Your challenge is a bit disengenuous, as we both know the Bible wasn't canonized until a couple centuries later. I'm guessing that's your point. Having said that...

Can you show me from the Bible where it says that the Church (defined as the Roman Catholic Church) trumps scripture? Unless you can show me where the Bible specifically defines sacred tradition as the source of all things related to God, I think you need to defer to the teachings of the apostles as recorded in scripture. Peter himself referred to Paul's writings as scripture.

1. But to answer your question, look at what the NT authors did when answering questions. Look at the huge volume of OT quotes that Paul used in Romans. Look at Matt. 21:42; John 2:22; 1 Cor. 15:3-4; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2:2; 2 Peter 1:17-19. They used scripture.

2. There are many things that we hold to that are not specifically defined in Scripture--such as the hypostatic union, the Trinity, etc. Nowhere does it say "God is a Trinity"...yet any orthodox believer believes that. Are you going to throw the Trinity out since it's not defined directly?





Show me where I have said anyone on this board has given "fuzzy quotes". I think you guys need to look at what I actually said. Just like the other posters, you appear to be putting words in my mouth. Please stop that. It's not nice.

You guess wrongly. But, back to my questions...where does the Bible say that it has more authority than the Church has? Where does it claim authority for itself?



You may not avoid answering my question by asking a question. You say the Bible is your authority, not the Church. I want to know where you find that in the Bible. I never said that the Church trumps the Bible. However, my Bible does say that the Church is the source we go to as a final authority because it is the pillar and ground of truth. What does your Bible say?



Holy Scripture is part of Sacred Tradition. So there.

You cannot prove from any source, other than the councils of the Catholic Church which defined the canons of Holy Scripture, that Peter said any such thing or that Paul wrote any scripture.



You can't prove the inspiration of the Old Testament writings without relying on the authority of the Catholic Church.



The teachings on the Trinity are part of our Sacred Tradition. Purgatory isn't specifically defined exactly, but the concept is there in Scripture.





If you read what I actually said, you willl see that I didn't say that you said anyone on this board gave fuzzy quotes. You made the statement regarding fuzzy ECF quotes, now give us an example of what you meant by that. Are you telling me that you can't give me an example, that it is just something you tossed out there?

Here's the exchange in question:



There's no doubt, grammatically speaking, that the people who are being accused of fuzzy quoting are people on this board. Calvinist has suggested to Siggy that that's not what he intended to write, but it is definitely what he did, in fact, write. If this was an honest error, it's easy enough to address: he can simply say unequivocally that he regrets his poor wording, and definitely does not mean to accuse anyone on DCF of fuzzy quoting.

There's always a reasonable way to handle this kind of thing, Calvinist. Start thinking about that before you post.

I am sick of your games.



Either "fuzzy quotes" refers back to the "unsupported statements" made by members "of this board" or you are not speaking english.

Some content above edited by Administrator

EDIT>>>

The pickle is making me look bad...

Your silly ad hominems aside, I have never said anyone specifically used a "fuzzy quote". The challenge is still there for you to prove me wrong.

Who did I say did that? What quote?

Which Church Father are you suggesting that Siggy was fuzzily quoting here? Do you think that she means to assert that an early Church Father has said that the Church of the 21st century is identical with the Church of, say, the 2nd?

BTW, I suspect that lots of people other than me notice that you've changed your story again. Now you are trying to say that Siggy is guilty of fuzzy quoting. (The fact that your accusation is completely preposterous is beside the point.) A minute ago, you weren't saying that about anyone here. Right until it was shown that you had, in fact, said that about people here.

I have no idea who she'd quote. I look forward to seeing it.


No...that would be you putting words in my mouth. I said that if she were to give me a quote from an ECF saying it, it would likely be a "fuzzy quote". Did you catch that?

Alright, before I just go crazy reading this thread... what the deuce is a "fuzzy quote?" Can we get a definition on that?

Well, as gherkin explained, twas brillig and the slithey toves arg etaoin shrdlu. Which proves the point.

GKC

Does it matter what I define something as? You guys will take my words and run with them.

Calvinist, you out to take a few steps back and figure out what it actually is you are arguing. You certainly are not backing up any of your claims and since your argument has drifted, I think it pretty difficult for anyone to respond to you or to even try to figure out what you are arguing.

For example, the Church existed before the Bible. The Church - which has Christ as it's head - collected the writings in the Bible and provides it to the faithful. Although the Church precedes the Bible, it is no greater than nor less than the Bible. It is all part of the same revelation of Christ.

Does that make sense to you? If so, then getting to your other points (and the gist of this thread) would certainly be easier.

I accidentally edited one of Calvinist's posts instead of quoting from it. Here is my response to that post, which I had to delete because I punched the Submit button before I realized my mistake.



How do you now that Paul actually said that? Where is your proof? I know that he said that because Christ's Church says that he said that. So, again, how do you now that Paul said that? What proof would you offer to a non-believer that Paul said that?



That isn't an answer, that is a deflection. Answer my question or I'm going to have to resort to putting you on post moderation until you comply.



You make no sense, since the Apostles upheld Tradition, so I'm going to assume that you are just tossing stuff out to see what you can get to stick.




That is your opinion, based on nothing more than your opinion.



Yes, it is.



There are denominations which deny the Holy Trinity and they use the Bible to support their belief.



Those councils were Catholic councils. You accept their teaching on the Trinity, but not their teaching on Purgatory and the Eucharist? Interesting how selective you are.



Yes.



Again with the "fuzzy quote" claim of which you cannot even provide one example. Your honesty is at stake here, Calvinist.

I have no problem with those statements. Now prove the catholic church is "The Church". Prove that the catholic church has artistic license to declare whatever it wants and to define doctrine. Prove that the doctrines of the modern-day catholic church can be supported by the writings of the apostles as collected in the Bible.

No. I misread the tense. My mistake.

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out[through their office] the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2(A.D. 110),in ANF,I:89

"[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished."
Martyrdom of Polycarp,16:2(A.D. 155),in ANF,I:42



So, basically, you are saying that anything I quote is going to be called a "fuzzy" quote by you. In that case, I will require you to define "fuzzy quote" and then I'll require you to tell us exactly how my quote is "fuzzy".

You probably saw this same phenomenon in the Lyceum thread. Calvinist has very firm beliefs about exactly what Catholics believe and why they believe it. He does not hesitate to tell us exactly what we believe and why we believe it, and he utterly refuses to listen when we tell him he's wrong about that. (After all, what do we know?) So his attributing a strategy to you here before you've employed it...that's just par for the course.

I'm restricting him to this forum.

I know it because we have manuscript evidence to support it, and because the early church declared it.



I'm sorry if you don't like my answer, but I think it's a perfectly valid point. You and the others here point at the early church and state that it was the catholic church. That's a fallacy called "begging the question". You have not established that point.



What tradition? Do you mean the writings and teachings of their contemporaries?



I think it's a valid concern. You have yet to make the case. I'm challenging you to do this if you're going to use this argument.



No...it really isn't. But again...you make the assertion, so it's up to you to prove it.


They aren't "denominations". They are heretical heterodoxes. The Trinity is an essential doctrine. If you deny it, you are not a Christian.



Prove it.

What teachings would those be? Can you give me a quote from a church council?
[/quote]

sigh. Did you not read my post either? I have not said you gave a "fuzzy quote".



You can't answer me so you censor me? Wow....