Name a really bad doctrine that needs retiring

[epostle1]

Apparently you have never read 2 Tim 3:16 (NIV) or 2 Peter 3:14-16 (NIV)?

Do you know what inculcated means?

2 Tim 3:
[14] But as for you, continue in what you have learned (TRADITION) and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it (MAGISTERIUM)
[15] and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings (SCRIPTURE) which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
[16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
[17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Sola scripturists ignore verse 14 and 15 because it demolishes their position.

The Bible on St. Paul's list comes in third, not first. He actually gives here the traditional Catholic teaching on the three sources of sound teaching.
In verse 15 he goes into an excursus on the Bible. This brief excursus emphasizes the value of the Bible and recommends a fourfold method of exegesis. This verse was used as a proof text for the Quadriga which was the standard Catholic approach to the Bible. The Quadriga method used the following four categories:

Literal/Literary (teaching) - the text as it is written
Analogical (reproof) - matters of faith
Anagogical (correction) - matters of hope/prophecy
Moral (training in righteousness) - matters of charity

The so called reformers rejected all this and instead adopted a more literal approach to biblical exegesis, and Martin Luther was rejected by his contemporaries for ignoring 2 Timothy 3:16.

2 Peter 3:14-16 does not support sola scriptura either. It says Paul wrote with God's wisdom, it says nothing about scripture alone.

 

[epostle1]

Jesus has a question for you in Matt 15:3.... Why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?

Whose tradition is Jesus referring to, and which traditions were they?

 

[OzSpen]

Kepha,

What about this kind of evidence from the early church and these church fathers' views of Scripture?

Irenaeus , in Against Heresies (written ca AD 185), stated, 'if they had known the Scriptures, and been taught by the truth, they would have known, beyond doubt, that God is not as men are; and that His thoughts are not like the thoughts of men' (Kirby 2015, Against Heresies 2.13.2).
Irenaeus , in Against Heresies (written ca AD 185), stated, 'if they had known the Scriptures, and been taught by the truth,



In addition,
Also, 'WE have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith' (Kirby 2015, Against Heresies 3.1.1).


According to Robert Preus's assessment, in Against Heresies, Irenaeus 'cites Scripture no fewer than 1,200 times' (Preus 1979:360).

First the Gospel was proclaimed in public, then handed down (in Greek, "paradosis", which means tradition) in the Scriptures. It does not say the Gospel was first proclaimed in the form of Scriptures, but the Scriptures came at a later period. Common sense tells us that Jesus and the Apostles did not read from the New Testament. The Scriptures came from what was handed down after the Gospel was proclaimed. Tradition never contradicts, supplants, or competes with scripture. There is a complementarity and Irenaeus makes similar suggestions in other writings. Nowhere does Irenaeus say "scripture alone".

Finally, Irenaeus wrote around 200 A.D. There was no complete, universally accepted list of inspired New Testament books. How does "sola scriptura" function in the first 3 centuries without a complete New Testament? This citation refutes sola scriptura.

“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord's Scriptures."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5,20:2 (A.D. 180).
complementarity

“True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God]."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4,33:8 (inter A.D. 180-199).
He doesn't say the Church stands over the Scriptures, he says the Church is a servant of the Scriptures. The complementarity is three fold.

"[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180).

Hmm...you might want to ignore that one.

Augustine of Hippo wrote to Jerome, ' I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it (Letter to Jerome Jerome 82.1.3).

We know the authors were completely free from error, inerrancy has nothing to do with sola scriptura. Augustine never says "scripture alone". And what happens if there is serious disagreement on what the sacred authors meant? Start a new church?

"But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or pronunciation. Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things."
Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3,2:2 (A.D. 397).


Works consulted
Kirby, P 2015. Irenaeus of Lyons. Early Christian Writings, 10 October. Against heresies. Available at: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/irenaeus.html (Accessed 10 October 2015).

Preus, R D 1979. The view of the Bible held by the church: The early church through Luther. In N L Geisler (ed), Inerracy, 357-384. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House. Part of this article is available online HERE.

These 2 church fathers had a very high view of the authority of Scripture, one being from the second and the other from the third centuries.

Oz

Scripture, Tradition and the Church are in harmony. Just because Tradition is a different mode of transmission of the Word of God does not mean it is inferior to the Written Word of God. No Tradition, no Scriptures, it's that simple. No Church, no Tradition...even simpler. No Jesus, no Church...but you already know that.






Kepha,

If you go back to #195, what was the question I asked: 'What about this kind of evidence from the early church and these church fathers' views of Scripture?' I was dealing with the church fathers' indication of their views of the authority of Scripture and not what you want to impose on me: Sola Scriptura.

You introduced new material with your statement: 'First the Gospel was proclaimed in public, then handed down (in Greek, "paradosis", which means tradition) in the Scriptures. It does not say the Gospel was first proclaimed in the form of Scriptures, but the Scriptures came at a later period'.

Let's check out the 2 church fathers I mentioned previously, Irenaeus and Augustine, to determine their views on Scripture.

The sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) principle that is a renowned doctrine of the Protestant Reformation was taught much earlier than that.

Your statement was, 'Nowhere does Irenaeus say "scripture alone' (#199).

Irenaeus wrote: 'We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith' (Against Heresies 3.1.1).

Irenaeus again: 'When however, they [the Gnostics] are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and assert that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For they allege that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viva voce [orally]' (Against Heresies 3.2.1).

Irenaeus wrote of the heretics (in context they primarily included the Gnostics):

'They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures; and, to use a common proverb, they strive to weave ropes of sand, while they endeavour to adapt with an air of probability to their own peculiar assertions the parables of the Lord, the sayings of the prophets, and the words of the apostles, in order that their scheme may not seem altogether without support. In doing so, however, they disregard the order and the connection of the Scriptures, and so far as in them lies, dismember and destroy the truth. By transferring passages, and dressing them up anew, and making one thing out of another, they succeed in deluding many through their wicked art in adapting the oracles of the Lord to their opinions' (Against Heresies, 'How the Valentinians Pervert the Scriptures to Support Their Own Pious Opinions', 1.8.1).

Irenaeus again wrote:

'The rule of truth which we hold, is, that there is one God Almighty, who made all things by His Word, and fashioned and formed, out of that which had no existence, all things which exist. Thus says the Scripture, to that effect By the Word of the Lord were the heavens established, and all the might of them, by the spirit of His mouth"... Concerning, therefore, this rule, we shall easily show, notwithstanding the great variety and multitude of their opinions, that these men have deviated from the truth; for almost all the different sects of heretics admit that there is one God; but then, by their pernicious doctrines, they change [this truth into error], even as the Gentiles do through idolatry' (Against Heresies 1.22.1).

In addition, Irenaeus wrote: 'Besides the above [misrepresentations], they [Marcosians] adduce an unspeakable number of apocryphal and spurious writings, which they themselves have forged, to bewilder the minds of foolish men, and of such as are ignorant of the Scriptures of truth' (Against Heresies, ' 1.20.1).

By inference, Irenaeus is demonstrating the Protestant Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura.
In the writings of Augustine, he most certainly affirmed Scripture alone (sola Scriptura):

Augustine again: 'For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life' (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Chapter 9).

Augustine: 'I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error' (Augustine to Jerome, Letter 82, ch 1, #3)

Augustine: 'as I have said already, it is to the canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yield such implicit subjection as to follow their teaching, without admitting the slightest suspicion that in them any mistake or any statement intended to mislead could find a place' (Augustine to Jerome, Letter 82, ch 3, #24).

Augustine:

This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves (Augustine, The City of God, Book 11, Chapter 3).

Elsewhere he wrote;

'Whereas, therefore, in every question, which relates to life and conduct, not only teaching, but exhortation also is necessary; in order that by teaching we may know what is to be done, and by exhortation may be incited not to think it irksome to do what we already know is to be done; what more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For holy Scripture sets a rule to our teaching, that we dare not be wise more than it behooves to be wise; but be wise, as himself says, unto soberness, according as unto each God has allotted the measure of faith. Be it not therefore for me to teach you any other thing, save to expound to you the words of the Teacher, and to treat of them as the Lord shall have given to me' (Of the Good of Widowhood (Augustine, Of the Good of Widowhood #2).

Based on this kind of evidence, you will not convince me that the early church fathers had a low view of Scripture and did not believe in the authority of scriptural truth and canonical Scripture alone as the rule of faith and source of truth. Sola Scriptura was affirmed by Augustine and pointed to by Irenaeus.

Oz

 

[epostle1]

Kepha,

If you go back to #195, what was the question I asked: 'What about this kind of evidence from the early church and these church fathers' views of Scripture?' I was dealing with the church fathers' indication of their views of the authority of Scripture and not what you want to impose on me: Sola Scriptura.

You introduced new material with your statement: 'First the Gospel was proclaimed in public, then handed down (in Greek, "paradosis", which means tradition) in the Scriptures. It does not say the Gospel was first proclaimed in the form of Scriptures, but the Scriptures came at a later period'.

Sorry if you thought I was imposing SS on you. That is not new material but a re-statement of the quote. Post #195 indicates the ECF high view of scripture, which I do not disagree with, but none of the ECF held to sola scriptura. (SS) I would not impose that tradition of men on anyone.

Let's check out the 2 church fathers I mentioned previously, Irenaeus and Augustine, to determine their views on Scripture.

The sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) principle that is a renowned doctrine of t data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://newadvent.org/fathers/0103302theScriptures to Support Their Own Pious Opinions', 1.8.1).

Yes.
Irenaeus again wrote:


'The rule of truth which we hold, is, that there is one God Almighty, who made all things by His Word, and fashioned and formed, out of that which had no existence, all things which exist. Thus says the Scripture, to that effect By the Word of the Lord were the heavens established, and all the might of them, by the spirit of His mouth"... Concerning, therefore, this rule, we shall easily show, notwithstanding the great variety and multitude of their opinions, that these men have deviated from the truth; for almost all the different sects of heretics admit that there is one God; but then, by their pernicious doctrines, they change [this truth into error], even as the Gentiles do through idolatry' (Against Heresies 1.22.1).

This quote does not support SS, but condemns the heretics who have deviated from the truth by their opinions apart from the Church. Sound familiar?

In addition, Irenaeus wrote: 'Besides the above [misrepresentations], they [Marcosians] adduce an unspeakable number of apocryphal and spurious writings, which they themselves have forged, to bewilder the minds of foolish men, and of such as are ignorant of the Scriptures of truth' (Against Heresies, ' 1.20.1).

This quote does not support SS, it supports the scriptures of truth. "Scriptures of truth" means the scriptures are materially sufficient, it does not mean they are formally sufficient.

By inference, Irenaeus is de to Jerome,

Neither Irenaeus nor Jerome taught SS, they taught the harmony of scriptures with the Church and the Tradition that preserved them.

Material vs. Formal Sufficiency of Scripture​

​

Material sufficiency means that all the bricks necessary to build doctrine is there in Scripture. However, it also teaches that since the meaning of Scripture is not always clear and that sometimes a doctrine is implied rather than explicit, other things besides Scripture have been handed to us from the apostles: things like Sacred Tradition (which is the mortar that holds the bricks together in the right order and position) and the magisterium or teaching authority of the Church (which is the trowel in the hand of the Master Builder). Taken together, these three things -- Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium -- are formally sufficient for knowing the revealed truth of God.

. . . those who hold to the formal sufficiency of Scripture warn darkly that setting Scripture in the context of Sacred Tradition will inevitably put Scripture under the Church. The fear, in fact, is that to admit the revelatory nature of Sacred Tradition will necessarily subjugate Scripture to merely human agendas.

(in Not by Scripture Alone, edited by Robert A. Sungenis, Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Pub. Co., 1997, chapter 4: "What is the Relationship Between Scripture and Tradition?," 169-210; quote from 181-182)

The Trinity can be proven from Scripture, indeed (material sufficiency), but Scripture Alone as a principle was not formally sufficient to prevent the Arian crisis from occurring. In other words, the decisive factor in these controversies was the appeal to apostolic succession and Tradition, which showed that the Church had always been trinitarian. The Arians could not appeal to any such tradition because their christology was a heretical innovation of the 4th century.

The Arians thus appealed to Scripture Alone. And that is the point Catholics make about this. The Arian formal principle was deficient, so that they could appeal to the Bible Alone and come up with Arianism (just like Jehovah's Witnesses do today). If they had held also to an authoritative Sacred Tradition, this could not have happened because the "tradition of Arianism" was non-existent.

We claim that apostolic Tradition is necessary along with Sacred Scripture. This was the patristic principle, and how they invariably fought the heretics. The biblical arguments provided the "meat" of their arguments, but in the end they would appeal to the Tradition of "what had always been believed everywhere by everyone" (St. Vincent of Lerin's dictum -- the Commonitorium where this comes from is also the most explicit exposition of development of doctrine in the Fathers, and Newman's starting-point).
read more here.

 

[StanJ]

2 Tim 3:
[14] But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it
[15] and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
[16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
[17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Sola scripturists ignore verse 14 and 15 because it demolishes their position.

The Bible on St. Paul's list comes in third, not first. He actually gives here the traditional Catholic teaching on the three sources of sound teaching.
In verse 15 he goes into an excursus on the Bible. This brief excursus emphasizes the value of the Bible and recommends a fourfold method of exegesis. This verse was used as a proof text for the Quadriga which was the standard Catholic approach to the Bible. The Quadriga method used the following four categories:

Literal/Literary (teaching) - the text as it is written
Analogical (reproof) - matters of faith
Anagogical (correction) - matters of hope/prophecy
Moral (training in righteousness) - matters of charity

The so called reformers rejected all this and instead adopted a more literal approach to biblical exegesis, and Martin Luther was rejected by his contemporaries for ignoring 2 Timothy 3:16.

2 Peter 3:14-16 does not support sola scriptura either. It says Paul wrote with God's wisdom, it says nothing about scripture alone.

First of all I've removed the words you added to change the meaning.
Secondly, ONLY the RCC ignores scripture and adds their own words.
Thirdly, what Timothy learned WAS Scripture, if you actually understood what 14 & 15 depicts rather than trying to insinuate RCC dogma into them.

Paul taught long before the RCC was ever established, but being so inculcated as you are, you ignore ALL factual history in support of your own revisionist history. A rather sad indictment of just how blind the RCC is.

I don't really care about historical prevarications that are NOT accurate or embellished to suit your own purposes. We are in the here and now with scripture that is here and now. If you can't read it without your eisegetical RCC glasses, then you fail to see what IS there.

Jesus said....IT IS WRITTEN. Many NT writers said IT IS WRITTEN. THAT is scripture, not tradition. The RCC says "we say what is written and what it means". Yeh right!!!

How long have you been inculcated in the RCC dogma?

 

[StanJ]

Whose tradition is Jesus referring to, and which traditions were they?

You don't know? Is it because these small direct questions don't have an answer in your RCC apologetics course?

 

[OzSpen]

Kepha,

It's amazing that you totally ignored what I wrote about Augustine teaching Scripture Alone (Sola Scriptura). Not a word from you. That's a classic example of filtering out (censoring) the information I provided about Augustine.

And you claim: 'Neither Irenaeus nor Jerome taught SS [Sola Scriptura]'. And have a guess what? I wrote not a word about Jerome's teaching. Not a word! The only mention I made of Jerome was Augustine's letter to Jerome in which Augustine affirmed Sola Scriptura.

I provide the evidence for Sola Scriptura from Augustine and you can't seem to handle that, so you ignore it.

Bye,
Oz

This quote does not support SS, but condemns the heretics who have deviated from the truth by their opinions apart from the Church. Sound familiar?


This quote does not support SS, it supports the scriptures of truth. "Scriptures of truth" means the scriptures are materially sufficient, it does not mean they are formally sufficient.

Neither Irenaeus nor Jerome taught SS, they taught the harmony of scriptures with the Church and the Tradition that preserved them.

Material vs. Formal Sufficiency of Scripture​

​

Material sufficiency means that all the bricks necessary to build doctrine is there in Scripture. However, it also teaches that since the meaning of Scripture is not always clear and that sometimes a doctrine is implied rather than explicit, other things besides Scripture have been handed to us from the apostles: things like Sacred Tradition (which is the mortar that holds the bricks together in the right order and position) and the magisterium or teaching authority of the Church (which is the trowel in the hand of the Master Builder). Taken together, these three things -- Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium -- are formally sufficient for knowing the revealed truth of God.

. . . those who hold to the formal sufficiency of Scripture warn darkly that setting Scripture in the context of Sacred Tradition will inevitably put Scripture under the Church. The fear, in fact, is that to admit the revelatory nature of Sacred Tradition will necessarily subjugate Scripture to merely human agendas.

(in Not by Scripture Alone, edited by Robert A. Sungenis, Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Pub. Co., 1997, chapter 4: "What is the Relationship Between Scripture and Tradition?," 169-210; quote from 181-182)

The Trinity can be proven from Scripture, indeed (material sufficiency), but Scripture Alone as a principle was not formally sufficient to prevent the Arian crisis from occurring. In other words, the decisive factor in these controversies was the appeal to apostolic succession and Tradition, which showed that the Church had always been trinitarian. The Arians could not appeal to any such tradition because their christology was a heretical innovation of the 4th century.

The Arians thus appealed to Scripture Alone. And that is the point Catholics make about this. The Arian formal principle was deficient, so that they could appeal to the Bible Alone and come up with Arianism (just like Jehovah's Witnesses do today). If they had held also to an authoritative Sacred Tradition, this could not have happened because the "tradition of Arianism" was non-existent.

We claim that apostolic Tradition is necessary along with Sacred Scripture. This was the patristic principle, and how they invariably fought the heretics. The biblical arguments provided the "meat" of their arguments, but in the end they would appeal to the Tradition of "what had always been believed everywhere by everyone" (St. Vincent of Lerin's dictum -- the Commonitorium where this comes from is also the most explicit exposition of development of doctrine in the Fathers, and Newman's starting-point).
read more here.

 

[epostle1]

First of all I've removed the words you added to change the meaning.
Secondly, ONLY the RCC ignores scripture and adds their own words

If the CC did such a bad job in preserving the scriptures, then any version you use is wrong too.
Thirdly, what Timothy learned WAS Scripture, if you actually understood what 14 & 15 depicts rather than trying to insinuate RCC dogma into them.

Timothy, as a child, studied the New Testament??? You ignore what verse 14 and 15 clearly states.

Paul taught long before the RCC was ever established, but being so inculcated as you are, you ignore ALL factual history in support of your own revisionist history. A rather sad indictment of just how blind the RCC is.

Factual history says Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Any other founder of your inventions is revisionist history. You can find lots of false histories all over the 'net.

I don't really care about historical prevarications that are NOT accurate or embellished to suit your own purposes. We are in the here and now with scripture that is here and now. If you can't read it without your eisegetical RCC glasses, then you fail to see what IS there.

Sola scriptura is not in scriptures. Scripture is inspired, the true meaning of scripture is inerrant, scripture is the written Word of God, but nowhere does any of this mean scripture alone. You fail to show me what you claim is there.

Jesus said....IT IS WRITTEN. Many NT writers said IT IS WRITTEN. THAT is scripture, not tradition. The RCC says "we say what is written and what it means". Yeh right!!!

How long have you been inculcated in the RCC dogma?


http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/20155-name-a-really-bad-doctrine-that-needs-retiring/page-5
post #150
My position stands.

In this same passage Jesus reminds the devil of the passage, "man shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." Not all of God's words are contained in Scripture. Besides Christ who is the Word of God (John 1:1,14), some of God's words come down to us in oral fashion (c.f., Acts 20:27; Gal. 1:11-12, 15-16; 1Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 2:2). Christ does not say nor does he imply a"scripture alone" approach to truth in this passage. Rather, he reminds us that we are to cling to and live by every word that he speaks, not just the written words contained in Scripture. Notice too the implicit warning here. The mere quoting of Scripture is not enough to establish one's truth claims, since here we see the devil himself (mis)quoting Scripture! That's why Peter warned that, "In Paul's epistles there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own
destruction, just as they do the other Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:16).

http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/20155-name-a-really-bad-doctrine-that-needs-retiring/page-6
post #164
My answer to your “IT IS WRITTEN” stands. You ignored what I said about “IT IS WRITTEN” in post #164

You repeated the same abuse of “IT IS WRITTEN” in post #187 and I corrected you again in more detail in post #189

Your response:

All of the above is pretty much solid evidence that you DON'T read my responses with ANY comprehension. Augustine was born in 354 AD, and I said the LXX was written around 350 BCE. The fact that you equivocate about a simple matter as this just shows you have NO willingness at all to actually learn or discuss, so I'm through with this. It's a waste of my time and website space.

Since you ignore my posts and can only repeat a private, erroneous interpretation of “IT IS WRITTEN”,
you should stop wasting your time.

 

[epostle1]

Jesus has a question for you in Matt 15:3.... Why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?

Read it slowly, Stan. Jesus says, "...YOUR tradition..."; the traditions the Jews invented to avoid giving honor to their parents under the pretense of giving all to God. Read the whole chapter. Jesus is not condemning the traditions they were supposed to follow, and certainly not the Traditions that He himself followed, just the traditions that the scribes and pharisees invented. That's why He says "YOUR" traditions. I'm afraid you have been deceived into thinking Jesus condemns all tradition.

 

[epostle1]

Kepha,

It's amazing that you totally ignored what I wrote about Augustine teaching Scripture Alone (Sola Scriptura). Not a word from you. That's a classic example of filtering out (censoring) the information I provided about Augustine.

You ignored my reply about Augustine. And you didn't answer my question of what happens when there is serious disagreement. Here is is again:
We know the authors were completely free from error, inerrancy has nothing to do with sola scriptura. Augustine never says "scripture alone". And what happens if there is serious disagreement on what the sacred authors meant? Start a new church?
You didn't answer the question.

post #195: Augustine of Hippo wrote to Jerome, ' I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it (Letter to Jerome Jerome 82.1.3).
Post #197 was my reply to your quote above that you claim I didn't give.


Again, Augustine never says "scripture alone". Let's look at more context of your quote:

In the paragraph immediately preceding the cited text, St. Augustine is discussing with St. Jerome the fittingness of using the word ludamus(“let us amuse ourselves”) in their debate over the interpretation of Scripture. Augustine says that it is good that they keep their debate in a friendly tone, so that there is no fear of offending one other by harsh words. But he goes on to say that he would not be offended if Jerome argued against him, for it is not to Jerome the man but to the Scriptures that Augustine yields authority in these matters. The complete quotation reads:

“You ask, or rather you give a command with the confiding boldness of charity, that we should amuse ourselves in the field of Scripture without wounding each other…On such terms we might amuse ourselves without fear of offending each other in the field of Scripture, but I might well wonder if the amusement was not at my expense. For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honor only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error” (Letter 82:1, 2-3).

So we see, Augustine is not setting up an opposition between Church Tradition and Sacred Scripture; he is merely saying that if it comes down to taking the word of Jerome, another bishop just as himself, or the Scriptures, he will yield to the Scriptures instead of to the opinions of a private theologian. This is still the Church’s position today: Church dogma, whether it is found in Scripture or Tradition, trumps the views of private theologians.

As is often the case, the problem is one of context. When we read the entirety of St. Augustine’s letter, we see that he is saying nothing at all about the authority of Scriptures at the expense of Church Tradition or Church authority. He merely asserts that the Bible is to be preferred to the opinions of a private individual, which the Church would agree with.

The problem is that you attempt to use this citation to debunk the Catholic position and you don't really care what Augustine is getting at; you have no intention of understanding the subtleties of Augustine's thought, only of attacking the Catholic position. A verse that seems to support the Protestant position is found and then wrenched out of context to be used against the unknowing Catholic.

Furthermore, if Protestants do insist that St. Augustine was really a proto-reformer, then they picked a very bad choice, because it was this same Augustine who said of the Catholic Church,

“This same is the holy Church, the one Church, the true Church, the catholic Church, fighting against all heresies: fight, it can: be fought down, it cannot. As for heresies, they went all out of it, like as unprofitable branches pruned from the vine: but itself abides in its root, in its Vine, in its charity. "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it"
(On the Creed: Sermon to Catechumens (14) c. 395)

When one really takes the time to dig into the works of Augustine, or any of the Church Fathers, it becomes easily apparent that they did not believe in anything even close to the Protestant notion sola scriptura. Don’t be taken in by the novel idea that Augustine, Anasthasius or any of the Church Fathers believed in the doctrines of Luther and Calvin. It simply isn’t so.

OzSpen, is this the same Augustine that wrote about the Primacy of Peter?
Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani, 5 (A.D. 395).
Augustine, To Glorius et.al, Epistle 43:7 (A.D. 397).
Augustine, Against the Letters of Petillian, 2:51 (A.D. 402).

is this the same Augustine that wrote about the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist?
Augustine, On the Psalms, 33:1,10 (A.D. 392-418).

is this the same Augustine that wrote about Purgatory?
Augustine, Faith and Works, 1:1 (A.D. 413).
Augustine, Exposition of the Psalms, 38(37):3 (A.D. 418).
Augustine, Enchiridion, 69 (A.D. 421).
Augustine, Enchiridion, 1099 (A.D. 421).

If Augustine was some kind of proto-Protestant, then Protestantism has no meaning.

"But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or pronunciation. Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things."
Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3,2:2 (A.D. 397).

And you claim: 'Neither Irenaeus nor Jerome taught SS [Sola Scriptura]'. And have a guess what? I wrote not a word about Jerome's teaching. Not a word! The only mention I made of Jerome was Augustine's letter to Jerome in which Augustine affirmed Sola Scriptura.

Augustine never affirms Sola Scriptura. I explained it twice. Neither did Irenaeus. Neither did any ECF.

I provide the evidence for Sola Scriptura from Augustine and you can't seem to handle that, so you ignore it.

Snippets out of context is not evidence. I should have ignored it.

 

[StanJ]

Read it slowly, Stan. Jesus says, "...YOUR tradition..."; the traditions the Jews invented to avoid giving honor to their parents under the pretense of giving all to God. Read the whole chapter. Jesus is not condemning the traditions they were supposed to follow, and certainly not the Traditions that He himself followed, just the traditions that the scribes and pharisees invented. That's why He says "YOUR" traditions. I'm afraid you have been deceived into thinking Jesus condemns all tradition.

I said Jesus was speaking to you, not the Pharisees. Funny how you can properly exegete this verse, but not others that clearly show ONLY Jesus heads His church.

 

[OzSpen]

Kepha,

In #208 you wrote: 'If the CC did such a bad job in preserving the scriptures, then any version you use is wrong too'.

When will you learn the difference in the early church between the Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church? As a Protestant I'm a member of the Catholic (General) Church but not of the Roman Catholic Church. You seem to be confused on this issue.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Kepha,

The evidence I presented at #203 from Augustine still stands. You have not refuted it. Here it is again:

in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life' (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Chapter 9).

Augustine: 'I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error' (Augustine to Jerome, Letter 82, ch 1, #3)

Augustine: 'as I have said already, it is to the canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yield such implicit subjection as to follow their teaching, without admitting the slightest suspicion that in them any mistake or any statement intended to mislead could find a place' (Augustine to Jerome, Letter 82, ch 3, #24).

Your problem is that the evidence from Augustine clashes with your RCC worldview. Augustine agrees with Scripture. I'll stick with his evidence.

Oz

Kepha,

It's amazing that you totally ignored what I wrote about Augustine teaching Scripture Alone (Sola Scriptura). Not a word from you. That's a classic example of filtering out (censoring) the information I provided about Augustine.

You ignored my reply about Augustine. And you didn't answer my question of what happens when there is serious disagreement. Here is is again:
We know the authors were completely free from error, inerrancy has nothing to do with sola scriptura. Augustine never says "scripture alone". And what happens if there is serious disagreement on what the sacred authors meant? Start a new church?
You didn't answer the question.

post #195: Augustine of Hippo wrote to Jerome, ' I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it (Letter to Jerome Jerome 82.1.3).
Post #197 was my reply to your quote above that you claim I didn't give.


Again, Augustine never says "scripture alone". Let's look at more context of your quote:

In the paragraph immediately preceding the cited text, St. Augustine is discussing with St. Jerome the fittingness of using the word ludamus(“let us amuse ourselves”) in their debate over the interpretation of Scripture. Augustine says that it is good that they keep their debate in a friendly tone, so that there is no fear of offending one other by harsh words. But he goes on to say that he would not be offended if Jerome argued against him, for it is not to Jerome the man but to the Scriptures that Augustine yields authority in these matters. The complete quotation reads:

“You ask, or rather you give a command with the confiding boldness of charity, that we should amuse ourselves in the field of Scripture without wounding each other…On such terms we might amuse ourselves without fear of offending each other in the field of Scripture, but I might well wonder if the amusement was not at my expense. For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honor only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error” (Letter 82:1, 2-3).

So we see, Augustine is not setting up an opposition between Church Tradition and Sacred Scripture; he is merely saying that if it comes down to taking the word of Jerome, another bishop just as himself, or the Scriptures, he will yield to the Scriptures instead of to the opinions of a private theologian. This is still the Church’s position today: Church dogma, whether it is found in Scripture or Tradition, trumps the views of private theologians.

As is often the case, the problem is one of context. When we read the entirety of St. Augustine’s letter, we see that he is saying nothing at all about the authority of Scriptures at the expense of Church Tradition or Church authority. He merely asserts that the Bible is to be preferred to the opinions of a private individual, which the Church would agree with.

The problem is that you attempt to use this citation to debunk the Catholic position and you don't really care what Augustine is getting at; you have no intention of understanding the subtleties of Augustine's thought, only of attacking the Catholic position. A verse that seems to support the Protestant position is found and then wrenched out of context to be used against the unknowing Catholic.

Furthermore, if Protestants do insist that St. Augustine was really a proto-reformer, then they picked a very bad choice, because it was this same Augustine who said of the Catholic Church,

“This same is the holy Church, the one Church, the true Church, the catholic Church, fighting against all heresies: fight, it can: be fought down, it cannot. As for heresies, they went all out of it, like as unprofitable branches pruned from the vine: but itself abides in its root, in its Vine, in its charity. "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it"
(On the Creed: Sermon to Catechumens (14) c. 395)

When one really takes the time to dig into the works of Augustine, or any of the Church Fathers, it becomes easily apparent that they did not believe in anything even close to the Protestant notion sola scriptura. Don’t be taken in by the novel idea that Augustine, Anasthasius or any of the Church Fathers believed in the doctrines of Luther and Calvin. It simply isn’t so.

OzSpen, is this the same Augustine that wrote about the Primacy of Peter?
Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani, 5 (A.D. 395).
Augustine, To Glorius et.al, Epistle 43:7 (A.D. 397).
Augustine, Against the Letters of Petillian, 2:51 (A.D. 402).

is this the same Augustine that wrote about the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist?
Augustine, On the Psalms, 33:1,10 (A.D. 392-418).

is this the same Augustine that wrote about Purgatory?
Augustine, Faith and Works, 1:1 (A.D. 413).
Augustine, Exposition of the Psalms, 38(37):3 (A.D. 418).
Augustine, Enchiridion, 69 (A.D. 421).
Augustine, Enchiridion, 1099 (A.D. 421).

If Augustine was some kind of proto-Protestant, then Protestantism has no meaning.

"But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or pronunciation. Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things."
Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3,2:2 (A.D. 397).

And you claim: 'Neither Irenaeus nor Jerome taught SS [Sola Scriptura]'. And have a guess what? I wrote not a word about Jerome's teaching. Not a word! The only mention I made of Jerome was Augustine's letter to Jerome in which Augustine affirmed Sola Scriptura.

Augustine never affirms Sola Scriptura. I explained it twice. Neither did Irenaeus. Neither did any ECF.

I provide the evidence for Sola Scriptura from Augustine and you can't seem to handle that, so you ignore it.

Snippets out of context is not evidence. I should have ignored it.

 

[epostle1]

Kepha,

In #208 you wrote: 'If the CC did such a bad job in preserving the scriptures, then any version you use is wrong too'.

When will you learn the difference in the early church between the Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church? As a Protestant I'm a member of the Catholic (General) Church but not of the Roman Catholic Church. You seem to be confused on this issue.

Oz

I'm not confused. The prefix "Roman" to "Roman Catholic Church" can only properly apply to one diocese: the Diocese of Rome. Those Catholics of the Latin or Roman rite can be properly called "Roman Catholics", in spite of the fact that there are Catholics in that diocese under a different rite. There are 23 "rites" and only one of them is the Roman or Latin rite. It so happens that the Roman or Latin rite is the largest. "Roman Catholic" is a blanket term used to cover all Catholics and it's inaccurate, but we don't get our knickers in a twist over the detail. I prefer CC over RCC, it's more accurate but if you want to use RCC as a short form, knock yerself out.

The term "Roman" Catholic was first used as an insult by the Anglicans in the 16th century.

The term was not used once during Vatican I.

The Pope uses the term, but only when addressing the Catholics in his diocese (Rome) where he functions as any other bishop.

"Roman Catholic" appears only twice in the Catechism (a rather large book).

As a Protestant, you are a member of the Catholic Church, but your spiritual forefathers chose varying degrees of separation that you have been born into or chose, which is what makes you a Protestant.

The early church Christians were Catholic, as demonstrated by the very ECF quotes you make. "Catholic" is inferred in the Bible, and the archaeological evidence found in the Roman Catacombs of the first 3 centuries clearly demonstrate their Catholicity.

 

[StanJ]

The early church Christians were Catholic, as demonstrated by the very ECF quotes you make. "Catholic" is inferred in the Bible, and the archaeological evidence found in the Roman Catacombs of the first 3 centuries clearly demonstrate their Catholicity.

catholic is used as an adjective and a noun. In your case a noun. Oz used it as an adjective, BUT, being as you are inculcated into the RCC, you don't seem to know the difference, or at least be willing to recognize it? As an ex RC, I have no problem at all identifying with either uses. Now if you can show us WHERE in the NT, it refers to the church as "catholic", we may be able to help you with what it connotes, however I'm more than confident you won't find ANY mention of that word in the Koine Greek.

 

[OzSpen]

Kepha,

You happen to be very incorrect. I live in the region of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane. It is NOT the Catholic Church but the Roman Catholic Church here in the city of Brisbane.

Oz

I'm not confused. The prefix "Roman" to "Roman Catholic Church" can only properly apply to one diocese: the Diocese of Rome. Those Catholics of the Latin or Roman rite can be properly called "Roman Catholics", in spite of the fact that there are Catholics in that diocese under a different rite. There are 23 "rites" and only one of them is the Roman or Latin rite. It so happens that the Roman or Latin rite is the largest. "Roman Catholic" is a blanket term used to cover all Catholics and it's inaccurate, but we don't get our knickers in a twist over the detail. I prefer CC over RCC, it's more accurate but if you want to use RCC as a short form, knock yerself out.

The term "Roman" Catholic was first used as an insult by the Anglicans in the 16th century.

The term was not used once during Vatican I.

The Pope uses the term, but only when addressing the Catholics in his diocese (Rome) where he functions as any other bishop.

"Roman Catholic" appears only twice in the Catechism (a rather large book).

As a Protestant, you are a member of the Catholic Church, but your spiritual forefathers chose varying degrees of separation that you have been born into or chose, which is what makes you a Protestant.

The early church Christians were Catholic, as demonstrated by the very ECF quotes you make. "Catholic" is inferred in the Bible, and the archaeological evidence found in the Roman Catacombs of the first 3 centuries clearly demonstrate their Catholicity.

 

[OzSpen]

catholic is used as an adjective and a noun. In your case a noun. Oz used it as an adjective, BUT, being as you are inculcated into the RCC, you don't seem to know the difference, or at least be willing to recognize it? As an ex RC, I have no problem at all identifying with either uses. Now if you can show us WHERE in the NT, it refers to the church as "catholic", we may be able to help you with what it connotes, however I'm more than confident you won't find ANY mention of that word in the Koine Greek.

If we get back to the topic of this thread, naming a really bad doctrine that needs retiring, I've been trying to show from the church fathers, especially Augustine, that the authority of the church needs retiring and we need to get back to the sole authority of Scripture. That has met with some resistance from our RCC friend.

There is another doctrine that needs retiring to the 'improper doctrine' category and that is purgatory. Here you will find a sound expose: 'Biblical and historical refutation of purgatory'.

Oz

 

[epostle1]

Kepha,

You happen to be very incorrect. I live in the region of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane. It is NOT the Catholic Church but the Roman Catholic Church here in the city of Brisbane.

Oz

So what. "Roman Catholic" and "Catholic" are used interchangeably. We've simply adopted the 500 year old insult. The sign outside my Catholic parish church says "Roman Catholic...", it's just my opinion that it is inaccurate (because it is) but it makes little difference to me and I am not about to beat up the pastor over it.

 

[epostle1]

If we get back to the topic of this thread, naming a really bad doctrine that needs retiring, I've been trying to show from the church fathers, especially Augustine, that the authority of the church needs retiring and we need to get back to the sole authority of Scripture. That has met with some resistance from our RCC friend.

There is another doctrine that needs retiring to the 'improper doctrine' category and that is purgatory. Here you will find a sound expose: 'Biblical and historical refutation of purgatory'.

Oz

I would not go with Augustine or any ECF. They all supported the authority of the Church that harmonized with Scripture and Tradition, so your best approach (and the most popular) is to pit one against the other by taking quotes out of context, and ignoring the general consensus of the ECF.

"Sole authority of scripture" is not in scripture, and no rigorous defense of this man-made tradition has come forth. My position stands, and that is why you want to jump ship into purgatory. Fine.

'Biblical and historical refutation of purgatory'. is not a sound expose, it's full of lies and I can't be bothered spending several days countering it line by line. The site quotes a news rag about twitter, but the article has nothing to do with the sensational falsehood the author makes. "but Pope Francis actually offered time off purgatory to those who “follow him” on twitter " IS A LIE. The evidence is in the article he posted.

What needs to be retired is doctrinal anti-Semitism. Purgatory, in primitive form, is found in Judaism.

 

[OzSpen]

So what. "Roman Catholic" and "Catholic" are used interchangeably. We've simply adopted the 500 year old insult. The sign outside my Catholic parish church says "Roman Catholic...", it's just my opinion that it is inaccurate (because it is) but it makes little difference to me and I am not about to beat up the pastor over it.

It's not only your opinion, but if you go back to #218, it was you who stated: 'I'm not confused. The prefix "Roman" to "Roman Catholic Church" can only properly apply to one diocese: the Diocese of Rome. '.

You are not only confused but contradictory in what you are stating.