First Prev
of 7
Next Last
Roger

Martinsville, VA

#1 Jun 3, 2013
You'll never find a reference to the Bishop of Rome or anything even regarding that in Scripture. It is not found in Scripture. It comes from tradition primarily.

This all goes back to the whole issue of Sola Scriptura. We are being told by Mike, "Without a church authority you can't know what the canon is thus your Sola Scriptura falls on its face … without an infallible authority you can't know what the canon is." And of course I would say, "Well how do you know it's an infallible authority to begin with?"

First of all, I believe canonized Bible is determined by inspiration. God is the author. Men are not the author of canon, God is the author of canon. So God is the one who determines the canon. So the issue is not whether this is canonical Scripture or not, the issue is, how do we as human beings recognize what is and what is not inspired Scripture? We need to keep these things straight because there are some people like Mike who seems to think that the church has the power to create canon and of course it does not.

How did the Jewish man 50 years before Jesus Christ know that the books of 2 Chronicles and Isaiah were Scripture? Ask a Catholic this and he then will be forced to use the term “Old Testament Church.” This, however, opens up a door that the Catholic best not open.

Mikes’ argument is completely circular. Am I violating sola scriptura to say, for example with reference to the Gospel of Thomas, or some other gnostic writing, of the second century, well, you look at it and you see that it is contradictory to Scripture, and you see that no one has ever believed that it was Scripture, and hence you don't believe that it is Scripture. Is that a violation of sola scriptura? It seems that Mike is saying that it is! Isn't it interesting that the Apostles themselves utilized the very same standards? For example, Paul in recognizing that there is truth outside of Scripture, quotes from pagan philosophers, but no one would think that Paul was, by citing a pagan philosopher, adding it to the canon of Scripture, was he? No. He didn't accept it. On what basis? On what basis did Paul or Peter or any of the others, not accept the Old Testament “Apocrypha and Sacred Writings?” Because Rome said it didn't belong there? Because there was some infallible Old Testament Church? Not at all. They did not utilize the standards Mike does.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#2 Jun 3, 2013
Roger wrote:
You'll never find a reference to the Bishop of Rome or anything even regarding that in Scripture. It is not found in Scripture. It comes from tradition primarily.
This all goes back to the whole issue of Sola Scriptura. We are being told by Mike, "Without a church authority you can't know what the canon is thus your Sola Scriptura falls on its face … without an infallible authority you can't know what the canon is." And of course I would say, "Well how do you know it's an infallible authority to begin with?"
First of all, I believe canonized Bible is determined by inspiration. God is the author. Men are not the author of canon, God is the author of canon. So God is the one who determines the canon. So the issue is not whether this is canonical Scripture or not, the issue is, how do we as human beings recognize what is and what is not inspired Scripture? We need to keep these things straight because there are some people like Mike who seems to think that the church has the power to create canon and of course it does not.
How did the Jewish man 50 years before Jesus Christ know that the books of 2 Chronicles and Isaiah were Scripture? Ask a Catholic this and he then will be forced to use the term “Old Testament Church.” This, however, opens up a door that the Catholic best not open.
Mikes’ argument is completely circular. Am I violating sola scriptura to say, for example with reference to the Gospel of Thomas, or some other gnostic writing, of the second century, well, you look at it and you see that it is contradictory to Scripture, and you see that no one has ever believed that it was Scripture, and hence you don't believe that it is Scripture. Is that a violation of sola scriptura? It seems that Mike is saying that it is! Isn't it interesting that the Apostles themselves utilized the very same standards? For example, Paul in recognizing that there is truth outside of Scripture, quotes from pagan philosophers, but no one would think that Paul was, by citing a pagan philosopher, adding it to the canon of Scripture, was he? No. He didn't accept it. On what basis? On what basis did Paul or Peter or any of the others, not accept the Old Testament “Apocrypha and Sacred Writings?” Because Rome said it didn't belong there? Because there was some infallible Old Testament Church? Not at all. They did not utilize the standards Mike does.
I fully agree, thanks for your input...
mopman

United States

#3 Jun 3, 2013
Roger...roger. You Prots do not know zip about how and why your bible comes short. You are lacking.
Roger

Martinsville, VA

#4 Jun 3, 2013
The Catholic man believes in inspiration because the Church tells him so—that is putting it bluntly—and that same Church has the authority to interpret the inspired text.

That is what's being presented to us here on Topix as to what is to replace the Christian recognizing the Scripture as God-breathed and hence accepting God's speaking in His Word and the testimony of Jesus Christ as the ultimate authority? That is what we are to replace that with? I certainly hope no one is willing to do that.

Who is the author of canon? Men or God? Is it Rome or God? Mike keeps saying, "Well, without this infallible authority of THE Church...." Mike, how do you know that Rome is infallible? I can show you fallible, fallible, fallible statements over and over and over again from Roman Pontiffs. They've made many mistakes, and if you are honest you know this to be factual.

Mike’s argument is circular, and goes back to what is used by everyone, and saying,“well, I'm the final authority”, which is really what Rome is claiming. Sad.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#5 Jun 3, 2013
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
I fully agree, thanks for your input...
Bobby: What do you agree with. Be specific.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#6 Jun 3, 2013
So were the Ecumenical Councils which decided the Canon of the New Testament fallible or infallible? And if the Canon is infallible does that make all decisions of the Ecumenical Councils infallible? The answer is yes.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#7 Jun 3, 2013
Roger:

The definition I will use for SS. It is not the definition what Father Luther invented. So SS has be SSed.

Sola Scriptura
Latin for "by the Bible alone." It is an affirmation that the only source of knowledge regarding divine revelation is the Bible, and that there is no church authority established by Christ to correctly interpret it.

None of what you talked about was about SS.

"How do we know its an infallible authority?" Because Jesus said so and every Christian from 32 AD to 1520 AD believed Jesus.

"So God is the one who determined (not determines) Canon" Hmmmm. You can say that is true because whoever hears his Church hears God. Also the Pope is the Vicar of Christ so yes you can say God determined Canon. But it was through his Church he did it. Men got together and chose (voted) on what the inspired word and inerrant written word of God was going to be forever. The Pope declared infallibly it was.

Now you,if you are Christian, and every other Christian agrees that this choice was correct on the NT Canon. The infallibity has been proven.

"The Gospel of Thomas". Since it not part of Canon based on the definition of SS, it does not apply to the Gospel of Thomas or the Shepherd of Hermas or the Didache. Are these inspiring writings? They can be to an individual reader and should be read by serious Christians. Just like the thousands of writings by Catholics since 32 AD. But as to the inerrant word of God, they are not. Interpret however you want. St Augustine wont mind. Many Protestants love one of most greatest Catholics of all time.(They think he was a Protestant).

"The Jewish Man". He knew what the scriptures were by tradition just like the Bible is part of Sacred Tradition. The Bible is not mentioned in he Bible, therefore it is part of Tradition. From Moses on down, formally chosen successors handed down the truth on what scriptures were for the Jewish people. Jesus uses this same method for the successors of the Apostles.

"Apocrypha". Not sure where you are going with this. The apostles accepted the Apocrypha just like the Council of Rome. Father Luther didn't like those and trashed them in 1520.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#8 Jun 3, 2013
Hopefully all of you will one day be able to visit the Lady Chapel at Ely Cathedral. There you will see the end result of Sola Scriptura.

Since: Jan 10

Royse City

#9 Jun 3, 2013
The king of the Catholics said atheist are redeemed.

One error leads to another.

www.roysecitycoc.org
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#10 Jun 3, 2013
Roger wrote:
The Catholic man believes in inspiration because the Church tells him so—that is putting it bluntly—and that same Church has the authority to interpret the inspired text.
That is what's being presented to us here on Topix as to what is to replace the Christian recognizing the Scripture as God-breathed and hence accepting God's speaking in His Word and the testimony of Jesus Christ as the ultimate authority? That is what we are to replace that with? I certainly hope no one is willing to do that.
Who is the author of canon? Men or God? Is it Rome or God? Mike keeps saying, "Well, without this infallible authority of THE Church...." Mike, how do you know that Rome is infallible? I can show you fallible, fallible, fallible statements over and over and over again from Roman Pontiffs. They've made many mistakes, and if you are honest you know this to be factual.
Mike’s argument is circular, and goes back to what is used by everyone, and saying,“well, I'm the final authority”, which is really what Rome is claiming. Sad.
You believe in the Canon in the NT is inspired because the CC infallibly said it was.

Okay you seem to be an expert on Catholic theology. Please show me an infallible statement by a Pope that is wrong. Factually wrong.
Not an authoritative statement, or a dogma, or a doctrine but an infallible statement.

The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth. Do you believe that statement from the Bible? Whoever hears her hears me?

Every Christian since 382 AD has believed The Bible is the inerrant and inspired written word of God, profitable for teaching.

Where in the inspired words of God, does it say a book is the pillar and foundation of truth.

Bible + Tradition + the Magisterium = the CC = The fullness of the truth.

Did you know, other than the canonization of Saints, there have only been 2 infallible statements by Popes in history.

The others have come out of Councils, agreed to by the Vicar of Christ.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#11 Jun 3, 2013
HEATH - 72 wrote:
The king of the Catholics said atheist are redeemed.
One error leads to another.
www.roysecitycoc.org
He is the Vicar of Christ, successor of Peter. Didn't Jesus die for everyone's sins? Are you against that? It is up to the person to believe or be an atheist and go to hell.

Why dont you go to the Union Valley COC?

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#12 Jun 3, 2013
Obviously none of my fans have ever heard of Ely Cathedral much less been there! Well let me tell you that at some point Prots went in and knocked the heads off and desecrated all these incredibly beautiful sculptures...just like the Taliban! The Lady Chapel at Ely Cathedral and the Chapel at Kings College in Cambridge are two of the most extraordinary places I've ever been. But then I don't get out much.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#13 Jun 3, 2013
Will someone PLEASE explain SPAM to this CofC crew?
mopman

United States

#14 Jun 3, 2013
Is this the mighty heath I was compared to. You Prots can't handle the truth. Roger .... hello .....
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#15 Jun 3, 2013
MarkEden wrote:
Will someone PLEASE explain SPAM to this CofC crew?
Spam is a low priced canned precooked meat product. Why live on that when we have gourmet food from heaven that actually feeds the soul.
Dave P

Nicholasville, KY

#16 Jun 3, 2013
mopman wrote:
Is this the mighty heath I was compared to. You Prots can't handle the truth. Roger .... hello .....
Yeah that's him. See the resemblance? His posts are as deep as yours.

Can't handle the truth?#1-I'm not a prot, I have to work. I don't have time to protest.#2- We have to be shown truth in order to "handle it". Catholicism doesn't have truth to show, just their version of the story.
Dave P

Nicholasville, KY

#17 Jun 3, 2013
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
Spam is a low priced canned precooked meat product.
That describes the RCC proselytizing very well.
Mike Peterson

Jackson, MS

#18 Jun 13, 2013
I bumped into this today. An old one but still good. A great description of Sola Scriptura bible talk and denominationism.

http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2012/05/results-... .

This has started since the reformation of the reformation.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#19 Jun 13, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
I bumped into this today. An old one but still good. A great description of Sola Scriptura bible talk and denominationism.
http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2012/05/results-... .
This has started since the reformation of the reformation.
We should notice that it comes from a catholic source, so that must mean it is correct, right? I did not read it though. My point is that I do not trust anything that comes out of the mouth of a catholic when it comes to truth about scripture- it will almost always be twisted.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#20 Jun 13, 2013
By the way catholics, I appreciate all the negative icons I get, must be doing something good, if I rile you that much:-)

Yes, I am one of those awful evangelicals who you hate most... There just is not very much we can agree on.

I say you are teaching a different gospel, that is no small difference.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 7
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Martinsville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Catholics (Feb '14) 2 hr Bobby 1,692
gay marriage in martinsville va 8 hr Bobby 42
0527061598.Dubai Massage Services, Body to Body... Tue sexy girls 3
Have Johnny Robertson and his COC been defeated? (Jan '13) Oct 12 Funny 333
Johnny Robertson (Oct '12) Oct 2 Ernie 124
How can i get a copy of my background check? (Nov '13) Sep 29 Louis Hawkins 3
Are there any free people finder/background che... (Oct '13) Sep 29 Asiagirl 3
Martinsville Dating
Find my Match

Martinsville Jobs

Martinsville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Martinsville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Martinsville

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]