Concerning Sola Scriptura

[ICTHUS]

No, actually, Luther, Calvin, Knox, et al, were the Holy Spirit's instruments, with the weapon of the Word of God in hand, for Reformation.

[quote]Some of these self-promoting men had the audacity to change the Bible to their own liking ~ editing out seven books entirely ~ and then come up with a doctrine called "Sola Scriptura"  declaring the Bible alone as the source of authority God left to the Church.  (Only the "Scriptura" [i][b]they[/b][/i] approved of, btw!)[/quote] The Old Testament that Jesus used? Sure!

[quote]Funny, but not even the Bible supports Sola Scriptura!  It says that the pillar and foundation of the Truth is...[i][b]The Church[/b][/i]![/quote] The Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth, requiring that she be subordinate to Truth (which is found, penultimately, in the Written Word of God, the standard by which we judge all extrabiblical traditions) For, a foundation is always the thing it founds, yes?

[quote]The Church is incapable of error, yesterday, today, and always, precisely because, regardless of the sinfulness, idiocy, and arrogance of the men within Her, the Catholic Church which was founded by Christ [i]is guided and protected by the Holy Spirit[/i].  Always was, always will be.[/quote] Prove to me from explicit Scripture that the Church is infallible.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='MorphRC' date='Aug 30 2004, 08:44 PM'] You said 300 years previous to the reformation bad doctrines were brought in. So therefore hell did prevail. For 300yrs. [/quote]
No, Hell did [i]not prevail[/i]. I don't see how you're arriving at this conclusion from what I said.

A hockey team can be losing in the first two periods, and pull ahead and win in the third. The losing in the first two periods was a setback, but the opposing team (in this case, Hell) did not prevail.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Just a note, ICTHUS, you said you believe in the Real Presence. Do you believe a Lutheran or Anglican (without Hoyl Orders) can even confect the Eucharist? The Anglicans lost Holy Orders a while ago. THe only places to get a valid (even if illicit in the case of schismatics) is the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches (and of course smaller schismatic groups like Old Catholics).

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='thedude' date='Aug 30 2004, 09:03 PM'] Just a note, ICTHUS, you said you believe in the Real Presence. Do you believe a Lutheran or Anglican (without Hoyl Orders) can even confect the Eucharist? The Anglicans lost Holy Orders a while ago. THe only places to get a valid (even if illicit in the case of schismatics) is the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches (and of course smaller schismatic groups like Old Catholics). [/quote]
[quote]Just a note, ICTHUS, you said you believe in the Real Presence.  Do you believe a Lutheran or Anglican (without Hoyl Orders) can even confect the Eucharist?[/quote] No.

[quote]The Anglicans lost Holy Orders a while ago.[/quote] Says the Pope, yes. But the Pope has no authority in the Church of England, so pffft! [quote]THe only places to get a valid (even if illicit in the case of schismatics) is the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches (and of course smaller schismatic groups like Old Catholics).[/quote] Many Anglican bishops had themselves conditionally ordained at the hands of Old Catholic bishops.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Aug 27 2004, 02:14 AM'] woh, check out my post in this thread! its the first post i ever made here at phatmass. i busted in here like a man on a mission!!

anyway, i was feeling nostolgic so i thought i'd share [/quote]
that's so awesome phat! now you're the PM apologist. LOL

My first post was actually a comment in a Squashing the Bunkness article that BLAZEr wrote (back when STB was still around). Does that really count as my first post I wonder? If not I can't remember my first post.

Jennie, that's perfect that yours was in the Apologetics board. LOL!

love.

[StColette]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Aug 30 2004, 10:21 PM'] Jennie, that's perfect that yours was in the Apologetics board. LOL!
[/quote]
hehe

[MorphRC]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Aug 31 2004, 12:22 PM'] No, Hell did [i]not prevail[/i]. I don't see how you're arriving at this conclusion from what I said.

A hockey team can be losing in the first two periods, and pull ahead and win in the third. The losing in the first two periods was a setback, but the opposing team (in this case, Hell) did not prevail. [/quote]
Heres what im getting from your thinking.

The Catholic Church, was correct and lead the proper ways up UNTIL around the 13th or 14th centuries, then it starting teaching false doctrines and beliefs, then for 300 years, Christ let His people, be mislead, and put into false beliefs for 200-300 years [ Nice God eh?, Over 200 yrs to fix the problem ], then the reformation came along, which God wanted, and it reformed Christianity into what God wanted.

So it took 1500 years for God finally to get His plan right. Sounds like a lazy God doesnt it?




[color=gray]*Note: Im being objective, not serious.[/color]

[p0lar_bear]

ICTHUS,

So if we were able to demonstrate that the Church before 1200 depended on both Tradition and Scripture as Divine Revelation, would you believe it?

[ICTHUS]

No, because I don't believe that Tradition has ever been an infallibe source of doctrine, no matter what anybody says. Certainly, Tradition is useful, but it must submit itself to Holy Scripture.

[jasJis]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Aug 31 2004, 04:41 PM'] No, because I don't believe that Tradition has ever been an infallibe source of doctrine, no matter what anybody says. Certainly, Tradition is useful, but it must submit itself to Holy Scripture. [/quote]
Tradition was first and gave us Holy Scripture in the first place. You can't have a chicken without an egg.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='MorphRC' date='Aug 31 2004, 12:33 AM'] Heres what im getting from your thinking.

The Catholic Church, was correct and lead the proper ways up UNTIL around the 13th or 14th centuries, then it starting teaching false doctrines and beliefs, then for 300 years, Christ let His people, be mislead, and put into false beliefs for 200-300 years [ Nice God eh?, Over 200 yrs to fix the problem ], then the reformation came along, which God wanted, and it reformed Christianity into what God wanted.

So it took 1500 years for God finally to get His plan right. Sounds like a lazy God doesnt it?




[color=gray]*Note: Im being objective, not serious.[/color] [/quote]
No, rather, false doctrines and beliefs, slowly but surely, began to creep in from the close of the apostolic age onward. However, it eventually got so bad that if something wasn't done, nobody would be able to be saved by following the apostate doctrines that the Catholic Church was teaching (and still is).

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Aug 31 2004, 04:42 PM'] No, rather, false doctrines and beliefs, slowly but surely, began to creep in from the close of the apostolic age onward. [/quote]
And that *never* happens when people misinterpret and disagree on something in the bible?

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='Aug 31 2004, 05:00 PM'] And that *never* happens when people misinterpret and disagree on something in the bible? [/quote]
Sure it does, and this is why you [i]never[/i] absolutize human exegesis!

I also have to wonder why there has never been a Roman Catholic seminal reply to John Owen's [i]"The Death of Death in the Death of Christ"[/i]

Edited August 31, 2004 by ICTHUS

[Aloysius]

then to whom is Chris speaking when He says "But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself: but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak. And the things that are to come, he shall shew you." [i]The Words of Our Lord Jesus Christ from The Holy Gospel According to St. John, Chapter XVI, Verse XIII[/i]

for to whomever He is speaking, they should seem to be able to have an exegesis of God's Word which is absolutely true, in fact ALL TRUTH.

Edited August 31, 2004 by Aloysius

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 31 2004, 05:35 PM'] then to whom is Chris speaking when He says "But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself: but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak. And the things that are to come, he shall shew you." [i]The Words of Our Lord Jesus Christ from The Holy Gospel According to St. John, Chapter XVI, Verse XIII[/i]

for to whomever He is speaking, they should seem to be able to have an exegesis of God's Word which is absolutely true, in fact ALL TRUTH. [/quote]
The Church, of course. I don't see how this necessitates that the Church's exegesis must be infallible, and not answerable to correction from the Scriptures.

[Aloysius]

teach you [b]all [/b]truth...

ALL truth.

thus, if part of the Church's exegesis is wrong, it is not ALL truth, for some of it isn't truth...

[MorphRC]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Sep 1 2004, 08:11 AM'] No, because I don't believe that Tradition has ever been an infallibe source of doctrine, no matter what anybody says. Certainly, Tradition is useful, but it must submit itself to Holy Scripture. [/quote]
You dont know anything about the formation of Scripture do you.

Scripture in its current form wasnt completed until the 4th century. Christians in asia-minor, had all 27 books, and 46 OT books, but also had the Didache added on, in egypt, some didnt have the didache or 1 John or 2 John [i believe]. Not only that the 73 Book Canon, was used prior to the 2nd century, but many Christians didnt like it, they wanted extra books which became the acopryha [not the protestant one]. And the last book of the New Testament, Book of Apocalypse wasnt even completed until around 96-97AD, so what did they use for 60-70 years?

The first NT book/letter was St. Paul's 1 Thess, written in 51AD, so what did they use prior to that? They had those Q,M,S sources, which we believe to have existed, but we havent found the manuscripts.

Traditional teaching, is the oral teaching of the Gospels, and other teachings that were not put into Scripture, as well as written teaching, IE: The Didache.

What do you think Ha-Torah is? Do you believe that was written around Moses' time? It wasnt, that was held and brought down through Jewish descent, in an extremely strict Oral tradition.

Tradition, and Scripture are one, Tradition precedes Scripture, always has, and always will in history. If you dont apply tradition to you, you [u]MUST[/u], take out the following books of your bible:

- Genesis
- Exodus
- Leviticus
- Numbers
- Deuteronomy
- Joshua
&
- Judges

From the NT remove:

- The Gospels

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Aug 30 2004, 11:05 PM'] Many Anglican bishops had themselves conditionally ordained at the hands of Old Catholic bishops. [/quote]
That is correct, however that only means those certain Bishops have valid Holy Orders, not the priests underneath them who remain ordained falsely (this is why Anglican priests who convert to Catholicism are reordained). And of course, the female priests still aren't valid.