What do you believe

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Oct 20 2004, 06:34 PM'] In Matt 22:29 Jesus says that the pharisees "are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God."

Hmm...?? [/quote]
Logical fallacy. If they were in error because they didn't have knowledge of the Scriptures, that does not make Scriptures the solely sufficient source of doctrine.

If two or more things are necessary for a result, and you lack even one, any one of them, then you cannot obtain that result. This does not mean that that one thing you are missing was the only ingredient necessary to get the result.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Oct 20 2004, 06:55 PM']

[/quote]
[quote]Mark 7 says nothing about the supreme rule of scriptures. Nor does Matthew 22. You're using scripture to draw conclusions that just aren't there. The Bible never says "The canonized scriptures of the New Testament are sufficient for". The word "Sufficient" is never used for "scripture". So there is no "hmmm" about it. [/quote] 2 Tim 3:16-17 has sufficency written all over it, however.

[quote]And just how much of the Old Testament do you know?[/quote] Not as much as I ought to, unfortunately, but I'm working on it, slowly but steadily. It didn't help that my priest all but discouraged me from reading the Scriptures when I was a Roman Catholic, so now I have to begin where I left off now that I'm reformed.

[quote]I hardly ever had the Old Testament preached at my fundamental Church. [/quote] Poor you. I'm an Anglican. This isn't an issue.

[quote]These are scriptures Matthew refers to. The Gospels were not written today. If you cannot use the Bible in context, you bring Jesus' condemnation unto yourself in Matthew 22. [/quote] I don't see how what I said about Matt 22 is inconsistent with the context..

[ICTHUS]

[quote]Logical fallacy.  If they were in error because they didn't have knowledge of the Scriptures, that does not make Scriptures the solely sufficient source of doctrine.[/quote] Fine, but this brings us to Rome's forbidding the faithful to have the Scriptures in their own language, doesn't it? If a people don't have knowledge of the Scriptures they are bound to be in error - that's how Rome was able to keep the truth supressed for so long. Once people started to read the Bible for themselves they saw that Rome was wrong, and no amount of supression of God's word could stop them

[Paladin D]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Oct 20 2004, 08:21 PM'] Fine, but this brings us to Rome's forbidding the faithful to have the Scriptures in their own language, doesn't it? If a people don't have knowledge of the Scriptures they are bound to be in error - that's how Rome was able to keep the truth supressed for so long. Once people started to read the Bible for themselves they saw that Rome was wrong, and no amount of supression of God's word could stop them [/quote]
1. Latin was the official language of the Church, it still is.

2. (Correct me if I'm wrong) Latin was somewhat a universal language, similar to what English is today.

3. Printing press wasn't invented till the 15th or 16th century.

4. Bibles were hand-copied, they were extremely valuable. They didn't dare have people take a Bible home and use highlight marker all over it. Not to mention some actually have looted Bibles, so they had to chain them to the church.


They didn't have printers back then, buddy.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Oct 20 2004, 08:21 PM'] Fine, but this brings us to Rome's forbidding the faithful to have the Scriptures in their own language, doesn't it? If a people don't have knowledge of the Scriptures they are bound to be in error - that's how Rome was able to keep the truth supressed for so long. Once people started to read the Bible for themselves they saw that Rome was wrong, and no amount of supression of God's word could stop them [/quote]
Well, first off, Rome had the scriptures in Latin, which was the common language in the West until quite a while after the empire collapsed. In the East, the common language was Koine Greek, which is what the original copies of the New Testament texts were written in, and the Septuagint was also available.

It is interesting to note that Wyclif, in 1380, made references to two different translations from the Vulgate, long before any Protestant versions surfaced.

In fact, the written languages of Slavonic, Gaelic, and German all derived from the Church's attempts to evangelize with the Scriptures. The monk Ulfilas in 381 AD translated portions of Scripture (the whole may have existed, but little has survived) into German manuscript. Before Luther, there were already nearly 24 printed German editions of the Bible.

Why not more? Why not earlier, you say?

Literacy was extremely low until AFTER the printing press was invented, because it caused the boom in literature instruction. The boom had to wait on the printing press because otherwise the cost of individual Bibles would have been far too high. What is the purpose of making hundreds of different translations when the only people who will be able to afford them are the people who know Latin already? Why make hundreds of different types of translations when no one will buy them? They would simply fill up the shelves.

I suppose next you are going to try the claim that the Bibles were chained down because the Church didn't want them to be seen by the public?

[Paladin D]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Oct 20 2004, 08:41 PM'] Well, first off, Rome had the scriptures in Latin, which was the common language in the West until quite a while after the empire collapsed.  In the East, the common language was Koine Greek, which is what the original copies of the New Testament texts were written in, and the Septuagint was also available.

It is interesting to note that Wyclif, in 1380, made references to two different translations from the Vulgate, long before any Protestant versions surfaced.

In fact, the written languages of Slavonic, Gaelic, and German all derived from the Church's attempts to evangelize with the Scriptures.  The monk Ulfilas in 381 AD translated portions of Scripture (the whole may have existed, but little has survived) into German manuscript.  Before Luther, there were already nearly 24 printed German editions of the Bible.

Why not more?  Why not earlier, you say?

Literacy was extremely low until AFTER the printing press was invented, because it caused the boom in literature instruction.  The boom had to wait on the printing press because otherwise the cost of individual Bibles would have been far too high.  What is the purpose of making hundreds of different translations when the only people who will be able to afford them are the people who know Latin already?  Why make hundreds of different types of translations when no one will buy them?  They would simply fill up the shelves.

I suppose next you are going to try the claim that the Bibles were chained down because the Church didn't want them to be seen by the public? [/quote]
Or you could read Raphael's post, which is more detailed and interesting.

[Svjatyj_Boze]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Oct 20 2004, 07:18 PM'] 2 Tim 3:16-17 has sufficency written all over it, however. [/quote]
Practically every Pope and every Catholic Church Father who's ever written anything on Scripture has opened his treatise with those very verses, without giving it a second thought. Sola Scriptura simply isn't there, and no one saw it there untill the Protestant Revolution. Yes, Scripture is profitable for teaching, rebuking, etc., so that the man of God may be complete. Scripture is a useful tool to the end of the completion of the man of God. But it is complete eisegesis to read into this passage the idea that Scripture is sufficient, or exclusively sufficient, for this end. It is as if I said that I feed my lawn in order that it might be green and beautiful and perfect and you inferred from that statement that I didn't have to water it as well. Episcopal exposition of the Scriptures is certainly very profitable. It is profitable toward the end of the salvation, sanctification, and glorification (i.e. completion) of all of God's people.

[quote]It didn't help that my priest all but discouraged me from reading the Scriptures when I was a Roman Catholic, so now I have to begin where I left off now that I'm reformed.[/quote]
Hoo boy, if this is true you did not have a good priest. One of these days I'm going to have to become Pope so I can put things in order.

Edited October 21, 2004 by Svjatyj_Boze

[Justified Saint]

[quote]I'm not understanding you. Correct me if I"m wrong, Are you saying scripture has the sole authority therefore if the Church upholds these purely, then it has authority? Scripture is not the sole rule of authority. Who picked the scripture in the first place? Was there some divine "Table of Contents"? There is a difference of seven books that our separated brothers and sisters do not have. What you will find missing is Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, (including the Letter of Jeremiah), I and II Maccabees and parts of Esther and Daniel. However, you will find that the New Testament canon of the Catholic Church, the twenty-seven books we share with our separated friends, exist because the authority of the Catholic Church made the selection. It was the Catholic Church who made the selection of what books did or did not belong; therefore all who have the New Testament are adhering to the authority of the Catholic Church. For those who doubt that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has any authority must logically doubt the choice of the books inspired by God. [/quote]

I think you aren't understanding me. I am simply saying that Church/Tradition and Scripture shouldn't be seen as competing authorities. The Church presupposes the need for the Scripture and likewise the Scripture presupposes the need for the Church. Their ultimate source is the Word of God.

[Justified Saint]

[quote]Fine, but this brings us to Rome's forbidding the faithful to have the Scriptures in their own language, doesn't it?[/quote]

This is an excellent example of the Church's role as [i]protector[/i] of the Scriptures. It is sad that such extremes had to be taken, but that was the extent to which some of the horrid translations of the (pre) Reformers distorted God's book.

Edited October 21, 2004 by Justified Saint

[CatholicforChrist]

Aluigi, Apotheoun already clarified for me, but I just wanted to say that I was simply trying to explain, as Apoth did, that the Saints are not passive instruments (as they are so often made out to be when trying to explain this doctrine to protestants) but actually work under their own power, which is designated to them by God.

ICTHUS, since you abhor the Latin language so much, you may as well translate your signature into every vernacular language so everyone who wants to read it in his own language can do so (or at least English)...

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Oct 20 2004, 07:41 PM'] Why not more? Why not earlier, you say?

Literacy was extremely low until AFTER the printing press was invented, because it caused the boom in literature instruction. The boom had to wait on the printing press because otherwise the cost of individual Bibles would have been far too high. What is the purpose of making hundreds of different translations when the only people who will be able to afford them are the people who know Latin already? Why make hundreds of different types of translations when no one will buy them? They would simply fill up the shelves.


I suppose next you are going to try the claim that the Bibles were chained down because the Church didn't want them to be seen by the public? [/quote]
Fine, I accept this, but the Bible was put in the Index Libororum Prohibitorum for awhile, wasn't it? This is clear evidence of supression of God's Word.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Oct 22 2004, 04:47 PM'] Fine, I accept this, but the Bible was put in the Index Libororum Prohibitorum for awhile, wasn't it? This is clear evidence of supression of God's Word. [/quote]
No, it didn't. What were placed on the ban, however, were faulty and incomplete (i.e. Protestant) translations of Scripture.

In fact, Pope Benedict XV (a recent pope, but long before the publication of [i]Dei Verbum[/i]) applied indulgences to the reading of Scripture. Sounds like an encouragement, to me.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Svjatyj_Boze' date='Oct 20 2004, 07:43 PM'] Practically every Pope and every Catholic Church Father who's ever written anything on Scripture has opened his treatise with those very verses, without giving it a second thought. Sola Scriptura simply isn't there, and no one saw it there untill the Protestant Revolution. Yes, Scripture is profitable for teaching, rebuking, etc., so that the man of God may be complete. Scripture is a useful tool to the end of the completion of the man of God. But it is complete eisegesis to read into this passage the idea that Scripture is sufficient, or exclusively sufficient, for this end. It is as if I said that I feed my lawn in order that it might be green and beautiful and perfect and you inferred from that statement that I didn't have to water it as well. Episcopal exposition of the Scriptures is certainly very profitable. It is profitable toward the end of the salvation, sanctification, and glorification (i.e. completion) of all of God's people.


Hoo boy, if this is true you did not have a good priest. One of these days I'm going to have to become Pope so I can put things in order. [/quote]
1. Why must 'man of God' refer to the Bishop?

2. "so that the man of God may be complete,[b] thoroughly furnished unto every good work[/b]"

If a person is thoroughly furnished, he needs nothing else. He has all the furniture he needs in his house (so to speak). If he is furnished unto every good work, then every work he could possibly do, he is furnished unto - by what, you ask? By the Scriptures, of course!!!

[quote name='Justified Saint']This is an excellent example of the Church's role as protector of the Scriptures. It is sad that such extremes had to be taken, but that was the extent to which some of the horrid translations of the (pre) Reformers distorted God's book. [/quote] They probably just used words that refuted the Romish church's damnable doctrines, like infused justification.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Oct 22 2004, 03:54 PM'] In fact, Pope Benedict XV (a recent pope, but long before the publication of [i]Dei Verbum[/i]) applied indulgences to the reading of Scripture. Sounds like an encouragement, to me. [/quote]
But long after the printing press and after people in society became literate

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Oct 22 2004, 05:00 PM'] But long after the printing press and after people in society became literate [/quote]
True, this is true. It does not harm my main point, however, which was that the Bible, in its full, God-given, and Catholic form, was not on the ban.

[Benedict]

[quote]2. "so that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly furnished unto every good work"

If a person is thoroughly furnished, he needs nothing else. He has all the furniture he needs in his house (so to speak). If he is furnished unto every good work, then every work he could possibly do, he is furnished unto - by what, you ask? By the Scriptures, of course!!![/quote]
The verse does not say what you think it does.

"It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the Sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although Sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the Scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy." (John Henry Cardinal Newman, [i]On the Inspiration of Scripture[/i])

What thoroughly furnishes a man is teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. Scripture is profitable to that end through these means but it is not sufficient.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Benedict' date='Oct 22 2004, 04:28 PM']

[/quote]
Cardinal Newman was a fool who left solid, orthodox Protestantism for the seductions of the [color=red][Edited by Kilroy the Ninja][/color]of Rome.

[quote]The verse does not say what you think it does.[/quote] So you'd like us to believe.

[quote]"It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the Sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith;[/quote] First of all, Newman confuses [i]Sola Scriptura[/i]with Sol[b]o[/b] Scriptura. The Reformed believe the former, not the latter. The Reformed do not believe that we ought to reject church tradition [i]in toto[/i], only that we should reject it insofar as it is repugnant to the written Word of God. To put it otherwise, we believe that Scripture is the sole [i]infallible[/i] rule of faith. Other rules of faith exist, (commentaries, Church fathers, etc) but they are subordinate to God's written Word and aid in our understanding of it. Ultimately, however, these sources derive their authority from the Bible, since they are correct only insofar as they teach it correctly.

[quote]for, although Sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient.[/quote] Wrong again. If you look at it in the NKJV, it translates that useful littke Greek word 'artios' as 'complete'. I'd say something being able to make a person 'complete' and 'thoroughly equipped' for every good work.

[quote]The Apostle requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). [/quote] What? This verse has nothing to do with tradition!

[quote]Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the Scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy." (John Henry Cardinal Newman, [i]On the Inspiration of Scripture[/i])[/quote] Relevance?

[quote]What thoroughly furnishes a man is teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. [/quote] No, you've got it backwards. It is not these things that thoroughly furnishes a man, it is Scripture that does so for these ends. [quote]Scripture is profitable to that end through these means but it is not sufficient.[/quote] I disagree, argued above.

Edited October 25, 2004 by Kilroy the Ninja

[Theoketos]

Dont you find it interesting that Rome is always on the right side of every Schism?

Obviously Icthus, whom I usually give a great deal of respect to (excpet when Icthus you are out right uncharitable), would disagree with the last Schism of the Reformation, but then one has to wonder...

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote]Cardinal Newman was a fool who left solid, orthodox Protestantism for the seductions of the [Edited by Kilroy the Ninja]of Rome.[/quote]

Would you please define "solid, orthodox Protestantism," because, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you go to Calvinism? Is the Anglican Church, to which Cardinal Newman belonged, under the same doctrine as Calvinism? How can both be "solid, orthodox Protestantism"?

[popestpiusx]

[quote]solid, orthodox Protestantism[/quote]

Now that is an oxymoron if I ever saw one.