Correct Addy: http://bible-forum.invisionzone.com/
is the new site, but if you click on that link, it may not go there. But if you put that addy http://Bible-Forum.InvisionZone.com in your URL box, it will go there. The Invisionzone forum has many categories of Bible & Theology with special forums for each. This Bravenet site here is the old general forum site. We may eliminate that invision site because it is expensive and is not getting enough traffic.
Welcome! You are at BibleAndTheology.com, which is the general forum for BibleAndTheology.org. Persons are invited to post on Bible and Theology (widely interpreted). Some postings may be chosen to be reposted on BibleAndTheology.org. Give & receive love here. If you post here, please do not use "Anonymous" or the like. Choose your own screen names, but do not use one that you know is already being used by someone else. Please:
1. You may debate with any ideas posted, but do not post objections to the topic, style, spelling, use of capital letters, or grammar of anyone's posting. For example, you may debate whether the moon is made of green cheese, but kindly refrain from reviling a poster by telling him that it is politically incorrect to discuss green cheese.
2. Do not post complaints or attacks vs. other posters.
3. No obscene language,cuss words, or blasphemy may be used.
4. Send complaints privately by e-mail to NellPatKay@hotmail.com. If your posting is deleted, it could be because it violates forum rules or is just chosen for a short run on the forum.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . If you want the password, register your screen names by e-mail, as password may be needed again if problems arise on the Forum. CHECK OUT THE search function, which is good: it checks the content of the postings.
Note that if you paste onto the Forum, for some reason Bravenet may change your quote marks and apostrophes into something else, like little boxes or funny U's. Thanks for coming, participating, and for showing love . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Also try out our new site:
You must try to understand,you have deemed the deuterocanonical books to not be Scripture, but my reding of them and others' have proven them to be fully Scriptural and indeed the Word of God. As such, we must look to other parts of Scripture to settle this. Private interpretation is soundly forbidden in 1 Peter XXX. Remember, Christ gave the Church authority AS A WHOLE , not individuals as your denomination seems to stress.
The doctrine of sola scriptura is circular reasoning: the Bible is God's Word because the Bible says so. God's Word is the Bible because God's Word is ONLY in the Bible(according to you).
It is self-evident that the Bible is true so anything the Bible says is necessarily true, correct? The Bible calls for Church authority (traditionally in councils, such as the Council of Jerusalem in Scripture) which does NOT have to prove the authenticity of Scripture (as you claim it does) because the authrity of the Bible is self-evident. No circle here.
"Revelations" (which I have read at least thrice) was a typing error, I meant "Revelation" though "Apocalypse" may be used interchangably, I see no problem with that. In fact, Apocalypse would probably be more accurate as the early Church members would use the Greek Septuagint version (not a modern version of the lacking Masoretic as Protestants do).
I did not disprove my point with 1 Clement, I was merely pointing out that the importance of it was high (due to his being Pope) and was spread about the universal Church more than Protestants care to acknowledge. The New Testament does not cite every book of the Old Testament and thus necessarily not all of the deuterocanonical books. However, it does cite non-canonical books such as the Book of Enoch. Is this to be accepted? Who would regulate it? that is what the Church is for, a body of learned, spiritual, and well informed Christians guided by the Holy Spirit in determining just what was and was not canonical.
The Mass began just after Pentecost (I am not sure what term Protestants use, it was the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles and Mary as tongues of fire). It is mentioned in the Bible as well! Acts 2:42 says that the ealry Christians were under the Apostles' teachings (priests and bishops), were gathered together (as a congregation at Mass), bork bread (celebrated the Eucharist), and had extensive prayer. Look at it and the modern Mass and you will see exact similarites.
No, it is not that I do not accept the verses you gave, you just have not proven it.
You MUST admit that NOWHERE in the Bible does it say ONLY Scripture. It does however grant the Church authority and the Apostolic Tradtions of St. Paul and the other Apostles of Christ. An unbiased look at those facts would IMMEDIATLEY rule out sols scriptura and AT LEAST allow for the possibility of all that the Catholic CHurch teaches.
Even thought I have done so, I did not have to prove anything other than the lack of scripture alone in the Bible.
As such, I have won the debate by proving sola scriptura unscriptural while proving Apostolic Tradition and the Magisterium fully Scriptural.
To conclude, the 66 books are Scriuptural as are the rest of the 72 books used by the Apostles. Sacred Tradition from the Apostles and the Church's Magisterium are Scriptural and must be followed by any true Christian.
"16 All scripture is inspired of God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. 17 That the man of God may be COMPLETE, furnished COMPLETELY to every good work. "
There are the words complete & completely. Meditate if you will on that one & tell me if that is close enough to what you are looking for.
I have been reading the Bible thru & thru since 1960, times beyond counting. I have marked all the references in one of my Bibles to the subject of bibliology: passages on scripture, word of God, prophecy as a concept, thus saith the Lord, etc. I wonder if you have read the Bible enough to confirm my finding: I find that arguments are settled in Biblical narration by appealing to what the Scripture says. The Lord Jesus did this. For example, in the Temptation, he cites the OT to silence the devil. "It is written" settles the argument.
On the other hand, He rejected tradition, sayings of them of old, Jewish elders sayings. & he rebuked those who followed that as final authority.
In the Bible scripture is the final authority in addition to oral prophecy & occasional dreams, visions, voice from Heaven. The only source we have of final truth which is endorsed in the Bible, is scripture. I mean we don't have tape recordings of voices from heaven. I am skeptical about prophecy, dreams & visions today; but if they come, these are not readily available to men. On the other hand, the Bible is available.
Yes, we are furnished completely to do what? Oh, yeah, those good works that Protestants scorn...
Meditate on this, NOWHERE does it say "only". I was only born in 1995 so I have not read it as many times as you have but I am slowly getting there. However, I do know a few verses that pertain to the valid argument AGAINST sola scriptura. It is pitiable that you have so many that BARELY support your position while I have so few that prove it entirely!
Whoa, slow down. Christ rejected the traditions of MEN, FAR different than Sacred Tradition that the Apostles advocated, you know, in the very Word of God...
I did not expect so quick a response.
BTW, I don't consider myself a protestant. My POV on this is that I am in the tradition of the Trial of Blood, as delineated by John Carroll, booklet available on internet. As to works, they don't result in justification, but condemnation, when done by an Adamic human being. We won't get validation our works, but salvation from our wretched state in which we do sinful works, as a member of Adam's race.
Nevertheless, good works must follow if we are transformed to a child of God by new birth.
Eph 2 "that in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus: 8 for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not of works, that no man should glory. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them."
After transformation, after salvation, good works will follow -- or we were never saved. Even the thief on the cross did a good work; he testified to the Lord Jesus before men.
Knowing that I have been saved by grace has never made me want to sin, but led me to love & want to please the Lord who gave His blood to save me.
The Scripture is a complete provision. So you might want to claim that while it is complete, there may be some extra stuff out there which would be in excess of complete. The Scripture settled the argument over theological concept with the Lord Jesus. Other things were occasionally brought in, but these are not generally and readily available to me or you (you can't get a vision on demand). The traditions of the Jewish leaders in Christ's time to me seem analogous to the traditions of the religious leaders in Christendom after the NT (note I said, Christendom, not "The Church").
At any rate, I doubt that you or anyone else can prove to me that some document outside the Bible is God's Word. I have never read anything that appeared to be God's word outside scripture. Before you accept such, don't you need proof?
If you have such verses, feel free to post them.
I don't know of any such verses. It seems to me that the only basis of theological proof used in the NT is citation of scripture - that is aside from things not readily available to men today; like working a miracle, calling down fire from Heaven, etc.
Elijah proved that He was a man of God:
approx quote: If I be a man of God, let fire come down from Heaven & burn you all up. Whoosh!
Okay, check out these verses in any version of the Bible you want:
1 Corinthians 11:2
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Plus, the Bible is not even complete. Look at the last chapter of John!
1 Cor 11:2 "Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you."
Paul praises the Corinthians for holding fast the Word of God which Paul gave to them. This shows that the Lord expected the hearers of His Word to accept it at once, & not wait 400 years for some religious council to canonize something.
What proof do you have that "traditions" as used by Paul means anything other than scripture & the oral prophecy Paul gave them? The Lord Jesus rejected the Jewish elders traditions. It can't be that.
"AS I DELIVERED THEM"
What proof do you have that Paul means something other than what He the prophet & apostle of Christ delivered to them?
2 Thessalonians 2:15
"So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word or by epistle OF OURS."
What does this mean other than that the Thessalonians are commended for holding fast the Word of God which they received from Paul either orally or in writing?
END OF JOHN
We are surely talking past each other now. John says that the Lord Jesus did many things not included in the Gospel of John. That is totally irrelevant. Of course prophets said many things not put down in scripture.
Are you thinking that the issue is whether or not God's Word has ever existed outside scripture? That is not what I am debating.
Remember what I am saying: I am not saying that God never spoke or never speaks outside of scripture. I am saying that the only thing I have, readily & generally available, is scripture. For the "RCC apologists" to convince me, they must show that something besides the Bible (scripture) readily & generally available is God's Word.
Do we agree on what we are debating? Or are we talking past each other?
Do you have a Bible verse which says that men today have a commonly available source of God's Word other than the 66 books of the Bible?
You say that it took 400 years to accept a teaching, this is a superficial and elementary misconception that nearly borders on being a vicious rumor amongst Protestants.
No teaching of Christ in the Catholic Church has ever been created out of nowhere or been accepted while not having been accepted prior. The formal teaching of it is the only thing that may differ over time. For example, papal infallibility is in the Bible and has been a Christian belief since then but was only formally pronounced several decades ago. This is a fact so don't even try to debate it.
I already acknowledged that tghe traditions of the Jews were heretical traditions of men and were and are rejectionable. However, St. Paul is referring to the traditions that he passed on to the Catholic Church. Surely you would not call these traditions of men but rather give them a more special position. This is what is termed by Christians to be Sacred Tradition.
I have no proof that he meant any of the other Apostles' traditions but I never said that I did have such proof, did I? Apostolic Tradition is mostly based off of the afore-mentioned traditions (Sacred Tradition) of St. Paul. If you argue that one, you go against the Bible and its teachings of following the traditions of St. Paul.
However, St. Paul is not said to have all of the Sacred Traditions passed down for the singular reason of the verse of 2 Thessalonians 2:15. You emphasized "OF OURS", obviously, referring to more disciples other than just himself, St. Paul.
I have said it before and I will say it again: Sacred Tradition is the relevent source of God's very Word that you are looking for outside the Bible. Perhaps you misunderstand something though and I feel that if you do, it can create very large problems: a Catholic teaching based off of either Magisterium (the Church's Christ-given teaching authority)or Scared Tradition must not ever conflict with Sacred Scripture. As such, no Catholic teaching is counter-scriptural.
If you are looking for God's Word outside of Scripture, you need only look at Sacred Tradition and the True Church's authority, both of which are acknowledged several times in Scripture itself.
I have already asked you a question that you never answered: is your god so weak that he can be summed up in a single book? If so, he is not infinite and thus a false god.
My God is infinite and can never be fully explained, much less in written word. Sacred Tradtion and the CHurch's authority come closer but we Christians still acknowledge that we can not know everything of God. If Protestants agree that we as humans cannot know all of God as well, then they must realize that the Bible cannot be a sum of all of God's Word as it would then be a sum of all of God.
And by the way, get rid of your 66 book Bible, the true one is 72 books and is the modern version of the Septuagint that the ealry Christian Church used. This is a historical and archaelogical fact, to go against the useage of the 72 book Bible is to have a "church" contradictory to the one established by Christ.
Tradition = paradosis (para- = from the side of; do- = give; -sis = process)
patroparadosis (patr- = father, -o- = connecting vowel) = what is handed down from fathers.
It is well established that tradition as referring to teaching received from a prophet or written scripture is God's Word, infallible, & authoritative. For example, Paul's prophetic teachings & writings are God's Word.
But does that fact give authority to the sayings of 2000 years of "church-fathers," who disagreed with each other? Can one reconcile what Thomas Aquinas says with Augustine? (Calvin cited Augustine at length.) How does the fact that "tradition" may be prophetic message somehow makes sayings of "church fathers" either God's word or authoritative? The Bible says no such thing about "church fathers." Neither were there any of these "church fathers" around when Paul wrote the Thessalonian Epistles. Tradition as mentioned by Paul does not refer to coming "church fathers." The Bible no where endorses the traditions of the papist "church fathers" who should come, nor the traditions of "church fathers" before there was any papacy.
As a matter of fact, "tradition" is negated both by 1 Peter & the gospels.
1 PETER 1
"knowing that ye were redeemed, not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, from your vain manner of life handed-down-from-fathers [patroparadotou]*; 19 but with precious blood, as of a lamb without spot, even the blood of Christ:"
*Patr-o-para-do-tou (πατροπαραδότου < πατροπαράδοτος) is the verbal adjective that corresponds to the noun patroparadosis, which is an extended form or paradosis (tradition).
This saying seems quite applicable to the papist traditions.
"2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition [paradosin]* of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 And he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? 4 For God said, Honor thy father and thy mother: and, He that speaketh evil of father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, That wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me is given to God; 6 he shall not honor his father. And ye have made void the word of God because of your tradition."
This of course refers to the religious authorities traditions in the days of the Lord Jesus. But the saying seems quite applicable to papist traditions.
*paradosin (παράδοσιν dative plural of παράδοσις)
Your conclusion was well and correctly arrived at. However, your intial premise was completely wrongly based and as such, your conlusion cannot be accurate because of its false start.
The Catholic Church means by Sacred Tradition only those that came from the Apostles (first century)and were passed along to the Early Church Fathers (approximately second to fifthe centuries). The Catholic Church does not hold every teaching of every saint as inflliably true; they were not Popes and thus did not have this privilege.
The Catholic Church holds many of the saints' writing as laudable but never infallible, especially when they (sometimes) contradict each other.
The Tradition that the Church teaches is only that of St. Paul and the other Apostles as has been passed down to the modern dayand as has been acknowledged and ordered by Scripture at 1 Corinthians and 2 Thessalonians (the verse I gave to you prior).
Again, your misconception led you to a false conclusion so I would advise that if we continue this discussion we ensure that you have the proper knowldge of what the Catholic Church ACTUALLY teaches as opposed to what you may THINK or have been falsely taught it teaches. I do not blame you, I only blame the bad sources you consulted and must ask you to please do your research off of Catholic websites which know better than Protestant websites about actual Catholic teachings.
When you come to me saying "the Catholic Church is wrong because it teaches this" and then you have a bad premise to start with, you are wasting your own time as you try to disprove a teaching that the Catholic Church does not even have. It would be the same (maybe not as drastic...) as me telling you that Protestants are wrong because they teach that hippos must be sacrificed daily to ensure salvation. Because I started with a (hopefully!) false premise, all of my work to disprove it after is wasted. I hope you understand that.
Okay, I answered your questions and proved them beyond further question unless you question the authority of Scripture. I believe it is fair to say that I get a question now.
If Scripture says that nothing is to be removed from it, why do you follow a Bible that removed the two Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, and others?
So, I was talking past you. Pardon my ignorance of your POV on tradition.
"The Catholic Church means by Sacred Tradition only those that came from the Apostles (first century)and were passed along to the Early Church Fathers (approximately second to fifthe centuries)."
How do you know that the Early Church Fathers (II-V) centuries received teaching from the apostles & then with perfect memory wrote it down? This sounds a lot like the Jewish theory that their traditions encoded in the Mishnah were oral sayings from Moses.
Now you know that nobody in from the 3rd through the 5th centuries ever met an apostle. I have read the earliest group of allegedly Christian writers after the NT called The Apostolic Fathers. I don't recall any of them claiming that they were quoting an apostle with a saying not in the NT.
So where is your proof that these "Fathers" without error wrote more scripture, which seems to be your claim. How do you know that these Fathers penned the Word of God? How do you know that they penned prophetic utterances of apostles? References of Paul telling people to hold to the truths he had taught them verbally or in writing is no endorsement of any writings by future "church fathers."
"The Tradition that the Church teaches is only that of St. Paul and the other Apostles as has been passed down to the modern dayand as has been acknowledged and ordered by Scripture at 1 Corinthians and 2 Thessalonians (the verse I gave to you prior)."
Arch, the Church doesn't teach that at all. Your RCC denomination may. So what is your proof that church fathers received prophetic apostolic sayings & passed them on without error? Why were these never bound & added to the Bible? What book has such a collection? I have never heard of it.
Yes, I had a misconception of your theory. Thanks for correcting it.
What the Catholic Church actually teaches is not what the RCC teaches, for the Catholic Church is all believers. And there are many opinions & ideas taught by Christians, even inside your denomination. As a member of the Body of Christ since 1962 and having done considerable study, I am aware of what the Body of Christ teaches, tho I am ever learning something new that I overlooked.
Do you have some proof that all the RCC professors in all the universities & colleges of the world teach the same thing on tradition?
You have yet to prove that anything readily available to men is God's word. Have you given up? You have not proven that the sayings of church fathers are God's word.
In response to your question, God's people in general, the Catholic Church, have never accepted the apocrypha; for it is obviously not God's Word. Have you read both the Bible & the apoc? Do you not see any qualitative difference?
So far as I know, even the RCC did not accept the apocrypha until the Council of Trent -- correct me with proof if you know better.
So no, the apocrypha was not removed from God's word, for it is not God's word. Evidence of that is seen in that the NT never cites the apocrypha as God's word or for proof, tho the apoc existed.
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
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."
"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. "
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.
" 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.