Sola Scriptura seems illogical and self-refuting to me, so I'd love to hear more about why you believe in it. The Bible came from the Catholic Church, and I think it requires a single authority for resolving matters of interpretation. I work in the software field, and we call this "institutional knowledge". I was a skeptic, but my research of history supports the claim that all the Apostles and writers of the New Testament were Catholics, and that the Church carries contextual knowledge from being with the Jews and then Christ. Lutheranism and the thousands of sects that he spawned over the past 500 years are each inventing their own doctrines, which proves the unsustainability of doctrine outside the Catholic Church. I would love to hear your thoughts on that. The unchanging doctrines of the Church and the product of the Bible itself shows the presence of the Holy Spirit. I've never seen a man-made institution ever come close to that track record.
I hope you are doing well! God bless.
Board index ‹ Bible
Forum rules
This site is for dialogue, not diatribe. And, by the way, you have to be at least 13 years old to participate. Plus normal things: no judging, criticizing, name-calling, flaming, or bullying. No put-downs, etc. You know the drill.
This site is for dialogue, not diatribe. And, by the way, you have to be at least 13 years old to participate. Plus normal things: no judging, criticizing, name-calling, flaming, or bullying. No put-downs, etc. You know the drill.
11 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Re: Sola Scriptura
by jimwalton » Sun Mar 25, 2018 4:00 pm
I did get your bullet points. I didn't respond to them specifically because I don't want to give the impression that I am deprecating Catholicism.
> The Bible came from the Catholic Church
Whoa, you're jumping a number of centuries here. The Bible came from "The Church," the only church, the apostolic church, the church of Jesus-followers. There was no such thing as "The Catholic Church." In Acts it was known as "The Way." It was the ekklesia—the assembly—not the Catholic Church. There was no central leader; Jesus was the head of the Church.
But the Church was no stranger to attacks, and it was rife with disagreements. Irenaeus fought against the Gnostics arguing that the teachings of Jesus weren't secrets passed on to initiates only, but to all believers. The chain of custody of teachings was not in the hands of official bishops but it was for all. Cyprian (mid-3rd c.) argued that the bishops were the successors of the apostles, not only in their teaching, but also in authority. You see, some were claiming that anyone whose denied the faith under persecution had lost their salvation, but others said they should be forgiven. Cyprian was caught in the middle. He ended up taking the position that no man could be saved except by submission the bishop—a clearly unbiblical doctrine, but one that has continued to this day in the RC church.
The Council of Nicea (325) formally recognized the authority of official priests alone to administer the sacraments, another unbiblical teaching. A series of councils (Constantinople, Chalcedon) tried to secure Rome as the official head of the Church. This didn't sit well as all. The Church experienced a great schism when some bishops in Rome claimed to be the authority for the whole church, and many said, "No way. Jesus is our only authority." The Church divided and the Roman Catholic Church was born (those who would submit to Roman authority and hierarchy under the headship of Christ, and those who would submit to Christ's headship alone.
When Paul wrote to the church at Rome, he makes no mention of Peter or of Petrine authority. Though the Church at Rome held a high place of honor in the minds of many because of so much persecution and so many martyrs, they were never accorded nor exercised any special authority. Stephen, the Bishop of Rome from 254-257, argued that the primacy of Rome was necessary for the unity of the Church. Cyprian, to get back to him, rebutted that the bishop of Rome had no authority over the bishops over the churches in other cities and region.
In 341, the Roman bishop Julius wrote to Antioch, informing them that they needed his approval to appoint bishops. Antioch disagreed, claiming Christ as their authority. The Council of Constantinople (381) declared their bishop as #2 under Rome and all others under them, but this didn't sit well either with the other cities and regions. In 417 the Council of Carthage claimed that all doctrinal debates had to be filtered through Rome. This was hotly contested. Leo I (440-461) got the power of the Emperor behind him to enforce his right to authority. In the doctrinal debate of the council of Chalcedon (451), the powers that be threw their weight behind whatever Leo said.
By the 6th c., the Roman Church had instituted infant baptism (not a biblical teaching), the Eucharist as a sacrament instead of a communal meal (as practiced in the NT), and the veneration of Mary (not a biblical teaching), as well as the veneration of saints and alleged relics.
> I think it requires a single authority for resolving matters of interpretation
There are pros and cons to every plan. A single authority does make a noble attempt at keeping the church unified and keeping teaching tied together, but it also tends to squelch healthy debate and allow people their differences, as well as to motivate people to power.
> but my research of history supports the claim that all the Apostles and writers of the New Testament were Catholics
Not in the modern sense of the term, and not in the historical sense of the term—but only in the sense that they believed the church should be unified ("catholic" with a small "c").
> Church carries contextual knowledge from being with the Jews and then Christ
Of course it does, but that is neither unique nor proprietary to the Catholic Church. "The Church" at large carries this knowledge. We all share the core.
> Lutheranism and the thousands of sects that he spawned over the past 500 years are each inventing their own doctrines
Whoa again. Through the Byzantine era there were innumerable godly people (Gregory the Great, Nicholas I) and heretics alike (9th-10th c.) in power over the church. By 1054 the Church split into East and West due to doctrinal battles and the claims of the papacy. Reformers were abundant, trying to bring the Church back to its proper roots and proper place, and orient it to Scripture and not to managerial prowess, political power, and military involvement. Thomas Aquinas was a brilliant asset to the church; almost simultaneously John Scotus proposed the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, not a biblical teaching.
Luther was one in a chain of reformers aimed at the abuses and waywardness of the RC church. The Cluniacs and Anselm (1033-1109) took part in the Hildebrandine reform of the RC Church. William Ockham (1280-1349) opposed Pope John XXII and was excommunicated for it. Various movements were born (Augustinians, Dominicans, Cictercians, Franciscans) to show a better way than the papacy in Rome. Abuses still abounded: the Cathars, the Waldensians, and the Inquisition. John Wycliffe opposed the popes, as did John Huss, Girolama Savonarola, and many others. The likes of the wicked pope Roderigo Borgia, Alexander VI, motivated them greatly. Luther's aim was to return the RC Church to biblical doctrine, considering that the RC Church has strayed from biblical teaching (the selling of indulgences; justification through good works and the sacraments; transubstantiation; papal infallibility).
He wasn't inventing his own doctrines but trying to return to biblical doctrine: (1) salvation by grace through faith, (2) each person is free to read and interpret the Scriptures for himself—the Bible was written to all of us, and, of course, many other things.
> The Bible came from the Catholic Church
Whoa, you're jumping a number of centuries here. The Bible came from "The Church," the only church, the apostolic church, the church of Jesus-followers. There was no such thing as "The Catholic Church." In Acts it was known as "The Way." It was the ekklesia—the assembly—not the Catholic Church. There was no central leader; Jesus was the head of the Church.
But the Church was no stranger to attacks, and it was rife with disagreements. Irenaeus fought against the Gnostics arguing that the teachings of Jesus weren't secrets passed on to initiates only, but to all believers. The chain of custody of teachings was not in the hands of official bishops but it was for all. Cyprian (mid-3rd c.) argued that the bishops were the successors of the apostles, not only in their teaching, but also in authority. You see, some were claiming that anyone whose denied the faith under persecution had lost their salvation, but others said they should be forgiven. Cyprian was caught in the middle. He ended up taking the position that no man could be saved except by submission the bishop—a clearly unbiblical doctrine, but one that has continued to this day in the RC church.
The Council of Nicea (325) formally recognized the authority of official priests alone to administer the sacraments, another unbiblical teaching. A series of councils (Constantinople, Chalcedon) tried to secure Rome as the official head of the Church. This didn't sit well as all. The Church experienced a great schism when some bishops in Rome claimed to be the authority for the whole church, and many said, "No way. Jesus is our only authority." The Church divided and the Roman Catholic Church was born (those who would submit to Roman authority and hierarchy under the headship of Christ, and those who would submit to Christ's headship alone.
When Paul wrote to the church at Rome, he makes no mention of Peter or of Petrine authority. Though the Church at Rome held a high place of honor in the minds of many because of so much persecution and so many martyrs, they were never accorded nor exercised any special authority. Stephen, the Bishop of Rome from 254-257, argued that the primacy of Rome was necessary for the unity of the Church. Cyprian, to get back to him, rebutted that the bishop of Rome had no authority over the bishops over the churches in other cities and region.
In 341, the Roman bishop Julius wrote to Antioch, informing them that they needed his approval to appoint bishops. Antioch disagreed, claiming Christ as their authority. The Council of Constantinople (381) declared their bishop as #2 under Rome and all others under them, but this didn't sit well either with the other cities and regions. In 417 the Council of Carthage claimed that all doctrinal debates had to be filtered through Rome. This was hotly contested. Leo I (440-461) got the power of the Emperor behind him to enforce his right to authority. In the doctrinal debate of the council of Chalcedon (451), the powers that be threw their weight behind whatever Leo said.
By the 6th c., the Roman Church had instituted infant baptism (not a biblical teaching), the Eucharist as a sacrament instead of a communal meal (as practiced in the NT), and the veneration of Mary (not a biblical teaching), as well as the veneration of saints and alleged relics.
> I think it requires a single authority for resolving matters of interpretation
There are pros and cons to every plan. A single authority does make a noble attempt at keeping the church unified and keeping teaching tied together, but it also tends to squelch healthy debate and allow people their differences, as well as to motivate people to power.
> but my research of history supports the claim that all the Apostles and writers of the New Testament were Catholics
Not in the modern sense of the term, and not in the historical sense of the term—but only in the sense that they believed the church should be unified ("catholic" with a small "c").
> Church carries contextual knowledge from being with the Jews and then Christ
Of course it does, but that is neither unique nor proprietary to the Catholic Church. "The Church" at large carries this knowledge. We all share the core.
> Lutheranism and the thousands of sects that he spawned over the past 500 years are each inventing their own doctrines
Whoa again. Through the Byzantine era there were innumerable godly people (Gregory the Great, Nicholas I) and heretics alike (9th-10th c.) in power over the church. By 1054 the Church split into East and West due to doctrinal battles and the claims of the papacy. Reformers were abundant, trying to bring the Church back to its proper roots and proper place, and orient it to Scripture and not to managerial prowess, political power, and military involvement. Thomas Aquinas was a brilliant asset to the church; almost simultaneously John Scotus proposed the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, not a biblical teaching.
Luther was one in a chain of reformers aimed at the abuses and waywardness of the RC church. The Cluniacs and Anselm (1033-1109) took part in the Hildebrandine reform of the RC Church. William Ockham (1280-1349) opposed Pope John XXII and was excommunicated for it. Various movements were born (Augustinians, Dominicans, Cictercians, Franciscans) to show a better way than the papacy in Rome. Abuses still abounded: the Cathars, the Waldensians, and the Inquisition. John Wycliffe opposed the popes, as did John Huss, Girolama Savonarola, and many others. The likes of the wicked pope Roderigo Borgia, Alexander VI, motivated them greatly. Luther's aim was to return the RC Church to biblical doctrine, considering that the RC Church has strayed from biblical teaching (the selling of indulgences; justification through good works and the sacraments; transubstantiation; papal infallibility).
He wasn't inventing his own doctrines but trying to return to biblical doctrine: (1) salvation by grace through faith, (2) each person is free to read and interpret the Scriptures for himself—the Bible was written to all of us, and, of course, many other things.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9104
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Sola Scriptura
by Loving the Ride » Mon Mar 26, 2018 4:27 pm
Thanks for the response. I have a lot of respect for the diligence you demonstrate in your studies, and in all of your posts. However, I think you are mixing some concepts when it comes to understanding the Church. "Catholic" is just a Greek word for the Church. The Church existed before it was named. It was created at the moment Jesus ordained Peter (Matthew 16:18), and consecrated at Pentecost. Greek was the prominent language, so the Catholic name stuck and we still use it today.
Don't get me wrong, Catholics recognize an invisible "church" of all followers of Christ, but the capital "C" Church is the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the visible Church, the root of the vine, and the lower-c are those who are connected to various degrees. Scripture says that they'll come from all directions to sit at the table of God, and that if they are not against you, they are for you.
All people are fallible, and I hope you agree that what matters is Doctrine. I researched the history with 3 canon lawyers and found that the Catholic Church has never had a Doctrine change in 2000 years. As Malachi 3:6 says "For I am the Lord, I change not". This helped convince me that it is governed by the Holy Spirit. No Human institution has a track record like that. Based on your posts, it seems like you have not yet understood the difference between various Church activity (including misteps) and official Doctrine. Canonizing the Bible is an example of the Church declaring something as Infallible Doctrine. Infallible Doctrine strictly pertains only to matters of "Faith and Morals", speaking ex-Cathedra (in the Chair of Peter) and the teaching has to apply to the entire Church. If you study Peter's statements in Acts, you'll see this same requirement being met.
> He ended up taking the position that no man could be saved except by submission the bishop—a clearly unbiblical doctrine, but one that has continued to this day in the RC church.
I have good news for you! That has never been a Doctrine of the Church! I don't blame you for having a misunderstanding, because I see it misquoted too. Each bishop does have some provisional authority, but only the Chair of Peter has authority on Doctrine. Please let me know if you want me to find an authority that will verify this for you. Here is a link to the Catechism on the ecclesial ministry (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm), but please be careful when reading the Catechism. The Catechism contains summarized guidelines, not the Canon law itself. It is often misquoted because of things like pastoral practice and provisional authority. For example, if you go around preaching that Joseph Smith is a true prophet of God, the local Bishop will call you under his authority. If not, you will be defrocked of your priesthood. I want such authority to be in place. The Church has only one (1) Doctrine and it is maintained world wide. After my Baptism of faith, I went church shopping. I was crestfallen at how ministers would open churches without any consistency. When they disagreed with their fellow pastors on doctrines, they would just split off and go down the road and open a new church. I hope you agree that it is not good fo people to be teaching their own interpretations.
> But the Church was no stranger to attacks, and it was rife with disagreements. Irenaeus fought against the Gnostics arguing that the teachings of Jesus weren't secrets passed on to initiates only,
Amen! There were over 30 heresies on the Trinity alone that the Church stood against over the centuries. That is another reason why I believe the Holy Spirit has been protecting its Doctrines. No Human institution could have done that, and gotten it right the first time. The Doctrine of the Trinity may seem simple, but it was hard to establish Jesus as fully God and fully Man. People still try to undo that. Even today, the world is putting tremendous pressure on churches to condone gay "marriage", ordination of women and even contraception. The Church always gets Doctrines right. Not because of the people, but by the grace of God.
> By the 6th c., the Roman Church had instituted infant baptism
The Church always practiced infant baptisms because that's what Christ and the Apostles taught. The Church just took a while to write it down as Doctrine. As Paul recalls in 1 Corinthians 1:16, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas". Please read this for the scriptural and historical support: https://www.catholic.com/tract/infant-baptism
> single authority does make a noble attempt at keeping the church unified and keeping teaching tied together, but it also tends to squelch healthy debate and allow people their differences, as well as to motivate people to power.
Amen. The Church does not only encourages debate, but it makes it part of the required process for running the Church. There is a formal panel of Cardinals who focus on how Doctrines are implemented. It's like a court. Each of those Cardinals is a world-class scholar. They've had to push back on Pope Francis a few times. Lord help us.
During Islamic invasions and other turmoils, the Church was in distress and we had some very bad Popes. Peter himself denied Jesus 3 times. Through all that, the Doctrines never got corrupted. Again, the Church is ultimately its Doctrines. I recommend looking past the superficial stuff. Most of the Apostles smelled like fish, and they hung out with ex-prostitutes and tax collectors.
> Through the Byzantine era there were innumerable godly people (Gregory the Great, Nicholas I) and heretics alike (9th-10th c.) in power over the church.
Right, but they never corrupted Doctrine. Pope Stephen VI was particularly bad, 896-897. Again, he never corrupted Doctrine. If one worships the Pope or expects him to be wholly infallible, that would be a new religion called Popism. The only Infallibility the Pope has is on speaking on matters of "Faith and Morals" in context of the whole Church. Not baseball scores, not immigration, not climate change, not politics. Luke 22:31-32 "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren." In other words, Satan is sifting everyone, including Popes. Only the Doctrines are protected.
> By 1054 the Church split into East and West due to doctrinal battles and the claims of the papacy.
The Catholic Church never split. Whoever sticks under the Chair of Peter remains unified with the way Christ created the Church. The Eastern orthodox is in schism. If you notice, they started developing Doctrinal errors since then. Divorces, etcetera. The Catholic Church still recognizes much of their practices as valid, but they are getting more and more error the longer they stay away. There is hope for re-unfication of all those who left, and the Eastern orthodox might be one of the first major ones to come back.
> Luther was one in a chain of reformers
Luther did not reform anything. He started a new religion with his man-made doctrines. Within his own lifetime, there were 40 more sub-factions within his faction, each with a new twist on their doctrines. He regretted it as various times. As Christ said, those who are not with me scatter.
The Church did have corruption that needed to be addressed. Luther was supposed to help fix that, not start a new religion.
The Church did have a counter-reformation, which was real reform: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04437a.htm
> the RC Church has strayed from biblical teaching
Not really. The Church did get lazy with teaching scripture, but it is making a comeback. It is impossible for the Church to stray from biblical Doctrines, because Catholic Doctrines have the same author as the Bible: The Holy Spirit.
> each person is free to read and interpret the Scriptures for himself
Certainly, but you shouldn't make up your own doctrines, agreed?
Sola Scripture and Sola Fide are not Biblical: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/a-quick-ten-step-refutation-of-sola-scriptura
Hopefully none of this comes across the wrong way. I hope you consider me a brother in Christ. I was a harsh critic of the Catholic Church for most of my life, so it was especially hard for me to accept it. I had to drop a lot of pride. I later realized that God wants us without our pride, and my faith bloomed. Later, I experienced a few small miracles in the Church that makes my faith unshakable. I think Christ is okay with people being outside of the Church for various reasons, but ideally, He wants everyone to follow His Doctrines.
If you have time sometime, I would love to hear your interpretation of John 6:48-71.
God bless.
Don't get me wrong, Catholics recognize an invisible "church" of all followers of Christ, but the capital "C" Church is the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the visible Church, the root of the vine, and the lower-c are those who are connected to various degrees. Scripture says that they'll come from all directions to sit at the table of God, and that if they are not against you, they are for you.
All people are fallible, and I hope you agree that what matters is Doctrine. I researched the history with 3 canon lawyers and found that the Catholic Church has never had a Doctrine change in 2000 years. As Malachi 3:6 says "For I am the Lord, I change not". This helped convince me that it is governed by the Holy Spirit. No Human institution has a track record like that. Based on your posts, it seems like you have not yet understood the difference between various Church activity (including misteps) and official Doctrine. Canonizing the Bible is an example of the Church declaring something as Infallible Doctrine. Infallible Doctrine strictly pertains only to matters of "Faith and Morals", speaking ex-Cathedra (in the Chair of Peter) and the teaching has to apply to the entire Church. If you study Peter's statements in Acts, you'll see this same requirement being met.
> He ended up taking the position that no man could be saved except by submission the bishop—a clearly unbiblical doctrine, but one that has continued to this day in the RC church.
I have good news for you! That has never been a Doctrine of the Church! I don't blame you for having a misunderstanding, because I see it misquoted too. Each bishop does have some provisional authority, but only the Chair of Peter has authority on Doctrine. Please let me know if you want me to find an authority that will verify this for you. Here is a link to the Catechism on the ecclesial ministry (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm), but please be careful when reading the Catechism. The Catechism contains summarized guidelines, not the Canon law itself. It is often misquoted because of things like pastoral practice and provisional authority. For example, if you go around preaching that Joseph Smith is a true prophet of God, the local Bishop will call you under his authority. If not, you will be defrocked of your priesthood. I want such authority to be in place. The Church has only one (1) Doctrine and it is maintained world wide. After my Baptism of faith, I went church shopping. I was crestfallen at how ministers would open churches without any consistency. When they disagreed with their fellow pastors on doctrines, they would just split off and go down the road and open a new church. I hope you agree that it is not good fo people to be teaching their own interpretations.
> But the Church was no stranger to attacks, and it was rife with disagreements. Irenaeus fought against the Gnostics arguing that the teachings of Jesus weren't secrets passed on to initiates only,
Amen! There were over 30 heresies on the Trinity alone that the Church stood against over the centuries. That is another reason why I believe the Holy Spirit has been protecting its Doctrines. No Human institution could have done that, and gotten it right the first time. The Doctrine of the Trinity may seem simple, but it was hard to establish Jesus as fully God and fully Man. People still try to undo that. Even today, the world is putting tremendous pressure on churches to condone gay "marriage", ordination of women and even contraception. The Church always gets Doctrines right. Not because of the people, but by the grace of God.
> By the 6th c., the Roman Church had instituted infant baptism
The Church always practiced infant baptisms because that's what Christ and the Apostles taught. The Church just took a while to write it down as Doctrine. As Paul recalls in 1 Corinthians 1:16, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas". Please read this for the scriptural and historical support: https://www.catholic.com/tract/infant-baptism
> single authority does make a noble attempt at keeping the church unified and keeping teaching tied together, but it also tends to squelch healthy debate and allow people their differences, as well as to motivate people to power.
Amen. The Church does not only encourages debate, but it makes it part of the required process for running the Church. There is a formal panel of Cardinals who focus on how Doctrines are implemented. It's like a court. Each of those Cardinals is a world-class scholar. They've had to push back on Pope Francis a few times. Lord help us.
During Islamic invasions and other turmoils, the Church was in distress and we had some very bad Popes. Peter himself denied Jesus 3 times. Through all that, the Doctrines never got corrupted. Again, the Church is ultimately its Doctrines. I recommend looking past the superficial stuff. Most of the Apostles smelled like fish, and they hung out with ex-prostitutes and tax collectors.
> Through the Byzantine era there were innumerable godly people (Gregory the Great, Nicholas I) and heretics alike (9th-10th c.) in power over the church.
Right, but they never corrupted Doctrine. Pope Stephen VI was particularly bad, 896-897. Again, he never corrupted Doctrine. If one worships the Pope or expects him to be wholly infallible, that would be a new religion called Popism. The only Infallibility the Pope has is on speaking on matters of "Faith and Morals" in context of the whole Church. Not baseball scores, not immigration, not climate change, not politics. Luke 22:31-32 "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren." In other words, Satan is sifting everyone, including Popes. Only the Doctrines are protected.
> By 1054 the Church split into East and West due to doctrinal battles and the claims of the papacy.
The Catholic Church never split. Whoever sticks under the Chair of Peter remains unified with the way Christ created the Church. The Eastern orthodox is in schism. If you notice, they started developing Doctrinal errors since then. Divorces, etcetera. The Catholic Church still recognizes much of their practices as valid, but they are getting more and more error the longer they stay away. There is hope for re-unfication of all those who left, and the Eastern orthodox might be one of the first major ones to come back.
> Luther was one in a chain of reformers
Luther did not reform anything. He started a new religion with his man-made doctrines. Within his own lifetime, there were 40 more sub-factions within his faction, each with a new twist on their doctrines. He regretted it as various times. As Christ said, those who are not with me scatter.
The Church did have corruption that needed to be addressed. Luther was supposed to help fix that, not start a new religion.
The Church did have a counter-reformation, which was real reform: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04437a.htm
> the RC Church has strayed from biblical teaching
Not really. The Church did get lazy with teaching scripture, but it is making a comeback. It is impossible for the Church to stray from biblical Doctrines, because Catholic Doctrines have the same author as the Bible: The Holy Spirit.
> each person is free to read and interpret the Scriptures for himself
Certainly, but you shouldn't make up your own doctrines, agreed?
Sola Scripture and Sola Fide are not Biblical: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/a-quick-ten-step-refutation-of-sola-scriptura
Hopefully none of this comes across the wrong way. I hope you consider me a brother in Christ. I was a harsh critic of the Catholic Church for most of my life, so it was especially hard for me to accept it. I had to drop a lot of pride. I later realized that God wants us without our pride, and my faith bloomed. Later, I experienced a few small miracles in the Church that makes my faith unshakable. I think Christ is okay with people being outside of the Church for various reasons, but ideally, He wants everyone to follow His Doctrines.
If you have time sometime, I would love to hear your interpretation of John 6:48-71.
God bless.
- Loving the Ride
Re: Sola Scriptura
by jimwalton » Mon Mar 26, 2018 4:50 pm
> "Catholic" is just a Greek word for the Church. ... Greek was the prominent language, so the Catholic name stuck and we still use it today.
You're off on the wrong foot from the starting line. ἐκκλησία (ekklesia) is the Greek word for "church": "assembly; gathering; meeting." καθολικός (katholikos) is the Greek word for "general; universal," and it doesn't occur in the Bible. It appears in the titles of the Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude when the Church Fathers wrote about the "General (catholic) Epistle of...", but it doesn't ever appear in the Biblical text.
> The Church existed before it was named.
The word "church" is first used for the assembly of God's people by Jesus in Matthew 16.18: "κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς." The Church didn't exist yet, but Christ spoke of it.
< and consecrated at Pentecost
What does this mean? The term "church" (ἐκκλησία) is not used in Acts 2, nor is there mention of consecration. Pentecost is the birth of the Church with the coming of the Holy Spirit. The believers assembled and devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching, prayer, the Lord's supper, and fellowship. There was no consecration ceremony, priestly anything, or sacramental anything.
> All people are fallible, and I hope you agree that what matters is Doctrine. ... it is governed by the Holy Spirit.
I do. I agree. Biblical doctrine is what I hang my hat on. That's why I believe in Sola Scriptura.
> but only the Chair of Peter has authority on Doctrine.
To me, this is not biblical. The Bible never speaks of a sole or limited authority on doctrinal issues. It never speaks of an official interpreter. It was not just officials who wrote the NT, but also lay people like Mark, Jude, Luke, and whoever wrote Hebrews. It was written by the church, for the church, not by officials for officials. It is the Holy Spirit who guides into truth, not the Chair of Peter.
> The Church always practiced infant baptisms because that's what Christ and the Apostles taught.
No, nope. There is no evidence of infant baptism in the NT, nor in the Apostles' teaching. Incontestably, every person named or identified in the NT as being a recipient of baptism was an adult believer. We have no way of knowing that there were children in these families, but there is no need even to argue the point. These notices tell us nothing at all unless we know beforehand whether or not the church of that day practiced infant baptism. There is no NT notice that can be interpreted as a positive proof of the practice of infant baptism until more than a century of the NT period.
> 1 Cor. 1.16
There is no command here to baptize children, no evidence that children were baptized, nor any teaching about infant baptism. Who was in the household of Stephanas? We don't know.
> Certainly, but you shouldn't make up your own doctrines, agreed?
Agreed. We are all to perceive and recognize biblical doctrines.
> Sola Scripture and Sola Fide are not Biblical
I obviously disagree, but not at all certain that any depth of discussion would change either of our positions about it.
> Hopefully none of this comes across the wrong way.
Not at all. It's all good.
> I hope you consider me a brother in Christ.
Most certainly. We don't need to think alike to be brothers in Christ.
> John 6:48-71.
Wow, that's a lot of text to discuss. The Bread of Life Discourse. Since you're probably asking as a Catholic discussion the text with a Protestant, I'll start off by saying that some feel this is John's version of the institution of the eucharist, moved here from the account of the last supper. But it's an argument from silence. There is no evidence to support such a view, only interpretation.
When Jesus says he is the living bread, he means he is the giver of life. In Jn. 6.51 he talks about eating his flesh.
- He could not have meant a literal eating of his physical flesh and blood, because He was there in the flesh giving them a piece of bread, not a piece of his flesh. What they were eating was bread, not flesh.
- If he meant his actual flesh and blood, it would be tantamount to saying that only a small number could ever have shared in the life he offered, restricted to the finite pieces that a human body could be broken into.
- It would be chronologically restrictive. Only those present would be eligible.
- He had already said he would raise up his body after death, so the body itself could not be referred to without making the whole speech absurd.
- He commanded the church to repeat what He was doing across history as a throwback to that moment. That would be impossible with a literal body.
- He said that His words were Spirit, and not flesh (Jn. 6.63).
- When the actual moment of His sacrifice came as he had prophesied, he explained what it meant. As he sat down to the Passover meal, he gave them bread and said, "This is my body."
When he said "This bread is my flesh," his flesh signifies his historical existence (Jn. 1.14). We have to ground our relationship with God in his historical existence, historical death, and historical resurrection.
Jn. 6.52: Jesus often spoke of physical things as symbolic of spiritual realties (his body as the temple, and himself as water [Jn. 4], for instance).
Jn. 6.53: Jesus is talking about a relationship with him, so that they would have LIFE in them. 1 Cor. 15.45 speaks of his resurrection body that can be shared by all. Everyone can receive him. It is by partaking of his resurrection life that we are constituted as his children (Jn. 1.12, 13). To be united with Christ by faith is to participate in his life.
What we have in Jesus's language is a powerful metaphor stating that a share in the life of God, eternal life, is granted to those who in faith come to Jesus, appropriate him, and enter into union with him.
St. Augustine's comment on this verse is: "This is a figure bidding us communicate in the sufferings of our Lord, and secretly and profitably treasure in our hearts the fact that his flesh was crucified and pierced for us."
Bernard of Clairvaux interprets it saying, "The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood is the one of reflects on my death, and after my example mortifies his members that are on earth, has eternal life—in other words, 'If you suffer with me, you will also reign with me.' "
Jn. 6.54: He is not prophetically speaking of the eucharist (there is no context or evidence for such an interpretation). Jesus is using symbolic language to picture the spiritual appropriation of himself who is giving his life-blood for the world (6.51). The language of Jesus can only have a spiritual meaning since he is explaining himself as the true manna.
The whole point of John's Gospel is how a person can have life through His name (20.31). It is a violent misinterpretation of the Gospel and an utter misrepresentation of Christ to make this teaching into transubstantiation.
I assume this is what you wanted to discuss?
You're off on the wrong foot from the starting line. ἐκκλησία (ekklesia) is the Greek word for "church": "assembly; gathering; meeting." καθολικός (katholikos) is the Greek word for "general; universal," and it doesn't occur in the Bible. It appears in the titles of the Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude when the Church Fathers wrote about the "General (catholic) Epistle of...", but it doesn't ever appear in the Biblical text.
> The Church existed before it was named.
The word "church" is first used for the assembly of God's people by Jesus in Matthew 16.18: "κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς." The Church didn't exist yet, but Christ spoke of it.
< and consecrated at Pentecost
What does this mean? The term "church" (ἐκκλησία) is not used in Acts 2, nor is there mention of consecration. Pentecost is the birth of the Church with the coming of the Holy Spirit. The believers assembled and devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching, prayer, the Lord's supper, and fellowship. There was no consecration ceremony, priestly anything, or sacramental anything.
> All people are fallible, and I hope you agree that what matters is Doctrine. ... it is governed by the Holy Spirit.
I do. I agree. Biblical doctrine is what I hang my hat on. That's why I believe in Sola Scriptura.
> but only the Chair of Peter has authority on Doctrine.
To me, this is not biblical. The Bible never speaks of a sole or limited authority on doctrinal issues. It never speaks of an official interpreter. It was not just officials who wrote the NT, but also lay people like Mark, Jude, Luke, and whoever wrote Hebrews. It was written by the church, for the church, not by officials for officials. It is the Holy Spirit who guides into truth, not the Chair of Peter.
> The Church always practiced infant baptisms because that's what Christ and the Apostles taught.
No, nope. There is no evidence of infant baptism in the NT, nor in the Apostles' teaching. Incontestably, every person named or identified in the NT as being a recipient of baptism was an adult believer. We have no way of knowing that there were children in these families, but there is no need even to argue the point. These notices tell us nothing at all unless we know beforehand whether or not the church of that day practiced infant baptism. There is no NT notice that can be interpreted as a positive proof of the practice of infant baptism until more than a century of the NT period.
> 1 Cor. 1.16
There is no command here to baptize children, no evidence that children were baptized, nor any teaching about infant baptism. Who was in the household of Stephanas? We don't know.
> Certainly, but you shouldn't make up your own doctrines, agreed?
Agreed. We are all to perceive and recognize biblical doctrines.
> Sola Scripture and Sola Fide are not Biblical
I obviously disagree, but not at all certain that any depth of discussion would change either of our positions about it.
> Hopefully none of this comes across the wrong way.
Not at all. It's all good.
> I hope you consider me a brother in Christ.
Most certainly. We don't need to think alike to be brothers in Christ.
> John 6:48-71.
Wow, that's a lot of text to discuss. The Bread of Life Discourse. Since you're probably asking as a Catholic discussion the text with a Protestant, I'll start off by saying that some feel this is John's version of the institution of the eucharist, moved here from the account of the last supper. But it's an argument from silence. There is no evidence to support such a view, only interpretation.
When Jesus says he is the living bread, he means he is the giver of life. In Jn. 6.51 he talks about eating his flesh.
- He could not have meant a literal eating of his physical flesh and blood, because He was there in the flesh giving them a piece of bread, not a piece of his flesh. What they were eating was bread, not flesh.
- If he meant his actual flesh and blood, it would be tantamount to saying that only a small number could ever have shared in the life he offered, restricted to the finite pieces that a human body could be broken into.
- It would be chronologically restrictive. Only those present would be eligible.
- He had already said he would raise up his body after death, so the body itself could not be referred to without making the whole speech absurd.
- He commanded the church to repeat what He was doing across history as a throwback to that moment. That would be impossible with a literal body.
- He said that His words were Spirit, and not flesh (Jn. 6.63).
- When the actual moment of His sacrifice came as he had prophesied, he explained what it meant. As he sat down to the Passover meal, he gave them bread and said, "This is my body."
When he said "This bread is my flesh," his flesh signifies his historical existence (Jn. 1.14). We have to ground our relationship with God in his historical existence, historical death, and historical resurrection.
Jn. 6.52: Jesus often spoke of physical things as symbolic of spiritual realties (his body as the temple, and himself as water [Jn. 4], for instance).
Jn. 6.53: Jesus is talking about a relationship with him, so that they would have LIFE in them. 1 Cor. 15.45 speaks of his resurrection body that can be shared by all. Everyone can receive him. It is by partaking of his resurrection life that we are constituted as his children (Jn. 1.12, 13). To be united with Christ by faith is to participate in his life.
What we have in Jesus's language is a powerful metaphor stating that a share in the life of God, eternal life, is granted to those who in faith come to Jesus, appropriate him, and enter into union with him.
St. Augustine's comment on this verse is: "This is a figure bidding us communicate in the sufferings of our Lord, and secretly and profitably treasure in our hearts the fact that his flesh was crucified and pierced for us."
Bernard of Clairvaux interprets it saying, "The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood is the one of reflects on my death, and after my example mortifies his members that are on earth, has eternal life—in other words, 'If you suffer with me, you will also reign with me.' "
Jn. 6.54: He is not prophetically speaking of the eucharist (there is no context or evidence for such an interpretation). Jesus is using symbolic language to picture the spiritual appropriation of himself who is giving his life-blood for the world (6.51). The language of Jesus can only have a spiritual meaning since he is explaining himself as the true manna.
The whole point of John's Gospel is how a person can have life through His name (20.31). It is a violent misinterpretation of the Gospel and an utter misrepresentation of Christ to make this teaching into transubstantiation.
I assume this is what you wanted to discuss?
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9104
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Sola Scriptura
by Loving the Ride » Thu Mar 29, 2018 3:49 pm
There are excellent counter-points for each of the additional points you've made, but for now I want to help you get clear on what Doctrine is and is NOT. You originally said that the Catholic Church has or has had divisions on Doctrine. Do you still believe that? Did you see the chart that I provided on what is Infallibly declared, versus debate, versus practice, versus opinion ? Again, there are debates in Scripture, such as Acts 15, but that does not make the Bible invalid, agreed? Christ knew that people are tempted to divide, which is why He set up an infallible way for people to remain united. Sola Scriptura does not keep people united because each person or set of persons has their own set of interpretations, agreed? The fact of hundreds or thousands of different teachings in "Bible" churches demonstrate that each one has their own fallible interpretations. Calvinists, Lutherans, Baptists, Adventists, Methodists, and Pentacostals each teach different doctrines based on "Sola Scriptura". Christ is more of a people person instead of a bookmaker, so He set up the Chair of Peter to keep people unified. It's not easy, but it has worked for almost 2000 years. The danger is that people get confused about what is Doctrine or not.
Below then are responses for each of your points about Doctrine. Please let me know if you still think any of these still means the Catholic Church has divided Doctrine.
> Through the millennia there have certainly been differences regarding... Sola Gratia (grace alone). At the Council of Orange (529) sola gratis was affirmed. It was clarified at the Council of Trent (1546). Now RCs believe that salvation was only begun by Christ, and they must complete it with their works.
Again, all Doctrines have debate before a Doctrine is declared infallibly. As Peter demonstrates in Acts, once Doctrine is declared, it never changes.
BTW, your characterization of "works" is misleading : "must complete it with their works". You might have a misunderstanding about that too. "Works" are the demonstrated cooperation with God's will through grace. That's another major misconception that non-Catholics have, but it's a separate topic that I'd like to put to the side for now.
> The veneration of saints and of Mary was disagreed upon until solidified at the 2nd Council of Nicea in 787. There are still disagreements about Mary as co-redemptrix or not. Vatican II said Christ is our only redeemer. There are still efforts to have her declared as co-redemtrix.
Again, debate always proceeds declaration of Doctrine.
That is another side topic, but Mary has a very special role in God's plan much more than most Protestants realize. The fact that she was used for the incarnation is amazing, and the more reverence you have for God, the more special you'll realize she was. Here is the current teaching: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p6.htm
> Transubstantiation wasn't adopted until 1215.
The Church has always taught and practiced the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It didn't have to be formally declared as Doctrine until people started to doubt it. The article below cites sources going back to the Church Fathers in 80 A.D. that affirm the same teaching that the Church still does today. http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html
As an aside, one of the miracles that I experienced has to do with the real presence. I have been blessed and have ZERO doubt. Each communion is a very intense experience for me. I wish you knew what you are missing. John 6:53: "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."
Here's the Church teaching: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm
> The doctrine of purgatory was not introduced until 593, but because of disagreements was not officially decreed until 1439.
Again, the declaration of Doctrine is not a change, agreed ? If you notice, NOTHING is abrogated. It is there to clear up misunderstanding.
The Jews, scripture and the Catholic Church have always taught purgatory. Again, it had to be formally declared because people started falling away (apostatizing). Please see the following article for scripture about purgatory. It is God's car wash before Heaven, and I find it very foolish and even arrogant that people think they can enter Heaven without it. "Nothing unclean can enter Heaven".
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-purgatory-in-the-bible
> Prayers for the dead were introduced in 310. The debate has continued. A post-conciliar document of Vatican II, signed by Pope Paul VI, anathematizes anyone who does not accept indulgences for today.
Again, another formal declaration to keep people from making errors. It's not a change.
Here is scriptural and historical support: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/praying-to-dead-folks
> The teachings about Mary have often been under debate. The pope declared it official in 1854. Her assumption was a dogma ratified by Pope Pius XII in 1950.
Again, debate is not change, agreed? If you or your fellow pastors debate a doctrine, would you call that a change in doctrine? Again, once the Church declares a Doctrine, it is never changed. It can be refined, but never changed.
As an aside, I find it common sense to understand that Jesus would take His own mother back in a special way. No one can ever be closer to Jesus than His own mother. He was bone of her bone, flesh of her flesh. She lived with Him for 30 years, and devoted her life 100% to doing God's will. She would have been a huge target for sacrilege during the persecutions. There are several "Sola Scriptura" denominations that affirm her assumption. It is also taught by Islam which independently confirms the historical basis at least back to the 7th century.
Here is more scriptural and historical support: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-assumption-of-mary
I would be glad to discuss any of those positions later, but for now I'd like to focus on the point on whether or not you still believe that there are, or ever been any Doctrinal divisions within the Church. If someone believes in a divergent doctrine, then they are automatically outside of the Church: in schism, apostasy or ex-communicated.
I am getting on a plane shortly. May God bless us all.
Below then are responses for each of your points about Doctrine. Please let me know if you still think any of these still means the Catholic Church has divided Doctrine.
> Through the millennia there have certainly been differences regarding... Sola Gratia (grace alone). At the Council of Orange (529) sola gratis was affirmed. It was clarified at the Council of Trent (1546). Now RCs believe that salvation was only begun by Christ, and they must complete it with their works.
Again, all Doctrines have debate before a Doctrine is declared infallibly. As Peter demonstrates in Acts, once Doctrine is declared, it never changes.
BTW, your characterization of "works" is misleading : "must complete it with their works". You might have a misunderstanding about that too. "Works" are the demonstrated cooperation with God's will through grace. That's another major misconception that non-Catholics have, but it's a separate topic that I'd like to put to the side for now.
> The veneration of saints and of Mary was disagreed upon until solidified at the 2nd Council of Nicea in 787. There are still disagreements about Mary as co-redemptrix or not. Vatican II said Christ is our only redeemer. There are still efforts to have her declared as co-redemtrix.
Again, debate always proceeds declaration of Doctrine.
That is another side topic, but Mary has a very special role in God's plan much more than most Protestants realize. The fact that she was used for the incarnation is amazing, and the more reverence you have for God, the more special you'll realize she was. Here is the current teaching: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p6.htm
> Transubstantiation wasn't adopted until 1215.
The Church has always taught and practiced the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It didn't have to be formally declared as Doctrine until people started to doubt it. The article below cites sources going back to the Church Fathers in 80 A.D. that affirm the same teaching that the Church still does today. http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html
As an aside, one of the miracles that I experienced has to do with the real presence. I have been blessed and have ZERO doubt. Each communion is a very intense experience for me. I wish you knew what you are missing. John 6:53: "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."
Here's the Church teaching: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm
> The doctrine of purgatory was not introduced until 593, but because of disagreements was not officially decreed until 1439.
Again, the declaration of Doctrine is not a change, agreed ? If you notice, NOTHING is abrogated. It is there to clear up misunderstanding.
The Jews, scripture and the Catholic Church have always taught purgatory. Again, it had to be formally declared because people started falling away (apostatizing). Please see the following article for scripture about purgatory. It is God's car wash before Heaven, and I find it very foolish and even arrogant that people think they can enter Heaven without it. "Nothing unclean can enter Heaven".
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-purgatory-in-the-bible
> Prayers for the dead were introduced in 310. The debate has continued. A post-conciliar document of Vatican II, signed by Pope Paul VI, anathematizes anyone who does not accept indulgences for today.
Again, another formal declaration to keep people from making errors. It's not a change.
Here is scriptural and historical support: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/praying-to-dead-folks
> The teachings about Mary have often been under debate. The pope declared it official in 1854. Her assumption was a dogma ratified by Pope Pius XII in 1950.
Again, debate is not change, agreed? If you or your fellow pastors debate a doctrine, would you call that a change in doctrine? Again, once the Church declares a Doctrine, it is never changed. It can be refined, but never changed.
As an aside, I find it common sense to understand that Jesus would take His own mother back in a special way. No one can ever be closer to Jesus than His own mother. He was bone of her bone, flesh of her flesh. She lived with Him for 30 years, and devoted her life 100% to doing God's will. She would have been a huge target for sacrilege during the persecutions. There are several "Sola Scriptura" denominations that affirm her assumption. It is also taught by Islam which independently confirms the historical basis at least back to the 7th century.
Here is more scriptural and historical support: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-assumption-of-mary
I would be glad to discuss any of those positions later, but for now I'd like to focus on the point on whether or not you still believe that there are, or ever been any Doctrinal divisions within the Church. If someone believes in a divergent doctrine, then they are automatically outside of the Church: in schism, apostasy or ex-communicated.
I am getting on a plane shortly. May God bless us all.
- Loving the Ride
Re: Sola Scriptura
by jimwalton » Thu Mar 29, 2018 4:07 pm
> You originally said that the Catholic Church has or has had divisions on Doctrine. Do you still believe that?
You'll have to clarify. Are you saying that divisions about the Trinity, the Bible, and salvation are not divisions on doctrine?
> Christ knew that people are tempted to divide, which is why He set up an infallible way for people to remain united.
Which is...?
> Sola Scriptura does not keep people united because each person or set of persons has their own set of interpretations, agreed?
Agreed. Nothing has succeeded in keeping people united. Not Moses, not the Sinaitic law, not Jesus, not the Scriptures, not the Catholic Church, not the Protestant Church. We're an ornery bunch of free-willed, sin-natured persons who need help.
> Mary has a very special role in God's plan much more than most Protestants realize
We recognize her special role, but not veneration. No human accepted veneration (Peter in Acts 10.26; Paul in Acts 14.11-15) except Jesus, and even the angels won't accept it (Rev. 19.9-10). How dare we venerate Mary! Jesus himself quoted Scripture that only God should be worshipped (Mt. 4.10). Now, possibly you'll claim that you only venerate her, not worship her. Many Catholics would disagree with you, especially the ones who want her named as a co-redemptrix on equality with Christ.
> The Church has always taught and practiced the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
This is simply not true. It was always symbolic. The night that Jesus was betrayed, no one took a bite out of his arm. He instituted a symbolic remembrance.
> The Jews, scripture and the Catholic Church have always taught purgatory.
Again, no. This isn't true also. The Jews believed in the resurrection of the dead after a time of being dead, not in a holding place of intermediate stay while one's sins were being purged. A single reference in the Maccabees doesn't prove it as a Judaistic doctrine. There is no other reference to it.
> I find it very foolish and even arrogant that people think they can enter Heaven without it. "Nothing unclean can enter Heaven".
2 Thes. 4.16-17 mentions an instantaneous transformation, as does 1 Cor. 15.51-53.
It's not that I disrespect you or Catholicism, but I radically disagree with Catholic doctrines, and I'm not a Catholic for those reasons.
You keep saying that a debate is not a change. That's correct, but the Catholic Church has settled on some unscriptural doctrines as the conclusion to the debate, and given the choice, I stick with Scripture.
You'll have to clarify. Are you saying that divisions about the Trinity, the Bible, and salvation are not divisions on doctrine?
> Christ knew that people are tempted to divide, which is why He set up an infallible way for people to remain united.
Which is...?
> Sola Scriptura does not keep people united because each person or set of persons has their own set of interpretations, agreed?
Agreed. Nothing has succeeded in keeping people united. Not Moses, not the Sinaitic law, not Jesus, not the Scriptures, not the Catholic Church, not the Protestant Church. We're an ornery bunch of free-willed, sin-natured persons who need help.
> Mary has a very special role in God's plan much more than most Protestants realize
We recognize her special role, but not veneration. No human accepted veneration (Peter in Acts 10.26; Paul in Acts 14.11-15) except Jesus, and even the angels won't accept it (Rev. 19.9-10). How dare we venerate Mary! Jesus himself quoted Scripture that only God should be worshipped (Mt. 4.10). Now, possibly you'll claim that you only venerate her, not worship her. Many Catholics would disagree with you, especially the ones who want her named as a co-redemptrix on equality with Christ.
> The Church has always taught and practiced the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
This is simply not true. It was always symbolic. The night that Jesus was betrayed, no one took a bite out of his arm. He instituted a symbolic remembrance.
> The Jews, scripture and the Catholic Church have always taught purgatory.
Again, no. This isn't true also. The Jews believed in the resurrection of the dead after a time of being dead, not in a holding place of intermediate stay while one's sins were being purged. A single reference in the Maccabees doesn't prove it as a Judaistic doctrine. There is no other reference to it.
> I find it very foolish and even arrogant that people think they can enter Heaven without it. "Nothing unclean can enter Heaven".
2 Thes. 4.16-17 mentions an instantaneous transformation, as does 1 Cor. 15.51-53.
It's not that I disrespect you or Catholicism, but I radically disagree with Catholic doctrines, and I'm not a Catholic for those reasons.
You keep saying that a debate is not a change. That's correct, but the Catholic Church has settled on some unscriptural doctrines as the conclusion to the debate, and given the choice, I stick with Scripture.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9104
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Sola Scriptura
by Loving the Ride » Mon Apr 02, 2018 4:21 pm
> You'll have to clarify. Are you saying that divisions about the Trinity, the Bible, and salvation are not divisions on doctrine?
I am pointing out that there can not be "division" until there is an officially declared Doctrine. Until that point, it is just a matter of people having different opinions. As long as opinion does not contrast Doctrine, it is fine to have a different opinion. For example, the Church has no Doctrine against Charismatic prayer. In fact, there may be more Charismatics within the Catholic Church than there are in the Pentecostal church. Catholics have different opinions, but never have different Dogmas or Doctrines. As we see in Acts 15:19, when there is disagreement, debate follows, then the head of the Church (e.g. Peter) declares the Doctrine. This is how God set up the Catholic Church. God (the Holy Spirit) uses whoever is in the Chair of Peter to make an infallible decision. One set, Doctrine never changes. If someone refutes the declared Doctrine, they are no longer in communion with God's Church.
> ... debate is not a change. That's correct ...
I am glad that you agree that debate is not change! In case you don't know this, the Catholic Church teaches that Holy scripture is the Word of God. Every letter. If you refute that, then you can't be Catholic. We also believe that God created the Universe, so life itself is something that God gives us as a guide. We need everything from God to make the tough decisions. If you are using only one thing, then you are disregarding the rest of God's creation. For example, we need to know Greek history to interpret some scripture. We need to know geography to understand other scripture. The Language and Geographic information itself is not defined in scripture. I'm not sure if you know it, but most Hospitals in the USA are run by Catholics, so we face life-and-death decisions on a daily basis. When can you pull the plug? When do you save the Mother's life versus the Baby? Scripture does not directly address each situation, so we need to look to God's creation, scripture and logic with such difficulties. Do you think that Scripture provides the answer to every situation ? If so, why do so many "Sola Scriptura" factions have different opinions on Birth Control, Contraception, Divorce, women clergy, etcetera?
> but the Catholic Church has settled on some unscriptural doctrines as the conclusion to the debate, and given the choice, I stick with Scripture.
No offense, but so far, you've demonstrated that you don't know what Doctrine is. You've brought up disagreements, random opinions, various church misteps, etc. If you still think the Church is divided on Doctrine, can you give me a definition of what you think Doctrine is ? The Catholic Church is 100% in sync with Scripture, and if you are patient, I can show you that fact in every case. Catholic Doctrine and Scripture have the very same author: The Holy Spirit , because we do things the way Christ told us to. Honor the Chair of Peter (Matthew 16:18-19).
Since text does not interpret itself, I hope that you realize that you are saying that you stick with your own interpretation. Every "Sola Scriptura" faction has it's own interpretation, and I think our enemy enjoys that.
Are you familiar with the inadequacy of language? Each word has several meanings, and context. To understand it, you ultimately had to be there, know the author, history and context. That is another reason I can only ever believe an Apostolic Church. They revere the knowledge and traditions that are necessary to understand scripture.
To understand what I am saying about the inadequacy of language, please look at this one sentence that linguists use: "“I saw the man on the hill with a telescope”.
Notice that the ambiguity allows for at least 5 different interpretations:
1. I saw the man. The man was on the hill. I was using a telescope.
2. I saw the man. I was on the hill. I was using a telescope.
3. I saw the man. The man was on the hill. The hill had a telescope.
4. I saw the man. I was on the hill. The hill had a telescope.
5. I saw the man. The man was on the hill. I saw him using a telescope.
> He [God]] set up an infallible way for people to remain united. Which is...?
The Chair of Peter. Jesus called it His Rock and His foundation for building His Church, and I don't know how He could be more clear. That's one visible church, not thousands of factions each coming up with their own interpretations. I know you have a different interpretation of what rocks and churches are. I can show you why that is errant, but I want to make sure you are clear on Doctrinology first.
> possibly you'll claim that you only venerate her, not worship her. Many Catholics would disagree with you
I thought you understood the concept of Doctrine versus random opinions. Do we need to go over that again? The Church is a Hospital for sinners, so you'll find all kinds of opinions and miseducation amongst 1.2 billion members. The official Doctrine of the Catholic Church on Mary is summarized in the Catechism link that I provided to you.
> "The Church has always taught and practiced the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist." This is simply not true. It was always symbolic. The night that Jesus was betrayed, no one took a bite out of his arm. He instituted a symbolic remembrance.
Jesus said the Bread becomes His body, so why did you talk about biting His arm? At the last supper, they ate the bread. If you study the Old testament, you'll see that follows the eating of the manna, and the eating of the Lamb on passover. Those who didn't eat the Lamb died. It is a way that God connects with His physical world.
Have you studied any of the disciples or Church fathers, and how they practiced the same Mass that Catholics do today?
Justin Martyr 148:155 A.D.: ""This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."
"God has therefore announced in advance that all the sacrifices offered in His name, which Jesus Christ offered, that is, in the Eucharist of the Bread and of the Chalice, which are offered by us Christians in every part of the world, are pleasing to Him."
Irenaus of Lyons 180 A.D.: [Christ] has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies."
Ignatias of Antioch 80 -110 A.D.: ""I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.""
1st Corinthians 10:16-17 "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.""
1st Corintians 11:23-27: ""For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
Clement of Alexandria 200 A.D. ""The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. "
I am pointing out that there can not be "division" until there is an officially declared Doctrine. Until that point, it is just a matter of people having different opinions. As long as opinion does not contrast Doctrine, it is fine to have a different opinion. For example, the Church has no Doctrine against Charismatic prayer. In fact, there may be more Charismatics within the Catholic Church than there are in the Pentecostal church. Catholics have different opinions, but never have different Dogmas or Doctrines. As we see in Acts 15:19, when there is disagreement, debate follows, then the head of the Church (e.g. Peter) declares the Doctrine. This is how God set up the Catholic Church. God (the Holy Spirit) uses whoever is in the Chair of Peter to make an infallible decision. One set, Doctrine never changes. If someone refutes the declared Doctrine, they are no longer in communion with God's Church.
> ... debate is not a change. That's correct ...
I am glad that you agree that debate is not change! In case you don't know this, the Catholic Church teaches that Holy scripture is the Word of God. Every letter. If you refute that, then you can't be Catholic. We also believe that God created the Universe, so life itself is something that God gives us as a guide. We need everything from God to make the tough decisions. If you are using only one thing, then you are disregarding the rest of God's creation. For example, we need to know Greek history to interpret some scripture. We need to know geography to understand other scripture. The Language and Geographic information itself is not defined in scripture. I'm not sure if you know it, but most Hospitals in the USA are run by Catholics, so we face life-and-death decisions on a daily basis. When can you pull the plug? When do you save the Mother's life versus the Baby? Scripture does not directly address each situation, so we need to look to God's creation, scripture and logic with such difficulties. Do you think that Scripture provides the answer to every situation ? If so, why do so many "Sola Scriptura" factions have different opinions on Birth Control, Contraception, Divorce, women clergy, etcetera?
> but the Catholic Church has settled on some unscriptural doctrines as the conclusion to the debate, and given the choice, I stick with Scripture.
No offense, but so far, you've demonstrated that you don't know what Doctrine is. You've brought up disagreements, random opinions, various church misteps, etc. If you still think the Church is divided on Doctrine, can you give me a definition of what you think Doctrine is ? The Catholic Church is 100% in sync with Scripture, and if you are patient, I can show you that fact in every case. Catholic Doctrine and Scripture have the very same author: The Holy Spirit , because we do things the way Christ told us to. Honor the Chair of Peter (Matthew 16:18-19).
Since text does not interpret itself, I hope that you realize that you are saying that you stick with your own interpretation. Every "Sola Scriptura" faction has it's own interpretation, and I think our enemy enjoys that.
Are you familiar with the inadequacy of language? Each word has several meanings, and context. To understand it, you ultimately had to be there, know the author, history and context. That is another reason I can only ever believe an Apostolic Church. They revere the knowledge and traditions that are necessary to understand scripture.
To understand what I am saying about the inadequacy of language, please look at this one sentence that linguists use: "“I saw the man on the hill with a telescope”.
Notice that the ambiguity allows for at least 5 different interpretations:
1. I saw the man. The man was on the hill. I was using a telescope.
2. I saw the man. I was on the hill. I was using a telescope.
3. I saw the man. The man was on the hill. The hill had a telescope.
4. I saw the man. I was on the hill. The hill had a telescope.
5. I saw the man. The man was on the hill. I saw him using a telescope.
> He [God]] set up an infallible way for people to remain united. Which is...?
The Chair of Peter. Jesus called it His Rock and His foundation for building His Church, and I don't know how He could be more clear. That's one visible church, not thousands of factions each coming up with their own interpretations. I know you have a different interpretation of what rocks and churches are. I can show you why that is errant, but I want to make sure you are clear on Doctrinology first.
> possibly you'll claim that you only venerate her, not worship her. Many Catholics would disagree with you
I thought you understood the concept of Doctrine versus random opinions. Do we need to go over that again? The Church is a Hospital for sinners, so you'll find all kinds of opinions and miseducation amongst 1.2 billion members. The official Doctrine of the Catholic Church on Mary is summarized in the Catechism link that I provided to you.
> "The Church has always taught and practiced the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist." This is simply not true. It was always symbolic. The night that Jesus was betrayed, no one took a bite out of his arm. He instituted a symbolic remembrance.
Jesus said the Bread becomes His body, so why did you talk about biting His arm? At the last supper, they ate the bread. If you study the Old testament, you'll see that follows the eating of the manna, and the eating of the Lamb on passover. Those who didn't eat the Lamb died. It is a way that God connects with His physical world.
Have you studied any of the disciples or Church fathers, and how they practiced the same Mass that Catholics do today?
Justin Martyr 148:155 A.D.: ""This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."
"God has therefore announced in advance that all the sacrifices offered in His name, which Jesus Christ offered, that is, in the Eucharist of the Bread and of the Chalice, which are offered by us Christians in every part of the world, are pleasing to Him."
Irenaus of Lyons 180 A.D.: [Christ] has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies."
Ignatias of Antioch 80 -110 A.D.: ""I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.""
1st Corinthians 10:16-17 "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.""
1st Corintians 11:23-27: ""For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
Clement of Alexandria 200 A.D. ""The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. "
- Loving the Ride
Re: Sola Scriptura
by jimwalton » Mon Apr 02, 2018 5:18 pm
> I am pointing out that there can not be "division" until there is an officially declared Doctrine.
This is a very narrow definition that I don't accept. Division is division, and it's everywhere. It's even in the church after officially declared doctrine, as I have shown you. There are discussion even now about Mary and about the reality of hell, to mention two.
> In case you don't know this, the Catholic Church teaches that Holy scripture is the Word of God. Every letter. If you refute that, then you can't be Catholic.
So if you disagree with that, they are thrown out of the church, and then the Church can say, "We don't have any disagreements"??
> life itself is something that God gives us as a guide. We need everything from God to make the tough decisions. If you are using only one thing, then you are disregarding the rest of God's creation. For example, we need to know Greek history to interpret some scripture. We need to know geography to understand other scripture. The Language and Geographic information itself is not defined in scripture.
Of course I agree with this.
> most Hospitals in the USA are run by Catholics
A pretty quick Google search yielded this: "The watchdog group found that due to mergers and acquisitions over the past 15 years, 14.5 percent of all acute care hospitals in the nation are now either owned by or affiliated with the Catholic church, according to the study. In 10 U.S. states, the number of Catholic hospitals is more than 30 percent.May 5, 2016
And from another site: "CHA advances the Catholic health ministry of the United States in caring for people and communities. Comprised of more than 600 hospitals and 1,600 long-term care and other health facilities in all 50 states, the Catholic health ministry is the largest group of nonprofit health care providers in the nation. Every day, one in six patients in the U.S. is cared for in a Catholic hospital." That's about 17%.
> If someone refutes the declared Doctrine, they are no longer in communion with God's Church.
Pope Francis just the other day questioned the existence of hell.
> Scripture does not directly address each situation, so we need to look to God's creation, scripture and logic with such difficulties.
Of course.
> Do you think that Scripture provides the answer to every situation?
Of course not. It's there to reveal God to us, not to tell us how to get a better signal on our TVs or which bag of potatoes to buy, nor how to deal with every life and death decision such as in vitro fertilization, which didn't exist when it was written.
> No offense, but so far, you've demonstrated that you don't know what Doctrine is.
Well, I am a little bit offended, but we're brothers in Christ so I'll blow it off. Of course I know what doctrine is.
- Jesus is the Son of God sent by God the Father to die for the sins of the world.
- God is triune, consisting of God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
- Eternal hell exists. It is a definitive self-exclusion and separation from God.
> I hope that you realize that you are saying that you stick with your own interpretation.
This is not at all what I am saying. Interpretations must be authentic. I use the same processes as any biblical scholar filled with the Holy Spirit.
> Are you familiar with the inadequacy of language?
Now you're insulting me again.
> Jesus called it His Rock and His foundation for building His Church,
I have no problem with Peter being a foundational figure in the origin of the Church. None at all.
> Jesus said the Bread becomes His body, so why did you talk about biting His arm?
He didn't say the bread *becomes* his body. He said it IS his body, an obvious metaphor and figurative language.
- Mt. 26.26: "Take and eat; this is my body."
- Mk. 14.22: "Take it; this is my body."
- Lk. 22.19: "This is my body given for you."
- 1 Cor. 11.24: "This is my body."
In other words, he never said the bread becomes his body.
> At the last supper, they ate the bread.
That's right, they did. They ate the bread, not his flesh.
> and the eating of the Lamb on passover. Those who didn't eat the Lamb died.
This is not true either. Those that didn't smear the blood on the door posts died (Ex. 12.13, 23). The blood was the sign, not the eating of the lamb (though it's quite obvious that the blood came from the lamb).
> Have you studied any of the disciples or Church fathers
Yes. It is the Scriptures I give credence to. The Church fathers are good for a wealth of information and teaching, but it is the Scriptures alone that form my doctrinal positions.
> 1 Cor. 10.16-17
Paul even explains himself. "Participation in the body of Christ" (16) is parallel to "participation in the blood of Christ" and parallel to "participating in the altar" (18). We no more eat Christ's actual body than we eat the actual altar. Israel, through the sacrifice, bound themselves to God, spiritually aligning with Him. So in the eucharist, believers bind themselves to God, spiritually aligning with him. The participants with demons (20) weren't eating any part of the demon. That's not what "participation" meant. "Participation in the altar" meant to eat the sacrifices in the manner prescribed by the Law of Moses, affirming all that the action meant and the relationship that such obedience to the covenant affirmed. I'm not coming up with my own interpretation, but reading what Paul means by what he said. Table fellowship connoted intimate relationships (21). Paul is saying that by eating the bread and drinking the cup we are affirming an intimate relationship with God through the sacrifice of his Son, Jesus. The whole text is noticeably symbolic and spiritual.
> 1 Corinthians 11:23-27
Jesus is obviously speaking symbolically when he says in v. 25 "This cup is the new covenant in my blood." No one would content for the literalness of the language. The cup is not a covenant. Therefore neither is the bread flesh. In addition, to take this as literal flesh instead of bread is to pull down all that Jesus has been at pains to set up through his entire ministry: a spiritual religion.
Jesus was not meeting a physical need with this bread (Jn. 6; the Last Supper in the Gospels), but rather a spiritual hunger.
The body of Jesus was not broken at the Last Supper, but the bread. His body was broken the next morning and throughout the day as he was crucified. The bread was broken and distributed, but not the body of Jesus.
This is a very narrow definition that I don't accept. Division is division, and it's everywhere. It's even in the church after officially declared doctrine, as I have shown you. There are discussion even now about Mary and about the reality of hell, to mention two.
> In case you don't know this, the Catholic Church teaches that Holy scripture is the Word of God. Every letter. If you refute that, then you can't be Catholic.
So if you disagree with that, they are thrown out of the church, and then the Church can say, "We don't have any disagreements"??
> life itself is something that God gives us as a guide. We need everything from God to make the tough decisions. If you are using only one thing, then you are disregarding the rest of God's creation. For example, we need to know Greek history to interpret some scripture. We need to know geography to understand other scripture. The Language and Geographic information itself is not defined in scripture.
Of course I agree with this.
> most Hospitals in the USA are run by Catholics
A pretty quick Google search yielded this: "The watchdog group found that due to mergers and acquisitions over the past 15 years, 14.5 percent of all acute care hospitals in the nation are now either owned by or affiliated with the Catholic church, according to the study. In 10 U.S. states, the number of Catholic hospitals is more than 30 percent.May 5, 2016
And from another site: "CHA advances the Catholic health ministry of the United States in caring for people and communities. Comprised of more than 600 hospitals and 1,600 long-term care and other health facilities in all 50 states, the Catholic health ministry is the largest group of nonprofit health care providers in the nation. Every day, one in six patients in the U.S. is cared for in a Catholic hospital." That's about 17%.
> If someone refutes the declared Doctrine, they are no longer in communion with God's Church.
Pope Francis just the other day questioned the existence of hell.
> Scripture does not directly address each situation, so we need to look to God's creation, scripture and logic with such difficulties.
Of course.
> Do you think that Scripture provides the answer to every situation?
Of course not. It's there to reveal God to us, not to tell us how to get a better signal on our TVs or which bag of potatoes to buy, nor how to deal with every life and death decision such as in vitro fertilization, which didn't exist when it was written.
> No offense, but so far, you've demonstrated that you don't know what Doctrine is.
Well, I am a little bit offended, but we're brothers in Christ so I'll blow it off. Of course I know what doctrine is.
- Jesus is the Son of God sent by God the Father to die for the sins of the world.
- God is triune, consisting of God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
- Eternal hell exists. It is a definitive self-exclusion and separation from God.
> I hope that you realize that you are saying that you stick with your own interpretation.
This is not at all what I am saying. Interpretations must be authentic. I use the same processes as any biblical scholar filled with the Holy Spirit.
> Are you familiar with the inadequacy of language?
Now you're insulting me again.
> Jesus called it His Rock and His foundation for building His Church,
I have no problem with Peter being a foundational figure in the origin of the Church. None at all.
> Jesus said the Bread becomes His body, so why did you talk about biting His arm?
He didn't say the bread *becomes* his body. He said it IS his body, an obvious metaphor and figurative language.
- Mt. 26.26: "Take and eat; this is my body."
- Mk. 14.22: "Take it; this is my body."
- Lk. 22.19: "This is my body given for you."
- 1 Cor. 11.24: "This is my body."
In other words, he never said the bread becomes his body.
> At the last supper, they ate the bread.
That's right, they did. They ate the bread, not his flesh.
> and the eating of the Lamb on passover. Those who didn't eat the Lamb died.
This is not true either. Those that didn't smear the blood on the door posts died (Ex. 12.13, 23). The blood was the sign, not the eating of the lamb (though it's quite obvious that the blood came from the lamb).
> Have you studied any of the disciples or Church fathers
Yes. It is the Scriptures I give credence to. The Church fathers are good for a wealth of information and teaching, but it is the Scriptures alone that form my doctrinal positions.
> 1 Cor. 10.16-17
Paul even explains himself. "Participation in the body of Christ" (16) is parallel to "participation in the blood of Christ" and parallel to "participating in the altar" (18). We no more eat Christ's actual body than we eat the actual altar. Israel, through the sacrifice, bound themselves to God, spiritually aligning with Him. So in the eucharist, believers bind themselves to God, spiritually aligning with him. The participants with demons (20) weren't eating any part of the demon. That's not what "participation" meant. "Participation in the altar" meant to eat the sacrifices in the manner prescribed by the Law of Moses, affirming all that the action meant and the relationship that such obedience to the covenant affirmed. I'm not coming up with my own interpretation, but reading what Paul means by what he said. Table fellowship connoted intimate relationships (21). Paul is saying that by eating the bread and drinking the cup we are affirming an intimate relationship with God through the sacrifice of his Son, Jesus. The whole text is noticeably symbolic and spiritual.
> 1 Corinthians 11:23-27
Jesus is obviously speaking symbolically when he says in v. 25 "This cup is the new covenant in my blood." No one would content for the literalness of the language. The cup is not a covenant. Therefore neither is the bread flesh. In addition, to take this as literal flesh instead of bread is to pull down all that Jesus has been at pains to set up through his entire ministry: a spiritual religion.
Jesus was not meeting a physical need with this bread (Jn. 6; the Last Supper in the Gospels), but rather a spiritual hunger.
The body of Jesus was not broken at the Last Supper, but the bread. His body was broken the next morning and throughout the day as he was crucified. The bread was broken and distributed, but not the body of Jesus.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9104
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Sola Scriptura
by Loving the Ride » Wed Apr 04, 2018 3:29 pm
Thanks for responding. Sorry for the delay, but I am travelling again until Friday. It is unusual for me to travel two weeks in a row, so I apologize. I will catch up to all of your points eventually, including your previous messages. I appreciate you taking the time on each, and I will do so in kind.
Unfortunately, it seems like you quickly fell for the fake news about the Pope and Hell. Hopefully you have already seen the corrections in the headlines. If not, I recommend looking at new news feeds. That interviewer (Scalfari) is notorious for making things like that up. He is a 93-year-old atheist, and he does not take notes or use recordings. He is well known in Europe as a retired "journalist", but he openly admits that he "reconstructs" his understanding when he writes an article. As an atheist, he does not know anything about Hell, so you shouldn't jump to conclusions about what he thought he heard. Imagine if he spoke with you and then reported what he thought you said! As always, you should check your sources. The Pope is on record many times clearly stating the Doctrine of Hell. He could not change that Doctrine if he wanted to! Again, once set, Catholic Doctrine NEVER changes. Here is a link to the official refutation of Scalfari. I like how they called his article "a fruit of his own construction" LOL: http://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2018-03/pope-francis-article-repubblica-press-release.html
> Division is division, and it's everywhere. It's even in the church after officially declared doctrine, as I have shown you. There are discussions even now about Mary and about the reality of hell, to mention two.
This is the key point that I think that can get you a more clear understanding. Doctrine is like law. It is objective (definitive), universal (for all times and places) and immutable (unchangeable). People in the Catholic Church can disagree about local issues and Pastoral practices (Rites), but never on Doctrine once it is declared. If you still think there is a disagreement on Doctrine, please give me a reference or two. Until now, you have indicated that you are not clear on what is Doctrine or not, so I think you can only have a misunderstanding of the Church until you understand the definition of Doctrine. Your previous citations were about debate, discussion, and opinions, not declared Doctrine.
Matters of Doctrine are very limited to ONLY "Faith and Morals". That is worth repeating again, ONLY "Faith and Morals". The Pope and Bishops have NO teaching authority on anything else. Not Politics, Not Immigration, Not Baseball, Not War, etc. You might see a Pope quoted in the news about such things, but it is not Doctrine! The claim of the Catholic Church is that the Holy Spirit makes the Doctrines, and uses the Chair of Peter to do so. It is called the Magesterium, and there are two levels (Solemn and Ordinary).
This is all reflected in Scripture, but that is not why the Church practices it. The Church practices it because that is what Christ and the Apostles taught the Church to do through traditional knowledge passed down. God gave the Apostles teaching authority, and that is what the Catholic Church still carries today. As you probably know, Scripture came generations later when Pope Innocent infallibly declared the Canon of the Bible in 404 A.D. The Catholic Church is centuries older than the New Testament, and by the grace of God, is the author of the New Testament. The Bible did not make the Church. The Church made the Bible, which is why there is always 100% agreement between the Bible and Catholic Doctrine. They are both inspired by the same author: The Holy Spirit.
References In Scripture to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church: http://www.catholicessentials.net/magisterium.htm
Acts 15:6-8 : "And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, who knoweth the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us" . Matthew 16:15 And later in the same chapter: "For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us..." Acts 15:28 "Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned."
Examples of the Solemn Magisterium of the Church (also called "ex cathedra teaching"): The decisions made during the General Councils of the Catholic Church. Papal encyclicals on "The Immaculate Conception" (1849) and "Defining the Dogma of the Assumption" (1950)
Examples of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church: Universal teaching of the Church such as other papal encyclicals (when not written in "ex cathedra" form), universal references such as the Summa Theologica, and writings of Saints that are continually utilized by the Church and passed from Pope to Pope without objection.
Unfortunately, it seems like you quickly fell for the fake news about the Pope and Hell. Hopefully you have already seen the corrections in the headlines. If not, I recommend looking at new news feeds. That interviewer (Scalfari) is notorious for making things like that up. He is a 93-year-old atheist, and he does not take notes or use recordings. He is well known in Europe as a retired "journalist", but he openly admits that he "reconstructs" his understanding when he writes an article. As an atheist, he does not know anything about Hell, so you shouldn't jump to conclusions about what he thought he heard. Imagine if he spoke with you and then reported what he thought you said! As always, you should check your sources. The Pope is on record many times clearly stating the Doctrine of Hell. He could not change that Doctrine if he wanted to! Again, once set, Catholic Doctrine NEVER changes. Here is a link to the official refutation of Scalfari. I like how they called his article "a fruit of his own construction" LOL: http://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2018-03/pope-francis-article-repubblica-press-release.html
> Division is division, and it's everywhere. It's even in the church after officially declared doctrine, as I have shown you. There are discussions even now about Mary and about the reality of hell, to mention two.
This is the key point that I think that can get you a more clear understanding. Doctrine is like law. It is objective (definitive), universal (for all times and places) and immutable (unchangeable). People in the Catholic Church can disagree about local issues and Pastoral practices (Rites), but never on Doctrine once it is declared. If you still think there is a disagreement on Doctrine, please give me a reference or two. Until now, you have indicated that you are not clear on what is Doctrine or not, so I think you can only have a misunderstanding of the Church until you understand the definition of Doctrine. Your previous citations were about debate, discussion, and opinions, not declared Doctrine.
Matters of Doctrine are very limited to ONLY "Faith and Morals". That is worth repeating again, ONLY "Faith and Morals". The Pope and Bishops have NO teaching authority on anything else. Not Politics, Not Immigration, Not Baseball, Not War, etc. You might see a Pope quoted in the news about such things, but it is not Doctrine! The claim of the Catholic Church is that the Holy Spirit makes the Doctrines, and uses the Chair of Peter to do so. It is called the Magesterium, and there are two levels (Solemn and Ordinary).
This is all reflected in Scripture, but that is not why the Church practices it. The Church practices it because that is what Christ and the Apostles taught the Church to do through traditional knowledge passed down. God gave the Apostles teaching authority, and that is what the Catholic Church still carries today. As you probably know, Scripture came generations later when Pope Innocent infallibly declared the Canon of the Bible in 404 A.D. The Catholic Church is centuries older than the New Testament, and by the grace of God, is the author of the New Testament. The Bible did not make the Church. The Church made the Bible, which is why there is always 100% agreement between the Bible and Catholic Doctrine. They are both inspired by the same author: The Holy Spirit.
References In Scripture to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church: http://www.catholicessentials.net/magisterium.htm
Acts 15:6-8 : "And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, who knoweth the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us" . Matthew 16:15 And later in the same chapter: "For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us..." Acts 15:28 "Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned."
Examples of the Solemn Magisterium of the Church (also called "ex cathedra teaching"): The decisions made during the General Councils of the Catholic Church. Papal encyclicals on "The Immaculate Conception" (1849) and "Defining the Dogma of the Assumption" (1950)
Examples of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church: Universal teaching of the Church such as other papal encyclicals (when not written in "ex cathedra" form), universal references such as the Summa Theologica, and writings of Saints that are continually utilized by the Church and passed from Pope to Pope without objection.
- Loving the Ride
Re: Sola Scriptura
by jimwalton » Wed Apr 04, 2018 3:36 pm
> Unfortunately, it seems like you quickly fell for the fake news about the Pope and Hell
Thanks for tuning me in to it. I got suckered, I guess. It's so hard to know who and what to trust these days.
> Pope and Bishops have NO teaching authority on anything else. Not Politics, Not Immigration, Not Baseball, Not War, etc. You might see a Pope quoted in the news about such things, but it is not Doctrine!
I know this.
> As you probably know, Scripture came generations later when Pope Innocent infallibly declared the Canon of the Bible in 404 A.D.
The Scripture came in the 1st century. They were recognized as Scripture from the 1st century. They were affirmed by Athanasius of the Eastern Church in 367 and by the Synod of Rome, the Western Church, in 382. They were accepted by the entire church at the Synod of Carthage in 397.
> The Catholic Church is centuries older than the New Testament
Most of the NT was unanimously recognized by the middle of the 2nd century, based on quotations by the Church Fathers and the Muratorian Canon.
> and by the grace of God, is the author of the New Testament.
The apostles and those who knew them are the authors of the NT, not the Catholic Church.
> The Bible did not make the Church. The Church made the Bible, which is why there is always 100% agreement between the Bible and Catholic Doctrine.
I disagree with this so strongly I hardly know where to begin. The Gospels were written in the 1st century by, according to my conclusions, Matthew Mark Luke and John. The Pauline epistles were written by Paul. The organized Church didn't make the Bible, the apostles of Jesus did. The organized Church only recognized and affirmed the sacred writings by the NT authors. The deliberations of the Church during this time involved recognizing the books given by God rather than deciding what books to include. The difference is a subtle but important one. The books of the New Testament are not Scripture because the church said they were, but are Scripture because from the time of their composition they bore the mark of divine authority. The New Testament, and in fact the Bible as a whole, is thus a list of authoritative writings rather than an authoritative list of writings.
> Magesterium
Of course the church has the authority to teach the faithful about what is expected of them. But this teaching is not restricted to the officials of the church, as is obvious from 2 Timothy 2.2.
> Acts 15.7
I have no problem with the idea that Peter was foreordained by God to be a preacher of the Gospel to the Jews (Gal. 2.9).
> Matthew 16:15
I'm guessing you mean 16:18? Or do you mean Acts 15.15?
> Acts 15:28
I have no problem with the Holy Spirit speaking to and through the apostles. That by no means indicates they were the only ones the HS spoke to and through (Acts 21.11).
> Examples
Yeah, I'm not Catholic and never will be. I respect your decision to become a Catholic, but I have far too many doctrinal, dogmatic, and catechetical differences with the RC Church to ever turn in that direction—differences where the Scriptures teach differently than the RC Church. But, as I said, I'm not disrespecting your position nor trying to convince you otherwise. I am only explaining why I am not a Catholic and never will be.
Thanks for tuning me in to it. I got suckered, I guess. It's so hard to know who and what to trust these days.
> Pope and Bishops have NO teaching authority on anything else. Not Politics, Not Immigration, Not Baseball, Not War, etc. You might see a Pope quoted in the news about such things, but it is not Doctrine!
I know this.
> As you probably know, Scripture came generations later when Pope Innocent infallibly declared the Canon of the Bible in 404 A.D.
The Scripture came in the 1st century. They were recognized as Scripture from the 1st century. They were affirmed by Athanasius of the Eastern Church in 367 and by the Synod of Rome, the Western Church, in 382. They were accepted by the entire church at the Synod of Carthage in 397.
> The Catholic Church is centuries older than the New Testament
Most of the NT was unanimously recognized by the middle of the 2nd century, based on quotations by the Church Fathers and the Muratorian Canon.
> and by the grace of God, is the author of the New Testament.
The apostles and those who knew them are the authors of the NT, not the Catholic Church.
> The Bible did not make the Church. The Church made the Bible, which is why there is always 100% agreement between the Bible and Catholic Doctrine.
I disagree with this so strongly I hardly know where to begin. The Gospels were written in the 1st century by, according to my conclusions, Matthew Mark Luke and John. The Pauline epistles were written by Paul. The organized Church didn't make the Bible, the apostles of Jesus did. The organized Church only recognized and affirmed the sacred writings by the NT authors. The deliberations of the Church during this time involved recognizing the books given by God rather than deciding what books to include. The difference is a subtle but important one. The books of the New Testament are not Scripture because the church said they were, but are Scripture because from the time of their composition they bore the mark of divine authority. The New Testament, and in fact the Bible as a whole, is thus a list of authoritative writings rather than an authoritative list of writings.
> Magesterium
Of course the church has the authority to teach the faithful about what is expected of them. But this teaching is not restricted to the officials of the church, as is obvious from 2 Timothy 2.2.
> Acts 15.7
I have no problem with the idea that Peter was foreordained by God to be a preacher of the Gospel to the Jews (Gal. 2.9).
> Matthew 16:15
I'm guessing you mean 16:18? Or do you mean Acts 15.15?
> Acts 15:28
I have no problem with the Holy Spirit speaking to and through the apostles. That by no means indicates they were the only ones the HS spoke to and through (Acts 21.11).
> Examples
Yeah, I'm not Catholic and never will be. I respect your decision to become a Catholic, but I have far too many doctrinal, dogmatic, and catechetical differences with the RC Church to ever turn in that direction—differences where the Scriptures teach differently than the RC Church. But, as I said, I'm not disrespecting your position nor trying to convince you otherwise. I am only explaining why I am not a Catholic and never will be.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9104
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
11 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests