RE: Protestant vs. Catholic

KephaMeansRock · Post by **KephaMeansRock** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:22 am

This is aphisherofmen,

What happened to the protestant v. Catholic debate forum that was going on here?

I just worked last night for over an hour on a post, and now it's gone, and my account is deleted!!!

Did we break a rule'? We were on topic and being respectful....

Anybody? HELP?!

KephaMeansRock · Post by **KephaMeansRock** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 5:01 pm

I have decided that try to answer all points is not working for me. I have limited time and the posts seem to be getting so long that we are not settling anything. So this time I am answering just a couple of points.

Quite understandable...some pruning was probably required at this point...however I do hope you'll read all of what I wrote (including that to Magus) with an open mind and heart!)

And when two or three do this, and still come to mutually incongruous doctrines, what then? Is God a God of confusion? Is the Spirit a Spirit of contradiction?
No. One person is not truly listening to GOD but preferring their own way. They choose to not listen.

And when you have 30,000 denominations...are some listening more than others? Is it possible that any one teaches the fullness of the truth, or is the fullness of the truth unknowable for the Christian?

Scripture IS subservient in a sense to Tradition, for the CANON OF SCRIPTURE IS A MATTER OF TRADITION. Scripture points to a Church which is the body that settles issues of interpretation (cf Matt 18:15-18), with authority to "bind" and "loose" and have it really be bound in heaven and earth and loosed in heaven and on earth (cf. matt 18:18).
Let me compare this to saying that the United States President is over the constitution and can change it as he wishes.

I think that's a bad analogy, in part because the president doesn't decide what goes in the canon, and neither he nor the church can actually change it (thought the constitution is amendable by the Supreme Court, who may have worked slightly better for your comparison, but not much).

The Pope never declared what books belong ink scripture anyway - that was a matter for the Church, who settled it in council (Rome 389 AD).

Since part of his job is to enforce the Constitution. The Bishops or Congress would go along for they have been bought off by the president by power and money. The Supreme Court has been eliminated. This is exactly what is the point of tradition coming over scripture. The pope and the bishops change the law of GOD as they see fit.

Precisely the opposite. It was Luther who threw out books that had always been there - it is your bible that was edited.

The bible hasn't changed. Moreover, it's not by virtue of being "president/Pope" but by the very guidance of the holy spirit that has provided and preserved inerrant the canon of scripture.

Can you tell me what books belong using only scripture?

Bringing in images to bow down and pray to. Not ask pray too. Not the same thing.

I find it a bit odd that you're telling me what I'm doing, and I'm telling you that you're wrong, and you're more inclined to believe yourself. We do not worship statues or saints. Period. Worship is reserved for God alone. Anything otherwise is STRICTLY AND EXPRESSLY AGAINST THE TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH.

The "communion of the saints" is part of the earliest creeds of the church.

The Bible must be adhered to. You have stated in effect that the Bible can be changed by the church.

No. What I said was that you have no clue what books belong in the bible without the church. Show me otherwise.

They also still teach the Bible is under tradition. The Talmud has the answers not the scripture. So the RCC has made the same exact mistake.

No. The church expresses the teaching of "prima scriptura", that in all things scripture takes the primacy and NOTHING TAUGHT can contradict it (but not all interpretations of scripture are valid or correct.)

Why was Jonah wicked? He did not want to preach to his enemies? Not wicked.

He was directly disobedient to God...maybe grouping him with the others wasn't the best choice, but it is merely to prove a point...disobedience and even sin do not necessarily negate a position.

Yes Caiaphas was wicked. GOD did send a prophetic word through him. So in your teaching the Apostles should have still followed his wishes. Since he was the appointed leader they should have quit spreading the Gospel.

No. You're missing the point. Jesus clearly poured new wine into new wineskins (i.e. the New Covenant superseded the old, along with those holding authority), but that was because he was establishing his new and everlasting covenant. the point is that until Pentecost, the old guard still had some authority; Jesus was a Jew and Christianity was Jewish to begin with.

But the new wineskins have been filled, and He hasn't done that since - people have merely taken non-biblical heresy (sola scriptura) and run with it, and have only served to confuse what the truth is through slander and fighting (and of course many members of the Catholic church are guilty of exacerbating this).

You have not pointed out where the Scriptures I quoted are out of context or do not mean what they say.

Because they do not deal with offices being revoked, but associates of believers in general. Nowhere does 2 Cor 6 say "at some point, grievous sinning will invalidate an office".

As Catharsis points out they were equals. The church was democratic.

Then why did only Peter get the keys to the kingdom (Matt 16), only he was renamed to "Rock" and called the foundation of the church (John 1:42, Matt 16:18), and whenever the apostles are listed, he always comes first; why is it always "peter and the others" or "peter and the other apostles"? Why did Jesus tell him that he'd pray for his faith particularly (Luke 22), and that he was to strengthen his brethren (after he 'turned back', admitting that peter would deny Christ)? Why ask him three times if Peter loves Jesus more than anyone else, and why is peter alone charged with "feeding the sheep"?

No, biblical and historical evidence points to Christ setting up a number of ministers for his church (the apostles), and that one of them had headship (peter), and that that headship passed on (the keys).

In Revelation JESUS walks among the churches. He points out that some have accepted the doctrines of Satan. If they do not repent then they will be removed.

And, seeing as this was before the NT was fully penned (let alone compiled), how did they know sound doctrine from false doctrine? By listening to "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 tim 3:15) that Jesus built upon Peter (Matthew 16) the apostles. Jesus is a wise builder; he imparted enough of his spirit to guide the church, even through ignorant men who put their feet in their mouths - like Peter - and wicked men like the popes you list.

The Law of GOD is the final authority in all manners. By the way the thing on Luther was quotes taken out of context. Only a person unfamiliar with the rest of his writings would be taken in by the deception practiced there. Since the words are not set in context and so the person who compiled this knew he was creating lies. I will readily admit Luther was not perfect. But he was no Alexander the 6th. He said in the council of worms.

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason-for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves-I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one's conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me. Amen.

Do you stand with him when he calls James an epistle of straw, and said that he saw nothing in Revelation to deem it inspired, and threw them out? Or when he got thousands of peasants slaughtered to advance his cause? Or when he said that 1000 murders and acts of adultery a day could not separate him from God's love, and thus "Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong!"

In fact, by THAT rationale, the popes you will be citing could not be invalidated by their actions!

Or what of when he surveyed the damage his reformation had done and lamented about ever "idiot" making himself his own apostle?

Now you asked for some examples of Bad popes. Here are a few.

I didn't ask for bad popes, but said if you felt it necessary you could list them. I'm not arguing that bad popes don't exist, so such a list proves nothing per se.

...

Keep it up, the conversation is good!

Pax Christi,

-Justin

samuelbb7 · Post by **samuelbb7** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:37 pm

Dear Justin

And when you have 30,000 denominations...are some listening more than others? Is it possible that any one teaches the fullness of the truth, or is the fullness of the truth unknowable for the Christian?

First I believe there are Christians in many groups. It is not my job to declare who is following GOD in their heart and who is not. To me there is one Church that does teach the Fulness of the Gospel. The Seventh day Adventist church.

The Pope never declared what books belong in scripture anyway - that was a matter for the Church, who settled it in council (Rome 389 AD).

Agreed.

Precisely the opposite. It was Luther who threw out books that had always been there - it is your bible that was edited.

Luther went to the actual Jewish Bible. Not books that were added or not truly part of the Tanak. Jewish Scripture is the Old Testament. Not other books added only by the Septuagint translators.

The bible hasn't changed. Moreover, it's not by virtue of being "president/Pope" but by the very guidance of the holy spirit that has provided and preserved inerrant the canon of scripture.

First I do not believe the Bible is inerrant. One passage mentions 2 demoniacs another one. These are minor unimportant mistakes. There are also spelling mistakes. I half agree with your statement. It is the guidance of the HOLY SPIRIT that has provided and preserved the Canon of Scripture.

I find it a bit odd that you're telling me what I'm doing, and I'm telling you that you're wrong, and you're more inclined to believe yourself. We do not worship statues or saints. Period. Worship is reserved for God alone. Anything otherwise is STRICTLY AND EXPRESSLY AGAINST THE TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH.

I am saying that bowing down is part of worship. You can say you are not worshipping but you cannot say that many of the Latin rite are not bowing down to.

No. What I said was that you have no clue what books belong in the bible without the church. Show me otherwise.

No. The church expresses the teaching of "prima scripture", that in all things scripture takes the primacy and NOTHING TAUGHT can contradict it (but not all interpretations of scripture are valid or correct.)

The teaching Prima scripture is actually very similar to Sola scripture. Since in Sola scripture traditions may be used but they must submit and not contradict scripture. For instance Sola Grace. We are saved by Grace alone is taught in Scriptures. Do you believe that works and ceremonies help save you?

No. You're missing the point. Jesus clearly poured new wine into new wineskins (i.e. the New Covenant superseded the old, along with those holding authority), but that was because he was establishing his new and everlasting covenant. the point is that until Pentecost, the old guard still had some authority; Jesus was a Jew and Christianity was Jewish to begin with.

Which is part of my main point. The whole church was jewish. But most churches have abounded their jewish origins against scripture. If you are saying Peter took over then you have to ignore the Scripture that puts James in charge of the church.

But the new wineskins have been filled, and He hasn't done that since - people have merely taken non-biblical heresy (sola scriptura) and run with it, and have only served to confuse what the truth is through slander and fighting (and of course many members of the Catholic church are guilty of exacerbating this).

But prima scrptura is basically the same thing. The Scripture is the final arbiter of all truth. If Sola Scriptura is a heresy then prima would be too.

Because they do not deal with offices being revoked, but associates of believers in general. Nowhere does 2 Cor 6 say "at some point, grievous sinning will invalidate an office".

The Grievous sinning of Ahab invalidated his office. The true followers of GOD were the Prophets not the kings. So when the leaders of the RCC were in grievous sin those who did not want to particapate in the sin and the false teachings were to leave and state the truth in a prophetic manner.

Then why did only Peter get the keys to the kingdom (Matt 16), only he was renamed to "Rock" and called the foundation of the church (John 1:42, Matt 16:18), and whenever the apostles are listed, he always comes first; why is it always "peter and the others" or "peter and the other apostles"? Why did Jesus tell him that he'd pray for his faith particularly (Luke 22), and that he was to strengthen his brethren (after he 'turned back', admitting that peter would deny Christ)? Why ask him three times if Peter loves Jesus more than anyone else, and why is peter alone charged with "feeding the sheep"?

JESUS knew Peter would deny him three times. He fell the worst. Paul was in charge of the Gentiles and James ran the church council that Peter had to answer too. Plus Peter was married as were many of the popes.

No, biblical and historical evidence points to Christ setting up a number of ministers for his church (the apostles), and that one of them had headship (peter), and that that headship passed on (the keys).

Catharsis has pointed out that this is a false statement.

And, seeing as this was before the NT was fully penned (let alone compiled), how did they know sound doctrine from false doctrine? By listening to "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 tim 3:15) that Jesus built upon Peter (Matthew 16) the apostles. Jesus is a wise builder; he imparted enough of his spirit to guide the church, even through ignorant men who put their feet in their mouths - like Peter - and wicked men like the popes you list.

That JESUS built on himself the Apostles and all the prophets. Peter was not the cornerstone. JESUS is. They guided the church away from the scriptures and away from truth. We talked a little about prayers to saints, Sola Scriptoria and that evil men can represent GOD. Should we each sum our position on these three points and then move on to others or discuss these more?

Do you stand with him when he calls James an epistle of straw, and said that he saw nothing in Revelation to deem it inspired, and threw them out? Or when he got thousands of peasants slaughtered to advance his cause? Or when he said that 1000 murders and acts of adultery a day could not separate him from God's love, and thus "Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong!"

I know he stood against adultery and murder. He did not teach once saved always saved. Also we do agree that this is false. A person can fall from grace and be lost. So I would have to see the context. I know sometimes he over emphazied to get the point that we are saved by Grace alone. To him and us works are the result of being made righteous by the power of GOD.

Good no more lists. I do not like doing that anyway. Since it is the doctrine that is important. Yes I did read all you wrote. I also will continue to prune. If you feel I am doing so in a wrong manner or not answering you please let me know. I am not perfect and may mistakely not answer something you consider to be an important point.

KephaMeansRock · Post by **KephaMeansRock** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:26 pm

First I believe there are Christians in many groups. It is not my job to declare who is following GOD in their heart and who is not.

Spoken like a true Catholic!

To me there is one Church that does teach the Fulness of the Gospel. The Seventh day Adventist church.

Maybe I'm thinking of another board, but didn't you say earlier that you didn't agree with everything they taught?

Precisely the opposite. It was Luther who threw out books that had always been there - it is your bible that was edited.
Luther went to the actual Jewish Bible. Not books that were added or not truly part of the Tanak. Jewish Scripture is the Old Testament. Not other books added only by the Septuagint translators.

Not quite. He went to the council of Rabbi's that met in Jamnia in 90ish AD, who sought to "close" the canon precisely because the temple had fallen and this new "christian" group had caused instability.

They not only rejected all of the NT writings, but the Deuterocanonicals precisely because the Christians were using them.

Paul seems to have no problem citing the Deuteros, when he gives the list of "hero's of the OT" in Hebrews 11, vs 35 references people who were tortured "for the sake of a better resurrection", which you can only find in 2 Maccabees 7.

Moreover, when the Sadducee approached Christ to trick him into admitting the resurrection was non-sense, they brought to him a story of a woman who had been married 7 times to 7 brothers and none had given her kids. They asked which would be her husband in heaven. This story they were quoting from Tobit, a book they rejected but which Christ would have had in his scriptures - the Septuagint.

There are plenty of others, but those two always stand out in my head.

The long and the short of it is that from the VERY FIRST TIME the Christian Church had an official "canon", those 7 books were in it, along with the other 39 OT and 27 NT books. Gutenberg's bible had them. You accept the rest, but throw out these 7...I challenge you to show me biblically how you even know what books belong in the scriptures.

First I do not believe the Bible is inerrant. One passage mentions 2 demoniacs another one. These are minor unimportant mistakes. There are also spelling mistakes. I half agree with your statement. It is the guidance of the HOLY SPIRIT that has provided and preserved the Canon of Scripture.

There are a number of explanations that could be given to justify this and other "discrepancies"...if you think the bible isn't even inerrant (at least in the autographs) then what are you basing your faith upon?

I don't think you can count spelling mistakes, because only in the last 200 years or so has the invention of the Dictionary been around. Before that there wasn't always a definitive way of spelling a word (heck, go read Chaucer or Beowulf for two English examples.)

I am saying that bowing down is part of worship. You can say you are not worshipping but you cannot say that many of the Latin rite are not bowing down to.

First, bowing down per se is not a prohibited action...posture is just posture. It is that "you shall not bow to them and worship them" that is the point of the command.

Second, though bowing can be used as a posture in worship, not all bowing is worship. In Japan, people show respect by bowing in greeting (the equivalent of the Western handshake). Similarly, a person can kneel before a king without worshipping him as a god. In the same way, a Catholic who may kneel in front of a statue while praying isn’t worshipping the statue or even praying to it, any more than the Protestant who kneels with a Bible in his hands when praying is worshipping the Bible or praying to it.

Third, worship is an act of the will, heart, soul, spirit and mind. It is not easily mistaken for simple "dulia" honor unless one is really not trying.

Fourth, we see in the scriptures where often people bow down in homage (remember Joseph's Dream)

The teaching Prima scripture is actually very similar to Sola scripture. Since in Sola scripture traditions may be used but they must submit and not contradict scripture.

In some ways...

For instance Sola Grace. We are saved by Grace alone is taught in Scriptures. Do you believe that works and ceremonies help save you?

We are saved by Grace alone; Grace is given freely to Faith; Faith is only faith if it has works; "faith without works is dead".

I believe that SACRAMENTS - visible signs of an invisible reality - really impart Grace because Christ gave them to us, and that they can thereby save us.

I believe that the work of Christ must be applied to our lives.

Which is part of my main point. The whole church was jewish. But most churches have abounded their jewish origins against scripture.

The Church began as the FULFILLMENT of Judaism, but also clearly taught that the old Law (not the moral law, i.e. the 10 commandments) was no longer applicable. Christians no longer need to be circumcised or avoid non-kosher foods or observe the Jewish feasts; both because all those were types that have been fulfilled under the new covenant, and because Christ's Church, to whom he gave binding and loosing authority, has said so.

"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." (Col 2:16-17)

If you are saying Peter took over then you have to ignore the Scripture that puts James in charge of the church.

No, I don't. Each bishop has their own territory, and all ancient records including the Scriptures point to James' being Jerusalem (where Acts 15's council took place).

Neither Peter nor any of his successors are the CEO of the church. All the bishops are - for most intents and purposes - autonomous in so far as they do not stray from the teaching of the church which is usually decided in council. The pope for the most part is a figurehead, BUT he does have moments where he has to step in to clarify issues.

This is EXACTLY how the Davidic kingdom was ruled. ALL the ministers were equals in day to day affairs. Each handled what was appointed of him. BUT when they disagreed or could come to no resolution, they turned to the one minister who held the primacy - who held the key to the kingdom - and he settled the dispute. All could bind and loose/open and shut with the kings authority; but to this one, "whatever he opens, none shall shut, whatever he shuts, none shall open" (Isaiah 22) or "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven". (Matthew 16 - to Peter when he gets the keys from the Davidic king)

But prima scrptura is basically the same thing. The Scripture is the final arbiter of all truth. If Sola Scriptura is a heresy then prima would be too.

No. Sola scripture says "scripture only" which is logically impossible.

Prima Scriptura says "nothing can contradict scripture" but it admits that not everything may be explicitly in scripture, and that there is a magisterial body who can teach authoritatively.

The Grievous sinning of Ahab invalidated his office. The true followers of GOD were the Prophets not the kings. So when the leaders of the RCC were in grievous sin those who did not want to particapate in the sin and the false teachings were to leave and state the truth in a prophetic manner.

No, it didn't. It cause God to strike him down. Certain popes have been struck down. Ahab was not the last king; they were not the last popes.

JESUS knew Peter would deny him three times. He fell the worst.

And? This only proves my point about WHY Christ chose Peter to lead.

Paul was in charge of the Gentiles

Yet it was PETER who was first told that the Gentiles were to be received (Acts 11) Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for fifteen days in the beginning of his ministry (Gal 1:18), and was commissioned by Peter, James and John (Gal 2:9) to preach to the Gentiles.

and James ran the church council that Peter had to answer too.

Already dealt with that. It was James' "diocese" (diocese didn't actually exist, but it was the territory under him).

Plus Peter was married as were many of the popes.

A) We know peter had a mother in law, so he was at one point married but
B) we never actually see his wife (though Paul does say "take along a wife" in reference to peter, but mostly
C) SO WHAT! I don't think you understand the very notion of priestly celibacy.

it is first off a DISCIPLINE, not a DOCTRINE. Marriage is NOT mandatory (Neither Paul nor Christ were married), and celibacy is the HIGHER CALLING (1 Cor 7), and the Church has the right to ordain whom she chooses.

In the past, married clergy were more common in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church (but in fact by the first few centuries celibate clergy were very, very common), and married clergy still exist both in the Latin Rite (usually converts from Eastern Orthodoxy or Anglicanism) and the Eastern Rites of the Catholic church.

I do not think this will prove what you want it to prove. More here.

Catharsis has pointed out that this is a false statement.

And I've produced 1st century quotes to the contrary.

"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

Etc.

You've simply said "nuh huh" and provided no evidence.

Bear in mind that Clement above was living in the times when you didn't join the church for power but for TRUTH!

That JESUS built on himself the Apostles and all the prophets. Peter was not the cornerstone. JESUS is. They guided the church away from the scriptures and away from truth.

Never claimed that Peter was the cornerstone. Christ is. Peter is the Rock upon which the Church is built. That's why he's called Peter/Cephas/Kepha/Rock.

What truth? How do you know it? Whose interpretation? And again, what books belong in the NT to begin with?

I know he stood against adultery and murder. He did not teach once saved always saved. Also we do agree that this is false. A person can fall from grace and be lost. So I would have to see the context. I know sometimes he over emphazied to get the point that we are saved by Grace alone. To him and us works are the result of being made righteous by the power of GOD.

So sure?

“If we allow them - the Commandments - any influence in our conscience, they become the cloak of all evil, heresies and blasphemies” (Comm. ad Galat, p.310)

“We must remove the Decalogue [the 10 commandments] out of sight and heart” (De Wette 4, 188).

“Christ committed adultery first of all with the women at the well about whom St. John tell’s us. Was not everybody about Him saying: ‘Whatever has He been doing with her?’ Secondly, with Mary Magdalen, and thirdly with the women taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus even, Christ who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.” (Trishreden, Weimer Edition, Vol. 2, Pg. 107.) !!!

Good no more lists. I do not like doing that anyway. Since it is the doctrine that is important. Yes I did read all you wrote. I also will continue to prune. If you feel I am doing so in a wrong manner or not answering you please let me know. I am not perfect and may mistakely not answer something you consider to be an important point.

The only point I want answered that you missed is how we know what books belong in the NT (and what good they do given that you think they're errant).

Pax Christi,

-Justin

Catharsis · Post by **Catharsis** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:52 pm

Hello,

Kepha said:

>>Neither Peter nor any of his successors are the CEO of the church. All the bishops are - for most intents and purposes - autonomous in so far as they do not stray from the teaching of the church which is usually decided in council. The pope for the most part is a figurehead, BUT he does have moments where he has to step in to clarify issues.<<

Question: What moments?

I agree, all churches are independent - and so are all the patriarchs and/or bishops - as long as they do not stray from the Truth. However, this applies to the Pope and the Church of Rome as well. If Pope decides to "clarify" an issue and the rest of the patriarchs and bishops disagree, his "clarification" will not be accepted since the majority 'vote' prevails. The 'vote' extends to lesser bishops as well, as hundreds of bishops participated at the Councils and Faith was decided in unity. In any event, I don't understand how this Papal authority to clarify issues implies Primacy, as defined by the Vatican?
The four Patriarchs "disagreed" with the Roman Church because the Pope strayed from the faith and doctrine agreed upon at the Councils.

From a historical perspective, privileges of the Church in Rome were grounded in that Rome was the Capital City of the Empire. As such, the "primacy of honor" was readily conceded to the Bishop of Rome, with the emphasis on the fact that Rome was the ancient capital of the Empire.

With the transfer of the capital to the New City of Constantine, which has become a "New Rome," the privileges of the Bishop of Constantinople also had to be safeguarded. Accordingly, the Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople 381) accorded to the Bishop of Constantinople "the privilege of honor," after the Bishop of Rome, with an open reference to the fact that "Constantinople was the New Rome" (Canon 3). This put the Bishop of Constantinople above that of Alexandria in the list of ecclesiastical precedence, to the great anger and offence of the latter.

The Council of Chalcedon reconfirmed the decision of 381. Privileges of Rome were grounded in that it was the Capital City. For the same reason it seemed to be fair that the See of the New Rome, the residence of the Emperor and of the Senate, should have similar privileges (Canon 28). This decision provoked violent indignation in Rome, and the 28th Canon of Chalcedon was repudiated by the Roman Church.

However, this privilege of honor never lead the Patriarchs of Constantinople to claim Primacy or infallibility in the East (after the schism). The Patriarch to this day is acknowledged primacy of honor by other bishops, but that's the extent of his authority.

KephaMeansRock · Post by **KephaMeansRock** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:49 pm

However, this privilege of honor never lead the Patriarchs of Constantinople to claim Primacy or infallibility in the East (after the schism). The Patriarch to this day is acknowledged primacy of honor by other bishops, but that's the extent of his authority.

That's because only the direct successor of Peter could claim the keys to the kingdom, the one thing that separates this minister from all others.

However, call it honor (and some councils did), nevertheless it was evident from the beginning that there was something different about the bishop of Rome (i.e. the bishop who claimed direct succession from St. Peter).

Some Old Dead Guys wrote:"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

"Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid...Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter." Pope Stephen I [regn. A.D. 254-257], Firmilian to Cyprian, Epistle 74/75:17 (A.D. 256).

"You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the Chair was first conferred on Peter, in which the prince of all the Apostles, Peter, sat…in which Chair unity should be preserved by all, so that he should now be a schismatic and a sinner who should set up another Chair against that unique one." Optatus of Mileve, The Schism of Donatists, 2:2-3 (c. A.D. 367).

arayhay · Post by **arayhay** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 8:30 am

samuelbb7 wrote:Dear Justin

And when you have 30,000 denominations...are some listening more than others? Is it possible that any one teaches the fullness of the truth, or is the fullness of the truth unknowable for the Christian?
First I believe there are Christians in many groups. It is not my job to declare who is following GOD in their heart and who is not. To me there is one Church that does teach the Fulness of the Gospel. The Seventh day Adventist church.
The Torah is Truth.

Psa 25:10 All3605 the paths734 of the LORD3068 are mercy2617 and truth571 unto such as keep5341 his covenant1285 and his testimonies.5713

Psa 26:3 For3588 thy lovingkindness2617 is before5048 mine eyes:5869 and I have walked1980 in thy truth.571

Psa 31:5 Into thine hand3027 I commit6485 my spirit:7307 thou hast redeemed6299 me, O LORD3068 God410 of truth.571

Psa 119:43 And take5337 not408 the word1697 of truth571 utterly5704, 3966 out of my mouth;4480, 6310 for3588 I have hoped3176 in thy judgments.4941

Psa 119:142 Thy righteousness6666 is an everlasting5769 righteousness,6664 and thy law8451 is the truth.571

Psa 119:151 Thou859 art near,7138 O LORD;3068 and all3605 thy commandments4687 are truth.571

Psa 51:6 Behold, you delight in truth in the inward being, and you teach me wisdom in the secret heart.

MagusYanam · Post by **MagusYanam** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 9:51 am

Hello Justin, Sam, all:

samuelbb7 wrote:I have decided that try to answer all points is not working for me. I have limited time and the posts seem to be getting so long that we are not settling anything. So this time I am answering just a couple of points.

Amen! I'm going to try to limit myself as well this time around, especially since my time online working here in the UK is somewhat limited. On hierarchy:

KephaMeansRock wrote:
MagusYanam wrote:I think it's still worth note that when Jesus spoke of hierarchy (either social or religious) it was usually in terms which were quite strongly critical.
I think it's worth noting that more often we in modern western "democratic, individualistic" society want this to be the case.

I may be a democrat (lower-case 'd'), and I may be a modernist, and I may be western by ethnicity, but I have to object to being dismissed as an 'individualist'. I don't think any proper reading of the Gospel will allow for the kind of individualism our society (the United States) sees fit to propagate.

But in the Gospel, as in all else, the actions of Jesus speak louder than his words do. The kerygma of Jesus was not one of conformity to the social or legal norms of the time, but likewise he was not an individualist but a radical community-builder. He dined with the outcast and with the down-trodden, the tax-collectors, prostitutes and lepers, as though they were his equals, though he spoke with the authority of a rabbi.

And even what he spoke, he spoke not to uphold or establish any kind of hierarchy, but to affirm a radically inclusive community of faith. When Jesus gave his apostles their mission (a point on which, Justin, I believe you linger a little too often and too long), this mission was to spread the word, for the purpose of building up this radically inclusive community.

On grace and baptism:

You mention the notions of 'actual' and 'sanctifying' grace: I hold that these are just different ways of classifying the same favour of God, and again, I'm not sure that such a classification is good for anything but delineating the outcome. One causes salvation, the other a good deed. But it's all still grace.

You also mention the sacraments and their relationship to grace. I have no problem with anything that you wrote (which I find more and more to be the case), but rather some of the assumptions underlying them. The only problem that I have with the designation as sacraments is that they are the cart and grace is the horse. You can't put the sacraments before grace; grace is by definition unconditional, unmerited. If grace comes after the sacraments as physical actions, it becomes a matter of merit and ceases to be grace.

(By the way, I have read Hume and I don't agree with all of his conclusions. I was referring rather to the logical 'is/ought' fallacy.)

KephaMeansRock wrote:Moreover, in Acts 2:38 Peter says to the multitude, "Repent and be baptized.." The Greek translation literally says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized” (“Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.”) That's their whole families.

This I find an interesting use of the Greek. I notice the 'each one who is a part of you and yours', which suggests a fluidity in the concept of personhood or 'one-ness' particularly in this time. Perhaps we can agree that each person who repents must each be baptised?

KephaMeansRock wrote:It's not, given her role as the new eve, the ark of the new covenant, and the bearer of God incarnate. It DOES flow logically, if you wish to dig deeper.

A new Eve? Does that make Jesus a new Cain?

The God I observe working in the Gospel and in the world does not waste, and doesn't make exception except where necessary. I simply made the observation that this particular pontification rested on a peculiarly strange hermeneutic based on a theology that I don't see in Scripture. There are several passages that indicate that indeed, Christ was the only exception to this nature, the only way one might come to recognise the full nature of God on our limited human scale. Mary was important, yes, and singularly blessed by God. But even when God delivered his other covenants, he did so through instruments which were not perfect and who were sinful. Didn't Noah get drunk and curse his sons? Didn't Abraham, too, have his failings and doubts? They too were heralds of new covenants in their respective times.

(Justin, nota bene: even Catholic apologetics websites warn against using the 'kecharitomene' passage as support for this particular ex cathedra statement, since they realise that the 'kecharitomene' is open to differing interpretations.)

KephaMeansRock wrote:I don't think that's quite right. What we see is rather that the Roman Empire sanctioned Christianity in the form that it was already in : bishops in each diocese (the divisions put in place by anti-Christian emperor Diocletian), assuming leadership as the nobility fled to the countryside ('pagans' in the strict sense of the word!), and they kept order. Constantine saw this an - his conversion aside as some doubt it - he revoked the condemnation for being Christian. It was Theodosius 2 generations and 13 emperors later who made it the official religion of state (which is why I get edgy when people make claims about 'Constantine' inventing Roman Catholicism...at least they could make more sense of their claim if they claimed "Theodosius invented it"!).

This was a double edged sword, but a gift of God.

Whereas with Israel, he gave them "cities they did not build" through conquest (but always showing that it wasn't based upon their strength), with his final and everlasting covenant, he gave the Church an entire nation they did not build, and they did so without violence.

This is a series of rather astonishing conclusions. You are correct in that Constantine did not make Christianity the state religion, but you cannot deny that he was responsible for a sea-change within the Church regarding power and violence. The message of the early Church had been 'makarioi oi eirenopoios', but after Constantine there was a significant minority in the Church proclaiming 'in hoc signo vinces' (a message which completely contradicts any sane interpretation of the Gospel). To say that Constantine won that particular battle without violence is to deny a sizeable chunk of the data!

And Jesus did warn his followers against seeking high places and places of honour. And for good reason, it seems. The Church under Theodosius had taken on the powers of Pilate, as much temporal as ecclesiastical.

On violence:

KephaMeansRock wrote:And when you're cool headed to attempt 10 different ways to do this and it has no effect, then?

Then I have failed, and whatever I do then would be sin. However, in such a choice between apathy and violence, I choose violence.

Jesus and Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. (each a great pacifist in his time) had less use for the apathetic even than they did for the violent.

KephaMeansRock wrote:Que? Your professors are not subject to apostolic succession...

No, but they are tenured, which would seem analogous.

Anyway, shouldn't those subject to apostolic succession strive to be even more humble than their academic counterparts? Do they succeed?

KephaMeansRock wrote:Moreover, divisions and factions were never in the plan.

They sure sprang up early: to preach to Gentiles or not? One person or three? Two substances or one? Apocatastasis or hell?

Quibbling over minor points of doctrine, and the existence of a hierarchy which took one side and persecuted the other has caused more division than it has saved. Christianity was to remain a radically inclusive community of belief: I believe this can still be done by affirming the Gospel message.

For the record, I don't buy into sola scriptura, either. But I think the Pope (as well as his followers) can and have made some pretty big goof-ups throughout history, including slaughtering defenceless Christians, Jews and Moslems.

KephaMeansRock wrote:The Christian church was anti-militarist because it had not a military.

I find it interesting that you're willing to follow the early church in their anti-militarism but not in their belief in apostolic succession and such...

What can I say? St. Paul urged us to 'test all things, and hold fast to the good'.

As regards military service in the Early Church, perhaps this might be useful reading.

I don't have much time, so I'm going to wrap it up here.

Thanks, Justin, glad to see you haven't given up on me yet!

- Matt

KephaMeansRock · Post by **KephaMeansRock** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 11:29 am

I may be a democrat (lower-case 'd'), and I may be a modernist, and I may be western by ethnicity, but I have to object to being dismissed as an 'individualist'. I don't think any proper reading of the Gospel will allow for the kind of individualism our society (the United States) sees fit to propagate.

Sorry, I didn't mean to pigeonhole you...

But I think the inherent distrust of hierarchy - especially in matters of faith - is still a remnant product of the society we live in and goes against the grain of the scriptures.

I think the Scriptures are pretty clear that there IS a structure for establishing sound doctrine in the Church.

But in the Gospel, as in all else, the actions of Jesus speak louder than his words do... And even what he spoke, he spoke not to uphold or establish any kind of hierarchy, but to affirm a radically inclusive community of faith. When Jesus gave his apostles their mission (a point on which, Justin, I believe you linger a little too often and too long), this mission was to spread the word, for the purpose of building up this radically inclusive community.

And I think you skip this much to quickly...

His very actions show that he was setting up a body to preserve the truth, the same truth that he promised would set up free. There is nothing in there about new scriptures, and everything revolves utterly around the Church. And what/who does Christ build his church upon? The Apostles! The very ones he gave authority to "bind" and "loose". He didn't give that authority to everyone and to miss that is to miss precisely what Christ is doing...to miss his actions!

You mention the notions of 'actual' and 'sanctifying' grace: I hold that these are just different ways of classifying the same favour of God, and again, I'm not sure that such a classification is good for anything but delineating the outcome... But it's all still grace.

It is all still grace, but god's grace is given to all freely, even those who refuse it. He gives actual grace to all to bring them to repentance, but only sanctifying grace goes to those who are in him.

But it is all still grace...

Sanctifying grace stays in the soul. It’s what makes the soul holy; it gives the soul supernatural life. More properly, it is supernatural life.

Actual grace, by contrast, is a supernatural push or encouragement. It’s transient. It doesn’t live in the soul, but acts on the soul from the outside, so to speak. It’s a supernatural kick in the pants. It gets the will and intellect moving so we can seek out and keep sanctifying grace.

Imagine yourself transported instantaneously to the bottom of the ocean. What’s the very first thing you’ll do? That’s right: die. You’d die because you aren’t equipped to live underwater. You don’t have the right breathing apparatus.

If you want to live in the deep blue sea, you need equipment you aren’t provided with naturally; you need something that will elevate you above your nature, something super- (that is, "above") natural, such as oxygen tanks.

It’s much the same with your soul. In its natural state, it isn’t fit for heaven. It doesn’t have the right equipment, and if you die with your soul in its natural state, heaven won’t be for you. What you need to live there is supernatural life, not just natural life. That supernatural life is called sanctifying grace. The reason you need sanctifying grace to be able to live in heaven is because you will be in perfect and absolute union with God, the source of all life (cf. Gal. 2:19, 1 Pet. 3:18).

If sanctifying grace dwells in your soul when you die, then you have the equipment you need, and you can live in heaven (though you may need to be purified first in purgatory; cf. 1 Cor. 3:12–16). If it doesn’t dwell in your soul when you die—in other words, if your soul is spiritually dead by being in the state of mortal sin.

You can obtain supernatural life by yielding to actual graces you receive. God keeps giving you these divine pushes, and all you have to do is go along.

I thin that is important because ultimately you're not doing actions but yielding to the actual grace imparted by God which leads you to the very sacraments he set up as conduits of grace. The Sacraments allow us to COOPERATE with God in his salvific plan, and thereby lead to grace.

You also mention the sacraments and their relationship to grace. I have no problem with anything that you wrote (which I find more and more to be the case), but rather some of the assumptions underlying them. The only problem that I have with the designation as sacraments is that they are the cart and grace is the horse. You can't put the sacraments before grace; grace is by definition unconditional, unmerited. If grace comes after the sacraments as physical actions, it becomes a matter of merit and ceases to be grace.

I disagree, because I think that the distinction between Actual and Sanctifying grace does hold, and explains this. The sacraments are conduits of grace, which only grace can impel us to receive. Participation in the sacraments is cooperation with the [actual] grace of God, which imparts [sanctifying] grace. It does INVOLVE our actions - but that is all part and parcel of the whole "bodily existence". That is why "faith without works is dead" (James 2), and why some sins are 'mortal' (i.e. able to kill sanctifying grace in our soul and put our spirit in mortal danger of eternal separation from God)(1 John 5)

(By the way, I have read Hume and I don't agree with all of his conclusions. I was referring rather to the logical 'is/ought' fallacy.)

Fair point.

This I find an interesting use of the Greek. I notice the 'each one who is a part of you and yours', which suggests a fluidity in the concept of personhood or 'one-ness' particularly in this time. Perhaps we can agree that each person who repents must each be baptised?

At least that, yes - but again I think the text suggest more than that. But baptism is normatively necessary.

A new Eve? Does that make Jesus a new Cain?

No. The New Adam. As the Old Eve was taken from the Old Adam, so the New Adam is take from the New Eve. "Adam and Eve" are a natual pair in scripture. When Christ is described as "the new Adam" the next logical question is "who is the new eve" and as a singular, Mary fits this to a T. Now, the Bride of Adam was Eve, and the Bride of Christ is the Church - but Mary is the very first member of the church, accepting Christ not only into her heart but her very womb!

It is Mary that the Proto-Evangelium of Genesis 3:15 speaks "I will put enmity between the you [the serpent] and the woman, between her seed and yours. You will bruise His heel, and He will crush your head."

This woman is the New Eve. And Multiple times Christ refers to his mother as "Woman" precisely because he was identifying her with this woman. When he begins his ministry at Cana, it is at his mothers behest. "Woman" he says (and as the perfect jewish man, he was NOT disrespecting his mother) "what is this between you and me. My time has not come yet".

Yet Mary's guidance is to "do whatever he tells you" (sound advice!) and he obeys, beginning his ministry.

In his dying words on the Cross, he gives his mother to the world through "the beloved disciple" saying "Woman, behold your son; Son, behold your mother".

And Rev 12 Shows us Mary as "the woman" arrayed in heaven as a queen and birthing the Christ Child (and the end of Rev 11 directly juxtaposes her with the Ark of the Old Covenant, more later).

For an early view of this:

"[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course which was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied, ‘Be it done unto me according to your word’ [Luke 1:38]" (St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 100 [A.D. 155]).

"Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, ‘Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.’ Eve, however, was disobedient, and, when yet a virgin, she did not obey. Just as she, who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband—for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children, and it was necessary that they first come to maturity before beginning to multiply—having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

Sorry...that was a lot more than I meant to post on that issue...Mary is an odd subject in that I feel a need to defend her (in part because she is such a hot contention point for many non-catholics) even though I personally don't pray the rosary very often.

More if you wish...

(Justin, nota bene: even Catholic apologetics websites warn against using the 'kecharitomene' passage as support for this particular ex cathedra statement, since they realise that the 'kecharitomene' is open to differing interpretations.)

Maybe, but Charitoo certainly CAN mean what was claimed (of which kecharitomene is the perfect past participle)

Nevertheless, fair point - which is why I do not rest on that point alone!

This is a series of rather astonishing conclusions. You are correct in that Constantine did not make Christianity the state religion, but you cannot deny that he was responsible for a sea-change within the Church regarding power and violence. The message of the early Church had been 'makarioi oi eirenopoios', but after Constantine there was a significant minority in the Church proclaiming 'in hoc signo vinces' (a message which completely contradicts any sane interpretation of the Gospel). To say that Constantine won that particular battle without violence is to deny a sizeable chunk of the data!

Careful, because I think you're drawing some unsound conclusions yourself. I didn't say that Constantine won without violence.

Heck, I'm not denying Constantine didn't fight. I'm saying the victory was for Christianity, and Christnaity itself didn't lift a finger.

In his army were few if any Christians (being the non-militant people you claim them to be, which for now I'll concede). Yet through HIS actions (not those of the church), Christianity was relieved of the pressure of external punishment for dis-belief in the public deities. This was not a battle they fought - it was handed to them. I posit that this was the Grace of God's providence working itself out.

Can a Christian only be Christian in a pagan society? Can a Christian not be a Christian in a Christian society? Sure the lack of an external threat does change things, but I don't think it's detrimental to Christianity in general.

And Jesus did warn his followers against seeking high places and places of honour. And for good reason, it seems. The Church under Theodosius had taken on the powers of Pilate, as much temporal as ecclesiastical.

There is a categorical difference between seeking high places and honor, and simply having them. The church has leaders - but all leaders are to be merely the servants of the people.

In the few centuries between Christ's ascension and Constantine, the Church had come into power because the bishops were willing to step into those positions of secular authority left vacant as the aristocracy fled to the countryside in the wake of invaders so as to maintain order and stability for all, which then made them in many ways natural leaders for Constantine to choose - regardless of his conversion.

Anyway, shouldn't those subject to apostolic succession strive to be even more humble than their academic counterparts? Do they succeed?

Yes, and no; respectively. They are human.

They sure sprang up early: to preach to Gentiles or not? One person or three? Two substances or one? Apocatastasis or hell?

Amen!

I guess to say they were never a part of the plan is a misnomer...they were accounted for in the plan, though not themselves a part of the plan. Hence Christ founding the Church.

Quibbling over minor points of doctrine, and the existence of a hierarchy which took one side and persecuted the other has caused more division than it has saved. Christianity was to remain a radically inclusive community of belief: I believe this can still be done by affirming the Gospel message.

I don't think whether or not Christ is God or a demi-God is a small point.

Moreover, I don't think you can fairly say that they "persecuted" the other side, especially Before Constantine (given the examples you cited, most fell B.C.)

For the record, I don't buy into sola scriptura, either. But I think the Pope (as well as his followers) can and have made some pretty big goof-ups throughout history, including slaughtering defenceless Christians, Jews and Moslems.

I won't deny they sin; I won't deny that they've egregiously sinned. I won't deny that Dirk (referenced above, perhaps by you) was a great example of Christian Virtue. ALL of these things are consistent with what the Church has taught, itself internally and biblically consistent.

As regards military service in the Early Church, perhaps this might be useful reading.

I've read that before, actually. A few warnings:

1) It's not biblical! (but then, you're not a strict sola scriptura adherent either)
2) It could be (though I'll not assert this positively) that he was professing that he was not permitted to serve given his conscience
3) It is more likely that most Christians didn't serve because they'd be attacking other Christians as part of their "duty", and engaging in unjust actions - NOT because it was verboten...

Question: Is it better for Christians to stay out of the military and police forces and let them run themselves utterly secularly, or to join them so as to better them and serve as a check to the system?

Thanks, Justin, glad to see you haven't given up on me yet!

<dumb joke>Well, I've got 4 more conversions before I get my merit badge! </dumb joke>

Pax Christi,

Justin

samuelbb7 · Post by **samuelbb7** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 4:16 pm

First to Arahay.

Yes the Torah is truth. So is the rest of the Tanak as well as the New Testament.

Thank you Catharsis and MaguYanum

YOur point on why the Papal system is incorrect are great and you evidence is excellent. I will leave that argument in your competent hands.

To Justin. I will again drop some points. If I concede a point I will tell you so dropping some is not the same thing.

[strike]Spoken like a true Catholic![/strike]

Make it catholic and I agree.

Maybe I'm thinking of another board, but didn't you say earlier that you didn't agree with everything they taught?

Nope. I said that some points are not settled and allow room for debate.

Paul seems to have no problem citing the Deuteros, when he gives the list of "hero's of the OT" in Hebrews 11, vs 35 references people who were tortured "for the sake of a better resurrection", which you can only find in 2 Maccabees 7.

I am positive that this maybe a true story. But that does not make it scripture.

Moreover, when the Sadducee approached Christ to trick him into admitting the resurrection was non-sense, they brought to him a story of a woman who had been married 7 times to 7 brothers and none had given her kids. They asked which would be her husband in heaven. This story they were quoting from Tobit, a book they rejected but which Christ would have had in his scriptures - the Septuagint.

JESUS taught out of the Tanak of the Jews not the Septuagint he taught and read the Hebrew scriptures.

There are plenty of others, but those two always stand out in my head.

The long and the short of it is that from the VERY FIRST TIME the Christian Church had an official "canon", those 7 books were in it, along with the other 39 OT and 27 NT books. Gutenberg's bible had them. You accept the rest, but throw out these 7...I challenge you to show me biblically how you even know what books belong in the scriptures.

Let me say this again. I accept the early church choice of the New Testament books and the council that accepted them. I have read the apocrypha and find it historically helpful. I however do accept the Protestant position that they are not scripture.

The teaching Prima scripture is actually very similar to Sola scripture. Since in Sola scripture traditions may be used but they must submit and not contradict scripture.

In some ways...

But prima scrptura is basically the same thing. The Scripture is the final arbiter of all truth. If Sola Scriptura is a heresy then prima would be too.

No. Sola scripture says "scripture only" which is logically impossible.

It is true that if you do not use anything else is logically impossible. But the true understanding of sola Scripture is that it is the final authority in all matters. So any tradition must find it's root in scripture and not contradict scripture.

Prima Scriptura says "nothing can contradict scripture" but it admits that not everything may be explicitly in scripture, and that there is a magisterial body who can teach authoritatively.

I would agree if that were it. But as a fact of history Scripture has been overthrown in favor of tradition. I am letting others handle it but the primacy of the pope is one where tradition overthrows scripture. Catharsis and Mangus have done an excellent job of showing that.

We are saved by Grace alone; Grace is given freely to Faith; Faith is only faith if it has works; "faith without works is dead".

How very Protestant of you. That statement in the 1600's could get you burned at the stake.

I believe that SACRAMENTS - visible signs of an invisible reality - really impart Grace because Christ gave them to us, and that they can thereby save us.

Magus points our your fallacy here.

I believe that the work of Christ must be applied to our lives.

Agreed. JESUS CHRIST our High Priest in the Heavenly Sanctuary applies his work to our life in the process of Justification when we are Born again by the power of the HOLY SPIRIT. Then the HOLY SPIRIT in the New person we are works the works of JESUS by us dying daily to self and living to JESUS. A process called Sanctification.

The Church began as the FULFILLMENT of Judaism, but also clearly taught that the old Law (not the moral law, i.e. the 10 commandments) was no longer applicable. Christians ......

NASB
Exd 20:3 "You shall have no other gods before Me.
Exd 20:4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.
Exd 20:5 "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,
Exd 20:6 but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
Exd 20:7 "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.

I agree in following the Ten Commandments. Here are some.

it is first off a DISCIPLINE, not a DOCTRINE. Marriage is NOT mandatory (Neither Paul nor Christ were married), and celibacy is the HIGHER CALLING (1 Cor 7), and the Church has the right to ordain whom she chooses.

it will be a discipline when the RCC allows married priests. But I am going to drop this one.

Never claimed that Peter was the cornerstone. Christ is. Peter is the Rock upon which the Church is built. That's why he's called Peter/Cephas/Kepha/Rock.

This statement removes JESUS from being the cornerstone and puts Peter in his place. The foundation of the Church is all the Apostles, prophets and JESUS being the cornerstone.

Mat 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

Luk 20:17 And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?

Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone];

Mat 21:44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
Luk 20:18 Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

We must fall on JESUS or he will fall on us. I will build on no other foundation but JESUS and his apostles.

The only point I want answered that you missed is how we know what books belong in the NT (and what good they do given that you think they're errant).

First I had already answered that the books I accepted are the New Testament. I believe the Bible is infallible. It has not incorrect teachings.

I would like to bring up and keep the doctrine of Conditionilism. When a person dies they are asleep.

Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
King James Version 1611, 1769

NASB
Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Point one we are a soul a living being. [/b]

KephaMeansRock · Post by **KephaMeansRock** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 8:32 pm

Spoken like a true Catholic!

Make it catholic and I agree.

No, because a Catholic would say that, and that was how I was judging your phrase.

:p

Paul seems to have no problem citing the Deuteros, when he gives the list of "hero's of the OT" in Hebrews 11, vs 35 references people who were tortured "for the sake of a better resurrection", which you can only find in 2 Maccabees 7.[/quote]I am positive that this maybe a true story. But that does not make it scripture. [/quote]

But every other citation from Hebrews 11 can be found in scripture, before and after this...why this one random citation from something non-canonical?

JESUS taught out of the Tanak of the Jews not the Septuagint he taught and read the Hebrew scriptures.

2/3rds of all the OT quotes in the NT are taken from the Septuagint, and the Jews at Jamnia refused to accept the deuteros BECAUSE the Christians accepted them...meditate on that!

Let me say this again. I accept the early church choice of the New Testament books and the council that accepted them. I have read the apocrypha and find it historically helpful. I however do accept the Protestant position that they are not scripture.

So...how do you know - scripturally - which books belong in either part, OT or NT?

But prima scrptura is basically the same thing. The Scripture is the final arbiter of all truth. If Sola Scriptura is a heresy then prima would be too.

No, because Prima Scriptura admits that there is other sources of tradition which bear serious weight on interpreting scripture, whereas Sola Scriptura is technically a blank check (and is very often treated exactly as such).

Tradition cannot CHANGE what was given infallibly by God through the Spirit - but Tradition is also safeguarded by that self-same spirit who ensures the church "remembers all things" (John 14:26)

It is true that if you do not use anything else is logically impossible. But the true understanding of sola Scripture is that it is the final authority in all matters. So any tradition must find it's root in scripture and not contradict scripture.

No, because many traditions PREDATE scripture, including the very existence of the Church, by whom, to whom and for whom the NT scriptures were written. Jesus didn't just hand off a book, he gave us a Church, and it is that Church which is "the pillar and foundation of the truth", and which has existed in every century, whose leaders exist in a direct line leading back from bishop to bishop until you arrive at the very apostles themselves.

I would agree if that were it. But as a fact of history Scripture has been overthrown in favor of tradition. I am letting others handle it but the primacy of the pope is one where tradition overthrows scripture. Catharsis and Mangus have done an excellent job of showing that.

How does the primacy of one steward over the others (given that only one recieved the keys to the kingdom, and all that that entails) overthrow scripture? Why is Peter ALWAYS listed first, always called first, often (and only) listed as distinct? Why did the entire early church (even the orthodox) see something uniquely special about Peter's office?

I do not think you can just dismiss this point the way you seem to be doing.

We are saved by Grace alone; Grace is given freely to Faith; Faith is only faith if it has works; "faith without works is dead".
How very Protestant of you. That statement in the 1600's could get you burned at the stake.

Ever read the Council of Trent?

"If any one saith that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema."

THAT is the teaching of the Catholic Church; that's as official as it gets. That's the first canon on Justification for the whole council.

I believe that SACRAMENTS - visible signs of an invisible reality - really impart Grace because Christ gave them to us, and that they can thereby save us.
Magus points our your fallacy here.

I caught no fallacy; just disagreement.

it will be a discipline when the RCC allows married priests. But I am going to drop this one.

Well, they have 'em. So done and done.

Never claimed that Peter was the cornerstone. Christ is. Peter is the Rock upon which the Church is built. That's why he's called Peter/Cephas/Kepha/Rock.
This statement removes JESUS from being the cornerstone and puts Peter in his place. The foundation of the Church is all the Apostles, prophets and JESUS being the cornerstone.

How?

First I had already answered that the books I accepted are the New Testament. I believe the Bible is infallible. It has not incorrect teachings.

That wasn't my question. My question is: WHY DO YOU ACCEPT THE NEW TESTAMENT AT ALL, AND WHY THOSE 27 BOOKS?

The irony, from a Catholic perspective, is that a Protestant's entire faith is based upon a book for which he has no certitude what its contents should be...I'm still open to learning otherwise, but I do not see how it is logically possible...

I would like to bring up and keep the doctrine of Conditionilism. When a person dies they are asleep.

Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
King James Version 1611, 1769

NASB
Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Point one we are a soul a living being.

Okay...

I'll trust you ran out of time here or something...I'm confused...perhaps you can better explain the link later?

However, Isaiah 14:9-10 tells us that the dead are agitated and are speaking. 1 Samuel 28 tells of Samuel conversing with Saul after his death. In 1 Peter 3:19, Jesus preaches to souls in prison. Why preach to sleeping spirits? Talk about a bored audience!

Try telling the rich man in the story of Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) not to worry, since he is just sleeping.

If the dead are asleep, one must ask how Jesus communicated with them during his transfiguration (Matt. 17:3), how they offer our prayers to God (Rev. 5:8), how they cry out in a loud voice in praise of God (Rev. 7:10), and how these sleeping, unconscious souls cry out, "How long will it be, holy and true master, before you sit in judgment and avenge our blood on the inhabitants of the earth?" (Rev. 6:10). Those who have died are more alive than we are, and they surround us like a great cloud of witnesses (Heb. 12:1).

I just don't think it flies...