Posted on 08/05/2013 10:31:02 AM PDT by Gamecock
Yes
Sham WOW!
I’ll wait.
Yes, I could.
Have you read the Bible? The whole thing? It is in the Bible.
That is so umm.. random. I am not sure what to say about that. The fact that Jesus came as a radical to the Orthodoxy of what had become the Jewish faith, and THEY would have called that woman a dog, but she put her faith IN Jesus at that moment- anyway- because she knew him with her heart-has escaped you. That is so sad.
She was a dog, and her children were dogs to the Pharisees. Jesus was testing her there, and she passed the test and he blessed her for her ability in recognizing that he IS the cumming Messiah.
Going back to the context of the original discussion. To say that the impact of the life and death of Jesus can be compared to the family dog, is blaspheme of the Holy Spirit.
You really do not want to do that, I am sure.
Ican find NO comparison with MORMON rituals there.
I was hoping you could comment on them.
'Do' what?
Take the words OUT of Jesus mouth?
That would be similar to putting words in there; am I not correct?
Hmm.. You think it is some sort of game?
Ok, have fun. Carry on.
Pearls and swine n’at.
If you are so smart, you understand what blaspheme the Holy Spirit IS to God. You want to go there?
So, yeah-Good luck with that.
As for me and my house, we are going to serve the Lord.
IF you believe that the Lord instructs people to offer a rosary and count beads in someone’s name, then I will have to leave that up to you and your God to sort out.
The Bible, the word of God, does tells us to pray and who to pray for and how to pray.
That you believe that praying is a Mormon ritual is very confusing to me, but I have a feeling you are a very confused person, or being obtuse.
So- I think that will have to be the end of this discussion for me and you. Ok. Have a really good night.
"History" teaches us that heretical writings are STILL existing today and are accepted by any number of people who do not obey the truth of the divine word of God. I'd say that it is a selective history that presumes the first century believers had no way of knowing what were legitimate writings that belonged with the collection of God-breathed scripture and that formed the rule of the Christian faith. This warped view MUST discount all the testimonies of those men they call church "fathers" that certainly DID attest to the truth that we have exactly what they had and which still stands as the ONLY, infallible authority for the faith. Here are a few of these men's words concerning the sufficiency of Scripture:
"For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?" - Ambrose (On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102)
"The Arians, then, say that Christ is unlike the Father; we deny it. Nay, indeed, we shrink in dread from the word. Nevertheless I would not that your sacred Majesty should trust to argument and our disputation. Let us enquire of the Scriptures, of apostles, of prophets, of Christ. In a word, let us enquire of the Father...So, indeed, following the guidance of the Scriptures, our fathers [at the Council of Nicaea] declared, holding, moreover, that impious doctrines should be included in the record of their decrees, in order that the unbelief of Arius should discover itself, and not, as it were, mask itself with dye or face-paint." - Ambrose (Exposition of the Christian Faith, 1:6:43, 1:18:119)
Augustine
"In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind....In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself." - Augustine (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 11:5)
"Every sickness of the soul hath in Scripture its proper remedy." - Augustine (Expositions on the Psalms, 37:2)
Clement of Alexandria
"But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves." - Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata, 7:16)
Cyprian
"Let nothing be innovated, says he, nothing maintained, except what has been handed down. Whence is that tradition? Whether does it descend from the authority of the Lord and of the Gospel, or does it come from the commands and the epistles of the apostles? For that those things which are written must be done, God witnesses and admonishes, saying to Joshua the son of Nun: 'The book of this law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate in it day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein.' Also the Lord, sending His apostles, commands that the nations should be baptized, and taught to observe all things which He commanded. If, therefore, it is either prescribed in the Gospel, or contained in the epistles or Acts of the Apostles, that those who come from any heresy should not be baptized, but only hands laid upon them to repentance, let this divine and holy tradition be observed." - Cyprian (Letter 73:2)
Cyril of Jerusalem
"For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures." - Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, 4:17)
Dionysius of Alexandria
"Nor did we evade objections, but we endeavored as far as possible to hold to and confirm the things which lay before us, and if the reason given satisfied us, we were not ashamed to change our opinions and agree with others; but on the contrary, conscientiously and sincerely, and with hearts laid open before God, we accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of the Holy Scriptures." - Dionysius of Alexandria (cited in the church history of Eusebius, 7:24)
Gregory of Nyssa
"we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings...And to those who are expert only in the technical methods of proof a mere demonstration suffices to convince; but as for ourselves, we were agreed that there is something more trustworthy than any of these artificial conclusions, namely, that which the teachings of Holy Scripture point to: and so I deem that it is necessary to inquire, in addition to what has been said, whether this inspired teaching harmonizes with it all. And who, she replied, could deny that truth is to be found only in that upon which the seal of Scriptural testimony is set?" - Macrina and Gregory of Nyssa (On the Soul and the Resurrection)
Hilary of Poitiers
"Their treason involves us in the difficult and dangerous position of having to make a definite pronouncement, beyond the statements of Scripture, upon this grave and abstruse matter....We must proclaim, exactly as we shall find them in the words of Scripture, the majesty and functions of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and so debar the heretics from robbing these Names of their connotation of Divine character, and compel them by means of these very Names to confine their use of terms to their proper meaning....I would not have you flatter the Son with praises of your own invention; it is well with you if you be satisfied with the written word." - Hilary of Poitiers (On the Trinity, 2:5, 3:23)
Hippolytus
Roman Catholics tell us that scripture is insufficient, and they often refer to scripture being unclear. We're often told that Trinitarian doctrine, for example, either is unbiblical or is unclear in scripture. But Hippolytus, a church father of the second and third centuries, who lived in Rome, disagreed. In the process of refuting anti-Trinitarian heresies, he advocated sola scriptura and explained that scripture itself (not scripture *and* an infallible interpreter) is sufficient to refute these heresies:
"Some others are secretly introducing another doctrine, who have become disciples of one Noetus, who was a native of Smyrna, and lived not very long ago. This person was greatly puffed up and inflated with pride, being inspired by the conceit of a strange spirit. He alleged that Christ was the Father Himself, and that the Father Himself was born, and suffered, and died....But the case stands not thus; for the Scriptures do not set forth the matter in this manner....the Scriptures themselves confute their senselessness, and attest the truth...The Scriptures speak what is right; but Noetus is of a different mind from them. Yet, though Noetus does not understand the truth, the Scriptures are not at once to be repudiated....The proper way, therefore, to deal with the question is first of all to refute the interpretation put upon these passages [of scripture] by these men, and then to explain their real meaning....For whenever they wish to attempt anything underhand, they mutilate the Scriptures. But let him quote the passage as a whole, and he will discover the reason kept in view in writing it....if they choose to maintain that their dogma is ratified by this passage [of scripture], as if He owned Himself to be the Father, let them know that it is decidedly against them, and that they are confuted by this very word....Many other passages [of scripture], or rather all of them, attest the truth. A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, who, being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, Himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these, therefore, are three. But if he desires to learn how it is shown still that there is one God, let him know that His power is one....What, then, will this Noetus, who knows nothing of the truth, dare to say to these things? And now, as Noetus has been confuted, let us turn to the exhibition of the truth itself, that we may establish the truth, against which all these mighty heresies have arisen without being able to state anything to the purpose. There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us took; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them." (Against the Heresy of One Noetus, 1-4, 7-9)
Irenaeus
"They [heretics] gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures...We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith....It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and to demonstrate the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these heretics rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to 'the perfect' apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon to the Church, but if they should fall away, the direst calamity....proofs of the things which are contained in the Scriptures cannot be shown except from the Scriptures themselves." - Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 1:8:1, 3:1:1, 3:3:1, 3:12:9)
Jerome
"When, then, anything in my little work seems to you harsh, have regard not to my words, but to the Scripture, whence they are taken." - Jerome (Letter 48:20)
"I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books [scripture], to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else." - Jerome (Letter 53:10)
"When Paula comes to be a little older and to increase like her Spouse in wisdom and stature and in favour with God and man, let her go with her parents to the temple of her true Father but let her not come out of the temple with them. Let them seek her upon the world's highway amid the crowds and the throng of their kinsfolk, and let them find her nowhere but in the shrine of the scriptures" - Jerome (Letter 107:7) TOC
Justin Martyr (your buddy)
"And now, if I say this to you, although I have repeated it many times, I know that it is not absurd so to do. For it is a ridiculous thing to see the sun, and the moon, and the other stars, continually keeping the same course, and bringing round the different seasons; and to see the computer who may be asked how many are twice two, because he has frequently said that they are four, not ceasing to say again that they are four; and equally so other things, which are confidently admitted, to be continually mentioned and admitted in like manner; yet that he who founds his discourse on the prophetic Scriptures should leave them and abstain from constantly referring to the same Scriptures, because it is thought he can bring forth something better than Scripture. The passage, then, by which I proved that God reveals that there are both angels and hosts in heaven is this: 'Praise the Lord from the heavens: praise Him in the highest. Praise Him, all His angels: praise Him, all His hosts.'" (Dialogue with Trypho, 85)
A common Catholic response to such patristic passages is to argue that the church father in question was only referring to the importance of scripture, not its sufficiency. In other words, though Justin Martyr is correct that there's nothing better than scripture, he isn't denying that there can be other sources of *equal* authority, such as the traditions of Roman Catholicism.
But Justin criticizes those who would "leave" scripture, who wouldn't "constantly" look to it in their arguments. If we can't leave scripture, and we're to look to it constantly, what is that if not sola scriptura?
Another common Catholic response to such patristic passages is to claim that the church father was advocating the material sufficiency of scripture, but not its formal sufficiency. In other words, all doctrines can be derived from scripture, but we need the infallible Roman Catholic hierarchy to guide us, to tell us what is to be derived from the scriptures. But Justin doesn't say that. He doesn't refer to scripture being sufficient if accompanied by the interpretations of the Roman Catholic magisterium. Rather, he refers to scripture itself being sufficient. Just after his comments on the sufficiency of scripture, Justin goes on to quote a passage from the Psalms as proof for one of his arguments. Instead of quoting the Roman Catholic magisterium's interpretation of the Psalm, Justin tells us that the Psalm itself is the proof.
It doesn't seem, then, that Justin had material sufficiency in view. It seems that he was referring to the formal sufficiency of scripture. Even if he had been referring to material sufficiency, the popularity of material sufficiency in some Roman Catholic circles is of recent origin, and some Catholics still reject the concept.
If scripture is as insufficient, as unclear as Roman Catholics claim it is, one wonders why there wasn't some infallible interpreter of scripture in the Old Testament era, one to which both Justin Martyr and Trypho could have appealed in their disputes over the Messianic prophecies. Justin Martyr shows no knowledge of such an Old Testament infallible interpreter, nor does he show any knowledge of such an institution in this New Testament era.
For additional quotes WRT the views of early Christian on the Scriptures, see: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Ancients_on_Scripture.html#Essential
If you refuse to accept the teaching that the Eucharist is actually/literally the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus you would not have been able to then, and can't now.
I praise and thank my Lord Jesus Christ, who knows me and I know Him, that my salvation doesn't depend on the biased views of others.
I'd rather chase a TAME rabbit; thanks anyway.
Evidently; for I typed no such thing.
Here is my #912 comment:
Is PROXY praying for someone 'silly'; for it takes a LOT more effort and dedication to get yourself WET for another.
I asked if praying was 'silly'; I did not SAY that praying was 'silly'.
A world of difference.
And every one of them fully Catholic in communion with the Catholic Church, and most importantly NONE of them believed in Sola Scriptura.
Justin Could not have been arguing for the formal sufficiency because he died around 164-165 IIRC. The New Testament had not been formally ordered yet. Do you believe that he was saying the OT was sufficient?
But you are changing the topic. I pointed out that it was the Catholic Church which defined: The Trinity, the hypostatic union, etc... There were no protestants there to define them.
Literally everything that you hold as good and true that actually is good and true was defined by the Catholic Church. It is only on the man made novelties that you disagree with the Catholic Church on.
This begs the question of what does "fully Catholic" mean for believers living in the first four centuries after Christ? ALL the quotes I provided argue for the authority of the Scriptures - and it matters not when they may or may not have been "formally" defined as canonical. These theologians understood and accepted that the word of God WAS sufficient to fully equip the man of God in doctrine, reproof and instructions for righteousness so that one is thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Justin Could not have been arguing for the formal sufficiency because he died around 164-165 IIRC. The New Testament had not been formally ordered yet. Do you believe that he was saying the OT was sufficient?
Justin, just as did the first century church, received the books of the Old Testament ALONG WITH the writings of the Apostles and disciples who were moved to write by the power and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That the different churches scattered around the known world had hand copied writings of these and that the theologians and leaders within these churches acknowledged and received the writings as from God - fully authoritative - proves that a later "formally ordered" canon changed NOTHING of what had been accepted until that time. Peter, writing around 67-68 A.D., was able to describe Paul's epistles as "Scripture" and equal to the other divinely-inspired writings is additional proof of this fact.
But you are changing the topic. I pointed out that it was the Catholic Church which defined: The Trinity, the hypostatic union, etc... There were no protestants there to define them.
I wasn't changing the topic but answering your assorted questions, one of which concerned your contention that: "History teaches us that while the writings for the Bible existed at the end of the first century there were also numerous heretical writings that were being accepted. It was up to the successors of the apostles to examine and discern which ones were apostolic in nature and exclude those that were not." The Christians that received the divinely-inspired writings from the Apostles recognized their authority and power because they had the same Holy Spirit within them who illuminated those truths to their hearts. Do you think they couldn't tell the difference between an epistle from the Apostle Peter and the book claiming to be the "Gospel According to Peter"?
Literally everything that you hold as good and true that actually is good and true was defined by the Catholic Church. It is only on the man made novelties that you disagree with the Catholic Church on.
Everything that is good and true regarding our Christian faith - whether or not today's Roman Catholic Church officially believes it - is so because the Word of God either explicitly or implicitly states it. You keep referring to the "Catholic Church" back then and attributing everything about the faith to them, yet it was not the same church as modern-day Catholics think they are part of nor was its success and faithfulness to the truth based upon its submission to the bishop of Rome. What these assemblies of believers agreed upon was what God revealed to them through the teachings and writings of the Apostles and Jesus' direct disciples. That was how there could BE a universal faith that tied ALL followers of Jesus Christ to each other in mutual recognition of the fellowship of the faith. Paul reproved those people who "chose sides", remember? (see I Cor. 3:4-6) They did not invent doctrines, but rather:
For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. (II Peter 1:16)
And
This testimony is true. For this reason reprove them severely so that they may be sound in the faith, not paying attention to Jewish myths and commandments of men who turn away from the truth. (Titus 1:13,14)
And
As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. (I Timothy 1:3-5)
Some yes, but most NO! That is why they had the councils of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 respectively. To settle exactly which books were and were not.
Flash forward a thousand years and you will see that Martin Luther wanted to remove James and Revelation. Do you think they he couldn't tell the difference between an epistle from the Apostle Peter James and the book claiming to be the "Gospel According to Peter? fill in the blank and the real apocalyptic literature.
Why are modern protestants able to discern that they are both scripture but Luther was not able to?
A very good question actually, but before i answer that it seems that the RC premise is that an infallible interpreter is necessary to authoritatively determine what Scripture all consists of and its meaning, and that Rome, being the steward of Divine revelation, and inheritor of promises of God's presence and preservation, and having historical descent, is therefore that infallible interpreter. Is this a correct argument?
Yes and no. God gave the Catholic Church the authority to determine the canon of scripture. As far as infallible interpreter the Catholic Church has only infallibly defined somewhere between 5-8 verses. Now that being said; anyone may have a different interpretation as long as it doesn't contradict the Church's teaching.
and that Rome, being the steward of Divine revelation, and inheritor of promises of God's presence and preservation, and having historical descent, is therefore that infallible interpreter. Is this a correct argument?
Also yes and no. See above. The Church is the divinely appointed steward (Excellent choice of words, seriously), but does not infallibly interpret ALL scripture.
this is one of the most convoluted run on sentences I can ever recall reading. And I teach ninth graders
I see not reason why this is considered hard to comprehend to a person who understands the issue, while if so and too long, you must have a real problem with papal encyclicals!
Yes and no. God gave the Catholic Church the authority to determine the canon of scripture.
That is what is unclear. Do you affirm an infallible interpreter is necessary to authoritatively determine what Scripture all consists of and its meaning (insofar as it is interpreted), ?
As far as infallible interpreter the Catholic Church has only infallibly defined somewhere between 5-8 verses. Now that being said; anyone may have a different interpretation as long as it doesn't contradict the Church's teaching.
This refers to individual verses, and even then the arguments are not necessarily infallible, but Rome's teaching constrains far more of Scripture to support her, which RCAs seek to do. As well as to interpret which level of the magisterium each teaching falls under, and thus what degree of assent is required, and if any dissent is allowed.
However, this does not answer my question as to the basis for Rome being the infallible interpreter.
The Church is the divinely appointed steward
And thus infallible, to whom all should submit?
but does not infallibly interpret ALL scripture.
That is a given, but it was what i meant by my question, but that she alone authoritatively defines the contents of Scripture and its meaning, insofar as it is interpreted, as she is the steward of Scripture, etc. and thus is to be submitted to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.