[Katholikos]

Joolye, on Nov 10 2006, 12:59 AM, said:

Ok, let me attempt to address the issue of the authority of Scripture. I am going to present the view of one theologian, and the material I am using is dated. Note, this is not MY argument, and I will not necessarily have the answers to your objections to this.

The following comes from the book "In understanding be men" by TC Hammond (1968, IVP). It is paraphrased or quoted below.

Hammond says that there are three potential areas of authority. Reason, the Church and Scripture.

Reason is dismissed because of the corruption by sin and the ability of people to make mistakes. He says "Reason is in its proper place not as the maker of doctrine, but as its examiner and assessor" (p39).

He says that the church has 'a place of authority' but it is subservient to the Word. He says that the Word of God existed in its spoken form initially before it was written, and it was the Word of God that brought the church into being, so the NT existed before the church. Because the church did not precede the Scriptures it does not have a prior authority. He also says that the belief that tradition can be added to Scripture is false and uses the example that Jesus denounced the traditions that the Jewish leaders had put in place.

He says that the Bible is the supreme authority. Reason and the church are secondary authorities and should always be in line with Scripture. "Their words can never be finally binding unless they can be proved by warrant of Holy Scripture" (p40).

He lists many Bible verses. I have looked a few of them up am only listing some of them. He lists these under the heading of the Authority and Importance of the Scriptures.

Is 8:19-20
Matt 4:1-11
Matt 12:1-5
Mark 7:1-13
Mark 12:35-37, I say go through to 39
Acts 15:14-19
2 Tim 3:14-16

Edit to add: This is only a very brief case for the authority of Scripture. The book only devoted a small amount of text to this topic. Obviously if I researched further, there would be a lot more information out there.

Quote

Thanks Katholikos for your replies.

You are very welcome, Joolye.

I quoted your first post again so I could ask you, have we answered all your questions fully?

Catholics do not share the pessimistic Protestant view of reason. The Church teaches that man is wounded by Original Sin, and as a consequence is plagued with concupiscence -- a desire and an inclination to sin -- but his reason and will are intact. He remains only "a little lower than the angels." The "reformers" concluded that man, including his reason and will, are totally depraved. This view originated in the 16th century; it was not taught by the Apostles.

The error (in the Catholic view) of making the Scriptures the supreme authority is to ignore or deny the role the Church played as the agent of the Holy Spirit in writing the NT, compiling the Scriptures, and in declaring them "the inspired Word of God." The NT writings required an authority to write, collect, canonize, and name them. The Scriptures also require an interpreter, as does Sacred Tradition; the rightful interpreter is the Church, the guardian and teacher of the Scriptures and Tradition.

You may have missed my question. What does Hammond mean in his book by the term, "the church"?

You mentioned that Hammond's argument is not yours. Do you have a different argument you would like us to address?

Thanks, and thanks for your questions, Jay

=====================
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!

edited to correct a typo

This post has been edited by Katholikos: 18 November 2006 - 04:49 PM

[HS_Dad]

SolaScriptura, on Nov 18 2006, 04:29 PM, said:

....

OR, ultimately, where does all authority of your church and Traditons come from? Do they come from men or from God?

I think this is the key question. Because of the deep view of sacramentality by Catholics, their deep respect for tradition, the Church, etc.... In debate, they often lose focus that all comes from God including all authority and power. It's important for Catholics in debate to not make everything into an "either-or" the Church or nothing.... But a "both-and" God first and through his gift of his son and the Holy Spirit a desire for Christian unity and respect for Christ's desire that all may be one... The argument imho should be one of come and join as one body throughout history and throughout cultures around the world... An important question is what can Catholics in humility learn and incorporate from their separated brethren? The global situation today in a post-Christian Europe and an increasingly secularist America is in many ways more similar to the Roman Empire of early apostolic times than Christendom of the 1300's...... Catholics need to understand that their separated brethren, through a great love of Scripture and growth in their own traditions of reflecting upon Scripture as it relates to the individual and metanoia have much to teach Catholics about how to be Christian in the world today... Anyways, that's IMHO.... Ut Unum Sint!

[Katholikos]

SolaScriptura, on Nov 18 2006, 05:29 PM, said:

The "authority" of the Bible comes from God and God alone.

As a Catholic, I agree with you. But God didn't tell me that. I learned it from God's mouthpiece, the Catholic Church. The Church teaches us what Scripture is (the inspired Word of God) and what is Scripture (the writings that belong in the Bible). God has no voice, no hands. Christ's Church was the agent of the Holy Spirit in writing the NT and forming the Bible and speaks for Him.

Many organizations that bear the name "Christian" have different collections of writings they call "the Bible." Which is the "real" Bible?

The contents of the original Bible were selected by the Catholic Church when she was nearly 400 years old. Other ppl have since subtracted from the Bible or added to it.

Quote

Let's look at it this way.

Hypothetically, if we could prove that the Bible was NOT written by God then would it still have authority because the Church put it together?

There is no "proof" that the Bible was written by God. One can accept the authority of the Catholic Church, founded by Christ for the salvation of the world, that God is the primary, ultimate author, or one can rely on his own opinion. Different opinions have resulted in different "Bibles."

Quote

Likewise, if we could prove that the Catholic Church is bogus, would the Bible no longer be the Word of God (even though it is still written by God).

This is a hypothetical Q that has no merit. The Church is considerably older than the Bible. No Church, no Bible.

Quote

OR, ultimately, where does all authority of your church and Traditons come from? Do they come from men or from God?

The authority of the Catholic Church comes from its founder, Jesus Christ, who gave it His own authority: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me ..." Luke 10:16 And He gave Church leaders His power to make decisions: "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" Mt 16:18-19.

God's revelation through Jesus Christ to the Apostles to His Church consists of both Sacred Apostolic Tradition and Sacred Scripture. See the earlier posts in this thread.

=======================
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!

[SolaScriptura]

Katholikos, on Nov 18 2006, 08:13 PM, said:

As a Catholic, I agree with you. But God didn't tell me that. I learned it from God's mouthpiece, the Catholic Church. The Church teaches us what Scripture is (the inspired Word of God) and what is Scripture (the writings that belong in the Bible). God has no voice, no hands. Christ's Church was the agent of the Holy Spirit in writing the NT and forming the Bible and speaks for Him.

Many organizations that bear the name "Christian" have different collections of writings they call "the Bible." Which is the "real" Bible?

The contents of the original Bible were selected by the Catholic Church when she was nearly 400 years old. Other ppl have since subtracted from the Bible or added to it.

There is no "proof" that the Bible was written by God. One can accept the authority of the Catholic Church, founded by Christ for the salvation of the world, that God is the primary, ultimate author, or one can rely on his own opinion. Different opinions have resulted in different "Bibles."

This is a hypothetical Q that has no merit. The Church is considerably older than the Bible. No Church, no Bible.

The authority of the Catholic Church comes from its founder, Jesus Christ, who gave it His own authority: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me ..." Luke 10:16 And He gave Church leaders His power to make decisions: "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" Mt 16:18-19.

God's revelation through Jesus Christ to the Apostles to His Church consists of both Sacred Apostolic Tradition and Sacred Scripture. See the earlier posts in this thread.

=======================
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!

Your answer makes no sense.

If there is no "proof" that the Bible was written by God then there is likewise no "proof" that the Catholic Church was established by God.

And you can't give scripture to support the authority of the Church when the Church was necessary according to you to "select" the scriptures of the Bible. I there is no "proof" that the Bible was written by God, then you can't use scripture verses to establish the authority of the Church - it's cirular reasoning.

What is your proof that Jesus established the Catholic Church? Because that's what the Catholic Church told you? If so, I have a nice bridge to sell you...

All authority comes from God. "God has no voice, no hands." - Huh? Try reading the OT - God spoke to Moses. God made the "handwriting" on the wall. Even Jesus "spoke" to Paul on the road to Damascus.

Can't you see what you are doing? You are making God dependent on man.

Do you think that the God who spoke creation into existence couldn't have written the Bible without men? Do you think he couldn't have put the Bible together without the Church?

The Church did not come before God. The Church did not come before the OT. The Church did not write the Scriptures - God did.

All the Church did was "recognize" what was of God. Any writings in contention at the gathering of the canon were either "God's Word" or not. The chosen writings did not become God's Word once the Church pronounced it as such.

You seem to miss the big point. If there is no God, there is no Church and no Bible. Without the Church, God still is, was, and is to come.

Please, take care not to elevate men to a position to which they are not worthy. ALL authority comes from God. You may believe that God's authority is filtered through men, but that only makes them a fiddler, not creators.

[SJP]

SolaScriptura said:
"All the Church did was "recognize" what was of God. Any writings in contention at the gathering of the canon were either "God's Word" or not. The chosen writings did not become God's Word once the Church pronounced it as such."

All the Church did was "recognize" what was of God???

You make it sound as if that's just some sort of common day occurrence! You're right the Church did recognize what was of God. How was the Church able to recognize what was of God? You already know the answer to that question, the Church is led by the Holy Spirit. It just so happens that the Catholic Church that made scripture "official" in 397AD is the same Catholic Church that exists today.

We still rely on the Holy Spirit, not our own individual interpretation of scripture. For if we did, it would be legitimate to say:

SolaScriptura:
"Can't you see what you are doing? You are making God dependent on man."

This post has been edited by SJP: 19 November 2006 - 04:51 PM

[GloriaIesusChristi]

Quote

The "authority" of the Bible comes from God and God alone.

Let's look at it this way.

Hypothetically, if we could prove that the Bible was NOT written by God then would it still have authority because the Church put it together?

Likewise, if we could prove that the Catholic Church is bogus, would the Bible no longer be the Word of God (even though it is still written by God).

OR, ultimately, where does all authority of your church and Traditons come from? Do they come from men or from God?

Either your not listening or you don't even know what your fighting for.

The Protestant error of "sola scriptura" is self refuting. The term "sola scriptura" can be defined as follows: "The Bible and only the Bible is the infallible rule of faith." But the words "only the Bible" can be translated into Latin as "sola scriptura".

Substituting this into the above definition we have: "The Bible and 'sola scriptura' is the rule of faith."

This shows that "sola scriptura" logically refutes itself because this principle must be assumed to be true IN ADDITION TO the Bible. As such, "sola scriptura" refutes what it purports to claim.

This is an application of Kurt Godel's Secod Incompleteness Theorem from metamathematical analysis. Self-referential statements (such as the Liar Paradox of Epimenides or using the Bible to prove the Bible to be the sole rule of faith independant of any external referent) are notorious for making statements which are logically unprovable within the formal system that makes the claim. It is only by assuming a transcendental position outside the system under scrutiny that such contentions can be proven true or false.

In the case of "sola scriptura," the necessity of assuming the transcendental position in and of itself refutes the principle under question.

Quote

OR, ultimately, where does all authority of your church and Traditons come from? Do they come from men or from God?

Our authority comes from Christ when he mentions to St. Peter that he is the rock on which he will build our Church, We (The Church) have the power to bind and loose on Heaven and Earth. (See Matthew 16:18-21)


-1 Timothy 3:15 says that he Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.

-2 Thessalonians 2:15 Instructs us (as in the future generations of Christ's church) to carry on the traditions they (as in the Apostles whom learned our traditions from Christ, himself) estabilised through Word of Mouth or by Episitle.

This post has been edited by GloriaIesusChristi: 19 November 2006 - 06:32 PM

[Joolye]

GloriaIesusChristi, on Nov 20 2006, 10:44 AM, said:

Either your not listening or you don't even know what your fighting for.

The Protestant error of "sola scriptura" is self refuting. The term "sola scriptura" can be defined as follows: "The Bible and only the Bible is the infallible rule of faith." But the words "only the Bible" can be translated into Latin as "sola scriptura".

Substituting this into the above definition we have: "The Bible and 'sola scriptura' is the rule of faith."

This shows that "sola scriptura" logically refutes itself because this principle must be assumed to be true IN ADDITION TO the Bible. As such, "sola scriptura" refutes what it purports to claim.

That is not a very good argument. It is based on semantics. The phrase "and only the Bible" is not an addition to the Bible, it is simply a clarification. Your sentence could easily be written as: "The Bible alone is the rule of faith". It is not necessary to say "The Bible and only the Bible", but if one chooses to say that, they are just using a form of rhetoric - emphasising that it's only the Bible they are talking about. They are not saying "the Bible PLUS only the Bible" as such.

Katholikos, on Nov 19 2006, 09:45 AM, said:

You are very welcome, Joolye.

I quoted your first post again so I could ask you, have we answered all your questions fully?

I think so.

Quote

The error (in the Catholic view) of making the Scriptures the supreme authority...

The supreme authority? God is the supreme authority.

Quote

You may have missed my question. What does Hammond mean in his book by the term, "the church"?

I assume that he means the body of Christ, believers.

Quote

You mentioned that Hammond's argument is not yours. Do you have a different argument you would like us to address?

No. I would need to do a lot more research for that and I don't want to do that just now. I have just finished college, no need to impose voluntary study on myself!

Katholikos, on Nov 19 2006, 12:13 PM, said:

=======================
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!

Why do you say "Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!"?

[GloriaIesusChristi]

Quote

The Bible alone is the rule of faith".

Yet, this cannot be Scripturally proven. The Bible alone cannot prove the "Bible Alone" mentailty.

Scripture certainly is a "standard of truth" (we agree fully with Protestants), even the preeminent one, but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition and the Church. The Bible doesn't teach that. Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is materially sufficient. In other words, every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction. But no biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the formal authority or Rule of Faith for the Christian (formal sufficiency), in isolation from the Church and Apostolic Tradition. Sola Scriptura can't even be deduced from implicit passages. Protestants try to make that argument, but (with all due respect) I think the effort is doomed to failure.

Its more than semantics. Believe me.

This post has been edited by GloriaIesusChristi: 19 November 2006 - 10:41 PM

[Joolye]

I know that it's all more than semantics. But the argument that I quoted was only a semantic argument.

[GloriaIesusChristi]

First things first, the debate isnt over the english vocabulary, Its over the issue of Sola Scriptura. Secondly, There hasn't been one verse to prove Sola Scriptura.

Quote

The supreme authority? God is the supreme authority.

Then you admit that Sola Scriptura is inaccurate?

This post has been edited by GloriaIesusChristi: 19 November 2006 - 10:56 PM

[Katholikos]

Joolye wrote:

Quote

Why do you say "Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!"?

The message is an invocation, a prayer, asking for Father Damien's intercession (one of the meanings of "pray" is to ask).

While I was still an atheist, I came across a booklet about the life of Father Damien. He is known as the leper priest of Molokai, Hawaii. He went from Belgium to Hawaii as a missionary. He learned that the Hawaiian government had rounded up all the people known to be infected with leprosy and had isolated them on an island alone to fend for themselves. Leprosy is a disfiguring, crippling disease, so these people were in desperate straits just to feed themselves. Father Damien lobbied the government on their behalf and went to the island of Molokai himself to be with them and help them. He built houses for them, taught them carpentry and agriculture, treated their wounds, built schools for them, helped them construct a Church, taught them reliigon, baptized them and their children, and helped them save their souls. He developed leprosy himself and died as a young man in 1889. His face, horribly disfigured from leprosy, showed no signs of the disease after his death.

That was the beginning of the end of my atheism. I wondered what kind of religion would motivate a man to end his life that way. At that time, I looked upon his death as a deliberate suicide and a waste.

Long story short, Father Damien's story touched my heart. He became my spiritual companion on my loooooong journey into the Catholic Church. After I was received, I went to court and legally changed my last name to Damien in his honor.

I am very fond of several saints, but he's at the top of my list. He was God's friend first. I ask him to pray for me because he is close to me and close to God. It's good to have friends in high places.:)

He has not yet been declared a saint, but has been beatified by official declaration of the Church and bears the title "blessed" (pronounced bless-ed).

Thanks for the question.

Jay Damien

=======================
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!

edit to add: P.S. His picture is my avatar.

This post has been edited by Katholikos: 20 November 2006 - 03:22 AM

[SolaScriptura]

GloriaIesusChristi, on Nov 19 2006, 06:44 PM, said:

Either your not listening or you don't even know what your fighting for.

The Protestant error of "sola scriptura" is self refuting. The term "sola scriptura" can be defined as follows: "The Bible and only the Bible is the infallible rule of faith." But the words "only the Bible" can be translated into Latin as "sola scriptura".

Substituting this into the above definition we have: "The Bible and 'sola scriptura' is the rule of faith."

This shows that "sola scriptura" logically refutes itself because this principle must be assumed to be true IN ADDITION TO the Bible. As such, "sola scriptura" refutes what it purports to claim.

This is an application of Kurt Godel's Secod Incompleteness Theorem from metamathematical analysis. Self-referential statements (such as the Liar Paradox of Epimenides or using the Bible to prove the Bible to be the sole rule of faith independant of any external referent) are notorious for making statements which are logically unprovable within the formal system that makes the claim. It is only by assuming a transcendental position outside the system under scrutiny that such contentions can be proven true or false.

In the case of "sola scriptura," the necessity of assuming the transcendental position in and of itself refutes the principle under question.

No offense, but this is about te dumbest thing I have heard.

Here, change your "definition" above to "The Bible is the only infallible rule of faith" and try again.

[SolaScriptura]

GloriaIesusChristi, on Nov 19 2006, 11:38 PM, said:

Yet, this cannot be Scripturally proven. The Bible alone cannot prove the "Bible Alone" mentailty.

Scripture certainly is a "standard of truth" (we agree fully with Protestants), even the preeminent one, but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition and the Church. The Bible doesn't teach that. Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is materially sufficient. In other words, every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction. But no biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the formal authority or Rule of Faith for the Christian (formal sufficiency), in isolation from the Church and Apostolic Tradition. Sola Scriptura can't even be deduced from implicit passages. Protestants try to make that argument, but (with all due respect) I think the effort is doomed to failure.

Its more than semantics. Believe me.

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” 2 Tim 3:16


The Greek word for “breathe out by God” is “theopneustos”. It means inspired by God. The verse above is the only place that word is used.

The Bible is infallible because it is the only thing that is “breathed out by God” and God is infallible.

Your “men” are not infallible nor did God ever declare them to be infallible.

Therefore, only Scripture stands as our infallible source. Everything else is fallible.

And I know you will come back with your "pillar of truth" and "the gates of Hades will not prevail" but even if I give you your incorrect interpretation of those passages, it still stands that ONLY Scriture is "God-breathed".

[SJP]

SolaScriptura,
waiting for a reply to my previous post.

[Raphael]

SolaScriptura, on Nov 20 2006, 08:53 AM, said:

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” 2 Tim 3:16
The Greek word for “breathe out by God” is “theopneustos”. It means inspired by God. The verse above is the only place that word is used.

The Bible is infallible because it is the only thing that is “breathed out by God” and God is infallible.

Your “men” are not infallible nor did God ever declare them to be infallible.

Therefore, only Scripture stands as our infallible source. Everything else is fallible.

And I know you will come back with your "pillar of truth" and "the gates of Hades will not prevail" but even if I give you your incorrect interpretation of those passages, it still stands that ONLY Scriture is "God-breathed".

You know, that verse is always thrown out when someone wants to prove Sola Scriptura, but it simply doesn't work. It doesn't say anything at all about "only Scripture is breathed...," it says, "all Scripture is breathed." That's quite an important distinction. Your conclusion that "it still stands that ONLY Scriture is 'God-breathed'" is therefore based on faulty interpretations.

Now, I will give you another. As you know, the word for the Holy Spirit is pneuma. It literally means breath. In John 20:22, Jesus breathed on them and indicated that they were receiving the Holy Spirit. Now, if it is the same Breath by which God-breathed Scriptures are inspired, then it would follow that the pastors of the Church, those upon whom Jesus breathed, are guided by the Holy Spirit and that their teachings are God-breathed. That would include the things St. Paul mentioned as handed down by word of mouth. Of course, they are only human and they can act against the Holy Spirit, so Jesus wanted to make sure there was always someone to keep them from doing so. This is why He called Simon the Rock and why the Scriptures, which are God-breathed, assert that the Church is the Pillar of Truth (since He breathed forth His Spirit upon the Cross and it did what? It went to the Apostles on Pentecost, who began to teach and to write, and do you think that somehow they magically were inspired in writing, but not in teaching? Let's think about this: God wants them to evangelize and spread the Gospel...they can do this more readily by preaching than by writing, since most of the population can't read...don't you think God would inspire their spoken words, too?). Now, you can just disregard these things, as you did in your above post, but that would be saying that the Scriptures were wrong, which is something gravely contrary to your whole point. How do you reconcile the fact that the Holy Spirit, by which the Scriptures are God-breathed, also quite clearly guides the Church itself with your theology that only the Scriptures are inspired? If it is the guidance of the Holy Spirit that denotes inspiration, that most certainly, both are inspired. If not, then your argument is void.

[Katholikos]

To: Sola Scriptura

about: 2 Tm 3:14-17

When he used the word "Scripture," St. Paul meant the Greek Septuagint, which we now call the OT. This was the only "Scripture" Timothy could have known from his infancy. The NT was in process and would not become a reality for another three and a half centuries. The Septuagint was the only scripture that Paul used. All the quotes from the OT in his letters are from the Greek Scriptures, not the Hebrew.

Here's the kicker: almost all Protestants reject the Septuagint.

Protestants use this verse to defend Sola Scriptura, not recognizing that 'ALL' Scripture as defined by St. Paul includes the writings Protestants label "apocrypha."

So you and other Protestants have effectively rendered this passage to mean "some" but not "all" Scripture is inspired.

=========================
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!

[Katholikos]

Joolye, on Nov 19 2006, 11:35 PM, said:

The supreme authority? God is the supreme authority.

Perhaps you've forgotten your November 10 original post:
"He [Hammond] says that the Bible is the supreme authority." I was responding to Hammond's statement.

Quote

I assume that he [Hammond] means the body of Christ, believers.

The invisible church of all 'true believers'? This was another of Martin Luther's doctrines of expediency and necessity because of the proliferation of denominations, even during his lifetime.

Quote

No. I would need to do a lot more research for that and I don't want to do that just now. I have just finished college, no need to impose voluntary study on myself!

What did your studies cover? No offense intended, Joolye, but I find it strange the anyone could graduate from a Bible college and not have studied the obvious question of how the Bible originated. But that's often the case with Protestant Bible colleges in the U.S. as well. When one considers the history of the Bible, it's no surprise that Protestant schools avoid the subject.

Peace be with you, and thanks for your questions and responses.

==========================
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!

[Katholikos]

Joolye:

In an earlier post, I promised to post the Orthodox Popes for you. Thus far, I have found only Coptic (Egyptian) Popes. As I told you, all bishops were originally called pope (Greek: pappas, a children's term for Father, it's similar to Abba in the Bible, in English "Daddy."). Here you get a glimpse of the original unity of the Catholic Church, before the Orthodox schism. There is not a "Pope" over the several Orthodox Churches. The Coptic Orthodox is only one of the Orthodox Churches.

BTW, there is also an Eastern Catholic Coptic Church.

http://en.wikipedia....of_Coptic_Popes

=================================
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!

Edited to correct a typo

This post has been edited by Katholikos: 20 November 2006 - 10:36 PM

[Joolye]

Katholikos, on Nov 21 2006, 06:43 AM, said:

Perhaps you've forgotten your November 10 original post:
"He [Hammond] says that the Bible is the supreme authority." I was responding to Hammond's statement.

The invisible church of all 'true believers'? This was another of Martin Luther's doctrines of expediency and necessity because of the proliferation of denominations, even during his lifetime.

What did your studies cover? No offense intended, Joolye, but I find it strange the anyone could graduate from a Bible college and not have studied the obvious question of how the Bible originated. But that's often the case with Protestant Bible colleges in the U.S. as well. When one considers the history of the Bible, it's no surprise that Protestant schools avoid the subject.

Peace be with you, and thanks for your questions and responses.

==========================
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!

I did the mission studies stream, not theology, but of course I did theology subjects too. We did cover the origin of the Bible and yes the early church fathers put it together. I didn't do an essay on that subject though or an essay on the reasons for Sola Scriptura, so I don't know the argument in depth.

[HS_Dad]

Joolye, on Nov 20 2006, 10:54 PM, said:

I did the mission studies stream.....

Cool, that's probably the thing I miss the most about Evangelicalism... The wonderful missions conferences.

Joolye, pray for a growth of a missionary spirit within Catholicism!!! Imagine over 1 billion people on fire
to spread the Good News!!!