Sola Scriptura - JeffreyLloyd & Aggie03

[JeffreyLloyd]

Two Part Debate - Sola Scriptura

Aggie03 - Supporting the doctrine of Sola Scriptua

JeffreyLloyd - Supporting the doctrine of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.Together


Part One: Support of Scared Tradition and Sacred Scripture Together.

Opening Statement by JeffreyLloyd
Rebuttal by Aggie03

Round One
Affirmative -
Rebuttal -
Round Two
Affirmative -
Rebuttal -
Round Three
Affirmative -
Rebuttal -
Round Four
Affirmative -
Rebuttal -

Closing Statements
Affirmative -
Rebuttal


Part Two: Support of Sola Scriptua

Opening Statement by Aggie03
Rebuttal by JeffreyLloyd

Round One
Affirmative -
Rebuttal -
Round Two
Affirmative -
Rebuttal -
Round Three
Affirmative -
Rebuttal -
Round Four
Affirmative -
Rebuttal -

Closing Statements
Affirmative -
Rebuttal -


Rules agreed on by both Aggie03 and JeffreyLloyd :
-------------
- 8,000 Character limit. At the end of each post, please list your character number.
- Cited all sources
- Three Day limit on relies
- No edits allowed.
- Each post must have relevant content ie. it must stay on-topic, or be a rebuttal.
- Ad hominem and personal attacks are not allowed
- Proper citations must be given. There must be no pliagiarism or copyright violations.

Colossians 4:6 Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person.

Ephesians 4:15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ

Psalm 141:3 Set a guard, O LORD, over my mouth; Keep watch over the door of my lips.

Psalm 19:14 Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart Be acceptable in Your sight, O LORD, my rock and my Redeemer.

Proverbs 12:18 There is one who speaks rashly like the thrusts of a sword, But the tongue of the wise brings healing.
(The next pot will begin the debate).

[JeffreyLloyd]

For the purpose of this debate all scripture I will be quoting is from the New American Bible, unless otherwise noted

Greetings in Christ brothers and sisters! Thank you or taking the time to read this online debate regarding the teaching of Sola Scriptura. For those of you who don't know, Sola Scriptura is the beliefs that the Bible and the Bible alone is the sole guide for a Christian’s faith. This is a belief that began in the 16th century, a good 1,500+ years after the birth of Christ!

I repeat a simple question that all Catholic Apologists ask when talking about Sola Scriptura, and it is a question every Christian must ask them selves during this debate.

"Is the doctrine of 'Scripture Alone', a real restoration of biblical truth, or was it rather the promulgation of an individual’s personal view on Christian authority?"

I plan to answer that question in the course of our two part debate, along the way; I plan on pointing out the many, many flaws of this man made belief. Scripture is not on the side of Sola Scriptura. The idea is so foreign to Sacred Scripture the Bible flat out rejects it in favor of the historic Catholic teaching of Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition. And that is what I plan on focusing on during this phase of our debate.

(1, 050 Characters)

[aggie03]

It is both my great pleasure and honor to be a participant in this discussion with JefferyLloyd concerning where we may look for our religious authority, whether we are to turn to the Bible or to place Roman Catholic Traditions on equal footing with the word of God. It is my hope and sincerest intention that as we come together to search through the Scriptures, that we do so with a sincere and an honest heart, letting the word of God speak for itself as it is so capable of doing. Indeed, if you are viewing this post, regardless of your point of view or opinion as to the subject at hand, I invite you to take out your Bible and read through the verses that are presented, judging thereby with righteous judgment upon the sum of God’s word as to what it teaches.

During the course of this discussion that I will spend as the negative presenter, I plan on using several different translations of the Bible in order to critically compare various versions. I have purposely chosen 3 different Catholic translations among these. They will be as follows: The Jerusalem Bible (TJB), New American Bible (NAB), Douay-Rheims Bible (DRB), American Standard Version, New American Standard Version (NASB), Interlinear Greek-English New Testament (IGNT), and the King James Version (KJV).

There is a phrase I would like to acquaint the audience with before we begin: “Imprimatur”, meaning “let it be printed”. No book may be printed by a Catholic printer, sold by a Catholic bookseller, or even be read by a Catholic unless it has received the imprimatur of a Catholic bishop, archbishop or cardinal. “No book treating on religion (de rebus sacris) can be published till it has been examined by the bishop’s orders and received his imprimatur” (Cath. Dic. Addis, 85). I have read in many places, both Catholic sources and not (someone even has this as part of their signature here on the forums), that Catholic critics lack knowledge of real catholic teachings. In the words of Catholic Bishop John Hughes, “In fact, it is impossible for me to misrepresent when I only repeat their own words.” I will to the best of my ability let the Catholic writers represent Catholicism for me, using their own words. Any time that I quote from a work, that to my knowledge, is either not Scripture or has not received an imprimatur I will make note.

I would also like to make a note that any argumentation that I present against Catholicism is not intended as an attack on JefferyLloyd or any other individual reading this discussion that happens to be Catholic. Because of the claims that the Catholic denomination makes - that it is the Church that Christ established, that She is the sole authority for interpretation, that Her head is the vicar of Christ, that She is infallible (just to mention a few) – it becomes absolutely necessary to test these things against the Bible, history, and Her own writings. According to Catholic bishop Noll “…if it be not identical in belief, in government, etc. with the primitive Church, then it is not the Church of Christ” (Catholic Facts, 27). When I call into question any certain thing about Catholicism, in no way am I questioning the integrity, the sincerity, the honesty of JefferyLloyd or any other person, but rather that of Catholicism itself. I have had the pleasure of exchanging posts with JefferyLloyd several times and am looking forward to the upcoming because of his politeness, gentleness and willingness to discuss. It bears repeating, it is an honor for me to be able to partake in this discussion.

For those of you who don't know, Sola Scriptura is the beliefs that the Bible and the Bible alone is the sole guide for a Christian’s faith. This is a belief that began in the 16th century, a good 1,500+ years after the birth of Christ!

In response to this, I would like to offer a very brief history that will be expounded upon later should the opportunity arise:

I. New Testament Period

- Paganism was the popular religion and was supported from the public treasury. Because it was simple and often persecuted, Christianity remained untainted by any who would use religion as a means of personal advancement.

- The items of Christian worship are few and very simple. There is nothing that appeals to pride and vainglory. On each Lord’s day there was singing without the accompaniment of instruments, prayer, the Lord’s Supper, and a contribution.

- The church government of the period was very simple, no vast hierarchy or elections of pontiffs existed. Every local congregation was an independent unit. There were two kinds of “officers”, elders (or bishops) and deacons. The elders were superior officers to the deacons, and all elders were on perfect equality with one another. These elders were always married and had children who believed.

- No distinction between clergy and laity, all were simply Christians. There were no denominations and all Christians constituted one body.

II. Human Creeds (Commandments of Men)

- No creed except the sacred writings until 325 AD when the Nicene creed was formulated and an attempt was made to bind it upon all Christians.

- Writers of this creed show themselves to be unsatisfied with the Scriptures which had been the only creed for millions who had lived and died up to this time as Christians. With the new creed came a new party, requiring a new name. This is the origin of the name “Catholic”. Now two distinct bodies – those who held to the creed designating themselves by the name “catholic”, and those who were still content with the Scriptures and the name it authorized.

- Soon after first creed force started being used in order to compel conformity

- Constantine, the driving force behind the council of Nicea, becomes emperor and as others were Pontifex Maximus of paganism, after embracing nominal Christianity, Constantine retains that title.

- Emperor was protector of the state religion. Paganism is now persecuted. Unconverted pagans flock into the “church” by the thousands, all clamoring for their time honored “traditions”. The natural consequence of such actions would be a hybrid religion that begins to become more like heathenism and less like Christianity.

This in part historical outline was addressed merely to discount JL’s claim that the Bible was not the sole authority for the first Christians. It is rather just the opposite of what he has claimed. The word of God was and is the sole authority - for traditions and commandments of men were not added until 300 years later!

I repeat a simple question that all Catholic Apologists ask when talking about Sola Scriptura, and it is a question every Christian must ask them selves during this debate.

"Is the doctrine of 'Scripture Alone', a real restoration of biblical truth, or was it rather the promulgation of an individual’s personal view on Christian authority?"

I, in Socratic manner, will propose another question :). Are the traditions of the Catholic denomination real Biblical truth, or are they merely the promulgation of manmade traditions and falsehoods that were added throughout the years?

This was the first time in my exchanges with a Catholic where I have heard the term “Catholic Apologist”. This brings a very interesting point to light, which I will pursue as material is presented in greater detail through this half of the discussion. Why would you apologize for a denomination? Ought you not to apologize for Christ? If you apologize for Christ Biblically and the truths of that apology align with the things you believe then you can know that you are apologizing as a Christian, in Christ’s Church. If we start changing what the Bible says in order to fit doctrines and commandments of men, then we are no longer apologizing for Christ, but for a manmade religion.

I plan to answer that question in the course of our two part debate, along the way; I plan on pointing out the many, many flaws of this man made belief.

You will first have to prove that all of the traditions that the Roman Catholic denomination issues and upholds are not manmade ;).

Scripture is not on the side of Sola Scriptura. The idea is so foreign to Sacred Scripture the Bible flat out rejects it in favor of the historic Catholic teaching of Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition.

The word of God does support the idea that the Bible is all that we need. Catholic traditions and Catholic literature might teach otherwise, but this is not the word of God, but rather the work of uninspired men promulgating the commandments and doctrines of men. Therefore I stand upon the word of God that the Bible alone is our sole authority and not the traditions of the Catholic denomination.

{7,839 characters}

[JeffreyLloyd]

I grew up a hardcore Protestant. I loved reading and learning about the Reformation and Martin Luther. I used to have his 95 theses nailed to my front bedroom door :(

However, when I began more intense studying of the Catholic Church I started thinking about the Bible and just how it came to be. I always just assumed it was the inspired words of God. I didn’t question that fact, I just accepted Sacred Scripture as just that, Sacred.

But as I stated to see the Catholic Churches claim as regarding scripture I started asking myself a question:What came first: The Church or the Bible?

The Bible did not fall out of heaven with a complete canon for all Christians to read at the start of church history.

The Church wrote the Bible under the inspiration of Almighty God: The Israelites as the Old Testament Church (“pre-Catholics”) and the early Catholic Church as the New Testament Church.

So as we go back to the New Testament we see something happening. The Apostles were passing on Sacred Apostolic Traditions orally. That’s take a look at some verses that prove this out.

As we see in the pages of the New Testament, Christ gives certain primacy to the teachings of His Church and it’s declaration in His name. For example, in Matthew 28:20 we see Our Lord commissioning the Apostles to go and teach in His name, making disciples of all nations.

”He said to them, "Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature.” - Mark 16:15

In Mark 16:15 we see the Apostles were commanded to go and proclaim the gospel to all the world, and to “every creature.” But Jesus did not want this proclaiming and His preaching to stop after the apostles died, and yet the Bible was not compiled until four centuries later. The word of God was transferred orally.

He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me." – Luke 10:16 -NKJV-

Let’s also look at Luke 10:16, we see that whoever hears the seventy-two hears our Lord. These facts are very interesting, as no where do we see Our Lord commissioning His Apostles to evangelize the world by writing in His name – No where.

“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.” - Mark 13:31

Heaven and earth will pass away, but Jesus' Word will not pass away. But Jesus never says anything about His Word being entirely committed to a book. Also, it took 400 years to compile the Bible, and another 1,000 years to invent the printing press. How was the Word of God communicated? Orally, by the bishops of the Church, with the protection of the Holy Spirit.

“Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you--unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. fter that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time. For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.” – -NKJV- 1 Cor. 15:1-11

I love this chapter of first Corinthians. Here Saint Paul tells us faith comes from what is "preached" (not read). For people to argue that oral tradition once existed but exists no longer, they must prove this from Scripture. But no where does Scripture say oral tradition died with the apostles. To the contrary, Scripture says the oral word abides forever!

Just before Saint Paul dies he makes sure of this in the next verse we will read:

“I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingly power: preach the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching.

For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths. But you, be self-possessed in all circumstances; put up with hardship; perform the work of an evangelist; fulfill your ministry.

For I am already being poured out like a libation, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have competed well; I have finished the race; I have kept the faith. - 2 Tim 4:1-7 “

Here is Saint Paul, at the end of his life, charging Timothy to preach (not write) the Word. Oral teaching does not die with St. Paul.

”They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers.” – Acts 2:42

The Christians here obeyed apostolic tradition (doctrine, prayers, and the breaking of bread). Their obedience was not to the Scriptures alone. Tradition (in Greek, "paradosis") means "to hand on" teaching.

Other verses too speak of hearing and not reading is the way the Gospel of Jesus Christ was passed on are

Ephesians 1:13 - Colossians 1:5 - 1 Thess. 2:13 - 2 Tim. 1:13 - 2 Tim 4:2,6-7
Titus 1:3 - 1 Peter 1:25 - 2 Peter 1:12, 15 - 2 John 1:12; - 3 John 13 - Joel 1:3

We can see from the above Scriptures that Sacred Tradition was passed on orally in the New Testament.

Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They do not wash (their) hands when they eat a meal." He said to them in reply, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and 'Whoever curses father or mother shall die.' But you say, 'Whoever says to father or mother, "Any support you might have had from me is dedicated to God, "need not honor his father.' You have nullified the word of God for the sake of your tradition. Hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy about you when he said: 'This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. – Matthew 15:1-8

Let’s get this out of the way now. Many Protestants, (those who support Sola Scriptura) point to this scripture in the Gospel of Saint Matthew as proof that Sacred Tradition is against God’s will. Nothing could be further from the truth. All these verses do is how us there are two kinds of traditions: good and bad.

Here Christ condemns human traditions that void God's word. This verse in no way condemns all tradition. This verse has nothing to do with the tradition we must obey that was handed down to us from the apostles. (Here, the Pharisees, in their human tradition, gave goods to the temple to avoid taking care of their parents, and this voids God's law of honoring one's father and mother.)

We see the same event happening in Mark 7:9 as in the start of Matthew 15 - there is a distinction between human tradition (that we should reject) and apostolic tradition (that we must accept).

So it is clear that some tradition is bad. Now does the scripture indeicate that any tradition is good?

Yes! Perhaps the clearest Biblical support of Sacred Tradition is found in 2 Thessalonians 2:14-15, where we as Christians are actually commanded:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.”

How clearer can you get – it said by word (Sacred Tradition) or by our epistle (Sacred Scripture)! This passage is very important in that:

1) It shows the existence of living tradition within the Apostolic teaching.
2) It tells us unequivocally that believers are firmly grounded in the Faith by adhering to these traditions, and
3) It clearly states that the traditions were both written and oral.

We must also consider the text in this passage. We must also consider the text in this passage. The Greek word krateite, here translated “hold,” means “to be strong, mighty, to prevail.”(Vine, op. cit.,, page 564). This language is rather empathic, and it demonstrates the importance of maintaining these traditions.

Of course we I should differentiate between Tradition (upper-case “T”) that is part of divine Revelation, on the other hand, and, on the other, Church traditions (lower case “t”) that, although good, have developed in the Church later and are not part of the Deposit of Faith. An example of something that is part of Tradition is infant Baptism; an example of Church tradition would be the calendar of fest days for saints. Anything that is part of Tradition is of divine origin and hence unchangeable, while Church tradition are very much changeable when the Church sees fit.

It should be noted that Protestants accuse Catholics of promoting “unbiblical,” or “novel” doctrines based on Tradition, asserting that such Tradition contains doctrines which or foreign to the Bible. However, this assertion is wholly untrue. The Catholic Church teaches that Sacred Tradition contains nothing whatsoever that is contrary to the Bible, and I am ready to back up that claim if need be in the course of this debate. Even some Catholic apologists insist that there is nothing in Sacred Tradition which is also not found in Sacred Scripture, at least implicitly or in seminal form.

Certainly the two are at least in perfect harmony and always support each other. For some doctrines, the Church draws more from Tradition then from Scripture for its understanding, but even those doctrines, the Church draws more from Sacred Tradition then from Sacred Scripture for its understanding, but often these doctrines are often hinted at or implied in Sacred Scripture. For example the following are largely based on Sacred Tradition:

Infant Baptism
Canon of Scripture
Mary’s Perpetual Virginity
Lord’s Day
Mary’s Assumption


…Because of the claims that the Catholic denomination

Are the traditions of the Catholic denomination real Biblical truth,

You will first have to prove that all of the traditions that the Roman Catholic denomination issues

Here at least three times you call the Catholic Church a “denomination.” Just for the record, I don’t beleive the Catholic Church is a denomination. I believe it is Christ’s Church - denomination are all the churches that broke away from it.

Now I know you disagree, however you do say in your profile at Christian Forms under the denomination section:

There is only one church, no denominations

If you really believe that, why do you use the word with my church? Is calling the Catholic Church a denominations a way of giving it less creditability?

- The church government of the period was very simple, no vast hierarchy or elections of pontiffs existed. Every local congregation was an independent unit. There were two kinds of “officers”, elders (or bishops) and deacons. The elders were superior officers to the deacons, and all elders were on perfect equality with one another. These elders were always married and had children who believed.

I must disagree with the above statement and correct you. There have always been three ranks of clergy: bishops, priests, and deacons. This is the same as it is today in the Catholic Church.

(1 Tim. 5:19–22; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:5, 1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15, Acts 6:1–6).

Although the terms "bishop," "priest," and "deacon" were somewhat fluid in the apostolic age, by the beginning of the second century they had achieved the fixed form in which they are used today to designate the three offices whose functions are clearly distinct in the New Testament.

Significant are the letters of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who traveled from his home city to Rome, where he was executed around A.D. 110. On the way he wrote letters to the churches he passed. Each of these churches possessed the same threefold ministry. Without this threefold ministry, Ignatius said, a group cannot be called a church.” (Copyright © 1979-2003, Catholic Answers).

Ignatius of Antioch in the year AD 110

"Take care, therefore, to be confirmed in the decrees of the Lord and of the apostles, in order that in everything you do, you may prosper in body and in soul, in faith and in love, in Son and in Father and in Spirit, in beginning and in end, together with your most reverend bishop; and with that fittingly woven spiritual crown, the presbytery; and with the deacons, men of God. Be subject to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was subject to the Father, and the apostles were subject to Christ and to the Father; so that there may be unity in both body and spirit" (ibid., 13:1–2).

"I cried out while I was in your midst, I spoke with a loud voice, the voice of God: ‘Give heed to the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons.’ " (Letter to the Philadelphians 7:1–2 [A.D. 110]).


- No distinction between clergy and laity, all were simply Christians. There were no denominations and all Christians constituted one body.
.
This is obviously incorrect, as the above quotes prove. Not to mention scripture 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph. 3:7


II. Human Creeds (Commandments of Men)

- No creed except the sacred writings until 325 AD when the Nicene creed was formulated and an attempt was made to bind it upon all Christians.

- Writers of this creed show themselves to be unsatisfied with the Scriptures which had been the only creed for millions who had lived and died up to this time as Christians. With the new creed came a new party, requiring a new name. This is the origin of the name “Catholic”. Now two distinct bodies – those who held to the creed designating themselves by the name “catholic”, and those who were still content with the Scriptures and the name it authorized.

This is beyond reason. The word “Catholic” was used to describe the true followers of Christ since as early as AD 110

Bishop Ignatius of Antioch, who was a Student of the Apostle St. John, said

"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

There are many more, but due to my limited space I think Bishop Ignatius is enough to see that aggie03’s conclusion is false.

This in part historical outline was addressed merely to discount JL’s claim that the Bible was not the sole authority for the first Christians. It is rather just the opposite of what he has claimed. The word of God was and is the sole authority - for traditions and commandments of men were not added until 300 years later!

How is this so? All Church historians agree that we got the New Testament from the Council of Hippo in 393 and the Council of Carthage in 397! Both times, the results were sent to the Bishop of Rome for his approval. Once the Pope gave them his seal of approval, those books became scripture and those very same book are what make up the Protestant New Testament. All absent for some 350+ years after the death of Christ - where none of those early Catholics saved because we had no NT? Of course not!

I, in Socratic manner, will propose another question :). Are the traditions of the Catholic denomination real Biblical truth, or are they merely the promulgation of manmade traditions and falsehoods that were added throughout the years?

Biblical Truth.

(7,762)

[aggie03]

But as I stated to see the Catholic Churches claim as regarding scripture I started asking myself a question:What came first: The Church or the Bible?

We are not dealing with what came first, but where does the authority lie. The word that church is derived from, εκκλησία (ekklesia), means “the called out”. The Church is the universal collection of saints, of Christians, not a governing body. The question which came first is not important. There were Christians before the revelation of God’s word was complete, but where does the authority lie? Does it lie with men, or with God?

The Bible did not fall out of heaven with a complete canon for all Christians to read at the start of church history.

No it didn’t. The word of God was slowly revealed through time until the final stroke of the New Testament was recorded. You have to take into account that the Apostles were given revelation over time.

Hebrews 1:1-2 ASV

God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners, (2) hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds

God has spoken to us through Christ. Let’s see how Christ then has revealed to us what God has said.

Ephesians 3:1-7 NAB

Because of this, I, Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles – (2) if, as I suppose, you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for your benefit, (3) namely, that the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly earlier. (4) When you read this you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, (5) which was not made known to human beings in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy Apostles and prophets by the Spirit, (6) that the Gentiles are coheirs, members of the same body, and copartners in the promise in Christ through the gospel.

God revealed things through His Apostles and prophets. What did God reveal? Look at the first dark orange passage: the mystery. This doesn’t mean mystery like in “a murder mystery”, but rather something which before hand was hidden. Revealed to the Apostles and prophets was the mystery of Christ, of the God-head, of all that was necessary for one to know in order to become a Christian and live faithfully – namely the gospel of Christ.

Now I want all to pay special attention to the red section. Paul notes that he has written things down before, which JefferyLloyd has claimed was not a command for the Apostles. If this is so, Paul was disobedient in writing to them. Writing is included in the command “proclaim”. Here is the important part, however – Paul says that by reading what he has written THEY COULD UNDERSTAND the mystery which was revealed to Paul. This means that it could be done in a written fashion, without the need for oral communication.

The Church wrote the Bible under the inspiration of Almighty God

The Church, again, is nothing more than all of the saints. The Church did not write the Bible, the Apostles wrote the letters which comprise the New Testament and the Jewish prophets wrote the books of the Old Testament.

The Apostles were passing on Sacred Apostolic Traditions orally. That’s take a look at some verses that prove this out.

The word hear does not only mean “to perceive or apprehend by the ear”, but it also means “to take testimony from” (Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language). This is a much more fitting definition, especially when we consider the context of Luke 10:16:

Luke 10:16 ASV

He that heareth you heareth me; and he that rejecteth you rejecteth me; and he that rejecteth me rejecteth him that sent me.

How can one reject the aural reception of a sound wave? This is not what Christ meant by this saying. Christ meant that he who would accept the testimony of the Apostles, which we now have in written form, accepted the testimony of Christ.

In Mark 16:15 we see the Apostles were commanded to go and proclaim the gospel to all the world, and to “every creature.” But Jesus did not want this proclaiming and His preaching to stop after the apostles died, and yet the Bible was not compiled until four centuries later. The word of God was transferred orally.

We have just read earlier from a Catholic translation of the Bible that Paul had written letters which he intended to explain the mystery that had been revealed to him. This was Paul writing down the word of God.

These facts are very interesting, as no where do we see Our Lord commissioning His Apostles to evangelize the world by writing in His name – No where.

Ephesians 3:1-7

Also, it took 400 years to compile the Bible, and another 1,000 years to invent the printing press. How was the Word of God communicated? Orally, by the bishops of the Church, with the protection of the Holy Spirit.

Are you denying the ability of human beings to copy things by hand? As the revelation was received from God, through the Holy Spirit, it was recorded in letters which could then be copied and sent to other places. The printing press was not necessary for this. The Bible was also compiled before the Synod of Hippo in AD 393:

“Polycarp (115 AD), Clement of Alexandria (c. 200 AD) and other early writers refer to the New Testament books with the phrase ‘as it is said in these scriptures’.” (Ready Defense, Josh McDowell)

“And on the day called Sunday there is a gathering together to one place of all those who live in the cities or in the country, and the memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits.” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, c. 150 AD)

“Again it is not tedious to speak of the books of the New Testament. These are the four gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles, seven viz. of James one; of Peter two; of John three; after these one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these two to the Thessalonians; and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.” (Athanasius, L, 552) (367 AD)

These quotes are sufficient to prove that the books of the Bible were known as the word of God, quoted from and used for instruction prior to the Synod of Hippo. The Catholic denomination did not give us the Bible – God did.


For people to argue that oral tradition once existed but exists no longer, they must prove this from Scripture. But no where does Scripture say oral tradition died with the apostles. To the contrary, Scripture says the oral word abides forever!

You are putting words into the Scriptures through your interpretation that are not there. The Scriptures say that the word of God abides forever. Paul wrote the word of God down with the intention that one could read from it and learn. The letters which were written could also be read aloud. Most of the people did not actually read the letters that were written, but heard them spoken. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16) whether heard or read.

Here is Saint Paul, at the end of his life, charging Timothy to preach (not write) the Word. Oral teaching does not die with St. Paul.

Timothy was a preacher. He tried to convert people to Christianity. It would be ridiculous to assume that he had to write letters to every single person he tried to convert – of course he preached! There are preachers today! This in no way supports what you are trying to prove.

The Christians here obeyed apostolic tradition (doctrine, prayers, and the breaking of bread). Their obedience was not to the Scriptures alone.

Not quite correct. Now it is important to discern where the authority for these traditions comes. The Apostles’ teaching came from God. Any tradition that is now outside of the word which was revealed through the Apostles is outside of the Bible and a tradition of man. This is what many of the Catholic traditions are, and until they can be found in the Bible, they cannot be Apostolic.

Jude 1:3 ASV

Beloved, while I was giving all diligence to write unto you of our common salvation, I was constrained to write unto you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints.

If the faith has already been delivered at this point, anything extra is outside of it. If it can’t be found in the Bible, it’s not part of the faith.

All these verses do is how us there are two kinds of traditions: good and bad.

There’s a reason why this verse is used :). This verse shows there are things which God commands and things which men command.

Here Christ condemns human traditions that void God's word. This verse in no way condemns all tradition. This verse has nothing to do with the tradition we must obey that was handed down to us from the apostles. (Here, the Pharisees, in their human tradition, gave goods to the temple to avoid taking care of their parents, and this voids God's law of honoring one's father and mother.)

The sum of God’s word also condemns anything that cannot be found in the Bible.

Leviticus 10:1-2 ASV

And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took each of them his censer, and put fire therein, and laid incense thereon, and offered strange fire before Jehovah, which he had not commanded them. (2) And there came forth fire from before Jehovah, and devoured them, and they died before Jehovah.

God wants us to do only what is commanded. Couple this with Jude 3. God wants us to do only what has been delivered to us. Anything outside of the Bible is unacceptable.

How clearer can you get – it said by word (Sacred Tradition) or by our epistle (Sacred Scripture)! This passage is very important in that:

1) It shows the existence of living tradition within the Apostolic teaching.
2) It tells us unequivocally that believers are firmly grounded in the Faith by adhering to these traditions, and
3) It clearly states that the traditions were both written and oral.

Acts 20:20,27 ASV

]how I shrank not from declaring unto you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly, and from house to house, (27) For I shrank not from declaring unto you the whole counsel of God.

Anything not taught by the Apostles is not profitable, and since they declared the whole counsel of God nothing was reserved till later ages.

This language is rather empathic, and it demonstrates the importance of maintaining these traditions.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 ASV

Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. (17) That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.

The New Testament, which is Scripture inspired by God, is all that is necessary in order that the man of God may be complete. It holds all the teachings of the Apostles.

Of course we I should differentiate between Tradition (upper-case “T”) that is part of divine Revelation, on the other hand, and, on the other, Church traditions (lower case “t”) that, although good, have developed in the Church later and are not part of the Deposit of Faith.

If they’re not contained in the Bible, then they are of men no matter what they’re called.

Even some Catholic apologists insist that there is nothing in Sacred Tradition which is also not found in Sacred Scripture, at least implicitly or in seminal form.

I would like to take this time to remind you of what Bishop Noll said:

”If it be not identical in belief, in government etc. with the primitive Church, then it is not the Church of Christ.”

For something to be in seminal it means that it was added later from what was previously believed. This would make whatever organization that taught this “not the Church of Christ.”

Infant Baptism
Canon of Scripture
Mary’s Perpetual Virginity
Lord’s Day
Mary’s Assumption

3 of these are in direct contradiction with the Scriptures, and one, Catholicism had nothing to do with (#2).


If you really believe that, why do you use the word with my church? Is calling the Catholic Church a denominations a way of giving it less creditability?

I call’em how I see’em :). Bishop Noll said that exact same thing. “If it be not identical…not the Church of Christ.”

I must disagree with the above statement and correct you. There have always been three ranks of clergy: bishops, priests, and deacons.

“The words ‘priest’, ‘priesthood’ are never applied in the New Testament to the office of the Christian (Catholic, Aggie03) Ministry. All Christians are said to be priests (1 Peter 2:5-9. Apoc. v.10).” (Cath. Dic., 692)

“The priesthood evolved” (Cath. Ency., XII, 406, 415)

“If it be not identical…not the Church of Christ.” Evolved would mandate a change.

There are many more, but due to my limited space I think Bishop Ignatius is enough to see that aggie03’s conclusion is false.

Katholikos (catholic) means universal. I agree there is a universal Church of Christ. Catholic, the denomination, started in 325 AD.

How is this so? All Church historians agree that we got the New Testament from the Council of Hippo in 393 and the Council of Carthage in 397!

See previous proofs against this.

Please Remember, I am not attacking JefferyLloyd or anyone else, but rather the RC institution and it's false doctrines. I am privileged, as said before, to be in this discussion with JefferyLloyd.

{7,904}

[JeffreyLloyd]

First, before I begin I am sorry this is so late. A lot of things have been going on in my life and I am very sorry. Please forgive me Aggie and all the readers :sorry:


As I begin Round Two, I want to remind you what I am trying to accomplish, I want you to see and recognize, while the Bible is 100% the infallible words of God, we must never forget how the Bible came to be! God set up a Church to pass down these teachings through the generations. It is this Church that produced the Sacred Scriptures we call the Bible and it is this Church, guided by God, the Holy Sprit that has the sole authority to interrupt them.

Let’s review what we have so far.

- I have shown you that Sola Scriptura, is a man made doctrine invented in the 16th century (1,500+ after Christ established the Catholic Church) as away to break people away from God’s Church Christ!

- The Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ in the Gospel of Saint Matthew came produced the Bible.

- Once the books of the Bible were collected, the Bishop of Rome (who we call the Pope) approved them.

- We are told by Saint Paul himself in Thessalonians 2:14-15, that the Bible Alone is NOT the only way a Christian should live, but by: ”the traditions which you have learned, whether by word (Sacred Tradition), or by our epistle (Sacred Scripture).

- The true Church Jesus Christ founded was called “Catholic” as early as AD 110 by Bishop Ignatius of Antioch


Now I would like to go into more reasons why we should reject the man made doctrine of Sola Scriptura in favor of the Biblical teaching of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (Thessalonians 2:14-15).

Matthew 2:23

In the gospel of St. Matthew we see:

and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene." niv

Here we have a prophecy "He will be called a Nazarene," it is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition and not scriptures alone.

Matthew 23:2

”The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.”

Jesus relies on oral sacred tradition of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

1 Corinthians 7:10

”To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.” niv

Here we have Saint Paul leaning on the oral sacred tradition of the apostles to give the charge of Jesus that a wife should not separate from her husband.

Corinthians 10:4
and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

St. Paul relies on the oral sacred tradition of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.

Ephesians 5: 14
“for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said:
"Wake up, O sleeper,
rise from the dead,
and Christ will shine on you." niv
St. Paul relies on oral sacred tradition to quote an early Christian hymn.

Hebrews 11:37

”They were stoned; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated” niv
The author of Hebrews relies on oral sacred tradition of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded anywhere in the Old Testament. So again we see St. Paul not relying on Scripture Alone.

Jude 9

But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" niv

St. Jude relies on oral sacred tradition of the Archangel Michael's dispute with Satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament.

Jude 14-15
“Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: "See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him."” niv

Jude relies on the oral sacred tradition of Enoch's prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament. *

We just saw eight instances where Apostles used Oral Sacred Tradition to explain things. They were not minor things. Here they went outside of Sacred Scripture and used Tradition. Not the tradition of man, but the Tradition of God. We call this Sacred Tradition. It is the same Sacred Tradition St. Paul tells us to keep in 2 Thessalonians 2:14-15:

He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.


We are not dealing with what came first, but where does the authority lie.

I believe the two go hand in hand. It is important to figure out what came first. The Church Christ established wrote the Bible. And that Church has the sole authority to interrupt the Bible.

The word that church is derived from, εκκλησία (ekklesia), means “the called out”. The Church is the universal collection of saints, of Christians, not a governing body.

I disagree again. Jesus said his Church would be "the light of the world." He then noted that "a city set on a hill cannot be hid" (Matt. 5:14). This means his Church is a visible organization. It must have characteristics that clearly identify it and that distinguish it from other churches. Jesus promised, "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). This means that his Church will never be destroyed and will never fall away from him. His Church will survive until his return.**

The Church, again, is nothing more than all of the saints. The Church did not write the Bible, the Apostles wrote the letters which comprise the New Testament and the Jewish prophets wrote the books of the Old Testament.

The Apostles as their first members of the Catholic Church wrote the Bible. We can see when we look back at history the very first Christians were Catholic.

Are you denying the ability of human beings to copy things by hand? As the revelation was received from God, through the Holy Spirit, it was recorded in letters which could then be copied and sent to other places. The printing press was not necessary for this. The Bible was also compiled before the Synod of Hippo in AD 393:

“Polycarp (115 AD), Clement of Alexandria (c. 200 AD) and other early writers refer to the New Testament books with the phrase ‘as it is said in these scriptures’.” (Ready Defense, Josh McDowell)
“And on the day called Sunday there is a gathering together to one place of all those who live in the cities or in the country, and the memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits.” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, c. 150 AD)

“Again it is not tedious to speak of the books of the New Testament. These are the four gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles, seven viz. of James one; of Peter two; of John three; after these one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these two to the Thessalonians; and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.” (Athanasius, L, 552) (367 AD)

These quotes are sufficient to prove that the books of the Bible were known as the word of God, quoted from and used for instruction prior to the Synod of Hippo. The Catholic denomination did not give us the Bible – God did.

Not true, because what books were those great Christians reading? Besides the quote from St. Athanasius, (of one great Confessors and Doctors of the Church) we see Christians before Hippo also using books that we don’t recognized as inspired scripture like the Gospel of Thomas, 1st or 2nd Clement, The Didache, or even Polycarp's Epistle.

The Catholic Church, lead by the Holy Spirit settled the matter.

The sum of God’s word also condemns anything that cannot be found in the Bible.

Leviticus 10:1-2 ASV

And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took each of them his censer, and put fire therein, and laid incense thereon, and offered strange fire before Jehovah, which he had not commanded them. (2) And there came forth fire from before Jehovah, and devoured them, and they died before Jehovah.

God wants us to do only what is commanded. Couple this with Jude 3. God wants us to do only what has been delivered to us. Anything outside of the Bible is unacceptable.

Now that is twisting scriptures. We know for a FACT, Jesus did things outside of Sacred Scripture. See John 21:25
There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 ASV

Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. (17) That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.

The New Testament, which is Scripture inspired by God, is all that is necessary in order that the man of God may be complete. It holds all the teachings of the Apostles.
The Bible is perfect, I agree with that.
I would like to take this time to remind you of what Bishop Noll said:

”If it be not identical in belief, in government etc. with the primitive Church, then it is not the Church of Christ.”
I’m not sure who Bishop Knoll, is but I disagree with him.


[QUOTE=Jeffreylloyd]Infant Baptism
Canon of Scripture
Mary’s Perpetual Virginity
Lord’s Day
Mary’s Assumption[quote]
3 of these are in direct contradiction with the Scriptures, and one, Catholicism had nothing to do with (#2). [quote]
None of those are in contradiction of scriptures.

[QUOTE=aggie03] Katholikos (catholic) means universal. I agree there is a universal Church of Christ. Catholic, the denomination, started in 325 AD.

I’m sorry, it began when Jesus gave St. Peter the keys to the kingdom and made him our first pope.


(7,982)

*scripturecatholic.com
** Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth, Catholic Answers

[aggie03]

As we finish round two, I would like to remind all who read this debate that Jeffery Lloyd has not only burdened himself with trying to prove that the Bible alone is insufficient for guiding us unto all good works, but that he must prove that the bulk of what Roman Catholicism teaches is necessary.

Let’s review what we have so far.
- I have shown you that Sola Scriptura, is a man made doctrine invented in the 16th century (1,500+ after Christ established the Catholic Church) as away to break people away from God’s Church Christ!
- The Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ in the Gospel of Saint Matthew came produced the Bible.
- Once the books of the Bible were collected, the Bishop of Rome (who we call the Pope) approved them.
- We are told by Saint Paul himself in Thessalonians 2:14-15, that the Bible Alone is NOT the only way a Christian should live, but by: ”the traditions which you have learned, whether by word (Sacred Tradition), or by our epistle (Sacred Scripture).
- The true Church Jesus Christ founded was called “Catholic” as early as AD 110 by Bishop Ignatius of AntiochNone of these have been proven, merely presented. And they have been challenged, if not refuted.

I feel it necessary at this time to look at the history of Catholic forgeries, so as to shed some light on the foundation which my fellow presenter stands. This is not an attack against JefferyLloyd.

”Substituting of false documents and tampering with genuine ones was quite a trade in the Middle Ages.” (Catholic Encyclopedia VI, 136)

To what extent can we find forgeries in the Catholic literature?

So often met with – Cath, Ency. VI, 136
Many writings – Outline of Dog. Theol., II, 564
A great many – Cath. Ency. IV, 14
prolific in forgeries – Com. Augustine, I, 27
rife with fabrications – Com. Augustine, I, 23
a large number of forgeries – Cath. Ency. IV, 544
Alleged instances from earlier times – Cath. Ency. XIV, 378

What was the purpose of these forgeries?

Plainly for the purpose of deceiving – Cath. Ency. V, 14
Secure the authority of the Roman Pontiff – Com. Augustine, I, 25
Defend hierarchy – “
Against heretics – Cath. Ency. V, 16
To supply documents – Dic., 388
Create impression … time of Apostles – Cath. Ency. V, 14
To describe many practices as Apostolic – “
Produce alleged instances from earlier times – Cath. Ency XIV, 378
Exalt power of Pope – Cath. Dic., 338
More centralization – Com. Augustine, I, 25
Defend hierarchy in all degrees – Com. Augusting, I, 26
The writer wished to be thought to belong to the preceding generation (Hermas) – Cath. Ency. VII, 270
When did these forgeries take place? (I’ll only cite a few examples, more are available)
(Century of Forgery – Title of Work – Admission of Forgery)

2 – Epistle of Barnabas – Cath. Ency. II, 299-300 (also appears in Codex Sinaiticus 4th Century)
4 – Apostle’s Creed – Cath. Ency. I, 629-630 said to be “unhistorical” “legend” AND “ex Cathedra”
4 – Apostolic Church Ordinance – Cath. Ency. I, 635
5 – Apostolic Canons (85 Canons) – Dic. 41-41; Cath. Ency. III, 280

From the very beginning there are forgeries that have been used to support doctrines and ideas that we now find within Catholic teachings, but nowhere within the Scriptures. These doctrines are false, and they are based on falsified documents. Let’s look at a quote from Ignatius that JL used to try and prove a point:

Significant are the letters of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who traveled from his home city to Rome, where he was executed around A.D. 110. On the way he wrote letters to the churches he passed. Each of these churches possessed the same threefold ministry. Without this threefold ministry, Ignatius said, a group cannot be called a church.”

Can we believe this? Is this to be trusted? Let’s see what the Catholic writers have to say about it:

“even Catholics have denied that St. Ignatius was aware of a divine origin for the hierarchy.” (Cath. Ency. VII, 339)

In Cath. Ency. I, 637 and VII, 646-7 we have books with the Catholic Imprimatur stating that the letters of Ignatius were forged and then reforged in the 5th century!

If Catholics claim his writings are forgeries and say that they can’t trust them, then why should I?

This is the foundation of those who stand on the Catholic denomination as an authority – a history “rife with fabrications” where lying and tampering with documents is “quite a trade”. Are we to believe this? Are we to stand upon this? Or are we to stand upon the word of God? I’ll choose the word of God over this any day!

Throughout this debate, this is what JL will have to prove is perfect, is infallible, is unerring as a guide for our lives in service to Christ. Not only must He prove that the word of God alone is incapable of being our guide, but he must prove that this history of lies and forgeries IS capable of guiding us.

[aggie03]

Now I would like to go into more reasons why we should reject the man made doctrine of Sola Scriptura in favor of the Biblical teaching of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (Thessalonians 2:14-15).

You have yet to prove it man-made.

In answer to much of what JL previously posted I would like to offer the following chart: [see attached chart 1]

I do believe that oral tradition existed, I hope that I haven’t intimated along the way that I don’t believe it has existed. In the bottom right of the chart there are these verses:

2 Peter 1:3 ASV

seeing that his divine power hath granted unto usall things that pertain unto life and godliness,through the knowledge of him that called us by his own glory and virtue;

Jude 1:3 ASV

Beloved, while I was giving all diligence to write unto you of our common salvation, I was constrained to write unto you exhorting you to contend earnestlyfor the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints.

Acts 20:20a,27 ASV

how I shrank not from declaring unto you anything that was profitable (27) For I shrank not from declaring unto you the whole counsel of God.

Everything that God wanted men to know, indeed the whole counsel of God was revealed to the Apostles and the prophets. At first, for several years at least, all of the teaching was oral. This brings us to the verses at the top right hand corner:

Mark 16:20 ASV

And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed. Amen.

Hebrews 2:1-4 ASV

Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things that were heard, lest haply we drift away from them. (2) For if the word spoken through angels proved stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward; (3) how shall we escape, if we neglect so great a salvation? which having at the first been spoken through the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard; (4) God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders, and by manifold powers, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to his own will.

I really love the way that God works! While He gave these men everything that they needed to know, He also gave them gifts by which they could prove who their words came from. When a speaker would come, he could prove that he was delivering the word of God with a miracle!

2 Thessalonians 2:15 ASV

So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours.

This verse shows that there was a time when both written and oral teachings were taking place – both were authoritative.

Ephesians 3:1-5 ASV

For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus in behalf of you Gentiles,-- (2) if so be that ye have heard of the dispensation of that grace of God which was given me to you-ward; (3) how that by revelation was made known unto me the mystery, as I wrote before in few words, (4) whereby, when ye read, ye can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Christ; (5) which in other generation was not made known unto the sons of men, as it hath now been revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit;

Here we have Paul writing down the knowledge he has received so that others might understand the mystery of Christ – they might understand everything that Paul understands!

As we progress along the diagonal line we find more and more things are written until we come to the point where everything, the whole counsel of God, is written down.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 ASV

Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. (17) That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.

The New Testament is Scripture inspired by God. Therefore it is profitable for teaching reproof correction, instruction in righteousness. It is also capable of making the man of God complete and furnishing him for every good work. What does this mean – well that nothing else is needed!

I believe the two go hand in hand. It is important to figure out what came first. The Church Christ established wrote the Bible. And that Church has the sole authority to interrupt the Bible. The church did not write the Bible, but holy prophets and Apostles. They were not the church – the church is the collection of all the saints, the elect, Christians. See my quote below:



Originally Posted By: aggie03

The word that church is derived from, εκκλησία (ekklesia), means “the called out”. The Church is the universal collection of saints, of Christians, not a governing body.








I disagree again. Jesus said his Church would be "the light of the world." He then noted that "a city set on a hill cannot be hid" (Matt. 5:14). This means his Church is a visible organization. This means nothing of the sort. Who is Christ talking to in the example that you’ve cited? Was he speaking to a hierarchy? Was he speaking to an organizational structure modeled after the Roman government? Obviously, He could not have been speaking to the Catholic denomination.

Not true, because what books were those great Christians reading? Besides the quote from St. Athanasius, (of one great Confessors and Doctors of the Church) we see Christians before Hippo also using books that we don’t recognized as inspired scripture like the Gospel of Thomas, 1st or 2nd Clement, The Didache, or even Polycarp's Epistle. There are also people today who try and add books to the Scriptures. There’s the book of Mormon, there’s Sirach, 1st and 2nd Maccabees – I really don’t see the reasoning behind what you are trying to say. The Catholic denomination did not do anything except hold a council and recognize what Christians already knew.

Now that is twisting scriptures. We know for a FACT, Jesus did things outside of Sacred Scripture. See John 21:25Jesus did nothing that is contrary to what we have in the Scriptures. What John is talking about the things that Christ did, like eating, going to sleep, the miracles He performed, preaching the same lesson multiple times, and the like. There is nothing necessary that has been excluded, but all that we need to believe has been included.

John 20:30-31 ASV

Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the disciples,which are not written in this book: (31) but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God;and that believing ye may have life in his name.

The Bible is perfect, I agree with that.:D

I’m not sure who Bishop Knoll, is but I disagree with himYou are trying to present as infallible concerning matters of faith and religion the Roman Catholic denomination, and then you disagree with the writings of one of its bishops? His book received the Imprimatur of the Catholic denomination, and you are going to disagree with it? If you, being a Catholic cannot agree with what Catholicism teaches, then why should I want to use it as an infallible guide or rule in religion? I am not attacking you personally, but this doesn’t sound like a very sure, steadfast, perfect or infallible guide to me – not if its defenders don’t even agree with it!

Bishop Noll, again, has said the following:

”If it be not identical in belief, in government etc. with the primitive Church, then it is not the Church of Christ.”

I do no believe that you can find Catholicism in the Bible, nor that you can run the Catholic denomination from the Scriptures. You have admitted the Bible to be the infallible word of God, and I agree! So if there is a difference between the two, Catholicism must be wrong. I will take the word of God over the word of men any day!

{total post > 15,000 original material 7,426}

[JeffreyLloyd]

It is interesting to note that in 1 Timothy 3:15 we see, not the Bible, but the Church – that is a community of believers founded upon St. Peter and the Apostles and headed their successors – called, “the pillar and ground of truth.” Of couse this verse isn’t meant to diminish the importance of the Bible, however it is intending to show that Jesus Christ did establish an authorize teaching church which was commissioned to teach “all nations” (Matthew 28:19).

Elsewhere this very same Church received Christ’s promise that the gates of Hell would never prevail against it (Matthew 16:18), that he would always be with it (Matthew 28:20), and that he would give it the Holy Spirit to teach it all truth (John 16:13).

To the visible head of the His Church, Saint Peter, Our Lord said:

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." - Matthew 16:19 niv

It is plainly evident from these passages that Our Lord emphasized the authority of His Church and the role it would have in safeguarding and defining the Deposit of Faith (Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scriptures left to us by the Apostles – which is infallible and unalterable).

Christ tells us to submit to the authority of the Church! Look at Matthew 18:15-18 we see Christ instructing His disciples on how to correct a fellow believer. It is extremely telling in this instance that Our Lord identifies the Church rather than scripture as the final authority to be appealed to! He Himself says that if an offending brother “will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican” (Matthew 18:17) – that is, as an outsider who is lost! Moreover, Our Lord then solemnly re-emphasizes the Church’s infallible teaching authority in verse 18 by repeating His earlier statement about the power to bind and loose in Matthew 16:18-19, directing it this time to the Apostles as a group rather then just St. Peter! *

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. Matthew 18:18 niv

Of course there are instances in the Bible where Our Lord does appeal to scripture, but in these cases He, as one having authority, was teaching the scriptures; He was not allowing the Scripture to teach themselves. For example, He would respond to the scribes and the Pharisees by using Sacred Scripture precisely because they often tried to trip Him up by using Scripture. In these instances, Our Lord often demonstrates how the Scribes and Pharisees had wrong interpretations, and hence He corrects them by properly interpreting Scripture.

His actions do not argue that Sacred Scriptures should be sola, or an authority in itself and, in fact, the only Christian authority. Quite contrary; whenever Christ refers His hearers to Sacred Scripture, He also provides His infallible, authoritative interpretation to them, demonstrating that the Scriptures do not interpret themselves.

Like I have said before, the Catholic Church readily acknowledges the inerrancy and authority of Sacred Scripture. But the Catholic doctrine is the immediate rule of faith for the Christian is the teaching authority of the Church and authority to teach and interpret both Scripture and Tradition, just as Matthew 18:17-18 shows.

It should also be noted that implicit (perhaps even explicit) in the passage from Matthew is the fact the “Church” must be a visible, tangible entity established in a hierarchical fashion. Otherwise, how would anyone have known to whom the wrongdoer should be referred? If the Protestant definition of “church” were correct then the wrongdoer would have to “hear” each and every believer who existed, hoping that there would be unanimity among them regarding the issue at hand. The inherent absurdity of this scenario is readily apparent. The only way we can make sense of Our Lord’s statement here is to acknowledge that there was a definite origination with positions of authority readily identifies able, to which an appeal could be made and from which a decisive judgment could be had.


The church did not write the Bible, but holy prophets and Apostles. They were not the church – the church is the collection of all the saints, the elect, Christians.

You just contradicted yourself. According to you - who are members of the Church? “The church is the collection of all the saints, the elect, Christians.” Okay, so the early Christians and saints are the Church, but the Church did not write the Bible??? You are going in circles. Here is a chart according to you:

http://jeffburden.net/aggie03.JPG

:scratch:

The word that church is derived from, εκκλησία (ekklesia), means “the called out”. The Church is the universal collection of saints, of Christians, not a governing body.

And what do we see over and over again for Church fathers? We see them using the word katholike with the word ekklesia. As far back as 107-110AD from St. Ignatius of Antioch:

"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107-110]).

This means nothing of the sort. Who is Christ talking to in the example that you’ve cited? Was he speaking to a hierarchy? Was he speaking to an organizational structure modeled after the Roman government? Obviously, He could not have been speaking to the Catholic denomination.

Obviously, there is no such thing as a “Catholic denomination,” as I said before, denominations are for Protestants. The Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ himself. Christ was talking about the Church. The Church is Catholic.

There are also people today who try and add books to the Scriptures. There’s the book of Mormon, there’s Sirach, 1st and 2nd Maccabees – I really don’t see the reasoning behind what you are trying to say. The Catholic denomination did not do anything except hold a council and recognize what Christians already knew.

Hold on a minute, you cannot compare the Book of Mormon to Sacred books like Sirach or 1st and 2nd Maccabees. How many times does the New Testament use the Book of Mormon? How about deuterocanonicals books like Sirach and 1st and 2nd Maccabees? Are are a few, a lot more could be add:

Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.

Luke 1:52 - Mary's magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.

Luke 21:24 - Jesus' usage of "fall by the edge of the sword" follows Sirach 28:18.

Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 - Luke's description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26.

John 6:35-59 - Jesus' Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.

John 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.

Acts 1:15 - Luke's reference to the 120 may be a reference to 1 Macc. 3:55 - leaders of tens / restoration of the twelve.

Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 - Peter's and Paul's statement that God shows no partiality references Sirach 35:12.

Rom. 4:17 - Abraham is a father of many nations follows Sirach 44:19.

1 Cor. 15:29 - if no expectation of resurrection, it would be foolish to be baptized on their behalf follows 2 Macc. 12:43-45.

1 Tim. 6:15 - Paul's description of God as Sovereign and King of kings is from 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4.

Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 6:18, 7:1-42.

Heb. 12:12 - the description "drooping hands" and "weak knees" comes from Sirach 25:23.

James 1:19 - let every man be quick to hear and slow to respond follows Sirach 5:11.

James 2:23 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness follows 1 Macc. 2:52 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

James 3:13 - James' instruction to perform works in meekness follows Sirach 3:17.

James 5:3 - describing silver which rusts and laying up treasure follows Sirach 29:10-11.

1 Peter 1:6-7 - Peter teaches about testing faith by purgatorial fire as described in Wisdom 3:5-6 and Sirach 2:5.

1 Peter 1:17 - God judging each one according to his deeds refers to Sirach 16:12 - God judges man according to his deeds.

Rev. 5:7 - God is described as seated on His throne, and this is the same description used in Sirach 1:8.

Rev. 8:7 - raining of hail and fire to the earth follows Wisdom 16:22 and Sirach 39:29.

Rev. 11:19 - the vision of the ark of the covenant (Mary) in a cloud of glory was prophesied in 2 Macc. 2:7.

Rev. 17:14 - description of God as King of kings follows 2 Macc. 13:4.

Rev. 19:11 - the description of the Lord on a white horse in the heavens follows
2 Macc. 3:25; 11:8.

Rev. 19:16 - description of our Lord as King of kings is taken from 2 Macc. 13:4.

Exodus 23:7 - do not slay the innocent and righteous - Dan. 13:53 - do not put to death an innocent and righteous person. **

I also should remind you, that these books were not added by the Catholic Church. These books were removed by the Protestant reformers. Jesus and his Apostles use the Septuagint for scripture which had the deuterocanonicals books in it. ***

You are trying to present as infallible concerning matters of faith and religion the Roman Catholic denomination, and then you disagree with the writings of one of its bishops? His book received the Imprimatur of the Catholic denomination,

Just so you know, I find it extremely insulting that you keep refereeing to the Catholic Church as the “Catholic denomination,” it seems the only reason for doing it is degrading our Church.

You don’t seem to understand what, “Imprimatur” is. It doesn’t mean that what ever is said within a book with an Imprimatur in it is infallible, by any means! I just grabbed a random book from my bookself and this is what the Imprimatur says in the front of my book:

Nihil Obstat: Rev. James Dunfee, Censor Librorum
Imprimatur: Most Rev. Gilbert J. Sheldon, Bishop of Steubenville:

The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or mortal error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur agree with the contents, opinions, or statements expressed.”****

and you are going to disagree with it?

Yes, I am free to disagree with Bishop Knoll on this subject. He is not speaking from the chair of St. Peter on matters of faith and morals. He is giving his opinion of what the Church should look like.

If you, being a Catholic cannot agree with what Catholicism teaches, then why should I want to use it as an infallible guide or rule in religion?

You are very misunderstood on what the church teaches, there are five levels, and they are:

First is the Deposit of Faith, the Tradition and the Scriptures left to us by the Apostles. This is considered infallible and unalterable. A Catholic must believe this.

Next comes Dogma, meaning some point of faith that's so important that the Holy Spirit led a Council---or once or twice, a Pope---to declare it infallible and unalterable. Dogmas include things like the Trinity, the Hypostatic Nature of Christ, the Assumption of Mary, and whatnot. Again, Catholics are bound to believe this.

Then comes Doctrine, which is important but not infallible, and it can be altered if a better understanding comes along. A classic example of this would be Limbo.

Then we have Discipline, like not eating meat on Fridays and celibacy, which can be imposed by the Church, and can be lifted by the Church. Not infallible, not unalterable.

And last, the bottom rung: Devotion. This is what the individual catholic decides to do insofar as prayers, meditations, and so on goes. Not infallible by any stretch, and certainly not unalterable. Tellingly, this includes 99.999999999% of all Marian activity, from Rosaries to novenas to Our Lady of Lourdes. You don't even have to believe in this stuff, and you can still be a good and faithful Catholic. *****

I am not attacking you personally, but this doesn’t sound like a very sure, steadfast, perfect or infallible guide to me – not if its defenders don’t even agree with it!

Again, I am sure, the problems come from people who attack the Church and don’t understand what it teaches. It reminds me of a quote from the great Archbishop Fulton Sheen:

”There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course, quite a different thing.”

Bishop Noll, again, has said the following:

”If it be not identical in belief, in government etc. with the primitive Church, then it is not the Church of Christ.”

I disagree with the Bishop. (by the way, can you provide the full name of Bishop Knoll, where is bishop, and the sources of that quote - thanks).

I do no believe that you can find Catholicism in the Bible, nor that you can run the Catholic denomination from the Scriptures. You have admitted the Bible to be the infallible word of God, and I agree! So if there is a difference between the two, Catholicism must be wrong. I will take the word of God over the word of men any day!

The Bible is indeed infallible; because it was written by an infallible group of men belong to an infallible Church that Jesus Christ himself founded. The Catholic Church.

(7.504)


* You see the Catholic Church teaches that the “’body of Bishops,’” the successors of the Apostles, also teach infallibly when they, in union with the Pope, “’exercise the supreme Magisterium,’ above all in an Ecumenical Council.” (CCC #891)

** http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

*** http://www.scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html

**** Hail, Holy Queen: The Mother of God, in the Word of God, by Scott Hahn

***** David Currie