Posted on 09/11/2023 9:23:22 AM PDT by ebb tide
Thx for pinging me to your comment. Vy interesting.
“The Bible teaches that the...”
Actually on this I disagree with the words chosen by ebb - not “the rulers” and the elaboration leaves much to be desired.
The reading of scriptures, the understanding of the books of the old testament and the (until 50 AD unwritten) Gospel of Jesus — that understanding was exactly what Jesus told His Apostles and what they conveyed to their disciples.
This has proven itself clear when you look at the dissenters i.e. protestants (small p) through the millenia:
1. Marcion read the OT and the Gospels and his personal interpretation was that these were two different gods - Marcion preached that the benevolent God of the Gospel who sent Jesus Christ into the world as the savior was the true Supreme Being, different and opposed to the malevolent Demiurge or creator god, identified with the Hebrew God of the Old Testament. THAT was through sola scriptura and personal interpretation.
2. Arius read the OT and the NT books and his personal interpretation was that Jesus Christ was divine/holy and was sent to earth for the salvation of mankind but that Jesus Christ was not equal to God the Father (infinite, primordial origin) in rank and that God the Father and the Son of God were not equal to the Holy Spirit. THAT was through sola scriptura and personal interpretation.
3. Luther through sola scriptura and personal interpretation arrived at completely different conclusions from Calvin and Zwingli and the three of them utterly disagreed with the Anabaptists and even more so the Unitarians (Brethren)
Looking at this and the current interpretations of the pre-tribulation rapture, about Sabbatarians etc. we can see that innovative “interpretations” that disagree with what the Church has taught about core dogma - the Resurrection, the non-Pelasgian path for salvation, the Eucharist etc. - those new interpretations quickly go off the rails
So it is to believe (so faith as you wrote), believe, repent, eat of the body of Jesus and endure to the end
Nothing particularly about understanding as key to salvation - so yes, the mentally disabled still can be saved.
infants were of that household. - that is flat out wrong. In those days you had bundles of infants as lots of kids died before the age of 5. To say the householdS had no infants is ignoring the facts on the ground
To say that the people who knew their lost condition didn't want to also save their children is not what a parent would do
“(which you must think was some infallible information transmitted by word of mouth from the bishop of Rome or something??).”
Not sure what ebb is trying to say, but I would point out that individual bishops were supposed to go around and ensure that the correct teachings were being taught and no deviations.
the individual patriarchs of each area - Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria (then Constantinople) also kept their individual bishops in line.
Ambrose 1:23 doesn’t quite say what you infer.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34021.htm “For if we say that the Holy Spirit is included among all things, certainly when we read that the Spirit searches the deep things of God, 1 Corinthians 2:10 we deny that God the Father is over all. For since the Spirit is of God, and is the Spirit of His mouth, how can we say that the Holy Spirit is included among all things, seeing that God, Whose is the Spirit, is over all, possessing certainly fullness of perfection and perfect power.”
Athanasius’ writing in De Synodis do not disagree with Catholic teaching
Note that all of them point out the Bible to validate teaching, not “sola” scriptura
Catholics accuse Protestants of Sola Scriptura
Protestants accuse Catholics of Sola Ecclesia
Both accusations are incorrect.
Catholics believe PRIMA Ecclesia
(Most) Protestants believe PRIMA Scriptura
Both allow for Devine revelation.
Well written - I would only add the “(Most)” to the second last time
No worries - I don’t completely agree with the main article itself and I definitely disagree with its tone.
I think tax control wrote it best - we have few completely SOLA scriptura and (to my knowledge) no or close to no sola ecclesia
We as Christians do need to, in my mind, agree on common points - and to me, it is what is encapsulated in the Nicene Creed.
Call no man father
Well; maybe He didn't quite mean it that way.
, the imperative "call no man father" does not apply to one’s biological father. It also doesn’t exclude calling one’s ancestors "father," as is shown in Acts 7:2, where Stephen refers to "our father Abraham," or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of "our father Isaac."
There are numerous examples in the New Testament of the term "father" being used as a form of address and reference, even for men who are not biologically related to the speaker.
A careful examination of the context of Matthew 23 shows that Jesus didn’t intend for his words here to be understood literally. The whole passage reads, "But you are not to be called ‘rabbi,’ for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called ‘masters,’ for you have one master, the Christ" (Matt. 23:8–10).
although your literalist interpretation shows Jesus seemingly prohibiting the use of the term "teacher," in Matthew 28:19–20, Christ himself appointed certain men to be teachers in his Church: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." Paul speaks of his commission as a teacher: "For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2:7); "For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher" (2 Tim. 1:11). He also reminds us that the Church has an office of teacher: "God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers" (1 Cor. 12:28); and "his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers" (Eph. 4:11). There is no doubt that Paul was not violating Christ’s teaching in Matthew 23 by referring so often to others as "teachers."
So Elsie - does that mean you call no man Teacher or Doctor (That's teacher in Latin) or Rabbi?
So What Did Jesus say really about Call No Man Father when he used that term along with teachers etc. elsewhere?
Jesus criticized Jewish leaders who love "the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called ‘rabbi’ by men" (Matt. 23:6–7). His admonition here is a response to the Pharisees’ proud hearts and their grasping after marks of status and prestige.
He was using hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point) to show the scribes and Pharisees how sinful and proud they were for not looking humbly to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood and teaching, and instead setting themselves up as the ultimate authorities, father figures, and teachers.
Christ used hyperbole often, for example when he declared, "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell" (Matt. 5:29, cf. 18:9; Mark 9:47). Christ certainly did not intend this to be applied literally, for otherwise all Christians would be blind amputees! (cf. 1 John 1:8; 1 Tim. 1:15). We are all subject to "the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life" (1 John 2:16).
Since Jesus is demonstrably using hyperbole when he says not to call anyone our father—else we would not be able to refer to our earthly fathers as such—we must read his words carefully and with sensitivity to the presence of hyperbole if we wish to understand what he is saying.
Jesus is not forbidding us to call men "fathers" who actually are such—either literally or spiritually. (See below on the apostolic example of spiritual fatherhood.) To refer to such people as fathers is only to acknowledge the truth, and Jesus is not against that.
Throughout the world, some people have been tempted to look upon religious leaders who are mere mortals as if they were an individual’s supreme source of spiritual instruction, nourishment, and protection. The tendency to turn mere men into "gurus" is worldwide.
This was also a temptation in the Jewish world of Jesus’ day, when famous rabbinical leaders, especially those who founded important schools, such as Hillel and Shammai, were highly exalted by their disciples. It is this elevation of an individual man—the formation of a "cult of personality" around him—of which Jesus is speaking when he warns against attributing to someone an undue role as master, father, or teacher.
The New Testament is filled with examples of and references to spiritual father-son and father-child relationships. Many people are not aware just how common these are, so it is worth quoting some of them here.
- Paul regularly referred to Timothy as his child: "Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ" (1 Cor. 4:17); "To Timothy, my true child in the faith: grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (1 Tim. 1:2); "To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (2 Tim. 1:2).
- He also referred to Timothy as his son: "This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage the good warfare" (1 Tim 1:18); "You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 2:1); "But Timothy’s worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel" (Phil. 2:22).
- Paul also referred to other of his converts in this way: "To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior" (Titus 1:4); "I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment" (Philem. 10). None of these men were Paul’s literal, biological sons. Rather, Paul is emphasizing his spiritual fatherhood with them.
- Perhaps the most pointed New Testament reference to the theology of the spiritual fatherhood of priests is Paul’s statement, "I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).
- Peter followed the same custom, referring to Mark as his son: "She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark" (1 Pet. 5:13). The apostles sometimes referred to entire churches under their care as their children. Paul writes, "Here for the third time I am ready to come to you. And I will not be a burden, for I seek not what is yours but you; for children ought not to lay up for their parents, but parents for their children" (2 Cor. 12:14); and, "My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you!" (Gal. 4:19).
- John said, "My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (1 John 2:1); "No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth" (3 John 4). In fact, John also addresses men in his congregations as "fathers" (1 John 2:13–14).
And even more, just for you
Matt. 23:9 - Jesus says, "call no man father." But Protestants use this verse in an attempt to prove that it is wrong for Catholics to call priests "father." This is an example of "eisegesis" (imposing one's views upon a passage) as opposed to "exegesis" (drawing out the meaning of the passage from its context). In this verse, Jesus was discouraging His followers from elevating the scribes and Pharisees to the titles of fathers and rabbis because they were hypocrites. Jesus warns us not to elevate anyone to the level of our heavenly Father.
Matt. 23:8 in this teaching, Jesus also says not to call anyone teacher or rabbi as well. But dont Protestants call their teachers teacher? What about this commandment of Jesus? When Protestants say call no man father, they must also argue that we cannot call any man teacher either.
Judges 17:10; 18:19 - priesthood and fatherhood have always been identified together. Fatherhood literally means "communicating one's nature," and just as biological fathers communicate their nature to their children, so do spiritual fathers communicate the nature of God to us, their children, through (hopefully) teaching and example.
Eph. 3:14-15 - every family in heaven and on earth is named from the "Father." We are fathers in the Father.
Acts 7:2; 22:1,1 John 2:13 - elders of the Church are called "fathers." Therefore, we should ask the question, "Why don't Protestants call their pastors "father?"
1 Cor. 4:15 - Paul writes, "I became your father in Christ Jesus."
1 Cor. 4:17 - Paul calls Bishop Timothy a beloved and faithful "child" in the Lord.
2 Cor. 12:14 - Paul describes his role as parent over his "children" the Corinthians.
Phil. 2:22 - Paul calls Timothy's service to him as a son serves a "father."
1 Thess. 2:11- Paul compares the Church elders' ministry to the people like a father with his children.
1 Tim. 1:2,18; 2 Tim. 1:2-3 - Paul calls Timothy his true "child" in the faith and his son.
Titus 1:4 - Paul calls Titus his true "child" in a common faith. Priests are our spiritual fathers in the family of God.
Philemon 10 - Paul says he has become the "father" of Onesimus.
Heb. 12:7,9 - emphasizes our earthly "fathers." But these are not just biological but also spiritual (the priests of the Church).
1 Peter 5:13 - Peter refers to himself as father by calling Mark his "son."
1 John 2:1,13,14 - John calls the elders of the Church "fathers."
1 John 2:1,18,28; 3:18; 5:21; 3 John 4 - John calls members of the Church "children."
1 Macc. 2:65 - Mattathias the priest tells his sons that Simeon will be their "father."
Top
II. The Lord, Mary, the Apostles and Others Refer to Spiritual Leaders as "Fathers"
Matt. 3:9; Luke 3:8 - Jesus refers to Abraham as our "father."
Mark 11:10 - the people cried out blessed is the kingdom of our "father" David that is coming!
Luke 1:32 - God's angel says Jesus will be great and be given the throne of his "father" David.
Luke 1:55 - Mary says that He spoke to our "fathers," to Abraham and to his posterity for ever.
Luke 1:73 - Zechariah says the oath which he swore to our "father" Abraham.
Luke 16:24,30 - Jesus, in His parable about the rich man, says our "father" Abraham.
John 4:12 - the Samaritan woman asks Jesus if He is greater than our "father" Jacob.
John 7:22 - Jesus refers to the "fathers" who gave the Jews the practice of circumcision.
John 8:56 - Jesus tells the Jews your "Father" Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day.
Acts 3:13,25; 5:30 - Peter teaches that the God of our "fathers" glorified His servant Jesus and raised Him to life.
Acts 4:25 - Peter and John pray to God and refer to our "father" David.
Acts 7:11-12, 15,19,38,44-45,51-52 - Stephen refers to our "fathers" in the faith.
Acts 7:32 - Stephen calls God the God of our "fathers."
Acts 13:17,32,36; 24:14; 26:6; 28:17,25 - Paul also refers to the God of our "fathers" in the faith.
Acts 22:3 - Paul says he was educated according to the strict law of our "fathers."
Acts 22:14 - Ananias says the God of our "fathers."
Rom. 4:1 - Paul calls Abraham our "forefather."
Rom. 4:16-17 - Paul says that Abraham is the "father" of us all and the "father" of many nations.
Rom. 9:10 - Paul calls Isaac, a spiritual leader, our "forefather."
1 Cor. 10:1 - Paul says that our "fathers" were all under the cloud, referring to the Old Testament spiritual leaders.
Gal. 1:14 - Paul says that he was zealous for the tradition of his "fathers."
2 Tim. 1:3 - Paul thanks God whom he serves with a clear conscience as did his "fathers" in faith.
Heb. 1:1 - the author says God spoke of old to our "fathers."
Heb. 3:9 - the Holy Spirit says that your "fathers" put me to the test.
Heb. 8:9 - God says not like the covenant that I made with their "fathers."
James 2:21 - James says was not our "father" Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac?
1 Peter 1:18 - Peter says you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your "fathers."
2 Peter 3:4 - Peter says ever since the "fathers" fell asleep, all things have continued as they were from the beginning.
Top
III. Other Examples Where Jesus Uses the Word "Father" When Teaching
Matt. 15:4-5; 19:19 - Jesus uses "father" when He teaches God's commandment to "Honor your father and your mother."
Mark 7:10-12; Luke 18:20 - these are more examples of Jesus using "father" when teaching about honoring our fathers and mothers.
Eph. 6:2,4 - Paul also teaches to honor your "father" and mother, and says "fathers," do not provoke your children.
Matt. 10:21; 35,37; Mark 13:12 - Jesus says "father" will deliver up his child in the last days.
Matt. 19:5; Mark 10:7,19 - Jesus says a man shall leave his "father" and mother and be joined to his wife. See also Eph. 5:31.
Matt. 19:29; Mark 10:29-30 - Jesus says whoever has left mother or "father" for His sake shall receive a hundredfold.
Matt. 21:31 - Jesus uses "father" when he teaches about the parable of the two sons and asks, "who did the will of his "father?"
Luke 6:23,26 - Jesus speaks about reward and punishment with reference to what their "fathers" did to the prophets.
Luke 11:11 - Jesus says what "father" among you will give his child a serpent when he asks for a fish.
Luke 11:47-48 - Jesus tells the lawyers they are witnesses to the deeds of their "fathers."
Luke 14:26 - Jesus says we must leave our "fathers" and mothers and come to him, or we cannot be His disciple.
Luke 15:12,17-18,20-22,27-29 - Jesus repeatedly uses "father" when teaching about the prodigal son.
Luke 16:27 - Jesus uses "father" when teaching about the rich man in purgatory.
John 6:49,58 - Jesus says your "fathers" ate the manna in the wilderness and died.
You said "Ambrose 1:23 doesn’t quite say what you infer" (In other words, you disagree with my context of Ambrose 1:23's: “How can we use those things which we do not find in the Holy Scriptures?”). Yet you quote Ambrose's quote of 1st Corinthians 2:10 to make his point (which seems like a use of a sola scriptura).
But then I thought maybe you were pointing out Ambrose's use of God's Holy Spirit and the wisdom He brings as a way to say we don't need the Bible alone, but God's Spirit too. Does that sound right?
If so, I point you out to the broader context of the 1st Corinthians 2 that you quote Ambrose quoting. I suggest you read the entire chapter and realize that Paul was basically making a case for his apostleship (1st Cor 1:1). He was very humble about himself (verses 1-4) so that the validity of what he's writing can be known to be based on God power (verse 5).
So what to make of the plural pronouns "we" and "us" in 1st Cor 2:10 and surrounding verses?
1) Does that mean the wisdom from the Holy Spirit applies to all believers? Perhaps, though if so then you and I probably agree that it's wisdom for our personal lives and spheres of influence, not enough for you and I to be deciding on new traditions as truth.
2) Do the plural pronouns for getting the wisdom from the Holy Spirit suggest a more Catholic interpretation? In other words, not everybody getting this kind of wisdom, but it's a greater wisdom that is given to only a select few, but those few extend past the apostles to include perhaps to bring truth outside the Bible from the early church fathers, the popes, apostolic succession?
3) Or do the "we" and "us" mean Paul and the other apostles only, perhaps their workers helping them carry the message of the apostles? In other words, wisdom of the Bible?
Well, let's see what the Bible says. Bonus points if it's in the same letter (Bible "book"). Is there a "we" the letter is from? Yes! Paul and Sothsenes (1 Cor 1:1). Maybe or maybe not that's the same Sothsenes from Acts 18 who was a synagogue leader who was persecuted by the mob (Acts 18:17) probably for becoming a Christian like some of the other synagogue leaders and other Corinthians did (Acts 18:8). Whoever this Sothenes is in the first verse of 1 Corinthians, he is clearly working as an agent of the apostle Paul.
Thus, your Ambrose quote of the Bible quote is yet more evidence of # 3 which is.... wait for it .... sola scriptura.
GMTA
Not really.
1. I quoted from Ambrose’s 1:23 — are you referring to the same book?
2. 1 Cor 2 is not about personal interpretation but about belief
2.2 - It talks clearly about our beliefs, not about interpreting differently from what Christ taught His apostles and was handed down from them
To use that to allow for sola scriptura is nonsensical.
To use that for saying personal interpretation (a separate topic from sola scriptura) doesn’t meet what the letter to the Corinthians says at all
Baptism requires confession, faith and repentance. Things infants cannot have or do. There are dozens of examples of souls being baptized in the Bible; but not one instance was where a baby was baptized.
1 Corinthians specifically seems to be pretty much against personal interpretation as in
Chapter 1 “10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters,[a] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought.”
1 Cor 1:16 validates infant baptism and baptism as a sacrament
1 Cor 1:18 “but to us who are being saved “ contradicts the “just say I’m bjorn again and you will be saved”
There are numerous instances of “whole households” being baptised.
Those households would include infants for the simple reasons that
1. there were lots of kids in those days (people had many as many died)
2. the parents would want their children saved especially considered that many would not make it to their 5th birthday
I’m not the author of the captioned article.
You're making many false assumptions. Especially ones that conflict and contradict the clear message of baptism throughout the New Testament.
Your repeated opinions....
1. there were lots of kids in those days (people had many as many died)
2. the parents would want their children saved especially considered that many would not make it to their 5th birthday
are again assumptions completely outside the Word of God.
Seems to me you might consider verse 38 in the same chapter of John before speculating on the relative importance of James.
I specifically looked at what you quoted. I didn't go out finding some other early church father quote (today, not talking about posts in prior days).
2. 1 Cor 2 is not about personal interpretation but about belief
The only reason I explored interpreting 1 Cor 2 as possibly being about wisdom available to everyone (as you put it, "personal interpretation") is because of a reverence to exegetical interpretation. It means to interpret the Bible without bias.
So I was trying to read 1 Cor 2 (don't blame me for going to 1 Cor 2, you quoted it first LOL) not as a Protestant, nor a Catholic, nor a 21st century American, but from what Paul meant. In political lingo, call it an "originalist" interpretation. One way to do that is to look at all the possibilities it could mean (I listed 3) and see which one(s) is the most plausible. Bonus points if when analyzing those verses I look for interpretation based on more of the 1st Corinthians text itself (less chance of taking something out of context if I'm comparing 1st Corinthians text to other 1st Corinthians text instead of comparing it to other parts of the Bible).
Next sub-topic, I'm probably misunderstanding one of your statements. You said:
"2.2 - It talks clearly about our beliefs, not about interpreting differently from what Christ taught His apostles and was handed down from them."
To which I say, I agree. The 1 Cor 2 text is NOT saying to interpret differently from Christ's and the apostles' teachings. Christ's and the apostles' teachings should be the see-all do-all. Which makes it sound like you're leaning toward a sola scriptura position. Except that you immediately followed it with:
To use that to allow for sola scriptura is nonsensical.
So clearly I'm having trouble following what you're saying.
No, that is simply not true, since besides plainly commanding John to "Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter," (Revelation 1:19) then by commanding obedience to Himself then He was commanding them to be led by His Spirit - which is a credential of a true child of God (Rm. 8:14) - who received from the Lord Jesus further revelation, (John 16:13,14) and by which Matthew 28:19,20 is fulfilled, thus the Lord Jesus did indeed order his Apostles (and certain other inspired disciples to write). Meanwhile, as said, the whole attempt at arguing that since the apostles taught the word of God orally, then whatever Rome says is the word of God is indeed just that, fails for while men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, yet even Rome does not presume its popes and ecumenical councils do so either in declaring what they "infallibly" assert is the word of God." Thus Catholicism must rely on its "premise of ensured perpetual magisterial veracity, but which is nowhere exampled, taught or promised [in Scripture]. And in fact, God's means of preservation of faith required the raising of men (prophets and apostles) which reproved valid magisterial power."
" If reading the Bible were a necessary means " You quote Luke 24 - which is about Jesus expounding the scriptures to the Apostles - i.e. explaining to them. Nothing that "reading" the scriptures was a necessary means of salvation
Actually he said "a necessary means" and which it has been and can be for many, such as prisoners who never heard or will have contact with preachers. But I was responding to this arguing against the necessity of writing as God's chosen means of preservation, which the Lord used and opened the minds of disciples to in Lk. 24. However, t as I expressed in response to #8, Sola Scriptura does not teach that one must have his own copy of Scripture and be able to read it in order to be saved and grown in grace. Thus SS preachers can preach salvation and disciple others who do not even know how to read, and even enjoin "stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle" (2 Thessalonians 2:15) under the premise that, as with the apostles, what was taught is Scriptural.'
Similarly John 20 does NOT in any way state that "reading is a necessary means of salvation" - nor could that be construed by reading the text
No, but as part of his overall argument, the OP would go on to cite that text to support the premise of the necessity of preaching oral tradition, charging (under #4) that the "Bible does not contain all of Our Lord's doctrines," while John does not say that "many other doctrines truly did Jesus teach in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book," and John affirms writing as providing what is necessary for salvation in Jn. 20:31.
2. "How many of the Apostles actually wrote..." well, I agree with you - it isn't an argument for or against sola scriptura. Thaddeus and Bartholomew went to preach to the Jews and gentiles in Iraq and Iran while Thomas went to preach and convert Jews and gentiles in southern India The fact that they didn't write anything
There simply is no "fact that they didn't write anything," just that we have no record, and the argument that reliance upon oral preaching is contrary to SS, as if classic Prot missionaries required everyone to be able to read the Bible to be saved, is simply not true, and is not what confessions as Westminster state, as said (and the contextual nature of its polemic is also ignored).
2.b. "If the Bible privately.." [COMMENT: If the Bible privately interpreted was to be a Divine rule of Faith, the apostles would have been derelict in their duty when instead, some of them adopted preaching only.] ebb is correct on this - Thaddeus and Bartholomew and Thomas at the most would have had the Jewish scriptures to rely upon when they visited the Jews in Iraq, Iran and India. But they also converted gentiles there.
Wrong, for it is sophistry to argue against SS as if it required reading, much less having the whole Bible, to be converted. As well as inferring that SS was contrary to the teaching office of the church (but not as possessing ensured perpetual magisterial veracity (EPMV) of office, even at least salvific) which is affirmed, and exampled.
And to argue that subjecting oral preaching to the test of conflation with Scripture, or by supporting teaching by ones own interpretation of it (= "a Divine rule of Faith") is wrong means that the noble Breans were, as well as invalidating the NT church, seeing as it began in dissent from the historical magisterium, following itinerant preachers (and The Preacher) who established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. Thanks and Glory to God!
You quote Acts 17:2 -- but that was Paul, an erudite Pharisee arguing with erudite Pharisees and Sadducees
Please. That is simply careless or desperate eisegesis. There simply is no mention of Paul arguing with Pharisees and Sadducees (neither of which are even named here nor until Acts 23), but that finding "a synagogue of the Jews" "Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, (Acts 17:2 ) While the reaction to this 3 week exposition was that of "the Jews which believed not" persecuting them, (Acts 17:5) there simply is no mention or inference of Paul arguing with Pharisees and Sadducees.
And in further support of my argument here that "the apostles would have been derelict in their duty by not doing as the leaders Peter and Paul did, affirming the written word as being the more sure word of prophecy, (2 Peter 1:19) and which "reasoned out of the Scriptures" (Acts 17:2) as the Spirit of Christ affirmed those who tested their preaching by the Scriptures, (Acts 17:11) then we have disciple Apollos, who " mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ. (Acts 18:28)
There is the fact that natural revelation and signs and wonders were used as affirmative testimony for Gentiles, yet as the devil will yet show, (2 Thessalonians 2:10) and the protesting lost souls of Matthew 7:22 attest, such by themselves are not sufficient for establishing doctrine.
Then you falsely say "sola ecclesia" - which is not what the Church nor ebb has said. The Church does not say "sola ecclesia" -- you did that
You have to have an alternative to SS, and which is indeed "sola ecclesia" and actually "sola Roma," for as argued, the Catholic church gave us the Bible and Tradition, and is the sure supreme judge on not only its contents but also its authoritative meaning. And thus as the supplier, discerner and judge, then it alone is the sole, supreme and sufficient standard for faith and morals. Thus, "Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law;... all interpretation is foolish and false which...is opposed to the doctrine of the Church.(Providentissimus Deus; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html)
Next, you make a completely spurious - meaning false statement of "the word of God consists of and means what Rome says, according to her interpretation" -- false - this was as per councils, not "Rome" The only ones claiming that the Bible says only what they themselves say tend to be sola scriptura folks
That is semantic sophistry, as it charging a statement that "Washington raises taxes" is completely spurious because it was Congress.
Moreover, if you think referring to "Roman Catholic" is an invention of Protestantism, then you are wrong.
3. "Jesus founded a Church" "an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings had been manifestly established " -- again, that's false -- the Pentateuch were accepted completely, but there was no sense of "Jewish canon" until after the destruction of Herod's temple in 70 AD The writings of the Prophets were not all accepted by all the sects of 2nd temple Jews Rabbi Jacob Neusner holds that the Jewish canon was closed only in the 2nd century AD
Again, that's false, as the invocation itself of the Lord Jesus of "all the scriptures" (And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself (Luke 24:27) manifests that an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings had been manifestly established " How could the Lord reference an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings if there was none?
How could He open "their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures" (Luke 24:45) if there was no established authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings?
How could He reprove the Sadducees as"not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God" . (Matthew 22:29) ) if there was no established authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings?
You are simply relying on one class of scholarship, vs. Scripture, as well as other scholarship. Such as concludes:
"In all likelihood Josephus' twenty-two-book canon was the Pharisaic canon, but it is to be doubted that it was also the canon of all Jews in the way that he has intended." (Timothy H. Lim: The Formation of the Jewish Canon; Yale University Press, Oct 22, 2013. P. 49) “The theory of the majority canon, therefore, is amply supported. Before the emergence of this Pharisaic canon at the end of the first century CE, there was a diversity of collections of authoritative scriptures.” (P. 185) By the first century, it is clear that the Pharisees held to the twenty-two or twenty-four book canon, and it was this canon that eventually became the canon of Rabbinic Judaism because the majority of those who founded the Jewish faith after the destruction of Jerusalem were Pharisees. The Jewish canon was not directed from above but developed from the "bottom-up." (Timothy H. Lim, University of Edinburgh: Understanding the Emergence of the Jewish Canon, ANCIENT JEW REVIEW, December 2, 2015) [Note however, that he is mistaken about Yavneh (Jamnia)] The evidence clearly supports the theory that the Hebrew canon was established long before the end of the 1st century AD, although it is more likely already in the 4th century BC. (https://www.josh.org/) There is no scholarly consensus as to when the Hebrew Bible canon was fixed. Some scholars argue that it was fixed by the Hasmonean dynasty (140–40 BCE), while others argue it was not fixed until the second century CE or even later. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Hebrew_Bible_canon)
Heinrich Graetz concluded in 1871 that there had been a Council of Jamnia (or Yavne in Hebrew)
The theory of a council of Jamnia that finalized the canon, first proposed by Heinrich Graetz in 1871,[5] It was popular for much of the 20th century. However, it has been increasingly questioned since the 1960s onward, and the theory has now been largely discredited.[6]...According to Lewis: The concept of the Council of Jamnia is an hypothesis to explain the canonization of the Writings (the third division of the Hebrew Bible) resulting in the closing of the Hebrew canon. ...These ongoing debates suggest the paucity of evidence on which the hypothesis of the Council of Jamnia rests and raise the question whether it has not served its usefulness and should be relegated to the limbo of unestablished hypotheses. It should not be allowed to be considered a consensus established by mere repetition of assertion....The 20th-century evangelical scholar F. F. Bruce thought that it was "probably unwise to talk as if there were a Council or Synod of Jamnia which laid down the limits of the Old Testament canon."[15] Other scholars have since joined in and today the theory is largely discredited.[1][2][3] Some hold that the Hebrew canon was established during the Hasmonean dynasty (140–40 BCE).[16] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia)
Next, your claim that "Truth is founded in scripture" contradicts Paul. The Old Testament books provided verification for the claims of Jesus as the anointed one "Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture" - scripture was the means for validating, not for dissemination of salvation as is abundantly clear in the entire book of Acts of the Apostles validating, not for dissemination
"Truth is founded in scripture" contradicts Paul? And where did I even say the gospel itself was written prior to Paul's preaching, vs. that it depended upon it?
Argument 4 "Difference" I don't get ebb or your points -- there is no one "Protestant Bible" in any case as some denominations have their own interpretations
You mean you conflate different interpretations as meaning different Bible? And the Protestant canon is more settled than in Catholicism, broadly defined.
comment "How would it have been possiblef or 2nd century christians" ebb is correct that there was NO private interpretation of the teachings of Christ - except by heretics like Marcion etc. 2nd century Christians were taught by the spoken word - the bishops were very active in going around trying to ensure that only the exact teachings of Jesus were repeated. There were few written texts until Mark's writing in 50 AD
Actually it is the faithful teachings of Jesus and the Bible that SS expect of Scripture, and such see far more censure from other evangelicals for aberrant views than RCs, while Catholics are allowed great liberty in interpretation, as is the living magisterium according to your TradCath sects.
Meanwhile, distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly God-inspired, substantive, authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels) Catholics themselves can and do engage in
You have taken enough hours from me this morning with my stiff arthritic fingers in response to your fallacious attempts at refutation.
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.