Posted on 10/19/2006 12:19:52 PM PDT by Global2010
I know that the Catholic church added books
You know wrong. The seven so called Deuterocanonical books were removed by Luther. They were a part of the Christian canon since the Carthage councils in early 5c, which is when the entire Canon of Scripture was defined for the first time.
The promise of any church is not true, nor can it be, for any doctrine not explicitly found in the scriptures is subject to the corruptibility of mere men
You argument on this score is not with me but with the scripture, that I cited. The promise is that the Church founded on St. Peter can legislate, that Christ will uphold the legislation, and that the Church thus founded will not fail. The promise is not addressing any other hypothetical churches.
If you have not come across the anti-false doctrine (that is, not taught by Jesus and the Apostles) teaching of Paul to the Churches, and mentioned by Jesus in the Gospels, you have not read the new testament in it's entirety.
I have come across many such warnings. They were warnings against heretics such as Arius, Luther or Calvin. What I asked you to show me is any scriptural proof of the protestant superstition of sola scriptura, and more specifically, where in the Bible does it say that the Church may not teach new doctrine not expressly found in the scripture. I showed you scripture that says the opposite. You failed to do likewise for your claim.
Praying to human beings as in a prayer of faith, that due to God and the Christ, is wrong, and false doctrine, and dangerous.
I don't know what you mean by "as in a prayer of faith". Any Catholic can explain, and has explained to you the nature of intercessory prayer. You opinion of what you think these prayers mean is just your opinion. Thanks for sharing.
Such [2 Timothy 4] as the Catholic doctrine of praying to dead people
Your quote does not say anything about any form of prayer.
what you are trying to say by quoting Romans 10:15
That teaching authority is null without apostolic succession.
the kingdom of God is within you.
Very true. This is also known as Communion of saints.
If you could back up your opinions with scripture, it would not be as tiring.
Go your way.
There is nothing in the scripture that prohibits teaching on subjects not contained in the scripture. Aspects of liturgy and prayer are such teaching. But there are references to the teaching authority of the apostolic church, and I gave them to you.
Broader, the concept of Sola Scriptura is not scriptural either, even though, of course, there are multiple passages where the importance of the scripture is proclaimed.
You evade the challenge because you cannot meet it. You may have convinced yourself that the sola scriptura and prohibition on intercessory prayer is somewhere in the scripture, but the actual scripture does not say it. This is why it is a superstition: a metaphysical belief based on a traditional authority that cannot be objectively proven.
Where the subject touches the relation with man to God, and it isn't found in the scriptures, it is false doctrine.
Teaching authority of the Catholic church are not found in the scriptures, only by scripture. By scripture alone is implied throughout the Bible, starting at the law of Moses continuing to the new covenant of faith and belief taught by Jesus.
Else how shall we discern what is the teaching of men according to their own empowerment? The Catholic church is shot thorough with homosexuality and sodomy. How do we assume those who created doctrine not scriptural were no less corrupted?
We can't. All we have to go by in truth is the scriptures. For those are words of the Apostles. Nowhere in the Catholic church is an Apostle. The men who define policy therein are separated from Apostleship by many layers of self-serving and corruptible men.
Jesus said that the kingdom of God lies within each of us. Any part of it that lies within the church, any church, is lent thereto by Godly men. But there are also within each church unGodly men. How shall we tell the difference?
We tell the difference by what has been written in the heat of the events that transpired by the ministry of Jesus and those who were touched by Him.
There is no person in the Catholic church in the time extra-scriptual doctrine was devised that was touched by Jesus.
This is without challenge; it is truth.
Now, where is the doctrine, taught by Jesus, expounded by Peter to the Israelites and by Paul to the non-Israelites that prayer may be made to human beings living or dead, and if dead, whatever they did in life?
This is your personal opinion. It may be shared by many, but it is not what the scripture and the Church teaches.
Teaching authority of the Catholic church are not found in the scriptures, only by scripture
Not in only by? What is that supposed to mean? I showed you the verses that describe the teaching authority ogf the church in the strongest of terms. It is also what the Church actually did, as we see in Acts.
By scripture alone is implied throughout the Bible
I'd like chapter and verse, please. I could tell you how prayer to saints is "implied". Both are interpretations, -- but mine is backed by the apostolic authority of the Church. Yours is a personal interpretation, warned against in the scripture.
The men who define policy therein are separated from Apostleship by many layers of self-serving and corruptible men.
Some are and were corrupt, and some were homosexual. Others were canonized as saints and died for our faith. The apostolic succession, however, is described in the scripture and the Church as a whole cannot err, on the promise of Christ, also contained in the scripture.
There is no person in the Catholic church in the time extra-scriptual doctrine was devised that was touched by Jesus.
Jesus primised us His body forever present in the Eucharist. This is another scriptural truth you choose to ignore.
where is the doctrine, taught by Jesus, expounded by Peter to the Israelites and by Paul to the non-Israelites that prayer may be made to human beings living or dead
The communion of saints filled with martyrs in post-scriptural period and successors of Peter explained the meaning and drew the parameters of the cultus of saints. None of that contradicts the scripture. The Church was doing her job. She always does.
Seriously. The Church had long established the canon before Luther got out his scissors. However, if Luther can decide which books can be called biblical then I suppose anyone can make up their own canon. Anyway, you can find the following on Wikipedia for your edification.
Protestant Reformation: begun by Martin Luther, who made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (echoing the consensus of several Catholics, also labelled Christian Humanists — such as Cardinal Ximenez, Cardinal Cajetan, and Erasmus — and partially because they were perceived to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia and sola fide), but this was not generally accepted among his followers. However, these books are ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible to this day.
Bruce Metzger's Canon of the New Testament says in 1596 Jacob Lucius published a Bible at Hamburg which labeled Luther's four as "Apocrypha"; David Wolder the pastor of Hamburg's Church of St. Peter published in the same year a triglot Bible which labeled them as "non canonical"; J. Vogt published a Bible at Goslar in 1614 similar to Lucius'; Gustavus Adolphus of Stockholm in 1618 published a Bible with them labeled as "Apocr(yphal) New Testament."
Luther also eliminated the deuterocanonical books from the Catholic Old Testament, terming them "Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read".[9] He also argued unsuccessfully for the relocation of Esther from the Canon to the Apocrypha, since without the deuterocanonical sections, it never mentions God. As a result Catholics and Protestants continue to use different canons, which differ in respect to the Old Testament.
Charles Caldwell Ryrie's Basic Theology counters in 1986 the claim that Martin Luther rejected the Book of James as being canonical. Here's what Luther wrote in his preface to the New Testament in which he ascribes to the several books of the New Testament different degrees of doctrinal value: "St. John's Gospel and his first Epistle, St. Paul's Epistles, especially those to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and St. Peter's Epistle-these are the books which show to thee Christ, and teach everything that is necessary and blessed for thee to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book of doctrine. Therefore, St. James' Epistle is a perfect straw-epistle compared with them, for it has in it nothing of an evangelic kind." Thus Luther was comparing (in his opinion) doctrinal value, not canonical validity.
However, Ryrie's theory is countered by other Biblical scholars, including William Barclay, who note that Luther stated plainly, if not bluntly: "I think highly of the epistle of James, and regard it as valuable although it was rejected in early days. It does not expound human doctrines, but lays much emphasis on God’s law. ... I do not hold it to be of apostolic authorship."[10] If Luther regarded the book of James as not being of "apostolic authorship" then he could not at all have regarded it as authoritative or worthy of canonization.
2Ti 3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
2Ti 3:3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
2Ti 3:4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
2Ti 3:6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
How do we know that men like these were not on or within the group that makes church doctrine not found in the scriptures? And, if so, how valid does that make their doctrine?
2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
It's my understanding that church administrators don't write scripture. They write policy derived from scripture, not self-serving interpretations to support prior creation of policy.
This is the only way to assure departure hasn't occurred, as when the council has been composed of one or more of the above.
None of the scripture cited for validation of certain practices, I have never took it to mean such, reading it in or out of context. The relevance seems to be very labored, as if someone was searching for some sort of support.
I don't find any scriptural support for praying to any human being, living or dead, regardless of his travels in life.
Teaching authority of the Catholic church are not found in the scriptures, only by scripture
The is no authority of the Catholic church to teach practices not found in the scriptures, only those practices based on the scriptures, and not labored interpretations of the scriptures.
I'd like chapter and verse, please.
And I'd like chapter and verse, please, for praying to a human being. Above I gave you two reasons for scripture alone, one reached by reason (as in Paul "reasoning with the Jews in the temple") and one stating outright.
the Church as a whole cannot err
But the men who run it do. And when they do, the church errs. What you say seems meaningless.
Jesus primised us His body forever present in the Eucharist. This is another scriptural truth you choose to ignore.
Jesus is present when any two or more is gathered in His name. That makes anyone capable of inspiration. The bread and wine is a symbol, just taking it does not automatically insure Jesus' spirit.
1Cr 11:27 ¶ Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink [this] cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
1Cr 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of [that] bread, and drink of [that] cup.
1Cr 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
I take this to mean that any group leavened by those traits of character mentioned above will produce no sound doctrine. And this is always the problem with mere men departing from scripture.
We know that the Church includes sinners of every description. Christ chose St. Peter to lead the Church despite his failings. However, Christ also promised that the Church as a whole will not fail (Mt 16:18), and that Peter in the end will not fail (Lk 22:32). These promises of Christ are sufficient for me.
The heresy of donatism, which held with you that only men of perfect character can be leaders of the Church, was smashed to pieces by St. Augustine.
2Ti 3:16
... does not say that teachings not contained in the scripture are invalid. All this passage is saying is that the inspired scripture (which includes the parts amputated by Luther) is necessary for the education of a Christian cleric. The rest of your musings about the role of the scripture and how the Church develops doctrine are not related to the verse you cite.
The is no authority of the Catholic church to teach practices not found in the scriptures
This is your imagination. Matthew 16 and 18 simply say "bind and loose" without the qualifications you posit. The removal of the circumcision and dietetic requirements done by the Church and described in the scripture were contrary to the scripture as referenced in 2 Timothy.
And I'd like chapter and verse, please, for praying to a human being. Above I gave you two reasons for scripture alone
Intercessory prayer to saints is not expressly approved or disproved in the scripture, because the practice was established after the canonical books were written. There are mutiple examples of intercession in the gospels, done by righteous people, and there are assurances that the saints are alive in heaven. This makes intercessory prayer to saints compatible with the scripture, and so the Church allows it, provided the faithful does not deify the saint.
However I have a logical right to demand a scriptural express confirmation of Sola Scriptura, because it is you -- not me -- who claims that every important doctrine is found in the scripture. Chapter and verse, please.
The bread and wine is a symbol, just taking it does not automatically insure Jesus' spirit.
This is again your fantasy not found in the scripture. In the gospels, Christ says "this is my body" -- not "this is a symbol of my body" several times, and in John 6 he is accused of cannibalism over it, yet He repeats His assertion of His real presence.
I take [1 Cor 11 on the Eucharist] to mean ...
No, it not what it means. It means that one guilty of mortal sin cannot present himself for the Eucharist. However, I doo not dispute that the Church is lead by fallible men. But it is lead by the Holy host infallibly. If it "seems meaningless" to you, you have a problem with the scripture that says so, not with me.
This is a breathtakingly brazen misinterpretation of the scripture.
This is the passage you are referring to.
15 But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. 16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. 18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning any thing whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven. 20 For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.The passage is the very passage that authorizes legislation on the matter of faith by the Church, which is described here as ultimate authority, defiance of which renders one excommunicated (v 17). It says exactly the opposite of what you claim: that the council of witnesses is the intermediate, not final instance of dispute resolution. It promises a response to prayers of the disciples done in Christ's name but only after the authority of the Church is established first.(Matthew 18)
Oh never mind I see the Author at the end I just didn't copy that when I ran off copies for class.
Thanks.
Oh never mind I see the Author at the end I just didn't copy that when I ran off copies for class.
Thanks.
Mat 16:18 And 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.
What does this have to do with the Catholic church failing or not failing? If men that run the church fail the church fails.
Besides, why use Peter? Because it is the only passage that could possibly, remotely lend credence to the church's claims of authority, and it does not. Peter brought the Gospel to the Israelites. Paul brought the Gospel to the non-Israelites. Is the church filled with Israelites?
Luk 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
This was a comfort of Jesus given to Peter. I fail to see how it has anything to do with the Catholic church, since Peter's work was for the Israelites. Or to do with the church at all, under any interpretation.
As I mentioned before, the church makes a lot of soup from such a small stone.
The Timothy passages were Paul expounding on the character that illustrated those that depart from the Gospel. Any council of of mere men can be, and was most likely was, considering the character of men the church tolerates now, on such councils that determined extra-scriptual policy.
That is the problem with men making policy that departs from the scriptures. for, being corrupted, their policy is corrupt.
OK, show me any passage that condones praying to human beings, living or dead. Since such a act directly impact the relationship of God with men, you should have a direct passage, not one that implies through a line of peripheral interpretations.
Intercessory prayer to saints is not expressly approved or disproved in the scripture, because the practice was established after the canonical books were written.
Rom 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.
Rom 16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
Notice the phrase "contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned"? This covers "the practice was established after the canonical books were written".
Chapter and verse, please.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Church fathers do no write scripture.
It means that one guilty of mortal sin cannot present himself for the Eucharist.
Where does the Corinthians passage I posted say "mortal sin", and "mortal sin" has been used in the scriptures, so it is a phrase that would have been used.
And, I have no doubt, what with the composition of the church these days, there would have been men who created such offenses in those days. Any doctrine that comes from man, Catholic or Protestant, is suspect, and I'll call it false. You don't have to agree, only God.
The Catholic church makes so much soup from such a small stone, it borders on false doctrine.
This is not what the scripture in Mt 16 says. Peter fails right in the next passage (by urging Christ to take on tempory powers without the Cross), yet the promise is there.
Because it is the only passage that could possibly, remotely lend credence to the church's claims of authority
The promise to uphold in heaven decisions of faith made on earth is a striking one. You cannot ignore it. But Peter's special role is apparent throughout the gospel: he receives the Keys alone, he is renamed in the tradition of the Old Testament patriarchs, he is charged to feed the sheep personally, and it is Peter who like Christ raises the dead (Acts 9) and who, -- contrary to your mistaken belief, -- converts the first gentile (Acts 11).
This [Luke 22:32] was a comfort of Jesus given to Peter. I fail to see how it has anything to do with the Catholic church, since Peter's work was for the Israelites
Christ's promise to Peter, on whom the Church was built, that he does not fail and confirm his brethren, i.e. the rest fo the Chruch, has everything to do with the Church. The notion that Peter had a ministry exclusive to the Jews is a counterscriptural fantasy, common to protestants who would not study the scripture.
show me any passage that condones praying to human beings, living or dead
There are many cases of intercession of living poople: the raising of Jayrus's daughter and of Lazarus come immediately to mind, and the miracle at Cana. This is all a prayer to saints is: the faithful asks a saint to pray for him to Christ.
Notice the phrase "contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned"?
Yes. Learned from whom? We learned our prayers from the Church.
Church fathers do no write scripture
Human authoriship of the gospel of Luke and John, the Apocalypse, and of most epistles is acknowledged in them. The passage in 2 Timothy calls the scripture known to Timothy since his childhood (that would include the books Luther banned) inspired by God (but not written by God) and "profitable". It also mentions that the profit accrues to "the man of God", i.e. member of the clergy, perhaps a bishop, which Timothy was. No Sole Scriptura there. Chapter and verse for the Sola Scriptura, please.
Where does the Corinthians passage I posted say "mortal sin"
It does not, but it speaks of worthiness to receive. The teaching of the Church explains that passage in the way I did to you: those burdened by mortal sin should come to confession and have the mortal sin absolved before they receive.
There no mention of a church anywhere in it, except that a "church" properly defined is simply a group of those who agree in their belief
The church is mentioned (please -- can't you read?) and two or three mentioned elsewhere, hence the "church" is there in the institutional, not contrived, sense of the word.
Go your way. I'm done here.
Precisely so. All Luther did was offer himself instead of the Church as the preferred interpeter.
Thnak you for your company.
Great. My wife and I would like to come up with our own canon of Scripture. Any Christians out there are free to get together with their buds and do the same. Check out some of those gnostic Gospels and apochryphal books.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.