I know that the Apostle's teachings were passed down to the Ealry Church Fathers because of their authority having derived from their successorship as bishops to their positions.

I realize that those in the third through fifth centuries never met an Apostle, I never claimed that they did either. You put false words into my mouth yet again. They received their authority from those from earlier times who had indeed met the Apostles and studied under them. Unless I am mistaken with names, the Apostle St. John taught St. Ignatius of Antioch, a well-known and prominent Church Father. Seven authentic letters of his exist; the teachings they contain can be considered as Sacred Tradition he recieved from an Apostle.

You fail to grasp my statement again. I never claimed that they added to Scripture, that they ever intended to, or that Scripture will ever be added to. The Bible of 72 books is complete and was necessarily complete before St. Jerome translated it into Latin.

The Catholic position is that Scripture is complete and can never be abridged as Protestants practice. Any teachings outside of the Bible (e.g, papal, etc.) MUST be in accordance with preeisting Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and be welcomed by the Magisterium. Scripture is superior to any extra-biblical teaching but they are nevertheless just as valid.

Good Evening Arch,

"I know that the Apostle's teachings were passed down to the Ealry Church Fathers because of their authority having derived from their successorship as bishops to their positions."

Arch, I can't make any logical sense out of that statement:

You are saying that

A. the Early Church Fathers (do we mean "The Apostolic Fathers?) have their authority derived from their successorship as bishops to their positions. But how how do you know that is true? Where does the NT say that bishoprics had successors? Where are bishoprics found in the NT? I don't know of any myself.

Then you are saying that

B. based on that alleged fact, Paul's teachings were passed down to the Apostolic Fathers. There is just no logical connection between A & B.

Are you familiar with the collection of writings called "The Apostolic Fathers"? Have you read them? Have you read the Bible; have you read the apocrypha? How many times. Haven't I asked you that more than once now with no answer?

Arch, I put no false word in your mouth. Why do you make that up? I point out that you cannot claim that Church Fathers received oral prophecy from Paul if they lived long after Paul was dead. Someone in the 2nd century might have, but not 3rd-5th century.

Instead of proving things, you are reciting assertions.

How do you know that St Iggy was taught by John? If he were taught by John, how do you know that what Iggy wrote was the Word of God, which John received & gave to him & that Iggy made no mistake? What is your proof? Does Iggy claim to be giving the very word of God? I have read him; have you? Please don't ignore these questions.

Where does the NT guarantee the accuracy of persons who hear an apostle & transmit what they learned?

"Seven authentic letters of his exist; the teachings they contain can be considered as Sacred Tradition he recieved from an Apostle."

Arch, do you understand that I don't believe things just because someone says it; particularly in ancient history & theology. What is your proof that what Iggy said was Sacred? What is your proof that he got his teaching from an apostle & transmitted it without error?

Incidentally, if you compare what Iggy says about church government, it is quite different from the NT.

Let's see your Iggy claims quoted from Iggy, where he claims to be repeating oral apostolic prophecy. And show where the Bible says that repeated oral prophecy repeated from memory is God's Word.

What this discussion is basically about is your proving that something besides the 66 books is God's word. You have not done so. If you don't claim that Church Fathers are canonical in repeated apostolic sayings, then you are off our topic & proving nothing.

You fail to grasp my statement again. I never claimed that they added to Scripture, that they ever intended to, or that Scripture will ever be added to. The Bible of 72 books is complete and was necessarily complete before St. Jerome translated it into Latin.

The Catholic position is that the Bible of 66 books is God's Word. If there are 72 books, that is the papist position, the Roman position, not the universal Church position.

Where does the NT say that there is a thing called Magisterium or Sacred Tradition as you use the term? I really don't care what the papist positions are; I need proof, not regurgitation of denominational positions.

Now here is an odd statement by yourself:
" Scripture is superior to any extra-biblical teaching but they are nevertheless just as valid. ???

The Scripture cannot be broken; it is the very Word of God. Thus it is superior. Now how on earth can you call something inferior & fallible "just as valid."

Kindly refrain from just asserting. Proof is required.

As to Jerome, I believe that at least in general, Jerome denied the canonicity of the apocrypha. How did Jerome treat the apocrypha in his Vulgate?

I am sorry I am not going to address all of your questions here, rather, I began a new post that I believe will better establish our discussion. Please reply to that one.

RCC apologists agree with me that the 66 books of the Bible are God's Word. Now I put it to the RCC apologists to prove that there is any other present source of God's word which is readily & commonly available to men.

Arch has appealed to a category that he calls Sacred Tradition & quots verses from Paul's epistles which endorse the oral & written teaching of Paul & use the term "tradition" (paradosis) to refer to that. But the teaching of Paul is no different from general Bible teaching. Men who heard Christ's words & men who heard OT prophets speak, were responsible to receive those words as God's word. But verbal prophecy that was never written down is not readily & commonly available to men today.

So I ask Arch to define clearly what he means by his Sacred Tradition category. I think he means that early Church Fathers had quotations from apostles & prophets of the NT age & that these Church Fathers recorded them & that these sayings are God's Word. But lest I waste time talking past him, I ask him to clarify his POV.

I want Arch to show me that something is God's Word outside the 66 books, something readily & commonly available. If he has Traditions that he claims are God's Word, I want proof that they are. I ask Arch to quote these traditions, chapter & verse from the Apostolic Fathers, the earliest stuff I know of after the NT. & then I ask him to prove that these are God's Word.

Given that Paul gave oral prophecy, it does not follow from that that the Apostolic Fathers record his oral prophecies perfectly or even in its general gist.

The fact that men were responsible to believe & obey oral prophecy during the NT age is a given. But that any of this was written down as God's Word & recorded by the Apostolic Fathers is not a given. Neither was this added to the Bible when the apocrypha was endorsed at the Council of Trent. There is no collection of Church Father traditions appended to even a RCC Bible.

At any rate, Arch, I wait for you proof that something outside the 66 books is God's Word.

You use the term Roman Catholic as an all-encompassing term to delinate all those who acknowledge the authority of the Pope, or so it seems. You insist that you are a member of the catholic church which in a degree is correct, but you erroneously capitalized it in several occurences. the Catholic Church (both capitalized) envelopes the Roman Catholic Church and a score of other Rites. RCC does no mean as many people as you seem to think it does.

I am a Roman Catholic which is part of the Catholic Church. You are a catholic and are a part of the catholic church.

You err again when you say that verbal prophecy has not been written down. The search ends here.

Through the influence of the Holy Spirit, all of the papal encyclicals and bulls have set down Sacred Tradition as a source readily available to all men. This is the source that you have been asking me for. If you choose not to follow Christ-intended Catholic and catholic teachings, you either fool yourself or allow yourself to be fooled by the devil.

The letters of the Apostolic Fathers are all available online, you will find that they do not stray from teaching Catholic beliefs.

Given that St. Paul and the Twelve gave oral prophecies and teachings on Christ, it necessarily follows that these were written down at some time by an early Father of the Church.

The table of contents of the Bible is never listed in the Bible itself, the authority of the Church established it throughu the influence of the Holy Spirit. Christ established the authority of the Church. God the Father gave Christ His authority on heaven and on earth.
To go against the original table of contents of the Bible (ALL 72 books) is to defy God in the Holy Spirit, Christ, and the Father.

I believe that I have answered your question then.
Outside of the 66 books of your Bible, the Word of God is seen in the deuterocanonical books (just as inspired as the other 66 books), all infallible statements of the Church, and all infallible statements of the successors of St. Peter.

I have proven God's Word outside of your abridged and edited Bible, whether or not you accept them rests only in whether or not you regard God as an authority.

You have still failed to prove that sola scriptura is biblical. If not, then it is a self-refuting doctrine and all who follow it must needs admit to be in error and to be in a state of sin having added doctrine to the Bible.

I wait on your reply.

Re: I Wait for Arch to Disprove Sola Scriptura

I use capitalized Church to mean the Body of Christ, the universal (catholic) Church, as opposed to local church. This is not an error.

This is really a quibble to the discussing. I don't grant you a copyright on "Catholic Church," I'll grant you one on Roman Catholic Church & use RCC as an abbreviation to include all the papists.

I'll decide what to call myself, Arch; & ask no permiso from papists -- LOL.

I don't err when I speak of verbal prophecy that has not been written down. I don't claim that no verbal prophecy was ever written down.

You are making assertions now without proof. Realize that I don't accept it just because you say so.

How do you know that papal bulls were influenced by the Holy Spirit instead of an evil spirit? Where is your copy of the Sacred Tradition? I never heard of any such book. I don't follow you very well, since you seem to have left off proving thing & now are resorting to "I say so."

I still wait for you to prove that anything other than the 66 books readily & commonly available to men, is God's Word. If you think the Bulls are, then prove it. How do you know that the RCC teachings are Christ-intended? The RCC is vastly different from NT Christianity. Have you read the Bible even once, Arch?

Arch, I own more than one copy of the Apostolic Fathers. I have it in my computer & have read it. I have it both in Greek & in translation. Have you ever read it? Please answer my questions. For ultimately you need to read the Bible & compare it with the apocrypha & the Apostolic Fathers -- hopefully you can see the difference between God's word & the word of religious men.

How do u know that the Apostolic Fathers don't differ from RCC beliefs? Where is there any pope in the Apostolic Fathers?

"Given that St. Paul and the Twelve gave oral prophecies and teachings on Christ, it necessarily follows that these were written down at some time by an early Father of the Church."

You say that

A. Given oral prophecy

this implies

B. it was written down at some time by an early Church Father.

That simply is not logical. How do you know that all oral prophecy was intended to be written down & in fact was? Do you even find such a claim in the Apostolic Fathers? Where? I doubt that many RCC scholars would agree with you on that alleged implication.

The Sheep of the Catholic Church (my Church as opposed to the RCC) accept God's Word when they hear it. They never waited for ecclesiastical councils. It was accepted right away. It is self-evident that the Bible is God's Word. The Bible does not depend for authenticity upon any ecclesiastical councils. The councils are judged by the Word of God.

If you have some proof that ecclesiastical councils are superior in authority to the Bible, kindly present it.

How do you know that the apocrypha is God's word? Have you read it? How do you know that rejecting those books defies the Trinity? Why doesn't the NT ever quote the apocrypha to settle an argument or as the Word of God?

I still wait for you to prove that anything outside the 66 books generally & readily available to men is God's word. Kindly give proof, not a recitation of unproven assertions.

Where does the Bible say that Peter would be head of the Church? Where does it say that their would be successors to Peter. No where!

The YouTube claim was that RCC apologists disproved sola scriptura -- but neither they nor you have disproved the idea that the 66 books are the only generally & readily available Word of God.

Now you change the subject to my proving sola scriptura. I don't have to do that to demonstrate that your disproof failed.

As I have told you before, we agree that the 66 books are God's word. I accept that as self-evident. (I discuss it below on this site; faith, epistemology). Our agreement on the 66 books is common ground; we both accept it.

My testimony is that I have never read any other document for which it was self-evidently God's word. The NT doesn't say the apoc is God's word, tho it was available.

By this time in our discussion it has become apparent that you cannot prove any other available writing, other than the 66 books, is God's Word. Why don't you admit it? You have no proof, & no logical reason (traceable to axioms) to accept the apocrypha or anything else other than the 66 books.

Let me wish you the best. If you would trust the Lord Jesus as your only & sufficient Savior, I think you would understand these things much better.

I wish you the best & every blessing.

It is a universal truth that Catholic designates my denomination and catholic the entire Christian church, I was not trying to claim copyrights, just using the English language correctly.

Regardless of that, I have already stated where this discussion will be renewed if you so desire.

The original topic of MY post has still not even been addressed by you.

I promise I will prove where the Word of God is seen outside of the Bible as soon as you prove sola scriptura from within the bounds of the Bible.

THAT is the discussion, do not change the topic because you cannot prove it.

Admit defeat on that point before you ask me your questions pr else prove your case.

Which will it be:
Surrender or proof?

Those are your ONLY two choices.

QUOTE: "It is a universal truth that Catholic designates my denomination and catholic the entire Christian church, I was not trying to claim copyrights, just using the English language correctly."

It is true that in the USA the term Catholic is commonly used to refer the Roman Catholic Church or the papal system. However, it is not a universal truth as you claim, since I am in the universe, and many deny the validity of seizing the term catholic and claiming ownership. I think your denomination is called The Roman Catholic Church, which may e called an oxymoron, as Rome is not the universe.

As a matter of fact a great number of denominations recite "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church" in their liturgy, with no ref to the papacy at all.

Similarly, the expression "The Church" is often used (wrongly) to refer to the RCC. But if you live in Utah, it will probably mean the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints."

QUOTE:
"The original topic of MY post has still not even been addressed by you."

I have addressed the content of your posts extensively. I do let you know that I do not except your framing of the debate.

I suggest you stop attacking a straw man. My POV is that the only source of God's Word which I have ever found (readily available to me) is the 66 books.

I don't need to prove that the 66 books are God's Word to you since we agree on it. You need to prove that something else (generally & readily available) is God's Word, since we do not agree on it. I don't think you can do it.

Do you admit your error & recant?

It is a matter of semantics with which you argue.
Only the Catholic Church (all rites inclusive) are capital C Catholic.
All other Christian churches are lower case c catholic.

You call the title of the RCC an oxymoron.
I call your misunderstanding of the title moronic.
Did you not know that the RCC is not the only Catholic Church under the Papacy as institued by Christ? There are some 20 or so different Catholic Churches under the Pope. The RCC is not universal, but the Catholic Church is.

You err again, other churches say "I believe in the holy catholic church" not "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church" like we do. I have delineated the difference between the two already.

You still have not proven your point of sola scriptura so truly it should be you who admits your error and recants.

However, I don't want you to make youself look like a fool again by using irrelevent verses to support your heresy.

I have a extra biblical simple tradition that you cannot deny: the Canon of Scripture.

Is this canon contained within Scriputre itslef anywhere? No, it is not.
Thus, we know that because the exact table of contents is inspired in and of itself, that at least this outside of Scripture is truly God's Word.

I don't agree with you. I capitalize Church when it means the Body of Christ, the true Catholic, Universal Church. The Bible never speaks of this Church having "rites." What is your proof that it has "rites" acknowledged by God?

There is no such thing as "other Christian churches." I challenge you to quote even one Bible verse where there is a group of "other Christian churches." The Bible never uses Church (ekklesia) to refer to a denomination. It uses ekklesia to refer to a (secular) assembly, a group of Christians in a geographical region, like the Church of Ephesus, for a group that meets in someone's house (house church) -- see start of Philemon, and for the Body of Christ (Church universal). Never for any denomination, any so-called "rite," never for a building.


"You call the title of the RCC an oxymoron.
I call your misunderstanding of the title moronic. "

ROFL.

Let me see your proof that there is more than one Catholic Church. There is ONE CHURCH CATHOLIC in the Bible. Just one. Yours are figments of your imagination.

1 Cor

" we, who are many, are one body in Christ,"

" For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit. "

" There is one body, and one Spirit, even as also ye were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all. "

"And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to the which also ye were called in one body; and be ye thankful."

Arch when you say "other churches say,"
again you err. There are not OTHER CHURCHES, just one!

From an anglicanhistory site: "And in the two great Creeds of Christendom, the Creeds which declare the Faith as it has been held by Christians all over the world from the beginning, the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed, we say, I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church."

My Point is that sola (only) the 66 books have been shown to me to be God's Word. We agree on the 66. If you have proof on anything else, please give it or recant. It is axiomatic & common group that the 66 books are God's word. Sola: Nothing else is common ground; I have no evidence that anything else readily available to the common person is God's Word. If you have the proof give it, or admit you do not have such proof. Do you give it or admit?

MY SHEEP HEAR MY VOICE.

God's Word is recognizable by all born-again Christians.
They did not & do not wait for ecclesiastical councils.