Tuesday, August 30, 2011

The Canon as Infallible Sacred Tradition

Originally appeared on the aomin blog, 03/20/2010

"How do you know that the Holy Scripture is all you need? What tells you that? Might you need a God-led authority (like the Roman Catholic Church) to tell you that?" This was a question I recently came across from the depths of cyberspace. It's a question sharply aimed against sola scriptura, but it's a false question attacking an incorrect understanding of sola scriptura. Underlying this question is the assumption that the Sacred Scriptures are not enough to function as the sole rule of faith for the church. There must be something else a believer needs, like an infallible magisterium.

One part of this question is indeed true: if God's voice of special revelation is found somewhere else besides the Bible, Christians are obligated to seek out that voice, and follow it with their entire heart, soul, mind, and strength. Protestants though argue the only extant record of God's infallible voice of special revelation is found in Sacred Scripture. The burden of proof then lies on those who claim God's infallible voice is somewhere else besides the Scriptures. If God's infallible voice is extant today somewhere else, sola scriptura is refuted. If God's voice is found in an infallible magisterium or unwritten traditions, sola scriptura is refuted.

This is why those of us defending sola scriptura constantly ask those attacking it to produce what they claim to have. If they have God's special revelation elsewhere, throw it on the table and let's get a good look at it. For those of you who've listened to Dr. White's debates on sola scriptura, this is his pen example. In his old debate with Patrick Madrid on sola scriptura, Dr. White held up his pen and said:

If our debate this evening was that I was going to stand here and say that this is the only pen of its kind in all the universe, how would I go about proving it? Well, the only way I could prove the statement "there is no other pen like this in all the universe," is if I looked in all of your purses, and all of your shirt pockets, and in all the stores in the world that carry pens, and look through all the houses, and all over the planet Earth, and the Moon, and the planets in the Solar System, and in the entire universe, looking for another pen like this. And, of course, I could not do that. But it would be very easy for Mr. Madrid to win that debate. All he needs to do is go out, get a Cross Medallist pen, walk up here, hold it right next to mine, and say, "See! Another pen, just like yours!" and he's won the debate.
In light of this, I would assert that Mr. Madrid must either recognize this reality, and not attempt to win this debate by doing nothing more than depending upon an illogical demand; or, he must demonstrate the existence of "the other pen." That is, he must prove to us what the Council of Trent said was true. I quote, "It also clearly perceives that these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were, from hand to hand."
An argument like this is pointed directly at what Romanism claims to have: God's voice elsewhere besides the Sacred Scriptures. Most often those defending Romanism claim to have God's voice in Sacred Tradition. Getting them to throw this Tradition up on the table to take a look at is the problem. Typically only one thing is thrown up on the table as Sacred Tradition, the canon of Sacred Scripture. The canon is said to be an example of God's voice of special revelation outside the Bible.

The first problem with this argument is that it goes to battle alone. If I quote a verse from the Bible, I can also have that verse joined by the entire text from which the verse is found. When someone uses the canon as an example of God's voice in Sacred Tradition, the entire contents of Sacred Tradition still hides back up in the hills. Roman Catholics can't produce what they claim to have. They aren't even unified as to whether Sacred Tradition is simply the same material as found in the Bible, or if it's information of another kind. One bucket of water in a desert is not proof that a large lake is just over the mountain.

The second problem is a misunderstanding by Roman Catholics as to what the canon list is. The canon list is not revelation, it's an artifact of revelation. It is Scripture which Christians believe inspired, not a knowledge of the canon which is inspired. The church has discovered which books are canon, they haven't infallibly determined them to be canon. For a detailed explanation of this, track down a copy of Dr. White's book, Scripture Alone, chapter five.

Third, Roman Catholics have often jumped on R.C. Sproul's statement that the canon is a fallible collection of infallible books. The statement itself originates from Sproul's mentor, John Gerstner. This statement is not an admission that there is an error in the canon. It is a statement simply designed to acknowledge the historical selection process the church used in discovering the canon. By God's providence, God's people have always identified His Word, and they didn't need to be infallible to do so. Remember that large set of books in your Bible before the Gospel of Matthew? The church had the Old Testament, and believers during the period in which the Old Testament was written also had God's inscripturated word, this despite a lack of magisterial infallibility.

Fourth, there is no reason to assume church infallibility in order for the church to receive the canon. That is, there is no reason to assume God's voice of infallible pronouncement via an infallible magisterium. I recognize the Christian church received the canon. It does not though infallibly create the canon, or stand above the canon. The church was used by God to provide a widespread knowledge of the canon. The Holy Spirit had worked among the early Christian church in providing them with the books of the New Testament. This same process can be seen with the Old Testament and Old Testament believers. The Old Testament believer fifty years before Christ was born had a canon of Scripture, this despite the ruling from an infallible authority.

First century Christians had the Old Testament, and had "certainty" that it was the very word of almighty. Clement of Rome frequently quotes the Old Testament. He does so, with the understanding that the words of the Old Testament are the very words of God. He was certain of it, this despite not having the alleged infallible ruling of an infallible authority. His use of Old Testament passages show a certainty that the words were God's words. Or, think of Paul's exhortation to Timothy. Paul notes that from infancy Timothy "knew" the Holy Scriptures (2 Tim 3:15): "and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." How was it Timothy could know the Scriptures were the words of God without an infallible church council declaring which books were canonical?

Obviously, the notion that an infallible authority can only provide canon certainty cannot be an accurate explanation of Christian reality. Think of all the New Testament writers. They freely quote the Old Testament with the certainty that it was the Word of God. Yet, no infallible source defined the canon for them. A "source" definitely received the Old Testament canon, but that "source" was not infallible, nor do I recall Rome arguing that the Jewish Old Testament leadership was infallible. There is no logical reason why the entirety of the Bible needs an infallible authority to declare the canon. It wasn't needed previous to Trent, Damasus, or the pre-Christ Jewish authority.

How was it that Timothy had "certainty" the Old Testament was the word of God? It is God's sovereign power that reveals the canon to His church, for His purposes. The people of God are indwelt with the Holy Spirit. It is they, who are given spiritual life and continually fed by its words. Jesus did this himself, as recorded in Luke 24:45, "Then He opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures." As to how a Protestant can have certainty on the canon, my certainty is in the providence and work of God. Only faith will read the Bible and hear the voice of God. God used means in giving us His canon, but like the Old Testament believers, those means don't need to be infallible for one to know they are reading and hearing God's word.

If sola scriptura isn't sola, this certainly isn't proven by Roman Catholic claims or argumentation. If Roman Catholic have God's voice somewhere else other than the Scriptures, they need to prove it. Till then, I'll stick with that which is God breathed and which can thoroughly equip a believer (2 Tim. 3:16). I'll stick with that which is "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

232 comments:

1 – 200 of 232   Newer›   Newest»
Truth Unites... and Divides said...

FYI, I posted an excerpt from this post on the following blogpost:

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/08/30/the-difference-between-protestants-and-catholics-on-tradition/?comments#comments

Brigitte said...

my certainty is in the providence and work of God

This certainty as the work of God, is mediated by the word itself. It does not come from nothing.

This word being the word about Christ. We know that here we have received what we needed because human effort leads us to pride or despair. Instead, God has taken care of everything. In him we are to trust and we trust.

We cannot get around the fact that justification is by faith and that through the word of promise.

PeaceByJesus said...

This is fundamental issue, and your article addresses it well.

As i would express it, the typical RCA polemic your deal with is one that argues that since we use the Scripture as the supreme authority (typically misinterpreted to mean only the Bible can be used), and since Rome gave us the Bible, then we need to submit to Rome. But this logic would require us to submit to Judaism (which its perverse traditions) as they gave us the bulk of scripture, but without a transcendent assuredly infallible magisterium (AIM).

And while Rome attacks us for having a fallible canon, she effectively has an open canon, since she makes her Tradition equal to it, and her AIM as supreme over both (sola Roma, and which can autocratically redefine all to conform to her), but provides no infallible list of all Traditions and infallible declarations.

And to my knowledge, there is no infallible definition of Tradition but being oral (see http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/insights-tradition.htm, albeit a somewhat quirky RC source), the amorphous nature of it makes it far more subject to undetectable corruption and uncertainty, and in need of a transcendent material authority on earth that is wholly of Rome by which to test it by, but which for the RC is ultimately is Rome herself, who as said, effectively adds to Scripture.

Yet she manifestly lacks the manifest authority of a Moses, or the Christ or the apostles who infallibly affirmed truth and added new dogmatic teachings to Scripture.

The question is, how was truth claims and Scripture itself established as being from God?

I see that “the word of God/the Lord” was normally written down, and that certain writings in distinction to others became established as being from God, and that this was due to their unique enduring qualities, complementarity, and other manifest supernatural attestation by God. As helpful and right as they can be, Divinely inspired writings are not essentially established as being such by conciliar decrees, but due to these means. God first revealed Himself to man and supernaturally attested to His reality and truth, (like to Abraham) and of the faith and character of those who believed, obeyed it and testified of it (like Moses), so was the written testimony of them and by them established as being from God, which writings progressively became the standard by which further revelation and men of God were tested and established, as a continuing principle. (Is. 8:20; Ps. 19: 7-11; 119; Mt. 22:29-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:39,42; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Heb. 1-5-2:4, etc.)

Finally, RCAs ask, what good is an infallible authority without an infallible interpreter, yet they themselves have the same problem, for often show in this blog, the "infallible" authority of Rome needs interpretation, but has no infallible interpretation, and much variance can exist between interpretations of current teaching, as well as that of the past, as the sedevacantists document, among others.

BTW, posts should be aware that you can lose your entire post if you try to submit it prior to being signed in (Cookie value is null for FormRestoration. I find no fix for it), as would have happened to the above, thus i try to always copy it before submitting it.

PeaceByJesus said...

This is fundamental issue, and your article addresses it well.

As i would express it, the typical RCA polemic your deal with is one that argues that since we use the Scripture as the supreme authority (typically misinterpreted to mean only the Bible can be used), and since Rome gave us the Bible, then we need to submit to Rome. But this logic would require us to submit to Judaism (which its perverse traditions) as they gave us the bulk of scripture, but without a transcendent assuredly infallible magisterium (AIM).

And while Rome attacks us for having a fallible canon, she effectively has an open canon, since she makes her Tradition equal to it, and her AIM as supreme over both (sola Roma, and which can autocratically redefine all to conform to her), but provides no infallible list of all Traditions and infallible declarations.

And to my knowledge, there is no infallible definition of Tradition but being oral (see http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/insights-tradition.htm, albeit a somewhat quirky RC source), the amorphous nature of it makes it far more subject to undetectable corruption and uncertainty, and in need of a transcendent material authority on earth that is wholly of Rome by which to test it by, but which for the RC is ultimately is Rome herself, who as said, effectively adds to Scripture.

Yet she manifestly lacks the manifest authority of a Moses, or the Christ or the apostles who infallibly affirmed truth and added new dogmatic teachings to Scripture.

The question is, how was truth claims and Scripture itself established as being from God?

I see that “the word of God/the Lord” was normally written down, and that certain writings in distinction to others became established as being from God, and that this was due to their unique enduring qualities, complementarity, and other manifest supernatural attestation by God. As helpful and right as they can be, Divinely inspired writings are not essentially established as being such by conciliar decrees, but due to these means. God first revealed Himself to man and supernaturally attested to His reality and truth, (like to Abraham) and of the faith and character of those who believed, obeyed it and testified of it (like Moses), so was the written testimony of them and by them established as being from God, which writings progressively became the standard by which further revelation and men of God were tested and established, as a continuing principle. (Is. 8:20; Ps. 19: 7-11; 119; Mt. 22:29-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:39,42; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Heb. 1-5-2:4, etc.)

Finally, RCAs ask, what good is an infallible authority without an infallible interpreter, yet they themselves have the same problem, for often show in this blog, the "infallible" authority of Rome needs interpretation, but has no infallible interpretation, and much variance can exist between interpretations of current teaching, as well as that of the past, as the sedevacantists document, among others.

BTW, posts should be aware that you can lose your entire post if you try to submit it prior to being signed in (Cookie value is null for FormRestoration. I find no fix for it), as would have happened to the above, thus i try to always copy it before submitting it.

PeaceByJesus said...

Now it says "This blog does not allow anonymous comments" and will not post my comment, although i am signed in.

James Swan said...

My apologies on the comment problem. I'm trying to eliminate a troll, and the only way to do so is to have the comments approved before they post.

natamllc said...

You pretty much are hitting on all cylinders with this article.

Thank you for sharing it!

Lvka said...

The canon is not enough: one also has to possess the key to its meaning or interpretation. The so-called "lex credendi" or "regula fidei" or "apostolic hypothesis".

Lvka said...

James,

I've heard that 'Disqus' is good at providing a better control of comments and getting rid of trolls.

Turretinfan said...

If only trolls had consciences!

PeaceByJesus said...

Thanks James.

BTW, you may find this interesting: A Clergy Rebellion in Austria's Catholic Church http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,2090629,00.html

De Maria said...

Most of the commentaries here seem to deny that Sola Scriptura means Scripture alone. But in fact, that is the true meaning of the Latin words which I believe Luther himself coined. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Now, if anyone can produce a Scriptural definition for Sola Scriptura, I'm all ears. But so far, no one has. Scripture says:
Matthew 18:17
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

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

And:
Hebrews 13:17
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

And if you want to say that Sola Scriptura means "Scripture first" or "Scripture as highest authority", all I can tell you is that the Catholic Church has not addressed such a doctrine. Find that doctrine in Scripture, define it and show it to someone. In the meantime, Scripture tells us to "hear the Church".

Sincerely,

De Maria

zipper778 said...

De Maria, you ask excellent questions and I would like to point out a few things to you.

Sola Scriptura is not that we get all of our theology from the Bible alone, but that the Bible alone is the only infallible authority. It is quite alright to have a church authority, even if they're not infallible. Paul warns us in Galatians 1:8-9. If even Peter or Paul could preach a false gospel, then anyone could.

Because of this, we must be like the Bereans in Acts 17 and search the Scriptures to make sure that whatever we hear is true. This is a noble and Christian tradition. The early church fathers encouraged people to compare their words with that of Scripture.

Tradition can be a fine thing, but it cannot compare to Scripture. In no place in Scripture or history do we find any warning against Scripture, but in the Scriptures we find a number of warnings that tradition can be wrong (Matt 15:3, Mark 7:8, 7:9, 7:13, Col 2:8).

We must hold fast to the Scriptures and not stray away from the written word (1 Cor 4:6).

Praise Jesus our only Savior

Rhology said...

Disqus is awful.

Turretinfan said...

Awful compared to Blogger's comments? Or ...

Lvka said...

Disqus is awful.

Yes, I've heard many others say the same thing as well... that it was disqusting ;-)

But -then again- it's better than blogger at fighting spam...

Ken said...

De Maria,
“Sola Scriptura” by itself, means “Scripture alone”, but it does not mean Scripture as the only source for doctrine and practice, but it means Scripture is the only infallible source for faith and doctrine and practice.

Notice the context of 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15

13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

14 It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

“So then” points back in the context to verses 13-14 in the immediate context – the doctrines of election (“chosen you from the beginning for salvation”) and calling (verse 15) through our gospel (verse 15) (see also Romans 1:1 – “the gospel of God” – Rom. 1:16, 16:25-27). When the gospel is preached, and the Spirit works (v. 13 “through sanctification by the Spirit”) and He draws and effectually calls some to have “faith in the truth” (v. 13) All those true and good traditions were eventually written down in the other letters and gospels. They are the “God-breathed” traditions because they were all eventually written down for us. It is that “faith” that was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude 3)

So, “the traditions” are not some extra-Scriptural things like the bodily assumption of Mary (1950), the sinlessness and Immaculate conception of Mary(1854), the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (4-5th Century), purgatory, indulgences, Papal infallibility(1870), etc. all things that came centuries later. It is anachronistic to read those things back into 2 Thess. 2:15. Those things are man-made traditions and are not true. (Matthew 15:1-9; Mark 7:1-13; Colossians 2:8)

“the traditions” that Paul taught the Thessalonians orally were all the other inspired teachings that were later written down for us in the other books, like Romans, Ephesians, I and 2 Corinthians, etc. 2 Thessalonians was probably the 3rd epistle written by Paul, only Galatians and 1 Thess. are earlier. So, it makes sense that he would refer to his oral teachings, traditions that he preached to them, but were not in detail in I or 2 Thessalonians.

Well informed and doctrinal and biblical Evangelical Protestants believe in those verses about the local church authority; and seek to obey them; but those verses do not mean the “Roman Catholic Church” at all. When the Roman Church started adding things to the deposit and rule of faith that went beyond Scripture’s teaching, they added corruptions that slowly led them to anathematize themselves at the Council of Trent(1545-1563), so, since that time, it is no longer a true church, and does not have the authority of those verses, that it claims it has for itself, since it left the Scriptures and left the gospel.

Brigitte said...

I'm thinking about what Lvka said, because it is along the lines with what I frame in my mind as kerygmatic consistency and criticism. St. Paul distilled the essence very well in 1. Cor. 1.

Another thought: in our circles we use the phrase "Lex credendi, lex orandi." Luther himself felt that he learned the faith in the Mansfeld village school while singing and practicing the liturgy in the choirs for services. This was the place where the gospel was preserved when it had been lost everywhere else in the church. It makes one think that the things we sing and pray should be as scriptural as possible, as the liturgy is.

Ad fontes!

Brigitte said...

Rather: lex orandi, lex credendi

Lvka said...

Jews prayed for their dead even before Christ's time. Prayer for the dead is an apostolic tradition (Christ and His Holy Apostles being all pious Jews who believed in the resurrection). The only Jews that did not have that practice were the ones who denied the resurrection: the Sadducees and their followers. Now, we all know that Protestantism rejects this apostolic practice, which Christianity inherited from Judaism through the Holy Apostles.

The same can be said about liturgical practice: how did Paul and all the other Apostles and Disciples worship on Sundays? It was the ususal first century synagogue service, to which the Eucharist was added.

So, as you see, we do honor the traditions which we received from the Apostles: whether by word or by epistle -- Protestantism does not.

Nick said...

Can someone here define what "burden of proof" means?...because the introductory remarks don't seem consistent with how the phrase is classically taught and understood.

De Maria said...

zipper778 said...
De Maria, you ask excellent questions and I would like to point out a few things to you.

Sola Scriptura is not that we get all of our theology from the Bible alone, but that the Bible alone is the only infallible authority.


Thanks for your kind response.
Please point out, where does Scripture say that the Bible is the ONLY infallible authority? Because 1 Tim 3:15 says that the Church is the Pillar of Truth. And if the Church always holds up the truth, then that is a pretty good definition of infallibility.

It is quite alright to have a church authority, even if they're not infallible. Paul warns us in Galatians 1:8-9. If even Peter or Paul could preach a false gospel, then anyone could.

But St. Peter says in
2 Pet 1:
21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Which says that the Apostles were inspired to SPEAK and then to WRITE. Therefore, if the Holy Ghost did not inspire them to speak infallibly, how can we be sure that He inspired them to write infallibly?

Because of this, we must be like the Bereans in Acts 17 and search the Scriptures to make sure that whatever we hear is true. This is a noble and Christian tradition. The early church fathers encouraged people to compare their words with that of Scripture.

Precisely the Catholic Teaching of Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium. Going back to the Bereans, Sts. Paul and Silas brought the TRADITION of Christ. They taught the Bereans where these were found in Scripture. Paul and Silas represented the Church Magisterium.

Tradition can be a fine thing, but it cannot compare to Scripture. In no place in Scripture or history do we find any warning against Scripture, but in the Scriptures we find a number of warnings that tradition can be wrong (Matt 15:3, Mark 7:8, 7:9, 7:13, Col 2:8).

Tradition is that from which the New Testament Scripture sprang. Jesus did not write any Scriptures. He taught. And He commanded His Church to teach.
If the teachings of the Apostles were not infallible, neither would their Scriptures be infallible.

We must hold fast to the Scriptures and not stray away from the written word (1 Cor 4:6).

That is Catholic Teaching. And the indicator of one who has strayed from the written word is one who does not hold the traditions which were handed down by Jesus to the Apostles.

Praise Jesus our only Savior

Amen!

De Maria said...

Ken said...
De Maria,
“Sola Scriptura” by itself, means “Scripture alone”, but it does not mean Scripture as the only source for doctrine and practice, but it means Scripture is the only infallible source for faith and doctrine and practice.


Zipper seems to hold to a different definition. I'll ask you the same thing though. Would you provide the Scripture where it says that Scripture is the ONLY infallible source for faith and doctrine and practice? Because 1 Tim 3:15 seems to indicate that the Church infallibly holds up the truth.

Notice the context of 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15

13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. 14 It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

“So then” points back in the context to verses 13-14 in the immediate context


With due respect, I believe you've missed the point. "So then" simply continues the logic. But the logic does not end until the end of that verse. And that verse says, "hold the traditions which you were taught by word or by letter."

The doctrines which you mention below are merely sampling the traditions which were passed down by the Apostles. There are many more doctrines than these in the Apostles letters. Or do you believe in the Trinity, the Omniscience of God, the Divinity of Christ and many more Traditions which are not here mentioned?

– the doctrines of election (“chosen you from the beginning for salvation”) and calling (verse 15) through our gospel (verse 15) (see also Romans 1:1 – “the gospel of God” – Rom. 1:16, 16:25-27).

The word "Gospel" includes every teaching of the Catholic Church. It is the same as saying, "Traditions". All the teachings of Jesus Christ are handed down in the Traditions contained in His Gospel.

When the gospel is preached, and the Spirit works (v. 13 “through sanctification by the Spirit”) and He draws and effectually calls some to have “faith in the truth” (v. 13) All those true and good traditions were eventually written down in the other letters and gospels. They are the “God-breathed” traditions because they were all eventually written down for us. It is that “faith” that was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude 3)

The Church agrees with all this.

Cont'd

De Maria said...

Ken also said...
So, “the traditions” are not some extra-Scriptural things like the bodily assumption of Mary (1950),

I believe they are in Scripture. The bodily assumption is described in Rev 12:1.

the sinlessness and Immaculate conception of Mary(1854),

Gen 3:15, Luke 1:28, Luke 1:49

the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (4-5th Century),

Luke 1:34

purgatory,

1 Cor 3:15

indulgences,

Mark 12:43

Papal infallibility(1870),

Matt 16:19

etc. all things that came centuries later.

No they didn't. They were always believed by the Church and later, when challenged by some group or another, defined. Just as the doctrine of the Trinity was defined in the fourth century when challenged by Arius. The Apostles themselves never used the term Trinity.

It is anachronistic to read those things back into 2 Thess. 2:15. Those things are man-made traditions and are not true. (Matthew 15:1-9; Mark 7:1-13; Colossians 2:8)

In order to prove that they are Traditions of Christ, we would need to search for each, in the Scriptures. In the tradition of the Bereans, I invite you to do so with me whenever you like.

“the traditions” that Paul taught the Thessalonians orally were all the other inspired teachings that were later written down for us in the other books, like Romans, Ephesians, I and 2 Corinthians, etc. 2 Thessalonians was probably the 3rd epistle written by Paul, only Galatians and 1 Thess. are earlier. So, it makes sense that he would refer to his oral teachings, traditions that he preached to them, but were not in detail in I or 2 Thessalonians.

Don't forget the Gospels.

Well informed and doctrinal and biblical Evangelical Protestants believe in those verses about the local church authority; and seek to obey them;

Really? Here's one in an epistle which NOT ONE Evangelical Protestant has ever admitted they believed. Or at least, they've never been able to identify that group of men to whom they submit and obey because they are responsible for their souls.

Heb 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Which men do you believe have a responsibility for your soul? And to which men do you believe you must submit to and obey?

but those verses do not mean the “Roman Catholic Church” at all.

I believe they do. My logic is that Jesus created one Church. History proves that the Catholic Church is that Church. Therefore, I believe these verses point to the Catholic Church.

When the Roman Church started adding things to the deposit and rule of faith that went beyond Scripture’s teaching, they added corruptions that slowly led them to anathematize themselves at the Council of Trent(1545-1563), so, since that time, it is no longer a true church, and does not have the authority of those verses, that it claims it has for itself, since it left the Scriptures and left the gospel.,

I don't see it the same. The Church of Trent was merely continuing the Tradition begun by the Apostles of safeguarding the Deposit of Faith handed down by Jesus Christ. The Apostles also handed on anathemas (example Gal 1:8).

steelikat said...

Nick,

The "burden of proof" is the philosophical or forensic "burden" on the one making a claim to provide sufficient proof or evidence for the claim. In a debate, provided that the question is well-stated, the affirmative side of the debate enters with the burden of proof, while the negative side has no such burden--and until and unless the affirmative side makes a prima facie case, the claim may in principal at least be dismissed without any argumentation at all from the negative side.

As for Protestants vs. Roman Catholics and Orthodox, the burden of proof is on the Roman Catholics and Orthodox since all three parties agree that the Bible is inerrant Divine revelation. It is only when going beyond that basic agreement that a controversial claim is being made.

Brigitte said...

Praying for the dead is not in line with the gospel, nor commanded by Christ or the apostles nor the OT.

Lvka said...

History disproves your opinion.

We know from history that every pre-Christian Jew who believed in the resurrection prayed for the departed. [Direct implication: so did Christ and the Apostles].

Of all the the dozens of things that Christ had to reproach to the Pharisees in Matthew 23 [or anywhere else], praying for the departed was not among them.

In all of Paul's fourteen letters, he nowhere criticizes the Jews and Pharisees for praying for the departed: not even once.

Of all the things that Christians wrote about Jews (and the Gospel) in the first fifteen centuries of Christianity's existence, prayer for the dead was never mentioned as a matter of controversy.

Lvka said...

If it would've contradicted Christ's Gospel, Christ would've denounced it in the Gospels.

If it would've been an aspect of Pharisaic works-righteousness, Paul would've exposed it in his many Epistles.

[It was wide-spread; it wasn't by any means something marginal or peripherical].

Lvka said...

Even if for some mysterious reason both Jesus and Paul "forgot" to comment on the topic, we still have some 1,500 years of Christian writings who -also mysteriosuly- not only fail to criticize this practice, but actually take it for granted as a given aspect of the Christian, apostolic faith.

The Pharisees had many things wrong: but the belief in the resurrection [and its immediate, logical implications: 2 Maccabees 12:44] were not among them...

De Maria said...

Brigitte said...
Praying for the dead is not in line with the gospel, nor commanded by Christ or the apostles nor the OT.

According to our Bible, it is approved by God:

2 Machabees 12:46
It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.

We also believe St. Paul was praying for the dead Onesphorus here:
2 Timothy 1:18
King James Version (KJV)
18The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou knowest very well.

Nor is it forbidden by Christ or the Apostles.

De Maria said...

steelikat said to Nick:

The "burden of proof" is the philosophical or forensic "burden" on the one making a claim to provide sufficient proof or evidence for the claim. In a debate, provided that the question is well-stated, the affirmative side of the debate enters with the burden of proof, while the negative side has no such burden--and until and unless the affirmative side makes a prima facie case, the claim may in principal at least be dismissed without any argumentation at all from the negative side.

Ok.

As for Protestants vs. Roman Catholics and Orthodox, the burden of proof is on the Roman Catholics and Orthodox since all three parties agree that the Bible is inerrant Divine revelation. It is only when going beyond that basic agreement that a controversial claim is being made.

Not so. Several things you've taken for granted.
First of all, the Catholic faith had existed for 1500 years before Luther made the claim of error in her doctrines. Therefore it is the Protestant who must prove the case before they need be taken seriously. Not the other way around.

Second, it is Protestants which have introduced several doctrines which they claim exist in Scripture. They are novelties first introduced by the Protestants. They must provide the proof of those doctrines existence in Scripture. And like good Bereans, the Catholic people await that proof.

Third, Protestant must also provide some proof of anointing or authority to speak in God's behalf. Yeah and amen, the Church goes back to the Apostles, to Christ Himself. And this is proven historically. Whereas Protestants go back to Martin Luther, a fallen priest.

Four, Scripture says, Obey those who rule over you in the Church (Heb 13:17). Protestants must prove why those whom they follow could violate that Scripture with impunity.

For those reasons and more, it is the Protestants who must provide the burden of proof.

Ken said...

De Maria,
the problem with using Rev. 12:1 for Mary is that in verse 2, she has pain in the labors of childbirth.

Rev. 12:2

But the Roman Catholic Church de Fide says her perpetual virginity is "before birth, during birth, and after birth", the "during birth" is the most goofy and silly part of the doctrine.

It has Gnostic tendencies - to believe that Jesus as a baby just came through her hymen like a ghost going through walls. The word became flesh and He did not have that ability until after His resurrection in His glorified body.

We agree that Mary was a virgin before birth.

But Matthew 1:18-25 seem clear enough that she was a virgin until Christ was born and then after that, Mary and Joseph had a normal, godly, sexual marriage. The "brothers and sisters of the Lord" all through the gospels are Jesus' brothers and sisters born after Him. Jude and James are two of the brothers.

So, you cannot use Revelation 12:1 in a consistent, logical, or exegetical manner.

Ken said...

De Maria,
None of those verses teach even a hint of what you claim they do.
On purgatory, get the purgatory debates:

Dr. Peter Stavinskus vs. James White

Tim Staples vs. James White

at www.aomin.org

Brigitte said...

"Praying for the dead for the loosening of sins" is exactly the kind of thing that Maccabees should not be considered Holy Scripture for.

The gospel in its essence is the preaching of Christ crucified for the forgiveness of sins for the entire world, the super-abundant and completely sufficient good news of salvation for us.

Luther said, that if someone told him to "pick up a piece of straw" in order to be saved (i.e. do the most minimal and insignificant thing possible)--he WOULD NOT do it! Because he would be nullifying the cross of Christ.

Any message that goes against the cross of Christ is WRONG, is not gospel, is not the kerygma of scripture.

My previous short answer to Lvka also stands unaltered.

And in the same vein the looking for an experience of the Holy Spirit is also wrong. The simple word of God is enough. This is the means of the Spirit.

Nick said...

Steelikat,

You said: The "burden of proof" is the philosophical or forensic "burden" on the one making a claim to provide sufficient proof or evidence for the claim.

N: I totally agree; this is how the phrase has been classically used. The one making a claim must back up that claim. Period.

You said: In a debate, provided that the question is well-stated, the affirmative side of the debate enters with the burden of proof, while the negative side has no such burden--and until and unless the affirmative side makes a prima facie case, the claim may in principal at least be dismissed without any argumentation at all from the negative side.

N: I also agree. Consider the very debate in question between White and Madrid. The Thesis was "Does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura?" White took the affirmative. So based on the true definition of "burden of proof," which you just gave, it is White who has the burden of showing that the Bible teaches Sola Scriptura. So Madrid had no burden of proof in this debate, and to suggest such is to commit the fallacy of "shifting the burden" off of the affirmative party onto the negative party.


You said: "As for Protestants vs. Roman Catholics and Orthodox, the burden of proof is on the Roman Catholics and Orthodox since all three parties agree that the Bible is inerrant Divine revelation. It is only when going beyond that basic agreement that a controversial claim is being made.

N: Given this Thesis: Does the Bible teach X? In a Protestant-Catholic debate, who shoulders the burden of proof here?
I'd say it depends on what X is and who is taking the Affirmative and Negative, not who the person is.

And your generalization isn't quite accurate, because all three of us define "Bible" differently to begin with (i.e. different # of books), so there isn't even going beyond basic agreement.

zipper778 said...

De Maria said: "Zipper seems to hold to a different definition."

I don't understand how you came to that conclusion because we both said the same thing, with a few different words. Let's compare what I said:

Sola Scriptura is not that we get all of our theology from the Bible alone, but that the Bible alone is the only infallible authority.

And here is what Ken said:

“Sola Scriptura” by itself, means “Scripture alone”, but it does not mean Scripture as the only source for doctrine and practice, but it means Scripture is the only infallible source for faith and doctrine and practice.

Theology is doctrine and practice and we both claim that the Scriptures are our only infallible source for such doctrines. So, even though we used different words, we said the same thing.

Next thing that I would like to cover De Maria is the verses that you provided. Ken already started with Rev 12:1 and did it well, so I will move onto Gen 3:15:

I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.


That doesn't say anything AT ALL about Mary being sinless or being immaculately conceived. If anything, it talks about how Eve's offspring will always be the serpant's enemy.

Next is Luke 1:28:

And he came to her and said, "Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!"

This says that Mary was favored, but has nothing to do with any claims of sinlessness or immaculate conceptions (for Mary). Nothing that would stand here as evidence for a sinless Mary.

Then you post Luke 1:49 which says:

for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.


If I say that the Lord has done many great things for me and I say that His name is holy, then you will think that I was conceived without sin and am perfect? Do you see how that has nothing to do with what the Roman Catholic Church's claim is? If anything about Mary's sin situation is hinted at in her Magnificat, it's that she acknowledged her need of a Savior in Luke 1:47:

and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior

Let me give you an example of a Scripture text that would be proof that Jesus is the ONLY person to have walked on Earth who was sinless (Heb 4:15) and that John the Baptist was the closest person in history to being without sin (Matt 11:11) and yet Jesus still doesn't exalt him.

Then you claim that Luke 1:34 demonstrates how Mary remained a virgin for the rest of her life (perpetual virginity). Here is what Luke 1:34 states:

And Mary said to the angel, "How will this be, since I am a virgin?"

So if someone is a virgin before they're married that means that they remain a virgin for the rest of their life? You can clearly see that even though she says she is a virgin, that verse doesn't state that she will remain a virgin for the rest of her life, even after she's married.

to be continued...

zipper778 said...

...continued

Then Purgatory is brought up with 1 Cor 3:15:

If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

This doesn't state that there is a purgatory. It tells us that the Lord will see through our deeds. If we look at the Bible's evidence for a Heaven we can find examples like this:

And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. Matt 28:2

But let's look at Hell, because there are a number of people who don't believe that there is a Hell and yet they still claim to be Christians. This would be a verse that would demonstrate that there is a Hell:

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment 2 Peter 2:4

These are great examples of Scriptural proof that Heaven and Hell exist, the Roman Catholic Church has given no such evidence for purgatory, not even close.

Mark 12:43 is evidence for indulgences? It states this: And he called his disciples to him and said to them, "Truly, I say to you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the offering box.

A story of a noble woman is proof that you can cancel the debt made by your sins by giving money? Let's see what Hebrews 9:22 says:

Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

So we read in the Scriptures that we can't pay money to forgive our debt. Truly, it is Christ alone who payed our ransom (1 Tim 2:6)

How do you see Matt 16:19 as evidence for papal infallibility? NOBODY claimed any kind of papal infallibility before 1870. In fact, Roman Catholics denied it all the way until that time. So lets look at Matt 16:19:

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

As you can see, there is no mention of infallibility here. At best for the RCC, this verse might indicate a leadership role to Peter. Yet right after this Jesus calls Peter Satan (v. 23), which would seriously erase any thought of a special infallibility given to Peter.

Sadly, I can't cover anything else because I'm pressed for time but I hope that I showed that the RCC hasn't provided Scriptural proof texts for it's theology, but I did demonstrate what a good proof text would be.

God Bless

PeaceByJesus said...

Now, if anyone can produce a Scriptural definition for Sola Scriptura, I'm all ears. But so far, no one has. Scripture says: Matthew 18:17

And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Would you provide the Scripture where it says that Scripture is the ONLY infallible source for faith and doctrine and practice? Because 1 Tim 3:15 seems to indicate that the Church infallibly holds up the truth.


First, it is hard for me to be brief, and you can go to the links for more, but your contentions are numerous, though they evidence an ignorance of the debate, and have been refuted extensively in this blog and other places.

Second, if you are going to defend Rome, then you must refrain from private interpretation, such as you resort to her in invoking Matthew 18:17 (which deals with personal offenses) and 1 Tim 3:15, which says nothing more than that the church supports the truth. And you are forbidden to interpret the Scriptures contrary to the required “unanimous consent of the fathers.” (http://history.hanover.edu/early/trent/ct04.html http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter%202%20On%20revelation) You need to conform to this and show that these verses are infallibly defined as meaning Rome with its perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium (AIM).

As for Scriptural defining Sola Scriptura, such is not hard to find, despite your claim. But as for a explicit specific verse, you yourself cannot hold that doctrines are always based upon an explicit verse, but upon substantive Scriptural warrant and conformative corroborations, which exists for the Trinity but not for prayer to departed saints (PTDS), etc, which can be dealt with later,by the grace of God.

Let ius begin with a definition of SS which may be seen here: http://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-3.pdf

In short,

"Scripture alone is the only certain, infallible norm by which all theology, doctrine, creeds (beliefs), practice and morality of the Christian Church is to be regulated, in accordance with that which is 'either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture'..." (Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith (2001) vol 1, p. 129)

However, it appears that you are operating under the misconstruance of SS into solO scriptura, which straw man Roman Catholic apologist (RCAs) typically rely upon. But the “sola” refers to Scripture being the “only” certain, infallible standard or rule by which faith is governed, in distinction but not exclusion from God and non-infallible sources and helps which are needful, or may be helpful in interpreting the Scriptures. Those who hold to SS may be said to also pass on “traditions,” but such are not of the same authority as Scripture for it is by the latter established revelation of God that they are tested by.

Note also that SS does not hold that all that can be known is in Scripture, but that which is needful for the Christian's faith is formally or materially provides therein, while all truth claims are dependance upon Scripture for establishment.

Westminster itself states that,

Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.”

And,

PeaceByJesus said...

► III. It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word. http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm

As for how this is Scriptural in contrast to sola ecclesia (SE), what is abundantly substantiated* is that the Word of God was normally written, and was established before men as being from God like as the way God Himself persuaded men to faith in Himself as being the God of Abraham, (Ex. 9:16; 10:1,2; 15:11; 18:10,11; Num. 14:13-23; Dt. 2:25; 4:7,8; 11:22,23,25; 28:8-10; Josh. 2:9-11; 9:9,24; Neh. 9:10; 1Sam. 17:46,47; 1Kg. 8:60) and that men of God and their claims were established as being of God, that being by their heavenly qualities and effects, and other supernatural attestation, and complementarity. (Josh. 1:5; 6:27; 1Ki 17:24; Lk. 4:32; Jn. 5:39,46; 14:11; Acts 2:16-21,25-28; 43; 5:15; 17:2,11; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 1Cor. 4:20; 2Cor. 6:1-10; 12:12; Heb. 2:3,4)

As these writings were progressively established then they became the standard for obedience and for the establishment of further truth claims in faith and morals, including by Christ and His apostles and church. (Is. 8:20; Mt. 22; Lk. 24:44; Jn. 5:39,46; 7:52; Acts 17:11; 18:28; 28:23)

While the sufficiency aspect of SS pertains to a closed canon, at any given stage in its writing Scripture was the supreme judge as further truth claims in faith and morals, real or purported, had to conform to it. In fact, if the AIM of Rome rested upon Scripture for its authority, it would be acknowledging Scripture as supreme. But instead it effectively rests upon itself, infallibly declaring that it is infallible whenever it speaks in accordance with its infallibly defined formula. To which is required implicit assent of faith, if they can figure out which ones are infallible and which are not, and hopefully interpret each rightly.

In addition, not only is Scripture invoked as the supreme authority under God, but it is expressly affirmed to be wholly inspired of God, which Rome also affirms (though in a quite liberal sense of late), and thus is infallible.

In contrast, nowhere is it promised that the church will perpetually be infallible when speaking on faith and morals. That the early church magisterium did universally speak infallibly in Acts 15 is true, as we know this from Scripture, but this ruling was based upon Scripture and its means of attestation of truth claims, not upon conformity to a Rome's formula. Rome may invoke Scripture in her rulings, but Scriptural warrant is not the basis for such claim to be infallible, and the infallibility does not necessarily extend to the reasoning or arguments involved in making the definition.

* For an extensive compilation of pop up references showing that the word of God normally being written, and Scripture being the standard for obedience, and truth claims, see the bottom of this page: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Bible/2Tim_3.html

And if you want to say that Sola Scriptura means "Scripture first" or "Scripture as highest authority" find that doctrine in Scripture, define it and show it to someone.

See above.

PeaceByJesus said...

Tradition is that from which the New Testament Scripture sprang. Jesus did not write any Scriptures. He taught. And He commanded His Church to teach...If the teachings of the Apostles were not infallible, neither would their Scriptures be infallible.

This is true, but not all they wrote was infallible and being the instrument of Scripture or its steward does not render you assuredly infallible, but such is established was such due to its effects and attestation and conformity to what was previously established as being Divine. The rest is chaff, comparatively speaking, and the canon separates it from the wheat. But by making it nebulous oral tradition equal to Scripture, Rome effectively wants an open canon to which it may add what it will, with herself being the supreme and autocratic authority. But which presumption, teaching the “tradition of the elders” as dogma as Rome does, the Lord reproved by Scripture. (Mk. 7:6-13)

The argument of RCAs is that since (it is presumed) Rome gave us the Scriptures then she enjoys assured infallibility. Yet “salvation is of the Jews,” (Jn. 4:22) “for unto them were committed the oracles of God” (Rm. 3:2; cf. 9:4) but this did not render them assuredly infallible. But in preserving truth, God raised up men who were often outside the formal ”seat of Moses” (Mt. 23:2) to correct the presumption of those who were, and supposed formal decent conferred supreme authority to teach mere traditions of the elders as authoritative. Thus the Pharisees had a problem with both John the Baptist and Jesus, as both were outside their office, but in establishing His authority the Lord invoked Scripture and the type of miracles which Scripture establishes as being conformity of truth, the latter means being of secondary status. (Jn. 5:36,39; 14:11; Lk. 24:44)

I believe they are in Scripture. The bodily assumption [of Mary] is described in Rev 12:1.

So a women “clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars” is the Assumption? While you want a specific verse that declares Scripture is the ONLY infallible source for faith and doctrine and practice? However, as being the only assuredly infallible authority under God the latter has the kind of support that Catholic can only wish the Assumption had, as well as the other attributes attributed to her as part of the progressive evolution of the simple devout holy women into a demigoddess; sinless, with almost unlimited power, and able to process infinite amounts of prayer like God, and whose prayers are like commands to God, and at whose gaze the gates of Hell tremble, and already enthroned in glory, etc.

No they didn't. They [Papal infallibility, indulgences, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary] were always believed by the Church and later... the Church goes back to the Apostles, to Christ Himself. And this is proven historically.

This is one reason i said you manifested ignorance of this debate. The evidence against you is extensive and weighty. See http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Ancients_on_Issues.html for church fathers and these issies. Also http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/12/how-was-john-35-interpreted-prior-to.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/03/baptism-in-bible-and-church-history.html http://www.lazyboysreststop.com/pope-21.htm

Even some of your brethren disagree: The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional. The Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional.” (THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, Clark Carlton, 1997, p 135)

PeaceByJesus said...

► On Papal infallibility (PI) see http://reformation500.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/historical-literature-on-the-earliest-papacy/:

Two examples on the above:

Jesuit Father Klaus Schatz on Priesthood, Canon, and the Development of Doctrine: "If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no." (page 3, top) http://thulcandra.wordpress.com/2007/11/30/klaus-schatz-on-priesthood-canon-and-the-development-of-doctrine/

Patrologist Boniface Ramsey, for example, candidly admits that the current Roman Catholic teachings on Mary and the papacy were not taught in the early Church:

“Sometimes, then, the Fathers speak and write in a way that would eventually be seen as unorthodox. But this is not the only difficulty with respect to the criterion of orthodoxy. The other great one is that we look in vain in many of the Fathers for references to things that many Christians might believe in today. We do not find, for instance, some teachings on Mary or the papacy that were developed in medieval and modern times.' — Boniface Ramsey, Beginning to Read the Fathers (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1986), p. 6.

Really? Here's one in an epistle which NOT ONE Evangelical Protestant has ever admitted they believed. Or at least, they've never been able to identify that group of men to whom they submit and obey because they are responsible for their souls.

Rather than this establishing Rome's unwritten, uncodified amorphous oral Tradition, NOT ONE Roman Catholic can prove that they are submitting to such, except by a cult-like submission to an autocratic authority which channels this ecclesiastical ectoplasm into dogma. Mormonism also has their “traditions” by which they do likewise, and while Rome has a degree of history, this is neither the basis for authenticity nor is it sound, but the AIM defines history, Tradition and Scripture as needed to support her.

Moreover, NOT ONE Roman Catholic can prove that what Paul was referring to was not subsequently written, which was the norm, nor does Rome fulfill the qualifications needed to teach doctrines as equal to Scripture.

What 2Thes. 2:15 can support is that of the principle of progressive revelation, which employing SS establishes in leading to a closed canon, in which new teachings were established as being from God through their conformity and complementarity to what had previously been established as Divine, with manifestly supernatural attestation from almighty God, such as was given to Moses, the Lord and apostles. But again, Rome fails of such authority.

It can also support “preaching the Word” in general, that being the Scriptural truths of God, which the whole church did (Acts 8:4) and evangelical preachers do so today.

But what this does not support you need is that of the church possessing an assured, perpetual formulaic infallibility. Note that the issue is not whether the church can speak a form of infallible truth, as even declaring that there is a Creator qualifies as that, but the basis for it, which must subject to Scriptural means of establishing truth, which makes the latter the supreme authority.

PeaceByJesus said...

Which men do you believe have a responsibility for your soul? And to which men do you believe you must submit to and obey? ..Scripture says, Obey those who rule over you in the Church (Heb 13:17). Protestants must prove why those whom they follow could violate that Scripture with impunity.

Holding to SS establishes the teaching magisterium and conditional submission to such, which always is the case in such commands, versus the cultic requirement of assent of faith. You also infer that SS produces doctrinal anarchy which Rome enjoys unity under SE. However, the unity among those who practice SS is far more substantive and transcendent than Roman Catholics will acknowledge, and has its correspondence to that which Roman Catholics are allowed, and overall the boasting of Roman Catholics as having doctrinal unity is limited to infallible teachings, and is not what it is conveyed to be, while unity by the assent of faith which these require is inferior in quality if not quantity to that of souls being persuaded by Scriptural means, by the “manifestation of the truth,” even with the risks that must allow. You can see what i wrote: here

And that verse says, "hold the traditions which you were taught by word or by letter."

History proves that the Catholic Church is that Church. Therefore, I believe these verses point to the Catholic Church.

History proves this not, nor is formal decent the basis for spiritual authenticity, which is why God can raise up children to Abraham from stones, (Mt. 3:9) and can raise up stones of like faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, to continue to build His church, for on the rock of this faith confessed by Peter Christ build his Church.

What history shows is that of an “unbroken” line of popes in which historically there has been uncertainty, and no infallible list exists TMK, and which has absences of up to 3 years, partly due to her rejection of the Old Testament method of election employed by Peter in the upper room, which worked against the politics which often was involved in papal conclaves, and which elected and retained men who would not even qualify as church members let alone successors to Peter. The New Testament church is not Israel with its Levitical priesthood which required physical lineage, but one in which authenticity is based upon manifest Abrahamic-type faith in the “gospel of the grace of God” effecting transformative regeneration (Rm. 2:28)

Popular Roman Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis, in explaining his turned to being a type of “prophets,” stated,

“There are simply too many doctrinal aberrations and moral laxities in today's Catholic Church that are indefensible. In light of these problems, I have assumed what I believe is the more appropriate position - that of being a prophet of warning rather than one an apologist seeking to exonerate the Church from false accusations. Today many accusations against the Church are quite legitimate and I certainly will not be a party to sweeping them under the rug.”

I don't see it the same. The Church of Trent was merely continuing the Tradition begun by the Apostles of safeguarding the Deposit of Faith handed down by Jesus Christ. The Apostles also handed on anathemas (example Gal 1:8).

No they did not, and you have not proof, as besides lacking Scriptural support, while they claimed to act according to the unanimous consent of the fathers” they did not, but Rome autocratically defines dissent among CFs to be unanimous according to its art of development of doctrine. here

PeaceByJesus said...

First of all, the Catholic faith had existed for 1500 years before Luther made the claim of error in her doctrines.

No, as is abundantly seen, the Catholic faith was not uniform and yet is quite different in many ways from even the early post-apostolic age, and manifestly is at odds with the prima New Testament church, which did not even separate bishops from elders. (Titus 1:5-7) nor were pastors a separate class of sacerdotal priests, while they also did not suppose that commemorating the Lords death was by literally consuming His physical flesh, but by treating each other as members of that body.

Protestant must also provide some proof of anointing or authority to speak in God's behalf.

And which applies to Rome much more, as she claims particular supremacy over all, but most manifestly fails. Not only was her rise to power and preponderance much due to her unScriptural use of the sword of men, advocating torture and death for theological enemies which threaten her due to lack of spiritual power, but in practical holiness she has overall been much deviant, and today is much inferior to the evangelical church she most strongly attacks, even in its present condition, compared to her institutionalized Protestant counterparts.

And it is the evangelical gospel which manifests transformative regeneration, while the typical Roman Catholic cannot tell you when he cognitively had a day of salvation, by conviction of conviction “of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment,” (Jn. 16:9) and repentant faith in the Lord Jesus to save him as damned and destitute sinner. Instead Rome usually treats her members as members as Christians due to being sprinkled as a infant on the basis of proxy faith. (The disability of the palsied man was not cognitive, and infants cannot obey he requirements for baptism; Acts 2:38; 8:36,37)

All told the evangelical Protestant faith has overall historically relied upon Scripture and the power of God for its growth, though it had and needs to unlearn some things from Rome, who i have no doubt would use the sword of men against it if it had not lost it.

Second, it is Protestants which have introduced several doctrines which they claim exist in Scripture. They are novelties first introduced by the Protestants. They must provide the proof of those doctrines existence in Scripture. And like good Bereans, the Catholic people await that proof.

You are not a good Berean as you deny the supremacy of Scripture by which they demonstrate by testing what the very apostles preached, and evangelicals are to do the same to those they hear. Nor can you be a good Berean as you disallow that surety of doctrine can come by the Scriptures, else the AIM of Rom would lose its presumed preeminence over Scripture.

PeaceByJesus said...

According to our Bible, it [Praying for the dead] is approved by God:

2 Machabees 12:46
It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.

Your “proof verse” proves too much, as consistent with this, you are to pray for those who died due to idolatry, which is what the story states was the COD, but for which Rome offers no hope for.

“Now under the coats of every one that was slain they found things consecrated to the idols of the Jamnites, which is forbidden the Jews by the law. Then every man saw that this was the cause wherefore they were slain. All men therefore praising the Lord, the righteous Judge, who had opened the things that were hid,” “..they saw before their eyes the things that came to pass for the sins of those that were slain.” (2Ma 12:40,41,42b)

And Luther had substantial historical and present support for his rejection of this apocryphal book (see sidebar on canon). You can see here for more from me on purgatory.

Even if for some mysterious reason both Jesus and Paul "forgot" to comment on the topic, we still have some 1,500 years of Christian writings who -also mysteriosuly- not only fail to criticize this practice, but actually take it for granted as a given aspect of the Christian, apostolic faith.

[Lvka]

Jews prayed for their dead even before Christ's time. Prayer for the dead is an apostolic tradition (Christ and His Holy Apostles being all pious Jews who believed in the resurrection).

If it would've contradicted Christ's Gospel, Christ would've denounced it in the Gospels.


Actually, you are now resorting to the argument from silence which is deficient when so much is said about prayer, with the Holy Spirit providing zero examples of any believer praying to anyone else in Heaven besides the Lord, or anything supporting it in the instructions on prayer (i.e. “our mother who are i heaven..”) or necessity or advantage, considering the sufficient of Christ and immediate access with boldness by His blood into the holiest to commune with God.

In addition, the fact is that the Lord did implicitly condemn other traditions of the elders in stating “and many such like things do ye,” (Mk. 7:13) which He reproved by Scripture, while Paul warned against souls “giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth,” (Titus 1:14) as he foretold that souls “shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” (2Tim. 4:4) Peter also contrasted “cunningly devised fables” with the “sure word of prophecy,” that being Scripture. (2Pt. 1:16-21)

Moreover, rather than silence meaning consent, the total lack of affirmation testifies to this being a mere tradition of men, versus a Scripture supported doctrine, which has really none, and relies upon silence and a presumed problematic full correspondence between earthly relations and those bwn the two realms, which also is used by feminists. This was dealt in comments here
Sorry for all the work you had to do James

PeaceByJesus said...

If you are interested, this is dealt with extensively here , as an extension of a thread which began on this blog here

De Maria said...

Ken said...

De Maria,
the problem with using Rev. 12:1 for Mary is that in verse 2, she has pain in the labors of childbirth.


Thanks for responding Ken. That's not a problem at all, because Rev 12:1 is using symbolic language. The pain of childbirth is not about the actual childbirth of Christ, but symbolizes the pain she would experience during His lifetime (Luke 2:35).

But the Roman Catholic Church de Fide says her perpetual virginity is "before birth, during birth, and after birth", the "during birth" is the most goofy and silly part of the doctrine.

That just means that you find it hard to believe. I, however, believe it. Everything is possible with God.

It has Gnostic tendencies - to believe that Jesus as a baby just came through her hymen like a ghost going through walls. The word became flesh and He did not have that ability until after His resurrection in His glorified body.

Really?

John 8:59
Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

Jesus walked on water, power passed from his body whenever anyone touched Him and He could stop the storm with but a word and you want me to believe anything was impossible for Him? or for God?

We agree that Mary was a virgin before birth.

Ok.

But Matthew 1:18-25 seem clear enough that she was a virgin until Christ was born and then after that, Mary and Joseph had a normal, godly, sexual marriage.

On the contrary, even in our language, until doesn't always mean that things change after that point in time. But there are more reasons why a Godly Jew would not have sex with a woman who had been espoused by God.

The "brothers and sisters of the Lord" all through the gospels are Jesus' brothers and sisters born after Him. Jude and James are two of the brothers.

Nope. Those can all be traced to the other Mary, His mother's cousin (Matt 27:56).

So, you cannot use Revelation 12:1 in a consistent, logical, or exegetical manner.

On the contrary, the person which most explicitly fits the attributes of the Woman of Rev 12, is Mary.

Who is born of the Woman of Rev 12? Jesus.
Who is born of Mary? Jesus.

The fact that she is in heaven-the bodily assumption.
The fact she is wearing a crown-the Queen of Heaven.
The fact that she is the Ark of the New Covenant and this verse follows Rev 11:17 which declares that the Ark is in Heaven.

If interested, I've written about it here:
http://washedsanctifiedandjustified.blogspot.com/2011/08/ark-of-new-covenant-rev-1119-121.html

Sincerely,

De Maria

PeaceByJesus said...

Thanks for getting those up, but missing the first (Now, if anyone can produce a Scriptural definition...) and last (► According to our Bible..,) post of that series.

De Maria said...

Ken said...
De Maria,
None of those verses teach even a hint of what you claim they do.


The response was long and my time short. However, most of the verses teach explicitly the doctrine addressed. While some merely imply the doctrine.


On purgatory, get the purgatory debates:

Dr. Peter Stavinskus vs. James White

Tim Staples vs. James White

at www.aomin.org


Actually, Ken, it seems as though this discussion is being diverted. I didn't bring up the other doctrines. I merely addressed the accusation that they were not biblical. They are. Although some merely imply the doctrines, some explicitly describe the doctrines. Whereas, Protestant doctrines which disagree with Catholic teaching are either absent from Scripture or simply contradict Scripture. Sola Scriptura chief among them.

I don't mind discussing every Catholic doctrine. But we can go into more detail if we can discuss one at a time. Does that sound reasonable?

Sooo…could we get back to "The Canon as Infallible Sacred Tradition"

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

zipper778 said...
….Theology is doctrine and practice and we both claim that the Scriptures are our only infallible source for such doctrines. So, even though we used different words, we said the same thing.


Thanks for the clarification. Would you please show me where the Bible says that Scripture is the ONLY infallible source for faith and doctrine and practice.

Because, as I said, Scripture says that the Church is the pillar of TRUTH. I understand this to mean that the Church always upholds the truth and is therefore infallible.

…. so I will move onto Gen 3:15:

I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.

That doesn't say anything AT ALL about Mary being sinless or being immaculately conceived. If anything, it talks about how Eve's offspring will always be the serpant's enemy.


It says, I will put enmity between you and the woman,

We know that woman isn't Eve, because this woman's seed will crush Satan. And if there is enmity between Mary and Satan, then they can share nothing in common.

Next is Luke 1:28:

And he came to her and said, "Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!"

This says that Mary was favored, but has nothing to do with any claims of sinlessness or immaculate conceptions (for Mary). Nothing that would stand here as evidence for a sinless Mary.


The wording is based upon the Kecharitomene which is the Greek original. “Full of Grace” translates kecharitōmĕnē the perfect passive participle of charitŏō. It denotes one who has been and still is the object of divine benevolence,….. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action.
http://kecharitomene.com/

Then you post Luke 1:49 which says:

for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.

If I say that the Lord has done many great things for me and I say that His name is holy, then you will think that I was conceived without sin and am perfect?


If Scripture said that about you, yes.

Do you see how that has nothing to do with what the Roman Catholic Church's claim is?

On the contrary, I see that as a confirmation of the Church's claim.

If anything about Mary's sin situation is hinted at in her Magnificat, it's that she acknowledged her need of a Savior in Luke 1:47:

and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior


That's not a problem. Which is preferable, to let a truck hit someone and then save them or to prevent the truck from hitting him and thus saving him?

Let me give you an example of a Scripture text that would be proof that Jesus is the ONLY person to have walked on Earth who was sinless (Heb 4:15) and that John the Baptist was the closest person in history to being without sin (Matt 11:11) and yet Jesus still doesn't exalt him.

Let me give you an example of a Scripture which proves that others, were without sin (Romans 5:14) and yet died. And others, Enoch and Elijah did not die. Ipso facto, they did not sin (Romans 6:23).

Then you claim that Luke 1:34 demonstrates how Mary remained a virgin for the rest of her life (perpetual virginity). Here is what Luke 1:34 states:

And Mary said to the angel, "How will this be, since I am a virgin?"

So if someone is a virgin before they're married that means that they remain a virgin for the rest of their life? You can clearly see that even though she says she is a virgin, that verse doesn't state that she will remain a virgin for the rest of her life, even after she's married.


She is not a typical virgin. But Scripture says she is the mother of God (Luke 1:43).

to be continued...

De Maria said...

zipper778 said…
...continued

Then Purgatory is brought up with 1 Cor 3:15:

If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

This doesn't state that there is a purgatory. It tells us that the Lord will see through our deeds. If we look at the Bible's evidence for a Heaven we can find examples like this:

And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. Matt 28:2

But let's look at Hell, because there are a number of people who don't believe that there is a Hell and yet they still claim to be Christians. This would be a verse that would demonstrate that there is a Hell:

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment 2 Peter 2:4

These are great examples of Scriptural proof that Heaven and Hell exist, the Roman Catholic Church has given no such evidence for purgatory, not even close.


1. She doesn't need to. We read Scripture differently than you. For us, the word Purgatory doesn't need to be there. The fact that the place is described is enough.

2. There are several places where Scripture describes the righteous being punished for a time. 1 Tim 3:15 is one. Rev 2:10 is another.

3. Where does your theology explain this place which exists in the spiritual realm where the righteous are punished?

Mark 12:43 is evidence for indulgences? It states this: And he called his disciples to him and said to them, "Truly, I say to you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the offering box.

A story of a noble woman is proof that you can cancel the debt made by your sins by giving money? Let's see what Hebrews 9:22 says:

Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

So we read in the Scriptures that we can't pay money to forgive our debt. Truly, it is Christ alone who payed our ransom (1 Tim 2:6)


Several errors here. First of all, Christ paid our ransom, but not all of it. He left some for His Church to pay (Col 1:24).

Second, Scripture is clear that alms remit sin (Luke 11:41).

How do you see Matt 16:19 as evidence for papal infallibility? NOBODY claimed any kind of papal infallibility before 1870. In fact, Roman Catholics denied it all the way until that time. So lets look at Matt 16:19:

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

As you can see, there is no mention of infallibility here. At best for the RCC, this verse might indicate a leadership role to Peter. Yet right after this Jesus calls Peter Satan (v. 23), which would seriously erase any thought of a special infallibility given to Peter.


The key word is "will". Jesus had not yet given Peter the keys. But did after His resurrection.

As for a mention of "infallibility", there is no mention of the Trinity either. Yet we can see that doctrine also described in Scripture.

Sadly, I can't cover anything else because I'm pressed for time but I hope that I showed that the RCC hasn't provided Scriptural proof texts for it's theology, but I did demonstrate what a good proof text would be.

Personally, I would prefer to give each doctrine the detailed attention it is due. Of course, its totally up to you, but I would prefer to continue the discussion of the topic at hand.

God Bless

And you also.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

Brigitte said...
"Praying for the dead for the loosening of sins" is exactly the kind of thing that Maccabees should not be considered Holy Scripture for.


That is your simple opinion. Whereas I follow the Church which Scripture calls the Pillar of Truth (1 Tim 3:15). After all, death does not separate us from the Body of Christ.

The gospel in its essence is the preaching of Christ crucified for the forgiveness of sins for the entire world, the super-abundant and completely sufficient good news of salvation for us.

Amen!

Luther said, that if someone told him to "pick up a piece of straw" in order to be saved (i.e. do the most minimal and insignificant thing possible)--he WOULD NOT do it! Because he would be nullifying the cross of Christ.

What if Christ said it? (Matt 19:17).

Any message that goes against the cross of Christ is WRONG, is not gospel, is not the kerygma of scripture.

That message is according to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

My previous short answer to Lvka also stands unaltered.

And in the same vein the looking for an experience of the Holy Spirit is also wrong. The simple word of God is enough. This is the means of the Spirit.


I don't know to what you refer so I'll let someone else address.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

PeacebyJesus said:
► III. It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, ...

Search as I might, I see no indication that Sola Scriptura defined as the ONLY infallible source of doctrine is in Scripture. Would you be kind enough to isolate that verse for me in the Bible?

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

PeaceByJesus said...
This is true, but not all they wrote was infallible
Time out. Are you talking about Scripture or some other writing of which I'm not aware?

and being the instrument of Scripture or its steward does not render you assuredly infallible, but such is established was such due to its effects and attestation and conformity to what was previously established as being Divine....But which presumption, teaching the “tradition of the elders” as dogma as Rome does, the Lord reproved by Scripture. (Mk. 7:6-13)
Nope. That verse doesn't mention tradition. Whereas this one does 2 thess 2:15). And it is the Reformers who created an open Canon when they opened the door for anyone to interpret the Scriptures. Immediately, novel interpretations of Scripture began to arrive. There is nothing which restrains the Protestant imagination. Whereas, the Catholic doctrine requires three restraints. Tradition of the Church, Scripture and the Teaching of the Church.

The argument of RCAs is that since (it is presumed) Rome gave us the Scriptures then she enjoys assured infallibility.
Not true. Christ gave the Church infallibility.
cont'd

De Maria said...

PeacebyJesus also said:
Yet “salvation is of the Jews,” (Jn. 4:22) “for unto them were committed the oracles of God” (Rm. 3:2; cf. 9:4) but this did not render them assuredly infallible. But in preserving truth, God raised up men who were often outside the formal ”seat of Moses” (Mt. 23:2) to correct the presumption of those who were, and supposed formal decent conferred supreme authority to teach mere traditions of the elders as authoritative. Thus the Pharisees had a problem with both John the Baptist and Jesus, as both were outside their office, but in establishing His authority the Lord invoked Scripture and the type of miracles which Scripture establishes as being conformity of truth, the latter means being of secondary status. (Jn. 5:36,39; 14:11; Lk. 24:44)
But Moses is not Jesus and Jesus is far greater than Moses. And His Church far greater than Moses Synagogue. Jesus gave infallibility to His Apostles (John 20:21).

So a women “clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars” is the Assumption?
Yes.

While you want a specific verse that declares Scripture is the ONLY infallible source for faith and doctrine and practice?
Protestants require EXPLICIT teachings from Scripture. Therefore, that is what I expect to see for Protestant doctrine.

Whereas, the Catholic Church's doctrines are either explicit or implied. Therefore, explicit text is not required for Catholic doctrine.

Unless you are saying that explicit text is expected of Catholic doctrine, but not of Protestant doctrine?

However, as being the only assuredly infallible authority under God the latter has the kind of support that Catholic can only wish the Assumption had, as well ... and at whose gaze the gates of Hell tremble, and already enthroned in glory, etc.
The infallibility of the Church and of Peter are described in Scripture (Matt 16:18-19; Matt 18:17).

This is one reason i said you manifested ignorance of this debate. The evidence against you is extensive and weighty. See http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Ancients_on_Issues.html for church fathers and these issies. Also http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/12/how-was-john-35-interpreted-prior-to.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/03/baptism-in-bible-and-church-history.html http://www.lazyboysreststop.com/pope-21.htm

On the contrary, I am steeped in the witness of the Ancients on these matters.

Even some of your brethren disagree: The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional. The Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional.” (THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, Clark Carlton, 1997, p 135)
Many have fallen away from the True Church. That doesn't make them right.

Sincerely,

De Maria

PeaceByJesus said...

This was the first of my series of responses to DeMaria:

Now, if anyone can produce a Scriptural definition for Sola Scriptura, I'm all ears. But so far, no one has. Scripture says: Matthew 18:17

And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Would you provide the Scripture where it says that Scripture is the ONLY infallible source for faith and doctrine and practice? Because 1 Tim 3:15 seems to indicate that the Church infallibly holds up the truth.


First, it is hard for me to be brief, and you can go to the links for more, but your contentions are numerous, though they evidence an ignorance of the debate, and have been refuted extensively in this blog and other places.

Second, if you are going to defend Rome, then you must refrain from private interpretation, such as you resort to her in invoking Matthew 18:17 (which deals with personal offenses) and 1 Tim 3:15, which says nothing more than that the church supports the truth. And you are forbidden to interpret the Scriptures contrary to the required “unanimous consent of the fathers.” (http://history.hanover.edu/early/trent/ct04.html http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter%202%20On%20revelation) You need to conform to this and show that these verses are infallibly defined as meaning Rome with its perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium (AIM).

As for Scriptural defining Sola Scriptura, such is not hard to find, despite your claim. But as for a explicit specific verse, you yourself cannot hold that doctrines are always based upon an explicit verse, but upon substantive Scriptural warrant and conformative corroborations, which exists for the Trinity but not for prayer to departed saints (PTDS), etc, which can be dealt with later,by the grace of God.

Let ius begin with a definition of SS which may be seen here: http://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-3.pdf

In short,

"Scripture alone is the only certain, infallible norm by which all theology, doctrine, creeds (beliefs), practice and morality of the Christian Church is to be regulated, in accordance with that which is 'either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture'..." (Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith (2001) vol 1, p. 129)

However, it appears that you are operating under the misconstruance of SS into solO scriptura, which straw man Roman Catholic apologist (RCAs) typically rely upon. But the “sola” refers to Scripture being the “only” certain, infallible standard or rule by which faith is governed, in distinction but not exclusion from God and non-infallible sources and helps which are needful, or may be helpful in interpreting the Scriptures. Those who hold to SS may be said to also pass on “traditions,” but such are not of the same authority as Scripture for it is by the latter established revelation of God that they are tested by.

Note also that SS does not hold that all that can be known is in Scripture, but that which is needful for the Christian's faith is formally or materially provides therein, while all truth claims are dependance upon Scripture for establishment.

Westminster itself states that,

Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.”

And

PeaceByJesus said...

We know that woman isn't Eve, because this woman's seed will crush Satan. And if there is enmity between Mary and Satan, then they can share nothing in common.

You are guilty of interpreting Scripture contrary to the required "unanimous consent of the Fathers," Scripture Decrees of the (Trent, The Fourth Session; First Vatican Council: SESSION 3: 24 April 1870) as well as what Scripture best warrants.

Where does Rome even infallibly interpret this as being Mary, or are you relying upon your own private interpretation (not that 2Pt. 1:20,21 forbids that, as is erroneously asserted)

The officially approved study notes in the official Roman Catholic Bible (NAB)for America does not apply this to Mary, but instead states

“[12:1] The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars (images taken from Gn 37:9–10) symbolizes God’s people in the Old and the New Testament. The Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah (Rev 12:5) and then became the new Israel, the church, which suffers persecution by the dragon (Rev 12:6, 13–17); cf. Is 50:1; 66:7; Jer 50:12. This corresponds to a widespread myth throughout the ancient world that a goddess pregnant with a savior was pursued by a horrible monster; by miraculous intervention, she bore a son who then killed the monster. *

[12:2] Because of Eve’s sin, the woman gives birth in distress and pain (Gn 3:16; cf. Is 66:7–14)...[12:6] God protects the persecuted church in the desert, the traditional Old Testament place of refuge for the afflicted, according to the typology of the Exodus; see note on Rev 11:2...

[12:17] Although the church is protected by God’s special providence (Rev 12:16), the individual Christian is to expect persecution and suffering.”

The old Haydock Catholic Bible commentary (apparently no stamp) also applies this to the church, though it secondarily allows it as to Mary.

Many so-called “church fathers” and later Prot. commentators believed the women was the church, it being the 12 tribes of Israel which James 1:1 refers to, with the sun representing the gospel and the a crown of twelve stars being the 12 apostles, and which brings forth Christ to the world, and is greatly persecuted for it, but God keeps her through it, which is what the word translated “from” in Rev. 3:10 can mean.

Others see the women as Israel, which (or as Zion or Jerusalem) is often represented as a woman (Is. 54:1-6; Jer. 3:20; Ezek.16:8-14; Hosea 2:19-20) which i believe is the correct view. In Joseph’s dream, (Gn 37:9-11) “the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.” The sun represented Jacob (Israel) and the moon Rachel, of which Jacob said, “Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?” The 12 stars on the woman’s head represents the 12 patriarchs, “and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” (Rm. 9:5) Thus she is persecuted, but God keeps her through it.

kaycee said...

Hi DeMaria, Can you show me the infallible list of infallible RC tradition?

PeaceByJesus said...

1. Protestants require EXPLICIT teachings from Scripture. Therefore, that is what I expect to see for Protestant doctrine.

Your statement reveals the fallacious nature of so much of Roman Catholic apologetics which you uncritically show you are following, in which they too often employ straw men in order to defend Rome. You are good at “deriving” the Assumption of Mary out of a women clothed with the sun, and Rome's assuredly infallible magisterium (AIM) out of “so send I you”, but how do you derive Ss requiring such EXPLICIT teaching as states, “Scripture is the ONLY infallible source for faith and doctrine and practice?” out of “or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture,” which definition i provided for you previous. This is based upon no less an authority than Westminster, which states that
VI. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH. A.D. 1647.

2. Unless you are saying that explicit text is expected of Catholic doctrine, but not of Protestant doctrine?

No, as we affirm many core truths which we both agree on. The difference is that while something like the Trinity is a warranted and demanded conclusion on the basis of many texts (in part because you cannot have Christ and the Holy Spirit being referred to as God and maintain an absolute Islamic type oneness), things such as the perpetual virginity of Mary and prayers to the departed, etc, are not warranted or demanded, having no affirmation, and actually require going contrary to the most normal understanding of the texts involved, from requiring “until” (Mt. 1:25) be understood according to a rare denotation, and contrary to the Lord's Biblical description of marriage, with leaving but no cleaving, (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:5 ), to being contrary to every example of prayer to Heaven and every teaching as to its immediate object, and the intercessory sufficiency of Christ and to the believers access.

3. Search as I might, I see no indication that Sola Scriptura defined as the ONLY infallible source of doctrine is in Scripture. Would you be kind enough to isolate that verse for me in the Bible?

The fallacious nature and duplicity of your explicit verse requirement is already exposed, while the fact is that Scripture is the ONLY transcendent material authority that is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God, as “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” (2Tim. 3:16) This explicit statement, along with abundant substantiation showing Scripture being the supreme authority for obedience and for testing new teaching, shows that it alone is the supreme authority. And attempts to support Rome's AIM on the basis of Scriptural support cedes supreme authority to it, which those who were the instruments of steward of Divine revelation also had to do. Like Mary, the Holy Spirit brother forth the pure Word of God through holy souls, but they were not superior to it (nor was sinlessness required of them in order to be these instruments)

NOWHERE does Scripture state that all that the church magisterium will ever teach on faith and morals will be infallible, nor does it reveal that such a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium is necessary for God to preserve Truth, as He did so prior to Christ through the aforementioned (see previous posts) means.

PeaceByJesus said...

4. We read Scripture differently than you. For us, the word Purgatory doesn't need to be there

There is far more that does not need to be there for Roman Catholics, but no amount of ecclesiastical extrapolation will wrest support for purgatory out of 1Cor. 3:15, which judgment does not even occur until the Lord returns. Your own NAB Bible notes states that
“The text of 1 Cor 3:15 has sometimes been used to support the notion of purgatory, though it does not envisage this.” nor again does your interpretation have the required “unanimous consent of the fathers” nor an infallible definition of this verse. Again, see debate on this blog here and its extension

5. That is your simple opinion. Whereas I follow the Church which Scripture calls the Pillar of Truth (1 Tim 3:15)

That is simply your opinion, or private interpretation, and not the infallible interpretation of this verse as far as i know, and our real debate is with what Rome officially teaches (whatever that means), and not some RCA who can disagree with another RCA, which often is the case. You can argue all you want, but unless Rome infallibly defines your verses that way you do, then it is simply your attempt of private interpretation in invoking Scripture as if it were the supreme authority in order to convince us that it is not so, and not to engage in private interpretation in interpreting Scripture, though the use of 1Pt. 1:20 to do so testifies to the often spurious interpretation of Scripture by Roman Catholics.

But as regards this verse, it says nothing more than that the church supports the truth, which both “stulos” (pillar) and “hedraiōma” (ground) denote, with the latter occurring one once in Scripture, while the church itself rests upon the sure word of Scriptural prophecy, which attests to Christ and His coming and work, and which He and the early church invoked.

Moreover, as stated, being the instrument and steward of revelation does not confer assured infallibility, or else we must needs submit to Judaism.

6. But Moses is not Jesus and Jesus is far greater than Moses. And His Church far greater than Moses Synagogue. Jesus gave infallibility to His Apostles (John 20:21).

And Jesus is greater than Mary, yet you ascribe attributes of Deity to her which Scripture does not, while the principle at work here transcends distinctions in glory. The predecessors were effectual types and the principal remains, that a perpetual, formal, assuredly infallible magisterium was and is not necessary to preserve Truth, but such is established by conformity with Scripture and its means of attestation of truth, and this is what the Lord Himself invoked in establishing His claims, while also showing that those who legitimately sat in Moses seat were not above Scripture.

As for your assertion that “as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you” (Jn. 20:21) denotes Rome's formulaic AIM, that is a clear case of extrapolating a desired means which is not there. The church can speak infallible Scriptural truth, but this is not assured based upon the premise that an infallible charism (somehow neglected in the list of spiritual gifts in Rm. 12, 1Cor. 12) kicks in whenever the church in Rome speaks to the whole church on faith and morals. And both Rome and the Mormons are manifestly deficient in the requirements needed to established apostleship and add new doctrinal teachings to Scripture. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1: 11,12; 2Cor. 12:12; Rm. 15:19)

PeaceByJesus said...

7. The infallibility of the Church and of Peter are described in Scripture (Matt 16:18-19; Matt 18:17).

The issue is assured infallibility, but as for Rm. 16:18, as your own catechism states — in trying to have it both ways — “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) and which understanding many other of the ancients held to (whom again Rome forbade disagreeing with, though she does).

You can go back and forth in linguistics, but the fact is that in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed facts in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) And upon which rock foundation are ALL the apostles and prophets, (Eph. 2:20) being a secondary layer upon which the church is built, these all being stones.

As regards “the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” that is first and foremost manifestly the gospel, which Peter did first preach, as it is by faith in which that believers are translated into His kingdom, (Col. 1:13) and placed into His church, (1Cor. 12:13) and made to sit together in heavenly places. (Eph. 2:6). But which keys are not restricted to Peter.

As for the power to bind and loose, this was not restricted to Peter, but given to all the apostles, (Mt. 18:18) and is not absolute, but must be Scriptural, and does not refer to binding the laity from freely reading of the Bible, which Rome historically basically did (especially when it had its unScriptural power to enforce it), or granting annulments to consummated marriages based upon such things as “psychic incompatibility), but is Scripturally interpreted to be that of such things as ecclesiastical discipline, (1Cor. 5:5) including the apostolic authority to set down new disciplinary rules having the force of Scripture, (Acts 15) as they were. But again, these were clearly based on textual support and Scriptural attestation by the power of God, and were not rendered infallible due to conformity to Rome's formula. Rome critically fails of such apostolic requirements to add to Scripture, and while Protestant denoms also exercise authority as ministers which one must obey, yet this is not unconditional.

Mt. 18:18 has its Old Testament counterpart in the “supreme court” of Dt, 17:8-130 in which hard matters of judgment were brought to the Levitical office of judgment, and the supplicant had to submit “according to the sentence of the law which they shall teach,” it being a capital crime to disobey. Thus the Lord required obedience to the scribes and the Pharisees, (Mt. 23:2) and believers are also commended, submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, including civil authorities, (1Pt. 2:13,14) who do not wield the sword (not a metaphorical or plastic one) for show. (Rm. 13:14) And Rome wavers on this use (death penalty), since she lost it though she still claims “coercive jurisdiction,” to punish disobedience by physical means, whereas the early church relied upon disfellowship and spiritual power to discipline.

However, as Scripture clearly attests, the giving of authority and even capital punishment for disobeying does not render the authority assuredly infallible, as not only did prophets of God (a class of servants whose authority was not that of correct Levitical genealogy, but by the manifest power of God) disobey this authority in obedience and in conscience toward God (which the pope actually sanctions) but the Lord did so Himself as did the apostles. (Lk. 13:31-33; Jn. 8:37; Acts 4:19; 5:29,40-42)

PeaceByJesus said...

7 contd. The objection to this is that without an assuredly infallible magisterium then there can be no doctrinal certitude, or standard, and progresses toward doctrinal anarchy. However, as seen in Scripture, assured infallibility is not necessary to have an authority which help provides doctrinal stability, which it does as long as it does so in accordance with the manner by which the apostles persuades men they were speaking truth, which is by the Scriptural means of “the manifestation of the truth” to the consciences of men. (2Cor. 4:2) Conversely, a magisterium which claims it has a charism of infallibility whenever it teaches on faith and moral, and to the whole church, has no real basis for authority, and its teachings only have authority insomuch as they have the manner of Scriptural warrant and corroboration which it manifests is given to truth. In contrast, the Sadducees erred, knowing not “the scriptures, nor the power of God.” (Mt. 22:29)

Binding and loosing can also apply to miracles, these being contrary to the laws of nature and of the devil's grip, but which was not restricted to the apostles. (Acts 6:8; 8:6)

8. Many [as the Orthodox Church] have fallen away from the True Church. That doesn't make them right.

They can contend the same as you, while many have claimed to be the one true church, but which does not make them right, and Rome in its overall deadness is hardly manifest as the church of the Living God.

9. “This is true, but not all they wrote was infallible.”

Time out. Are you talking about Scripture or some other writing of which I'm not aware?


Paul stated that all Scripture was inspired of God, and not that all he ever wrote or said was infallible. Paul wrote other epistles which the Holy Spirit did not preserve, and asserting that Rome is privy to all such and that this virtually bottomless pit of nebulous oral tradition is equal to Scripture, when channeled and proclaimed according to her formula, effectively adds to the canon and renders her as one of the inspired writers, even if she denies that level. Given this presumption, Rome could easily justify holding to the “tradition of the elders” in making it a sin to eat bread with unwashen hands, or giving oneself to God to the permanent neglect of needy parents, but the Lord reproved such as did for that, while also condemning many such like things they did. (Mk. 7:1-13)

10. Not true. Christ gave the Church infallibility.

He did in the sense of being able to proclaim Scriptural truth, but not an assured formulaic infallibility, under which Rome autocratically declares something as infallible and so it is, as if she we God.

PeaceByJesus said...

From kaycee :Hi DeMaria, Can you show me the infallible list of infallible RC tradition?

Add to that an infallible definition of tradition, and an infallible list of all infallibly teachings, in detail.

Rome simply cannot prove her formualic assured infallibility by Scripture, and instead it rests upon Rome's assertion to be so, thus making her assertion infallible.

De Maria said...

kaycee asks...
Hi DeMaria, Can you show me the infallible list of infallible RC tradition?

Hi kaycee,

I've never heard that such a list exists. I consider all Catholic doctrines infallible and a summary of them can be found in the Catechism. Even that list is not exhaustive, however.

Perhaps you can help me. Can you provide the Bible chapter and verse which says that Sola Scriptura is the ONLY infallible source of doctrine?

You asked me for a whole list, I'm asking you just for one.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

PeaceByJesus said...
From kaycee :Hi DeMaria, Can you show me the infallible list of infallible RC tradition?

Please see my response to kaycee.

Add to that an infallible definition of tradition,

Sure. There are two types of tradition. There is Tradition with a captial T which comes from the deposit of faith which Jesus gave the Apostles. These are absolute and don't change but are more fully explained as the Holy Spirit leads the Church into more Truth:
John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

And there is tradition with a little t which is the tradition which is derived from Church discipline. Church discipline can change whenever the Church feels it is appropriate to change it. Eating of meat on Fridays is such a discipline or tradition.

and an infallible list of all infallibly teachings, in detail.

That is what kaycee asked for. See my response to that request.

Rome simply cannot prove her formualic assured infallibility by Scripture,

That's a matter of your opinion. I think this verse, and there are more, but this verse suffices for that proof from Scripture:
Ephesians 3:10
To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

and instead it rests upon Rome's assertion to be so, thus making her assertion infallible.

Quite the contrary. The Church has stood for 2000 years. Only 500 years ago was it challenged by the Reformers. It is they who must prove their innovations are true. And they must do it from Scripture.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

Brigitte said.......
We cannot get around the fact that justification is by faith and that through the word of promise.


Amen Brigitte! You have just described the Sacraments.

Acts 2:38-40
King James Version (KJV)
38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

39For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.

40And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation

I'm sorry if this is a duplicate.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

PeaceByJesus said...
This was the first of my series of responses to DeMaria:

I thought something was missing from that first one.

Sola Scriptura
First, it is hard for me to be brief,


I understand completely. You guys had little tiny messages until I got in the mix.

But it is precisely for that reason that I think it more reasonable to stick to the topic at hand, rather than try to discuss every doctrine under the sun. I'll leave that to you to decide.

and you can go to the links for more, but your contentions are numerous, though they evidence an ignorance of the debate, and have been refuted extensively in this blog and other places.

I've been debating informally for years and have had no complaints, except from non Catholics.

Second, if you are going to defend Rome,

Yes, I am. No ifs.

then you must refrain from private interpretation, such as you resort to her in invoking Matthew 18:17 (which deals with personal offenses) and 1 Tim 3:15, which says nothing more than that the church supports the truth. And you are forbidden to interpret the Scriptures contrary to the required “unanimous consent of the fathers.” (http://history.hanover.edu/early/trent/ct04.html http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter%202%20On%20revelation) You need to conform to this and show that these verses are infallibly defined as meaning Rome with its perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium (AIM).

You're funny! Here is the Catholic doctrine on exegesis by the laity:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm#109
109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75
There's a whole page of instructions on how a lay Catholic may interpret Scripture according to Church Tradition. Search the CCC at that paragraph. As a Catholic, one of my Priests or Bishops may tell me whether I have overstepped my bounds. But you certainly can't.

As for Scriptural defining Sola Scriptura, such is not hard to find, despite your claim.

Show me.

But as for a explicit specific verse, you yourself cannot hold that doctrines are always based upon an explicit verse,

That is Catholic teaching. But not Protestant teaching.

but upon substantive Scriptural warrant and conformative corroborations, which exists for the Trinity but not for prayer to departed saints (PTDS), etc, which can be dealt with later,by the grace of God.

You're changing venue again. You started out talking about Sola Scriptura. At least, you addressed my request for a specific verse in Scripture.

cont'd

De Maria said...

PeacebyJesus cont'd
Let ius begin with a definition of SS which may be seen here: http://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-3.pdf

In short,

"Scripture alone is the only certain, infallible norm by which all theology, doctrine, creeds (beliefs), practice and morality of the Christian Church is to be regulated, in accordance with that which is 'either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture'..." (Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith (2001) vol 1, p. 129)


Well, that is slightly different from the definition previously offered on this blog, but I'll accept it. Please show me from Scripture.

However, it appears that you are operating under the misconstruance of SS into solO scriptura, which straw man Roman Catholic apologist (RCAs) typically rely upon.

I've never heard a Catholic apologist use that term. Probably because Catholics still know a little bit of Latin, especially if they went to Catholic schools. And the term "solo" ScripturA" is UNGRAMMATICAL. You see the big O which you highlighted. It can't precede a word which ends in the big A which I emphasized. The o in solo describes a masculine item. ScripturA is feminine. Therefore, only those who don't know Latin will combine the two words, "Solo Scriptura."

Also, solo and sola are two forms of the same word. They both mean "only" or "alone". There is no difference except that one is masculine and one is feminine.

But the “sola” refers to Scripture being the “only” certain, infallible standard or rule by which faith is governed, in distinction but not exclusion from God and non-infallible sources and helps which are needful, or may be helpful in interpreting the Scriptures. ..., according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.”

Sooo, after all that, you aren't going to produce any Scripture? Ok. So, then, as far as I'm concerned, Scripture says that the Church is infallible:
1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
That Tradition is infallible:
Hebrews 13:7
Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
And that Scripture is infallible:
John 10:35
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

PeaceByJesus said...
You are guilty of interpreting Scripture contrary to the required "unanimous consent of the Fathers," Scripture Decrees of the (Trent, The Fourth Session; First Vatican Council: SESSION 3: 24 April 1870) as well as what Scripture best warrants.

Where does Rome even infallibly interpret this as being Mary, or are you relying upon your own private interpretation (not that 2Pt. 1:20,21 forbids that, as is erroneously asserted)


The Catholic Church has perhaps infallibly defined, .01% of Scripture. Ten verses, as far as I know. My interpretation is in perfect conformity, if not the exact interpretation of that verse.
The officially approved study notes in the official Roman Catholic Bible (NAB)for America does not apply this to Mary, ….The old Haydock Catholic Bible commentary (apparently no stamp) also applies this to the church, though it secondarily allows it as to Mary….Many so-called “church fathers” and later Prot. commentators believed the women was the church,…Others see the women as Israel, …

It might surprise you that the Church accepts all those interpretations. But the main one is that the Woman is Mary.
Excerpt from the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary:
27. Moreover, the scholastic Doctors have recognized the Assumption of the Virgin Mother of God as something signified, not only in various figures of the Old Testament, but also in that woman clothed with the sun whom John the Apostle contemplated on the Island of Patmos.(24) Similarly they have given special attention to these words of the New Testament: "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you, blessed are you among women,"(25) since they saw, in the mystery of the Assumption, the fulfillment of that most perfect grace granted to the Blessed Virgin and the special blessing that countered the curse of Eve.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html

De Maria said...

PeaceByJesus said...
1. Protestants require EXPLICIT teachings from Scripture. Therefore, that is what I expect to see for Protestant doctrine.

Your statement reveals the fallacious nature of so much of Roman Catholic apologetics which you uncritically show you are following, in which they too often employ straw men in order to defend Rome. You are good at “deriving” the Assumption of Mary out of a women clothed with the sun, and Rome's assuredly infallible magisterium (AIM) out of “so send I you”, but how do you derive Ss requiring such EXPLICIT teaching as states, “Scripture is the ONLY infallible source for faith and doctrine and practice?” out of “or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture,” which definition i provided for you ....


That's the definition Ken used and someone else on this blog. Does it differ from yours?

Anyway, all I'm really interested in is seeing any of your definitions in Scripture. Please, pick one and provide the Scripture.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

2. Unless you are saying that explicit text is expected of Catholic doctrine, but not of Protestant doctrine?

No, as we affirm many core truths which we both agree on. The difference is that while something like the Trinity is a warranted and demanded conclusion on the basis of many texts (in part because you cannot have Christ and the Holy Spirit being referred to as God and maintain an absolute Islamic type oneness), things such as the perpetual virginity of Mary and prayers to the departed, etc, are not warranted or demanded, having no affirmation, and actually require going contrary to the most normal understanding of the texts involved, from requiring “until” (Mt. 1:25)be understood according to a rare denotation


Rare in English. But not in Semitic language.

, and contrary to the Lord's Biblical description of marriage, with leaving but no cleaving, (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:5 ),

Not contrary to Scripture which says:
1 Cor 7:29But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;

to being contrary to every example of prayer to Heaven and every teaching as to its immediate object, and the intercessory sufficiency of Christ and to the believers access.

On the contrary:
Luke 16:24
And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me,….

1 Timothy 2
1I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;


Sincerely,
De Maria

De Maria said...

PeacebyJesus said;
3. Search as I might, I see no indication that Sola Scriptura defined as the ONLY infallible source of doctrine is in Scripture. Would you be kind enough to isolate that verse for me in the Bible?

The fallacious nature and duplicity of your explicit verse requirement is already exposed,


Previously addressed in response to your #1.

while the fact is that Scripture is the ONLY transcendent material authority that is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God, as “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” (2Tim. 3:16)

That is a misinterpretation. That says, "all" Scripture, not "only" Scripture. And since Scripture itself says that men were also inspired, several times, but here's one example:
2 Pet 1: 
20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
 21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
And since Scripture calls the teachings of these men, the Word of God:

Hebrews 13:7
Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
Then that leads to the conclusion that Scripture and Tradition were inspired by God.

This explicit statement, along with abundant substantiation showing Scripture being the supreme authority for obedience and for testing new teaching, shows that it alone is the supreme authority.

Show me from Scripture. Because 2 Pet 1 shows that the Scripture came from men who first taught by words inspired by God and then wrote. So, I need to see something which says what you claim. 2 Tim 3:16 has been disproven. It simply says that Scripture is God breathed, which we already believe.

And attempts to support Rome's AIM on the basis of Scriptural support cedes supreme authority to it,

On the contrary, I simply recognize that YOU won't accept anything else. I can provide reams of Patristic evidence. I've done it before, only to hear the Reformer say, "Who cares what they taught!"

which those who were the instruments of steward of Divine revelation also had to do. Like Mary, the Holy Spirit brother forth the pure Word of God through holy souls, but they were not superior to it (nor was sinlessness required of them in order to be these instruments)

No one, least of all the Church, teaches that they are superior to Scripture. The Church teaches She is the Servant of Scripture.

NOWHERE does Scripture state that all that the church magisterium will ever teach on faith and morals will be infallible, nor does it reveal that such a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium is necessary for God to preserve Truth, as He did so prior to Christ through the aforementioned (see previous posts) means.

No one claims it is necessary for God. But 1 Tim 3:15, says the Church is infallible.

Well, that's all for tonight. Thanks for engaging me in conversation.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Brigitte said...

De Maria,

I've not been following this thread really for the last while, but this last bit here, if we can get the Calvinist to agree, also, we've got something.

De Maria said...

PeaceByJesus said...
4. We read Scripture differently than you. For us, the word Purgatory doesn't need to be there

There is far more that does not need to be there for Roman Catholics, but no amount of ecclesiastical extrapolation will wrest support for purgatory out of 1Cor. 3:15, which judgment does not even occur until the Lord returns. Your own NAB Bible notes states that
“The text of 1 Cor 3:15 has sometimes been used to support the notion of purgatory, though it does not envisage this.” nor again does your interpretation have the required “unanimous consent of the fathers” nor an infallible definition of this verse. Again, see debate on this blog here and its extension


The NAB is an ecumenical Bible, wherein, the separated brethren were permitted to a say. This is an excerpt from the preface:
The New American Bible has accomplished this in response to the need of the church in America today. It is the achievement of some fifty biblical scholars, the greater number of whom, though not all, are Catholics. In particular, the editors-in-chief have devoted twenty-five years to this work. The collaboration of scholars who are not Catholic fulfills the directive of the Second Vatican Council, not only that "correct translations be made into different languages especially from the original texts of the sacred books," but that, "with the approval of the church authority, these translations be produced in cooperation with separated brothers" so that "all Christians may be able to use them."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P1.HTM
Obviously, if the separated brethren were not permitted to even write a footnote, they might have questioned why they were permitted to sit in on the project in the first place. However, 1 Cor 3:15 is the classic proof of Purgatory from Scripture. Or else, answer for yourself, where is this place where the righteous are punished before they go to heaven? Protestant theology has no explanation.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

PeacebyJesus also said:
5. That is your simple opinion. Whereas I follow the Church which Scripture calls the Pillar of Truth (1 Tim 3:15)

That is simply your opinion, or private interpretation, and not the infallible interpretation of this verse as far as i know,


Then provide the infallible interpretation and we can proceed. But my interpretation stands until you can prove that it contradicts a Catholic doctrine.

and our real debate is with what Rome officially teaches (whatever that means),

You don't even know what you're disagreeing about?

and not some RCA who can disagree with another RCA, which often is the case.

We are free to disagree about nonessentials.

You can argue all you want, but unless Rome infallibly defines your verses that way you do, then it is simply your attempt of private interpretation in invoking Scripture as if it were the supreme authority

You don't want me to check your interpretations against Scripture?

in order to convince us that it is not so, and not to engage in private interpretation in interpreting Scripture, though the use of 1Pt. 1:20 to do so testifies to the often spurious interpretation of Scripture by Roman Catholics.

Again, the Catholic Church instructs us on how to read the Scriptures. I believe my technique falls well within the teaching of the Catholic Church. I've not been corrected by any Catholic in the past 20 or so years. In fact, I've received many compliments.

But as regards this verse, it says nothing more than that the church supports the truth, which both “stulos” (pillar) and “hedraiōma” (ground) denote, with the latter occurring one once in Scripture,

Very good. The Church supports truth. Therefore the Church is infallible.

while the church itself rests upon the sure word of Scriptural prophecy, which attests to Christ and His coming and work, and which He and the early church invoked.

The Church rests upon the Word of God in Tradition and Scripture. Scripture attests to the fact that this is required of Christians to hold the Traditions by word and epistle.

Moreover, as stated, being the instrument and steward of revelation does not confer assured infallibility, or else we must needs submit to Judaism.

You may submit to Judaism if you like. I follow Christ. And He fulfilled the Old Covenant and instituted the New, through His Church.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

PeacebyJesus said:
6. But Moses is not Jesus and Jesus is far greater than Moses. And His Church far greater than Moses Synagogue. Jesus gave infallibility to His Apostles (John 20:21).

And Jesus is greater than Mary,


Amen!

yet you ascribe attributes of Deity to her which Scripture does not,

No we don't. We simply accept the teaching of Scripture. For instance, the Woman of Revelation 12 is Mary. In verse 17, she is depicted as being the mother of all those who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

while the principle at work here transcends distinctions in glory. The predecessors were effectual types and the principal remains, that a perpetual, formal, assuredly infallible magisterium was and is not necessary to preserve Truth,

I believe it is necessary. But the question of necessity is moot. Jesus Christ established an infallible Church and so stated in clear terms-"the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt 16:18). Scripture confirms that teaching in several places, prominently 1 Tim 3:15. Jesus said it, therefore I believe it.

but such is established by conformity with Scripture and its means of attestation of truth, and this is what the Lord Himself invoked in establishing His claims, while also showing that those who legitimately sat in Moses seat were not above Scripture.

You've loaded this statement with several presuppositions.
1. The Church does not consider itself above Scripture, but its Servant.
2. The Lord did teach and invoke Scripture:
a. But then He established a Church, His body, to teach and invoke Scripture in His place.
b. Our Lord did not write even one letter of Scripture. He established a Church, commanded the Church to pass on His Traditions.
c. It is the Church which wrote the New Testament founded upon those Traditions. Not the other way around.

As for your assertion that “as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you” (Jn. 20:21) denotes Rome's formulaic AIM, that is a clear case of extrapolating a desired means which is not there.

I disagree. Lets break it down.

First He says:
21Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
Then, in order to confirm that He means to send them to teach infallibly, He says:
 22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
 23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
Receive the Holy Spirit and whosever sins you remit are remitted, whose sins you retain are retained.
This hearkens back also to Matt 18:17 loosing and binding.
So, it is very clear. Jesus sent His Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, to teach infallibly.

The church can speak infallible Scriptural truth, but this is not assured based upon the premise that an infallible charism (somehow neglected in the list of spiritual gifts in Rm. 12, 1Cor. 12)

Because that gift is treated elsewhere, as I have shown.

kicks in whenever the church in Rome speaks to the whole church on faith and morals. And both Rome and the Mormons are manifestly deficient in the requirements needed to established apostleship and add new doctrinal teachings to Scripture. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1: 11,12; 2Cor. 12:12; Rm. 15:19)

1. I'm not a Mormon.
2. It is actually the Reformers which are deficient in understanding the Gospel, as I am demonstrating. For they came many years after Jesus established His Church and they came causing division and disobedience:

Romans 16:17
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Sincerely,
De Maria

zipper778 said...

De Maria, I would first like to address your point about Sola Scriptura not found in the Bible.

First of all, you're defining it improperly and are therefore making a strawman argument out of it. You can't play with Sola Scriptura by your own rules, you must prove it wrong by demonstrating how using the Scriptures as the ONLY infallible source of inspiration, and that it is the rule of faith (canon) that we must live by, and that it is easy to understand the Scriptures, as being wrong. You have not done that yet.

Also, Sola Scriptura does not look only at the Scriptures to verify a point. It is simply the standard that everything must live up to. This is a point that is VERIFIED by the EARLY CHURCH FATHERS. They never said the words "Sola Scriptura", but they lived by it's definition. Therefore, Protestants are living not only by example of the Scriptures, but they are living by the examples of the early church fathers.

So, for a Biblical explanation of Sola Scriptura, I have not done the necessary research myself to give you the Biblical source of Sola Scriptura. However, I have read over and agree with this page's explanation of Sola Scriptura: http://www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura-proof-texts.htm You are welcome to read that for yourself, and if you do not agree with it after that, then that is your right and I will be done posting in this thread. The thing is though, that along with the early church fathers belief in Sola Scriptura is MORE then enough evidence for me to believe in it, and seeing how "Tradition" has given absolute power to men and those men have absolutely been corrupted I have no reason to believe in "Scripture and...".

As for the early church fathers, I suggest going to Turretinfan's Thoughts of Francis Turretin blog and look under "Formal Sufficiency". There you will find that the number of early church fathers who accepted the Scriptures as being clear and our only standard of faith by which to confirm/deny even their own words are overwhelming. And not just little known early church fathers, but early church fathers such as Clement, Turtullian, Origen, Cyprian, Athanasius, Basil, Ambrose, and SO many more that the Roman Catholic Church's claim that this is a 16th century invention is bogus. Even Aquinas believed that the Scriptures contained everything that's needed for salvation and that the Scriptures are easy to understand.

As always, I hope this helps. This topic has gone on VERY long and this will be my formal last post because there is so much information being posted by everyone here that I just simply don't have the time to look over and keep up with in a timely manner.

God Bless

De Maria said...

PeaceByJesus said...
7. The infallibility of the Church and of Peter are described in Scripture (Matt 16:18-19; Matt 18:17).

The issue is assured infallibility,


Infallibility of the Church and of the Pope are assured by Christ therein.

but as for Rm. 16:18, as your own catechism states ... many other of the ancients held to (whom again Rome forbade disagreeing with, though she does).

This is the Catechism teaching.
424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.

The parenthetical comment is your opinion. The Fathers of the Church simply agreed with this Scriptural doctrine. Example :
Early Christian writers bear witness to the Church's infallibility. Cyprian declares: "If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4, 251 AD). I...
http://www.staycatholic.com/papal_infalibillity.htm

You can go back and forth in linguistics, but the fact is that in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4)....

1. St. Peter is a man, therefore the word petra had to be modified to the masculine. Just as the name John and Johnette are essentially the same name. Petra and petros are the same way. Petra is rock and so is Petros.
2. That Jesus named St. Peter the "rock" is undeniable. He simply confirmed the name in Matt 16:18, as He had named St. Peter when He first met him:
John 1:42
42And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

PeacebyJesus said:


As regards “the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” that is first and foremost manifestly the gospel, which Peter did first preach, as it is by faith in which that believers are translated into His kingdom, (Col. 1:13) and placed into His church, (1Cor. 12:13) and made to sit together in heavenly places. (Eph. 2:6). But which keys are not restricted to Peter.

On the contrary, it is authority, as is clearly seen in another famous verse in Isaiah 22:22, where God gives the key to the Kingdom to Eliakim, who shall lock and unlock. Coupled with Matt 16:18, these two verses describe infallible authority given to St. Peter by Jesus.

As for the power to bind and loose, this was not restricted to Peter, but given to all the apostles, (Mt. 18:18)

As well. But St. Peter was singled out for this privilege.

and is not absolute, but must be Scriptural, and does not refer to binding the laity from freely reading of the Bible, which Rome historically basically did (especially when it had its unScriptural power to enforce it),

1. The Church forbade the uninformed and uneducated study of the Bible without the guidance of an approved Church teacher. As Scripture commands, "study to show thyself approved" 2 Tim 2:15. And warns that the uneducated will twist Scripture to their own destruction (2 Pet 3:16).
2. And, as shown, it is eminently Scriptural.
3. And although it is not absolute, it is only restricted by God. Not by any man outside the Church.

or granting annulments to consummated marriages based upon such things as “psychic incompatibility),

That the Church is authorized to grant annulments is confirmed by the "bind and loose" beatitude granted by Jesus Christ.

but is Scripturally interpreted to be that of such things as ecclesiastical discipline, (1Cor. 5:5) including the apostolic authority to set down new disciplinary rules having the force of Scripture, (Acts 15) as they were.

Matrimony is a covenantal bond. Even Baptism may be annulled if the covenant entered into was not truly understood. The Catholic Church does not approve shotgun weddings.

But again, these were clearly based on textual support and Scriptural attestation by the power of God, and were not rendered infallible due to conformity to Rome's formula.

If I understand that statement correctly, you are right. The Catholic Church is infallible because Christ is infallible. Her source and summit is Christ the King.

sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

PeacebyJesusRome critically fails of such apostolic requirements to add to Scripture,

The Canon is closed. The Church closed it. It is Protestants who add and delete from their Scriptures.

and while Protestant denoms also exercise authority as ministers which one must obey, yet this is not unconditional.

1. Scripture gives us the criteria to determine which is the True Church (Gal 1:8).
2. Once that is determined, there are no conditions mentioned for disobedience of those whom God has placed in charge of your soul.
3. Therefore, if you think that the Protestants are in charge of your soul, which group is it?

Notice that it doesn't matter if you say, "Not your church". Scripture says God has appointed some men to rule over your soul. Which group do you believe God has appointed over you to whom you submit and obey?

Mt. 18:18 has its Old Testament counterpart in the “supreme court” of Dt, 17:8-130 in which hard matters of judgment were brought to the Levitical office of judgment, and the supplicant had to submit “according to the sentence of the law which they shall teach,” it being a capital crime to disobey. Thus the Lord required obedience to the scribes and the Pharisees, (Mt. 23:2) and believers are also commended, submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, including civil authorities, (1Pt. 2:13,14) who do not wield the sword (not a metaphorical or plastic one) for show. (Rm. 13:14) And Rome wavers on this use (death penalty), since she lost it though she still claims “coercive jurisdiction,” to punish disobedience by physical means, whereas the early church relied upon disfellowship and spiritual power to discipline.

Besides the point about what you think the Church wavers. The question is, "which group of men did God put over your soul to whom you submit?"

However, as Scripture clearly attests, the giving of authority and even capital punishment for disobeying does not render the authority assuredly infallible, as not only did prophets of God (a class of servants whose authority was not that of correct Levitical genealogy, but by the manifest power of God) disobey this authority in obedience and in conscience toward God (which the pope actually sanctions) but the Lord did so Himself as did the apostles. (Lk. 13:31-33; Jn. 8:37; Acts 4:19; 5:29,40-42)

God spoke to them directly. As He did to St. Joan of Arc. So, if God is speaking to you directly, go right ahead and disobey everyone else. However, I first advise you make sure it isn't Satan in angelic cloth (2 Cor 11:14).

But if you are like the rest of us, you are forbidden to rest upon your own understanding (Prov 3:5).

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

PeaceByJesus said...
7 contd. The objection to this is that without an assuredly infallible magisterium then there can be no doctrinal certitude, or standard, and progresses toward doctrinal anarchy. However, as seen in Scripture, assured infallibility is not necessary to have an authority which help provides doctrinal stability, which it does as long as it does so in accordance with the manner by which the apostles persuades men they were speaking truth, which is by the Scriptural means of “the manifestation of the truth” to the consciences of men. (2Cor. 4:2)


The necessity of it is besides the point. Christ designed His Religion that way. We simply obey.

Conversely, a magisterium which claims it has a charism of infallibility whenever it teaches on faith and moral, and to the whole church, has no real basis for authority, and its teachings only have authority insomuch as they have the manner of Scriptural warrant and corroboration which it manifests is given to truth. In contrast, the Sadducees erred, knowing not “the scriptures, nor the power of God.” (Mt. 22:29)

The basis for authority is the Word of God as clearly shown several times. The Sadducees erred because Christ did not give them the Charism of infallibility. Their covenant was instituted by a great, although fallible man.

Binding and loosing can also apply to miracles, these being contrary to the laws of nature and of the devil's grip, but which was not restricted to the apostles. (Acts 6:8; 8:6)

That's fine. It does not thereby contradict the teaching of the Catholic Church.

8. Many [as the Orthodox Church] have fallen away from the True Church. That doesn't make them right.

They can contend the same as you, while many have claimed to be the one true church, but which does not make them right, and Rome in its overall deadness is hardly manifest as the church of the Living God.


That still doesn't disprove the Catholic teaching. Which is confirmed by the Scriptures.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

PeacebyJesus said:
9. “This is true, but not all they wrote was infallible.”

Time out. Are you talking about Scripture or some other writing of which I'm not aware?

Paul stated that all Scripture was inspired of God, and not that all he ever wrote or said was infallible. Paul wrote other epistles which the Holy Spirit did not preserve, and asserting that Rome is privy to all such and that this virtually bottomless pit of nebulous oral tradition is equal to Scripture, when channeled and proclaimed according to her formula, effectively adds to the canon and renders her as one of the inspired writers, even if she denies that level.


That is a very complicated objection. But I can see the following misconceptions loaded within it:
1. The Catholic Church does not claim to be privy to all St. Paul's writings. If you claim She does, please provide the proof.
2. The Catholic Church has never claimed to hold in Her possession all infallible documents which have ever been written.
3. Nor does the Catholic Church claim that the Scriptures are the only writings inspired by God.
4. As far as oral tradition is concerned, it is the foundation of the New Testament which Jesus deposited with the Apostles.
5. And, no, the Catholic Church does not add or take away from the Canon.
6. But the Reformers have done both. They have taken away 7 books and added several doctrines which are not taught therein.

Given this presumption, Rome could easily justify holding to the “tradition of the elders” in making it a sin to eat bread with unwashen hands, or giving oneself to God to the permanent neglect of needy parents, but the Lord reproved such as did for that, while also condemning many such like things they did. (Mk. 7:1-13)

The Church holds the Traditions of Jesus Christ.

10. Not true. Christ gave the Church infallibility.

He did in the sense of being able to proclaim Scriptural truth, but not an assured formulaic infallibility, under which Rome autocratically declares something as infallible and so it is, as if she we God.


The Church teaches the Wisdom of God (Eph 3:10).

Again, thanks for engaging me in this debate.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

Brigitte said:
De Maria,

I've not been following this thread really for the last while, but this last bit here, if we can get the Calvinist to agree, also, we've got something.


That would indeed be wonderful, Brigitte.

Lvka said...

Your convictions, however sincere, contradict precisely the Apostolic tradition by word and letter that Saint Paul speaks about, as I have shown above.

You presented me with opinions, I presented you with historic facts.
___________________________________

I especially like this one:

Luther said, that if someone told him to "pick up a piece of straw" in order to be saved, he WOULD NOT do it! Because he would be nullifying the cross of Christ.


Try replacing "someone" with "Christ", and "a piece of straw" with "one's cross".

Thank you.

Brigitte said...

We are strictly talking about justification. We will all bear a cross. But not for justification. It's the which comes first part. Bearing the cross will not earn our forgiveness.

Lvka said...

Actually, you are now resorting to the argument from silence


1,500 years of both Jewish AND Christian prayers for the dead are hardly an argument from silence.

Far from being condemned, it was always practiced and encouraged.

It was never a matter of controversy, either within Christian circles, or in disputes against the Jews.

Brigitte said...

Lvka, I don't know any such prayers except the Roman Catholic Requiem mass. No doubt you know many.

But we have no such thing in the Psalter, where we learn to pray.

Is not one of the things that if we are going to come together in the liturgy, that the liturgy will come from scripture?

Believe you me, when you have buried an 18 year old, just heading out into life, the most difficult thing is to cease praying for him, if you have been his mother. It would be natural to want to continue.

However, if this was supposed to effect something for his salvation or rising up any levels, it would go against the gospel.

Stefan was baptized and confirmed and the Sunday before he died I went to communion with him. This is enough for me to know and all I can know. Into the Lord's hands we commend the rest. (Amen).

De Maria said...

zipper778 said...
De Maria, I would first like to address your point about Sola Scriptura not found in the Bible.

First of all, you're defining it improperly

I'm using Ken's and someone else's definition. I think it was you:
‪zipper778‬ said...
De Maria, you ask excellent questions and I would like to point out a few things to you.

Sola Scriptura is not that we get all of our theology from the Bible alone, but that the Bible alone is the only infallible authority….

‪Ken‬ said...
De Maria,
“Sola Scriptura” by itself, means “Scripture alone”, but it does not mean Scripture as the only source for doctrine and practice, but it means Scripture is the only infallible source for faith and doctrine and practice….


and are therefore making a strawman argument out of it. You can't play with Sola Scriptura by your own rules, you must prove it wrong by demonstrating how using the Scriptures as the ONLY infallible source of inspiration, and that it is the rule of faith (canon) that we must live by, and that it is easy to understand the Scriptures, as being wrong. You have not done that yet.

I am of a different opinion. The first step is to show that Scripture teaches the following Catholic doctrines that the Church is infallible (1 Tim 3:15), that Tradition is infallible (Heb 13:7) and that we are to obey the Church (Matt 18:17) and the men which God appointed to rule over us (Heb 13:17).

Then I give Sola Scriptura proponents a fair shot at producing Sola Scriptura from Scripture. If Sola Scriptura can't be produced from Scripture, then it fails its own test.

cont'd

De Maria said...

zipper778 said:
Also, Sola Scriptura does not look only at the Scriptures to verify a point. It is simply the standard that everything must live up to. This is a point that is VERIFIED by the EARLY CHURCH FATHERS. They never said the words "Sola Scriptura", but they lived by it's definition.

I've copied your definition of SS and Ken's above. Here is what one of the Fathers said. And he is not alone, but for brevity, I will produce only one:
Ignatius of Antioch

Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. ... Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_the_church.htm

Therefore, Protestants are living not only by example of the Scriptures, but they are living by the examples of the early church fathers.

I don't think so.

So, for a Biblical explanation of Sola Scriptura, I have not done the necessary research myself to give you the Biblical source of Sola Scriptura. However, I have read over and agree with this page's explanation of Sola Scriptura: http://www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura-proof-texts.htm You are welcome to read that for yourself, and if you do not agree with it after that, then that is your right and I will be done posting in this thread.... And not just little known early church fathers, but early church fathers such as Clement, Turtullian, Origen, Cyprian, Athanasius, Basil, Ambrose, and SO many more that the Roman Catholic Church's claim that this is a 16th century invention is bogus. Even Aquinas believed that the Scriptures contained everything that's needed for salvation and that the Scriptures are easy to understand.

There are many websites where the writings of the early Church Fathers are contained. I suggest you go to one and read the entire letter rather than the excerpts cherry picked to support SS. You will find that the early Church Fathers were eminently Catholic with respect to Church authority and Tradition. None of them endorsed Sola Scriptura. Nor had they ever even heard of the concept.

As always, I hope this helps. This topic has gone on VERY long and this will be my formal last post because there is so much information being posted by everyone here that I just simply don't have the time to look over and keep up with in a timely manner.

I understand. Thanks for engaging me in dialogue.

God Bless

And you as well.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

Brigitte said...

Is not one of the things that if we are going to come together in the liturgy, that the liturgy will come from scripture? ...


The New Testament came from Tradition. That Tradition included the Liturgy.

I'm sorry to hear that you buried a son. As a father, I only have a hint of an idea of how a mother must feel. Even though the birth of my children turned my world upside down.

May I ask, is your tradition permitted to say, "May he rest in peace." If so, is this not a prayer? If not, then the question is answered completely.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Brigitte said...

De Maria, thank you for striking a kind note.

The New Testament, however, came from the apostles. If there is any "tradition" which is contra apostolic witness it is plain wrong. We don't care who tells us. It is illogical also to pound on apostolic tradition which is contra apostolic witness.

Luther did great work in this area of liturgy and we should stick with these reforms rather than anathematize them. If you think one of us will go back to be put under the yoke of gazillion things we have to do to be saved, you will not convince any of us. The Reformation will not be reversed.

Just to be clear.

In terms of our dearly departed, I will trust in God's promises he made to them in his word and their baptism, and I shall not trust in any prayers of mine for them. We have been given no such promises for such prayers. It is important to stick God's word and what he actually commanded and promised.

steelikat said...

"N: I also agree. Consider the very debate in question between White and Madrid. The Thesis was "Does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura?" White took the affirmative. So based on the true definition of "burden of proof," which you just gave, it is White who has the burden of showing that the Bible teaches Sola Scriptura."

Of course if White accepted the burden of proof in that debate he necessarily had the burden of proof. If you accept it it's yours. I thought your question was more generic (and that it might be a real question, which is why I answered it).

I haven't read a transcription of the debate, but I reckon I would have been disappointed. It seems unlikely that sufficient time was given to things like building a necessary agreement on definitions of terms, mutually acceptable methodologies of interpretation, and even, as you mention "which books do we include?"

Perhaps the video was entertaining at some level.

De Maria said...

Brigitte said...
De Maria, thank you for striking a kind note.


You're welcome.

The New Testament, however, came from the apostles.

In the form of oral Tradition initially:
1 Thessalonians 2:13
King James Version (KJV)
13For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

If there is any "tradition" which is contra apostolic witness it is plain wrong.

I see where Scripture tells us to obey the Church (matt 18:17) and submit to the men God appointed for us (Heb 13:17). Can you produce a verse which supports Sola Scriptura?

Oh and do you agree with the definition that the others have produced?

We don't care who tells us. It is illogical also to pound on apostolic tradition which is contra apostolic witness.

We feel the same way. To tell us to follow Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide both of which directly contradict the Apostolic Witness is completely illogical.

Luther did great work in this area of liturgy and we should stick with these reforms rather than anathematize them.

On the contrary, Luther introduced error into the Liturgy. Beginning with consubstantiation of the Eucharist.

[quote] If you think one of us will go back to be put under the yoke of gazillion things we have to do to be saved, you will not convince any of us. The Reformation will not be reversed.[/quote]

Have it your way. I for one find comfort in God's mercy towards those who leave or attack His Church in good faith:
Acts 10:33-35
King James Version (KJV)
33Immediately therefore I sent to thee; and thou hast well done that thou art come. Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God. 34Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: 35But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Just to be clear.

In terms of our dearly departed, I will trust in God's promises he made to them in his word and their baptism, and I shall not trust in any prayers of mine for them.


James 5:16... The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

We have been given no such promises for such prayers. It is important to stick God's word and what he actually commanded and promised.

True. Not a promise. But a command:
1 Timothy 2:1
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

Sincerely,

De Maria

Lvka said...

Is not one of the things that if we are going to come together in the liturgy, that the liturgy will come from Scripture?


Christian Liturgy comes from the Jewish Liturgy.

It's NOT "deduced", it is a GIVEN thing.

And we were speciffically asked in Scripture, by Saint Paul, to keep and treasure the things that have been handed down, delivered, and entrusted unto us by the Apostles, whether by word OR letter.
___________________________________
The reason you won't find them in the Psalms is because the OT was generally silent on such topics [Ecclesiastes]. Christ Himself, in the Holy Gospels, draws heavily on Hellenistic Jewish beliefs that only crystalized in Maccabean times. [Hades/Sheol as a spiritual place, not just a mere synonym for death and the grave, or extinction and non-existence; Gehenna; the immortality of the soul; Paradise and the bossom of the Patriarchs as states which are entered upon death (presupposing an immortal soul); etc].

Lvka said...

Bearing the cross will not earn our forgiveness.


...but salvation isn't reduced to just forgiveness & justification...

Lvka said...

However, if this was supposed to effect something for his salvation or rising up any levels, it would go against the Gospel.


Since when does asking forgiveness add something to forgiveness?

(What kind of absurd statement is this?)

Repentance and prayers for forgiveness are part of justification: No-one is forgiven without repentance, without wanting to be forgiven and expressing that in prayer. At least not in the Bible.

Brigitte said...

Dear Gentlemen, I would need to take all these up in detail, and I can't do it in the next few days. Perhaps steelikat or someone else will.

If we will not hold the free forgiveness of sins through Christ as the center of our teaching and the apostolic witness, then we will end up with all kinds of the things which become needful.

There are many things which are part and parcel of the Christian life, such repentance and prayer and working together in order... These things, however, do not bring us into relationship with God. For that he has done all himself. And because of this we can begin to love him.

PeaceByJesus said...

11. We have a problem of late here due to the troll, in that serial responses are not being posted in the order in which they were given, thus incurring a loss of fluidity. I shall attempt to try to respond according to order or in a systematic nature but some redundancy will likely occur. This also is not proof read as i have spent enough time typing this (which is slow due to my stiff fingers).

PeaceByJesus said...
This was the first of my series of responses to DeMaria:

DB: I thought something was missing from that first one.


PBJ: Sola Scriptura
First, it is hard for me to be brief,

I understand completely. You guys had little tiny messages until I got in the mix.


Except for mine, due to no challenges, as your comrades have been refuted so often and so much.

But it is precisely for that reason that I think it more reasonable to stick to the topic at hand, rather than try to discuss every doctrine under the sun. I'll leave that to you to decide.

The topic of SS is of necessity set in contrast to your reliance upon sola ecclesia and its infallible Traditions, such as which you first attempted to use Scripture to justify.

PBJ: and you can go to the links for more, but your contentions are numerous, though they evidence an ignorance of the debate, and have been refuted extensively in this blog and other places.

DM: I've been debating informally for years and have had no complaints, except from non Catholics.


Not even in 7 years on CA forums? Which is not surprising at all, considering so many imagine texts such as 1Tim 3:15 supports the AIM of Rome, and 1 Cor 3:15 supports purgatory, or Ja. 5:16 supports PTDS, and that SS always requires explicit statements, and the sola fide means a kind of faith that will not effect obedience. Etc.

Second, if you are going to defend Rome,

Yes, I am. No ifs.

The question was rhetorical.

PBJ: then you must refrain from private interpretation, such as you resort to her in invoking Matthew 18:17 (which deals with personal offenses) and 1 Tim 3:15, which says nothing more than that the church supports the truth. And you are forbidden to interpret the Scriptures contrary to the required “unanimous consent of the fathers.” (http://history.hanover.edu/early/trent/ct04.html http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter%202%20On%20revelation) You need to conform to this and show that these verses are infallibly defined as meaning Rome with its perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium (AIM).

DM: You're funny! Here is the Catholic doctrine on exegesis by the laity:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm#109
109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75
There's a whole page of instructions on how a lay Catholic may interpret Scripture according to Church Tradition. Search the CCC at that paragraph.


It is not amusing to ignore dealing with the decree of Trent and V1, that “it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture in a sense contrary to this [that “which holy mother church held and holds], OR indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers, and suppose that the general instructions on exegesis allows you to interpret Scriptures contrary to certain fathers. Of course, it is easily shown Rome does so herself, but for an autocratic judge that is not a problem as it need not allow anything to contradict it, but can conform all to fit its needs, and thus she judges the Scriptures and fathers, and all else, more than she is judged by them.

As no less than Roman Catholic theologian than Manning stated,

PeaceByJesus said...

11Ctnd. “It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine. .. I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves.” — Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.

In addition, how to exegete according to the “whole page of instructions on how a lay Catholic may interpret Scripture” allows for very liberal interpretations as exampled by the approved notes in your NAB.

PeacebyJesus cont'd
Let ius begin with a definition of SS which may be seen here: http://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-3.pdf

In short,

"Scripture alone is the only certain, infallible norm by which all theology, doctrine, creeds (beliefs), practice and morality of the Christian Church is to be regulated, in accordance with that which is 'either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture'..." (Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith (2001) vol 1, p. 129)

DM: Well, that is slightly different from the definition previously offered on this blog, but I'll accept it. Please show me from Scripture.


You are seeing what you will. There is no contradiction, unless you insist on seeing “only certain, infallible norm” as disallowing '“Sola Scriptura is not that we get all of our theology from the Bible alone, but that the Bible alone is the only infallible authority. It is quite alright to have a church authority, even if they're not infallible.”' (Zipper) Or '“Sola Scriptura” by itself, means “Scripture alone”, but it does not mean Scripture as the only source for doctrine and practice, but it means Scripture is the only infallible source for faith and doctrine and practice.”' (Ken) The “good and necessary consequence” is supplementary, not contradictory.

PBJ: However, it appears that you are operating under the misconstruance of SS into solO scriptura, which straw man Roman Catholic apologist (RCAs) typically rely upon.

DM: I've never heard a Catholic apologist use that term. Probably because Catholics still know a little bit of Latin, especially if they went to Catholic schools. And the term "solo" ScripturA" is UNGRAMMATICAL. You see the big O which you highlighted. It can't precede a word which ends in the big A which I emphasized. The o in solo describes a masculine item. ScripturA is feminine. Therefore, only those who don't know Latin will combine the two words, "Solo Scriptura." Also, solo and sola are two forms of the same word. They both mean "only" or "alone". There is no difference except that one is masculine and one is feminine.


Thanks for the info, (i only spoke Latin as a pre-V2 altar boy) but it is used to describe a real difference between two theological concepts, that “alone” refers to Scripture being the only infallible authority for faith and morals, any other being immaterial and in need to conform to what is written, as is Scriptural manifest therein. In contrast is the often used description of SS as meaning only Scripture can be used in determining doctrine, versus sola referring to its supremacy in infallible sources on earth.

PeaceByJesus said...

12 But the “sola” refers to Scripture being the “only” certain, infallible standard or rule by which faith is governed, in distinction but not exclusion from God and non-infallible sources and helps which are needful, or may be helpful in interpreting the Scriptures. ..., according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.”

Sooo, after all that, you aren't going to produce any Scripture? Ok. So, then, as far as I'm concerned, Scripture says that the Church is infallible:
1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
That Tradition is infallible:
Hebrews 13:7
Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
And that Scripture is infallible:
John 10:35
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;


So you are going continue to cry “no Scripture” (10:38 PM, September 03, 2011) after having been shown (6:41 PM, September 03, 2011) that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” (2Tim. 3:16) This explicit statement, along with abundant substantiation showing Scripture being the supreme authority for obedience and for testing new teaching, shows that it alone is the supreme authority.” Or did you not read through all the responses before posting your own? Or is this a time zone issue?

As for 1Tim. 3:15, this also was dealt with (6:42 PM, September 03, 2011). See section 4., 5., 6. To reiterate, a verse which says nothing more than the church supports the truth, or calls for obedience, does not denote infallibility, as your last verse itself testifies to, unless you hold that the judges of the Old Testament were infallible.


As a Catholic, one of my Priests or Bishops may tell me whether I have overstepped my bounds. But you certainly can't

False. Obedience to ecclesiastical authority has been affirmed. As Westminster states, “it belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions.. which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission.”

The local and corporate magisterium of a Protestant demon can judge matters like as that of Rome does, but which are nor superior to Scripture, nor does Rome have power over other churches since her secular sword was taken away, no matter how much she bellows about having universal jurisdiction and the power to punish by physical means.

In addition, what your local Priests or Bishops can be wrong, while even infallible teachings, if you are sure that the pertinent one is, are open to some non-infallible interpretation.

kaycee asks...
Hi DeMaria, Can you show me the infallible list of infallible RC tradition?

DM: Hi kaycee,

I've never heard that such a list exists. I consider all Catholic doctrines infallible and a summary of them can be found in the Catechism. Even that list is not exhaustive, however.


Ambiguous.

▀ What does binding Catholic doctrine precisely consist of?
▀ Is everything in a declaration from the Supreme magisterium infallible?
▀How can you be precisely sure what is infallible teaching versus non-fallible?
▀How much of what Roman Catholic believe and practice is from the Supreme magisterium?
▀Can the catechism be wrong, or is it infallible?
▀Are all that the papal encyclicals teach binding?
▀Can you disagree with teaching from the non-infallible magisterium?
▀Can you disobey the Supreme magisterium on the basis of conscience?

Perhaps you can help me. Can you provide the Bible chapter and verse which says that Sola Scriptura is the ONLY infallible source of doctrine?

Insolence. This has been answered, and will be again under 3.

PeaceByJesus said...

13 You asked me for a whole list, I'm asking you just for one.

No, we only need one list, which does not exist.

>PBJ: As for Scriptural defining Sola Scriptura, such is not hard to find, despite your claim. <

DM: Show me.


You have been. That the Word of God was normally written , and that Scripture was the standard for obedience, and for conformity for additional revelation and the establishment of truth claims*, is abundantly evidenced. And it is the the only transcendent, material authority on faith and morals which is established to be wholly inspired of God (2Tim. 3:16) No such claim is made that all the magisterium will ever teach to the church on faith and morals will be infallible, which is true of Scripture, and which reveals that a perpetual, assuredly infallible magisterium was not necessary for God to preserve truth, as explained.

*Here is what i linked to (verse pop up enabled on site):

*Partial list of references to Divine written revelation being written (Scripture) and references to it, showing it to be the standard for obedience, and truth claims: Ex. 17:14; 24:4,7,12; 31:18; 32:15; 34:1,27; 35:29; Lv. 8:36; 10:10; 26:46; Num. 4:5,37,45,49; 9:23; 10:13; 15:23; 16:40; 27:23; 33:2; 36:13; Dt. 4:13; 5:22; 9:10; 10:2,4; 17:18,19; 27:3,8; 28:58,61; 29:20,21,27; 30:10; 31:9,11,19,22,26; Josh. 1:8; 8:31,32,34,35; 10:13; 14:2; 20:2; 21:2; 22:9; 23:6; 24:26; Jdg. 3:4; 1Sam. 10:25; 2Sam. 1:8; 1Ki. 2:3; 8:53,56; 12:22; 2Ki. 1:8; 14:6; 17:37; 22:8,10,13,16; 23:2,21; 1Ch. 16:40; 17:3,9; 2Ch. 23:18; 25:4; 31:3; 33:8; 34:14,15,18,21,24; 34:30; 35:6,12; Ezra 3:2,4; 6:18; Neh. 6:6; 8:1,3,8,15,18; 9:3,14; 10:34,36; 13:1; Psa. 40:7; Is. 8:20; 30:8; 34:16; 65:6; Jer. 17:1; 25:13; 30:2; 36:2,6,10,18,27,28; 51:60; Dan. 9:11,13; Hab. 2:2;

Mat. 1:22; 2:5,15; 3:3; 4:4,6,7,10,14; 8:4,17; 11:10; 12:3,5,17; 13:35; 19:47,8; 21:4,13,16,42; 22:24,29,31; 24:15; 26:24,31,54,56; 27:9,34; Mark 1:2,44; 7:3,10; 9:12,13; 10:4,5; 11:17; 12:10,19,24,26 13:14; 14:21,47,49; Lk. 2:3,22,23; 3:4; 4:4,6-8,10,16,17,20; 5:14; 7:27; 10:26; 16:29,31; 18:31; 19:46; 20:17,28,37,42; 22:37, 24:22.27,32,44,45,46; Jn. 1:17,45; 2:17; 3:14; 5:39,45-47; 6:31,32,45; 7:19,22,23,42,52; 8:5,17; 10:34; 12:14,16; 15:25; 20:31; 21:24; Acts 1:20; 2:16-21,25-28,34,35; 3:22; 7:42; 8:28,30,32; 7:42; 3:33; 13:29,33,39; 15:5,15,21; 17:2,11; 18:24,28; 21:24; 23:5; 24:14; 26:22; Rom 1:2,17; 2:24; 3:4,10; 4:3,17,23; 8:36; 9:3,13,15,17,,33; 10:5,11,15,19; 11:2,8,26; 12:19; 14:11; 15:3,4,9,21; 16:16,26,27; 1Cor. 1:19,31; 2:9; 3:19; 4:6; 9:9,10; 10:7,11; 14:21; 15:3,4,45,54; 2Cor. 1:13; 2:3,4; 3:7,15; 4:13; 7:12; 8:15; 9:9; Gal. 3:10,13; 4:22,27; Eph. 3:3,4; Col. 4:16; 1Thes. 5:27; 2Tim. 3:15; Heb. 7:28; 8:5; 10:7,28; 13:22; 1Pet. 1:16; 5:12; 2Pet. 3:15,16; 1Jn. 2:21; 5:13; Rev. 1:3,11; 22:6,7;10,18,19 (Note: while the Bible reveals that there is revelation which is not written down, (2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 10:4) yet interestingly, i know of no place where the phrase “the word of God” or “the word of the Lord” refers to unwritten revelation that was not subsequently written down.)

> PBJ: But as for a explicit specific verse, you yourself cannot hold that doctrines are always based upon an explicit verse, <

DM: That is Catholic teaching. But not Protestant teaching.


More insolence. You have been shown otherwise by no less than Westminster. Or do you not understand what “either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture” means? And as explained, this is not extrapolating support for a tradition out of a limited statement as you do with 1Tim. 3:15, etc., or in isolation, as you do with Eph. 3:10, etc, but one that is decidedly warranted and the weight of corroborating texts without real contradiction, such as the Deity of Christ is.

PeaceByJesus said...

13 cntd. Rome's AIM or the perpetual virginity, PTDS are not warranted, and are contrary to the whole of the evidence, as can be shown. But which is irrelevant to the Roman Catholic, except in trying to defending her against those pesky Protestants, as Rome's authority is their real basis.

Once he does so (joins the Catholic church), he has no further use for his reason. He enters the Church, an edifice illumined by the superior light of revelation and faith. He can leave reason like a lantern at the door.” Explanation of Catholic Morals, A Concise, Reasoned, and Popular Exposition of Catholic Morals, by John H. Stapleton, p 76, Benziger Brothers, NY, 1913.

having discovered the authority established by God, you must submit to it at once. There is no need of further search for the doctrines contained in the Christian Gospel, for the Church brings them all with her and will teach you them all...”

“Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..” “The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God...” “He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.” — Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 )


PeaceByJesus said...
>You are guilty of interpreting Scripture contrary to the required "unanimous consent of the Fathers," Scripture Decrees of the (Trent, The Fourth Session; First Vatican Council: SESSION 3: 24 April 1870) as well as what Scripture best warrants.

Where does Rome even infallibly interpret this as being Mary, or are you relying upon your own private interpretation (not that 2Pt. 1:20,21 forbids that, as is erroneously asserted) <

The Catholic Church has perhaps infallibly defined, .01% of Scripture. Ten verses, as far as I know..


Which testifies to the relative marginalization of Scripture and lack of certitude as to its meaning and the fact that such dogma relies not upon it but upon the self-proclaimed power of Rome.

My interpretation is in perfect conformity, if not the exact interpretation of that verse

As can holding that it pertains to the church or to Israel, but that, especially considering how open it is to interpretation, does not establish it is Mary much less her Assumption, or warrant it as dogma.

PBJ:The officially approved study notes in the official Roman Catholic Bible (NAB)for America does not apply this to Mary, ….The old Haydock Catholic Bible commentary (apparently no stamp) also applies this to the church, though it secondarily allows it as to Mary….Many so-called “church fathers” and later Prot. commentators believed the women was the church,…Others see the women as Israel, …

DM: It might surprise you that the Church accepts all those interpretations. But the main one is that the Woman is Mary.
Excerpt from the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary:
27. Moreover, the scholastic Doctors have recognized the Assumption of the Virgin Mother of God as something signified, not only in various figures of the Old Testament, but also in that woman clothed with the sun whom John the Apostle contemplated on the Island of Patmos.(24) ..


It does not surprise me at all, as Rome has amply demonstrated it does not need to infallibly interpret Scripture to create its dogma, but can presume to basically speak it into existence. Here she cherry picks support from the fathers, which disparate views are defined as “unanimous,” though they are not on this verse, among others. The attempts by such as “Scripture Catholics” deny the validity of the term.

PeaceByJesus said...

14 PBJ: 2. ... things such as the perpetual virginity of Mary and prayers to the departed, etc, are not warranted or demanded, having no affirmation, and actually require going contrary to the most normal understanding of the texts involved, from requiring “until” (Mt. 1:25)be understood according to a rare denotation

Rare in English. But not in Semitic language.


No, rare in Scripture, in the Greek in which God mainly chose to express Himself in. Show me your list of the use of heōs which does not denote a terminus and expected change, and we shall compared it with the rest out of approx. 150 occurrences.

, and contrary to the Lord's Biblical description of marriage, with leaving but no cleaving, (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:5 ),

Not contrary to Scripture which says:
1 Cor 7:29But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;


I continue to be amazed (and grieved) at what a RCA can get out of an ambiguous verse when needed. Here, after Paul clearly set forth to the married, “Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency,” (1Cor. 7:5) it now to be supposed that he is commanded permanent celibacy! No doubt the Lord's words to “hate” father and mother are to taken in the same wooden literal sense, rather than this being comparative, and akin to not letting our left hand know what the right is dong, in not being preoccupied or distracted by the temporal duties one must do (not the users of this world were not told to leave all and become hermits).

In addition, the “time is short” may be prophetically referring to the times, as “within half a generation the whole Roman world was turned up by civil war, three emperors in succession were slain, and Jerusalem was destroyed.” (The People's New Testament (1891) by B. W. Johnson)

to being contrary to every example of prayer to Heaven and every teaching as to its immediate object, and the intercessory sufficiency of Christ and to the believers access.

On the contrary:
Luke 16:24
And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me,….


This frankly is desperate. This is not prayer (proseuchomai only used for prayer) as to God, nor is it to heaven, but Abraham across the gulf. Also, in any communication between created beings from Heaven and those on earth required personal visitation in either realm, while pagans are the only ones in Scripture who offers supplications to a Queen of Heaven. (Jer. 44:18,19,5)

As for the argument that Jewish tradition substantiates this practice, French historian and expert on the Middle Ages states that “It then becomes clear that at the time of Judas Maccabeus-around 170 B.C., a surprisingly innovative period-prayer for the dead was not practiced, but that a century later it was practiced by certain Jews.” — Jacques Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1984), p.45. See also Purgatory and history
You can also see views of CT's on this.

PeaceByJesus said...

15.
1 Timothy 2
1I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;


And this proves what? The church also took up offerings for each other, while the premise of full correspondence between earthly relations and those between God's throne (Mt. 5:34) and earth is negated by the fact that there is no marriage in heaven, while praying for each other on earth does not sanction telepathy.

That the Holy Spirit would not provide even one example of believers praying to departed saints in Heaven (and Rv. 8:3m4 does not), or instructions on it, or about saints in glory constantly hearing individual petitions and responding is absurd in the light of what He does extensively provide on prayer, and for such basic spiritual practices as this is. See here for more.

PeacebyJesus said;
3. ..while the fact is that Scripture is the ONLY transcendent material authority that is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God, as “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” (2Tim. 3:16)

That is a misinterpretation. That says, "all" Scripture, not "only" Scripture. And since Scripture itself says that men were also inspired, several times, but here's one example:
2 Pet 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

And since Scripture calls the teachings of these men, the Word of God:


Your exegesis is characterized by leaps to conclusions which your premise does not warrant. Scripture is the only only transcendent, material authority on faith and morals which is stated to be inclusively inspired of God. (2Tim. 3:16) All is inclusive of all that was and would be manifest as Scripture, and while the Word of God can refer to more than what is written, by nature and by example this immaterial form requires conformity to the objective established authority of Scripture, and thus oral truth claims were tested by Scripture, not only by textual conformity but by the level of attestation which Scripture reveals God giving to new dogma. (Mt. 22; Jn. 5:36,39; 14:11; Lk. 24:44; Acts 14:3; 17:2;11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12)

God did inspired men but simply because He did does not render all that they said or that other men may claim to be from God to be so, while Scripture is what has been established as being wholly inspired from them and judges all that purports to be from God.

Hebrews 13:7
 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

Then that leads to the conclusion that Scripture and Tradition were inspired by God.


This leads to the conclusion that you continue to use most any general statement to support Rome. This teaches following the example of men of faith, such as which Heb. 11 exampled, and which was not referring to following them as if they were infallible doctrinal teachers, as if Samson would be such, but in practical application and not denying the basic salvific faith, drawing in denial of Christ, (Heb. 10:25-39) holding firm the rejoicing of the hope, (Heb. 3:6,14) which is what the word of exhortation” of Hebrews is all about.

Timothy is also told to follow Paul, which was a man who established his claims Scripturally, (Acts 17:2; 28:23; 2Cor. 6:1-10) which wholly inspired of Go source Paul directs his pupil to, (2Tim. 3:14-17) and such exhortation is given today by evangelical ministers.

PeaceByJesus said...

16 This explicit statement, along with abundant substantiation showing Scripture being the supreme authority for obedience and for testing new teaching, shows that it alone is the supreme authority.

Show me from Scripture. Because 2 Pet 1 shows that the Scripture came from men who first taught by words inspired by God and then wrote. So, I need to see something which says what you claim. 2 Tim 3:16 has been disproven. It simply says that Scripture is God breathed, which we already believe.

I have shown you, but apparently you did not read through and hit the link. Again, Scripture is the standard for obedience, and for establishing additional revelation, and thus the appeal to it by the Lord and His own. This did not mean the oral word of God did not also exist, and that much of Scripture was first oral, but these were established in the light of the established word, the Scriptures. (Jn. 5:39; Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 2:16:21; 25-28, 34,35; 17:11; Heb. 15-13, etc). :


PBJ: And attempts to support Rome's AIM on the basis of Scriptural support cedes supreme authority to it,
DM: On the contrary, I simply recognize that YOU won't accept anything else. I can provide reams of Patristic evidence. I've done it before, only to hear the Reformer say, "Who cares what they taught!"


What you are doing is attempting to establish something on the basis of Scripture when in reality you cannot hold that truth may be ascertained by Scripture, and the AIM is based more on Tradition, and ultimately its own self-proclamation, while the appeal to the fathers fails of unanimous consent.

There are two types of tradition. There is Tradition with a captial T which comes from the deposit of faith which Jesus gave the Apostles. These are absolute and don't change but are more fully explained as the Holy Spirit leads the Church into more Truth:


That does not describe what it is as to form and substance, and where is this infallibly defined? You are the one who is big on specifics and authority, and perhaps it is precisely infallibly defined but i have not yet come across it. Is infallible Tradition written, or simply oral? Is there any known end to it? If it is simply unwritten, then how do we know it has not been corrupted, altered, or is without contradiction? Or that it is true except by examination by that the only transcendent, material authority on faith and morals which is wholly inspired of God, or by implicit faith in Rome's AIM (which may claim Scriptural warrant but whose claim to truth is not dependent on it)? And by what means are we to know for sure that Rome's magisterium is assuredly infallibly?

John 14:26 And the assurance The Pharisees could have claimed that their commands were unwritten tradition from Moses, and in fact the Jews do hold to such, and Scripture expressly affirms them to be the instruments and steward of revelation. But this did not confer on them assured infallibility, so that whatever they claimed was authoritative from the tradition of the elders was indeed so, but that which had so far been established as Scripture is set forth as the judge of such.

And there is tradition with a little t which is the tradition which is derived from Church discipline. Church discipline can change whenever the Church feels it is appropriate to change it. Eating of meat on Fridays is such a discipline or tradition.

Yet while it is in force it requires unconditional obedience based upon the authority of the magisterium? So that virtually all clergy must have the gift of celibacy, even though the requirements for bishops/elders (which were the same office btw) shows that this was not the case, though it is preferably if one has the gift?

PeaceByJesus said...

16 This explicit statement, along with abundant substantiation showing Scripture being the supreme authority for obedience and for testing new teaching, shows that it alone is the supreme authority.

Show me from Scripture. Because 2 Pet 1 shows that the Scripture came from men who first taught by words inspired by God and then wrote. So, I need to see something which says what you claim. 2 Tim 3:16 has been disproven. It simply says that Scripture is God breathed, which we already believe.

I have shown you, but apparently you did not read through and hit the link. Again, Scripture is the standard for obedience, and for establishing additional revelation, and thus the appeal to it by the Lord and His own. This did not mean the oral word of God did not also exist, and that much of Scripture was first oral, but these were established in the light of the established word, the Scriptures. (Jn. 5:39; Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 2:16:21; 25-28, 34,35; 17:11; Heb. 15-13, etc). :


PBJ: And attempts to support Rome's AIM on the basis of Scriptural support cedes supreme authority to it,
DM: On the contrary, I simply recognize that YOU won't accept anything else. I can provide reams of Patristic evidence. I've done it before, only to hear the Reformer say, "Who cares what they taught!"


What you are doing is attempting to establish something on the basis of Scripture when in reality you cannot hold that truth may be ascertained by Scripture, and the AIM is based more on Tradition, and ultimately its own self-proclamation, while the appeal to the fathers fails of unanimous consent.

There are two types of tradition. There is Tradition with a captial T which comes from the deposit of faith which Jesus gave the Apostles. These are absolute and don't change but are more fully explained as the Holy Spirit leads the Church into more Truth:


That does not describe what it is as to form and substance, and where is this infallibly defined? You are the one who is big on specifics and authority, and perhaps it is precisely infallibly defined but i have not yet come across it. Is infallible Tradition written, or simply oral? Is there any known end to it? If it is simply unwritten, then how do we know it has not been corrupted, altered, or is without contradiction? Or that it is true except by examination by that the only transcendent, material authority on faith and morals which is wholly inspired of God, or by implicit faith in Rome's AIM (which may claim Scriptural warrant but whose claim to truth is not dependent on it)? And by what means are we to know for sure that Rome's magisterium is assuredly infallibly?

John 14:26 And the assurance The Pharisees could have claimed that their commands were unwritten tradition from Moses, and in fact the Jews do hold to such, and Scripture expressly affirms them to be the instruments and steward of revelation. But this did not confer on them assured infallibility, so that whatever they claimed was authoritative from the tradition of the elders was indeed so, but that which had so far been established as Scripture is set forth as the judge of such.

And there is tradition with a little t which is the tradition which is derived from Church discipline. Church discipline can change whenever the Church feels it is appropriate to change it. Eating of meat on Fridays is such a discipline or tradition.

Yet while it is in force it requires unconditional obedience based upon the authority of the magisterium? So that virtually all clergy must have the gift of celibacy, even though the requirements for bishops/elders (which were the same office btw) shows that this was not the case, though it is preferably if one has the gift?

PeaceByJesus said...

17 Rome simply cannot prove her formualic assured infallibility by Scripture,

That's a matter of your opinion. I think this verse, and there are more, but this verse suffices for that proof from Scripture:
Ephesians 3:10
To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,


And where is this verse infallibly defined, or is this another attempt at justifying Rome according to your own interpretation? The text here, in context, does not refer to the church magisterium being assuredly infallible in all its teaching when in conformity to Rome's formula, but to the revelation of an completely unknown mystery of God as to the church itself consisting of both Jews and Gentiles, (Eph. 3:6) which doctrine is substantiated as clearly based upon Scripture and Scriptural manifestation of the power of God. (Acts 15:4,14-18; Rm. 9:24-26; 15:5-2; Eph. 2:14-16) And is made know to us by Scripture.

The fact that God revealed truth to Israel and the church does not confer assured infallibility, nor is the veracity of truth claims assured based upon a charism of infallibility kicking in when the magisterium speaks in accordance with Rome's formula, but upon demonstrable Scriptural warrant and corroboration and the power of God.

You however, take Rome's claims as truth, and then try to wrest warrant for such out of Scripture, and the more you do then they more is manifest that these teachings do not rest upon Scriptural proof but the self-proclaimed power of Rome to declare truth by fiat. Her apologists have manifested te same trait.

and instead it rests upon Rome's assertion to be so, thus making her assertion infallible.

Quite the contrary. The Church has stood for 2000 years. Only 500 years ago was it challenged by the Reformers. It is they who must prove their innovations are true. And they must do it from Scripture.

The church of Rome, with its distinctives such as papal infallibility and many other teachings, do not go back 2000 years, nro do they have the required “unanimous consent of the fathers” as some of your own scholars now confess, while relative longevity does not establish veracity, as the devil knows, and Hinduism, Judaism and Islam attests, which shows the longevity of error. As for our “innovations,” such teachings as salvation by grace through faith alone, but not a faith that is alone, versus earning it by morally worthiness, and the supremacy of Scripture, etc. is based upon the Word of God which is settled in Heaven. And which often have support from “church fathers,” for what its worth.

PeaceByJesus said...
4. We read Scripture differently than you. For us, the word Purgatory doesn't need to be there

There is far more that does not need to be there for Roman Catholics, but no amount of ecclesiastical extrapolation will wrest support for purgatory out of 1Cor. 3:15, which judgment does not even occur until the Lord returns. Your own NAB Bible notes states that
“The text of 1 Cor 3:15 has sometimes been used to support the notion of purgatory, though it does not envisage this.” nor again does your interpretation have the required “unanimous consent of the fathers” nor an infallible definition of this verse. Again, see debate on this blog here and its extension

The NAB is an ecumenical Bible, wherein, the separated brethren were permitted to a say....
However, 1 Cor 3:15 is the classic proof of Purgatory from Scripture. Or else, answer for yourself, where is this place where the righteous are punished before they go to heaven? Protestant theology has no explanation.

This is an attempt at damage control, as these are approved notes, and the stamps go back to the days of the Inquisition and provide assurance that there is nothing contrary to the faith, yet they deny such things as historical events like Jonah and the fish from being literal, and also deny your take on 1Cor. 3:15.

PeaceByJesus said...

18 This is not a place where the righteous are punished before they go to heaven as it takes placed before the Lords return (1Cor. 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev. 11:18; 22:12) that being the “day of Christ.” (2Ths. 2:2; 1Cor. 1:8; Phil. 1:6,10; 2:16) and which “day shall declare” the manner of works, (1Cor. 3:13) and the works are what one builds the church with, whether in planting or, watering, this material being souls, who are “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone,” “builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit,” (Eph. 2:20; cf. 1Cor. 3:11) as living stones are “built up a spiritual house,” (1Pt. 2:5) with true believers being God's “jewels,” (Mal. 3:17) with Paul himself calling the Corinthian themselves “my work in the Lord.” (1Cor. 9:1)

In contrast the tares among the wheat are the “wood, hay and stubble, which shall be burned up. (Mt. 13:30; cf. 1Cor. 3:17) While those who suffer loss due to false converts being burned up will themselves be saved so as by a man who lost his possessions in a fire, one must have some fruit to be considered a believer. (Mt. 25:30; cf. 8:12; 22:13) And Paul labored in the Lord, so that whether present of absent when He returned, he would find “Well done” for being faithful over a few things. (2Cor. 5:9; Mt. 25:21,23)

You attempts to read purgatorial judgment beginning after death, and the the fire and suffering to be cleansing of personal faults, is an argument against purgatory having Scriptural support.

Again, see here

PeacebyJesus also said:
5. That is your simple opinion. Whereas I follow the Church which Scripture calls the Pillar of Truth (1 Tim 3:15)

That is simply your opinion, or private interpretation, and not the infallible interpretation of this verse as far as i know,

Then provide the infallible interpretation and we can proceed. But my interpretation stands until you can prove that it contradicts a Catholic doctrine.

No it does not, as you need to learn that the issue is that regardless of whether the Catholic doctrine at issue is true or not, the asserted meaning for this verse is one that is an unwarranted extrapolation.


and our real debate is with what Rome officially teaches (whatever that means),

You don't even know what you're disagreeing about?

It is you who needs to know what we are disagreeing about, which is whatever you assert is Catholic doctrine.

and not some RCA who can disagree with another RCA, which often is the case.

We are free to disagree about nonessentials.

Which is another issue that is open to interpretation, but the issue here is not about nonessentials, but about the meanings of verses which RCAs use to defend Rome, which can vary, while they attempt to present ca doctrines as something that can be established by Scripture.

PBJ: You can argue all you want, but unless Rome infallibly defines your verses that way you do, then it is simply your attempt of private interpretation in invoking Scripture as if it were the supreme authority

DM: You don't want me to check your interpretations against Scripture?


Rather, i do not want you try to evade the issue. If you are going to defend the doctrine of Rome by Scripture, then it is worthless if Rome herself may one day disagree with your interpretation of verses which you use. Your Bible already does in a couple instances already.

Yet the ultimate requirement would be that we relinquish our reasoning to Rome. “Once he does so (joins the Catholic church), he has no further use for his reason. He enters the Church, an edifice illumined by the superior light of revelation and faith. He can leave reason like a lantern at the door.” Explanation of Catholic Morals, A Concise, Reasoned, and Popular Exposition of Catholic Morals, by John H. Stapleton, p 76

PeaceByJesus said...

19 in order to convince us that it is not so, and not to engage in private interpretation in interpreting Scripture, though the use of 1Pt. 1:20 to do so testifies to the often spurious interpretation of Scripture by Roman Catholics.

Again, the Catholic Church instructs us on how to read the Scriptures. I believe my technique falls well within the teaching of the Catholic Church. I've not been corrected by any Catholic in the past 20 or so years. In fact, I've received many compliments.


As the NAB notes example, guides can be interpreted differently, or otherwise used in a way that results in different interpretations. As for never having been corrected by a Catholic, i think that is in the eye of the beholder, and i would have to look through all your posting history, which i am not going to do, but lack of dissent is a product of implicit submission to a type of AIM, and thus the Watchtower disciples have their greatest unity.

But as regards this verse, it says nothing more than that the church supports the truth, which both “stulos” (pillar) and “hedraiōma” (ground) denote, with the latter occurring one once in Scripture,

Very good. The Church supports truth. Therefore the Church is infallible.


In-credible. This is enough to shake the dust off my feet. Scripturally, supporting the truth does not render you assuredly infallible. Even if the Scriptures stated that unto the church headquartered in Rome “were committed the oracles of God,” “to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ,” then that would not confer upon it assured formulaic infallibility any more than it did to Israel. And even less, as the nature and essential authenticity of the church is spiritual.

PBJ:while the church itself rests upon the sure word of Scriptural prophecy, which attests to Christ and His coming and work, and which He and the early church invoked.

The Church rests upon the Word of God in Tradition and Scripture. Scripture attests to the fact that this is required of Christians to hold the Traditions by word and epistle.


Scripture is the assuredly infallible part of Tradition, the latter being immaterial, and the former attests to the fact that it is required of Christians to obey the word of God as preached and read, the former being proved by the latter as noble souls exampled, (Act 17:11) even as the Thessalonians were command to “prove all things” that were purported to be from God, (1Thes. 5:21) rather than implicitly submitting to truth claims because someone claimed they were, which submission to tradition the Lord reproved men for requiring. (Mk. 7:1-13).

Moreover, the apostle's preaching was with manifest Scriptural proofs and power which attested to it being the word of God, which was normally written down, and which authenticity did not rest upon a claim to formulaic infallibility.

Moreover, as stated, being the instrument and steward of revelation does not confer assured infallibility, or else we must needs submit to Judaism.

You may submit to Judaism if you like. I follow Christ. And He fulfilled the Old Covenant and instituted the New, through His Church.


It is you who would have sided with the Pharisees, while the principal that a Romish type AIM did not exist nor was necessary still stands.

PeaceByJesus said...

20 PeacebyJesus said:
6. ..yet you ascribe attributes of Deity to her which Scripture does not,

DM: No we don't. We simply accept the teaching of Scripture. For instance, the Woman of Revelation 12 is Mary. In verse 17, she is depicted as being the mother of all those who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.


You tried this before, and you reject the teaching of CTs on this as referring to the church, and the clear correspondence to Israel, as referenced, and have Mary suffering the pains of childbirth, which many CTs hold she did not, while fleeing into the wilderness for 1260 days is hardly the flight into Egypt.

“The modern Mariologists like to turn to [Revelation 12], seeing in it an allegory of the Virgin Mary. But whatever can be thought of their interpretation, it is a fact that none of the early interpreters before the end of the fourth century see the Virgin Mary in the woman of the Revelation. They all understand her to be the Church and so they continue to make most of their interpretations in the following centuries. Ticonius is the first to suggest the Marian interpretation" [Giovanni Miegge, The Virgin Mary (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1955, pp.101-102)].

while the principle at work here transcends distinctions in glory. The predecessors were effectual types and the principal remains, that a perpetual, formal, assuredly infallible magisterium was and is not necessary to preserve Truth,

I believe it is necessary. But the question of necessity is moot. Jesus Christ established an infallible Church and so stated in clear terms-"the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt 16:18). Scripture confirms that teaching in several places, prominently 1 Tim 3:15. Jesus said it, therefore I believe it.

You are simply committed to using whatever you can to defend Rome which does not primarily rest upon sound Scriptural warrant, except if decreed that she is, but which wresting and stretching repels one who requires such. The Lord God also made preservation promises to Israel which kept them as an overall distinct people, while Rome has become as the gates of Hell for multitudes through her institutionalized gospel which fosters confidence in the power of the church, and promotion of liberal moral views. Far greater multitudes migrate to evangelical churches due to the deficient spirituality in Rome than convert to her, which converts she covets in seeking to enliven her pews.

PBJ: but such is established by conformity with Scripture and its means of attestation of truth, and this is what the Lord Himself invoked in establishing His claims, while also showing that those who legitimately sat in Moses seat were not above Scripture.

DM: You've loaded this statement with several presuppositions.
1. The Church does not consider itself above Scripture, but its Servant.


The may autocratically declare consider what it may about itself, but the fact is that since it claims to infallible determine the extent of Scripture and its meaning, and of infallible Tradition, and requires assent of faith when she does, and which status is not dependent upon establishment by depth of Scriptural warrant (the conclusion is assuredly infallible), though it may offer such, then she effectively makes itself the supreme authority over both.

2. The Lord did teach and invoke Scripture:
a. But then He established a Church, His body, to teach and invoke Scripture in His place.


So do we, but not as possessing assured infallibility, and the Lord rebuked those who presumed they could teach tradition of the elders as doctrines as seemed good to them.

PeaceByJesus said...

21
b. Our Lord did not write even one letter of Scripture. He established a Church, commanded the Church to pass on His Traditions.


So did Israel, but not by a perpetual AIM, as preservation was dependent upon the manifest power of God, such as in raising up prophets whose authenticity was not of formal decent, but of evident Divine attestation. Moreover, that the Lord commanded the church to teach all He commanded is know by the Scriptures, as is what He commanded. All oral teaching must be that of preaching the truth of the Scriptures, and illumination or revelation subject it, unless one manifests apostolic power to add to the Scriptures. Which even then had to conflate with what had previously been established as Scripture.

c. It is the Church which wrote the New Testament founded upon those Traditions. Not the other way around.

The church magisterium did not write Scripture the way Rome declares its infallible decrees, but these writings, which even included ones to individuals, became accepted due to their spiritual and textual qualities and Divine attestation. Ps. 19:7-11; 119; Rm. 2:20; 2Tim. 3:15-17; 2Pt. 1:21)

As for your assertion that “as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you” (Jn. 20:21) denotes Rome's formulaic AIM, that is a clear case of extrapolating a desired means which is not there.

I disagree. Lets break it down.

First He says:
21Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
Then, in order to confirm that He means to send them to teach infallibly, He says:
 22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
 23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
Receive the Holy Spirit and whosever sins you remit are remitted, whose sins you retain are retained.
This hearkens back also to Matt 18:17 loosing and binding.
So, it is very clear. Jesus sent His Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, to teach infallibly.


What is very clear is that you must derive a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium out of texts that do not teach that.

As said before, Scripturally speaking regards binding and loosing, the church is shown to have power to discipline and to make rules, and to teach Scripturally warranted doctrines, and to heal, etc., but which does not translate into assuring a perpetual formulaic infallibility. The church can teach infallible truth, but such is dependent upon the type of sound Scriptural attestation we see being made for such in Scripture, versus conformity to a scope and subject-based formula, and thus it must strive lawfully.

As Roman Catholics are uncritically willing to affirm Rome such attempts as the above can seem very clear fine, and often blithely dismiss any evidence to the contrary, but the giant leaps to desired conclusions which such ecclesiastical eisegsis must make is an argument against her.


PBJ: The church can speak infallible Scriptural truth, but this is not assured based upon the premise that an infallible charism (somehow neglected in the list of spiritual gifts in Rm. 12, 1Cor. 12)

DM: Because that gift is treated elsewhere, as I have shown.


You have not, but gain, instead of deriving doctrine from the Scriptures, you resort to forcing texts to support teaching which rest upon Rome's power to declare truth by fiat.

PBJ: kicks in whenever the church in Rome speaks to the whole church on faith and morals. And both Rome and the Mormons are manifestly deficient in the requirements needed to established apostleship and add new doctrinal teachings to Scripture. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1: 11,12; 2Cor. 12:12; Rm. 15:19)

DM: 1. I'm not a Mormon.


You both rely upon sola ecclesia, that only you church is the supreme authority, and seek to wrest Scriptures to support external doctrines.

PeaceByJesus said...

22 You both rely upon sola ecclesia, that only you church is the supreme authority, and seek to wrest Scriptures to support external doctrines.

2. It is actually the Reformers which are deficient in understanding the Gospel, as I am demonstrating. For they came many years after Jesus established His Church and they came causing division and disobedience:

Rather, what you are continually demonstrating is how deficient the attempts are to established Rome's distinctive doctrines from Scripture.

Romans 16:17
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

And what doctrine did they learn, but that which clearly based upon Scripture, “the gospel of God,
Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,” “made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets,” (Rm. 1:1,2; 16:26) including that Abrahamic-type faith was counted for righteousness, (Gn. 15:6) justifying the unGodly, Rm. 4:5) who then become doers of the law, (Rm. 8:4) after the “obedience of faith.” (Rm. 16:26) And to whom not one mention of an infallible pope Peter in Rome was made, amongst all he greeted in Rome, among other things.

PeacebyJesus: Rome critically fails of such apostolic requirements to add to Scripture,

DM: The Canon is closed. The Church closed it. It is Protestants who add and delete from their Scriptures.


No, Rome effectively adds to Scripture by making its immaterial, amorphous Tradition equal to it, and thus her infallible pronouncements, which require implicit assent of faith. Nor did the church close the canon, but while it took while Rome over 1400 years after the last book was written to provide it's infallible definition of its canon (differing from the EO's and ours), yet Scriptural books progressively became established as being Divine due to the aforementioned qualities and attestation, most of whom were established before there was a church, (as seen by references to them: Lk. 24:44, etc.) and the extent of Scripture was effectively settled in the absence of writings of comparable quality, testimony and power, which the obscure books of the apocrypha lacking. See here (which debate should be another thread)

PBJ: and while Protestant denoms also exercise authority as ministers which one must obey, yet this is not unconditional.

1. Scripture gives us the criteria to determine which is the True Church (Gal 1:8).


Which is interpreted by Rome as being their system of salvation, but which really rests upon the premise that she infallibly defines such.

2. Once that is determined, there are no conditions mentioned for disobedience of those whom God has placed in charge of your soul.

Not so, as has been and can be clearly established in Scripture. Even on the basis of conscience, some of your own have started,

. "Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. Conscience confronts [the individual] with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official church" (Pope Benedict XVI [then Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger], Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, ed. Vorgrimler, 1968, on Gaudium et spes, part 1,chapter 1.).

PeaceByJesus said...

23 “Conscience is the highest norm [italics in original] and ... and one must follow it even against authority. When authority - in this case the Church’s Magisterium - speaks on matters of morality, it supplies the material that helps the conscience form its own judgment, but ultimately it is only conscience that has the last word.” (Cardinal Ratzinger, “Values in a Time of Upheaval,” p. 62)
One can also withhold internal assent of faith to such if he is not sure that something is taught infallibly.

“..internal assent is obligatory only on those who can give it consistently with the claims of objective truth on their conscience — this conscience, it is assumed, being directed by a spirit of generous loyalty to genuine Catholic principles.” — http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

3. Therefore, if you think that the Protestants are in charge of your soul, which group is it?

Notice that it doesn't matter if you say, "Not your church". Scripture says God has appointed some men to rule over your soul. Which group do you believe God has appointed over you to whom you submit and obey?


I have affirmed and substantiated that we support obedience to ecclesiastical authority, which Protestant denominations and churches have like as the “denomination” called Roman Catholic.

As Westminster states, “it belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions.. which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission.”

But “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.” (Acts 4:19) And the sure word of God is the Scripture, while to require implicit assent of faith in doctrine is to presumes the authority and warrant of God.

PBJ:Mt. 18:18 has its Old Testament counterpart in the “supreme court” of Dt, 17:8-130 in which hard matters of judgment were brought to the Levitical office of judgment, and the supplicant had to submit “according to the sentence of the law which they shall teach,” it being a capital crime to disobey. Thus the Lord required obedience to the scribes and the Pharisees, (Mt. 23:2) and believers are also commended, submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, including civil authorities, (1Pt. 2:13,14) who do not wield the sword (not a metaphorical or plastic one) for show. (Rm. 13:14) And Rome wavers on this use (death penalty), since she lost it though she still claims “coercive jurisdiction,” to punish disobedience by physical means, whereas the early church relied upon disfellowship and spiritual power to discipline.

DM: Besides the point about what you think the Church wavers. The question is, "which group of men did God put over your soul to whom you submit?"


“Behold, I have told you before.” (Mt. 24:25)

If you are in Rome, you would obey her authority; if in a S. Baptist, you would obey theirs. But as with submission to the civil government, not in cases in which clear compromise with what is written would be required.

However, as Scripture clearly attests, the giving of authority and even capital punishment for disobeying does not render the authority assuredly infallible, as not only did prophets of God (a class of servants whose authority was not that of correct Levitical genealogy, but by the manifest power of God) disobey this authority in obedience and in conscience toward God (which the pope actually sanctions) but the Lord did so Himself as did the apostles. (Lk. 13:31-33; Jn. 8:37; Acts 4:19; 5:29,40-42)

God spoke to them directly. As He did to St. Joan of Arc. So, if God is speaking to you directly, go right ahead and disobey everyone else. However, I first advise you make sure it isn't Satan in angelic cloth (2 Cor 11:14).

The more sure word is the Scriptures, and those who preach Rome as the OTC for salvation are under the curse of Gal. 1:6-9

PeaceByJesus said...

24 But if you are like the rest of us, you are forbidden to rest upon your own understanding (Prov 3:5).

Which is why we must submit to that which is established to be wholly breathed by God, the Scriptures. And Rome's own AIM does not insure that the hearers will interpret her correctly, nor her ordinary magisterium. But the manifestation of the truth includes the manifest transformative effects of believing the evangelical gospel of grace — which emphasizes man's damned and destitute state and salvation by effectual faith in Christ to save by His blood, rather than treating them as Christians due to infant sprinkling — which vast multitudes of former Catholics have realized and evidenced, to the glory of God.

As regards “the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” that is first and foremost manifestly the gospel, which Peter did first preach, as it is by faith in which that believers are translated into His kingdom, (Col. 1:13) and placed into His church, (1Cor. 12:13) and made to sit together in heavenly places. (Eph. 2:6). But which keys are not restricted to Peter.

On the contrary, it is authority, as is clearly seen in another famous verse in Isaiah 22:22, where God gives the key to the Kingdom to Eliakim, who shall lock and unlock. Coupled with Matt 16:18, these two verses describe infallible authority given to St. Peter by Jesus.


Another stretch. The Targum, Jerome, Hitzig, and others assume that Eliakim is the peg, which, however glorious its beginning may have been, comes at last to the shameful end described in Isa. 22:25, and which position classic commentators Keil and Delitzsch contend is the case. However, whether v. 25 refers to Eliakim or Shebna, it is evident is that being fastened in a sure place does not necessarily establish perpetuation, and when perpetuation of any office is the case then the Scriptures makes that clear. But it is Christ to whom it is promised that His kingdom will never cease, (Lk. 1:32,33), who shall be an everlasting father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, that being their holy Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah, out of which our Lord sprang and made a new covenant with. (Heb. 7:14; 8:8 ), And upon Him shall hang “all the glory of his father’s house”, for “in Jesus Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” (Col. 2:9) And who “hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth,” (Rev. 3:7) and which is what best corresponds to the prophecy of Isaiah.

PBJ: As for the power to bind and loose, this was not restricted to Peter, but given to all the apostles, (Mt. 18:18)

DM: As well. But St. Peter was singled out for this privilege.


I affirm the brethren-type leadership of Peter, and am not even opposed to a centralized leadership, but this does not assured translate into the assured formulaic infallibility Rome assets and depends upon for her claims, much less the demigod which Rome turned Peter's position into, especially in times past.

Even on historical grounds, American Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar Raymond Brown says, “The claims of various sees to descend from particular members of the Twelve are highly dubious. It is interesting that the most serious of these is the claim of the bishops of Rome to descend from Peter, the one member of the Twelve who was almost a missionary apostle in the Pauline sense – a confirmation of our contention that whatever succession there was from apostleship to episcopate, it was primarily in reference to the Puauline tyupe of apostleship, not that of the Twelve.” (“Priest and Bishop, Biblical Reflections,” Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur, 1970, pg 72.)

PeaceByJesus said...

25 The picture that emerges from the analysis of of surviving evidence by German theologian Peter Lampe, of whom Catholic historian Eamon Duffy (Irish Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Cambridge, and former President of Magdalene College), said “all modern discussion of the issues must now start from the exhaustive and persuasive analysis by Peter Lampe.” (“Saints and Sinners,” “A History of the Popes,” Yale, 1997, 2001, pg. 421),

is one he names ‘the fractionation of Roman Christianity’ (pp. 357–408). Not until the second half of the second century, under Anicetus, do we find compelling evidence for a monarchical episcopacy, and when it emerges, it is to manage relief shipments to dispersed Christians as well as social aid for the Roman poor (pp. 403–4). Before this period Roman Christians were ‘fractionated’ amongst dispersed house/tenement churches, each presided over by its own presbyter–bishop. This accounts for the evidence of social and theological diversity in second-century Roman Christianity, evidence of a degree of tolerance of theologically disparate groups without a single authority to regulate belief and practice, and the relatively late appearance of unambiguous representation of a single bishop over Rome. Review of this work, from Oxford’s Journal of Theological Studies: — http://reformation500.blogspot.com/2008/08/review-of-from-paul-to-valentinus.html)

More can be added, while Rome made good use of deception in so doing.

and is not absolute, but must be Scriptural, and does not refer to binding the laity from freely reading of the Bible, which Rome historically basically did (especially when it had its unScriptural power to enforce it),

1. The Church forbade the uninformed and uneducated study of the Bible without the guidance of an approved Church teacher. As Scripture commands, "study to show thyself approved" 2 Tim 2:15. And warns that the uneducated will twist Scripture to their own destruction (2 Pet 3:16).


Twisting the Bible to their own destruction is not restricted to the unlearned, (Acts 20:30) and an ignorant laity is necessary for perverse teachers to sow their seed. But rather than Rome encouraging literacy and literacy in the Bible (which men as Chrysostom promoted) — and study Bibles and diligent tutored Bible studying could have dealt with her fears, which were much realized anyway — her attitude and restrictions discouraged it and fostered ignorance and a reliance upon an autocratic magisterium. Even today Roman Catholics are noted for their ignorance of Scripture as compared with their evangelical counterparts, and they will not get much in their brief Mass (i used to be a lector) either.

This lament is quite representative:

My 13 year old son's friend (a baptist and Great kid) attends a church with incredible youth involvement and activities designed to keep the young people "ALIVE WITH THE FAITH" and IT WORKS!!!! Tons of pressure on my son because our parish is "flatlined" when it comes to youth. As a side note to this, I allowed him to attend one evening program at his friends church and when he came home, he was excited about what he read in the bible and what it meant in his life (he NEVER once had to bring a bible with him to religious ed. nor did they ever read from scripture) http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=578988

Moreover, if Rome was right in forbidding reading the Bible in the vernacular, or without special permission, or outlawing it altogether at times and places, and condemning that the reading of Sacred Scripture is for all, then she should not allow the degree of free access today.

Meanwhile, as substantiated, her own NAB's approach to exegesis in her study helps is fundamentally perverse.

PeaceByJesus said...

26 2. And, as shown, it is eminently Scriptural.

No, by now it is evident that what passes for eminently Scriptural is whatever is necessary to defend Rome, whose hindrance you minimize, and basically keeping the Bible from the common people is not eminently Scriptural based on your two verses. Rome effectively hindered study among the laity, and 2Pt. 3:16 does not advocate restricting access to Scripture in the common tongue to solve the problem, which Bible study would serve to do, and the Holy Spirit calls common men noble who searched the Scriptures daily to examine the very apostles by, which is what Rome effectively discouraged, and which common ignorance fosters unhealthy trust in men, and allows false teachers to go unchecked.

PBJ: 3. And although it is not absolute, it is only restricted by God. Not by any man outside the Church.

or granting annulments to consummated marriages based upon such things as “psychic incompatibility),

That the Church is authorized to grant annulments is confirmed by the "bind and loose" beatitude granted by Jesus Christ.


Mere assertions, based upon autocratic presumption to be able to put asunder what God hath joined together. In the Bible even a marriage under a deceptive manner by “bait and switch” Uncle Laban, (Gn. 29:25) was a marriage. You can invoke divorced persons or between believer and unbeliever, but i think your Traditional Catholics have a good case against use of broad criteria: http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/28_Annulments.pdf http://www.archdiocesesantafe.org/Offices/Tribunal/ExplanationGr.html

but is Scripturally interpreted to be that of such things as ecclesiastical discipline, (1Cor. 5:5) including the apostolic authority to set down new disciplinary rules having the force of Scripture, (Acts 15) as they were.

Matrimony is a covenantal bond. Even Baptism may be annulled if the covenant entered into was not truly understood. The Catholic Church does not approve shotgun weddings.

See above.

PBJ:But again, these were clearly based on textual support and Scriptural attestation by the power of God, and were not rendered infallible due to conformity to Rome's formula.

If I understand that statement correctly, you are right. The Catholic Church is infallible because Christ is infallible. Her source and summit is Christ the King.


Your ecclesiastical extrapolation and leaps of logic is grievous. God is also Almighty, not the church. But what i was referring to is the premise that Rome is infallible whenever it speaks in accordance with its infallibly defined formula, which renders her declaration that she in infallible to be infallible. And around we go.

PeaceByJesus said...
7. The infallibility of the Church and of Peter are described in Scripture (Matt 16:18-19; Matt 18:17).

The issue is assured infallibility,

DM: Infallibility of the Church and of the Pope are assured by Christ therein.


Like Rome, you suffer from the delusion that simply declaring something on faith and morals makes it true. Not so. Scripture is uniquely established as wholly God-breathed and judges all other claimants.

but as for Rm. 16:18, as your own catechism states ... many other of the ancients held to (whom again Rome forbade disagreeing with, though she does).

This is the Catechism teaching.
424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.


I quoted that correctly.

PeaceByJesus said...

27 The parenthetical comment is your opinion. The Fathers of the Church simply agreed with this Scriptural doctrine. Example :
Early Christian writers bear witness to the Church's infallibility. Cyprian declares: "If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4, 251 AD). I...
http://www.staycatholic.com/papal_infalibillity.htm


You infer exclusivity with your statement “The Fathers..” but that is deceptive.

As for Cyprian, he said more than that, and Roman Catholic scholar William La Due states,
"In the context of his life and his convictions reflected in his actions and his writings, Cyprian's position can be paraphrased as follows: Peter received the power of the keys, the power to bind and loose, before the other apostles received the same powers. This priority - in time - symbolizes the unity of episcopal power which is held by all in the same way. The only difference is that Peter was granted the power a short time before the others. — (The Chair of Saint Peter [Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1999], p. 39)

Catholic scholar Klaus Schatz:
"He [Cyprian] does not rely on any specific responsibility of Stephen [bishop of Rome] as primate....Cyprian regarded every bishop as the successor of Peter, holder of the keys to the kingdom of heaven and possessor of the power to bind and loose. For him, Peter embodied the original unity of the Church and the episcopal office, but in principle these were also present in every bishop. For Cyprian, responsibility for the whole Church and the solidarity of all bishops could also, if necessary, be turned against Rome." (Papal Primacy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996], p. 20)

Even the conservative Roman Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott acknowledged:
"St. Cyprian of Carthage attests the pre-eminence of the Roman Church...However, his attitude in the controversy regarding the re-baptism of heretics shows that he had not yet achieved a clear conception of the scope of the Primacy." (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma [Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1974], p. 284)

Eastern Orthodox scholar Veselin Kesich:
"In his controversy with Bishop Stephen (254-257), Cyprian expressed the view that any bishop, whether in Rome or elsewhere, was included in Jesus' message to Peter. Like Tertullian, Cyprian is unwilling to accept the claim of exclusive authority for the Bishop of Rome on the basis of Mt 16:18-19....Peter is not superior in power to the other apostles, for according to Cyprian all of them are equal." (The Primacy of Peter, John Meyendorff, editor [Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1992], p. 63)

More: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/06/was-papacy-established-by-christ-part_24.html

PBY: You can go back and forth in linguistics, but the fact is that in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4)....

DM: 1. St. Peter is a man, therefore the word petra had to be modified to the masculine. Just as the name John and Johnette are essentially the same name. Petra and petros are the same way. Petra is rock and so is Petros.
2. That Jesus named St. Peter the "rock" is undeniable...
John 1:42
42... Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.


Which proves nothing, while the Holy Spirit abundantly and uniquely affirms that Christ is the Rock/Stone/Foundation, with all the apostles and prophets being secondary. And all believers of like faith with Peter are stones.

PeaceByJesus said...

28 PeaceByJesus said...
7 contd. The objection to this is that without an assuredly infallible magisterium then there can be no doctrinal certitude, or standard, and progresses toward doctrinal anarchy. However, as seen in Scripture, assured infallibility is not necessary to have an authority which help provides doctrinal stability, which it does as long as it does so in accordance with the manner by which the apostles persuades men they were speaking truth, which is by the Scriptural means of “the manifestation of the truth” to the consciences of men. (2Cor. 4:2)

DM: The necessity of it is besides the point. Christ designed His Religion that way. We simply obey.


Another assertion in the face of lack of warrant or real proof for the AIM of Rome.

PBJ: Conversely, a magisterium which claims it has a charism of infallibility whenever it teaches on faith and moral, and to the whole church, has no real basis for authority, and its teachings only have authority insomuch as they have the manner of Scriptural warrant and corroboration which it manifests is given to truth. In contrast, the Sadducees erred, knowing not “the scriptures, nor the power of God.” (Mt. 22:29)

DM: The basis for authority is the Word of God as clearly shown several times. The Sadducees erred because Christ did not give them the Charism of infallibility. Their covenant was instituted by a great, although fallible man.


Rather, the basis is what Rome autocratically infallibly declares is the Word of God, rendering her to infallibly formulaically speak it. As for Moses the man of God as compared with Rome, the latter could only wish it had the kind of attestation given the former, both in demonstrable supernatural power and conformation in Scripture as having spoken the word of God.

PBJ: 8. Many [as the Orthodox Church] have fallen away from the True Church. That doesn't make them right.

They can contend the same as you, while many have claimed to be the one true church, but which does not make them right, and Rome in its overall deadness is hardly manifest as the church of the Living God.

DM: That still doesn't disprove the Catholic teaching. Which is confirmed by the Scriptures.


You both invoke Tradition, and critically disagree, while you also rely upon the premise that your church is the unique supreme authority on faith and morals, like as do cults such as the Mormons. We'll let you fight it out while we oppose you both.

PeacebyJesus said:
9. “This is true, but not all they wrote was infallible.”

Time out. Are you talking about Scripture or some other writing of which I'm not aware?

Paul stated that all Scripture was inspired of God, and not that all he ever wrote or said was infallible. Paul wrote other epistles which the Holy Spirit did not preserve, and asserting that Rome is privy to all such and that this virtually bottomless pit of nebulous oral tradition is equal to Scripture, when channeled and proclaimed according to her formula, effectively adds to the canon and renders her as one of the inspired writers, even if she denies that level.

That is a very complicated objection. But I can see the following misconceptions loaded within it:
1. The Catholic Church does not claim to be privy to all St. Paul's writings. If you claim She does, please provide the proof.

2. The Catholic Church has never claimed to hold in Her possession all infallible documents which have ever been written.


Leave out all, while it still renders Tradition to be a virtual bottomless pit of historically unverifiable nebulous teachings, which Rome channels to justify herself and certain doctrines.

3. Nor does the Catholic Church claim that the Scriptures are the only writings inspired by God.

Not in contention.

PeaceByJesus said...

29
< 4. As far as oral tradition is concerned, it is the foundation of the New Testament which Jesus deposited with the Apostles.

As stated, much of Scripture was oral tradition at first, but Scripture constitutes the part which became established as being wholly inspired of God, and judges all claimants to that status, especially something most historically unverifiable and vulnerable to distortion as eons-old oral tradition.

5. And, no, the Catholic Church does not add or take away from the Canon.

Again, she effectively does by making Tradition equal to it, and requiring assent of faith to her own declarations supreme magisterium as if it has the force of Scripture.

6. But the Reformers have done both. They have taken away 7 books and added several doctrines which are not taught therein.added 7 books and added several doctrines which are not taught therein, and attempts to support then show the dearth of support and manner of wresting used to give an appearance of support.

PBJ: Given this presumption, Rome could easily justify holding to the “tradition of the elders” in making it a sin to eat bread with unwashen hands, or giving oneself to God to the permanent neglect of needy parents, but the Lord reproved such as did for that, while also condemning many such like things they did. (Mk. 7:1-13)

The Church holds the Traditions of Jesus Christ.


Another unprovable autocratic assertion by an emperor which has no Scriptural clothes.

DM: 10. Not true. Christ gave the Church infallibility.

PBJ: He did in the sense of being able to proclaim Scriptural truth, but not an assured formulaic infallibility, under which Rome autocratically declares something as infallible and so it is, as if she we God.

The Church teaches the Wisdom of God (Eph 3:10).


You have vainly tried to extrapolate support for Rome out of this verse already, and the reproof applies to this one as well. The revelation was not of Rome's AIM channeling oral church tradition, and was not an Assumption or the like, but was the mystery “hid in God” of the Jews and Gentiles being one new man, “which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men” being revealed by the manifest working of God in the gospel of grace by which the became one. And the apostles and prophets of God through who it was revealed were manifestly of God, as was the one new man, and the reason we know this mystery it because it is included in Scripture, the supreme material authority on earth for truth.

Again, thanks for engaging me in this debate.

Hopefully it will help others, but i shall not long continue to use hours (2 days) of my time refuting the same person who is so intractably committed to defending the autocratic assertions of Rome that he imagines own assertions and his wresting of texts and steroidal leaps of logic (the church support truth, therefore it is assuredly infallible) constitutes support. This blog also seems designed to discourage lengthy dialog, and which works. May God grant you grace to see the truth.

Lvka said...

There are many things which are part and parcel of the Christian life, such repentance... These things, however, do not bring us into relationship with God.


Christ begs to differ. (As do all the Apostles and Prophets).

Have you even read the Parable of the Prodigal Son?

___________________________________
If we will not hold the free forgiveness of sins through Christ as the center of our teaching and the apostolic witness, then we will end up with all kinds of the things which become needful.


If it were so "free", we would all be universalists...

De Maria said...

Brigitte said...
We are strictly talking about justification.


Ok.

We will all bear a cross. But not for justification.

If we do not bear our cross we will not be justified:
Matthew 10:38
And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

We will bear our cross for faith, love, obedience and salvation.

It's the which comes first part. Bearing the cross will not earn our forgiveness.

But if we don't bear our cross we won't be forgiven.
1 Peter 4:1
Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

Brigitte said:
Dear Gentlemen, I would need to take all these up in detail, and I can't do it in the next few days. Perhaps steelikat or someone else will.

If we will not hold the free forgiveness of sins through Christ as the center of our teaching and the apostolic witness, then we will end up with all kinds of the things which become needful.


That is Catholic Teaching. When the Priest forgives, it is Christ who forgives through him:
2 Corinthians 5:20
Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

There are many things which are part and parcel of the Christian life, such repentance and prayer and working together in order... These things, however, do not bring us into relationship with God. For that he has done all himself. And because of this we can begin to love him.

It is His grace which brings us into relationship with Him. But we do those things to obey, submit to and cooperate with that grace which He has freely given that we may be saved and come to the knowledge of Truth.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

PeaceByJesus said...
The topic of SS is of necessity set in contrast to your reliance upon sola ecclesia and its infallible Traditions, such as which you first attempted to use Scripture to justify.

I understand. And Scripture does justify the Catholic doctrine of Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium. Whereas, SS is missing.

Not even in 7 years on CA forums? Which is not surprising at all, considering so many imagine texts such as 1Tim 3:15 supports the AIM of Rome, and 1 Cor 3:15 supports purgatory, or Ja. 5:16 supports PTDS, and that SS always requires explicit statements, and the sola fide means a kind of faith that will not effect obedience. Etc.

I have been to very many Catholic and Protestant forums in the past twenty years.

It is not amusing to ignore dealing with the decree of Trent and V1, that “it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture in a sense contrary to this [that “which holy mother church held and holds],

I don't. I interpret Scripture according to the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

OR indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers, and suppose that the general instructions on exegesis allows you to interpret Scriptures contrary to certain fathers. Of course, it is easily shown Rome does so herself, but for an autocratic judge that is not a problem as it need not allow anything to contradict it, but can conform all to fit its needs, and thus she judges the Scriptures and fathers, and all else, more than she is judged by them.

The Church decides that which is orthodox. It is the Pope and the Church united with him which have the charism of infallibility.

For brevity's sake, I left out some of the previously posted matter. I hope it doesn't cause confusion.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

11Ctnd.
PBJ said:
As no less than Roman Catholic theologian than Manning stated,
“It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine. .. I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves.” — Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.


As I understand that, Cardinal Manning is objecting to the REFORMERS denial that the Doctrines of the Catholic Church are from antiquity. He says that it is the REFORMERS who claim that they have returned to the ancient way. Therefore he says, don't worry about antiquity. That is because the Church teaches the Wisdom of God. However, Cardinal Manning does not deny that the Catholic Church is the only Church which Jesus established. Nor that the Traditions of the Catholic Church are the Word of God. Nor does he even deny Her God given authority.

In addition, how to exegete according to the “whole page of instructions on how a lay Catholic may interpret Scripture” allows for very liberal interpretations as exampled by the approved notes in your NAB.

As I showed, the NAB is an ecumenical Bible with many Reformed brethren sitting in on the council. What would they say if the Church denied them any opportunity to voice their opinion. I know what I would say, "Why'd you invite us?" And then I'd pack up my bags and go home.
So, those of us who understand Catholic teaching, simply ignore the notes which obviously came from non Catholic participants to that version. The important thing is the interpretation of the Word of God and I have no complaints in that regard. Though several complaints about the explanations in the footnotes.

PeacebyJesus cont'd
DM: Well, that is slightly different from the definition previously offered on this blog, but I'll accept it. Please show me from Scripture. 

You are seeing what you will. There is no contradiction,…

I didn't say there was a contradiction. And I said it would do. So, would you please show me your definition from Scripture.

Thanks for the info, (i only spoke Latin as a pre-V2 altar boy)

Then you understand that there are masculine and feminine words in the Latin and that the corresponding adjectives must indicate the same:
Latin Adjectives for Masculine 1st Declension Nouns
Agreement of adjectives and nouns in Latin
In Latin, nouns and adjectives must agree in gender, number, and case.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/adjectivesadverbs/qt/adj1stdeclm.htm

but it is used to describe a real difference between two theological concepts,

I know that Sola Scriptura came from Luther. Who wrote Solo Scripturo? And when?

that “alone” refers to Scripture being the only infallible authority for faith and morals, any other being immaterial and in need to conform to what is written, as is Scriptural manifest therein. In contrast is the often used description of SS as meaning only Scripture can be used in determining doctrine, versus sola referring to its supremacy in infallible sources on earth.

Anyway, neither one is Scriptural. So, pick the one you want to defend and show me from Scripture.

Sincerely,
De Maria

Brigitte said...

Lvka. We need to repent, but we cannot build on our repentance. There is a vital difference.

Notice, too, that the prodigal's repentance is pretty self-centered. Whining for how much better were his circumstances with his father. What kind of "repentance" is that?

(I did not come up with that; I read that somewhere. Might have been Luther.)

See, I'd have to ask you if you have repented enough, confessed your sins enough, etc.

Surely, you will say that you have not.

Notice, in the parable also that it is the Father who runs to the son, in completely unceremonial, un-repentance-requiring fashion. He takes the initiative in making the relationship right. He orders the feast, the ring, the reinstatement. He is good. The prodigal is scum.

We are scum.

Luther has it so beautifully in the catechism, on the third article of the creed:

"I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith.

In the same way He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole christian church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith.

In this Christian church He daily and richly forgives all my sins and the sins of all believers.

On the last Day He will raise me and all the dead, and give eternal life to me and all believers in Christ.

This is most certainly true."

Just that much for tonight.

Oh, in terms of things becoming needful and the tradition, etc., I think of one extreme. We have in Alberta some Orthodox groups which can't agree among themselves as to how to cross themselves. Each insists it has to be this exact way according somebody. This is to me beyond absurd. But what is stopping this from being an issue? The Calvinists have completely stopped crossing themselves. And our liturgical people are trying to get us to cross ourselves again in remembrance of our baptism into God's holy name. This is fine with me. It feels good and right and tells me something good for my faith. BUT the moment this becomes in any sense coerced or something that "should" be done, we Protestants will bail out of all of this (I just called myself Protestant, Ken; I can't believe it.) We will not be dictated things that are not commanded in scripture and violate the freedom we have in Christ and which is our confession and joy.

De Maria said...

‪PeaceByJesus‬ said...
12 But the “sola” refers to S…

DM SAID:Sooo, after all that, you aren't going to produce any Scripture? …1 Timothy 3:15…Hebrews 13:7…John 10:35

PBJ:So you are going continue to cry “no Scripture”

Until you produce some, yes.

(10:38 PM, September 03, 2011) after having been shown (6:41 PM, September 03, 2011) that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” (2Tim. 3:16)

That says "all", not "only", nor "only infallible", nor any other definition that you provided for Sola or Solo Script. The Catholic Church teaches that Scripture is inspired of God. Scripture Itself teaches that men were inspired to SPEAK and then to write the Word of God.
2 Peter 1:21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

This explicit statement, along with abundant substantiation showing Scripture being the supreme authority for obedience and for testing new teaching, shows that it alone is the supreme authority.”

No it doesn't. In fact, if you read the entire Chapter, it is about TEACHING. First, Timothy was taught by Sts. Lois and Eunice and from St. Paul also:
14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

And then it says that Scripture is profitable, not necessary, for teaching:
16… and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Nowhere does it say, Scripture alone, nor Scripture only, or any other such thing. It is Scripture being used by the teacher to make the man of God perfect UNTO ALL GOOD WORKS.

Or did you not read through all the responses before posting your own? ...

Yes.

As for 1Tim. 3:15, this also was dealt with (6:42 PM, September 03, 2011). ....

I also rebutted that idea. And I can do it again. The rebuttal is very simple. The verse does not say that the Church sometimes upholds the Truth. But says that the Church IS the Pillar and Ground of Truth. This is an explicit statement of the Church's infallibility. Coupled with others, such as this:
Ephesians 3:10
To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
There is no question that the Scriptures teach the infallibility of the Church.

As a Catholic, one of my Priests or Bishops may tell me whether I have overstepped my bounds. But you certainly can't



False. Obedience to ecclesiastical authority has been affirmed. ... 

The local and corporate magisterium of a Protestant demon can judge matters like as that of Rome does, but which are nor superior to Scripture, nor does Rome have power over other churches since her secular sword was taken away, no matter how much she bellows about having universal jurisdiction and the power to punish by physical means. 

In addition, what your local Priests or Bishops can be wrong, while even infallible teachings, if you are sure that the pertinent one is, are open to some non-infallible interpretation.


That argues my point. I don't submit to Protestant authority.

As for the other matter, the Church is the representative of Christ in this world. Those who don't submit to her now, will find out the hard way in the future.

cont'd

De Maria said...

cont'd
PeacebyJesus said:
Ambiguous. 

▀ What does binding Catholic doctrine precisely consist of?

The authority of God vested in the Church by Jesus Christ.

▀ Is everything in a declaration from the Supreme magisterium infallible?

That which is declared infallible for the faith and morals of the Church united with the Pope and the Bishop.

▀How can you be precisely sure what is infallible teaching versus non-fallible?

I obey the Church. The Church tells me what is infallible when I need to know:
Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
Hebrews 13:7
Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

▀How much of what Roman Catholic believe and practice is from the Supreme magisterium?

It is all from Christ.
▀Can the catechism be wrong, or is it infallible?

The Church will tell me.

▀Are all that the papal encyclicals teach binding?

We obey the authoritative teachings of our rulers:
Hebrews 13:17
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

▀Can you disagree with teaching from the non-infallible magisterium?

Hebrews 13:17
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

▀Can you disobey the Supreme magisterium on the basis of conscience?

Yes. But I personally have never seen anything it would bother my conscience to obey.



Perhaps you can help me. Can you provide the Bible chapter and verse which says that Sola Scriptura is the ONLY infallible source of doctrine?

Insolence. This has been answered, and will be again under 3.

If you mean your interpretation of 2 Tim 3:16, please see my rebuttal.

Sincerely,
De Maria

Brigitte said...

Lvka, I wonder if you would enjoy this link on the Augustana Graeca.

http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.stuckwisch.html

(Pastor Stuckwisch is also on FB and has a blog.)

De Maria said...

‪PeaceByJesus‬ said...
13 …No, we only need one list, which does not exist.

Who said it did? Who needs it?

>PBJ: As for Scriptural defining Sola Scriptura, such is not hard to find, despite your claim. <

DM: Show me.

You have been.

Nope.

That the Word of God was normally written , and that Scripture was the standard for obedience, and for conformity for additional revelation and the establishment of truth claims*, is abundantly evidenced.

That's Catholic Teaching. But the Word of God is in Tradition and Scripture and it is taught by the Magisterium. Not Scripture alone.

And it is the the only transcendent, material authority on faith and morals which is established to be wholly inspired of God (2Tim. 3:16)

That says "all" Scripture. Not "only" Scripture. And it illustrates the point, showing that Scripture is profitable, not necessary, for a Teacher to teach and build up the man of God to be perfect in good works.

No such claim is made that all the magisterium will ever teach to the church on faith and morals will be infallible, which is true of Scripture, and which reveals that a perpetual, assuredly infallible magisterium was not necessary for God to preserve truth, as explained.

I believe it is sufficient to say that the Church always upholds the truth (1 Tim 3:15).



*Here is what i linked to (verse pop up enabled on site): 

*Partial list of references to Divine written revelation being written (Scripture) and references to it, showing it to be the standard for obedience, and truth claims: Ex. 17:14;… Rev. 1:3,11; 22:6,7;10,18,19 (Note: while the Bible reveals that there is revelation which is not written down, (2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 10:4) yet interestingly, i know of no place where the phrase “the word of God” or “the word of the Lord” refers to unwritten revelation that was not subsequently written down.)

First, none of those texts either say or imply, Scripture alone.
Second, the writing of the Scripture does not invalidate its source, which is the Tradition which Jesus passed down to the Apostles.
Third, nor does it invalidate the authority which Jesus vested in the Church.

cont'd

De Maria said...

cont'd
13...More insolence. You have been shown otherwise by no less than Westminster. Or do you not understand what “either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture” means? And as explained, this is not extrapolating support for a tradition out of a limited statement as you do with 1Tim. 3:15, etc., or in isolation, as you do with Eph. 3:10, etc, but one that is decidedly warranted and the weight of corroborating texts without real contradiction, such as the Deity of Christ is.

Then Westminister has admitted that Protestants consider themselves authorities OVER SCRIPTURE. Since Protestants as a whole, condemn the Catholic practice of deriving doctrine from Scripture which only implies the doctrine. They claim, in so doing, the Church has placed herself above Scripture. You have made that accusation several times in this discussion.

This will be my last submission for tonight. I travel tomorrow and probably won't be back for a couple of days.

Thanks again for the dialogue.

Sncerely,
De Maria

Lvka said...

Your interpretation of Christ's parable is an utter distorsion of His Gospel, and a disfiguration of His message:

The first words from Christ's lips in each of the Gospels are "repent ye, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand". (Matthew 4:17; Mark 1:15)

The exact same goes also for John the Baptist. (Matthew 3:2)

Remember then the Parable of the Publican and the Pharisee, in conjunction with Christ's words from Matthew 23:12 and Luke 14:11 & 18:14:

In the Parable of the Publican and the Pharisee, it is stated clearly that his meekness and repentance have justified him (Luke 18:14).

In all His interactions, Christ praised meekness and repentance above all things (Zacchaeus, Peter, the woman who annointed His feet with myrrh, the Good Thief on the cross, etc).

In Matthew 11:29 He tells us that He Himself is "meek and lowly in heart".
___________________________________

Now, for a little counter-exegesis of Christ's parable:

the debauched man who finally hit rock-bottom, at last hears the voice or words (logos) of Reason (Logic, Logos, Wisdom) in the inner spiritual silence created by the failure and bankrupcy of his sinful ways and corrupt passions. Afterwards, regret, sadness, and sorrow filled his heart, and a longing for the Lost Paradise was kindled in his soul. He returns to the Fater who never ceased loving and looking for him. Both head towards each other. "A humble and contrite heart God will not despise" (Ps. 51). So at the son's remorsefull acknowledgement that he is not even worthy to be a humble servant, the Father answers by making him a son again. Were the son to have approached the Father with a different attitude (prideful, careless, unrepentant), the answer would've been different.
___________________________________

I'd have to ask you if you have repented enough, confessed your sins enough, etc.

Ever heard of Christ's words in Matthew 6:3: "let not your left hand know what your right hand is doing" ?

Only a mad man tries to be humble by focusing on his own meekness: he focuses on God's grace and his own sinfulness, this is humility: and in this state we approach God.

The Prodigal and the Publican did not go to God with the attitude: just look at how meek and humble I am! -- this is sheer madness and demonic deception. Rather, they went to God with actual meekness and true humility in their hearts.

Lvka said...

See, I'd have to ask you if you have repented enough, confessed your sins enough, etc.


And I'd also like to ask you if you believe enough, or have enough faith, etc.

Surely, you will say that you have not. -- Ergo, you are not saved or justified... right? ;-)

[Of course, you'll probably answer by saying that we are supposed to have faith in *God*, and trust in *Him*, NOT in our *own* faith: AND you would be right! BUT, -in this case-, please allow me to say that JUST AS faith itself is NOT self-centered, the same ALSO holds true for meekness and repentance...]
___________________________________

the Father who runs to the son, in completely unceremonial, un-repentance-requiring fashion.

God, being Himself meek and lowly in heart (Matthew 11:29), does not have any psychological need to see or hear people asking Him for forgiveness. (Matthew 5:44-48)

As I said, He never ceased loving and looking for His son.

But we're not saved by merely God loving us: He loves everyone, but not all will be saved, only those who respond positively to His love, and let His grace transform them. Those that do not will never be saved from the evil that is in them, since they don't let Light in their hearts to rescue them from their own inner darkness.

PeaceByJesus said...

30 Scripture does justify the Catholic doctrine of Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium. Whereas, SS is missing.

I interpret Scripture according to the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

The Church decides that which is orthodox. It is the Pope and the Church united with him which have the charism of infallibility.


Mere assertions which have been substantially refuted.

As I understand that, Cardinal Manning is objecting to the REFORMERS denial that the Doctrines of the Catholic Church are from antiquity...Therefore he says, don't worry about antiquity. That is because the Church teaches the Wisdom of God.

The point was and is that Rome autocratically can define history, tradition and Scripture as needed, which is infallible if spoken according to her formula. Whatever Scriptural texts she may care to invoke with it is not what makes it infallible.

As I showed, the NAB is an ecumenical Bible with many Reformed brethren sitting in on the council. What would they say if the Church denied them any opportunity to voice their opinion. I know what I would say, "Why'd you invite us?" And then I'd pack up my bags and go home.
So, those of us who understand Catholic teaching, simply ignore the notes which obviously came from non Catholic participants to that version


Most revealing. So your source of truth which teaches the Wisdom of God compromised in order to appease non-Catholics. And it is you who decide this and what to obey or not. Add to this the need to decide the infallible parts of multitudes of papal and conciliar pronouncements to the church in which some doctrine is defined is to be treated as definitive and infallible, (unless you think every part is), as well as how much dissent is allowed in teachings from the Ordinary magisterium, if any.

In addition, you provided no substantiation for your hypothesis that Reformed brethren were the cause of the liberal interpretive grid and notes, other than they fact that some were used, and which was done in accordance with a directive from Vatican Two while the editors-in-chief devoted twenty-five years to this work. In any case, it is the official Bible for America, and it has the stamps, and you must take ownership of what it says, even if it testifies to a low commitment to the meaning of Scripture, include that as part of what Roman Catholics believe. And overall liberal Bible scholarship in Rome abounds, though they are not always wrong in the liberal sense.

So, would you please show me your definition from Scripture.

Despite 20 years on forums, you came here supposing that Sola Scriptura meant the “only” meant Scripture was the only source we could use (thus eliminating everything from our eyes to dictionaries) and then that it means the Bible is the ONLY infallible authority (thus eliminating God), and ask where that is Scripture, while both of which are straw men. You also asked for substantiation in Scripture as meaning “Scripture as highest authority", and which i which i have abundantly substantiated. And i have exampled how it teaches sound doctrine, and supports the ecclesiastical magisterium, but not as assuredly infallible, etc.

If you wanted elaboration on this latter aspect you could have asked, but besides wanting support for a straw man, you refuse to see that Scripture is revealed therein as being the supreme transcendent objective standard for obedience and for establishing truth claims, yet you example a very revealing tendency to see whatever you want in Scripture to justify Rome, though the proof simply is not there.

PeaceByJesus said...

31 Then you understand that there are masculine and feminine words in the Latin

Thanks. It is the only valid argument you have so you can major on it.

I know that Sola Scriptura came from Luther. Who wrote Solo Scripturo? And when?

I do not know, but it is irrelevant, as the valid point behind “solo” remains, which is that the historical definition of Sola Scriptura refers to Scripture being the only (material, transcendent — Christ being in Heaven) source that is wholly inspired of God, and thus infallible.
Rome presumes this is the case for her when speaking according to her formula, though neither sources assured infallible understanding.

Anyway, neither one [solo or sola] is Scriptural. So, pick the one you want to defend and show me from Scripture.

I have done both, which can be easily and clearly seen, including about 100 references, but only you see what you want while parroting claims of Rome for arguments .

That [2Tim. 3:16] says "all", not "only", nor "only infallible", nor any other definition that you provided for Sola or Solo Script.

The Bible need no say “only” believers are justified from all things instead of “all that believe,” as that is necessary. As explained, since “all” Scripture is uniquely affirmed to be wholly inspired of God, not all the church will ever teach, or that all dreams, or all that men claim is the word of God - for all men are liars - then it alone is the assuredly infallible source of truth on faith and morals. Even if some truth exists in oral tradition, and SS does not claim all information is written down, due to the immaterial nature of this, then it must be subject to Scripture.

The Catholic Church teaches that Scripture is inspired of God. Scripture Itself teaches that men were inspired to SPEAK and then to write the Word of God.

This is true, but once again contrary to your leaping logic this does not make all that men speak or claim is the word of God to be just that, which Scripture is assured to be, it being a definable, material source.

But even if Rome denies the same kind of inspiration, what she essentially presumes is to act as one of the holy writers, inspired by God to write the equivalent of Scripture, channeling her amorphous Tradition, and thus she requires assent of faith to such. As do cults.

if you read the entire Chapter, it is about TEACHING. First, Timothy was taught by Sts. Lois and Eunice and from St. Paul also:

Of course it does, and we know this for sure not from Tradition, but from Scripture, and we teach our kids as well. But what was the source of the truth for salvation, “And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” (2Tim. 3:15)

What you attempt to do here is make those who teach (Rome) equal in authority as a class to Scripture, but which Paul does not do, but uniquely affirms Scripture as a class of revelation that is wholly inspired of God, which is used to teach. And to which class more would be added, after the aforementioned means of establishment. This separates the chaff of oral Tradition from the wheat, while Rome attempts to make them equal in her unScriptural presumption to power.

PeaceByJesus said...

32 And then it says that Scripture is profitable, not necessary, for teaching:

Your argument is that this wholly inspired class of revelation is not needed under God's plan, leaving Rome free to declare whatever it will apart from any need for its own authority to be established by Scripture as well as what it teaches, which is basically how it acts anyway.

However, not only is your argument from silence a two-edged sword, as this text does not say it is not necessary, but it is hardly tenable that the only material source of revelation that is affirmed as a class to be wholly inspired of God, would not be necessary for the perfection of the saints, and this superfluous status is not what is taught here.

As regards “profitable,” this refers to use, as having uniquely established the quality of this class of revelation, Paul address its sufficiency and function, in which Scripture is used to make men perfect, as it formally and materially (the former being like the bread itself, the latter providing for the feeder and mouth, etc.) supplies (establishes by documentation and sanction) truth to that end.

This does not exclude what Scripture materially provides, which includes prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, (Eph. 4:11,12) though more is needed (a mind for one), but we see that it is Scripture that is the sword which is used in this work. It is true that God could simply use a man like Moses to be a walking Bible, with the ground swallowing all who oppose him, and even make the truth so overwhelming that no rational atheist (are they?) could deny it, but He did not, but gives enough evidence and of a quality for those who love it to find warrant for faith in Him, in contrast to its competition of the devil and presumptuous men, while allowing the latter enough ability to deceive those who love darkness, and who place faith in the created over Him that is made all things.

The verse [1Tim. 3:15] does not say that the Church sometimes upholds the Truth. But says that the Church IS the Pillar and Ground of Truth.

The church of the living God, consisting of born again believers, not its institutionalized counterpart, is that support, the means being the key, though actually, the verse states that the house of God is “the church of the living God,” and no other word follows in the Greek until pillar [stulos=(to stiffen; properly akin to the base of G2476); a post (“style”), that is, (figuratively) support] and ground [hedraiōma From a derivative of G1476; a support, that is, (figuratively) basis: - ground] the [ho, hay, to] truth [alētheia=From G227; truth: - true, X truly, truth, verity]

Vines states, “The idea is that the church is the pillar, and, as such, the prop or support of the truth. It is quite beside the mark to press the architectural metaphor into detail. By giving to ἑδραίωμα the sense of stay or prop, the use of the two words for the same general idea is readily explained. The church is the pillar of the truth, and the function of the pillar is to support.”

James, Peter and John were called pillars, (Gal. 2:9) and that the church is the supporter of truth is correct, as the church of the living God upholds the truth, but which it supremely does by the Scriptures which are assuredly truth, through the power of God.

But while it upholds “the truth” by the Scriptures, it does not say or assure that all the church will ever teach in word or deed will be pure unerring truth, which Rome herself does not claim, or that surety of truth is perpetually assured by the formula of the church of Rome. But what it does assure is that all Scripture, being established by God, is always infallible and by which compass the church is supremely guided by the Spirit of GOD who wrote it.

PeaceByJesus said...

33
Like Israel, which also was the pillar and ground of truth as “unto them were committed the oracles of God,” “to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises,” which had the truth > in the law, (Rm. 3:2; 9:4; 2:20) “the truth” will be retained even if among a remnant (per usual), and the Scriptures enable that. And as seen therein, God would bring correction when needed, through Jews whom they often cast out, including the Lord and apostles, who pointed them to the Scriptures and the power or God. And thus the Reformation was necessary, which did not reject the Scriptures of the New Testament church or what Rome taught from them, but rejected many accretions of tradition of men which were taught as dogma.

“And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord...And Shaphan read it before the king... 11 And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes (2Kg. 22:8,10,11) And the king went up into the house of the Lord,..and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant that was found in the house of the Lord..And he caused all that were present in Jerusalem and Benjamin to stand to it. And the inhabitants of Jerusalem did according to the covenant of God, the God of their fathers.” (2Chrn. 34:30,32)

Ephesians 3:10

There is no question that the Scriptures teach the infallibility of the Church.


You tried that already, but there is no question that you are relying on wresting a promise of a formulaic, assuredly infallible magisterium out of texts that do not support it, and the last one is another example, as has been explained though you simply invoke it again.

the Church is the representative of Christ in this world.

Truth is not declared by Rome's fiat. You learned well from your autocratic magisterium.

Those who don't submit to her now, will find out the hard way in the future.

And we thought you were a Vatican Two Catholic. Though who evil good and good evil shall preach the gospel of sola Roma will find out that they are accursed. (Gal. 1:6-8)

PeacebyJesus said:
Ambiguous. 

▀ What does binding Catholic doctrine precisely consist of?

The authority of God vested in the Church by Jesus Christ.


Evasive. Give details as to what precisely constitutes binding Catholic doctrine in form.

▀ Is everything in a declaration from the Supreme magisterium infallible?

That which is declared infallible for the faith and morals of the Church united with the Pope and the Bishop.


That is a matter of interpretation is it not. Again, is everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement infallible or not and how do you determine this?


▀How can you be precisely sure what is infallible teaching versus non-fallible?

I obey the Church. The Church tells me what is infallible when I need to know:


It does? And it tells you infallibly? So then you do have an infallible list of all infallible teachings? Or are there infallible teaching which you not need to know? Or if it does not tell you infallibly, how are you sure it is right without leaning on your own understanding, or do you implicitly submit to the non-infallible magisterium as well?

Proverbs 3:5
:

You left out v. 6: In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and he shall direct thy paths. And “It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man.” “It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in princes.” (Ps. 118:8,9) Just as applicable. Your trust in man by giving implicit assent of faith to them due to the premise of an infallibility charism operatic when speaking according to a formula, but this is not how truth claims were established as being from God.

PeaceByJesus said...

34
Hebrews 13:7

You tried this already, but again, submission to man is conditional upon conformity with God, whose sure word is the Scriptures.

How much of what Roman Catholic believe and practice is from the Supreme magisterium?

It is all from Christ.


So the non-infallible magisterium is also infallible, and all that Roman Catholics believe and practice is from Christ??? Even papal sanctioned torture including for suspects of theological deviation? So much for Vatican Two. I think you may be a closet sedevacantist.

▀ Can the catechism be wrong, or is it infallible?

The Church will tell me.


So all is from Christ but the church tells you what is infallible, and tells you what to believe by the catechism, but the catechism may be in error, which has happened, and thus the church may err in something, but that error is from Christ as all that Roman Catholics believe and practice is. Or is that temporary until the church tells you is changed?

▀Are all that the papal encyclicals teach binding?
▀Can you disagree with teaching from the non-infallible magisterium?

We obey the authoritative teachings of our rulers: Hebrews 13:17



To answer the question you mean must obey? Are the papal encyclicals teaching infallible?

▀Can you disobey the Supreme magisterium on the basis of conscience?

Yes. But I personally have never seen anything it would bother my conscience to obey.




As it is all from Christ, how could it? Thus the freedom to believe is for those who do not believe Christ.

13 …No, we only need one list, which does not exist.

Who said it did? Who needs it?


You said you did not know, though Catholics have surety of doctrine, and if you are to obey Christ then you need to know what He commands, and thus you need to know all that is infallibly defined, unless as you state, all that Roman Catholics believe and practice is from Christ, even though most of much of it comes from the Ordinary magisterium.

>PBJ: As for Scriptural defining Sola Scriptura, such is not hard to find, despite your claim. <

DM: Show me.

You have been.

Nope.


Willful ignorance or blindness.

PBJ: That the Word of God was normally written , and that Scripture was the standard for obedience, and for conformity for additional revelation and the establishment of truth claims*, is abundantly evidenced.

DM: That's Catholic Teaching. But the Word of God is in Tradition and Scripture and it is taught by the Magisterium. Not Scripture alone.


Scripture was not the standard for obedience, and for conformity for additional revelation and the establishment of truth claims according to Rome, as she claims to be, while no one said Scripture alone contained all there is to know, but that it alone is the supreme infallible authority on faith and morals to which all else is subject.

(2Tim. 3:16)

That says "all" Scripture. Not "only" Scripture. And it illustrates the point, showing that Scripture is profitable, not necessary


Refuted, and again, nowhere is another transcendent material source on earth affirmed to be wholly inspired of God as a class, nor is Scripture treated as superfluous once written.

PBJ: No such claim is made that all the magisterium will ever teach to the church on faith and morals will be infallible, which is true of Scripture, and which reveals that a perpetual, assuredly infallible magisterium was not necessary for God to preserve truth, as explained.

DM: I believe it is sufficient to say that the Church always upholds the truth (1 Tim 3:15).


It does, after the aforementioned means and manner. If it rejected the Scriptures or went totally apostate it would not.

PeaceByJesus said...

35


PBJ: *Partial list of references to Divine written revelation being written (Scripture) and references to it, showing it to be the standard for obedience, and truth claims:

DM: First, none of those texts either say or imply, Scripture alone.
Second, the writing of the Scripture does not invalidate its source, which is the Tradition which Jesus passed down to the Apostles.
Third, nor does it invalidate the authority which Jesus vested in the Church.


First, straw men burn well. But rather than these texts showing Scripture being the only source used, they show Scripture being alone as the supreme authority for obedience and establishing truth claims under God. No one would get anywhere with God contradicting the Scriptures, yet men could disobey men in obedience to the Scriptures, which noble men tested the apostles by.

Second, the source is God, while oral Tradition is one of the mediums of revelation, which included written revelation through the vessels of men, but not all that was spoken or written was of God, while Scripture consists of the part of such revelation that was established as being wholly inspired of God, by their qualities, complementarity and the attesting power of God.

Rome essentially considers that an unfinished process, and presumes to be an infallible magisterium which autocratically divines ages-old amorphous tradition as dogma, which source is historically unverifiable and most highly subject to corruption and virtually endless.

do you not understand what “either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture” means?

Then Westminister has admitted that Protestants consider themselves authorities OVER SCRIPTURE.


You have jumped to a false conclusion in your zeal to defend Rome. It has been shown to you that while Rome exalts herself as the supreme authority over Scripture based upon her clam to formulaic assuredly infallibility, which is not dependent on Scriptural warrant, and requires implicit assent of faith, in contrast we do not claim assured infallibility, but require doctrine be subject to demonstrable Scriptural warrant and corroboration, and argue for its soundness and obedience to it based upon that premise.

And yet we overall we who do so have historically earnestly defended Scriptural core truths we both agree on, while likewise opposing inventions of Rome and cults which are the result of holding to an assuredly infallible type magisterium as supreme.

This will be my last submission for tonight. I travel tomorrow and probably won't be back for a couple of days.

Thanks again for the dialogue.


No need to rush.

De Maria said...

PeaceByJesus said...
13 cntd. Rome's AIM or the perpetual virginity, PTDS

What do AIM and PTDS stand for?

are not warranted,

What does that mean? "not warranted"? By what authority do you declare what is or is not warranted?

and are contrary to the whole of the evidence, as can be shown.

Scripture declares that the Virgin Mary is a virgin. The "brothers and sisters" of Jesus can all be traced to the other Mary. Scripture declares that it is holier for a married man to act as though he has no wife.

I think the evidence is in favor of the Catholic doctrine.

But which is irrelevant to the Roman Catholic, except in trying to defending her against those pesky Protestants, as Rome's authority is their real basis.

Its just a matter of setting the record straight. The Catholic Church is the Pillar of Truth.

Once he does so (joins the Catholic church), he has no further use for his reason.

1. We obey Scripture and lean not upon our own understanding.
2. At the same time, faith is greater than reason. Because faith relies upon God's Supernatural reason.

He enters the Church, an edifice illumined by the superior light of revelation and faith. He can leave reason like a lantern at the door.” Explanation of Catholic Morals, A Concise, Reasoned, and Popular Exposition of Catholic Morals, by John H. Stapleton, p 76, Benziger Brothers, NY, 1913.

having discovered the authority established by God, you must submit to it at once. There is no need of further search for the doctrines contained in the Christian Gospel, for the Church brings them all with her and will teach you them all...”

“Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..” “The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God...” “He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.” — Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 )


Yes, its true. I submit to the Wisdom of God taught by the Church.

cont'd

De Maria said...

cont'd

PeaceByJesus said...


Which testifies to the relative marginalization of Scripture and lack of certitude as to its meaning and the fact that such dogma relies not upon it but upon the self-proclaimed power of Rome.


Perhaps that is how you see it. But I consider it a testimony to her Supernatural wisdom, prudence and humility.

As can holding that it pertains to the church or to Israel, but that, especially considering how open it is to interpretation, does not establish it is Mary much less her Assumption, or warrant it as dogma.

Since Mary is the only woman that bore the Son of God in her womb and gave birth to Him, Rev 12:1 is an explicit reference to her.

It does not surprise me at all, as Rome has amply demonstrated it does not need to infallibly interpret Scripture to create its dogma, but can presume to basically speak it into existence.

She is the entity of which it is said, "what you bind on earth is bound in heaven,…" (Matt 18:17). But more importantly, She wrote the New Testament. She does not interpret it, as much as She explains the meaning of the text.

Here she cherry picks support from the fathers, which disparate views are defined as “unanimous,” though they are not on this verse, among others. The attempts by such as “Scripture Catholics” deny the validity of the term.

You've said this twice. So I suppose it bears a bit of explanation. Just as the Pope is not infallible except when speaking from the Chair. The Fathers are not unanimous, except in Council. The Fathers were free to speculate here and there about Scripture. But the Church sifted through their writings, just as she did the Scriptures and selected those which contained the oathdox teachings. Discarding and setting aside those which did not.
1 Thessalonians 5:21
King James Version (KJV)
21Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

‪PeaceByJesus‬ said…No, rare in Scripture, in the Greek in which God mainly chose to express Himself in. Show me your list of the use of heōs which does not denote a terminus and expected change, and we shall compared it with the rest out of approx. 150 occurrences.

You are using the term "rare" in a different sense than am I.

First of all, because a term is used in one sense more frequently, that does not mean that its use in the other sense is not also valid. It may be less commonly used, but it is by no means rare.

Second, the term "rare" is a relevant term. What may be "rare" to you, may not be "rare" to me.

Third, even if I conceded that the term was rarely used in that sense, that does not mean the term is not thereby validly used in that sense.

However, it is not rare:
1 Timothy 4:13
13Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.

Did they stop reading and exhorting doctrine after he returned?

Genesis 8:5
And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

Did the water ever recede to the foot of the mountains?

Exodus 10:26
Our cattle also shall go with us; there shall not an hoof be left behind; for thereof must we take to serve the LORD our God; and we know not with what we must serve the LORD, until we come thither.

Were they supposed to stop serving the Lord at that point?

That should be enough to prove the point.
, and contrary to the Lord's Biblical description of marriage, with leaving but no cleaving, (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:5 ), 

Not contrary to Scripture which says:
1 Cor 7:29But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;

I continue to be amazed (and grieved) at what a RCA can get out of an ambiguous verse when needed.

That seems very straight forward to me. But tell me, why should I check my brain at the door and believe you? Why is your opinion more valid than mine? Is that what you're trying to say?

Here, after Paul clearly set forth to the married, “Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency,” (1Cor. 7:5) it now to be supposed that he is commanded permanent celibacy!


Yes. This is the conclusion you draw because you haven't read the entire chapter. Here's more:
8I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I….32But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
 33But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
 34There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

Therefore, having read the entire chapter, it is obvious that St. Paul is advocating celibacy, even in a married relationship.

As for the verse you provided. A man and wife should not "DEFRAUD" each other. Once married, their bodies belong one to the other. However, by mutual consent, they may live in a celibate relationship.

cont'd

De Maria said...

cont'd



No doubt the Lord's words to “hate” father and mother are to taken in the same wooden literal sense, rather than this being comparative, and akin to not letting our left hand know what the right is dong, in not being preoccupied or distracted by the temporal duties one must do (not the users of this world were not told to leave all and become hermits).

They are actually saying the same thing. St. Paul is saying that God is paramount. Jesus is saying that He is paramount.

In addition, the “time is short” may be prophetically referring to the times, as “within half a generation the whole Roman world was turned up by civil war, three emperors in succession were slain, and Jerusalem was destroyed.” (The People's New Testament (1891) by B. W. Johnson)

You're all over the spectrum here. What is this about and how does it relate to the topic at hand?

This frankly is desperate. This is not prayer

Yes. It is.

(proseuchomai only used for prayer) as to God, nor is it to heaven, but Abraham across the gulf.

Weren't you objecting to our prayers to the Saints?

Also, in any communication between created beings from Heaven and those on earth required personal visitation in either realm,

Where is it written? You like to present your ideas as authoritative. But my authority is the Tradition, Scripture and the Church.

while pagans are the only ones in Scripture who offers supplications to a Queen of Heaven. (Jer. 44:18,19,5)

Is that the same Queen who gave birth to Jesus Christ the King of Kings? If it isn't, then they are defrauding themselves. Whereas we offer our supplications to the Queen Mother of Heaven. The Mother of God.

As for the argument that Jewish tradition substantiates this practice, French historian and expert on the Middle Ages states that “It then becomes clear that at the time of Judas Maccabeus-around 170 B.C., a surprisingly innovative period-prayer for the dead was not practiced, but that a century later it was practiced by certain Jews.” — Jacques Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1984), p.45. See also Purgatory and history 
You can also see views of CT's on this.
Again, I don't know who is this Jacques Le Goff. My authorities are Tradition and Scripture as explained by the Catholic Church. And Deuterocanonicals, which were written by Jews before the advent of Christ, record that this practice was accepted.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

PeaceByJesus said...
15.
1 Timothy 2
1I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

And this proves what?


That all members of the Body of Christ must make intercessions. We don't believe that death separates us from the Body of Christ:
Romans 8:38-39
King James Version (KJV)
38For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, 39Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
The church also took up offerings for each other, while the premise of full correspondence between earthly relations and those between God's throne (Mt. 5:34) and earth is negated by the fact that there is no marriage in heaven,

Non sequitur. The fact that there is no marriage in heaven has no effect on our communicating with those in heaven. In the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, it is quite clear that Abraham was very much aware of what was going on on earth. As is also illustrated here:
Luke 15:7
King James Version (KJV)
7I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.
while praying for each other on earth does not sanction telepathy.

I don't know what that means. But when we die, Scripture says we are no longer in the body, and therefore the limitations of the flesh no longer hinder the spirit:
2 Corinthians 5:8
King James Version (KJV)
8We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
That the Holy Spirit would not provide even one example of believers praying to departed saints in Heaven (and Rv. 8:3m4 does not),

Sure it does.

or instructions on it, or about saints in glory constantly hearing individual petitions

Besides the Scripture you tried to discount above (Rv 8:3m4), and in Luke 16:25, there are indications of this in the Deuterocanonicals (Tobit 12:12; 2 Macc 15:14).

and responding is absurd in the light of what He does extensively provide on prayer, and for such basic spiritual practices as this is. See here for more.

God has provided a hierarchy here on earth which is modeled after the heavenly things (Heb 8:5).

cont'd

De Maria said...

cont'd

PeacebyJesus said;
3. ..while the fact is that Scripture is the ONLY transcendent material authority that is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God, as “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” (2Tim. 3:16)


That is really only in a manner of speaking. Scripture tells us that MEN were inspired by God to write Scripture. And since the Scripture that they wrote is without error, God inspired men to write infallibly:
2 Peter 1:19-21
King James Version (KJV)

 19We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
 20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
 21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Your exegesis is characterized by leaps to conclusions which your premise does not warrant.

Sure it does. The bottom-line is that, to say that Scripture is inspired, is only in a manner of speaking. Because it is men who were inspired by God to prophecy and then to write the prophecy in the Scriptures.

Scripture is the only only transcendent, material authority on faith and morals which is stated to be inclusively inspired of God. (2Tim. 3:16)

That isn't true. The Apostle's themselves were inspired, as were the authors of Scripture (John 20:22 ; 2 Peter 1:19-21).

All is inclusive of all that was and would be manifest as Scripture, ...Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12)

All those tests, are to be applied by men. Scripture can't judge Itself. That is why Jesus established a Church which could judge whether someone is misapplying the Scripture. Just as She judged Arias and Luther to be heretical in their teachings. The Church is the Judge. Scripture can't judge. It is the one of the two standards by which the Church judges men's decisions.

God did inspired men but simply because He did does not render all that they said or that other men may claim to be from God to be so,

Then you are impugning Scripture. Because these men were inspired to write Scripture. And it is evident that they were inspired to do so infallibly, as the result is without error.

while Scripture is what has been established as being wholly inspired from them and judges all that purports to be from God.

Scripture doesn't judge. Scripture makes no pronouncements. It is the Church which Jesus Christ established to which we have recourse when two men have contradicting interpretations of Scripture.

This leads to the conclusion that you continue to use most any general statement to support Rome. This teaches following the example of men of faith, such as which Heb. 11 exampled, and which was not referring to following them as if they were infallible doctrinal teachers, as if Samson would be such, but in practical application and not denying the basic salvific faith, drawing in denial of Christ, (Heb. 10:25-39) holding firm the rejoicing of the hope, (Heb. 3:6,14) which is what the word of exhortation” of Hebrews is all about.

The logic in that statement is very convoluted. What are you trying to say? Jesus established a Church and said "hear the Church. Whoever does not hear the Church, treat as a heathen" (Matt 18:17). Therefore, Jesus established the Church as the Judge over Church matters. And that includes the interpretation of Scripture.

Timothy is also told to follow Paul, which was a man who established his claims Scripturally, (Acts 17:2; 28:23; 2Cor. 6:1-10) which wholly inspired of Go source Paul directs his pupil to, (2Tim. 3:14-17) and such exhortation is given today by evangelical ministers.

Which simply shows that the Evangelical ministers do not practice as they preach. Because overtime they pretend to explain Scripture, they put themselves up as authorities over Scripture.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

‪PeaceByJesus‬ said...
16 This explicit statement,…

I have shown you, but apparently you did not read through and hit the link.

This discussion is long enough without your adding to it links and websites. Please articulate your explanations right here.

Again, Scripture is the standard for obedience, and for establishing additional revelation,

It is a standard. But so is Tradition. And Scripture is not a sentient being. It is simply a book which contains the Word of God.

and thus the appeal to it by the Lord and His own.

Especially the Church which was established as authority and Judge upon this earth over God's children.

This did not mean the oral word of God did not also exist, and that much of Scripture was first oral, but these were established in the light of the established word, the Scriptures. (Jn. 5:39; Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 2:16:21; 25-28, 34,35; 17:11; Heb. 15-13, etc). :

That makes no sense. Scripture did not write Scripture. God inspired men to preach and then to write. And Jesus Christ commanded His Apostles to teach His Traditions. Jesus Christ neither wrote nor commanded anyone to write.

Sincerely,
De Maria

De Maria said...

PBJ:What you are doing is attempting to establish something on the basis of Scripture when in reality you cannot hold that truth may be ascertained by Scripture,and the AIM is based more on Tradition, and ultimately its own self-proclamation, while the appeal to the fathers fails of unanimous consent.

That is simply your misunderstanding of Catholic Teaching:

1st. The Catholic Church teaches that Scripture is the Word of God and without error.
2nd. The Catholic Church teaches that all of her doctrines are contained in Scripture, either explicitly or implied.
3rd. Tradition is the overarching reality of our Faith. Our entire Faith is a form of Tradition. So is Scripture. The New Testament, in fact, is written from the Traditions of Jesus Christ.
4th. The Catholic Church is the judge of orthodoxy. It is within her Councils that you will find the unanimous witness of the Fathers. Outside the Councils, the Fathers speculated one way and another. Many also erred. But they came together in the Councils and their writings were also gathered into the Councils. The Church selected the good and discarded the bad.

That does not describe what it is as to form and substance,

I simplified it as much as I could. Here is the explanation from the Catechism:

2051 The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pastors extends to all the elements of doctrine, including moral doctrine, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, expounded, or observed.

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

and where is this infallibly defined?
Above. But not in special decree. There is no "special proclamation" from the Chair of Peter, if that's what you are asking for.

You are the one who is big on specifics and authority, and perhaps it is precisely infallibly defined but i have not yet come across it. Is infallible Tradition written, or simply oral?
It may be written or oral.

Is there any known end to it?
It is the doctrine of Jesus Christ.
1 Peter 1:25
King James Version (KJV)
25But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

If it is simply unwritten, then how do we know it has not been corrupted, altered, or is without contradiction?
Scripture is the Word of God written. Tradition is the Word of God lived, expressed and obeyed. How we know that it is not corrupted, is by comparing the Tradition to the Scripture and the Teaching of the Magisterium.
cont'd

De Maria said...

THAT is where Scripture alone fails. Because Sola Scripturists deny the Church the authority to judge, they lean upon their own understanding and in practice confuse their own thoughts and words with the Scripture.

Or that it is true except by examination by that the only transcendent, material authority on faith and morals which is wholly inspired of God, or by implicit faith in Rome's AIM (which may claim Scriptural warrant but whose claim to truth is not dependent on it)? And by what means are we to know for sure that Rome's magisterium is assuredly infallibly?
See above. It is a doctrine which is frequently called the three legged stool. Comparison of the Tradition to the Scripture and the Teaching of the Magisterium throughout time.
John 14:26 And the assurance The Pharisees could have claimed that their commands were unwritten tradition from Moses, and in fact the Jews do hold to such, and Scripture expressly affirms them to be the instruments and steward of revelation. But this did not confer on them assured infallibility,
Because Moses isn't God the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. Jesus is.
so that whatever they claimed was authoritative from the tradition of the elders was indeed so, but that which had so far been established as Scripture is set forth as the judge of such.
Not even the Jews did that. The Jews also had authority to judge who was interpreting Scripture according to their Tradition. The Jews were the Magisterium of their day.

Yet while it is in force it requires unconditional obedience based upon the authority of the magisterium?
Yes.
Hebrews 13:17
King James Version (KJV)
 17Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
So that virtually all clergy must have the gift of celibacy, even though the requirements for bishops/elders (which were the same office btw) shows that this was not the case, though it is preferably if one has the gift?
Are you objecting because the Church has been granted the authority to make rules? On what grounds?
Sincerely,
De Maria

De Maria said...

‪PeaceByJesus‬ said...
17 And where is this verse infallibly defined, or is this another attempt at justifying Rome according to your own interpretation?


My interpretation of the Scripture is according to Catholic Church instruction.

The text here, in context, does not refer to the church magisterium being assuredly infallible in all its teaching when in conformity to Rome's formula, but to the revelation of an completely unknown mystery of God as to the church itself consisting of both Jews and Gentiles, (Eph. 3:6)

The verse may not use the term "Magisterium", but it explicitly states that the Church teaches the Wisdom of God. Combined with 1 Tim 3:15, Scripture is explicit about the Church's infallibility.

which doctrine is substantiated as clearly based upon Scripture and Scriptural manifestation of the power of God. (Acts 15:4,14-18; Rm. 9:24-26; 15:5-2; Eph. 2:14-16) And is made know to us by Scripture.

Nonetheless, the infallibility of the Church is taught in Scripture.



The fact that God revealed truth to Israel and the church does not confer assured infallibility,

Those verses don't say that God revealed truth to the Church, although He assuredly did so. That fact is revealed in other Scriptures. The Scriptures in question say:
1. The Church upholds the truth (1 Tim 3:15).
2. The Church teaches the Wisdom of God (Eph 3:10).

nor is the veracity of truth claims assured based upon a charism of infallibility kicking in when the magisterium speaks in accordance with Rome's formula, but upon demonstrable Scriptural warrant and corroboration and the power of God.

I'm not asking you to believe it. I'm simply explaining where Scripture states that the Church is infallible.



You however, take Rome's claims as truth, and then try to wrest warrant for such out of Scripture, and the more you do then they more is manifest that these teachings do not rest upon Scriptural proof but the self-proclaimed power of Rome to declare truth by fiat. Her apologists have manifested te same trait.

As I said before, we read Scripture differently. I don't think I mentioned this reason for the difference however.
1. Protestants, since they discarded the Traditions and Teachings, approach Scripture with a blank slate. They make of Scripture what they want.
2. Whereas, recognizing that the Church wrote the Scriptures and that the New Testament was written from the Traditions of Jesus Christ, we approach the Scriptures already knowing what they will say.
For us, Scripture is a confirmation of our faith life.


cont'd

De Maria said...

cont'd

PBJ: and instead it rests upon Rome's assertion to be so, thus making her assertion infallible.

Jesus Christ made His Church infallible. That's in Scripture:
Matthew 18:18
King James Version (KJV)
 18Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The church of Rome, with its distinctives such as papal infallibility and many other teachings, do not go back 2000 years,

Yes, it does:Matthew 16:18
King James Version (KJV)
 18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

nro do they have the required “unanimous consent of the fathers” as some of your own scholars now confess,

They are either very poor scholars or they are not our scholars. All they have to do is study the Councils. The Church refers to the Fathers therein. And they are unanimous.

while relative longevity does not establish veracity, as the devil knows, and Hinduism, Judaism and Islam attests, which shows the longevity of error. As for our “innovations,” such teachings as salvation by grace through faith alone, but not a faith that is alone, versus earning it by morally worthiness, and the supremacy of Scripture, etc. is based upon the Word of God which is settled in Heaven. And which often have support from “church fathers,” for what its worth.

I've not seen "faith ALONE" in Scripture, except its efficacy is denied:
James 2:17
King James Version (KJV)
17Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

I don't know why you dumped Judaism in there with those religions. Judaism was established by the God which Christians worship. Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism.

As for Hinduism and Islam, they exist only on paper. Only the ideas of their founders remain. There is no Magisterium for either Hinduism nor Islam, which represents their followers. They are amorphous groups.

Sincerely,
De Maria

De Maria said...

PBJ, I'd like an answer to my question please.
I asked:
However, 1 Cor 3:15 is the classic proof of Purgatory from Scripture. Or else, answer for yourself, where is this place where the righteous are punished before they go to heaven? Protestant theology has no explanation.

You (PBJ) replied:

This is an attempt at damage control, as these are approved notes, and the stamps go back to the days of the Inquisition and provide assurance that there is nothing contrary to the faith, yet they deny such things as historical events like Jonah and the fish from being literal, and also deny your take on 1Cor. 3:15.

PLEASE RESPOND TO THE QUESTION.

In Protestant theology, where is this place where the righteous dead are punished before they go to heaven?
Sincerely,
De Maria

De Maria said...

‪PeaceByJesus‬ said...
18 This is not a place where the righteous are punished before they go to heaven as it takes placed before the Lords return


Your answer confirms that it occurs before they go to heaven, as it is the Lord who will judge who goes to heaven and who doesn't. Therefore, if it takes place before the Lord's return, it takes place before they go to heaven.

(1Cor. 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev. 11:18; 22:12) that being the “day of Christ.” (2Ths. 2:2; 1Cor. 1:8; Phil. 1:6,10; 2:16) and which “day shall declare” the manner of works, (1Cor. 3:13) and the works are what one builds the church with, whether in planting or, watering, this material being souls, who are “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone,” “builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit,” (Eph. 2:20; cf. 1Cor. 3:11) as living stones are “built up a spiritual house,” (1Pt. 2:5) with true believers being God's “jewels,” (Mal. 3:17) with Paul himself calling the Corinthian themselves “my work in the Lord.” (1Cor. 9:1)

That has nothing at all to do with the fact that Revelation 2:10 says: Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.

If it is the devil casting them into prison, then these are righteous dead. And this corresponds to 1 Cor 3:15 which says that some will be saved, although by fire.

In contrast the tares among the wheat are the “wood, hay and stubble, which shall be burned up. (Mt. 13:30; cf. 1Cor. 3:17)

Not true at all. The tares are servants of the enemy who are living amongst the children of God. It is clear from 1 Cor 3:10-15, that the wood, hay and stubble represent the sinful works of those men who, having built upon the foundation of Christ, nevertheless, were not made perfect in good works.

10According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
 11For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
 12Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
 13Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
 14If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
 15If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

While those who suffer loss due to false converts being burned up will themselves be saved so as by a man who lost his possessions in a fire, one must have some fruit to be considered a believer.

Ok. Where will these false converts be burned and yet saved?

(Mt. 25:30; cf. 8:12; 22:13) And Paul labored in the Lord, so that whether present of absent when He returned, he would find “Well done” for being faithful over a few things. (2Cor. 5:9; Mt. 25:21,23) 

You attempts to read purgatorial judgment beginning after death, and the the fire and suffering to be cleansing of personal faults, is an argument against purgatory having Scriptural support.

1. Your presupposition that purging begins after death, is an erroneous assumption. I refer you to St. John of the Cross's, "three ways of the spiritual life". For those who have not attained a certain level, they are living in the "purgative" way. Still trying to purge their sinful nature.

2. The purging of sin before and after death are well subscribed in Scripture.



Again, see here

Why don't we just talk about it?
Sincerely,
De Maria

De Maria said...

PeacebyJesus also said:
5. No it does not, as you need to learn that the issue is that regardless of whether the Catholic doctrine at issue is true or not, the asserted meaning for this verse is one that is an unwarranted extrapolation.

You mean, in your opinion. Unwarranted extrapolation, in your opinion. Obviously, I believe it is warranted and rightly interpreted



It is you who needs to know what we are disagreeing about, which is whatever you assert is Catholic doctrine.

Lol! Really? Sounds like you just want to scrap about anything.

RCA''s free to disagree about some issues:
Which is another issue that is open to interpretation,


Not by you though. If RCA''s dispute, that is Catholic Church business. Unless, of course, you're looking to become Catholic.

but the issue here is not about nonessentials, but about the meanings of verses which RCAs use to defend Rome, which can vary, while they attempt to present ca doctrines as something that can be established by Scripture.

The verses which Protestants use to defend their doctrines, also vary from one PA to another. What's the real objection?



PBJ:Rather, i do not want you try to evade the issue. If you are going to defend the doctrine of Rome by Scripture, then it is worthless if Rome herself may one day disagree with your interpretation of verses which you use. Your Bible already does in a couple instances already.

You're kidding! Your comparing the stability of Catholicism with the stability of Protestantism? It would be very easy to count the number of Protestant doctrines which have changed in the past 500 years and compare them to the Catholic doctrines which changed. Wait, Catholic doctrine hasn't changed. Whereas, Protestants have gone from believing the Marian doctrines, to abhorring them. From maintaining that contraception is a sin, to embracing it. Some Protestants in good standing, accept abortion, others decry it. Etc. etc.

Yet the ultimate requirement would be that we relinquish our reasoning to Rome. “Once he does so (joins the Catholic church), he has no further use for his reason. He enters the Church, an edifice illumined by the superior light of revelation and faith. He can leave reason like a lantern at the door.” Explanation of Catholic Morals, A Concise, Reasoned, and Popular Exposition of Catholic Morals, by John H. Stapleton, p 76

As I said, faith is superior to reason. It relies on the Wisdom of the All Mighty. Whereas, Protestants are such, that they all want everyone else to relinquish reason and accept their personal wisdom.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

‪PeaceByJesus‬ said...

As the NAB notes example, guides can be interpreted differently,

Again, the NAB is an ecumenical Bible, as already shown.

or otherwise used in a way that results in different interpretations.

As long as the interpretations do not contradict, that is permitted by the Church. For example: The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus supports several doctrines. The communication of Saints, the existence of hell and purgatory, the necessity of good works, etc.

As for never having been corrected by a Catholic, i think that is in the eye of the beholder,
I didn't say never. I said in the past twenty years or so that I've been doing this on the internet.

and i would have to look through all your posting history, which i am not going to do, but lack of dissent is a product of implicit submission to a type of AIM, and thus the Watchtower disciples have their greatest unity.

You can take my word for it or not. It doesn't matter to me. I will continue to obey the Catholic Church and interpret Scripture within the bounds She has set. 

In-credible.

Not if you have faith in God.

This is enough to shake the dust off my feet.

No problem. I've had to do so before.

Scripturally, supporting the truth does not render you assuredly infallible.

You're talking about the Word of God. You doubt the Word of God?


cont'd

De Maria said...

cont'd

Even if the Scriptures stated that unto the church headquartered in Rome “were committed the oracles of God,” “to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ,” then that would not confer upon it assured formulaic infallibility any more than it did to Israel. And even less, as the nature and essential authenticity of the church is spiritual.

1. If we follow your logic to its conclusion, you are saying that the Old Testament is fallible. Since even that proclamation could not make any Jew infallible. Yet, when writing Scripture, the Prophets were infallible.

2. You continue to forget the difference between Moses and Jesus. Our Lord is greater than all the Prophets.

Scripture is the assuredly infallible part of Tradition,

Tradition of God is also assuredly infallible:
2 Peter 1:19
19We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

the latter being immaterial, and the former attests to the fact that it is required of Christians to obey the word of God as preached and read, the former being proved by the latter as noble souls exampled, (Act 17:11) even as the Thessalonians were command to “prove all things” that were purported to be from God, (1Thes. 5:21) rather than implicitly submitting to truth claims because someone claimed they were, which submission to tradition the Lord reproved men for requiring. (Mk. 7:1-13).

He reproved them for supplanting the Traditions of God with traditions of men. In the meantime, it is the Catholic Church which teaches the three fold comparison of Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium. Whereas, Protestants merely go by their own interpretation of the Scripture.



Moreover, the apostle's preaching was with manifest Scriptural proofs and power which attested to it being the word of God, which was normally written down, and which authenticity did not rest upon a claim to formulaic infallibility.

In Apostolic times, it was normally not written down, yet. 

It is you who would have sided with the Pharisees,

I live in the here and now. So, we'll never know with whom I would have sided. However, Jesus did say:

while the principal that a Romish type AIM did not exist nor was necessary still stands.

You are forgetting that Jesus told the faithful to:
Matthew 23
 1Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
 2Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
 3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
That is a pretty good comparison to the Authoritative Magisterium. Although the Pharisees were not infallible.

Sincerely,
De Maria

De Maria said...

‪PeaceByJesus‬ said...
20 
You tried this before, and you reject the teaching of CTs on this as referring to the church,


Nope. I accept it. Mary is the archetype of the Church. Mary gave birth to the Christ. The Church gives new birth to those who put on Christ.
And, if you know anything about Catholicism, you know that we all the Catholic Church, Holy Mother Church.

and the clear correspondence to Israel, as referenced, and have Mary suffering the pains of childbirth, which many CTs hold she did not, while fleeing into the wilderness for 1260 days is hardly the flight into Egypt.

1. Certainly Israel also gave birth to Christ. Via Mary.
2. And Mary's birth pains were not physical, but spiritual, as she also suffered to give birth to Christ's Church. That is why Jesus gave her to us as our Mother.
3. And Mary actually did flee to Egypt with her Son.

“The modern Mariologists like to turn to [Revelation 12], seeing in it an allegory of the Virgin Mary. But whatever can be thought of their interpretation, it is a fact that none of the early interpreters before the end of the fourth century see the Virgin Mary in the woman of the Revelation. They all understand her to be the Church and so they continue to make most of their interpretations in the following centuries. Ticonius is the first to suggest the Marian interpretation" [Giovanni Miegge, The Virgin Mary (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1955, pp.101-102)].

The fourth century is early enough for me. However, I believe that St. John, the one to whom the Virgin Mary was given, was surely making reference to his Mother in Christ. In addition, Rev 12:1 follows directly behind Rev 11:19:
19And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.
And the early Church Fathers said:
Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373) was the main defender of the deity of Christ against the second-century heretics. He wrote: "O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O [Ark of the] Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides" (Homily of the Papyrus of Turin).

Gregory the Wonder Worker (c. 213–c. 270) wrote: "Let us chant the melody that has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, ‘Arise, O Lord, into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy sanctuary.’ For the Holy Virgin is in truth an ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary" (Homily on the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary).

If they recognized the Ark symbolism, the Woman symbolism, which can't even be called symbolism as it is an explicit to the woman who gave birth to Christ, they certainly knew to whom St John was referring.

You are simply committed to using whatever you can to defend Rome
and you are committed to defending your ideas. So?

cont'd

De Maria said...

PBJ Said which does not primarily rest upon sound Scriptural warrant, except if decreed that she is, but which wresting and stretching repels one who requires such.

On the contrary. There is less stretching in the Catholic interpretation of Scripture than in yours. For instance, you believe in salvation by faith alone. Yet Scripture says:
James 2:24
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
And we've already discussed how the Scripture teaches that we keep Tradition and teach the Word of God. But you keep to Scripture alone.
All the doctrines you keep, which contradict the Catholic Church, also contradict Scripture.

The Lord God also made preservation promises to Israel which kept them as an overall distinct people, while Rome has become as the gates of Hell for multitudes through her institutionalized gospel which fosters confidence in the power of the church, and promotion of liberal moral views.

Liberal moral views? It is the Protestants that have embraced divorce and remarriage, which Christ and the Church continue to denounce (Matt 19:9).
Protestants, for the most part, embrace contraceptives, some permit homosexual preaching, some believe in the errancy of the Scriptures, and many other things.

Far greater multitudes migrate to evangelical churches due to the deficient spirituality in Rome than convert to her, which converts she covets in seeking to enliven her pews.

It isn't a numbers game. If that were so, Islam would be the true religion. Since many say it is the fastest growing religion in the world.



The may autocratically declare consider what it may about itself, but the fact is that since it claims to infallible determine the extent of Scripture and its meaning, and of infallible Tradition, and requires assent of faith when she does, and which status is not dependent upon establishment by depth of Scriptural warrant (the conclusion is assuredly infallible), though it may offer such, then she effectively makes itself the supreme authority over both.

How is that different from you telling me that your interpretations are right? If you place yourself in the position of being an authority over Scripture, then you are doing the same thing as the Catholic Church. So is every other Protestant.
But the Church is said to be the Pillar of Truth. Therefore she has a warrant for saying so. You don't.

So do we, but not as possessing assured infallibility, and the Lord rebuked those who presumed they could teach tradition of the elders as doctrines as seemed good to them.

In placing yourself in the position of teaching Scripture, you do take on a big responsibility. Especially since you recognize that you don't have the charism of infallibility.
James 3
 1My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.

Sincerely,
De Maria

De Maria said...

PeaceByJesus said...
Holding to SS establishes the teaching magisterium and conditional submission to such,

But you haven't shown the existence of SS.
1. You claim that SS does not teach Scripture ALONE, even though that is the title. Making the Title a misnomer.
2. You claim that Solo S, teaches Scripture ALONE.
In either case, it doesn't matter. Show me one or both from Scripture.
But Scripture teaches neither.

which always is the case in such commands, versus the cultic requirement of assent of faith.
That is what Christ requires.

You also infer that SS produces doctrinal anarchy which Rome enjoys unity under SE. However, the unity among those who practice SS is far more substantive and transcendent than Roman Catholics will acknowledge,

Real life disproves that statement. I can look around and see that many Protestants believe in outlandish things. While some others are so conservative as to be nearly Catholic in their belief system.

and has its correspondence to that which Roman Catholics are allowed, and overall the boasting of Roman Catholics as having doctrinal unity is limited to infallible teachings, and is not what it is conveyed to be, while unity by the assent of faith which these require is inferior in quality if not quantity to that of souls being persuaded by Scriptural means, by the “manifestation of the truth,” even with the risks that must allow. You can see what i wrote: here

The unity of Catholicism is real. Whereas, Protestants, for the most part, don't even want it.

History proves this not,
True history does.

nor is formal decent the basis for spiritual authenticity, which is why God can raise up children to Abraham from stones, (Mt. 3:9) and can raise up stones of like faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, to continue to build His church, for on the rock of this faith confessed by Peter Christ build his Church.

Your word against Scripture:
2 Timothy 2
 1Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.
 2And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

cont'd

De Maria said...

PBJ:
What history shows is that of an “unbroken” line of popes in which historically there has been uncertainty, and no infallible list exists TMK, and which has absences of up to 3 years, partly due to her rejection of the Old Testament method of election employed by Peter in the upper room, which worked against the politics which often was involved in papal conclaves, and which elected and retained men who would not even qualify as church members let alone successors to Peter. The New Testament church is not Israel with its Levitical priesthood which required physical lineage, but one in which authenticity is based upon manifest Abrahamic-type faith in the “gospel of the grace of God” effecting transformative regeneration (Rm. 2:28)

and yet the Church remains. While the Church of Luther has splintered into thousands of groups in the short span of 500 years.

Popular Roman Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis, in explaining his turned to being a type of “prophets,” stated,
“There are simply too many doctrinal aberrations and moral laxities in today's Catholic Church that are indefensible. In light of these problems, I have assumed what I believe is the more appropriate position - that of being a prophet of warning rather than one an apologist seeking to exonerate the Church from false accusations. Today many accusations against the Church are quite legitimate and I certainly will not be a party to sweeping them under the rug.”


What am I supposed to say? Sungenis is a brilliant man. But he isn't Jesus Christ. I don't follow Sungenis. I follow the Jesus Christ and His Church.

No they did not, and you have not proof,
I just gave you a reference. Gal 1:8
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
as besides lacking Scriptural support, while they claimed to act according to the unanimous consent of the fathers” they did not,

Sure they did. Search the Councils.

but Rome autocratically defines dissent among CFs to be unanimous according to its art of development of doctrine. here

No. But the Church is the judge of orthodoxy. And she, in accordance with Scripture, tests everything and holds on to the good.

Sincerely,
De Maria

De Maria said...

PeaceByJesus said...
No, as is abundantly seen, the Catholic faith was not uniform and yet is quite different in many ways from even the early post-apostolic age,

The only difference is size. The mustard seed had grown into a great tree:

Matthew 13
 31 He told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. 32 Though it is the smallest of all seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds come and perch in its branches.”

and manifestly is at odds with the prima New Testament church,

The Catholic Church is the New Testament Church. Protestants are trying to reinvent Christ's wheel. They aren't satisfied with that which God provided.

which did not even separate bishops from elders.

Bishops are elders (Priests) even today.

(Titus 1:5-7) nor were pastors a separate class of sacerdotal priests,

Indeed they were. You simply don't recognize them in Scripture because of your presuppositions. For instance, in Romans 15:16, we find St. Paul "ministering in the manner of a priest"

And there's the word, "presbytery", office of priesthood (1 Tim 4:14).

while they also did not suppose that commemorating the Lords death was by literally consuming His physical flesh, but by treating each other as members of that body.

On the contrary, it is those who did not consider it literal who were considered heretics:
Ignatius of Antioch

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

cont'd

De Maria said...

PBJ said:
And it is the evangelical gospel which manifests transformative regeneration, while the typical Roman Catholic cannot tell you when he cognitively had a day of salvation, by conviction of conviction “of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment,” (Jn. 16:9) and repentant faith in the Lord Jesus to save him as damned and destitute sinner.

This is a good one. This is meaty. John 16:8-10 simply says:

 8And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
 9Of sin, because they believe not on me;
 10Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;

It says nothing about telling anyone that we are regenerated. The Catholic Church teaches we are born again in Baptism. Regenerated in Baptism. And, in fact, Scripture advises us NOT to judge before time. So, when Protestants claim to be saved at a certain point in time, they disobey Scripture:

1 Corinthians 4:5
Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, …
Instead Rome usually treats her members as members as Christians due to being sprinkled as a infant on the basis of proxy faith.

This is also confirmed in Scripture:
Acts 2:
38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39For the promise is unto you, and to your children, ….

(The disability of the palsied man was not cognitive, and infants cannot obey he requirements for baptism; Acts 2:38; 8:36,37)

What does the disability of the palsied man have to do with anything that we are talking about?

And infants can grow into their faith or leave it. But the parents have done their duty (Matt 19:14).

All told the evangelical Protestant faith has overall historically relied upon Scripture

On the contrary, the evangelical Protestant faith has no history before the 1500's. And if it wasn't for the Catholic Church, they wouldn't have the Scriptures which they didn't cast out of the Bible.

and the power of God for its growth, though it had and needs to unlearn some things from Rome, who i have no doubt would use the sword of men against it if it had not lost it.

On the contrary, every doctrine held by evangelical Protestantism, which conflicts with Catholic doctrine, also conflicts with Scripture and with the faith of Jesus Christ.

You are not a good Berean as you deny the supremacy of Scripture

The supremacy of Scripture is a concept which has neither been considered by the Catholic Church, nor disputed. The Catholic Church denounces Scripture alone as a false doctrine as it had never been seen in Scripture, Tradition or Magisterium.

by which they demonstrate by testing what the very apostles preached,

If anyone demonstrates by Scripture what was taught by the Apostles, they are demonstrating the doctrine of Magisterium.

and evangelicals are to do the same to those they hear. Nor can you be a good Berean as you disallow that surety of doctrine can come by the Scriptures, else the AIM of Rom would lose its presumed preeminence over Scripture.

It is the Catholic Church which applies the Berean test, considering the Traditions, the Scriptures and the Teaching of the Fathers before judging the validity of a doctrine. This is how it was discovered that the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura was contra-Biblical. Because it is not in Scripture and conflicts with the doctrines which can be derived from Scripture.

Sincerely,
De Maria

De Maria said...

PeaceByJesus said...

Your “proof verse” proves too much, as consistent with this, you are to pray for those who died due to idolatry, which is what the story states was the COD, but for which Rome offers no hope for.

Not true. The sin committed was that of theft. Nowhere does the story say that these individuals worshipped the medallions they wore:

Excerpt: 2 Macc 12
[40] And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain.

Footnote:
[40] "Of the donaries"... That is, of the votive offerings, which had been hung up in the temples of the idols, which they had taken away when they burnt the port of Jamnia, ver. 9., contrary to the prohibition of the law, Deut. 7. 25.

Deuteronomy 7:25

 25The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therin: for it is an abomination to the LORD thy God.

Therefore, the sin was not idolatry, but theft of gold and silver which adorned the idols of the heathen.

...

And Luther had substantial historical and present support for his rejection of this apocryphal book (see sidebar on canon). You can see here for more from me on purgatory.


Luther had nothing but Jewish custom to support him. Essentially, Luther sided with the enemies of Christ, who had forsaken those books because Jesus read from them.

Even if for some mysterious reason both Jesus and Paul "forgot" to comment on the topic, we still have some 1,500 years of Christian writings who -also mysteriosuly- not only fail to criticize this practice, but actually take it for granted as a given aspect of the Christian, apostolic faith.

Prayer for the dead? As we pray, we believe:

Abercius
The citizen of a prominent city, I erected this while I lived, that I might have a resting place for my body. Abercius is my name, a disciple of the chaste shepherd who feeds his sheep on the mountains and in the fields, who has great eyes surveying everywhere, who taught me the faithful writings of life. Standing by, I, Abercius, ordered this to be inscribed; truly I was in my seventy-second year. May everyone who is in accord with this and who understands it pray for Abercius (Epitaph of Abercius [A.D. 190]).

Tertullian
The faithful widow prays for the soul of her husband, and begs for him in the interim repose, and participation in the first resurrection, and offers prayers on the anniversary of his death (Monogamy 10 [A.D. 213]).

Sincerely,
De Maria

Constantine said...

Our poor friend De Maria asks for a verse and my friends seem to be too busy to oblige.

If we are to be limited to one (which we shouldn't be) it might be 1 Corinthians 4:6. “Do not go beyond what is written.”

Now that certainly doesn't stand in a vacuum and is part of the entire biblical tradition (pardon the pun!) which can be at least partially exemplified here: Deut. 28:58, 30:10; Joshua 1:8, 8:34-35, 23:6; 1 Kings 2:3; 1 Chronicles 16:40; Jeremiah 30:2, etc.

It is noteworthy that “oral tradition” is not favored in the OT. 2 Chronicles 34:21 details what happens when God's people depart from the written word. Jeremiah 8:7-8 show that the “magisterium” of that day was not to be trusted.

But I would like very much to ask Mr/s. De Maria a question: Given your stalwart faith in the pronouncements of Rome and especially it's de fide requirements about the canon of Scripture ala the Council of Trent, would you agree with Wisdom 11:17? And why or why not?

Peace.

Lvka said...

Tradition does not mean "going beyond what is written", nor "departing from the written word".

Tradition is the passed-down meaning or interpretation of Scripture.

Jeremiah, being a Prophet, was part of "the “magisterium” of that day".

Creation means first bringing unformed matter (chaos) into existence, and then ordering it (through the Logos), as we see in Genesis, chapter 1.

De Maria said...

‪Constantine‬ said...
Our poor friend De Maria asks for a verse

Hi Constantine,

I've asked that someone provide a definition of Sola Scriptura which Protestants accept and then show me where that is in Scripture.

I suppose you've read the thread. And if so, you are aware that I was told that Sola Scriptura means the only infallible source of doctrine. Somehow, though, when I repeated that verbatim, I was told that I was being duplicitous.

So, in order not to appear to be duplicitous, please provide for us, what you consider an acceptable definition of Sola Scriptura and show us where we can find that in Scripture.

and my friends seem to be too busy to oblige.

That's understandable. Most of us have jobs and families which need attention.

If we are to be limited to one

I never limited the request to one. I possibly asked for at least one. But I don't remember putting a number to it at all.

(which we shouldn't be) it might be 1 Corinthians 4:6. “Do not go beyond what is written.”

First of all, that doesn't say anything about Scripture alone. The same author also said "obey them that have rule over you (Heb 13:17)", that doesn't mean we can make that verse mean "Church alone". And the same author says we must walk according to the Tradition received, (2 these 3:6). Again, we can't translate that to mean "by Tradition alone".

In addition, if you go back to 1 Cor 4:6, it is actually an affirmation of the Teaching Authority of the Church. The chapter begins with these words:
 1Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.
So, this chapter is not telling us to hold to Scripture alone. But it is telling us how to behave towards men of the Church. While giving them the respect due to Christ because they are His Ambassadors, at the same time withholding any hero worship. For if we go one chapter back, we hear him say:

3For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
 4For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
 5Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
 6I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
and so we return to your verse, which if I might clip just a few more words, will show exactly in what context those words are to be understood:
6And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

Now that certainly doesn't stand in a vacuum and is part of the entire biblical tradition (pardon the pun!)

You are actually correct. The Bible is itself a form of Tradition and the interpretation of it is another. Protestants simply changed the Tradition which was established by the Apostles.
cont'd

De Maria said...

Constantine also said:
which can be at least partially exemplified here: Deut. 28:58, 30:10; Joshua 1:8, 8:34-35, 23:6; 1 Kings 2:3; 1 Chronicles 16:40; Jeremiah 30:2, etc.

It is noteworthy that “oral tradition” is not favored in the OT. 2 Chronicles 34:21 details what happens when God's people depart from the written word. Jeremiah 8:7-8 show that the “magisterium” of that day was not to be trusted.

None of those verses say Scripture alone, so please explain how you interpreted them to mean Scripture alone.

But I would like very much to ask Mr/s. De Maria
Mr.
a question:
Shoot.
Given your stalwart faith in the pronouncements of Rome and especially it's de fide requirements about the canon of Scripture ala the Council of Trent, would you agree with Wisdom 11:17? And why or why not?
Do you mean this one from the NAB?

For not without means was your almighty hand,l
that had fashioned the universe from formless matter,*
to send upon them many bears or fierce lions,

The Douay Rheims renders it this way:
Douay Rheims

For thy almighty hand, which made the world of matter without form, was not unable to send upon them a multitude of bears, or fierce lions,

I prefer the Douay rendering.

But yes, I do agree with that verse. The reason? Because its the Word of God and the Word of God says elsewhere:
Genesis 1
 1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
 2And the earth was without form, and void; …
Is that what you were wondering about?
Peace.

Thanks and peace to you as well,

Sincerely,

De Maria

PeaceByJesus said...

Note: numbers are not for each reply, but for each post due to character counts.

36 ► PBY: 3 cntd. Rome's AIM or the perpetual virginity, PTDS

What do AIM and PTDS stand for?


As defined September 02 and which you responded to more than once, “assuredly infallible magisterium” and “prayer to departed saints.” Saves typing.

PBY: are not warranted,

What does that mean? "not warranted"? By what authority do you declare what is or is not warranted?


“they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11) “But he said unto them, Have ye not read,” “Or have ye not read in the law,” “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read,” “But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read,” “And have ye not read this Scripture,” Mt. 12:3,5;19:4; 22:31; Mk. 12:10)

You yourself have attempted to show things as warranted, however vainly, and invoke texts for support which Rome has not infallibility defined. But the answer is, again, warrant is by establishing truth claims after the method and manner of Scriptural corroboration and attestation that the claims of the Lord and teachings of the apostles had and have, relative to their claims.

"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures," (Acts 17:2)

“For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.” (Acts 18:28)

“by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.” (2Cor. 4:2)

"By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left," (2 Corinthians 6:7)

That Scripture was the standard for obedience and establishing truth claims can be abundantly substantiated. Certainly upon this basis is established the truth claim that the ecclesiastical magisterium can decide doctrinal matters, on the weight of the Scriptural testimony, such as is seen in Acts 15. But what is not substantiated is that of asserting that the church magisterium will perpetually be infallible when speaking on faith and morals, and attempts establish this upon Scripture require so much textual extrapolation and presumption that faith is needed in Rome's AIM to believe such attempts.

As for authority, your predecessors had the same problem with the Lord, as they, like you, presumed formal transference of office established infallible authority and authenticity (and had explicit basis for it, versus Rome), even though they were of their father the devil, while the Lord and His own established their claims upon Scripture and its manner of attestation of truth.

The Roman Catholic response to the question, “By what authority do you declare what is or is not warranted?” is to assert the power of Rome's assuredly infallible magisterium, but which claim rests upon itself. Scripture and history may be invoked to support it, but that is not the basis for assurance that it is infallible, but that Rome is infallible when she says she is infallible, and thus any interpretation of history and Scripture to support her is infallible. And if certitude could be had by Scripture you would not need the AIM.

PeaceByJesus said...

37 ► PBY: and are contrary to the whole of the evidence, as can be shown.

Scripture declares that the Virgin Mary is a virgin. The "brothers and sisters" of Jesus can all be traced to the other Mary. Scripture declares that it is holier for a married man to act as though he has no wife. I think the evidence is in favor of the Catholic doctrine.


You may think so, and i responded to the latter polemic already if you remember. The issue is whether the weight of Scriptural evidence supports Marian perpetual virginity or that of Joseph “knowing her and “his mother's children” and his brothers and sisters being just that. And whether it is any more necessary for Mary to be so than for those who brought forth the pure written Word of God.

This is not a salvific doctrine, and some CTs did not hold to it, but the Roman Catholic contention for it is an example of the necessity to force Scripture to conform to a non-unanimous tradition. The church father Basil commented that the view that Mary had other children after Jesus "was widely held and, though not accepted by himself, was not incompatible with orthodoxy" (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 495).

As for it being holier for a married man to act as though he has no wife, if you take this to mean mandating perpetual celibacy then you are in contradiction to what Paul had just wrote, (1Cor. 7:5) as well as to the fact that Paul states that not all have the gift of celibacy, (1Cor. 7:7) and seeing a primary requirement for pastors was to be the husband of one wife, and his children in subjection (even if it may not require all to be married), and that all the other apostles save for Paul were married, (1Cor. 9:5) then to require that all clergy have the gift of celibacy is presumptuous and even contemptuous of what is written.

In addition, it is also evidenced that as concerns the exhortation at issue, 1Cor. 7:29 was targeting a certain period and situation, to wit, “I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be,” (1Cor. 7:26) which is further contrary to a perpetual requirement that all clergy (with exceptions for such as converted EO priests) henceforth be perpetually celibate.

PBY: But which is irrelevant to the Roman Catholic, except in trying to defending her against those pesky Protestants, as Rome's authority is their real basis.

Its just a matter of setting the record straight. The Catholic Church is the Pillar of Truth.


Like Rome, her apologists often presume that this assertion makes it so, and it is so often stated that it is tantamount to a soliloquy.

Once he does so (joins the Catholic church), he has no further use for his reason.

1. We obey Scripture and lean not upon our own understanding.
2. At the same time, faith is greater than reason. Because faith relies upon God's Supernatural reason.


1. No, you obey what Rome says, which seldom “infallibly” defines Scriptures, for what she says is Truth is considered Truth because she said it. And thus your attempt to use reason by invoking Scripture on her behalf requires you to force texts to conform to her, rather than doctrine truly being derived from Scripture as the supreme authority.

2. In reality “God's Supernatural reason” is whatever Rome's reasoning autocratically says it is, which is that it is infallible when speaking according to her formula, but in which the assurance of infallibility does not necessarily extend to the reasoning or arguments behind her infallible decrees. It is a matter of interpretation if and when and how much it does.

PeaceByJesus said...

38 ► He enters the Church, an edifice illumined by the superior light of revelation and faith. He can leave reason like a lantern at the door.” Explanation of Catholic Morals, A Concise, Reasoned, and Popular Exposition of Catholic Morals, by John H. Stapleton, p 76, Benziger Brothers, NY, 1913.

“Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..” “The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God...” “He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him an)

Yes, its true. I submit to the Wisdom of God taught by the Church.


It has increasing become evident that your faith does not rest on Scriptural warrant, and that you reject objective seeking, and that you are compelled to make Scripture conform to Rome if you will try to convince us to refuse to determine truth by objective examination of the infallible Scriptures, and to place implicit faith in Rome and leave reason behind instead.

"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question." (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapter xxiii. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York )

And previously the Roman church forbade laymen as you to engage us in debate:

“We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication.” — Pope Alexander IV (1254-1261) in “Sextus Decretalium”, Lib. V, c. ii:

Quinisext Ecumenical Council, Canon 64: “That a layman must not publicly make a speech or teach, thus investing himself with the dignity of a teacher, but, instead, must submit to the ordinance handed down by the Lord, and to open his ear wide to them who have received the grace of teaching ability, and to be taught by them the divine facts thoroughly.

If anyone be caught disobeying the present Canon, let him be excommunicated for forty days.”

Since Mary is the only woman that bore the Son of God in her womb and gave birth to Him, Rev 12:1 is an explicit reference to her.

Again, Israel is portrayed as a women, and Scripture affirms Israel brought forth Christ, (Rm. 9:5) while the forum your frequent asserts that “Many works mention that Mary gave birth to Jesus without pain. But pain in childbearing is part of the penalty of original sin (Gen. 3:16). Thus, Mary could not have been under that penalty.” (http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp)

Revelation often refers to O.T. typology, and again, in Joseph’s dream, (Gn 37:9-11) “the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.” Jacob (Israel) said, “Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?” Their children were the 12 patriarchs which are the 12 stars on the woman’s head, “and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” (Rm. 9:5) Israel turns to the Lord at the last, as Roman Catholic teaching affirms, and thus she is persecuted, but God keeps her through it, whereas Mary was not hid in the wilderness.

This is not a salvific issue in and of itself, but the overall exaltation of Mary to a demi-goddess, above that which is written, (1Cor. 4:6) is.

PeaceByJesus said...

39 ► PBJ: It does not surprise me at all, as Rome has amply demonstrated it does not need to infallibly interpret Scripture to create its dogma, but can presume to basically speak it into existence.

DM: She is the entity of which it is said, "what you bind on earth is bound in heaven,…" (Matt 18:17). But more importantly, She wrote the New Testament.


This the same assumption that remains to be proved as being the church of Rome's and her AIM, while Scripture was not written as infallible the way infallible decrees are, while even if the church of Rome today was that of the New Testament, which it demonstrably is not, again, being the instrument and steward of Holy Writ does not make such the assuredly infallible interpreters of it.

She does not interpret it, as much as She explains the meaning of the text.

So one can explain the meaning of the text without interpreting it? We are always being told we need an infallible interpreter. Once again, the need to conform to all to defend Rome, and its restriction on reasoning is showing.

PBJ: Here she cherry picks support from the fathers, which disparate views are defined as “unanimous,” though they are not on this verse, among others. The attempts by such as “Scripture Catholics” deny the validity of the term.

DM: You've said this twice. So I suppose it bears a bit of explanation. Just as the Pope is not infallible except when speaking from the Chair. The Fathers are not unanimous, except in Council.


I do not see this in the magisteriums application, as if the required “unanimous consent of the fathers” whom they invoke is simply referring to conciliar decrees, of which infallible ones were rare, and not all fathers were part of such, but to what they wrote. Newman recognized this problem and had to formulate his doctrine of development in trying to explain it.

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Which presumes there is something assuredly infallible to prove such by, and this was given to a local church and to all in it, and which authority is shown to ultimately be the Scriptures, even as the Lord comprehensively exampled to His apostles, (Lk. 24:27,44) and by which their claims were examined by noble men, (Acts 17:11), and out of which Peter, Paul and others reasoned and exhorted. (Acts 2:17-21 25-28; 35,36; 17:2; 18:28; 28:23; Heb. 1:5-14, etc.)

Show me your list of the use of heōs which does not denote a terminus and expected change, and we shall compared it with the rest out of approx. 150 occurrences.

You are using the term "rare" in a different sense than am I...the term "rare" is a relevant term..It may be less commonly used, but it is by no means rare...even if I conceded that the term was rarely used in that sense, that does not mean the term is not thereby validly used in that sense.


It is true that “rare” is a relative term and i was referring to the Greek heōs (I am not going to go through all the OT now), but i consider the approx 10 times (my count) in the NT that this may refer to uninterrupted continuity (such as “even until”) versus a terminus inferring a change, in conjunction with other defining aspects, to be rare.

Moreover, i did not argue that heōs could not denote a continued state, but my argument is that Mary's perpetual virginity required rendering heōs contrary to the normal mode, and contrary to the consummated description by Moses and the Lord of marriage, and contrary to precedent, and to the evidence that the Holy Spirit makes know notable exceptions among its subjects, which includes being sinless, in which Christ alone is affirmed to be so. There is no known celibate marriage in Scripture with an man who could engage in sexual relations.

The word for “everlasting” (Ps. 90:2) can also rarely be used in a limited sense, but that does not warrant rendering Jesus to have a created stating point. (Mk. 5:2)

PeaceByJesus said...

40 ► However, it is not rare: 1 Timothy 4:13
13Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.


Your one example makes it rare (i could give a few ones) and yet this one does in fact denote a terminus and change, as in context it refers to what Timothy was to preoccupy himself with doing until Paul arrived (which is why “till I come” is the preface), in which case his normal routine and ministerial work would be interrupted by ministering to Paul and being tutored by him.

PBJ: Here, after Paul clearly set forth to the married, “Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency,” (1Cor. 7:5) it now to be supposed that he is commanded permanent celibacy!

Yes. This is the conclusion you draw because you haven't read the entire chapter....having read the entire chapter, it is obvious that St. Paul is advocating celibacy, even in a married relationship.


A bold assertion but it is you who evidence an ignorance of the entire chapter, and presume to take verses advocating celibacy in isolation from the rest, in which (again) it is stated that the norm is that “to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband” and that the married are not to forgo sexual relations except for a time, (1Cor 7:1,5) and while celibacy is spiritually advantageous, yet “every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that,” (v. 7) but in the context of “the present distress,” (v. 26) in which the time is short, the exhortation is given “that both they that have wives be as though they had none.” (v. 29)

And contrary to your contrivance, this does not mean husbands and wives are permanently to have nothing temporal or physical to do with each other, which would destroy the family and be a negative testimony, ,or they which use the world to totally abandon temporal things, but as said, such a time requires focus on spiritual priorities, not “things that are of the world,” (v. 33) though we must attend to temporal things as needed, and not being married much reduces the degree of that typical need.

And again, rather than apostolic teaching requiring clerical celibacy, the explicit requirements for such clearly sanctions married clergy, (1Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9) even if it may be argued it does not require marriage, though the pastoring his own children well certainly is a positive addition to his resume (“For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?”). Old Testament priests also had children. (Exo 6:25; Num 25:7-8; 2Sa 15:27) Thus to assert that v. 29 means a permanent total exclusion of the bedroom is presumptuous, and more so is requiring that all bishop/elders have the gift of celibacy.

Your forcing or Scripture to defend Rome, even in a rule they could change, is an example of the exaltation of Rome over Scripture, and repels those who seek to do as noble Bereans did by looking to the Scriptures as the supreme infallible authority.

PBJ: In addition, the “time is short” may be prophetically referring to the times, as “within half a generation the whole Roman world was turned up by civil war...”

DB: You're all over the spectrum here. What is this about and how does it relate to the topic at hand?




Its called historical context; part of sound exegesis.

PeaceByJesus said...

41 ► PBJ: to being contrary to every example of prayer to Heaven and every teaching as to its immediate object, and the intercessory sufficiency of Christ and to the believers access.

DM:On the contrary:
Luke 16:24
And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me,….

PBJ: This frankly is desperate. This is not prayer

DM:Yes. It is.

PBJ: (proseuchomai only used for prayer) as to God, nor is it to heaven, but Abraham across the gulf.

Weren't you objecting to our prayers to the Saints?


That should have been obvious. Your argument was that the cry of the rich man in Hell to Abraham supports the spiritual practice of prayer from earth to saints in Heaven, attributing them the ability to hear infinite amounts of spiritual communication, while i pointed out that the word which is uniquely used for prayer in the NT (87 times, and mostly in Luke), “proseuchomai” (Gk.) is not used not in Lk. 16. The more general word used there (Lk. 16:27), erōtaō, can be used for prayer, but is only used by John for prayer to the Father in Heaven, (Jn. 14:16; 16,26; 17:9,15,20) that being personal intercession by Christ in Heaven, and to the resurrected Lord Jesus in Heaven possibly twice, (Jn. 16:23; 1Jn. 5:16) for a total of 7 times out of 58. It is not as as definitive, being also used for things like “desired, etc.)

While this does not exclude erōtaō from denoting prayer, its used in Lk. 16:27 does not define that as properly being the spiritual practice of prayer from earth to God in Heaven who can hear such. And while you are seeking to justify speaking to saintly “secretaries” in Heaven making intercession to God, yet Abraham was not in Heaven yet, even according to your own sources, and the communication in this account is described is as being oral. Nor was Abraham making intercession to God, while prayer to Heaven is never mentioned or taught as to be addressed to anyone but God. Your attempt to use Lk. 16:19-33 to support PTDS fails on all counts.

PBJ: Also, in any communication between created beings from Heaven and those on earth required personal visitation in either realm,

DM: Where is it written? You like to present your ideas as authoritative. But my authority is the Tradition, Scripture and the Church.


I present them upon the weight of Scriptural evidence, and this is no different though it is relying upon memory. Here is a list of all the multitude of prayers to Heaven in the Bible that i have found, in which you will not find even one prayer to anyone in Heaven but God. As for the need for created beings to cross the divide to have two=way communication with other created beings, examples include the angel of the Lord appearing unto Manoah and wife, (Jdg. 13) and Saul talking to Samuel, if true, (1Sam. 28) and the angel coming before Daniel and the two speaking, (Dan. 10) and Elijah and Moses to the apostles, (Mk. 9) and Mary and Zacharias in being visited by Gabriel, (Lk. 1) and in Peter's earthquake encounter, (Acts 12) and John being caught up in a vision where he spoke with one of the elders. (Rv. 4:1; 7:14) Men could also see God in a vision. (Is. 6) I cannot think of more right now with the neighbors blasting rock music, which will likely go on for the next 7 hours. Life in the city.

while pagans are the only ones in Scripture who offers supplications to a Queen of Heaven. (Jer. 44:18,19,5)

Is that the same Queen who gave birth to Jesus Christ the King of Kings?


No, it is the only Queen of Heaven in the Bible, and i think Rome's spiritual syncretism attempted to Christianize her.

PeaceByJesus said...

42 ► PBJ: at the time of Judas Maccabeus-around 170 B.C., a surprisingly innovative period-prayer for the dead was not practiced, but that a century later it was practiced by certain Jews.” — Jacques Le Goff,
DB: I don't know who is this Jacques Le Goff. My authorities are Tradition and Scripture as explained by the Catholic Church. And Deuterocanonicals, which were written by Jews before the advent of Christ, record that this practice was accepted.


He is a French historian, considered objective, and his dating is in line with some estimates of when it was written. As for the Jews, they reject this book, which still does not support praying to the departed, but supports praying for souls who were killed for being idolaters, and who thus would be guilty of mortal sin, which there is not purgatory, but Hell. But of course this is never a problem for a Roman Catholic needing to defend Rome.

DM... 1 Timothy 2
1I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

PBJ: And this proves what?

DB: That all members of the Body of Christ must make intercessions. We don't believe that death separates us from the Body of Christ:
Romans 8:38-39


You have to force Scripture to support Rome when you make Scripture to be at best a secondary source, and here it teaches that it is the love of Christ which the believer is not separated from. By faith they are in union with the departed, but not in communication with each other, except by one or the other crossing the divide to have a person encounter, TMK.

PBJ: The church also took up offerings for each other, while the premise of full correspondence between earthly relations and those between God's throne (Mt. 5:34) and earth is negated by the fact that there is no marriage in heaven,

DM: The fact that there is no marriage in heaven has no effect on our communicating with those in heaven.


You forgot the offerings, but your attempt is another example of the kind of eisgesis the RCA must resort to defined the manufactured doctrines she progressively added. Faced with zero examples of any believer praying to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, or in any instructions regarding the immediate object of prayer to Heaven, and the sufficiency of Christ and the immediate access a true believer has through the blood of Christ into the holy of holies to commune with God, you have to resort to extrapolating PTDS based upon human relations, which desperation is not how any Biblical doctrine is established by, much less such a basic practice as PTDS is supposed to be. And which hermeneutic allows adding more and more things which are not clearly disallowed, which cults also do who claim an additional revelation equal to Scripture, and Rome's nebulous tradition is what PTDS is really based upon.

s, it is quite clear that Abraham was very much aware of what was going on on earth. As is also illustrated here:
Luke 15:7


So which private interpretation of Roman Catholic apologist are we to believe? Not long before your attempted defense of purgatory, i debated an RCA here on the subject, which he continued on his own blog (http://jesusfountofmercy.com/2011/08/11/in-defense-of-indulgences-and-purgatory/) and i continued on a web page, (http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Contentions_Purgatory.html) and in which he argues that Abraham was in purgatory.

In any case, Abraham only indicated that knew why the two souls were there, while Lk. 15:10 specifies that it is the angels that rejoice over the repentant.

I can allow that the departed may have some knowledge of what is going on in the earth, but not assuredly, much less knowing the hearts of millions in what they are saying to them in prayer, and i see this as a practice of fostered by the psychological need of many lost Catholics.

PeaceByJesus said...

43 ► PBJ: while praying for each other on earth does not sanction telepathy.

DM: I don't know what that means. But when we die, Scripture says we are no longer in the body, and therefore the limitations of the flesh no longer hinder the spirit:
2 Corinthians 5:8


The text you invoked in trying to support believers having an attribute of Deity also states that believers go to be with the Lord upon death, which has other support. No doubt you will try to either restrict this to canonized saints which also lacks support, and interpose purgatory in between, but which is not there. And while we are no longer the limitations of the flesh no longer hinder the spirit, this does no mean attributes which we only see ascribed to God now belong to believers, and to ascribe to the departed the ability to know what potentially multitudes are praying, is presumption, while to hold they are acting as secretaries has no support.

PBJ: That the Holy Spirit would not provide even one example of believers praying to departed saints in Heaven (and Rv. 8:3m4 does not), or instructions on it, or about saints in glory constantly hearing individual petitions or instructions on it, or about saints in glory constantly hearing individual petitions and responding is absurd in the light of what He does extensively provide on prayer, and for such basic spiritual practices as this is.

DM: there are indications of this in the Deuterocanonicals (Tobit 12:12; 2 Macc 15:14).


Along with Nicanor wanting to pay 2,000 talents to the Romans, (2 Macc 8:10) although the Seleucids were not under the Romans, and an angel teaching that smoke from roasting the heart and the liver of a fish that jumped out of the river Tigris (and would have swallowed a man) drives away devils . (Tobit 6:1-7) 2Mac was in Greek and was an addition to the original LXX, and in any case this constitutes no proof for us, for which we have substantial reasons.

PBJ: and responding is absurd in the light of what He does extensively provide on prayer, and for such basic spiritual practices as this is.

DM: God has provided a hierarchy here on earth which is modeled after the heavenly things (Heb 8:5).

Heb. 8:5? The more “Scripture Catholics” try often the worse it gets. The temple Moses built has the holy of holies, (Heb. 9:7,8) which was opened upon the Lord's death, and through Christ believers have immediate access into it therewith to commune with God. (Heb. 10:19) Nor is Christ anything less than immediately accessible as believers come to the throne of grace by Him who is eminently and uniquely qualified to be the high priest, who ever liveth to make intercession for His own, (Heb. 2:17,18; 4:15,16; 7:25) There simply is no need to pray to anyone else, and it is Christ's right and honor to be man's intercessor, and only Deity is shown to be so in Heaven, and the Holy Spirit only sets the Lord forth as the object of prayer.

PeaceByJesus said...

44. ► PeacebyJesus said;
3. ..while the fact is that Scripture is the ONLY transcendent material authority that is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God, as “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” (2Tim. 3:16)

DM: That is really only in a manner of speaking. Scripture tells us that MEN were inspired by God to write Scripture. And since the Scripture that they wrote is without error, God inspired men to write infallibly...Because it is men who were inspired by God to prophecy and then to write the prophecy in the Scripture


And this is supposed to translate into a formulaic assuredly infallible magisterium. Please read carefully, and consider what replies mean as your logic has been refuted before. Those who wrote Scripture did not have a “charism of infallibility” that was assured whenever they spoke on faith and morals, so that all they wrote was assuredly wholly inspired, nor was their writing always addressed to the whole body of believers, nor was the writing of Scripture a organizational project, but that of individuals, nor are the inspired writers transcendent, for they died, while their inspired words live on, did the fact that individuals wrote inspired Scripture ensure that their physical or theological successors would be assuredly infallible as per Rome's formulaic assurance.

Divine writings were not accepted or established as infallible due to the writers fulfilling a formula, as per Rome, but were progressively established as Divine due to their Divine qualities and effects, and other supernatural attestation and conformity to what was previously established as being from God, which also is what established men of God such as the apostles, whose testimony affirmed Scripture. RCs can only read Rome's claimed assured, formulaic infallibility back into Scripture out of a necessity to defend Rome, like as cults do in abusing Amos 3:7.

In addition, Rome denies that her magisterium is inspired of God, as infallibility merely implies exemption from liability to error. “God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of an inspired, utterance; the former remains a merely human document,” “not that either the pope or the Fathers of the Council are inspired as were the writers of the Bible or that any new revelation is embodied in their teaching.” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

Scripture can't judge Itself. That is why Jesus established a Church which could judge whether someone is misapplying the Scripture.

This is true as far as it goes, but the church itself has a judge, just as those who sat in Moses' seat did. While the supreme court is given power to proved needed interpretations of the Constitution, this does not confer assured infallibility. God always (and assuredly will) preserved faith without an assuredly infallible magisterium, by raising up believers within a corrupt magisterium or without it to reprove serious error. And their credibility was not due to a claim to be the product lineage or formal transference of office, or conformity to a subject and scope-based formula, but was due to the manifest blessing of God in power and conformity to the Scriptures. (Mk. 11:28-33) The official magisterium as a whole would often opposed such, but the remnant would heed. Thus both John the Baptist, the Lord and the New Testament church were opposed by those who sat in the seat of Moses, while their authenticity was established after the aforementioned means.

PeaceByJesus said...

45 ► DM: Heb. 13:17:..Then that leads to the conclusion that Scripture and Tradition were inspired by God.

PBJ: This leads to the conclusion that you continue to use most any general statement to support Rome.

DM: : The logic in that statement is very convoluted. What are you trying to say? Jesus established a Church and said "hear the Church. Whoever does not hear the Church, treat as a heathen" (Matt 18:17). Therefore, Jesus established the Church as the Judge over Church matters. And that includes the interpretation of Scripture.


“Most any general statement” refer sto your giant leap of logic from a command to obey leadership, which was true under the OT without an assuredly infallible magisterium, to support the AIM of Rome, and not simply as the church being the judge over church matters; nor does that function mean infallibility.

As shown by the Jews, a command to obey an authority does not mean the authority will always be right, and disobedience to authority is sometimes commended and even commanded, and thus God raised up prophets, however imperfect, and thus the church was founded upon disobedience to those who presumed supreme authority over Scripture and its manifestation of the Truth, as was the (partial) Reformation, whose correction Rome yet refuses (though it did help promote some moral reformation).

PBJ: Timothy is also told to follow Paul, which was a man who established his claims Scripturally,

DM: Which simply shows that the Evangelical ministers do not practice as they preach. Because overtime they pretend to explain Scripture, they put themselves up as authorities over Scripture.


If they do presume so then they are cults, operating after sola ecclesia like Rome who assert she is right independent of her rulings being established on the basis of the weight of Scriptural support as the supreme authority. But if Christians reject the idea that they are assuredly infallible, but instead affirm Scripture as being that, and thus the supreme authority, and rely upon demonstrable Scriptural warrant for doctrine, then they must convince souls by Scriptural “manifestation of the truth.”

DM: Show me from Scripture. Because 2 Pet 1 shows that the Scripture came from men..

PBJ: 16 This explicit statement,…

I have shown you, but apparently you did not read through and hit the link.

DM: This discussion is long enough without your adding to it links and websites. Please articulate your explanations right here.


our leap of illogic was that since men are the instrument of revelation then it means Rome is assuredly infallible, which error has been exposed, while I have done more articulation than you, and it is because this thread is long enough — looking more like a Facebook page, much do to your penchant to simply repeat refuted lines — that links are there, and this one was simply to about 100 Scripture references, showing...,

Again, Scripture is the standard for obedience, and for establishing additional revelation,

DM: It is a standard. But so is Tradition. And Scripture is not a sentient being. It is simply a book which contains the Word of God.

Scripture is the assured Word of God, which is alive and powerful, (Heb. 4:12) and by it the church has life. (Jn. 1:18) Scripture is the supreme authority, which any traditions have to be subject to and dependent upon. And no, it is not a sentient being, and Rome is not Christ, and as all men are liars, thus there must be an assuredly infallible authority by which fallen men can look to for a pure standard. Rome however, is more like atheists, as her own reasoning is supreme.

and thus the appeal to it by the Lord and His own.

DM: Especially the Church which was established as authority and Judge upon this earth over God's children.


But a judge without a higher material authority over it is a God, while Rome cannot even Scripturally qualify to be an apostle.

PeaceByJesus said...

46 ► much of Scripture was first oral, but these were established in the light of the established word, the Scriptures.

DM: That makes no sense. Scripture did not write Scripture. God inspired men to preach and then to write.


Again, being an instrument through which God breathed His perfect word at times did not render them infallible whenever they wrote, but if they did then it would become established as such due to its qualities and attestation. You also fail to allow that the truth claims of the apostles, etc, were dependant upon Scripture, both for textual support and for the manner in which God affirmed new teachings.

PBJ:What you are doing is attempting to establish something on the basis of Scripture when in reality you cannot hold that truth may be ascertained by Scripture,and the AIM is based more on Tradition, and ultimately its own self-proclamation, while the appeal to the fathers fails of unanimous consent.

DM: That is simply your misunderstanding of Catholic Teaching:

...The Catholic Church teaches that all of her doctrines are contained in Scripture, either explicitly or implied.


It can claim this all it wants, just as you poorly attempt to validate, and like the sc “Jehovah's Witnesses” and other SE cults, and but in reality the veracity of this claim to infallibility rests upon her claim to formulaic assuredly infallibility, which is retroactive. “All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.” — ibid Henry G. Graham

The New Testament, in fact, is written from the Traditions of Jesus Christ.

And the canon has separated the wholly inspired part of Tradition, while effectively wants to retain the right to add teachings to it as she pleases.

The Catholic Church is the judge of orthodoxy. It is within her Councils that you will find the unanimous witness of the Fathers.

No, it is within her Councils that you find the claim to the required unanimous consent (UC) of the fathers, but not the reality, except to make real differences or a majority vote, into unanimous consent. And what you attempt to do, restrict UC to whatever conciliar decision there were before the period of the CTs ended, is a restriction i do not find support for. It would also be necessary to substantiate an infallible list of all the CTs (some say this includes some “mothers”) and infallible councils

DM there are two types of tradition.

PBJ: That does not describe what it is as to form and substance, and where is Tradition specfically infallibly defined as to what it is, as requested?

DM: I simplified it as much as I could. Here is the explanation from the Catechism: ... “Tradition is the overarching reality of our Faith. Our entire Faith is a form of Tradition. So is Scripture. The New Testament, in fact, is written from the Traditions of Jesus Christ.”


Typical V2 type ambiguity. The subject at issue is not the formula, which i am familiar with, but the details on the form and substance of Tradition.

There is no "special proclamation" from the Chair of Peter,

Well, there is, as pertaining to the faith and moral subject and universal scope criteria which her claimed infallible pronouncements have.

PBJ: Is infallible Tradition written, or simply oral?

DM: It may be written or oral.


This is your interpretation of infallible Tradition, while once again, other RCs disagree: (cntd.)

PeaceByJesus said...

47 ► cntd. The unwritten infallible truths of Tradition, as they are expressed by God, are not expressed in words, neither written words nor spoken words. These truths can be discussed by the faithful in words; in fact, the faithful transmit Tradition partly by putting these truths into words and by discussing these truths. But such discussions are not infallible. When the faithful put the truths of Tradition into words, either written or spoken, this expression lacks the guarantee of infallibility. Sacred Tradition can be referred to, discussed, and partially expressed in words, either written or spoken, but Sacred Tradition itself is nothing other than unwritten truths. (http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/insights-tradition.htm)

Is there any known end to it?

DM: It is the doctrine of Jesus Christ.


Ambiguous again. The reality is that it is an amorphous form with no real way to examine it for corruption, and which has no known end, which Rome channels and is whatever she autocratically says it is.

Scripture is the Word of God written.

Saying it does not make it so, but such is the nature of your master.

How we know that it is not corrupted, is by comparing the Tradition to the Scripture and the Teaching of the Magisterium.

Not we, the assuredly infallible magisterium, which autocratically, being unreprovable, defines Tradition and Scripture as supporting her.

THAT is where Scripture alone fails. Because Sola Scripturists deny the Church the authority to judge, they lean upon their own understanding and in practice confuse their own thoughts and words with the Scripture.

Quite the opposite, as we do not presume our own own understanding is infallible, which Rome conditionally does, while you rely upon your own understanding in interpreting her, and we do not deny the Scriptures as being the supreme authority or judge, which Rome effectively does. And we can never presume to be infallible when speaking universally on faith and morals, but the Scriptures do on any level, and we in turn must rely upon God manifesting what the truth is His by His power, which is what the apostles did (most overtly considering their claims), from creation testifying to God's majesty and wisdom, to Scripture coming true, to (most primarily) by the gospel manifesting it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth, effecting evident regeneration by the working of the Holy Spirit, and other testimony, though the devil seeks to use his religious imitations.

Those who deny the Scriptures to be the supreme authority make their own understanding to be it, which yet requires interpretation.

PBJ: And by what means are we to know for sure that Rome's magisterium is assuredly infallibly?

DM: See above. It is a doctrine which is frequently called the three legged stool. Comparison of the Tradition to the Scripture and the Teaching of the Magisterium throughout time.


I do not see it above, especially from Heaven, and your “proof” rests upon Rome's claim itself. Comparison of the Tradition to the Scripture shows critical deviation, and comparing the Teaching of the Magisterium throughout time also does, and requires interpretation of what teachings are infallible, while in the final analysis Tradition is what she says it is, and there can be no possibility of her being in error, while faith in her is required to known she is infallible.

Rome's assured, infallible formulaic magisterium is simply not how God preserved truth in Scripture.

PeaceByJesus said...

48 ► PBJ:

 Yet while it is in force it requires unconditional obedience based upon the authority of the magisterium?

DB: Yes. Hebrews 13:17


You sure do try to wrest a lot out of that verse, but which again, required obedience to man is conditional, and does not render the authority to be infallible, precluding assent, as if it were God. And yet the Roman Catholic has a right to know that the decree is infallible before he renders assent of faith, which is a matter of interpretation as there is not infallible list of all such. “Except for the definition of the Immaculate Conception, there is little clarity about which papal statements prior to Vatican I are irreformable. Most authors would agree on about half a dozen statements.” (Avery Cardina Dulles, Magisterium: Teacher & Guardian of the Faith”, p. 72)

So that virtually all clergy must have the gift of celibacy, even though..

Are you objecting because the Church has been granted the authority to make rules?


Your knee-jerk reaction to anything that seems contrary to absolute, uncritical obedience is revealing, but again, what i expressed if you read my response, was that mandating all clergy have the gift of celibacy or otherwise practice it, is contrary to what the NT church practiced as most clearly revealed in Scripture, and contrary to what is taught in context.

Ephesians 3:10..

PBY: And where is this verse infallibly defined, or is this another attempt at justifying Rome according to your own interpretation?

DM: My interpretation of the Scripture is according to Catholic Church instruction


Which can result in a wide variety of interpretations, and yours are manifestly driven by the need to defend Rome.

The verse may not use the term "Magisterium", but it explicitly states that the Church teaches the Wisdom of God. Combined with 1 Tim 3:15, Scripture is explicit about the Church's infallibility.

So the perpetual, assuredly infallible magisterium of Rome is explicit by a verse which again, is the wisdom of God in making Jews and Gentiles one new man, which the church reveals by its very nature to heaven, which another verse states the church supports the Truth?

That is not what this teaches, but while the nature of this body was revealed to God's apostles and prophets, we know this by the Scriptures, and therein we see that God also revealed other previously unknown things by such men, but which neither required or promised an assuredly infallible magisterium. And as seen in history, such presumption is dangerous, and if it were not for her loss of the Sword of men and those pesky Protestants challenging her presumption, i am sure more innocent blood would be on her hands, and more souls led to perdition.

PBJ: which doctrine is substantiated as clearly based upon Scripture and Scriptural manifestation of the power of God.

DB: Nonetheless, the infallibility of the Church is taught in Scripture.




Again, your response is simple assertion, which again does not make it so, and your next two are simply reassertions of the above.

As I said before, we read Scripture differently. I don't think I mentioned this reason for the difference however.

I do not think that needs to be said


1. Protestants, since they discarded the Traditions and Teachings, approach Scripture with a blank slate. They make of Scripture what they want.


They may, just as you can and do make of Scripture texts which you want in your commitment to defend Rome, and everyone comes to Scripture with a desire, but your premise impugns the noble Bereans as well as all lovers of truth who come to the only transcendent assuredly infallible material source of Truth, the Scriptures. Ctnd,

PeaceByJesus said...

49 ► Ctnd. And those who have been born again by the word of truth, the gospel of salvation, can come to the Scriptures knowing they will receive food for their souls, confirming the faith which came from this assured word of God and grow in grace thereby. And by which they can affirm what was preached from it.

2. Whereas, recognizing that the Church wrote the Scriptures and that the New Testament was written from the Traditions of Jesus Christ, we approach the Scriptures already knowing what they will say.

For us, Scripture is a confirmation of our faith life.


Your statement is sinking upon forced presuppositions. The church only wrote approx 1/3 of the Scriptures, and that still does not translate into Rome being the same today, or that it is assuredly infallible, or that the common ground out of which Scriptures were separated from has the same authority as that portion which was established as being wholly of God. And the presupposition that you will know what the Scriptures will teach is not true, considering the wide variety of interpretations Roman Catholics can use of them to defend her, while the belief that they will all affirm your faith is based upon the presupposition that if they do not seem to then they must, as Rome cannot be contradicted. All of which is cultic bondage and its unity is not based upon Scriptural means of persuasion and essential unity.

Jesus Christ made His Church infallible. That's in Scripture: Matthew 18:18

You again are simply asserting the same position which i responded to as unwarrantable, and based upon forcing texts to say more than they do, in contrast to how the Scriptures reveal God preserved truth.

The church of Rome, with its distinctives such as papal infallibility and many other teachings, do not go back 2000 years,

Yes, it does: Matthew 16:18


Perhaps you remember my dealing with this, and in which your attempt is shown to be wide and short? Papal infallibility in particular was a long term development, with politics involved in getting it passed, and is contrast to even the early post-apostolic church, let alone that of the Scriptures. I can provide quotes from your own, and the Cts, but you reject anything that refutes you, as required.

nor do they have the required “unanimous consent of the fathers” as some of your own scholars now confess,

They are either very poor scholars or they are not our scholar


This is rich. True to form, you simply blithely dismiss any evidence against you by relegating opposing Roman Catholic scholars to being apostates or poor scholars, which include opposing “church fathers as well! Why should we waste God's time on those who have bound themselves to allow nothing to contradict their idol called Rome?

All they have to do is study the Councils. The Church refers to the Fathers therein. And they are unanimous.

And again, where is the “unanimous consent of the fathers” officially restricted to councils, especially if ecumenical ones (which are the only ones that are supposed to be infallible)? And if i have not said it earlier, i refer to the CTs due to the required unanimous consent, not because they manifest consistency and superior enlightenment, as sincere and pious as they were.

PeaceByJesus said...

50 ► PBJ: As for our “innovations,” such teachings as salvation by grace through faith alone, but not a faith that is alone, versus earning it by morally worthiness,

DM: I've not seen "faith ALONE" in Scripture, except its efficacy is denied: James 2:17
King James Version (KJV) 17Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.


Amen! But you evidence cannot see certain things due to your agenda, as “alone” refers to by what actually appropriates justification for the unGoldy, which the exclusion of any kind of works (not simply the law which some RCA in private interpretation assert) by Romans 3,4; Eph. 2:8,9; 2Tim 1:9; Titus 3:5 etc. shows (which Rome assents to as regards initial justification).

But what manner of faith is salvific is an issue, and you will not see sola fide the way most Roman Catholics assert that the Reformers overall taught it, that being as a faith that is alone, without effecting the “obedience of faith,” and which fruit can be said to justify one in the sense that it affirms one has true saving, or complete faith.

In his Introduction to Romans, Luther stated that saving faith is,

“a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever.'

The Westminster Confession of Faith states:
Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love. [Westminster Confession of Faith, CHAPTER XI. Of Justification.(www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm)

Contemporary evangelical theologian R. C. Sproul writes,
The relationship of faith and good works is one that may be distinguished but never separated...if good works do not follow from our profession of faith, it is a clear indication that we do not possess justifying faith. The Reformed formula is, “We are justified by faith alone but not by a faith that is alone.” [“Essential Truths of the Christian Faith,” Google books]

Nor was Luther the first to understand this, but find support among some CTs. Which does not mean they are always correctly understood or seem consistent in doctrinal statements.

Moreover, the Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out that Luther was not the only one to translate Romans 3:28 with the word “alone.” Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3): Origen, Hilary, Basil, Ambrosiaster, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Bernard, Theophylact, and others can be added. Location and sources.

PeaceByJesus said...

51 ► PBJ: relative longevity does not establish veracity, as the devil knows, and Hinduism, Judaism and Islam attests

DM: I don't know why you dumped Judaism in there with those religions. Judaism was established by the God which Christians worship


In Protestant theology, where is this place where the righteous dead are punished before they go to heaven?

First, as i showed, this takes places at the return of the Lord (1Cor. 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev. 11:18; 22:12) when believers will forever be with the Lord, (1Thes,. 4:17) that being the “day of Christ,” (2Thess. 2:2; 1Cor. 1:8; Phil. 1:6,10; 2:16) and which “day shall declare” the manner of works, (1Cor. 3:13) and the works are what one builds the church with, the Corinthians themselves being Paul's “work in the Lord.” (1Cor. 9:1) and the punishment is the loss of rewards due to the perishable quality of tares they built the church with. (Mt. 13:30; cf. 1Cor. 3:17)

The problem for you is that of defining purgatory as a place, which is not a strict definition, as it is taught that it is “a place or condition.” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm

PBJ: This is not a place where the righteous are punished before they go to heaven as it takes place before the Lords return

DM: Your answer confirms that it occurs before they go to heaven, as it is the Lord who will judge who goes to heaven and who doesn't. Therefore, if it takes place before the Lord's return, it takes place before they go to heaven.


First,, that was supposed to say at the Lord return, as the accompanying texts substantiate, whereas purgatory is supposed to be something believe endure for potentially thousands of years before His return.

Second, believers go to be with the Lord at death, from the penitent criminal (whose brief suffering can hardly be thought to have purified him from all his faults), to Paul who confessed he was not already perfect, though he strove for this (Phil. 3:12) yet he stated that the believers were already positionally in Heaven, (Phil. 3:21; Eph. 4:6) and to be absent here on earth was to be present with the Lord, which you inadvertently affirmed before by invoking 2Cor. 5:8 (cf. Phil. 1:23), whereas while “we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord,” (2Cor. 5:6) and when the Lord does return He will bring the believers with Him who had died, and those who are alive at his coming (which they soon expected) will join them, and so be ever with the the Lord. (1Thess. 4:14-17)

Third, the judgment seat of 1Cor. 3:15 is not to determine who goes to Heaven, but rewards in Heaven, and occurs after the first resurrection, (Rv. 20:5,6) which is only for the saved, “the resurrection of life, (Jn. 5:29a), the “resurrection of the just” in which believers will be rewarded for their good works, (Lk. 14:14; cf. 1Cor. 4:5; Acts 24:15) in distinction to “the resurrection of damnation” (Jn. 5:29b) which occurs 1,000 years after, (Rv. 20:5) culminating in the Great White Throne judgment in which the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, and whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire, (Rv. 20:11-5) with their degree of punishment being determined in accordance with how much light and grace was given. (Lk. 10:12-13; 12:47,48) ctnd.

PeaceByJesus said...

52 ► ctnd. Fourth, the purification of believers in done in this life, in which they are subject to the temptations of the world, the flesh and the devil, (1Jn. 2:14-16) thus it was in His sojourning here that the Lord Himself was “made perfect through sufferings,” being “in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” (Heb. 2:10; 5:9) Thus believers are made progressively made more like Christ as they suffer by denying such for Christ and for denying such for Him and pro-actively living for Christ, (Phil. 1:8; 3:10; 2Thess. 1:4; 1Pt. 2:21; 4:4,12,13; 5:10) and which the Lord will recompense. (2Cor. 1:7 And by being chastened by the Lord for purification. (Heb. 12; Job)

Again, i deal more with the Roman Catholic arguments for purgatory here

That has nothing at all to do with the fact that Revelation 2:10 says: Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.

If it is the devil casting them into prison, then these are righteous dead. And this corresponds to 1 Cor 3:15 which says that some will be saved, although by fire.


Incredible. It is such constrained exegesis as this that makes us wonder if Rome was right in keeping the Bible away from her laity. Once dead, the devil does not cast believers anyplace after they are dead, for to be absent from the body is not to be present with the devil, and who is bound after the Lord returns, And again, it is very clear that 1Cor. 3:15 is not speaking of being purified from personal faults, and of sins expiated (atoned, compensated for) through potentially thousands of years of “fire and torments or purifying' punishments,” (Indulgentiarum Doctrina; cp. 1. 1967) but refers to the believers works being judged as to their quality, and while one can suffer loss by his work being burned, (1Cor. 3:15) he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire, as of a man who losses his possessions, that being his works, but himself is saved.

PBJ: In contrast the tares among the wheat are the “wood, hay and stubble, which shall be burned up. (Mt. 13:30; cf. 1Cor. 3:17)

DB: Not true at all. The tares are servants of the enemy who are living amongst the children of God. It is clear from 1 Cor 3:10-15, that the wood, hay and stubble represent the sinful works of those men who, having built upon the foundation of Christ, nevertheless, were not made perfect in good works.


You blithely ignore or dismiss context and anything else that contradicts Rome in your bondage to defend her. What the text very clearly states in black and white is that the broader context is that the Corinthians were following men more than Christ, (1Cor. 3:4) and thus Paul states that they are the fruit of the work of the sowers Apollos and himself, but God gives the increase, (1Cor. 3:5-7) and that “every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour,” with believers themselves being God's building, (v. 9) built upon Christ, (v. 11) with the admonition being “let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon,” v. 10), as what is built is either imperishable or perishable, (v. 12) which “the day [of Christ] shall declare” by fire, (v. 13) with the work that abides the fire gaining the builders a reward, (v. 14) whereas if any mans works are burned then the believer suffers loss, (v. 15) — not gain as would be the case if salvific personal purification was the case. But if anyone defiles the church, as one was doing in the next chapter, then he would be destroyed if he died in that state. (vs. 16,17) cntd.

PeaceByJesus said...

53 ► cntd. Paul is committed to seeing believers be of imperishable quality, for which he would be rewarded to the glory of God, and thus he says that the Corinthians were his rejoicing in the day of the Lord Jesus, (2Cor. 1:14) and to the Thessalonians, “For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming?" (1 Thess. 2:19; cf. Rv. 3:11) and to the Philippians, “my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved.” (Phil. 4:1)

There simply is no purgatory here, while the Corinthians were, like Rome, thinking of instruments of God “above what it written” (1Cor. 4:6, and “written” almost always refers to Scripture), while many RCs blithely ignore or dismiss context and anything else that contradicts Rome in their zeal to defend her.

Your next objection was based upon your prior error and is already corrected.

PBJ: You attempts to read purgatorial judgment beginning after death, and the the fire and suffering to be cleansing of personal faults, is an argument against purgatory having Scriptural support.

1. Your presupposition that purging begins after death, is an erroneous assumption...the purging of sin before and after death are well subscribed in Scripture.


Your assumption that i was speaking about purification en toto is what is erroneous.

It is you who needs to know what we are disagreeing about, which is whatever you assert is Catholic doctrine.

Lol! Really? Sounds like you just want to scrap about anything.


The context (again) of the remark was that our real debate is with what Rome officially teaches, versus your private interpretations which amount to nothing, as Rome could contradict them (and sometimes have, if not infallibly). Sungenis: “As far as the Church is concerned, I’m just another peon with an opinion.” (http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/dialogs/church/dimond3.htm)

The verses which Protestants use to defend their doctrines, also vary from one RCA to another. What's the real objection?

The objection is that you are not defending a faith which rests upon doctrine being based upon the weight of Scriptural evidence and exegesis, but one that rests upon an assertion of assured infallibility, and thus as just stated, the attempts by RCAs (who can have significant debates among themselves) to defend her by varying interpretations of Scripture, all purporting to abide by Rome's guidelines, have no real weight unless they are officially defined. As Robert. Sungenis stated, “As far as the Church is concerned, I’m just another peon with an opinion. “ http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/dialogs/church/dimond3.htm

I do understand you may attempt to show that Roman Catholic doctrine can be supported by Scripture, but as your attempts show, they are actually a negative argument due to the degree of extrapolation, leaps of logic and wresting of texts, which you just exampled as regards 1 Cor. 3:15, which is contradicted by other Roman Catholic sources.

PBJ: If you are going to defend the doctrine of Rome by Scripture, then it is worthless if Rome herself may one day disagree with your interpretation of verses which you use. Your Bible already does in a couple instances already.

DB: You're kidding! Your comparing the stability of Catholicism with the stability of Protestantism?


The context was as per above.

Yet as concerns core gospel truths and the supremacy of Scripture and its basic historical manner of literal exegesis, commitment to such things as the Trinity and salvation by grace have seen unity and constancy among the vast majority, and distinguishing them from others.

PeaceByJesus said...

54 ► Catholic doctrine hasn't changed.

It certainly has, from the use of images to the sanction of torture to papal power other and more weightier issues, but all such evidence must be ignored or dismissed being by as anti-Catholic or the product of poor scholarship, or as not infallibly defined, while you cannot tell me all that is, and proceed to defend Rome using texts that are not infallible defined, and have not defined what constitutes official Catholic doctrine except in general terms.

Protestants have gone from believing the Marian doctrines, to abhorring them..

And they also tried theocracies, as there were (and are) things which had to be unlearned from Rome, but due to its core teaching on Scripture much error was unlearned.

From maintaining that contraception is a sin, to embracing it. Some Protestants in good standing, accept abortion, others decry it.

The former is certainly true, and Rome was not entirely consistent either on this, while the latter declension is among those who have also forsaken core gospel truths and subscribe to revisionist exegesis, while effectually the product of Rome herself is a majority who rejection church teaching on contraception, among other things, while more Catholics have abortions than evangelicals, and abound with those who support such things as homosexuality, some even publicly, and are more like liberal Protestants. You can say they excommunicate themselves, but Scripture says avoid such at the least. (Rm. 16:17; 2Thes. 3:14,15; 1Cor. 5:11-13) Traditional Roman Catholics are upset over the Pelosi type Catholics, but this does not often translate into official action which speak louder than words.

This does not excuse declension among evangelical types, however, i am not defending a church as you must, and would have us not simply assent to a faith by a copyrighted church, but that living faith is is based upon Scriptural being supreme.

PBJ: “He enters the Church, an edifice illumined by the superior light of revelation and faith. He can leave reason like a lantern at the door.”

As I said, faith is superior to reason. It relies on the Wisdom of the All Mighty. Whereas, Protestants are such, that they all want everyone else to relinquish reason and accept their personal wisdom.


Rather, your reasoning is that faith in Rome is superior to all, while your slander of us applies to cults and yourself who would have us relinquish reason and accept their self-proclaimed power, while true SS exegesis must depend upon persuading souls, by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2Cor. 4:2)

PeaceByJesus‬ said...

As the NAB notes example, guides can be interpreted differently,

DB: Again, the NAB is an ecumenical Bible, as already shown.


Irrelevant, as it is approved and an example of the contradictions in Rome, which you try to solve by restricting conformity to “official” teachings, with an official list of all that are.

PBJ: or otherwise used in a way that results in different interpretations.

DB: As long as the interpretations do not contradict,


So “The text of 1 Cor 3:15 has sometimes been used to support the notion of purgatory, though it does not envisage this” (NAB) does not contradict you who assert it does?

PBJ: As for never having been corrected by a Catholic, i think that is in the eye of the beholder,

DB: I didn't say never. I said in the past twenty years or so that I've been doing this on the internet.


That was understood to be the context, but i look into ages past.

PeaceByJesus said...

55 ► Scripturally, supporting the truth does not render you assuredly infallible.

DB: You're talking about the Word of God. You doubt the Word of God?


How can you wrest that? I have no doubt that the verifiable word of God, the Scriptures, does not support your premise.

If we follow your logic to its conclusion, you are saying that the Old Testament is fallible. Since even that proclamation [Rm. 3:2; 9:4] could not make any Jew infallible. Yet, when writing Scripture, the Prophets were infallible.

You are locked into a tailspin by constantly assuming speaking something infallible as an instrument of revelation confers assured infallibility, which it does not, yet nor does it preclude that one may speak infallibly. The difference is that rather than infallibility being assured due to conformity with a scope and subject based criteria, regardless of the holiness of the persons doing so, Scripture was penned by holy men of God, and was progressively established as Divine due to its qualities and attestation. And again, while the inspired Scripture came thru men , that does not mean they are wholly infallible or will be in all their teaching. Nor does a divine baby not make the mother so.

Our Lord is greater than all the Prophets.



True, but that does not make them divine or assuredly infallible, and not only were His claims established upon Scripture and its means, but as He did not write anything than we must depend upon the assured word of God (Scripture) as the supreme authority for what He taught and did.

Tradition of God is also assuredly infallible: 2 Peter 1:19

Your proof text of 2 Peter 1:19 refers to Scripture, the “more sure word of prophecy,” the assuredly infallible part of Tradition, in contrast to fables. And again, Rome basically claims to be as the inspired writers, though she denies that level.

Roman Catholic tradition is amorphous and highly subject to undetectable change, and all that was claimed to be Tradition of God was not assuredly infallible, but the portion that was so was set down and became established as wholly of God, which Scripture thus judges all else.

(Mk. 7:1-13).

He reproved them for supplanting the Traditions of God with traditions of men. In the meantime, it is the Catholic Church which teaches the three fold comparison of Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium. Whereas, Protestants merely go by their own interpretation of the Scripture.


No, if you read it says they were teaching for doctrines the tradition of the elders, and if it were Rome, they could easily claim they were one and the same, but that is not how inspired Tradition, Scripture, was established. Rome may claim to compare Tradition with Scripture, but her infallibility is independent of the arguments behind the decrees, and it is she which is set forth as the only supreme authoritative, not Scripture. Ctnd.

PeaceByJesus said...

56 ► Ctnd As for us, you are back to your straw man again, as evangelical exegesis does not reject such things as the historical Scriptural manner of exegesis, and of helps.

From note noted professor Alister McGrath's (Anglican theologian, and Christian apologist) The Genesis of Doctrine: A Study in the Foundation of Doctrinal Criticism:

Although it is often suggested that the reformers had no place for tradition in their theological deliberations, this judgment is clearly incorrect. While the notion of tradition as an extra-scriptural source of [Divine] revelation is excluded, the classic concept of tradition as a particular way of reading and interpreting scripture is retained. Scripture, tradition and the kerygma are regarded as essentially coinherent, and as being transmitted, propagated and safeguarded by the community of faith. There is thus a strongly communal dimension to the magisterial reformers' understanding of the interpretation of scripture, which is to be interpreted and proclaimed within an ecclesiological matrix. It must be stressed that the suggestion that the Reformation represented the triumph of individualism and the total rejection of tradition is a deliberate fiction propagated by the image-makers of the Enlightenment. — quote by James R. Payton, “Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings”

In Apostolic times, it was normally not written down, yet

No, it normally was, as the bulk of the NT consists of Paul's written letters and those of others. What was written was invoked to establish was preached and what would be written.

PBJ: while the principal that a Romish type AIM did not exist nor was necessary still stands.

DM: You are forgetting that Jesus told the faithful to: Matthew 23:2


I did not forget that at all, but as usual you did not consider that i myself invoked this as affirming obedience, but as not as being assuredly infallible, which your carelessly invoke to support it.

That is a pretty good comparison to the Authoritative Magisterium. Although the Pharisees were not infallible.

Not it is not, as while you grab anything that speaks of authority to support the AIM of Rome, i have carefully stated that the issue is not obedience to authority, or even the ability to speak some infallible truth, but the assured infallibility Rome assure itself that it has, and the basis for it.

PeaceByJesus‬ said...
20 
You tried this before, and you reject the teaching of CTs on this as referring to the church,

DM: Nope. I accept it. Mary is the archetype of the Church.


And more, but we are talking about what the women of Rv. 12:1 precisely refers to, and by your exegetical extension it could also be Israel, which is what prophetically is substantiated.

And Mary's birth pains were not physical, but spiritual, as she also suffered to give birth to Christ's Church. That is why Jesus gave her to us as our Mother.
3. And Mary actually did flee to Egypt with her Son.

You can spiritualize as needed, but i see thousand two hundred and threescore days as more than her flight into Egypt, and corresponding to other prophetic texts which would be another thread.

PBJ: none of the early interpreters before the end of the fourth century see the Virgin Mary in the woman of the Revelation.

The fourth century is early enough for me.


No doubt, and anything that can be used to affirm your take here, which is not as big an issue in and of itself.

If they recognized the Ark symbolism.., and you are committed to defending your ideas. So?

The point here was that of lacking the “unanimous consent of the fathers,” many of whom defined this as the church, not Mary, regardless of what extension this can entail.

PeaceByJesus said...

57 ► There is less stretching in the Catholic interpretation of Scripture than in yours. For instance, you believe in salvation by faith alone. Yet Scripture says:
James 2:24
..


There is no stretching here, but reconciling. The Roman Catholic version has James justifying Abraham by works done by grace which flatly contradicts Gn. 15:6 and Rm. 4 which clearly states Abraham was not justified by works, and which was before the law and even circumcision. But Paul also affirms it is the doers of the law who shall be justified, as this is a fruit of true faith, (Rm. 2:13; 8:4) and thus it can be said that works justify in a real sense, as faith without works is dead. Sola fide hold that it is the God-given faith which will effect works that is what appropriates justification before God, justifying the unGodly, not because they are Godly.

Rome comes closest to in allowing for perfect contrition, (contritio caritate perfecta), which results in active justification (if in conversion), that is, the soul is immediately placed in the state of grace even before the reception of the sacrament of baptism or penance, though not without the desire for the sacrament (votum sacramenti), which of course presumes he has that light. (Trent, Sess. VI, cc. iv and xiv)

Other than that, she hold that , “faith receives life only from and through [works of] charity,” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm) versus a living faith being one that effects works.

While RCAs assert that we propagate a faith that is without works, historically this was not what they effected, and even now it is Rome which effectually promotes that faith in her power and one's own merits will gain eternal glory, and testify to far less commitment and fruits of faith than her evangelical counterparts.

ll the doctrines you keep, which contradict the Catholic Church, also contradict Scripture.

Mere claims that overall depend upon misconstruing positions and or Scripture, as seen so far.

PBJ: which fosters confidence in the power of the church, and promotion of liberal moral views.

DB: Liberal moral views? It is the Protestants that have embraced divorce and remarriage,


Read what i wrote, which is not what Rome officially spouts, but what she effectually promotes which is the real evidence of what you belief, as faith is shown by its works.

Protestants, for the most part, embrace contraceptives, some permit homosexual preaching, some believe in the errancy of the Scriptures, and many other things.

As do Roman Catholics, but i have distinguished these Protestant as part of the institutionalized church, as they no longer hold to the preaching of the evangelical gospel and its historical Protestant ethos, by are like the liberal Roman Catholics, who are the majority, both of which are in contrast to churches and believers who are hold to or are closer to evangelical distinctives which marked Protestant of old.

Far greater multitudes migrate to evangelical churches due to the deficient spirituality in Rome than convert to her, which converts she covets in seeking to enliven her pews.

It isn't a numbers game.


I have seen it is a numbers game when they are in favor of Roman Catholicism, such as recently posted on a forum when stats showed a slight increased in RC membership (due to immigration). But the departure for evangelical churches makes them a target of Rome, even those in theological and moral views alone they typically become more conservative. And if souls were leaving for anything due to professed spiritual lack, versus more the opposite then it would be case for concern. As it is, the largest growth is toward non-affiliation, and agnosticism and atheism.

PeaceByJesus said...

58 ► How is that different from you telling me that your interpretations are right? If you place yourself in the position of being an authority over Scripture, then you are doing the same thing as the Catholic Church.

How is it different? I am sorry you cannot see the difference between arguing on the basis of the weight of Scriptural evidence versus asserting you are right due to who you are.

But the Church is said to be the Pillar of Truth [1Tim. 3:15]. Therefore she has a warrant for saying so. You don't.

Rather, Rome is not the church of the living God, and you do not have warrant to take a verse which only says the church supports the truth and extrapolate that to mean the church of Rome and her assuredly infallible magisterium.

As said, Israel was the entity which supported truth and so does every true church today, usually among a remnant in both cases, and not by asserting you are infallible whenever you speak on faith and morals, but by manifesting what the truth is by corroboration of the inspired texts and by corresponding attestation, which the historical preaching of the evangelical gospel first and foremost most supremely evidenced.

In placing yourself in the position of teaching Scripture, you do take on a big responsibility. Especially since you recognize that you don't have the charism of infallibility.

No one is assured the charism of infallibility to assuredly speak so as Rome claims for herself. Neither do you, while my appeal is to what has been established as assured inspired and affirmed by it, while yours is to one which rests upon her infallible claim to be infallible whenever she speaks according her own infallibly defined formula.

Holding to SS establishes the teaching magisterium and conditional submission to such,

But you haven't shown the existence of SS.

1. You claim that SS does not teach Scripture ALONE, even though that is the title. Making the Title a misnomer.


No, as shown, it makes your desperate use of a straw man a misnomer.

Show me one or both from Scripture.

You have been shown, but it seems that your mind control forbids you from endeavoring “to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question," and thus seeing, as shown with approx 100 references and expositions, that Scripture is the supreme authority for obedience and establishment of truth claims, and that Scripture alone as the only material, verifiable source in earth that is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God, and formally or materially providing all that is needful for salvation and perfection.

This material providence included oral Tradition and progressive revelation till it was completed. It would even be possible to hold to an assuredly infallible magisterium if it was established and dependent upon Scripture, but as said, if that were so then Rome would have to be subject to it, but instead her infallibility is not dependent upon it, but kicks in whenever she speaks according to her formula which assures that it is, thus making her claim to be infallible to be infallible, yet which is not assured for the arguments or reasoning behind them.

Rome thus holds to sola ecclesia. As said by another, such (cntd)

PeaceByJesus said...

59 ► (cntd.) “epistemology is only tenable under the rubric of sola Ecclesia: the church alone is the final authority in all things. Rome defines the canon, Rome defines the meaning of Scripture. Rome defines tradition, Rome defines the meaning of tradition. Her pronouncements are infallible and unquestionable, and as a matter of faith, they are all self-consistent, too. From that ground you can prove, or disprove, anything, and repulse any and all attacks. Error by a Pope? Can't be, by definition. Error by the Church. Not possible, must be another explanation. Inconsistency between the IVth Lateran Council and Vatican II? Dismiss it as mere ignorance on the part of Protestants. Such an epistemology is just as consistent as the Mormon testimony: and just as tightly circular, too.' http://vintage.aomin.org/credenda.html

which always is the case in such commands, versus the cultic requirement of assent of faith.

That is what Christ requires.


That is blasphemous, as the church is not all that Christ is and cannot claim to warrant implicit assent of faith whenever it speaks according to its subject and scope criteria. Christ gave substantial Scriptural and supernatural warrant for faith in Him, and appealed to reason, even in calling for steps of faith, and obedience to men like Moses and the apostles was in the context of manifest supernatural attestation, nor under the premise of Rome's formulaic infallibility, nor did they call for unconditional obedience, but warned against such, (Gal. 1:6-9) and the only transcendent, testable, material source that they affirmed to be assuredly and wholly inspired of God was Scripture.

PBJ: However, the unity among those who practice SS is far more substantive and transcendent than Roman Catholics will acknowledge,

DM: Real life disproves that statement.


And i can disagree, and live in heavily Roman Catholic region of the country, but i based my statement upon the consistent results from surveys multiple from multiple recognized sources. And don't cry bias.

The unity of Catholicism is real. Whereas, Protestants, for the most part, don't even want it.


It is, but it is not deeply in doctrine but most universally in a common identification and confidence in Rome. As for Protestants, i point to those who most closely represent the faith i contend for, which is contrary to defining all that is not of Rome as Protestant, whereas all these liberal Catholics are effectively treated as members in life and in death, and you must own them.

DB: History proves that the Catholic Church is that Church. Therefore, I believe these verses point to the Catholic Church.

PBJ: History proves this not

DB: True history does.


Of course; true history is only that which supports Rome, not any that does not, and Roman Catholic historians who state things otherwise are not really Catholic according to you, or are unlearned. And the reason for Catholic assent is not due to examination of the evidence, but because upon Rome say so. Even the Fathers were not Roman Catholics as the thirteenth or nineteenth century would understand them.

Cardinal Avery Dulles stated that “The interpretation given to infallibility in the present document [Mysterium Ecclesiae] is not something that can plausibly be ascribed to churchmen of the early centuries.” (http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10725)
(Cntd)

PeaceByJesus said...

60 ► Ctnd

Congar wrote: “Application of the principle is difficult, at least at a certain level....One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16.16-19. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; . . .” “It is the Church, not the Fathers, the consensus of the Church in submission to its Saviour which is the sufficient rule of our Christianity.” Yves M.-J. Congar, Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay (London: Burns & Oats, 1966), pp. 398-399.

“...in all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent.” — John Henry Newman, “A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation.” 8. The Vatican Council http://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section8.html

Jesuit Father Klaus Schatz on Priesthood, Canon, and the Development of Doctrine:

..if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the authority of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably “no” (page 1)

.. if we ask in addition whether the primitive church was aware, after Peter’s death, that his authority had passed to the next bishop of Rome, or in other words that the head of the community at Rome was now the successor of Peter, the Church’s rock and hence the subject of the promise in Matthew 16:18-19, the question, put in those terms, must certainly be given a negative answer. (page 2)

"If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no." (page 3, top)

We probably cannot say for certain that there was a bishop of Rome [in 95 AD]. It is likely that the Roman church was governed by a group of presbyters from whom there very quickly emerged a presider or ‘first among equals’ whose name was remembered and who was subsequently described as ‘bishop’ after the mid-second century. (Schatz 4). — http://thulcandra.wordpress.com/2007/11/30/klaus-schatz-on-priesthood-canon-and-the-development-of-doctrine/

But enter Roman Catholic mind control:

“So if God [via Rome] declares that the Blessed Virgin was conceived Immaculate, or that there is a Purgatory, or that the Holy Eucharist is the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, shall we say, "I am not sure about that. I must examine it for myself; I must see whether it is true, whether it is Scriptural?" — Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur):

PeaceByJesus said...

61 ► Your word against Scripture: 2 Timothy 2:1,2

Your word against Scripture. SS affirms ordination, and we also pass on the faith, but to that of Rome's AIM, as the things Timothy heard of Paul among many witnesses was not that his veracity being based on a promise of infallibility whenever he spoke on faith and morals, or that true spiritual authenticity was assured by formal transference, but he heard of one who appealed to and reasoned out of the Scriptures, (Acts 17:2; 28:23; Rm. 16:26) in establishing that gospel that he received directly from God, (Gal. 1:11,12) which was “now made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets,” with Scriptural attestation of Truth, (Rm. 15:19) as part of the progressive revelation that Scripture affirms in adding to it, and who worked with men such as Apollos, who also was “shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ” (Acts 18:28).

As for formal transference assuring true spiritual authenticity and proclaiming yourself as such:

Mt. 3:9: “And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.”

Rm. 2:28: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.”

1Cor. 4:20: “For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.”

and yet the Church remains. While the Church of Luther has splintered into thousands of groups in the short span of 500 years.

As with the remnant of true believers in Israel, thatis what would have remained of the Christian faith after Rome progressively became more like the empire in which it was found, and it since has splintered into many sects, including various Catholic ones, while true authenticity is most essentially based upon a manifest regeneration by Abrahamic-type faith in the gospel of grace which justifieth the unGodly by a faith which will effect Godliness.

What am I supposed to say? Sungenis is a brilliant man. But he isn't Jesus Christ.

Nor is the pope, yet implicit assent of faith is required of His words as if he were God. As Gladstone said, "These [“infallible” decrees] are written definitions. What are they but another Scripture? What right of interpreting this other Scripture is granted to the church at large, more than of the real and greater Scripture? Here is surely, in its perfection, the petition for bread, answered by the gift of a stone." — W.E. Gladstone, “Vaticanism: an answer to replies and reproofs.” (London: John Murray, 1875), p. 99

I don't follow Sungenis. I follow the Jesus Christ and His Church.

He can say the same, but the claim to follow Christ does not mean it equates to the latter in either cases. We are to follow Jesus the same way He showed, by relying upon Scripture as the supreme material authority and its means to establish truth claims by, which is not the AIM of Rome.

DB: The Church of Trent was merely continuing the Tradition begun by the Apostles of safeguarding the Deposit of Faith handed down by Jesus Christ. The Apostles also handed on anathemas (example Gal 1:8).

PBJ: No they did not, and you have no proof,

DB: I just gave you a reference. Gal 1:8


So because Rome hands anathemas this proves that they are safeguarding the Deposit of Faith? Your attempts to support Rome by such extrapolation is increasingly embarrassing. Issuing anathemas, which cults also do, does not prove you are upholding apostolic doctrine, and Rome cannot even qualify as apostles, including demonstrating the basis for the authority of the latter.

PeaceByJesus said...

62 ► Ctnd. Issuing anathemas must done in truth, and the anathemas of Rome fall upon her own head. Nowhere does the Holy Spirit even record infants being baptized, and it is presumption that whole households had to include that, as the requirements which the Holy Spirit sets down in order to be baptized is not something infants can do, or need to. Nor did the pray to the departed or for them to be delivered out of purgatory, or canonize saints, or teach such, and practice making novenas, etc.


PBJ: as besides lacking Scriptural support, while they claimed to act according to the unanimous consent of the fathers” they did not, but Rome autocratically defines dissent among CFs to be unanimous according to its art of development of doctrine.

No. But the Church is the judge of orthodoxy.


Meaning that Rome cannot be wrong as she is the one that determines what is wrong, and thus when she is orthodoxy then she is, and any interpretation of Scripture and history and tradition cannot be correct if it differs from her. But this is not how the apostle doctrine was established, but by corroboration by Scripture, it and manifest power, and in personal purity. (2Cor. 6:1-10)

PBJ: while they claimed to act according to the unanimous consent of the fathers” they did not,

Sure they did. Search the Councils.


While others can argue even among that restriction, again, i see no substantiation by official teaching that what the fathers said in council is all what “unanimous consent of the fathers” pertains to, or all the CFs were part of councils, or whether this refers to ecumenical councils.

but Rome autocratically defines dissent among CFs to be unanimous according to its art of development of doctrine. here

No. But the Church is the judge of orthodoxy. And she, in accordance with Scripture, tests everything and holds on to the good.


Rather, Rome's AIM autocratically disallows that anyone can correct her, and despite dissent among CFs she hold them to be unanimous, and you swallow it, hood line and sinker.

the Catholic faith was not uniform and yet is quite different in many ways from even the early post-apostolic age,

The only difference is size. The mustard seed had grown into a great tree:


While you resist seeing it, the facts are she is different compared with the NT church (even besides things like inquisition) as well as what Rome. once taught.

The Catholic Church is the New Testament Church.

Arrogant and empty and imaginative assertion. I could go through Acts and the epistles and show you what should be there is your claims was true, but it not (and which a reason why the assertion that Rome changed the Bible is absurd), and thus Rome made use of forgeries as well as the use of the sword of men in gaining and maintaining her power.

Titus 1:5-7) nor were pastors a separate class of sacerdotal priests,

Indeed they were. You simply don't recognize them in Scripture because of your presuppositions. For instance, in Romans 15:16, we find St. Paul "ministering in the manner of a priest"


The more you try the more damnable you case becomes. Here you attempt to use Paul referring to his hope that the offering of the Gentiles would be acceptable to God to support a separate class of sacerdotal priests, when it is the Gentiles making the offering, which is something all believers do, (Rom. 12:1-2; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:16; 1Pet. 2:5) affirming the general “royal priesthood” of believers. (1Pt/. 2:5)

PeaceByJesus said...

62 ► Ctnd. Issuing anathemas must done in truth, and the anathemas of Rome fall upon her own head. Nowhere does the Holy Spirit even record infants being baptized, and it is presumption that whole households had to include that, as the requirements which the Holy Spirit sets down in order to be baptized is not something infants can do, or need to. Nor did the pray to the departed or for them to be delivered out of purgatory, or canonize saints, or teach such, and practice making novenas, etc.


PBJ: as besides lacking Scriptural support, while they claimed to act according to the unanimous consent of the fathers” they did not, but Rome autocratically defines dissent among CFs to be unanimous according to its art of development of doctrine.

No. But the Church is the judge of orthodoxy.


Meaning that Rome cannot be wrong as she is the one that determines what is wrong, and thus when she is orthodoxy then she is, and any interpretation of Scripture and history and tradition cannot be correct if it differs from her. But this is not how the apostle doctrine was established, but by corroboration by Scripture, it and manifest power, and in personal purity. (2Cor. 6:1-10)

PBJ: while they claimed to act according to the unanimous consent of the fathers” they did not,

Sure they did. Search the Councils.


While others can argue even among that restriction, again, i see no substantiation by official teaching that what the fathers said in council is all what “unanimous consent of the fathers” pertains to, or all the CFs were part of councils, or whether this refers to ecumenical councils.

but Rome autocratically defines dissent among CFs to be unanimous according to its art of development of doctrine. here

No. But the Church is the judge of orthodoxy. And she, in accordance with Scripture, tests everything and holds on to the good.


Rather, Rome's AIM autocratically disallows that anyone can correct her, and despite dissent among CFs she hold them to be unanimous, and you swallow it, hood line and sinker.

the Catholic faith was not uniform and yet is quite different in many ways from even the early post-apostolic age,

The only difference is size. The mustard seed had grown into a great tree:


While you resist seeing it, the facts are she is different compared with the NT church (even besides things like inquisition) as well as what Rome. once taught.

The Catholic Church is the New Testament Church.

Arrogant and empty and imaginative assertion. I could go through Acts and the epistles and show you what should be there is your claims was true, but it not (and which a reason why the assertion that Rome changed the Bible is absurd), and thus Rome made use of forgeries as well as the use of the sword of men in gaining and maintaining her power.

Titus 1:5-7) nor were pastors a separate class of sacerdotal priests,

Indeed they were. You simply don't recognize them in Scripture because of your presuppositions. For instance, in Romans 15:16, we find St. Paul "ministering in the manner of a priest"


The more you try the more damnable you case becomes. Here you attempt to use Paul referring to his hope that the offering of the Gentiles would be acceptable to God to support a separate class of sacerdotal priests, when it is the Gentiles making the offering, which is something all believers do, (Rom. 12:1-2; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:16; 1Pet. 2:5) affirming the general “royal priesthood” of believers. (1Pt/. 2:5)

PeaceByJesus said...

62 ► Ctnd. Issuing anathemas must done in truth, and the anathemas of Rome fall upon her own head. Nowhere does the Holy Spirit even record infants being baptized, and it is presumption that whole households had to include that, as the requirements which the Holy Spirit sets down in order to be baptized is not something infants can do, or need to. Nor did the pray to the departed or for them to be delivered out of purgatory, or canonize saints, or teach such, and practice making novenas, etc.


PBJ: as besides lacking Scriptural support, while they claimed to act according to the unanimous consent of the fathers” they did not, but Rome autocratically defines dissent among CFs to be unanimous according to its art of development of doctrine.

No. But the Church is the judge of orthodoxy.


Meaning that Rome cannot be wrong as she is the one that determines what is wrong, and thus when she is orthodoxy then she is, and any interpretation of Scripture and history and tradition cannot be correct if it differs from her. But this is not how the apostle doctrine was established, but by corroboration by Scripture, it and manifest power, and in personal purity. (2Cor. 6:1-10)

PBJ: while they claimed to act according to the unanimous consent of the fathers” they did not,

Sure they did. Search the Councils.


While others can argue even among that restriction, again, i see no substantiation by official teaching that what the fathers said in council is all what “unanimous consent of the fathers” pertains to, or all the CFs were part of councils, or whether this refers to ecumenical councils.

but Rome autocratically defines dissent among CFs to be unanimous according to its art of development of doctrine. here

No. But the Church is the judge of orthodoxy. And she, in accordance with Scripture, tests everything and holds on to the good.


Rather, Rome's AIM autocratically disallows that anyone can correct her, and despite dissent among CFs she hold them to be unanimous, and you swallow it, hood line and sinker.

the Catholic faith was not uniform and yet is quite different in many ways from even the early post-apostolic age,

The only difference is size. The mustard seed had grown into a great tree:


While you resist seeing it, the facts are she is different compared with the NT church (even besides things like inquisition) as well as what Rome. once taught.

The Catholic Church is the New Testament Church.

Arrogant and empty and imaginative assertion. I could go through Acts and the epistles and show you what should be there is your claims was true, but it not (and which a reason why the assertion that Rome changed the Bible is absurd), and thus Rome made use of forgeries as well as the use of the sword of men in gaining and maintaining her power.

Titus 1:5-7) nor were pastors a separate class of sacerdotal priests,

Indeed they were. You simply don't recognize them in Scripture because of your presuppositions. For instance, in Romans 15:16, we find St. Paul "ministering in the manner of a priest"


The more you try the more damnable you case becomes. Here you attempt to use Paul referring to his hope that the offering of the Gentiles would be acceptable to God to support a separate class of sacerdotal priests, when it is the Gentiles making the offering, which is something all believers do, (Rom. 12:1-2; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:16; 1Pet. 2:5) affirming the general “royal priesthood” of believers. (1Pt/. 2:5)

PeaceByJesus said...

65 ► DB: The supremacy of Scripture is a concept which has neither been considered by the Catholic Church, nor disputed.

The closest i have seen was Pope Benedict XV (2 years before his death in 1922) in defending the inerrancy of Scripture and lauding Jeremone in SPIRITUS PARACLITUS, who states such things as,

Jerome also insists on the supereminent authority of Scripture. (10) "We must not follow the errors of our parents, nor of those who have gone before us; we have the authority of the Scriptures and God's teaching to command us." (12) "The Apostles," he says, "are one thing; other writers" - that is, profane writers - "are another;" "the former always tell the truth; the latter - as being mere men - sometimes err," (14b) Thus St. Jerome is in complete agreement with St. Augustine, who sums up the general belief of Christian antiquity when he says: Holy Scripture is invested with supreme authority by reason of its sure and momentous teachings regarding the faith. Whatever, then, it tells us of Enoch, Elias and Moses - that we believe. We do not, for instance, believe that God's Son was born of the Virgin Mary simply because He could not otherwise have appeared in the flesh and 'walked amongst men' - as Faustus would have it - but we believe it simply because it is written in Scripture; and unless we believe in Scripture we can neither be Christians nor be saved. (25) Our one desire for all the Church's children is that, being saturated with the Bible, they may arrive at the all surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ. (69b)

However, encyclicals are not infallible as a whole and this does not establish the primacy of Scripture , and which Rome denies and effectively makes herself supreme. "But the supreme teacher in the Church is the Roman Pontiff. Union of minds, therefore, requires, together with a perfect accord in the one faith, complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself.” (Pope Leo XIII, in Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890, #22-24. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13sapie.htm) 'Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself." (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Promulgated November 18, 1302) fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html)

The Catholic Church denounces Scripture alone as a false doctrine as it had never been seen in Scripture, Tradition or Magisterium

I have not seen it the way many RCAs describe it either, but straw men burn well. However, i do see it clearly as being supreme as the standard for obedience and conformity for additional revelation, and materially providing for that. And as said, due to its qualities and attestation, being established as the only transcendent, material authority on faith and morals. And being manifest as closed, formally and materially providing for what is needed for salvation, and perfection, which providence includes the church and its use of Scripture to the glory of God.

But what i do not see is an perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium church as per Rome, which effectively is it own authority.

by which they demonstrate by testing what the very apostles preached,

If anyone demonstrates by Scripture what was taught by the Apostles, they are demonstrating the doctrine of Magisterium.


Typical Roman Catholic presumption, but it is evident the the two do not equate.

PeaceByJesus said...

66 ► It is the Catholic Church which applies the Berean test, considering the Traditions, the Scriptures and the Teaching of the Fathers before judging the validity of a doctrine. This is how it was discovered that the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura was contra-Biblical.

What brazen wresting of Scripture to force it to support Rome and sola ecclesia! The noble Bereans “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” — not the tradition of the elders and the Jewish magisterium! It was oral tradition, the preaching of the Word, that was tested by that which is assuredly the Word of God, the Scriptures. The fact that Scripture was used as the supreme authority is contrary to the autocratic presumption of Rome which holds itself to the supreme authority, declaring infallible truth whenever it speaks in accordance with its formula.

Your “proof verse” proves too much, as consistent with this, you are to pray for those who died due to idolatry, which is what the story states was the COD, but for which Rome offers no hope for.

Not true. The sin committed was that of theft. Nowhere does the story say that these individuals worshipped the medallions they wore: 2 Macc 12
[40] And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia,


My KJV version says, “Now under the coats of every one that was slain they found things consecrated to the idols of the Jamnites, which is forbidden the Jews by the law.” The NRSV Catholic Edition version says, “Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia which the law forbids the Jews to wear.” There thus is a need to know the Greek (not Latin) word behind “donaries” in the DRB which its commentary relies upon.

As for worship, like a cross on a Christian, this signifies who the person worships, not that they worship the emblem, although that can be the case.

And Luther had substantial historical and present support for his rejection of this apocryphal book (see sidebar on canon). You can see here for more from me on purgatory.

Luther had nothing but Jewish custom to support him.


You are clearly uninformed of the facts which you own sources support. Read versus the standard parroted RC propaganda.

Prayer for the dead? As we pray, we believe:

You can either perpetuate false extraBiblical practices or follow what Scripture abundantly examples and supports, in praying directly to the Lord in the holy of holies, where there were no saintly secretaries, but only the high priest (now the Lord Jesus Christ) and God (the Father), by faith in His sinless shed blood to save you by grace. (Rm. 3:25) “Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus...” (Heb. 10:19) By whom the veil is rent. May i make better us of it to His glory.

PeaceByJesus said...

James, the attempts to support Roman Catholic doctrine by Scripture in this thread has served to evidence that it is not, and testifies that it requires incredible wresting of texts and giant leaps of illogic to support it, as they really rest upon Rome's own decree to be supreme and implicit faith in her. I have spent much time in exposing these Catholic attempts at eisegesis, but suspect a purpose may be to waste our time refuting such attempts and i am not sure if i should continue to engage in doing so.

I may make a web page out of it if that is OK with you, as that would allow the Scripture referencs to be seen.

De Maria said...

PBJ said...
Note: numbers are not for each reply, but for each post due to character counts.

Hi Peace,
I'd like to try something different. Rather than reply to all your responses, may we focus on one at a time?

36 “they received the word with all readiness of mind,…

That says nothing about Sola Scriptura.

You yourself have attempted to show things as warranted,

With criteria. You haven't. Where's the verse which defines SS?

... invoke texts for support which Rome has not infallibility defined.

All I have to do is obey the Church's teaching on interpreting Scripture.

But the answer is, again, warrant is by establishing truth claims after the method and manner of Scriptural ..."And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures," (Acts 17:2)

May we unpack this? Now, you read this as St. Paul reading the Scriptures ALONE.

But he is talking to the Thessalonians for the first time. He is explaining Jesus' Traditions. And he is Teaching how to find Jesus in the OT. This is classic, TRADITION, SCRIPTURE AND MAGISTERIUM.

“For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.” (Acts 18:28)

Same as above.

“by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.” (2Cor. 4:2)

This is a confirmation of MAGISTERIUM. It is about what they are teaching in the sight of God.

"By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left," (2 Corinthians 6:7)

The Word of Truth is spoken. (Heb 13:7).

That Scripture was the standard for obedience and establishing truth claims can be abundantly substantiated. ... But what is not substantiated is that of asserting that the church magisterium will perpetually be infallible when speaking on faith and morals, ...

You never see them handing out Bibles. You find them explaining the Traditions of Jesus Christ with the authority of the infallible Church.

Do you doubt the Holy Spirit can continue to guide the Church to the end of time?

As for authority, your predecessors had the same problem with the Lord, as they, like you, presumed formal transference of office established infallible authority and authenticity (and had explicit basis for it, versus Rome), ...

Are you challenging that the Jews had a Tradition? Is Jesus testimony enough for you?
Matthew 23
2Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe,...

As for the New Testament. Jesus did not write a word of Scripture. He established Tradition and His Traditions are infallible.

He taught His Apostles and disciples and the HS inspired them to preach and then, later, they began to write in order to confirm what they had spoken. The Holy Spirit inspired both the Teaching and the writing.

The Roman Catholic response to the question, “By what authority do you declare what is or is not warranted?” is to assert the power of Rome's assuredly infallible magisterium, but which claim rests upon itself.

The claim rests upon the Word of God (1 Tim 3:15).

Scripture and history may be invoked to support it, ....

Certitude can be had by Scripture. But not by Scripture alone. It is evident, when looking out at Protestantism, that the fruit of that doctrine is not a good one.

Sincerely,

De Maria

James Swan said...

I may make a web page out of it if that is OK with you, as that would allow the Scripture referencs to be seen.

Sure! Thanks for all the comments.

De Maria said...

PeaceByJesus said...
James, the attempts to support Roman Catholic doctrine by Scripture in this thread has served to evidence that it is not,...


I'll let the readers be the judge of that. In the meantime, I await your response to my most recent entry.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Constantine said...

Mr. De Maria,

Greetings.

Yes, we all do have jobs and families, etc. so apologies for the delay.

You raise several interesting topics but given the 199 (!) comments thus far, allow me to focus on just one perhaps to engage the others later.

That issue is the threat of excommunication that hangs over you by the de fide pronouncements of Trent which require you to believe mutually exclusive tenets as true.

To wit,

1.That God created the world out of pre-existing matter as in Wisdom. (Your quotation, “For thy almighty hand, which made the world of matter without form...)


2.That God created everything ex nihilo – out of nothing (Genesis 1 and John 1.)

Trent says thusly:

It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold;

Here “holy mother Church” has “held” - through her infallible conciliar pronouncements – that mutually exclusive things are both true and both to be believed under pain of anathema.

For years, I have tried to understand how this dilemma might be resolved. Here are some possibilities:

1.A good Catholic might say, well, Wisdom is of lesser importance but that can't work because Wisdom is part of the canon ala Trent.

2. Another logical possibility is to deny Genesis 1 or John 1, but again, Trent placed both in the canon. Besides, anyone questioning Genesis would stand clearly outside the Judeo-Christian tradition.

3. Or, one might say that the Magisterium has special knowledge about these matters which provides understanding to them, alone. That, however, is gnosticism so I don't think you would go there.


So I don't see any resolution to this “magisterial” dilemma and am curious as to your thoughts.



Peace.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 232   Newer› Newest»