Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies. Page 7 of 34   [ 673 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 34  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: A test for Sola Scripturists
PostPosted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 4:57 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 11:26 am
Posts: 6067
Location: Illinois
Religion: Catholic
metal1633 wrote:
Quote:
In order to shorten, I would suggest just giving me links rather than long quotes. I will read them.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

:popcorn

_________________
O love that fires the sun
Keep me burning


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A test for Sola Scripturists
PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 3:50 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:03 pm
Posts: 85
Religion: Church of the Brethren
metal1633 wrote:
metal1633 wrote:
Quote:
In order to shorten, I would suggest just giving me links rather than long quotes. I will read them.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

:popcorn



Interesting articles. Little of it really contradicts what I said, however. And it's pretty hilarious that a couple of PhD's get together and say that the Hebrew canon was not really established in the 1st century even though Jesus references the scope of the prophets, and mentions the 'law and the prophets.' Did Jesus know what the Scriptures were?

If that weren't enough, Paul, a Pharisee educated under Gamaliel, says in Romans that the Jews 'have been entrusted with the 'words of God.' Would he say that if no one knew what they were?
So all we have to do is figure out which version of the OT Paul's Pharisaic sect used.
Now, we know from a Jewish historian (Josephus) that the Jews accepted no more writings as sacred after Malachi.

But, we are still missing the overarching point here. If it could be shown that, say, Paul definitely referenced and thought of the deuterocanonicals as sacred Scripture, then I would likely accept them as such. Because I believe in making reasonable decisions rather than making decisions based solely on Tradition. If there is evidence that they are Scripture (e.g. consensus of early Christians, reference by Jesus and apostles as Scripture, acceptance by Jews who brought us the rest the OT, etc.).

But the average RC believes because the church says so. Now, herein lies the issue. Is something true because the Church says it is true, or does the church recognize truth? It's like the old Euthyphro dilemma. And one cannot say that the Church teaches truth out of the necessity of it's own nature, because that is putting it on on par with God.
And if the church is necessarily true, then it cannot be possibly wrong. So why debate, argue, or discuss these issues in council? Just decide and trust in your nature.

Now, if the church is not necessarily true, then it must adhere to a standard of truth. I would argue that this is God's Word, and we are right back at 'sola verbum dei.' And this word is only known to be found in sacred Scripture.

I smashed my toe and am on pain medication, so I hope that made sense. :) Take care and have a blessed Easter week!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A test for Sola Scripturists
PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 9:32 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 11:26 am
Posts: 6067
Location: Illinois
Religion: Catholic
Quote:
And it's pretty hilarious that a couple of PhD's get together and say that the Hebrew canon was not really established in the 1st century
It was not. The various rabbinical schools were NOT in agreement and they NEVER fixed the canon.
Quote:
Jesus references the scope of the prophets,
Jesus quoted from only 24 different Old Testament books. Not quoting the others does NOT in any way mean they are not inspired. Quotation does not establish canonical status.
Quote:
Did Jesus know what the Scriptures were?
Of course. He inspired them.
Quote:
If it could be shown that, say, Paul definitely referenced and thought of the deuterocanonicals as sacred Scripture,
Again...Quotation does not establish canonical status. If it did what are we to think of the pagans Paul quotes?
Quote:
If there is evidence that they are Scripture (e.g. 1: consensus of early Christians, 2: reference by Jesus and apostles as Scripture, acceptance by Jews who brought us the rest the OT, etc.).
1:Yes 2: Not relevant 3: Which Jews? The Sadducees? They only accepted the Torah. The Qumran community? They accepted a much larger canon than anyone else. The various Pharisee groups? They were not in agreement. The majority of the people? They average Jew? The majority were in the Diaspora and they used the LXX as scripture.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A test for Sola Scripturists
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:26 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:03 pm
Posts: 85
Religion: Church of the Brethren
metal1633 wrote:
1. It was not. The various rabbinical schools were NOT in agreement and they NEVER fixed the canon.
2. Jesus quoted from only 24 different Old Testament books. Not quoting the others does NOT in any way mean they are not inspired. Quotation does not establish canonical status.
3. Of course. He inspired them.
4. . :Yes / Not relevant /: Which Jews? The Sadducees? They only accepted the Torah. The Qumran community? They accepted a much larger canon than anyone else. The various Pharisee groups? They were not in agreement. The majority of the people? They average Jew? The majority were in the Diaspora and they used the LXX as scripture.


1. So Paul did not know what God's word was, despite referencing it in Romans 3:2. Got it.

2. Quotation certainly assists with canonical status. But not on it's own, no. However, Jesus does reference what seems to be the scope of the OT ('from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah' along with His references to the Law and the Prophets), in Luke 11:51.

3/4. If Jesus knew then the first century apostles knew. The Jews who wrote the NT are who is important here. How did Peter/Paul argue from the Scriptures, if they were lost without the RCC defining the canon hundreds of years later? How could Paul write to Timothy that all scripture is good for teaching, etc. if 'scripture' is an ambiguous term?

Some of our earliest sources are, at best, divided on the issue. So I tend to side with those who say that the DC books may be good for some reference, but are not the word of God, per se. It's better to have a condensed Scripture than a diluted one.
Contrast that with the NT, which was well defined relatively early (except for Hebrews). Any ambiguity here was due to misunderstanding in the authorship or doctrine. Once that was cleared up, the books were accepted.

Let's remember that the books were 'received.' Not 'defined.' I think we lose something when we sacrifice reason and historical evidence on the altar of 'authority.' Having an authoritative answer is great, unless it's the wrong answer. But with the RCC, there is no way to tell if it is right or not, as I see it. Correct me where I'm wrong...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A test for Sola Scripturists
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:30 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:55 am
Posts: 4887
Location: I have no memory of this place....
Religion: Catholic
DavidY2001 wrote:
metal1633 wrote:
metal1633 wrote:
Quote:
In order to shorten, I would suggest just giving me links rather than long quotes. I will read them.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

:popcorn



Interesting articles. Little of it really contradicts what I said, however. And it's pretty hilarious that a couple of PhD's get together and say that the Hebrew canon was not really established in the 1st century even though Jesus references the scope of the prophets, and mentions the 'law and the prophets.' Did Jesus know what the Scriptures were?

If that weren't enough, Paul, a Pharisee educated under Gamaliel, says in Romans that the Jews 'have been entrusted with the 'words of God.' Would he say that if no one knew what they were?
So all we have to do is figure out which version of the OT Paul's Pharisaic sect used.
Now, we know from a Jewish historian (Josephus) that the Jews accepted no more writings as sacred after Malachi.


The Jews of the diaspora, the Jews that Paul intended to convert throughout Acts, used the Septuagint, which included the books that you call apocryphal. Jesus celebrated the feast of the Dedication(Haunakah, see Maccabees). We use what Paul used.

DavidY2001 wrote:
But, we are still missing the overarching point here. If it could be shown that, say, Paul definitely referenced and thought of the deuterocanonicals as sacred Scripture, then I would likely accept them as such. Because I believe in making reasonable decisions rather than making decisions based solely on Tradition. If there is evidence that they are Scripture (e.g. consensus of early Christians, reference by Jesus and apostles as Scripture, acceptance by Jews who brought us the rest the OT, etc.).


This, again, is chronological snobbery, as if the decisions made by our spiritual ancestors cannot possibly be reasonable. Or that we have the right to overrule their wisdom because we must know better.

What makes your subjective conclusions more "reasonable" than theirs? Your position demonstrates an unfortunate lack of faith not only in God but also in the institutions that He established to hand on His truth.

The historical evidence is manifest. Yet as overwhelming as it is it still will not be recognized by those too blinded by their own pride to see it.

DavidY2001 wrote:
But the average RC believes because the church says so. Now, herein lies the issue. Is something true because the Church says it is true, or does the church recognize truth? And one cannot say that the Church teaches truth out of the necessity of it's own nature, because that is putting it on on par with God.


You obviously haven't read the Bible, much less Acts 15.

DavidY2001 wrote:

And if the church is necessarily true, then it cannot be possibly wrong. So why debate, argue, or discuss these issues in council? Just decide and trust in your nature.

Now, if the church is not necessarily true, then it must adhere to a standard of truth. I would argue that this is God's Word, and we are right back at 'sola verbum dei.' And this word is only known to be found in sacred Scripture.



False dilemma. The Church is true because it adheres to Jesus as His bride. The Church is true because she is God's servent. The Magisterium and the Pope are infallible because of the promised protection of God.

You confuse the distinction between power and authority. Those who seek power seek to serve themselvesand their own interests(as in your 'sola verbum dei'), those who are in authority seek to serve another(the Catholic Church).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A test for Sola Scripturists
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:59 am 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:03 pm
Posts: 85
Religion: Church of the Brethren
Mithrandir wrote:
The Jews of the diaspora, the Jews that Paul intended to convert throughout Acts, used the Septuagint, which included the books that you call apocryphal. Jesus celebrated the feast of the Dedication(Haunakah, see Maccabees). We use what Paul used.


Included as Holy Scripture on par with the Law, Prophets, etc.?

Also, Paul seems to quote from both Hebrew and Greek texts. 1 Cor 2:8-9 quoting Isaiah



Mithrandir wrote:
This, again, is chronological snobbery, as if the decisions made by our spiritual ancestors cannot possibly be reasonable. Or that we have the right to overrule their wisdom because we must know better.

What makes your subjective conclusions more "reasonable" than theirs? Your position demonstrates an unfortunate lack of faith not only in God but also in the institutions that He established to hand on His truth.

The historical evidence is manifest. Yet as overwhelming as it is it still will not be recognized by those too blinded by their own pride to see it.


Obviously you are not reading my posts. You are practicing chronological snobbery, it seems, if you affirm a church council 1600 years after a first century source. I am seeking the truth at the earliest sources.

My conclusion is not subjective, it relies on historical evidence. If you want to say that evidence is subjective, I don't know what to tell you.

But I agree with your last point.

Mithrandir wrote:
You obviously haven't read the Bible, much less Acts 15.


You mean where the church quotes from Amos to prove a point?

And Paul says this:

8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us

So, you see, the church is proven in some ways by their spiritual gifts. I see spiritual gifts in many denominations. Perhaps the gospel is simpler than we are making it.



Mithrandir wrote:
False dilemma. The Church is true because it adheres to Jesus as His bride. The Church is true because she is God's servent. The Magisterium and the Pope are infallible because of the promised protection of God.

You confuse the distinction between power and authority. Those who seek power seek to serve themselvesand their own interests(as in your 'sola verbum dei'), those who are in authority seek to serve another(the Catholic Church).


Not false, you are affirming that it adheres to a higher standard of truth, namely Jesus's teachings. That's fine, so does my church.
Now, what if a church teachings seems to go against a teaching of our Lord? This is the basis for the Reformation.


Haha, yes, trying to follow only the true word of God is really selfish. :P


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A test for Sola Scripturists
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 11:44 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:55 am
Posts: 4887
Location: I have no memory of this place....
Religion: Catholic
DavidY2001 wrote:
Mithrandir wrote:
The Jews of the diaspora, the Jews that Paul intended to convert throughout Acts, used the Septuagint, which included the books that you call apocryphal. Jesus celebrated the feast of the Dedication(Haunakah, see Maccabees). We use what Paul used.


Included as Holy Scripture on par with the Law, Prophets, etc.?

Also, Paul seems to quote from both Hebrew and Greek texts. 1 Cor 2:8-9 quoting Isaiah


Greek texts = Septuagint, including what you consider "apocryphal". Paul calls these "scripture"(2 Tim 3:16). Or else you want to avoid this fact because it doesn't fit with your traditions.



DavidY2001 wrote:
Mithrandir wrote:
This, again, is chronological snobbery, as if the decisions made by our spiritual ancestors cannot possibly be reasonable. Or that we have the right to overrule their wisdom because we must know better.

What makes your subjective conclusions more "reasonable" than theirs? Your position demonstrates an unfortunate lack of faith not only in God but also in the institutions that He established to hand on His truth.

The historical evidence is manifest. Yet as overwhelming as it is it still will not be recognized by those too blinded by their own pride to see it.


Obviously you are not reading my posts. You are practicing chronological snobbery, it seems, if you affirm a church council 1600 years after a first century source. I am seeking the truth at the earliest sources.


No, your seeking to make your preconceived theology fit with history. This is revisionist history. You presume that a Church council 1600 years after the first century contradicts the Bible or the Faith not because it actually does but because it contradicts what YOU agree with theologically.

You expect the oak tree to look exactly like the acorn.

DavidY2001 wrote:
My conclusion is not subjective, it relies on historical evidence. If you want to say that evidence is subjective, I don't know what to tell you.


Disengenuously twisting my words?

Your approach to scripture is purely subjective. You approach scripture with a preconceived theology and apply scripture to fit it while ignoring the rest.


DavidY2001 wrote:
Mithrandir wrote:
You obviously haven't read the Bible, much less Acts 15.


You mean where the church quotes from Amos to prove a point?

And Paul says this:

8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us


Acts 15:[28] For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:

The apostles and elders, together in Council, speak with the authority of the Holy Spirit. So did every council afterward. This is the authority given them by God. You deny it at your own peril.

DavidY2001 wrote:
So, you see, the church is proven in some ways by their spiritual gifts. I see spiritual gifts in many denominations. Perhaps the gospel is simpler than we are making it.


Any true spirtual gifts given to anyone outside the Church are to point them to the Church. "Spiritual gifts" that do not are the mockery of demons who want to keep the family of God divided. I rarely if ever witnessed as an evangelical protestant the testing of such "spiritual gifts". So spare me such subjective reasoning.



DavidY2001 wrote:
Mithrandir wrote:
False dilemma. The Church is true because it adheres to Jesus as His bride. The Church is true because she is God's servent. The Magisterium and the Pope are infallible because of the promised protection of God.

You confuse the distinction between power and authority. Those who seek power seek to serve themselvesand their own interests(as in your 'sola verbum dei'), those who are in authority seek to serve another(the Catholic Church).


Not false, you are affirming that it adheres to a higher standard of truth, namely Jesus's teachings. That's fine, so does my church.


There is such a thing as the law of non-contradiction.

DavidY2001 wrote:
Now, what if a church teachings seems to go against a teaching of our Lord? This is the basis for the Reformation.


This is just ignorance of history. They didn't want to "reform" the Church, they wanted to destroy it. They wanted political power and used their sad and pitiful theology as a means to sow hatred for the Church. They wanted a revolution, plain and simple.


DavidY2001 wrote:
Haha, yes, trying to follow only the true word of God is really selfish. :P


Depends on if you're actually following it. The Word of God is Christ, His bride is the Church. If you're not a member of the Body you do not have the Head.

Your subjective reasoning on Scripture is superior to all else. You're your own infallible interpreter despite what the Bible says. You tell me what that is?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A test for Sola Scripturists
PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 1:02 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:03 pm
Posts: 85
Religion: Church of the Brethren
Mithrandir wrote:

Greek texts = Septuagint, including what you consider "apocryphal". Paul calls these "scripture"(2 Tim 3:16). Or else you want to avoid this fact because it doesn't fit with your traditions.


He says 'all Scripture.' We are trying to ascertain what Scripture IS.

Come on now, I could argue that the only reason the Apocrypha were canonized was to to support tradition.
(1.) the Mass, (2 Maccabees 12:42-45);
(2.) giving alms and other works can make an atonement for sin, (Ecclesiasticus or called Sirach 3:3; 3:30; 5:5; 20:28; 35:1-4; 45:16; 45:23);
(3.) the invocation and intercession of the saints, (2 Maccabees 15:14; Baruch 3:4);
(4.) worship of angels, (Tobit 12:12);
(5.) purgatory and redemption of souls after death, (2 Maccabees 12:42,45).

Strangely added right after Luther railed against all of these things. Coincidence? Perhaps.


Mithrandir wrote:
No, your seeking to make your preconceived theology fit with history. This is revisionist history. You presume that a Church council 1600 years after the first century contradicts the Bible or the Faith not because it actually does but because it contradicts what YOU agree with theologically.

You expect the oak tree to look exactly like the acorn.


Easy to prove that I am practicing revisionist history. Show me some historical facts. Instead we find eminent early church fathers like Jerome, Origen, and Athanasius divided on the issue, at best. Not to mention early Jewish sources, who delivered to us the rest of the Old Testament.

And before you cry 'the Jews were just trying to attack early Christians,' don't you think they'd get rid of books like, say, Isaiah, with the 'suffering servant' so clearly depicted?




Mithrandir wrote:
Disengenuously twisting my words?

Your approach to scripture is purely subjective. You approach scripture with a preconceived theology and apply scripture to fit it while ignoring the rest.



Mithrandir wrote:
Acts 15:[28] For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:
The apostles and elders, together in Council, speak with the authority of the Holy Spirit. So did every council afterward. This is the authority given them by God. You deny it at your own peril.


Again, this authority was confirmed by miraculous intervention on more than one occasion. No one is arguing that the early apostles had the authority to speak with the word of God. But not sure how you can just conclude that 'so does every council afterward.'

How do you know if a tradition is true or not? By comparing it with this early deposit of truth. Unfortunately, you cannot do that because whatever the council says is necessarily on par with the previous deposit? See any problem here?





Mithrandir wrote:
Any true spirtual gifts given to anyone outside the Church are to point them to the Church. "Spiritual gifts" that do not are the mockery of demons who want to keep the family of God divided. I rarely if ever witnessed as an evangelical protestant the testing of such "spiritual gifts". So spare me such subjective reasoning.


So how do you know your church is the true one? I'm really having trouble with this. If whatever your church teaches is necessarily true, and any miraculous confirmation of spiritual gifts outside of your church is supposedly to somehow point back to your church, how is this statement anything that you can even ground, rationally?

These are the two things that we are to use to recognize a true apostle of God. True teaching and miraculous confirmation. You claim that your church has them, even if it does not, and it cannot be shown either way.

Mithrandir wrote:
There is such a thing as the law of non-contradiction.


Right, so there must be some misunderstanding in the teachings. Here comes logic and reason again to help us interpret.

Mithrandir wrote:
This is just ignorance of history. They didn't want to "reform" the Church, they wanted to destroy it. They wanted political power and used their sad and pitiful theology as a means to sow hatred for the Church. They wanted a revolution, plain and simple.


I know you've likely been indoctrinated to demonize Luther and all other Reformers, and I am no Luther disciple, but as Peter Kreeft says, "The RCC views the Reformation as 'branch breaking,' and the Protestants view it as 'barnacle scraping.'" The Reformers were trying to restore the early church in light of all of the supposed 'barnacles' that had covered the hull of the church.

And, pray tell, what political power did Luther, Calvin et al attain? Did Luther take on the title of 'Pontifex maximus' and create his own monarchical episcopacy?

The guy was a priest who was seeking the truth, whatever you opinion of his view of it.


Mithrandir wrote:
Depends on if you're actually following it. The Word of God is Christ, His bride is the Church. If you're not a member of the Body you do not have the Head.
Your subjective reasoning on Scripture is superior to all else. You're your own infallible interpreter despite what the Bible says. You tell me what that is?


Understood. How is church defined, and do not Protestant churches fulfill it in some cases?

Finally, there's nothing more subjective in reasoning then saying that 'whatEVER we teach is true.' I try to appeal to something objective, like logic, or the historical method, and you call it subjective reasoning. I don't get it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A test for Sola Scripturists
PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 11:07 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:55 am
Posts: 4887
Location: I have no memory of this place....
Religion: Catholic
DavidY2001 wrote:
Mithrandir wrote:

Greek texts = Septuagint, including what you consider "apocryphal". Paul calls these "scripture"(2 Tim 3:16). Or else you want to avoid this fact because it doesn't fit with your traditions.


He says 'all Scripture.' We are trying to ascertain what Scripture IS.

Come on now, I could argue that the only reason the Apocrypha were canonized was to to support tradition.
(1.) the Mass, (2 Maccabees 12:42-45);
(2.) giving alms and other works can make an atonement for sin, (Ecclesiasticus or called Sirach 3:3; 3:30; 5:5; 20:28; 35:1-4; 45:16; 45:23);
(3.) the invocation and intercession of the saints, (2 Maccabees 15:14; Baruch 3:4);
(4.) worship of angels, (Tobit 12:12);
(5.) purgatory and redemption of souls after death, (2 Maccabees 12:42,45).

Strangely added right after Luther railed against all of these things. Coincidence? Perhaps.


Either you are merely ignorant of medieval history or are willfully ignorant because of your theology:

From the Councils of Hippo and Carthage:
Canon 24. (Greek xxvii.)
That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture

Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.

But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:

Genesis.
Exodus.
Leviticus.
Numbers.
Deuteronomy.
Joshua the Son of Nun.
The Judges.
Ruth.
The Kings, iv. books.
The Chronicles, ij. books.
Job.
The Psalter.
The Five books of Solomon.
The Twelve Books of the Prophets.
Isaiah.
Jeremiah.
Ezechiel.
Daniel.
Tobit.
Judith.
Esther.
Ezra, ij. books.
Macchabees, ij. books.
The New Testament.
The Gospels, iv. books.
The Acts of the Apostles, j. book.
The Epistles of Paul, xiv.
The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij.
The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij.
The Epistles of James the Apostle, j.
The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j.
The Revelation of John, j. book.
Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm

Trent was a reiteration of what THIS Council, ratified by Pope Damasus, already proclaimed.


DavidY2001 wrote:
Mithrandir wrote:
No, your seeking to make your preconceived theology fit with history. This is revisionist history. You presume that a Church council 1600 years after the first century contradicts the Bible or the Faith not because it actually does but because it contradicts what YOU agree with theologically.

You expect the oak tree to look exactly like the acorn.


Easy to prove that I am practicing revisionist history. Show me some historical facts. Instead we find eminent early church fathers like Jerome, Origen, and Athanasius divided on the issue, at best. Not to mention early Jewish sources, who delivered to us the rest of the Old Testament.


You are still too focused on your theological bent that the opinion of individual pastors/theologians matter over the whole. That individual interpretation is superior. I guarantee you, the Judaisers in Acts 15, do you think their opinion about following the Mosaic law was magically changed after the Council's decision? No, as evidenced by their continual presence in Paul's other epistles. But the decision of the Council still stood regardless.

The Council had spoken, and therefore the case was closed, regardless of still differing opinons.

DavidY2001 wrote:
And before you cry 'the Jews were just trying to attack early Christians,' don't you think they'd get rid of books like, say, Isaiah, with the 'suffering servant' so clearly depicted?


Many Jews still disregard Isaiah. Others simply interpret it differently. The statement you make is too vague and general in its scope. And consiering that Paul says that, "[14] But their minds were hardened; for to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. [15] Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their minds;(2 Cor 3)", it puzzles me that you(and Protestantism in general who hold to the "Bible alone") would appeal to the Jews for the "proper" canon.



DavidY2001 wrote:
Mithrandir wrote:
Disengenuously twisting my words?

Your approach to scripture is purely subjective. You approach scripture with a preconceived theology and apply scripture to fit it while ignoring the rest.



Mithrandir wrote:
Acts 15:[28] For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:
The apostles and elders, together in Council, speak with the authority of the Holy Spirit. So did every council afterward. This is the authority given them by God. You deny it at your own peril.


Again, this authority was confirmed by miraculous intervention on more than one occasion. No one is arguing that the early apostles had the authority to speak with the word of God. But not sure how you can just conclude that 'so does every council afterward.'


I already told you. I gave you the scripture to demonstrate that the same authority that Jesus gave to the apostles was handed on to the first and second generations after the apostles. You agree that God inspired non-apostles to write the Gospels but you reject that God can inspire later men consecrated to Him to proclaim His truth faithfully through Councils throughout history?

Your argument is based on your theological bent. It shows and extraordinary lack of faith.

DavidY2001 wrote:
How do you know if a tradition is true or not? By comparing it with this early deposit of truth. Unfortunately, you cannot do that because whatever the council says is necessarily on par with the previous deposit? See any problem here?


You show me something in Sacred Tradition that directly contradicts what's in our Bible and I might concede the point. You won't, but you can try.


DavidY2001 wrote:
Mithrandir wrote:
Any true spirtual gifts given to anyone outside the Church are to point them to the Church. "Spiritual gifts" that do not are the mockery of demons who want to keep the family of God divided. I rarely if ever witnessed as an evangelical protestant the testing of such "spiritual gifts". So spare me such subjective reasoning.


So how do you know your church is the true one? I'm really having trouble with this. If whatever your church teaches is necessarily true, and any miraculous confirmation of spiritual gifts outside of your church is supposedly to somehow point back to your church, how is this statement anything that you can even ground, rationally?


Because any objective survey of Christianity of the first three centuries demonstrates a Church that had Bishops, priests, & deacons, that believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, that every Lord's day assembled to read the readings and to eat at the table of the Lord, that believed that baptism saved not because it was due to the mere exercise of mental faith but to the grace of God that dipenses rebirth through the sacrament; that prayed to and vererated the saints who came before them, that held that the Bibshop of Rome was the spiritual descendent of the apostle Peter and was the temporal head of the Church, that held Councils to decide matters of faith and morals, and it was called the Universal(Catholic) Church.

No other "church" existed.

DavidY2001 wrote:
These are the two things that we are to use to recognize a true apostle of God. True teaching and miraculous confirmation. You claim that your church has them, even if it does not, and it cannot be shown either way.


"Miraculous confirmation"? Your demanded criteria demostrate a sad lack of faith.

That the Church is true the evidence is manifest. You want a miracle? Go and attend a Mass. Gaze upon our Lord in Eucharistic adoration and pray.

You don't even believe the plain words of Scripture, so I don't expect you to believe anything I say...

DavidY2001 wrote:
Mithrandir wrote:
There is such a thing as the law of non-contradiction.


Right, so there must be some misunderstanding in the teachings. Here comes logic and reason again to help us interpret.


The problem is that God is beyond logic and reason. God is a lover first and foremost, not a philosopher or theologian or logician. God's love is in its essence un-reasonable AND illogical.

Many of Jesus' teachings are un-reasonable and illogical. Where I've seen so many Protestants fail is because they try to "make sense" of the Mysteries that Jesus handed to us. And when they can't they dismiss it as "symbolic" or "figurative".

Reason alone is a horrible interpretive tool and has been the cause of many heresies through the centuries.

DavidY2001 wrote:
Mithrandir wrote:
This is just ignorance of history. They didn't want to "reform" the Church, they wanted to destroy it. They wanted political power and used their sad and pitiful theology as a means to sow hatred for the Church. They wanted a revolution, plain and simple.


I know you've likely been indoctrinated to demonize Luther and all other Reformers, and I am no Luther disciple, but as Peter Kreeft says, "The RCC views the Reformation as 'branch breaking,' and the Protestants view it as 'barnacle scraping.'" The Reformers were trying to restore the early church in light of all of the supposed 'barnacles' that had covered the hull of the church.


I pity Luther. He was raised by an abusive father and Luther took this horrible image and applied it to his vision of God. It infested his whole outlook on spirituality.

But make no mistake, read his writings, Luther was a highly arrogant man who sought to destroy the Church. So did Calvin. This was not mere "barnicle scraping". They both wanted to destroy the entire system and remake the Church in their image. And since they couldn'd do it within, they decided to do it without. And thousands went into heresy, thousands of others died, because of the vanity of Luther and Calvin.

Yes the Reinessance popes were politically corrupted and weak, and that only helped their rebellion. But the bottom line is that they cared little for reform. They didn't just want to do away with the abuses of indulgences and clericism, they wanted to destroy everything. That is the truth.

They were revolutionaries, not reformers.

DavidY2001 wrote:
And, pray tell, what political power did Luther, Calvin et al attain?


Are you kidding me? Calvin was the head of a political theocracy in Geneva. He killed hundreds for the slightest violations of Biblical law.

DavidY2001 wrote:
Did Luther take on the title of 'Pontifex maximus' and create his own monarchical episcopacy?


No, because that was never part of his theology. He wanted to destroy any hint of ecclesiastical authority. Christians were merely "fellow travelers". Yet with no authority to decide on doctrine his own church soon splintered into various sects.

DavidY2001 wrote:
The guy was a priest who was seeking the truth, whatever you opinion of his view of it.


If he was merely seeking the truth he lacked the docility of a true truth-seeker. He wasn't seeking the truth, he had the truth according to him. It was either the Church bend to him or he was going to raise hell until they did.

DavidY2001 wrote:
Mithrandir wrote:
Depends on if you're actually following it. The Word of God is Christ, His bride is the Church. If you're not a member of the Body you do not have the Head.
Your subjective reasoning on Scripture is superior to all else. You're your own infallible interpreter despite what the Bible says. You tell me what that is?


Understood. How is church defined, and do not Protestant churches fulfill it in some cases?


How is "church" defined. It's defininately not a verb, as I have heard some protestants say, "let's church together".

I cannot properly define what you are asking for without broaching a subject that is not proper to dicuss: EENS.

But let me ask you this:

If someone you love only gives you half or not even half of the truth in a matter are you just going to be happy with that?

DavidY2001 wrote:
Finally, there's nothing more subjective in reasoning then saying that 'whatEVER we teach is true.' I try to appeal to something objective, like logic, or the historical method, and you call it subjective reasoning. I don't get it.


Its not that you're appealing to historical method but that your historical facts are just wrong or bent theologically. Have you actually read Luther's works? His letters?

I beg you to show me those "proto-protestants" that existed in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd centuires? Who were they? Where are their writings? And don't tell me that those "evil Catholics" burned them all. If the Gnostic gospels can survive us "evil Catholics" then so can these "works".

Finally, here's the problem with the above statement. If I was an atheist/secular humanist or even merely agnostic and arguing just for the bare-bones factual truth of history, yet arguing with these same arguments, my arguments according to you would be perfectly objective and valid. You still would reject them because of your theological bent, but to you they would be utterly valid logically speaking. The only remaining thing to do is to "agree to disagree".

Yet I would also be an idiot because having this knowledge and yet remaining an atheist/agnostic would defy reason. It is the height of absurdity to have knowledge of the truth and not to act on that knowledge.

But since I'm a Catholic the arguments are interior arguments or "subjective reasoning"?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A test for Sola Scripturists
PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 2:39 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 9:51 am
Posts: 109
Religion: Catholic -- Latin Rite
Hi, David,

It's always tricky jumping into an ongoing thread. I'm hoping to address a few points that haven't been already covered. Though, in perhaps one matter (your historical claim that the Deutero's weren't recognized till 1600 years later), your error is so large that additional rebuttal is warranted.

DavidY2001 wrote:
And it's pretty hilarious that a couple of PhD's get together and say that the Hebrew canon was not really established in the 1st century even though Jesus references the scope of the prophets, and mentions the 'law and the prophets.' Did Jesus know what the Scriptures were?


Jesus, being omniscient, knew what the Scriptures were (and would be). But Jesus doesn't provide to us a definitive list. A reference to "the law and the prophets" doesn't answer the question at hand. You just assume by that Jesus affirms what you believe. We can make the same assumption.

Quote:
If that weren't enough, Paul, a Pharisee educated under Gamaliel, says in Romans that the Jews 'have been entrusted with the 'words of God.' Would he say that if no one knew what they were?


But if you read that statement in context, it's clear Paul isn't trying to identify a canonical principle. Rather -- having just countered excessive Jewish pride by dismantling their view that the Mosaic gave them special standing before God -- he counters any tendency to Gentile pride by pointing out that the Jews still hold a special place.

If one were to take Paul's statement as meaning that which the Jews held to be the "oracles of God" was thus to be accepted by the Christian believer, one would end up with a much larger canon indeed. For the "oracles of God" to the Jews of Paul's day (especially the Rabbis like Gemaliel) included the oral teachings they believed were given by God to Moses on Sinai:

    In addition to the written scriptures we have an "Oral Torah," a tradition explaining what the above scriptures mean and how to interpret them and apply the Laws. Orthodox Jews believe G-d taught the Oral Torah to Moses, and he taught it to others, down to the present day. This tradition was maintained only in oral form until about the 2d century C.E., when the oral law was compiled and written down in a document called the Mishnah.

    Over the next few centuries, additional commentaries elaborating on the Mishnah were written down in Jerusalem and Babylon. These additional commentaries are known as the Gemara. The Gemara and the Mishnah together are known as the Talmud. This was completed in the 5th century C.E. Judaism 101: Torah

So, David, your appeal to Romans is a classic case of "an argument that proves too much."

Quote:
So all we have to do is figure out which version of the OT Paul's Pharisaic sect used.


And if you do that, you'll arrive a result you don't intend. Protestant objections to the Deuterocanonica books are always examples of ad hoc "criteria" inconsistently applied. This is but one example.

Quote:
Now, we know from a Jewish historian (Josephus) that the Jews accepted no more writings as sacred after Malachi.


And Josephus was part of the Rabbinical party that triumphed after the destruction of Jerusalem and which at Jamnia (circa 135 C.E.) in effect "closed" the Hebraic canon. By that time, the Deuterocanonical books had passed into the Church through the Apostles and had already gained acceptance.

Quote:
But, we are still missing the overarching point here. If it could be shown that, say, Paul definitely referenced and thought of the deuterocanonicals as sacred Scripture, then I would likely accept them as such.


And on what basis do you hold up Paul as the sole authority on this point? There are numerous OT books that Paul doesn't reference or quote which you still accept. And there are 5 Proto-canonical books (Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon) that aren't cited anywhere in the NT. But you accept those.

Again, Protestant objections to the Deutero's are always a case of ad hoc criteria inconsistently applied.

Quote:
If there is evidence that they are Scripture (e.g. consensus of early Christians, reference by Jesus and apostles as Scripture, acceptance by Jews who brought us the rest the OT, etc.).


OK. Here I'll cite to Oxford Patristics historian J.N.D. Kelly:

    It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive the twenty-two or twenty-four books of the Hebrew Bible of Palestinian Judaism [Protestant Old Testament] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or Deutero-canonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was . . . the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. .. . [M]ost of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew.. . . In the first two centuries. . . the Church seems to have accepted all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture. Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas. . . Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon, and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary." J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 53-54.

Kelly indicates there was a vast consensus among early Christians, a consensus reflected in the regional councils and Hippo and Carthage in the late 4th century. While that's been referenced, I'll provide a citation:

    It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, 3 two books of Paraleipomena, 4 Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, 5 the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, 6 two books of the Maccabees. Of the New Testament: four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John. Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon. because we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church. Let it also be allowed that the Passions of Martyrs be read when their festivals are kept. http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html

There's a lot more than can be shown to show demonstrate a vast consensus in favor of their acceptance well prior to the Reformation.

Quote:
But the average RC believes because the church says so.


But, David, for those of us who look to understand WHY the church says so, we find the solid historical foundation. It's that same historical foundation that leads us to accept the Church's determination of the NT canon as well. We are entirely consistent here.

Quote:
Come on now, I could argue that the only reason the Apocrypha were canonized was to to support tradition.
***
Strangely added right after Luther railed against all of these things. Coincidence? Perhaps.


No. A clear example of Protestant revisionist history, for the reasons shown. Those were had been accepted widely from the time of the earliest post-Apostolic Fathers onward.

Quote:
Instead we find eminent early church fathers like Jerome, Origen, and Athanasius divided on the issue, at best.


Whether Jerome and Athanasius denied full authority to these books can be debated, given how they quoted them and various statement they made. But, for present purposes, let's accept they disputed them. So what? In the same 4th century period, several books of the NT were disputed too, as Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History indicates:

    1. Since we are dealing with this subject it is proper to sum up the writings of the New Testament which have been already mentioned. First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles.

    2. After this must be reckoned the epistles of Paul; next in order the extant former epistle of John, and likewise the epistle of Peter, must be maintained. After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings.

    3. Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name.

    4. Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. Eusebius of Ceaserea, Ecclesiastical History, Book III, Chap. XXV. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201 ... i.xxv.html

So if the supposed questioning by a small of handful is basis for denying the inspiration of the OT Deuterocanonicals, then why aren't you consistent and use the similar historical disputes as to these NT books to deny their canonicity?

Again, Protestant objection to the Deuterocanonical books is always a matter of ad hoc criteria being applied inconsistently.

Brian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A test for Sola Scripturists
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2011 11:47 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:03 pm
Posts: 85
Religion: Church of the Brethren
Mithrandir wrote:

Either you are merely ignorant of medieval history or are willfully ignorant because of your theology:

From the Councils of Hippo and Carthage:
Canon 24. (Greek xxvii.)
That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture

Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.

But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:


And other non-ecumenical or fallible councils affirmed different canons, we've covered this. This does not reply to my point.

Mithrandir wrote:

You are still too focused on your theological bent that the opinion of individual pastors/theologians matter over the whole. That individual interpretation is superior. I guarantee you, the Judaisers in Acts 15, do you think their opinion about following the Mosaic law was magically changed after the Council's decision? No, as evidenced by their continual presence in Paul's other epistles. But the decision of the Council still stood regardless.

The Council had spoken, and therefore the case was closed, regardless of still differing opinons.


The council spoke after hearing argument from Paul and appealing to Scripture, yes. Reason and the word of God. What the Protestant uses. You continue to put the cart before the horse.

And again, the question is whether the truth of God comes from councils necessarily. Unfortunately your 'theological bent' seems to allow to avoid my point again and again.


Mithrandir wrote:
Many Jews still disregard Isaiah. Others simply interpret it differently. The statement you make is too vague and general in its scope. And consiering that Paul says that, "[14] But their minds were hardened; for to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. [15] Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their minds;(2 Cor 3)", it puzzles me that you(and Protestantism in general who hold to the "Bible alone") would appeal to the Jews for the "proper" canon.


Again, Paul appeals to the Jews for the proper canon. Not me. So do some of the church fathers.


Mithrandir wrote:
Acts 15:[28] For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:
The apostles and elders, together in Council, speak with the authority of the Holy Spirit. So did every council afterward. This is the authority given them by God. You deny it at your own peril.


Sure they did. Because they were inspired by the Spirit, had walked with God directly, and confirmed their authority with miraculous works.



Mithrandir wrote:
I already told you. I gave you the scripture to demonstrate that the same authority that Jesus gave to the apostles was handed on to the first and second generations after the apostles. You agree that God inspired non-apostles to write the Gospels but you reject that God can inspire later men consecrated to Him to proclaim His truth faithfully through Councils throughout history?


What Scripture was this? Not Matthew, where Jesus is sending them out on a specific commission, I hope?

It's not a question of what God CAN do. It's what He did do. And I think all truth meets at Jesus Christ and those who learned directly from Him, not anyone their successors happen to nominate as successors, etc.

Again I say, how does the RC read writings like those of Peter and Paul, in which they are called to watch out for false teachers? If the church taught truth without question, why tell the 'laity' to 'test the Spirits' and to not 'be carried away' by lawless men and false teachers (2 Peter 2). Can the average Catholic even make sense of this, when IT is both the infallible interpreter and on par with the word of God?




Mithrandir wrote:
You show me something in Sacred Tradition that directly contradicts what's in our Bible and I might concede the point. You won't, but you can try.


How about the 'treasury of merit?' 'Works of supererogation?'

Mithrandir wrote:
Because any objective survey of Christianity of the first three centuries demonstrates a Church that had Bishops, priests, & deacons, that believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, that every Lord's day assembled to read the readings and to eat at the table of the Lord, that believed that baptism saved not because it was due to the mere exercise of mental faith but to the grace of God that dipenses rebirth through the sacrament; that prayed to and vererated the saints who came before them, that held that the Bibshop of Rome was the spiritual descendent of the apostle Peter and was the temporal head of the Church, that held Councils to decide matters of faith and morals, and it was called the Universal(Catholic) Church.


Wow, I don't know if I have time to respond to all of this falsehood. Every priest deacon and bishop did NOT believe in the Real Presence, a sacramental view of baptism/justification is completely opposite of the call of Jesus ('repent and be baptized'), I have seen no evidence that they prayed TO saints in the early church, this notion of the spiritual descendancy or primacy of Peter is not a first century notion (Paul opposes Peter to his face publicly, conspicuously absent from Paul's letters to Timothy as to how to govern the church and in Jesus' letters to the seven churches)...

I agree that councils are authoritative, if they are subject to truth and Scripture. Protestants don't believe they have always been subject to it due to some (we believe) distinctly un-Scriptural teachings. Appealing to a bunch or previous men who believed it doesn't really help your case.

Right, universal catholic church. This can be defined any number of ways.


Mithrandir wrote:
"Miraculous confirmation"? Your demanded criteria demostrate a sad lack of faith.

That the Church is true the evidence is manifest. You want a miracle? Go and attend a Mass. Gaze upon our Lord in Eucharistic adoration and pray.
You don't even believe the plain words of Scripture, so I don't expect you to believe anything I say...


Jesus acknowledged this truth, albeit somewhat scornfully. Why did the disciples do miracles, because they looked cool?

The Eucharist, as defined by the RCC, is an invisible miracle. Kind of defeats the point of a miracle. But I have already argued this on the 'Eucharistic questions' thread in the Lyceum, let's not get too much material to cover here...:)





Mithrandir wrote:
The problem is that God is beyond logic and reason. God is a lover first and foremost, not a philosopher or theologian or logician. God's love is in its essence un-reasonable AND illogical.
Many of Jesus' teachings are un-reasonable and illogical. Where I've seen so many Protestants fail is because they try to "make sense" of the Mysteries that Jesus handed to us. And when they can't they dismiss it as "symbolic" or "figurative".
Reason alone is a horrible interpretive tool and has been the cause of many heresies through the centuries.


Yet that last sentence appeals to my reason. You see, any argument made by the RCC to listen to it's infallible councils, it's infallible interpretation, again appeals to the reason of humans. This is why I find it to be a primary, foundational tool.

I agree that God is not always known by logic. He does, I believe, condescend to us. This is the nature of revelation. Then He gives us rational minds to apprehend Him and His Son.




Mithrandir wrote:
I pity Luther. He was raised by an abusive father and Luther took this horrible image and applied it to his vision of God. It infested his whole outlook on spirituality.
But make no mistake, read his writings, Luther was a highly arrogant man who sought to destroy the Church. So did Calvin. This was not mere "barnicle scraping". They both wanted to destroy the entire system and remake the Church in their image. And since they couldn'd do it within, they decided to do it without. And thousands went into heresy, thousands of others died, because of the vanity of Luther and Calvin.
Yes the Reinessance popes were politically corrupted and weak, and that only helped their rebellion. But the bottom line is that they cared little for reform. They didn't just want to do away with the abuses of indulgences and clericism, they wanted to destroy everything. That is the truth.
They were revolutionaries, not reformers.


Please provide a quote from Luther and/or Calvin that says, in effect, 'We want to destroy everything.'

And let's not entertain the genetic fallacy. 'Luther has an abusive father,' so he's irrational?

Again, I don't agree with Luther on many things either, but his account is one of fear of the Lord. He didn't feel right using his new 'power' of transubstantiation, among other things. He was a priest and doctor of the church. He just had some questions. Perhaps he was not the nicest guy, I don't know.



Mithrandir wrote:
Are you kidding me? Calvin was the head of a political theocracy in Geneva. He killed hundreds for the slightest violations of Biblical law.



Ah, good point. But we shouldn't do a body comparison as a measure of who is true, I hope. Did he set out to be a theological leader, according to his writings (quotes please)?



Mithrandir wrote:
If he was merely seeking the truth he lacked the docility of a true truth-seeker. He wasn't seeking the truth, he had the truth according to him. It was either the Church bend to him or he was going to raise hell until they did.


Again, he thought that the Church was in error. He was listening to Paul and Peter's letters to watch out for false teachers.


Mithrandir wrote:

How is "church" defined. It's defininately not a verb, as I have heard some protestants say, "let's church together".

I cannot properly define what you are asking for without broaching a subject that is not proper to dicuss: EENS.
But let me ask you this:
If someone you love only gives you half or not even half of the truth in a matter are you just going to be happy with t that?


No, of course not. But if that person affirms that what they gave me is necessarily true I wouldn't know the difference.



Mithrandir wrote:
Its not that you're appealing to historical method but that your historical facts are just wrong or bent theologically. Have you actually read Luther's works? His letters?
I beg you to show me those "proto-protestants" that existed in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd centuires? Who were they? Where are their writings? And don't tell me that those "evil Catholics" burned them all. If the Gnostic gospels can survive us "evil Catholics" then so can these "works".


Um. Paul, Peter...James...maybe some Jesus.

Peter said we are ALL a royal priesthood. Paul that ALL should participate in a church meeting. Jesus that we all must be born of the Spirit.

Does that even remotely approximate this world of special robes, priestly castes, special words spoken in a certain order, and a 'laity' that sits and watches the 'performance' on stage? Sorry, I'm just passionate about this stuff.


Mithrandir wrote:
Finally, here's the problem with the above statement. If I was an atheist/secular humanist or even merely agnostic and arguing just for the bare-bones factual truth of history, yet arguing with these same arguments, my arguments according to you would be perfectly objective and valid. You still would reject them because of your theological bent, but to you they would be utterly valid logically speaking. The only remaining thing to do is to "agree to disagree".
Yet I would also be an idiot because having this knowledge and yet remaining an atheist/agnostic would defy reason. It is the height of absurdity to have knowledge of the truth and not to act on that knowledge.

But since I'm a Catholic the arguments are interior arguments or "subjective reasoning"?


You keep using this phrase 'theological bent' as though you are as straight as an arrow. Unfortunately, you are not. The point is that Catholics seem to appeal to Church Tradition as a foundation of truth for some of these doctrines with which Protestants disagree. Tradition is synonymous with 'what we teach.' This solves nothing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A test for Sola Scripturists
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 3:49 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:55 am
Posts: 4887
Location: I have no memory of this place....
Religion: Catholic
DavidY2001 wrote:
Mithrandir wrote:

Either you are merely ignorant of medieval history or are willfully ignorant because of your theology:

From the Councils of Hippo and Carthage:
Canon 24. (Greek xxvii.)
That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture

Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.

But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:


And other non-ecumenical or fallible councils affirmed different canons, we've covered this. This does not reply to my point.


Those councils did not have Papal representation and those canons weren't approved by the Pope. So your point is moot. You and I have the Bible as we have it because of those councils. By accepting the Bible explicitly you accept Sacred Tradition and the decision of those councils implicitly.

I don't care how you try to rationalize it. That is the reality.

DavidY2001 wrote:
Mithrandir wrote:

You are still too focused on your theological bent that the opinion of individual pastors/theologians matter over the whole. That individual interpretation is superior. I guarantee you, the Judaisers in Acts 15, do you think their opinion about following the Mosaic law was magically changed after the Council's decision? No, as evidenced by their continual presence in Paul's other epistles. But the decision of the Council still stood regardless.

The Council had spoken, and therefore the case was closed, regardless of still differing opinons.


The council spoke after hearing argument from Paul and appealing to Scripture, yes. Reason and the word of God. What the Protestant uses. You continue to put the cart before the horse.

And again, the question is whether the truth of God comes from councils necessarily. Unfortunately your 'theological bent' seems to allow to avoid my point again and again.


Both sides had their "reasons" and the reasons on both sides were equally valid. The bottom line is that the decision came down to one of authority. If we assume your position these men were just men, friends of Jesus perhaps, but they had no real authority to change anything. There was no "miraculous sign" that confirmed neither their decision nor the letter that they sent.

The truth came through the Council. And I don't believe that such things are suplerfluously placed in Scripture. There's no reason to mention it if it was NOT meant to be the necessary and normative way of finding and proclaiming the truth of the Faith.

DavidY2001 wrote:
Mithrandir wrote:
Many Jews still disregard Isaiah. Others simply interpret it differently. The statement you make is too vague and general in its scope. And consiering that Paul says that, "[14] But their minds were hardened; for to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. [15] Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their minds;(2 Cor 3)", it puzzles me that you(and Protestantism in general who hold to the "Bible alone") would appeal to the Jews for the "proper" canon.


Again, Paul appeals to the Jews for the proper canon. Not me. So do some of the church fathers.


Paul appealed to the "Scriptures", not the Jews. The Pharisees accepted the Prophets and the Wisdom liturature along with the Penteteuch. The Jews and God-fearers outside of Palestine followed the Greek Septuagint(which Paul taught from). The Sadducees only accepted the Penteteuch. So which "Jews" are you appealing to? How do you know that they are correct?


DavidY2001 wrote:
Mithrandir wrote:
Acts 15:[28] For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:
The apostles and elders, together in Council, speak with the authority of the Holy Spirit. So did every council afterward. This is the authority given them by God. You deny it at your own peril.


Sure they did. Because they were inspired by the Spirit, had walked with God directly, and confirmed their authority with miraculous works.


DavidY2001 wrote:
Mithrandir wrote:
I already told you. I gave you the scripture to demonstrate that the same authority that Jesus gave to the apostles was handed on to the first and second generations after the apostles. You agree that God inspired non-apostles to write the Gospels but you reject that God can inspire later men consecrated to Him to proclaim His truth faithfully through Councils throughout history?


What Scripture was this? Not Matthew, where Jesus is sending them out on a specific commission, I hope?


Again:

Matt 28:18 ""All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me..."

John 20:21 ""Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you."

Eph 4:[11] And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers,
[12] to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,

1 Tim 4:14 "[14] Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands upon you.

Paul gave the gift of authority that he received from God to Timothy.

2 Tim 2:1-2, "[1] You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus,
[2] and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

Timothy is to teach others and prepare them to also receive this same authority.

Titus 2:[15] "Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you."

Again, there is that "all authority" phrase. This "authority" is from God, through the apostles, to their successors. It is a gift, a charism, that is obviously meant to be perpetual.

DavidY2001 wrote:
It's not a question of what God CAN do. It's what He did do. And I think all truth meets at Jesus Christ and those who learned directly from Him, not anyone their successors happen to nominate as successors, etc.


This phrase implicitly says that God is less than God. It says that Jesus was a liar(Matt 28:20). It denies God's grace after the apostles and the first generation. It implies that the Holy Spirit is either inept or that He abandoned the Church until the Protestant revolutionaries.

What God DID is witnessed by history, & is recorded in the writings of first, second, and third generations after the apostles. I'm sorry if those writings are a little too "Catholic" for your taste.

DavidY2001 wrote:
Again I say, how does the RC read writings like those of Peter and Paul, in which they are called to watch out for false teachers? If the church taught truth without question, why tell the 'laity' to 'test the Spirits' and to not 'be carried away' by lawless men and false teachers (2 Peter 2). Can the average Catholic even make sense of this, when IT is both the infallible interpreter and on par with the word of God?


Again, you expect the oak tree to look exactly like the acorn. It is a big span between 50 a.d.-when the Church was still new and even Bishops were still coming into the fullness of the Faith and their authority-and 150 a.d.-when the Church was now spread throuughout the Empire and the Faith fully grounded through the teachings of several councils and tried through persecutions.


DavidY2001 wrote:
Mithrandir wrote:
You show me something in Sacred Tradition that directly contradicts what's in our Bible and I might concede the point. You won't, but you can try.


How about the 'treasury of merit?' 'Works of supererogation?'


Is that all you got? Are you going to make a point?

"How about the 'treasury of merit?'"-
Does not Jesus tell us, "but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal."(Matt 6:20)

Or "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church,"

What do these mean?

"'Works of supererogation?'"

Show me from the Catechism where the Church teaches this?

DavidY2001 wrote:
Mithrandir wrote:
Because any objective survey of Christianity of the first three centuries demonstrates a Church that had Bishops, priests, & deacons, that believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, that every Lord's day assembled to read the readings and to eat at the table of the Lord, that believed that baptism saved not because it was due to the mere exercise of mental faith but to the grace of God that dipenses rebirth through the sacrament; that prayed to and vererated the saints who came before them, that held that the Bibshop of Rome was the spiritual descendent of the apostle Peter and was the temporal head of the Church, that held Councils to decide matters of faith and morals, and it was called the Universal(Catholic) Church.


Wow, I don't know if I have time to respond to all of this falsehood. Every priest deacon and bishop did NOT believe in the Real Presence,

They did if they were Christians. The ones who rejected it were Gnostic-Christians who were eventually excommunicted. Read the letters of Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus' "Against Heresies".

DavidY2001 wrote:
a sacramental view of baptism/justification is completely opposite of the call of Jesus ('repent and be baptized'),

Begs the question. You're assuming the truth of your theology that din't exist until 1500 years after Jesus.

DavidY2001 wrote:
I have seen no evidence that they prayed TO saints in the early church,


The catacombs in Rome are repleat with graffiti and inscriptions not only composed of prayers for the dead but also prayers to the Saints("Help me St. Crescens!", "Peter, ask Christ Jesus!", "Peter and Paul, pray for Victor!") See also, Hebrews 12:1.

DavidY2001 wrote:
this notion of the spiritual descendancy or primacy of Peter is not a first century notion (Paul opposes Peter to his face publicly),


You betray yourself here. If Peter is just "another traveler on the way" then Paul not only has no right to rebuke Peter but also has no reason because Peter is "following his conscience".

But on the other hand if Peter is really what the Bible says he is-the leader of the Church-but due to weakness falls into error then Paul HAS to rebuke Peter because Peter is suppose to set the example. Just as the passage indicates.

Also, Peter's office no more prevents Peter from sinning than it prevented Judas from betraying Jesus to the Sanhedrin. Paul was not rebuking Peter for teaching error, he was rebuking Peter for not living up to his own teaching.

Lastly, 2 Tim 2:2 and 2 Peter 1:12-13 show that not only Paul, but all of the apostles, know that the gbift that they received from Jesus must be perpetuated to their chosen successors. Or else how is Peter to "remind them always"?

And again, read Ignatius and Irenaeus. As well as Cyprian. All taught the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as the spiritual descendent of Peter and as having his authority(Matt 16:18).


DavidY2001 wrote:
conspicuously absent from Paul's letters to Timothy as to how to govern the church and in Jesus' letters to the seven churches)...


Because you falsely assume protestantism and its claim that the Bible must constitute the Church. Paul even testifies that not everything in the deposit of the Faith is written(1 Thes 2:13; 2 Thes 2:15).

DavidY2001 wrote:
I agree that councils are authoritative, if they are subject to truth and Scripture. Protestants don't believe they have always been subject to it due to some (we believe) distinctly un-Scriptural teachings. Appealing to a bunch or previous men who believed it doesn't really help your case.


Ah, no. You're doing the same thing. You're appealing to protestantism(a system of theology created by men-a "tradition"). What you accuse me of doing you're doing the exact same thing.

It seems like you like making vague assertions because getting down to specifics will expose the weakness of your position.

That the Councils are authoritive are evident by the spirical authority that they derive from God and serve Him and His bride. I have demonstrated their authority individually and collectively and how they received it. You of course will continue to dance around it. It is what it is.

DavidY2001 wrote:
Right, universal catholic church. This can be defined any number of ways.


It definitely isn't protestant, evangelical, or fundamentalist.

Mithrandir wrote:
"Miraculous confirmation"? Your demanded criteria demostrate a sad lack of faith.

That the Church is true the evidence is manifest. You want a miracle? Go and attend a Mass. Gaze upon our Lord in Eucharistic adoration and pray.
You don't even believe the plain words of Scripture, so I don't expect you to believe anything I say...


Jesus acknowledged this truth, albeit somewhat scornfully. Why did the disciples do miracles, because they looked cool?[/quote]

The diciples didn't "do" miracles. God does the miracles. We are His instruments. And once the Faith had been spread throughout the empire Christ's presence was clearly evident due to pagan Rome's persecution of them. The Bible is clear that miracles are less important than the authority, prophecy, and teaching(1 Cor 12).

DavidY2001 wrote:
The Eucharist, as defined by the RCC, is an invisible miracle. Kind of defeats the point of a miracle. But I have already argued this on the 'Eucharistic questions' thread in the Lyceum, let's not get too much material to cover here...:)


There are a lot of things that you can't see with you eyes, does that mean that they're not real?

DavidY2001 wrote:
Mithrandir wrote:
The problem is that God is beyond logic and reason. God is a lover first and foremost, not a philosopher or theologian or logician. God's love is in its essence un-reasonable AND illogical.
Many of Jesus' teachings are un-reasonable and illogical. Where I've seen so many Protestants fail is because they try to "make sense" of the Mysteries that Jesus handed to us. And when they can't they dismiss it as "symbolic" or "figurative".
Reason alone is a horrible interpretive tool and has been the cause of many heresies through the centuries.


Yet that last sentence appeals to my reason. You see, any argument made by the RCC to listen to it's infallible councils, it's infallible interpretation, again appeals to the reason of humans. This is why I find it to be a primary, foundational tool.


The "foundational tool" for interpretation of the Bible is grace, not reason. That is why you will remain in the dark concerning what you read in the Bible. As I did when I was a protestant, and as I did when I read it as an atheist when "proving" theists to be "ignorant of their own book".

DavidY2001 wrote:
I agree that God is not always known by logic. He does, I believe, condescend to us. This is the nature of revelation. Then He gives us rational minds to apprehend Him and His Son.


Sorry, the ability to apprehend His Son is another gift of grace. If it was by reason then the Jews should have regognozed Him immediately. They did not.


DavidY2001 wrote:
Mithrandir wrote:
I pity Luther. He was raised by an abusive father and Luther took this horrible image and applied it to his vision of God. It infested his whole outlook on spirituality.
But make no mistake, read his writings, Luther was a highly arrogant man who sought to destroy the Church. So did Calvin. This was not mere "barnicle scraping". They both wanted to destroy the entire system and remake the Church in their image. And since they couldn'd do it within, they decided to do it without. And thousands went into heresy, thousands of others died, because of the vanity of Luther and Calvin.
Yes the Reinessance popes were politically corrupted and weak, and that only helped their rebellion. But the bottom line is that they cared little for reform. They didn't just want to do away with the abuses of indulgences and clericism, they wanted to destroy everything. That is the truth.
They were revolutionaries, not reformers.


Please provide a quote from Luther and/or Calvin that says, in effect, 'We want to destroy everything.'


I will.

It's late. I will continue this later...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A test for Sola Scripturists
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 9:54 am 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 9:58 pm
Posts: 220
Religion: Reformed
Signum Crucis wrote:
Provide me a list of infallible books in the infallible Bible and prove to me the infallibility of the list. And since the Bible is your only infallible authority, where does the Bible says that the individual writings contained within are infallible and inspired?


Could you actually offer anything more legitimate than the 'Golden Index'? Tell me, do you think the Holy Spirit provided the Catholic Church the 'Golden-Index' or did they use the same hermeneutical approaches the Protestants do?

Parker


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A test for Sola Scripturists
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 12:38 pm 
Offline
Head Administrator
Head Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2002 9:24 am
Posts: 73174
Location: Music City
Religion: Catholic
Have you read this thread?

ETA: If not, then please do so and then you can answer the questions. If you want to play games, start a new thread and we'll see if anybody wants to play with you.

_________________
For the DCF Children Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A test for Sola Scripturists
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 1:10 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 9:58 pm
Posts: 220
Religion: Reformed
Signum Crucis wrote:
Have you read this thread?


Are you talking to me?

Parker


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A test for Sola Scripturists
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 1:10 pm 
Offline
Head Administrator
Head Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2002 9:24 am
Posts: 73174
Location: Music City
Religion: Catholic
Wasn't yours the last post before mine?

_________________
For the DCF Children Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A test for Sola Scripturists
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 7:20 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 9:58 pm
Posts: 220
Religion: Reformed
Signum Crucis wrote:
Wasn't yours the last post before mine?

I wasn't sure exactly, there are multiple posts on this thread. Usually people quote me in fairness.

Parker


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A test for Sola Scripturists
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 7:24 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 10:11 pm
Posts: 10124
Location: Here
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: Knights of Columbus, SVdP
haparker321 wrote:
Signum Crucis wrote:
Wasn't yours the last post before mine?

I wasn't sure exactly, there are multiple posts on this thread. Usually people quote me in fairness.

Parker


Great. I quoted you.

Now can you answer her question,
Quote:
Have you read this thread?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A test for Sola Scripturists
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 7:33 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 9:58 pm
Posts: 220
Religion: Reformed
Now can you answer her question,
Quote:
Have you read this thread?
[/quote]

I decided to let her run her thread here and start something else.

Parker


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A test for Sola Scripturists
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 7:34 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 10:11 pm
Posts: 10124
Location: Here
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: Knights of Columbus, SVdP
haparker321 wrote:
Now can you answer her question,
Quote:
Have you read this thread?


I decided to let her run her thread here and start something else.

Parker[/quote]

I take that as a NO!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies. Page 7 of 34   [ 673 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 34  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Jump to: