for instance the Charismatic movement among the Catholics. Some accept it and others do not!
To much to respond to now, just some food for thought!
WJ
Quote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 29 2009,10:21) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 28 2009,16:32) It can be said here, a thought to which we shall return later, that the man who declares that he accepts only the Bible as his authority in religious matters does not really mean it. For he really believes in what he himself thinks any given passage of the Bible to mean, which might not be what the Bible means at all. For such a person, the only ultimate authority in religious matters is not that of the Bible, but that of his own judgment concerning it, and he has no assurance that his own judgment is any more reliable than that of others whose interpretation differs from his and who honestly believe his interpretation to be quite mistaken.
I don't see what the difference is between men having their own interpretations, and the Catholic church (men) interpretating scripture/oral traditions/letters for other men?One says the have the God-given right to do so.
The other says they have God's Spirit who teaches them.Which is more, less?
Now we are getting to where the rubber meets the road. Thanks for this question.I want to avoid a “sola scriptura” answer. The question is really who did Jesus give the authority to interpret Scriptures and “bind” that interpretation upon the faithful.
We must remember that Jesus came preaching the Kingdom of God and of Heaven. Jesus, as Messiah, is our Prophet, High Priest, and King.
I think to answer your question, one must do an analysis of the Church Jesus built. Who or whom did He give offices to? Was there hierarchy? Was there democracy? Was there authority given to men to “bind on earth” the law of God? Is there an equivalent of the Jewish spiritual authority that “sit in Moses' seat” in the Church? Is the Church the arbiter of doctrinal disputes?
There is a myriad of questions that can be raised.
But I believe that the evidence point to the fact that Jesus started a Church. That Church had servant-leadership that was given authority…even to forgive and retain sins (John 20:22,23). That Church received and operated in that authority. That Church passed that authority down in succession through the ages to today. The Church started in mustard seed form and today is a large tree.
But the bottom line is that unilateral arbitration of truth by the members of the whole is anarchy. A house divided against itself cannot stand. This is why Protestant denominations don't stand, but splinter. Just look at the Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc.
All Catholics come under the universal teaching of the Church or excommunicate themselves from Christ. This is not to say that Christ forgets about those people and does not woo them until their dying breath.
As for those who receive grace from the Church in spite of invincible ignorance….like WJ who has received powerful experiences from God…much like I did
Hi CA,
There is no connection between the apostles and your denomination.
Why are you so mean to your daughters who love your dogmas?CA,
Quote The question is really who did Jesus give the authority to interpret Scriptures and “bind” that interpretation upon the faithful.
Hey, I'm asking the questions here…
And the question was who is right? The Catholics who believe they've been given the truth by handing of the torch, or the Christian who believes they are taught by God's holy Spirit? Each are convinced and have scripture to back their convictions. Who decides which is more or less than the other?Your answer was: Jesus started the church and wanted it continued – he gave the rights to the Catholic church.
As you say, that cannot be proven by scripture alone. Because if it was 100% proven, everyone would be Catholic – right?
So we have to look to other oral traditions/books/letters. But were these written by Jesus? Did Jesus leave instructions for the infant Catholic church and how it was to grow and become what it is now? Or did “inspired” men leave these instructions? That makes a difference to me, you see.
Love,
MandyQuote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 29 2009,10:39) Hi not3,
What have you decided is true?
Men or God's Word?
My options are 1.) Men or 2.) The Bible?Neither has my vote of confidence.
Men are human beings (inspired or not).
The bible has been changed. God does not change.Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 29 2009,11:16) But the bottom line is that unilateral arbitration of truth by the members of the whole is anarchy. A house divided against itself cannot stand. This is why Protestant denominations don't stand, but splinter. Just look at the Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc.
How convenient. When Catholics split away, they are called protestants and when protestants split, they are still called protestants.Truly, it doesn't nullify the splits that have happened in the RCC. They just go by a different name once they split away. They are no different to the splits of any other denomination, except they are/were on a bigger scale.
The Catholic Church is just another denomination as the protestant ones. It is no different except that it is the biggest and probably the first denomination, you could even say the mother of denominations. They may have invented the concept. Perhaps they should have trademarked it?
Now we only have to figure out if the RCC is the mother as in original and true church, the mother of harlots, or isn't mentioned in scripture at all.
A few points to consider. The Catholic Church didn't exist earlier on just as the JWs or the Lutherans didn't exist. What existed was the Body of Christ, which obviously still exists.
Constantine and other reasons led to the eventual formation of the RCC.
It is written that there would be a great falling away and the antichrist would be revealed which would be followed by the return of our saviour. Our saviour hasn't returned as yet, so we must be in the period before that.
Paul himself, warned that after he departed that many deceivers would arise to draw men unto themselves. So the message in his letters actually discourages us from blindly accepting denomination history as being right given his numerous warnings of deceptions and other worldly things to come.
Personally, my conviction is that denominations are man-made kingdoms where some even go as far as saying that they are the only true Church. Sad, but inevitable that men would do such things. It is within the nature and pride of man to proudly state his denomination is the the only true Church. Rather than accepting what has happened is the will of God, perhaps we should wonder when the Son of Man comes, will he actually find faith on the earth?
To be sure, God has a plan. But we should be wise, knowing that many evil things have happened and will happen. Instead of being caught up in denominational competition, we should be satisfied that our names are written in the book of life and that we are part of the Body of Christ. In order for this to be the case, we first of all have to belong to God and second we need eyes to see the true Church and the true Kingdom. We need to discern the things of the spirit.
A clue can be had in the fact that the Kingdom of God is not like the kingdoms of this world. The RCC is a kingdom unto itself, that is similar to other kingdoms of this world. The Pope is the king and they even have their own country, not to mention a papal army (I think, correct me if I am wrong).
Their history is also written in blood and I do not wish to partake in her sins. Surely it is difficult enough to contend with our own weaknesses than to also be part of an organisation that has bad fruit.
Quote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 29 2009,12:00) CA, Quote The question is really who did Jesus give the authority to interpret Scriptures and “bind” that interpretation upon the faithful.
Hey, I'm asking the questions here… And the question was who is right? The Catholics who believe they've been given the truth by handing of the torch, or the Christian who believes they are taught by God's holy Spirit? Each are convinced and have scripture to back their convictions. Who decides which is more or less than the other?Your answer was: Jesus started the church and wanted it continued – he gave the rights to the Catholic church.
As you say, that cannot be proven by scripture alone. Because if it was 100% proven, everyone would be Catholic – right?
So we have to look to other oral traditions/books/letters. But were these written by Jesus? Did Jesus leave instructions for the infant Catholic church and how it was to grow and become what it is now? Or did “inspired” men leave these instructions? That makes a difference to me, you see.
Love,
Mandy
Well if you want to make it that cut and dry, it is obvious that the Church is right. There is no internal or external evidence to support the Protestant claim. Searching for some cohesive continuity that would lead them from Christ to the present day is like searching for the missing link. Their only viable defense is to claim that the Church defected and that truth was lost for over a millennium. That sounds a lot like defeat in my book. (not to mention anti-climactic) I thought Jesus promised no defeat for the Church (Matt. 16:18,19)Quote The Catholics who believe they've been given the truth by handing of the torch, or the Christian who believes they are taught by God's holy Spirit? “handing on the torch” must be qualified with the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church to lead and guide it into all truth. This Spirit gives us life individually and corporately. We also have the presence of Jesus with us in the Eucharist. (Jn. 6)
But given this qualification, we must really look at both sides on their merits. One is evidence of unified continuity in Christian faith and doctrine. The other can point to no evidence of existence before 1500. (1300 at the earliest…but even guys like Wycliffe weren't sola scriptura)
So my question to them would be where they see evidence of the leading of the Holy Spirit prior to 1500? Were men not sincere seekers? We know they were. Maybe more so than today.
Quote Each are convinced and have scripture to back their convictions. Who decides which is more or less than the other? The truth is self-evident. I don't think you can really hear and understand the Catholic viewpoint and reject it without internally knowing that you rejected something on an entirely different plain than anything else you have encountered. It's called Truth.
But I really think most of the folks here have never really heard or understood the Catholic claim. How can they when all they hear is from Jack Chick or conspiracy websites?
Quote Your answer was: Jesus started the church and wanted it continued – he gave the rights to the Catholic church. Rights/Authority. OK
Quote As you say, that cannot be proven by scripture alone. Because if it was 100% proven, everyone would be Catholic – right? Not at all. Not all men want truth like you do. I hardly need to mention that all men believe the Bible either. Some men hate God. I'm glad you don't initially consider this, but it is a fact. There will, unfortunately, always be men who love themselves at the expense of loving God.
I'm not saying it can't be proven by Scripture alone. To some, maybe this is possible. I think I was one who saw the veracity of the office of the papacy from a Scriptural perspective. But this was probably in part due to my previous study of Church history, Biblical language, and patristics. Not everyone has this background.
I'm saying that the Bible was never intended to be a manual for everything pertaining to Christian faith and life.
Quote So we have to look to other oral traditions/books/letters. But were these written by Jesus? Did Jesus leave instructions for the infant Catholic church and how it was to grow and become what it is now? Or did “inspired” men leave these instructions? That makes a difference to me, you see. It makes a difference to me as well. Great question.
No one here can provide any evidence that Jesus commanded the writing of a book for the propagation of His message to the world during His earthly ministry.
The only instructions that we have Jesus giving were oral. And even the written accounts of His words give instructions for His message to be transmitted orally.
This is what the Catholic Church has done for coming on two thousand years.
CA
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 28 2009,19:16) As for those who receive grace from the Church in spite of invincible ignorance….like WJ who has received powerful experiences from God…much like I did
“invincible ignorance”? HMMMM!Who makes this judgment about someone they do not know?
The Catholics?
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 29 2009,12:35) CA Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 28 2009,19:16) As for those who receive grace from the Church in spite of invincible ignorance….like WJ who has received powerful experiences from God…much like I did
“invincible ignorance”? HMMMM!Who makes this judgment about someone they do not know?
The Catholics?
WJ
Only God.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 29 2009,13:15) Hi CA,
You can still access Him through His Son.
The catholic church cannot help the process.
Nick,Through His Son as long as you cut off the body?
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 29 2009,12:15) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 29 2009,11:16) But the bottom line is that unilateral arbitration of truth by the members of the whole is anarchy. A house divided against itself cannot stand. This is why Protestant denominations don't stand, but splinter. Just look at the Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc.
How convenient. When Catholics split away, they are called protestants and when protestants split, they are still called protestants.
1 John 2:19 “They went out from us, but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us; but that they may be manifest, that they are not all of us.”That “us” is the Catholic Church.
So like it or not the original Church has nothing to protest about. Just to defend. That happens to be what I'm doing here if you haven't noticed.
Quote Truly, it doesn't nullify the splits that have happened in the RCC. They just go by a different name once they split away. They are no different to the splits of any other denomination, except they are/were on a bigger scale. I think you are missing the point. If you are going to call the heresies “splits”….fine. But there has been only ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, and APOSTOLIC Church since the beginning.
Call them protestants. Call them heretics. But don't claim that these sects have any share among the true Church.
Quote The Catholic Church is just another denomination as the protestant ones. No. No. A Thousand times No. You're little heretical splits are “denominations”. Christ is not divided. We are not merely a “part” of the body of Christ. We ARE the body of Christ. Christ has one body.
Quote It is no different except that it is the biggest and probably the first denomination First. Yes. And it was the first one that Jesus promised that His Spirit would remain with to lead and guide into all truth. It was the first one that He promised never to leave nor forsake. It was the first one that He promised to feed with His body and blood.
And we haven't gone anywhere. We're still here.
Quote you could even say the mother of denominations. No. Denominations did not have their source in Orthodoxy.
Quote They may have invented the concept. Perhaps they should have trademarked it? No. The concept we started with is the one we remain with. It's called the unity of the Spirit.
Quote Now we only have to figure out if the RCC is the mother as in original and true church Every historical, linguistic, manuscript, archeological, or any other shred of evidence suggests we are. You're kind of the new kid on the block, aren't you?
Quote A few points to consider. The Catholic Church didn't exist earlier on just as the JWs or the Lutherans didn't exist. What existed was the Body of Christ, which obviously still exists. What a laughable claim. Like it or not, we have evidence of our existent from the first century and every generation succeeding that one to today. How dare you lump us with the Lutheran heretics. Go read the NT. Go read St. Polycarp of Smyrna. Go read Ignatius of Antioch (no spurious letters please). Go read Clement of Rome. Go read Justin Martyr. Go read Mathetes to Diognetus. Go read the fathers, doctors, etc. You'll find there is a golden thread of continuity from the mouth of Christ and the apostles to today.
What do you have? A hot headed German who wanted to mutilate the Bible and then prop up his rebellion on what he had left. Didn't work so well.
Quote Constantine and other reasons led to the eventual formation of the RCC. The Church was alive and kicking long before Constantine ever was thought of. And if you have a beef with the first council of Nicea, that group of bishops is recorded to have looked like the tortured and maimed hall of faith you read of in Heb. 11. These men were anything but pagans. They had destroyed paganism.
Your ignorance and blatant lying is astounding.
Quote Paul himself, warned that after he departed that many deceivers would arise to draw men unto themselves. So the message in his letters actually discourages us from blindly accepting denomination history as being right given his numerous warnings of deceptions and other worldly things to come. According to the verse I quoted above and the rest of Scripture, the safest place to go away from heretics was the Church. Still is.
Quote Personally, my conviction is that denominations are man-made kingdoms where some even go as far as saying that they are the only true Church. Sad, but inevitable that men would do such things. It is within the nature and pride of man to proudly state his denomination is the the only true Church. Let me tell you something, buddy. Jesus Christ is not a scoundrel. He is betrothed to ONE and only ONE bride. That bride is the Church. That Church is ONE. You prove your heresy when you claim with the other heretics that it is prideful to claim that there is only ONE Church. Well Jesus never spoke of two or three of four or five. Just one Church. Yes there are diverse “churches” in communion with one another. But these constitute only ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, and APOSTOLIC Church. They all share the same faith, hope and love. They all share the same sacraments/holy mysteries. They all share the same Eucharistic Lord. They are one.
Quote Instead of being caught up in denominational competition, we should be satisfied that our names are written in the book of life and that we are part of the Body of Christ. There is no competition. There is only one Church that is the ark of safety bidding all to come into her and be saved from the flood or corruption that is in the world through lust.
You claim you are part of a body. But in the same breath you claim it is invisible. Hypocrite. Are you not aware that a body is visible? So is the Church. She is both visible and invisible.
Quote In order for this to be the case, we first of all have to belong to God and second we need eyes to see the true Church and the true Kingdom. We need to discern the things of the spirit. Yes. And thank God he has given all of us eyes. We can all see the Church. But you speak of your own sect as a Church and want “spiritual goggles” to see the invisible….or should I say non-existent.
Quote A clue can be had in the fact that the Kingdom of God is not like the kingdoms of this world. The RCC is a kingdom unto itself, that is similar to other kingdoms of this world. The Pope is the king and they even have their own country, not to mention a papal army (I think, correct me if I am wrong). Go read your history. Vatican City is a quite new country. Catholics are not part of that State. Go look at Wikipedia. That is the smallest country in the world. It's population is less than a thousand. So that is hardly our “kingdom.” It is recognized as a nation state and gives political honor to the pope. Who knows how long it will remain technically a country. But one thing is for sure. If it were our “kingdom” it would be the largest one in the world. Yet it is not.
Your argument evaporates….
Quote Their history is also written in blood and I do not wish to partake in her sins. I'm going to surprise you and admit that our history is written in blood…our own. We have been the church to give our lives for the sake of Christ and His Gospel in every century since the first. This past century is replete with martyrdom for the faith. You stand on sand!
Quote Surely it is difficult enough to contend with our own weaknesses than to also be part of an organisation that has bad fruit. But an organism/organization with the fruit one may read about in Butler's “Lives of the Saints” would be difficult to be a part of as well. You would have to give your life for Christ. Is that what bothers you about us?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
