Posted on 07/23/2016 8:40:34 PM PDT by boatbums
“Has the Roman Catholic Church infallibly defined a single word of Jesus or an apostle, that is not found in Scripture?” Dr. James White to Mitch Pacwa
“I cannot think of any.” Mitch Pacwa
This shows that everything the church needed for ministry was written down in the Scriptures. That is the clear implication of the verses below; and combined with the early church’s understanding of the rule of faith / apostolic tradition, when it is specifically spelled out, it indicates that everything needed was written down in the NT.
Jude 3 – the faith was once for all delivered to the saints
John 17:7 – Jesus praying to the Father – “the words that You gave Me, I have given to them”
John 14:26 – “when the Holy Spirit comes, He will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance everything I have told you”
John 16:12-13 – “I have many more things to tell you . . . when the Spirit comes He will lead you into all the truth.”
2 Timothy 3:16-17 – All Scripture is God-breathed . . . in order that the man of God may be fully equipped for every good work. Verse 15 is about the OT, but then verse 16 expands it to include all Scripture, and so this includes by principle, both all OT and NT books, even those not written yet in 67 AD, when 2 Timothy was written. The fact that 1 Timothy 5:18 has both an OT quote and a NT quote shows that Paul understood this.
1 Timothy 5:18 – both quotes from the OT and NT (Luke 10:7; Matthew 10:10; 1 Corinthians 9:14)) are called Scripture. Shows Paul understood those NT books written by that time as Scripture.
2 Peter 3:16 – Peter considers all of Paul’s writings as “Scripture”
1 Corinthians 4:6 – “do not go beyond what is written”. This is Sola Scriptura in principle, even though all the NT Scriptures were not written yet. 1 Corinthians being written around 55 AD.
2 Peter 1:3-4 – God has given us everything we need for life and godliness
(the promises of His word and the Holy Spirit) And Athanasius seems to be alluding to this by his statement, after listing the 27 NT books, “In these alone (Mono- Greek, translated into Sola – Latin – alone, “Scripture alone”) is the teaching of godliness”. That is Sola Scriptura in principle. (Athanasius, Festal Letter 39, 367 AD)
Indeed.
It’s one thing to say, here are some more details furnishing a more helpful context to what you’ve already been doing.
It’s another thing to say just forget what you’ve already been doing, we have a superior model that makes it superfluous. And Mary-involvement tests this. She has passed from a sign and expression of God’s love, to a mover and shaker that encloses it all and demands we treat Her as Middlewoman. Um, sale not made on this one.
There’s no doubt some are overly sensitive. You’d think a religion with over a billion adherents wouldn’t be worried about what a few Calvinists think or say of her. You’d think she’d have a thicker skin, invite enthusiastic debate of her doctrine and history, and be able to withstand the light of scrutiny. You’d think she could substantiate her positions, too.
Thanks, bb.
Sure. Can't have anyone seeing the truth now, can we?
No. It appears that *Catholic bashing* is whatever happens to be something that is said that some individual Catholic doesn't like because they feel it makes the Catholic church look bad.
That seems to be the only criteria needed to label something as such.
The Catholic church.
Does "Fatima" ring a bell?
Does the church giving its pope the authority to speak *ex cathedra* sound familiar?
That would be new ongoing revelation.
You’d think......
And Middlewoman is an understatement, for she is proclaimed by various Caths as
• an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,
• whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,
• who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"
• and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain affinity with the Heavenly Father,"
• and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"
• for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"
• "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"
• so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."
• and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"
• for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"
• Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"
• and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"
• including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"
• whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"
• and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"
• and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation." Sources and more.
The NT itself says that not everything was written down in the NT:
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. -- 2 Thess 2:15
The sola scriptura believer has to insist that everything St. Paul said "by word of mouth" was later written in Scripture, but by so insisting, he adds his own tradition to what Scripture actually says!
However, the question "is everything needed written down in the New Testament" misses that point. Arguably, "everything needed" is written down in John 3:16. Everything else is just elaboration.
The real question is whether the Bible, in the hands of an individual Christian believer, the ultimate authority over that believer, or is that Bible given to govern the church which Christ founded on his Apostles and gave over to their governance, a church which is a living being, vivified by the Holy Spirit, and hence not needing to be reinvented by each generation by reverse-engineering the text of the Bible.
Pacwa believes the latter. White, in practice, believes the former.
Now that’s an interesting theory. I’ll have to mull it.
Well, I do believe in the security of salvation.
Some of these items seem to be in commonality with promises made to all saints.
A more interesting claim is that she didn’t fall, was therefore an unfallen person. This would create a tension with other New Testament statements that all humans fell.
The Old Testament forbade invocations to the dead which is why evangelicals shun addressing sainted persons. However Jesus can make what is dead, alive. Jesus caused saints to appear as a witness in the Transfiguration. Saints are said to have appeared to both Roman and Orthodox devouts. That alone could not be characterized as good or bad without a connection to what they did. Seeking any kind of devotion in connection with that (as opposed to “glorify the Lord” or remaining silent and letting the Lord be glorified) would seem like a counterfeit appearance.
At any rate, the efforts of man alone can’t reunite the church. Luther and other reformers left some problems behind, but inadvertently ran into other problems. Sin remains a problem everywhere. When the church meets Christ in finality, much revelation and confession of sin will happen all over. It’s an irony. The more I know of the Lord in experience, the more I begin to comprehend how bad what remains in me is and how dependent on grace I am. I certainly would not want to assume that God is begrudging the same kind of grace to parts of the church that I believe I have excellent reason to disagree with.
But, we would also have to assume that what Paul spoke (and which was actual new doctrine, not just application of old doctrine to then current events) never got into the bible in any other fashion too.
When it comes to things that would make major differences in how Christians worship (Mary devotion, for instance) one also has to ask why it so eluded specific mention, and the more importance ascribed to it, the bigger the question.
Point taken, though evangelicals should expect to get quizzed back too and not get all browned off about it. The only real answer to such quizzing is to be versed enough in the person of Christ, and how that is reflected in scriptures and in the life of the saved, that you don’t get caught up in lines of human theologizing. There are some paradoxes that have to be embraced (says this Calminian).
LOL......
Especially when people are told to check their brains at the door and just believe what the church tells them.
So true! When Nicodemus pleaded with Jesus to explain how someone can be saved, Jesus told him:
There are many things our finite minds cannot comprehend no matter how smart we are. I agree with Chesley that God's foreknowledge versus predestination is a hard concept to understand, but we know that there is NOTHING that takes God by surprise. He has seen the beginning and the end as if they were the present. Time is no boundary that impedes Him. One day, when we know as we are known, it WILL make perfect sense.
OK. Prove that what it considered sacred tradition was teachings from the apostles themselves and that they were passed down faithfully for 2,000 years without corruption.
THEN you might have something to work with.
Other than that you simply have claims of extra Biblical revelation that have no veracity or authenticity.
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.