Vicar of Jesus Christ?

I have already given you some statements such as Isaiah 8:20; 2Pet.1:20,21; 2Tim.2:15; John 5:39; Acts 17:11, etc.

The problem is, you make a statement unverifiable by scripture, history, or any other authority.

Your statement:

It does not make sense. As applied to the RCC it is totally irrelevant.

By contrast, Christ entrusts the transmission of divine revelation to the apostles and promises to be with them “to the end of the age,”
--Where does it say thins and where do you get this promise from. One cannot just make things up and assume them to be true. That is why we have the Bible. The Scripture I gave you tells us that God gave his Word to the prophets and the apostles. They are the "holy men of God" which are referenced here:

2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
--These are not Roman Catholics. They are prophets and by extension the apostles. The originals MSS of the Bible, both Old and New Testament were the only manuscripts that were inspired. God spoke to Peter for example. His writings were inspired of God. Thus First and Second Peter and no other writing of Peter was inspired. Only that copy was inspired. The other copies were preserved, and along with preservation God preserved its inspiration as well. Sounds complicated; it is. But the RCC had nothing to do with it. They were early Christians who at first had been Jews, many of them earlier trained as scribes. Their work was meticulous. We have over 5,000 manuscripts today going back as far as the second century attesting to the veracity of the NT. This is not the work of the RCC.

Summarized here is the historical attitude of the RCC to the Bible:

• John Wycliffe’s Translation (1380-82) was the first manuscript (hand-written) Bible in the English language. 21 years after he died, the RCC dug him up, tried him for heresy, found guilty, they burned his ashes.
• Martin Luther translated it into German, giving Germany the Word of God.
• In 1534 John Calvin helped it get translated into French.
• William Tyndale’s New Testament (1526) was the first printed English Bible.
  The Roman Catholic Church hated him and his TR-based Bible so much, that they burned him at the stake.

http://christianitybeliefs.org/end-times-deceptions/bible-manuscript-paths/
The RCC does not have a good record for preserving the Bible.

Continuing. "And promises to be with them to the end of the age."
That promise comes from Mat.28:19,20 and is in the context of the Great Commission, that is evangelism. It has nothing to do with the transmission of the text, the preservation of the Word of God, etc.
For your reference:
Matthew 28:19 having gone, then, disciple all the nations, (baptizing them--to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all, whatever I did command you,) and lo, I am with you all the days--till the full end of the age.' (Young's translation)

To continue:
guaranteeing that “what they bind on earth will be bound in heaven.”
Where does this come from?
Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
--This is speaking of local church discipline and nothing else. Read verse 20 "For where 2 or 3 are gathered together there am I in the midst of you. That is not the RCC is it? That is the two or three quorum of a small business meeting gathered together to discipline an immoral member of a church such as Paul instructed in 1Cor.5:1-5, for example. The decision they would make on earth would also be approved in heaven. That is the teaching. Read the entire passage. It has nothing to do with the RCC. Again, it is scripture taken out of context.

Continuing:
That deposit of faith clearly includes the oral teaching of Jesus, and the liturgy he established – something St. Paul recognizes in 1 Cor. 11."
The only deposit of faith that we have is that which is contained in the 66 books of the Bible.
It does not include "the oral teaching of Jesus," which we do not have other than that is recorded in the Bible. When you give a statement like this you have to back it up. What oral teaching? Where is it? What did he say? How do we know he said it? What is being referred to here? etc.
Christ never established a liturgy. Demonstrate that he did.

Paul "commemorated" the Lord's Table in 1Cor.11. It was a service held in remembrance of the Lord's death.

1 Corinthians 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

 

There is no church in the OT. There will only be a universal church when believers assemble in heaven. Until then we can only assemble in local churches. The word for church is ekklesia, or assembly. It is impossible to have an unassembled assembly. Thus all assemblies or congregations are local in nature until all believers assemble together in heaven.

 

Herbert - thank you for your kind response.

I think you and I would both agree that a response such as that - is precisely how the Jewish magisterium would have loved to respond to Christ - as they were condemned by Christ's sola-scriptura argument in Mark 7:6-13.

They could have said - as you have "well that is your opinion of what the Bible says -- and we have our own opinion of it". But the text of Matt 22 says that when Christ hammered the established church magisterium "sola scriptura" even some of the opposition admitted 'he had put them to silence'

Which only works for those who do not consider the Bible a "divine authority" in the case of Gal 1:6-9 and Acts 17:11 nor Christ in Mark 7:6-13.

Your 'unknown Bible' comment "whatever that might be" is only "unknown" to some catholic apologists. By contrast Josephus stated that the content in our 39 books of the OT had been canonized for over 400 years by the time of Christ.

As a Baptist - you would have known and fully accepted all of this - right out of the Bible itself.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Herbert -

Again I thank you for your kind response. Here is another point where I think you would have fully agreed with me when you were a Baptist. --

As a Baptist - - you would have rejected belief in the following --

1. Purgatory
2. Indulgences
3. Communion "with the Dead"
4. Mariolotry
5. Priests with the magic powers to "confect the body soul and divinity" of Christ -- Powers retained even if the priest is excommunicated.
6. Infant baptism
7. Authority to edit/change the Commandments of God.
8. Lateran IV - "Extermination" of heretics and Jews.
9. Doctrine of Discovery
10. Infallibility claimed for certain Papal statements and laws of ecumenical councils.
11. Pope as head of all Christian denominations.

About the only thing that church did right as a denomination after their failed attempt at sustaining the dark ages - was that in the 18th century they forever "extinguished" the Jesuit order according to Pope Clement XIV

 

BobRyan-

Great point. It is indeed competing interpretations which we're dealing with here and not simply bald Scripture. The only difference between us, in a certain way, is that you think you're on the right side of the interpretation process and I think the Catholic Church is on the right side of things. So as I see it, your Mark 7 and your Matthew 22 references represent the logical non sequitur which both you and DHK are making. It's indeed a giant leap to go from saying "Scripture is divinely revealed and authoritative (when rightly interpreted)" to saying "Scripture is our sole authority." That's just an unwarranted leap. It's a conclusion which does not follow from any Biblical premises. It's a philosophical, historical leap which is not justified by the Biblical data itself. The content found in the Bible (including what's there in Mark 7 and Matthew 22) simply doesn't explicitly teach Sola Scriptura nor does the mere fact that Scriptural appeal was made. For indeed Scripture, rightly interpreted, holds divine authority. And Scripture, just sitting there on the table is (as DHK rightly mentioned) in its original autographs, God-breathed.

We're dealing with about 1,000 topics right now. But I am willing to stay here and seek to iron all of this stuff out together if you fellas are!

in Him,

Herbert

 

Hello again BobRyan-

You said:

I did believe in the Bible and the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. As far as general knowledge goes, I did believe that history and science were beneficial to the pursuit of truth and knowledge. But as far as matters related to the faith went I'd say my faith boiled down to Justification by Faith Alone, Penal Substitutionary Atonement and Sola Scriptura.
I did not believe in Purgatory, Indulgences, Infant Baptism, Papal Infallibility, or that the Pope in Rome was somehow some Head Pastor of all Christians. As for the other points you presented, I would say they are a blend of mischaracterizations, points of confusion, and misrepresentations of historical context. If you'd like to explore the Canons of Lateran IV, the dynamics within the Medieval authority structures (and how they were changing quite abruptly at the time), how the Church understood its relationship to the many indigenous peoples around the world at the end of the 15th Century and what that has to do with the Doctrine of Discovery, and the other topics, as I said, I am happy to do so. But at this point, there are indeed many things to discuss. And the fundamental linchpin doctrine upon which, it seems, you and DHK latch everything else you hold dear, is the mistaken and ironically unBiblical notion of Sola Scriptura. In a way, then, it makes the most sense to address that. For nearly every other conclusion you draw is grounded upon that one unBiblical doctrine.

In Him,

Herbert

 

Martin,

I am sorry that I didn't respond to you sooner. You may have picked up on the fact that I am new to this sort of environment. Therefore, I am quite clumsy with etiquette, formatting, keeping things brief and on point, etc. But allow me to respond to your point (hopefully briefly). You said:

It is my view, and the view of Christianity all along (as well as that of the prominent Reformers) that one aspect of the Church's identity is realized in a public, visible, societal, organizational, hierarchical structure. This is one essential part of its identity. It's why the early Creeds spoke of "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic" church. It's why Tertullian called upon heretics to present their Apostolic lineages to demonstrate their authority. It's why St. Augustine said that everybody wants to call himself catholic. But when a traveller comes into town asking where the catholic church is, a heretic doesn't dare point the person to his own home or basilica. The Church always had, indeed it must have, a public, societal element to its nature. On the other hand, the Church does recognize that there are members of Christ's body outside of the visible and catholic communion of believers. This population is only known to God and it is the responsibility of Catholics to strive to break down the sociological, ethnic, historical, philosophical, and psychological walls which keep would-be Catholics out of the Church. GK Chesterton (himself an adult "convert") once said that were a man to live 1,000 years, he'd end up one of two things: A committed agnostic or a Catholic. He also said this:

"We all wake up on a battle-field. We see certain squadrons in certain uniforms gallop past; we take an arbitrary fancy to this or that colour, to this or that plume. But it often takes us a long time to realise what the fight is about or even who is fighting whom... Wait until you know what the battle is broadly about before you rush roaring after any advancing regiment. For a battle is a complicated thing; each army contains coats of different colour; each section of each army advances at a different angle. You may fancy that the Greens are charging the Blues exactly at the moment when both are combining to effect a fine military manoeuvre. You may conceive that two similar-looking columns are supporting each other at the very instant when they are about to blaze at each other with cannon, rifle, and revolver. So in the modern intellectual world we can see flags of many colours, deeds of manifold interest; the one thing we cannot see is the map."

Chesterton's many insightful observations often get at the heart of what divides us. They also help us to recognize the things which God has put into place with the intention of uniting us into a common cause. So I appreciate what you say about each church maintaining a certain autonomy which recognizes a broader unity. It's just that I don't see how, without a public, visible component being essential to its nature, such things can come about through conditions which are anything but accidental and impermanent. If you cling to either the invisible (which, by nature, is only known to God) or the visible you find yourself in a bind. It's only in affirming both the invisible (only known to God) and the visible that we have a functional and more importantly Biblical ecclesiology. So it's a BOTH/AND type of thing rather than an EITHER/OR situation. Finally, the Five Solas aren't entirely Biblical. I am on board with Christ Alone, Grace Alone, and to the Glory of God alone. But those things, I suggest, are realized in and through the Church established by Christ which has the Holy Spirit as its Guarantor. Faith Alone (as it's understood outside of the Catholic Faith) contradicts the explicit teaching of Scripture (James 2:24) as does the doctrine of Sola Scriptura which is found nowhere in Scripture and has not been revealed by God. In case you didn't see it above, I've been quoting David Anders lately, who said this:

"The Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura is not an article of faith in the Christian religion because it has not been revealed by divine authority. Stated differently, no divine authority – Not Christ, not a prophet, not God himself, and not even the Bible – has identified the canon of scripture (whatever that might be) as the Church’s Rule of Faith. By contrast, Christ entrusts the transmission of divine revelation to the apostles and promises to be with them “to the end of the age,” guaranteeing that “what they bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” That deposit of faith clearly includes the oral teaching of Jesus, and the liturgy he established – something St. Paul recognizes in 1 Cor. 11."

Martin, as is the case with Darrell C., BobRyan, DHK, etc. it seems as though you're here out of honesty, respect, a zeal for Christ, and a desire to witness to the truth. I am open to anything you have to share and will be happy to engage with it and, if need be, adjust my heart and mind according to it. So for now, I'd like to encourage you and the others here to attempt to join together in one more focused conversation which moves toward the sorta "distilled" ideas that DHK presented a while back. They focus upon these ideas:

1. Islam is a different religion, with a different "sacred scriptures," a different way to "heaven" or paradise, and they worship a different god called Allah. It is a different religion completely.

2. The Canon of Scripture and whether the Apocrypha was ever recognized as part of it.

3. The Son is defined for us and speaks through us through His Word. This is the Biblical position (Heb.1:1,2). It needs to be discussed more.

4. The RCC has changed its position on various matters

5. Catholic salvation...runs contrary to the Bible

If we all keep our focus here for now (and on the question of the Pope's role in the Church), I think things will become more manageable. Thanks again for chiming in. You bring up some very worthwhile points.

In Him,

Herbert

 

I think tomorrow will be the last day for me here for a while, so hope to see you in the next round, if there should be one. Hope you will continue to dialogue here, as I feel it is a good way for us to grow.


God bless.

 

No problem.

I am happy top believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church, it's just not the Church of Rome.

If someone asks me where the Roman Catholic church is, I can point him down the road, but if someone asks me where the catholic church is I would have no shame at all at pointing him to mine.
True 'apostolic succession is this: when I get to heaven, if I have time (and I rather think I shall!) I'm going to find the couple who brought me to Christ and find out who brought them to salvation. Then I shall work my way right back until I come to one of the apostles; I must do so eventually. That is the only apostolic succession that I accept. Even if the papacy were a biblical office, many of your 'popes' were completely unworthy to receive it and certainly unworthy to pass it on.

Of course the true Church of God has a visible face, but it does not have an organizational focus. That is where persecution has arisen all down the ages.

I really am not that bothered what G.K. Chesterton said.

No. An institutionalized Church institutionalizes error, simony and persecution. This has been the case in Lutheran and Anglican churches as well as Romanist, though the Church of Rome is way out in front.

If you're a good Roman Catholic, you don't believe any of the Solas. Let me deal first with Sola Fide. Do you imagine that no Protestant has ever seen James 2:24 before? What you have to do is to reconcile it with verses like Joel 2:32, John 11:25-6 and, of course, Pauline verses like Ephesians 2:8-9. It is because Roman Catholics don't understand Justification properly but conflate it with sanctification that they get in a mess. I won't tackle James 2:24 here; I think it will be best to start a new thread on it unless it's been dealt with already. I haven't read all through this thread.

But as I say, if you're a good Roman Catholic you can't believe in 'Grace alone' or 'Christ Alone.' You believe that infant baptism works ex opere operato and that an infant is saved by the priest pouring water on it. And you believe that the priest conjures up your god and that by eating him you are somehow gaining salvation. You are adding to grace and you are adding to Christ. Therefore it is not 'To the Glory of God Alone' because you glorify the priest and you glorify your church through the 'sacraments' your church claims to administer effectually.

Now 'Scripture Alone.' It was the Pharisees who believed in the 'Traditions of the Elders' (Mark 7:3-5). The Lord Jesus was constantly referring them to the word of God- "Are you not therefore greatly mistaken because you do not know the Scriptures.........Have you not read......?" (Mark 12:24, 26). He quoted extensively from the O.T. but never from the Apocrypha. He promised the disciples that the Holy Spirit would "Bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you" (John 14:26) so that they could write the Scriptures. Paul quotes Luke's Gospel to Timothy (1 Timothy 5:18 quoting Luke 10:7) and tells him that 'All Scripture is God-breathed and is profitable.....' (2 Timothy 3:16). Finally, 'Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him [sola fide again!] Do not add to His words [by traditions or the 'fathers'] lest He rebuke you and you be found a liar' (Proverbs 30:6).

 

Why Anders? Who is he? And why do you think he is more authoritative than the Bible itself?

Please do this one thing for me.
Here is a link for you:
http://www.equip.org/article/a-defense-of-sola-scriptura/

In this site, Christian apologist Norman Geisler gives a defense for sola scriptura. I would like you to read it. It is a response to the objections that Roman Catholics have made to the doctrine of sola scripura.

Consider: The doctrine of the trinity is not explicitly taught in the Scriptures; it must be inferred.
The scripture does not say: Thus saith the Lord, you must believe in the trinity or you are not an orthodox Christian.
Neither does the scripture say: Thus saith the Lord, you must believe in sola scriptura or you are not an orthodox Christian.

Yet both the trinity and belief in sola scriptura are vital orthodox Christian doctrines that must be inferred from the Scriptures. They are foundational truths. The one is just as important as the other. Norman Geisler shows how.
If you like I will present some of his arguments a little at a time, if you don't want to spend the time reading it.

 

DHK,

I had a very busy weekend so I didn't get any more of my response to you posted. Here's some more. I am breaking it up like this to avoid presenting too much at once. Bear in mind, though, that I don't expect you to respond to these points (though you're certainly welcomed to) because once I am done sharing them I am going to circle back around and speak to that more concise list you presented. Then, hopefully with Martin and anybody else here, we can explore these matters.

Part IV

And again, the Bible doesn’t claim to be our “sole authority.” This is the thing which is really an unBiblical philosophical tradition which you’re importing that is causing you to misidentify a whole bunch of other things. It’s the first misstep by which many later steps are wrongly placed. The Bible is authoritative, yes. Amen. I am not doubting that. It’s peoples’ errant interpretations of the Bible which I question. And whether those come from Arius or a modern day Jehovah’s Witness, their proponents see themselves as being those who are true to the Scriptures.

Yes, I affirm this passage according to the way that Christians have always understood it. That is to say, I affirm this passage as being presented to a Church whose bonds weren’t accidental doctrinal bonds, things only as strong as the whims of men. I affirm these words as they were expressed to their intended audience. They were spoken to men who were literally “God-breathed.” These men were sacramentally graced to do God’s work through sinful, compromised, fallible, human agency. And notice, this passage says nothing about the Apostles writing anything down. You’re importing the notion whole cloth. This is primarily about their preaching and teaching. Thus in St. Matthew’s Gospel Christ refers to the Apostles’ charge in reference to their responsibility to teach everything that He commanded, and to baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These references, far from representing the establishment of instructions related explicitly to the transmission of the Christian faith through Scripture, are more clearly references to the Apostles in their persons, sacramentally sealed, to the Apostles as those who are sent as witnesses to Christ who would faithfully deliver the Gospel to a largely illiterate world and would mostly die martyrs’ deaths. On the most immediate level, these passages allude to Apostolic “oral” Tradition, itself guaranteed by the Holy Spirit. This is the Sacred Tradition to which St. Paul referred in 2 Thessalonians 2:15. And nothing in that passage suggests otherwise.

No. This verse was not written to the Apostles. It was spoken to the Apostles and only later recalled and recorded for the sake of the readers and hearers of the Gospel. This verse was spoken to the Apostles by Christ and only later recorded. Literal decades of evangelization occurred between Christ’s statements here and the recollection and recording of these words. That, mind you, in no way diminishes their validity. For Christ meant them when He said them, certainly. Further, I at least sense the implication here that during that interim period, that duration of time between which the words were uttered and the Scriptures were recorded, that the Holy Spirit was, because the Scriptures had not been recorded, somehow waiting… At least without clarification that's a logical inference one might draw from what you're proposing here. After all, if the Scriptures are the “sole” authority of the Christian, what were Christians up to during that interim period? Again, these and other logical and historical conundrums only arise when we call upon Scripture to occupy a place it doesn’t claim for itself, namely that of the “sole authority” for the Christian believer. In contrast, when one allows the Scriptures' descriptions of the Church to be rightly appropriated, the logical problem vanishes as one recognizes the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and the further activity of the spreading of the Gospel according to the Spirit’s leading, which included the very inspiration of the Gospel and New Testament writers.

Herbert

 

There’s no “~heaven~” anyone on or from this earth will go to, least, the Church. The Church is “the Body of Christ’s Own” which “Christ was given to as Head”---here on earth. No ~heaven~.


“~Believers~”—“True Believers”—the Church—“come together in My Name”—the Name of Jesus Christ ---on earth “WHERE two or three come together”; not ~in heaven~.


There are as many places where “~believers assemble~” in Jesus’ Name as there universally—on earth—are “two or three” who “in My Name come together”— “come together” as the “~Universal~” Church or ‘Catholic Church’ or “General Assembly of Almighty God” ON EARTH; not in heaven.


The ‘Ekklesia’ is the Church of “The Called”. It is a priori an impossibility “The Called” won’t act on God’s Call and not come together in the Name of Jesus Christ. Thus all Assemblies or Congregations are local or separate in act “where” they worship, but in essence and nature assemble and congregate as ONE in Christ and nature throughout all ages and all around the globe.


“For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ of whom THE WHOLE FAMILY in heaven and earth (dead and alive) _is_ named, that He would grant you (all as one) according to the riches of his glory to be strengthened (in your unity) with might by his (universal) Spirit in the inner man (still living on earth as The Church), that Christ may dwell in your hearts (all and each) by faith that ye, being rooted and grounded in love (among one another of the Church) may be able to comprehend WITH ALL SAINTS (of all times and all places) what is the breadth and length and depth and height (of your being rooted and grounded in Christ’s love), and may be able to know the love of Christ (in the Church on earth) which passeth knowledge, that ye (the Church of all saints) might be filled with all the fullness of God. Now unto Him that is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we (one and all, the Church) ask or think according to the Power that worketh in us (the Church of Christ), UNTO HIM BE GLORY IN THE CHURCH BY CHRIST JESUS THROUGHOUT ALL AGES WORLD WITHOUT END.” (Not throughout heaven without end.)

 

That is understandable. However I do think this subject of sola scriptura is a very important one.

The Bible teaches sola scriptura as an orthodox doctrine inasmuch as it teaches the trinity as an orthodox doctrine. In both the principles are inferred by other scriptures. Both doctrines are just as important. Sola scriptura is not a philosophy but a biblical doctrine. It was held by those in the OT as well as those in the NT.
In the OT:
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
--If it wasn't according to their law, then they knew it was false. This is sola scriptura.

In the NT:
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
--The NT was not in existence yet. They judged Paul's message according to what Scriptures they had (the OT). If it was according to the OT, then it was to be accepted. It could not be contrary to it. Paul praised them and condoned them for this practice.

That is not true. The words of the Scriptures were "God breathed" not the men.
Here is that specific scripture.
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
--The word "inspiration" means "God-breathed." thus referring to the scriptures or the very words of God.

Here is the translation of that verse in Young's literal translation:
(YLT) every Writing is God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that is in righteousness,
--It does not refer to the apostles, but rather the prophets and the apostles.

Thus the verse:
John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
--As the context shows, it is spoken to His apostles, for His apostles, for he could not tell them all things right at that time. The Holy Spirit would reveal them to them at the time that they needed to write them down. No one knows "all truth" right now.

Still moving on in the same context:
John 16:14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
--He is speaking of his impending death and resurrection. Some of them would not see everything, but they would write of it. How? The Holy Spirit would guide them and reveal to them "all things" concerning it.

There is no mention, not even an inference of any such "Church" in this passage.

Notice what Paul writes:
1 Corinthians 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.
--They were not to beyond that which was written. Over and over again God's people were not to go beyond the written word.
Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

And it was a fitting closing to the last book of the Bible, which is a warning not just to the Book of Revelation, but in application to the entire Bible, as Revelation is placed at the end to complete the Canon of Scripture:
Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

The preaching and teaching of the apostles is what composes our NT today. They didn't have a NT back them. What they taught became our NT today. The verse you refer to actually strengthens sola scriptura.

2 Thessalonians 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
--What he taught Timothy became the NT. He taught him NT truths.
Darby's translation:
(Darby) So then, brethren, stand firm, and hold fast the instructions which ye have been taught, whether by word or by our letter.
--In no way were these "traditions" in the RCC sense of the word.
--In no way were they "sacramentally sealed" whatever that means, but simply became inspired epistles written down as part of our canon today. Either that or Paul was simply teaching him NT truth which had not been written down yet, as they did not have the NT yet. In effect the Apostles were the NT.
There was no oral tradition, and that cannot be proven from Scripture here.

 

Yes, it was spoken, and then written. That is why the Holy Spirit would bring it into remembrance.
--John was told to write, and so were the others:

Revelation 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
--He refers to those things which are written, not spoken.

Let's consider the Book of Revelation alone, how important it is to write things down:
Revelation 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

Revelation 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

Revelation 2:1 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;

Revelation 2:8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;

Revelation 14:13 And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.

Revelation 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
--And these aren't all of them.
--It is the written word that is important. John also uses the words "write, written" in his gospel and epistles as well. It is the written word that is important. But never is Oral Tradition referred to in the Bible even once. In fact Jesus quoted from the OT scriptures many times, but never from tradition.

While the apostles were alive they were the depository of Scriptures. They wrote and taught the Scriptures. Everything they said had apostolic authority. After they died, at the end of the first century the early believers had the full canon of scripture. They did not have to rely on the apostles any longer, neither did they need the approval of the RCC and their councils. They had the completion of the NT by the end of the first century. That we do know.

 

Are you denying a literal hell; a literal heaven??

The reference is Mat.18:20. The context is church discipline.
The verse says:
Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
---It does not talk of heaven, but rather of the presence of Christ. Christ is with us via the presence of His Holy Spirit dwelling in us.

Local assemblies yes; universal, not.

Where do they assemble and congregate as ONE in Christ? I have never seen this.
What is their purpose or function? Have you ever seen it? Do they take up an offering?

I like scripture too.

 

DHK,

Here's the next section. There won't be too much more.

Part V

When you say you’ve looked carefully at this matter, though you're referring to my reference to the Pope's "lesser of two evils" remark, I think you’re not really speaking to my comments as much as you are referring to the Pope’s comments concerning Zika and Contraception. I wonder what you’re getting at here, though, becase a "lesser" of two evils is still an evil. And if it's an evil in "this society, then it is wrong in every society." Notice, the actual pertinent line from his remarks, the only one that really speaks most directly to the matter in question is this:

“Abortion is not the lesser of two evils. It is a crime. It is to throw someone out in order to save another. It is a crime, an absolute evil. On the lesser evil, avoiding pregnancy, we are speaking in terms of a conflict between the 5th and 6th Commandment.”

As I’ve said before, regardless of how carefully you’ve looked at the matter, we have very little to go on. We don't know exactly what the Pope had in mind when he made his remarks. Neither do we know what he's thinking in terms of the transmission of Zika. As I said, though his comments *seem* to suggest a thing which would, on the surface, appear to contradict the Church’s teaching, without further clarification, we cannot presume as much. So until further clarification is provided, it is, in my opinion, and in light of the dogmatic teaching of the Church, imprudent to read much into these words for a few reasons.

1. In the quote above, the Pope refers to “avoiding pregnancy” as an evil. He doesn’t say it’s suddenly now to be understood as a “good” or an “ideal.” He doesn’t say it was once discouraged, but that it is now laudable. He doesn’t say it is okay here but wrong over there. Instead, he says, categorically, that it’s an evil. This fact should put to rest the notion you presented of some sort of "relativism" or "situational ethics" being at work here. The question he’s speaking to involves degrees of evil, though. Some evils are indeed worse than others. For example, stealing a crayon is an evil which is less horrible and less a violation of God's law than mass murder. So whereas, abortion is an “absolute evil” in all cases, the avoidance of pregnancy, he suggests, may be licit if (he seems to imply) the object of the avoidance isn’t directly the avoidance of pregnancy (which would have been the case according to the reference he made to the nuns in the 1960s allegedly using some form of contraception not to avoid pregnancy directly, but to resist an act of violence committed against them, if indeed this case actually occurred), but rather, something related to the contraction or spread of a threatening virus. In other words, the intent of the moral agent must be considered when evaluating the degree to which his action falls short of God's perfect Will. This notion is, as I've said, apparently problematic for a few reasons. But, again, we can't know for sure what the Pope was thinking and how he came to say what he said without further clarification.
2. This brings us to the Principle of Double Effect. There are a couple features of the Pope’s comments which may indicate that the Pope was attempting to apply the Principle of Double Effect here, even if he was doing so in a confused way (and even if the Principle in question in no way applies to the threat of Zika virus). The Pope doesn’t speak as a lawyer, and he may have wandered out of bounds here with his comments. Such an event though would certainly not be unprecedented in the history of the Church. Nor would his off-the-cuff remarks, in any sense, rightly be understood as “binding” upon the faithful.
3. Beyond all of that, simply put, since he’s not a biologist or a virologist, it may be that he doesn’t understand the manner and nature of the Zika’s transmission and is, as I said, misapplying the Principle of Double Effect here (which should be seen as "confusion" on his part and not as "changing" of the Church's teaching). In this case, he could be accused of being careless and ignorant, at worst. By no means, though, is a person warranted in understanding these remarks to be a demonstration of a genuine “change” in Catholic teaching. What Catholics do is “apply” unchanging Catholic moral principles to various situations as they arise. Even the Pope cannot “make” new doctrines up and/or rewrite God’s immutable Law.

Yes, the culture and situation we both live in certainly came along well after the Scriptures were written. I am not denying this basic fact of historical chronology. That doesn’t mean, though, that the Bible is silent as far as the moral practices and behaviors of a society are concerned, as you rightly point out. Further, I, too, look to Biblical principles in my efforts to evaluate moral claims. I, too, see the Bible as providing a clear basis for God’s condemnation of the practice of abortion. I believe that abortion can be recognized as a violation of the natural law of the created world. I also believe that, more importantly, abortion should be seen as a violation of God’s law, as well. So there are two things we're employing to lament the sin of abortion: the data of Scripture and the voice of a believer. This condemnation applies to all abortions, however. Meanwhile, there are many pro-life organizations, voters, and candidates, though, who make exceptions for certain abortions, such as those situations involving children whose lives came about through rape. There are also those abortions which are undertaken in a doctor’s efforts to save the life of a mother. And where the Catholic Church teaches that all abortion is wrong, there are many who call for these and other exceptions. I wonder, do you see some cases of abortion as justified according to the specifics of a situation or the manner by which the new life came about? If you do make exceptions, is it, then, really so “obvious” that abortion is wrong as you state above? At what point does your responsibility to rightly apply Biblical principles become more about you and less about the content of the Biblical revelation? And if you don’t personally believe that any exceptions should be made for abortion, do you believe that you could conclusively demonstrate such to be the case “solely” from Scripture? What of the many Bible ministers who believe children of rape may be aborted? Can you exercise any “Church discipline” over them and their congregations?

In Him, Herbert

 

No problem

With all the information you have given (or lack thereof), I am inclined to give you (or the Pope) the benefit of the doubt here. I believe there are more important matters to discuss. However there is one part of what you said that I think should be addressed:

I realize this is another topic. Concerning Zika, I mostly agree. But in this statement it leads to the RCC doctrine of a division of sin: mortal sin, venial sin, etc. However, the Bible teaches that all sin is the same. It is no different to lie than it is to murder. Both sins break the law of God. That is what sin is.

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
--Sin is breaking the law; all sin breaks God's law. Because one has broken God's law he is condemned. It doesn't matter how big or little the law may seem to be. They are equal in God's sight. They violate the perfect holiness of God. They all condemn one to hell. They need to be atoned for. There is a penalty that needs to paid for sin--big or little.

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
--If you keep the whole law and just break one time the smallest detail, you are just as guilty as if you have broken all the law. There is no difference.
Read on:
James 2:11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
--One sin is as bad as another.

Paul taught the same as James:
Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
--The teaching here is that if you should keep every law all of your life for every day of your life from birth to death, and sin only one time (an impossible feat), then for that one sin you would be cursed.
Cursed is the one who continues not in ALL things that are written in the book of the law to do them.
BTW there are 613 commands in the "book of the law," not just ten.
Thus the consequences of sins are different, but the nature of sin is the same--breaking God's law.

 

Life is life. Abortion is the termination of a life, which is murder. If a woman is raped she still can overcome the trauma and carry the pregnancy to full term and then give the child up for adoption to the many would-be parents that have been waiting for years to have a child.
I don't think there is a single answer to one of your questions--that is: the mother or the child?

I have a problem with one of your questions because it is more conjecture than anything and I have never actually seen it happen. I only hear the question posed on boards like this:
Should a child be aborted if a mother's life is in danger? Does that really happen in our modern day of medical marvels? Or is it purely philosophical?
Either way, I am a Christian and fully trust the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Every situation is different. I would place the matter in God's hands and pray. Pray for the survival of the infant and for the survival of the mother, and have faith that God in his grace would preserve them both. Whatever the outcome would be would be in God's hands.
As Abraham said:
Genesis 18:25 ... Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

 

Part VI

Catholics believe that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ. That is, Catholics believe that Christ established the means for the unity and maintenance of the Society which He established. This Society, by virtue of its divine founding, stands immune not to corruption, but to ultimate corruption. There’s a story you may have heard about a Cardinal’s response to Napoleon’s threat to destroy the Church. It is said that the Cardinal responded, saying: “If in 1,800 years we clergy have failed to destroy the Church, do you really think that you'll be able to do it?" And as far as the history of the Church goes, Catholics accept the testimony of St. Irenaeus who, when, writing in the 170s and 180s AD, said this. Do you have any reason to doubt St. Irenaeus’s testimony? If so, what is it? For Catholics, the Church is a communion of believers bound together through a supernatural bond instituted by Christ, nothing more, nothing less. And what God has joined together, let no man put asunder. From a Catholic point of view, we see Pentecost as the “birthday” of Christ’s Church. The bonds that unified those early witnesses, in our view, far from rupturing or becoming corrupted, hold fast yet today. Is such a view not consistent with the Biblical data concerning Christ’s work, His coming, His establishment of a new and everlasting covenant? Is such a view not consistent with Malachi 1:11’s prophecy, stating the following: “For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts.”? Indeed a pure offering, the only pure offering to be found upon the Earth, Christ’s Blood, is that very offering, given in His New Covenant. So, God, knowing that humans constantly fall short of His holiness and perfection finally became a man Himself to conclusively and definitively fulfill the “human end” of the bargain, so to speak. In Christ, God became fully man. In Christ that which we could never accomplish was accomplished and rendered perfectly complete. This act of God’s grace, utterly gratuitous and completely unilateral on God’s part, is the cause of the Catholic Faith itself. This Faith, then, is primarily an Incarnational faith. Yes, it is also, a Scriptural Faith. Yet it is also a Faith of history. It is a faith by which we understand God to be helpless, as a babe in a manger. It is a Faith of reason, leading people to imagine the ancient Socrates as the first common grace Christian. It is a Faith which can harmonize every single element of God’s Creation in a great symphony of truth to the Son. Everything in the Catholic faith- every doctrine, teaching, dogma, practice, devotion, etc. is oriented toward the Incarnation of Christ. And according to Christ Himself, His very flesh and blood would become, in this New Covenant, the Source of life for the believer, the sine qua non of the Christian faith. Thus this new Faith, being grounded in God Himself, would be as permanent, as complete, and as incorruptible as Christ. No longer would apostasy even be possible in His Church by virtue of His relationship to the Church, His Bride. No longer would the actions of fallible and broken humans corrupt and distort God’s witness among the nations. The Lamb of God Himself was, like the Serpent in the Desert, lifted up above all for the sake of the healing of those who’d come to Him. Unlike all of the prior arrangements which existed between God and humankind, in Christ God established a transaction between Christ and Himself. This Gospel revelation was first shared through Apostolic witness and according to a celebration of the Sacraments instituted by Christ, the Word made flesh. The historian and convert to the Catholic Faith, Christopher Dawson had this to say about the Sacramental nature of this New Covenant in His blood: “As St. Augustine has said, the Fourth Gospel is essentially the Gospel of contemplation, for while the first three evangelists are concerned with the external mission of Jesus as Messianic King and Savior and teach the active virtues of Christian life, St. John is, above all, “the theologian” who declares the mysteries of the Divine Nature and teaches the way of contemplation. Jesus is the bridge between Humanity and Divinity. In Him God is not only manifested to man, but vitally participated. He is the Divine Light, which illuminates men’s minds, and the Divine Life, which transforms human nature and makes it the partaker of Its own supernatural activity… Hence the insistence of the Fourth Gospel on the sacramental element in Christ’s teaching, since it is through the sacraments that the Incarnation of the Divine Word is no longer merely a historical fact, but is brought into vital and sensible contact with the life of the believer. So far from being an alien magical conception superimposed from without upon the religion of the Gospel, it forms the very heart of Christianity, since it is only through the sacramental principle that the Jewish ideal of an external ritual cult becomes transformed into a worship of spiritual communion. The modern idea that sacramentalism is inconsistent with the “spiritual” or mystical element in religion, is as lacking in foundation as the allied belief in an opposition between religion and theology. It is only when we reduce theology to religious rationalism and spiritual religion to a blend of ethics and emotion that there is no place left for sacramentalism; but under these conditions genuine mysticism and metaphysical truth equally disappear. Each of them forms an essential element in the historical development of Christianity. In the great age of creative theological thought, the development of dogma was organically linked with sacramentalism and mysticism. They were three aspects of a single reality – the great mystery of the restoration, illumination and deification of humanity by the Incarnation of the Divine Word.” -Christopher H. Dawson: Christianity and the New Age, Chap. III. And only over time, and under the influence of the Holy Spirit, were the New Testament letters written, circulated, proclaimed within the Church’s liturgical life, and collected into what we now call the New Testament. For the grace of God perfects human nature by working through His created order according to human co-operation. This is why St. Paul says we are co-laborers (1 Corinthians 3) with Christ and why he can say that he fills up in his very flesh that which is lacking in the sufferings of Christ (Colossians 1). Yes, the Scriptures are a component of the Church’s nature, much like a skeleton comprises part of the human body. No one could live without his skeleton. Neither, though, should someone, in gratefulness for his skeleton’s rigidity, be led to minimize the importance of his flesh and blood… As Dawson suggests, it was through the Sacraments that the New Covenant in His Blood was (and is) delivered. This New Covenant, though Scripture’s essential to its life, cannot be confused for Scripture itself. In other words, we must not conflate Scripture and those other elements (themselves of divine institution) which comprise the Church and its faith and its life. Finally, Constantine never “established” a Church. He simply made it legal to be a Christian. And he himself wasn’t even baptized at the time, so clearly he didn’t make it the official religion only to exempt himself from it. I know that many of the things you have heard have come from people and sources you trust. But we live during an age of deceit and confusion (Sadly every age faces these problems!) and we often inherit bogus “histories” from our respective traditions. We have to see if what we hear about Constantine really jives with what took place so long ago. So often the histories presented by people who hold to differing viewpoints are subject to some serious corruption.

Here, again, you’ve repeated the mistaken idea that Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the state. Constantine decriminalized Christianity and became a patron to the Church. Still, though, as I mentioned (as may have been a common practice during those times), it is said that he refused to be baptized until his final days (and even when he did so, he was baptized as an Arian). So, no, Christianity did not become the official state religion under Constantine. That happened under Emperor Theodosius some time later. And even then Theodosius did many good things in the name of Christianity such as put to an end various pagan practices and celebrations and banned various religious, polytheistic activities which involved immoral behaviors, etc. Even then, though, Orthodoxy was maintained as St. Ambrose on one occasion even excommunicated his own ruler, Theodosius, saying “The Emperor is in the Church, not over it.”

 

All Christians believe that their founder is Christ. "Christian" "follower of Christ." The question is: Who has the greatest and most reliable evidence. I don't believe that the RCC has reliable evidence at all.

First, I don't get the connection between Irenaeus and Napolean.
Second, Irenaeus did not say anything about the RCC. The RCC was not in existence at that time. It is just wishful thinking. You have nothing to back it up with. In fact history is against you.
The apostles did not establish the RCC any more than they established the Mormon Church, and yet both will claim the same thing. Both have a tainted view of history.
You say it has a divine founding but cannot establish how it was divinely founded. It is an unfounded assertion which you would like to believe.

Here are the facts. The assumption of the RCC is that Peter was the first bishop/Pope at Rome and ruled there for 25 years. This is a hilarious assumption, and can be proven wrong simply using the Bible alone which is inspired of God, and thus far more reliable than the tradition that the RCC relies upon.
First both Peter and Paul died around the same time: ca. 68 A.D.

The last epistle of Peter was written a year to 1 1/2 years before his death 67 A.D.
And his first epistle was written only one year before that.

Where did Peter write from?
1 Peter 5:13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.
--Thus in ca. 66 A.D. Peter was in Babylon. This is not some mystery name here for the RCC. It is the actual city of Babylon.
Adam Clark states:

Now since the two epistles were written only a year or so apart we assume that they were written from the same place.
In the 2Pet.1
2 Peter 1:13 Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance;
14 Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.
--Peter was facing martyrdom, He tells his readers that his death is soon. It was only about a year after this that Peter did die, and only tradition says that he was put to death in Rome, not historical fact. He was never a leader, a bishop of any kind in Rome.
Thus it is easy to declare that the foundation of the RCC history is a sham.

The ECF and early Christians knew nothing of a Catholic church. Neither does the Bible. There were churches, not a "Church."

It was not God that put together the RCC, but a number of unregenerate men.
It is not bound by a supernatural bound but by a bond of men much like a business organization. In fact it is one of the richest organizations today.

But that has nothing to do with the RCC.

Socrates was a philosopher who knew no grace. He, if anything, was an atheist.

http://andreaskluth.org/2010/01/02/was-socrates-an-atheist/
--But that is to be expected from an organization that knows little of the true source of the grace of God. Mal. 1:11 and the RCC have nothing in common. I have demonstrated that your history is faulty. The RCC's theology is also faulty.

And yet it is full of contradictions. This is one of the main reasons it rejects sola scriptura. It cannot harmonize the scripture (or doctrines of God) at all.

The RCC is not his bride. Almost all the older commentaries with one assent agree that the one described in Rev.17:5 is the RCC:
Revelation 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
--The true bride are those born again believers outside the RCC.

Christ instituted ordinances to be obeyed and remembered, not sacraments.

I am not too concerned at the moment about Mr. Dawson.