(no subject)

[robertnojj]

1. Find a writer
prior to Wycliffe (15th century British monk) who
consistently taught scripture alone and did not oppose Pauline
doctrine or the incarnation.

As a bit of a side note, there are quite a few people who believed this
position prior to Wycliffe, but they also believed, “Marriage bad
adultery good,” or some such nonsense.

Your statement regarding

Peter &Paul has been moved to the next question.

Augustine
stated "What scripture says, God says!" Augustine
also states "In those teachings which are clearly based on
scripture are found all that concerns faith and the conduct of
life".

I tried to look for context on these quotes, to that
effect I searched NewAdvent.org,the most complete collection of
Augustine’s works. I also googled it. There is no citation available.
Please provide the writing that Augustine wrote this in or retract
statement.
There was one attempt at citation, it referenced On Christian Doctrine
2.20 but I could not find that quote there. I did, however, find in
book I of that same work quotes which are very conspicuous. The
Church can say that someone’s sins are not forgiven, something
a bit more pressing than simple dogmatic definitions, for if the
Church were to take an interpretation of scripture and say, “It
is not a sin to believe this,” then who could question this?
Now, this further implies, at least to me, that Augustine would argue
that bishops have the authority to, “[uphold the] testimony of
the Catholic Church,” (Augustine, Contra Fausta, book

XI).

This means that they are right defenders of the faith and it is their job to

prevent
heresy. Further, acting corporately, they have the ability to
define what orthodoxy is as they, like the Apostles before them, have
the authority to bind and loose.

And furthermore,
whether you believe this is speaking to the authority of one’s
local patriarch or you believe this is speaking to the See of Peter,
you have to contest with Augustine’s quote regarding a
particular bishop in Rome. “The [bishop of Rome] has
decided, thus settles the case” - said to the resolution
of a debate over heresy.

I’m sorry,
even if Augustine did say what you said he did, he did not say it
consistently. This fails the first test.

2.
Provide an infallible source which defines what is to be in scripture
that does not challenge your assertion that scripture is the ultimate
authority.

Some very nice
verbal (written?) finagling.

Not finagling.
This is a very specific question for a very specific point.

It is POSSIBLE
that there are books in scripture that do not belong, or books that
are not in scripture which do belong

So how do you
know what to believe? So
long as the canon is open and there is no final standard, there is
there?

1) Jesus
referred to the Old Testament as the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and
the Psalms

Please cite this
source. I do not see this in the Bible anywhere. It is
especially confusing because the Jews divided it Law, Prophets, and
Writings.

For me,
I'm sticking with Jesus! (is Jesus, in terms of the Old Testament,
infallible enough for you?)

No, it isn’t.
You don’t know whether he’s including Ecclesiastes, Song
of Songs, the Deuterocanon, etc. Heck, because he only
references the Psalms in the “writings,” we really can’t
say that he included anything but them from the books of the Old
Testament.

And yes, there
are other citations in the New Testament to other writings but
Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs (and Job, I believe) are not
referenced elsewhere. Also, if anything, the Septuagint is
cited when the Apostles wish to reference the Old Testament - a
collection which included the Deuterocanon…

And, for that
manner, you don’t even know if the Gospels are the right ones!
Maybe he never did! You have proved only that the canonical
Gospels agree that parts of the Old Testament are valid.

1b) [this
is included from above] 2 Peter 3:15...Peter clearly endorses
Paul

But who has
endorsed Peter? And then who endorsed the Gospel writers?
And who included James and John? Should we then only include
Peter and Paul?

2) The books
of the Bible are divinely inspired. The Church saying "this
book is inspired" does NOT make it so....the Church is simply
stating a pre-existing fact. It is also possible for the Church
to state "this book is inspired" and be incorrect.
So, how were the books chosen?

If something is
infallible truth then it must have always been infallible truth.
It’s a bit interesting, actually. Some of the things
which were quite legitimate at Aquinas’ time are quite
heretical now. It is not that the Church has amended the truth;
it has simply discovered a truth in a dogmatic and binding manner.

But, as this is
not the issue at hand, this is quite irrelevant anyway. The
question is whether there is an infallible canon, and this addresses
my definition of canonical infallibility. We both know that I
believe that Tradition plays into this. The issue at hand is
whether you can assert “Bible Alone” without tradition.

3)
Well, you YOURSELF have stated that the oldest thing is the best
thing. Well, sir, the oldest thing is from Athanasius, a church
father who worked to determine the books of the Bible.

Actually, there
are a number of authors who pre-dated Athanasius who proposed
different canons. But, this is an extra-biblical
authority which is defining scripture in any case.
This means that this other authority has considerable weight in
determining what is and is not doctrine.

Yet, even still,
this is but one man. How do you know that he is infallible?

4)
How do we know they are right? Well, if scripture is all
inspired by God, then scripture cannot contradict itself, or God
would be a liar. Therefore, anything that is contradictory to
the rest of scripture must not belong!

Simply because
something does not contradict does not mean that it belongs in the
Bible - remember the case of the Sybils. And, if there
are books missing from scripture, your interpretation is non-valid as
it does not include everything necessary.

So, once again,
this test is failed. There is nothing here which is inerrant.
Nothing here is definite. Nothing here is even authoritative.
You have one quote which is inconclusive at best and a vague
reference which is based on an axiom (something which can easily be
challenged as above)

3. Find somewhere in scripture which says that tradition

cannot
be inspired.

Prove a
negative…

Adultery is never
moral… see the ten commandments and Romans 1. The
dietary Laws cannot be binding for Christians… 1 Corinthians.
The point is that there is a possibility that a tradition can come
from God.

Besides,
look towards the end of the e-mail from me. SOMETHING MUST BE
THE FINAL JUDGE TO COMPARE THINGS TO!!! Are you telling me that
something that man (who is fallible) came up with is just as good as
what God (who is infallible) has given? Might as well go the
whole way and start being a Gnostic believer.

If the Church,
whom God has created as bride, is truly pure and virginal by the
power of the Holy Spirit, then she is able to speak on His behalf.
For, if the Church were to fall into heresy then she would become a
harlot like Israel before her. Yet, since she is called, “Pure
Bride” in the book of Revelation, I suspect that this is
another failure.

I have to address
this separately:

You cannot
have three things (scripture, tradition, and Church teachings) all be
equal.

This makes a
couple of mistakes. First, it assumes that Church teachings are
something different from Tradition. Church teachings compose
dogmatic tradition. Second, tradition contextualizes our
reading of scripture and scripture contextualizes our reading of
tradition. They serve each other mutually.

Yet, I could make
an even more terrifying argument. By your logic, the trinity
cannot be equal. For, if only two things cannot be equal and
the final authority, then how can there be three persons and one
God?

I never stated
that Church hierarchy is NOT a legitimate teaching authority.
What I HAVE stated (or, at the very least, inferred) is that human
beings are fallible and can be wrong. Therefore, it IS POSSIBLE
for a Church to give incorrect teachings.

Not if the Church
is to continue. It becomes an adulterer and the Gospels
demonstrate that it is not good news but laughable. Hell shall
not prevail against the Church (Mat. 16). It is not strong
enough to contend with her. Those who preach false doctrines
are the servants of the devil (cf. 1 John). How, then, can they
prevail in the hierarchy of the Church?

And we are also
not talking about a Church. We are talking about the
Church in the first millenium. This Church was united in
doctrine and practice. There was not “the Church of
Jerusalem” contrasted with “The Church of Gaul.”
To make a bad analogy, that would be like there being Verizon in
Princeton and Verizon in Newark - same company, same policies,
same rules, same principles, just located in different places.
Please note that even in the Bible, the Seven Churches of Revelation
were all called to the same end. For if there is no
universality in the Church, then there cannot be an appeal to a
universal standard.

Then as there is
One Lord, One Faith, and One Baptism, there is one God, who, as
Divine Father, established One, Holy, catholic (it means universal),
and Apostolic Church for all ages. This then is our standard,
which Church is the Church which has been there “from the
beginning?” This Church must have, as dogma, that the
Church will not descend into heresy but rather that the dogmas of the
Church are given by God in the person of the Holy Spirit.

The early
apologists of the Church (including Clement and Ignatius who are
mentioned elsewhere in this letter) made this argument. They
said that the Church is not a matter of personal interpretation or of
hidden knowledge, but rather that the same salvation is available to
all. The baptism in the Name was that which bound all to the
same creeds and to the true catholic faith (and Ignatius used those
words).

How are we to
believe that there is One God, and One Heaven, and One Body of Christ
if we believe that there is such a difference between Churches?
Would this not nullify the very statement that THE Church is
the pillar and foundation of truth? How can there be more then
one Church in this statement?

No, the only way
that we can speak of multiple Churches is to say that there is one
local manifestation of the Church. To this we can say
that there is a community of Christ in that location. Yet, just
as the individual is a cell in the Body of Christ, the individual
community is a part of the body too. The small community in
Smyrna is one with the community in Rome.

So, then, just as
a sickness or malady may invade one part of the body without the
whole being damaged, how can we say that the Body of Christ will
ever, as a whole, succumb to the chastisement given us by Christ?
Rather, even though the majority of the hierarchy and the majority of
the people fall under certain illnesses (such as Arianism), we must
believe that at no point will the entirety of the Church succumb to
this. For God has promised that He will always provide an
Athanasius and a Nicene Council to defend the Holy and Living Bride
of the lamb.

Therefore, we err
not when we say that the Church is the pillar and foundation of all
truth, for the Church is our bulwark. It is the mighty Zion of
which it is said, “Blessed are those who were born there,”
where, “God has made his dwelling.” Indeed,
salvation comes out of Her (Ps. 20), She is the Tabernacle of God
which is with men (Rev. 21 [my favorite title of the Church, by the
by])!

Most importantly,
however, there is no darkness in the New Jerusalem (again, Revelation
21) for “There will be no need for lamps of the Sun, for Lord
God shall be their light.” And this can bridge no heresy
for, “If we say we have fellowship with him and walk in the
darkness we are liars” (1 John 1:6) and, “those who deny
that Christ came in the flesh are liars and the antichrist,” (1
John 2:22) (the root of all heresy is a denial of one aspect
of the incarnation or another).

How can we say
that the Bride is not immaculate? How can we say we say that
she prone to error? Her home is Heaven itself. In a
sense, She is Heaven itself. For if the Most High, “dwells
in the Heavens,” and elsewhere it is said that, “He
dwells in his sanctuary,” we can conclude that as the New
Jerusalem is, “The tabernacle” (that is to say dwelling)
of God, that She, herself, is Heaven itself.

How then, as the
Church is rightly called Heaven, can we say that she may bridge even
the smallest of falsities? How can we say that say that a
heresy may truly endure? I say that we cannot! I say,
rather, that we are forced to admit that, as the Church is our
Heavenly homeland; that the gate of Heaven, while even assailed by
those whose proper home is within, cannot be shattered, overcome, or
even overshadowed by the enemy for in Her bosom is our hope and our
life.

If
a Church is incapable of giving incorrect teachings, then how can you
say that the Mormons or the Seventh Day Adventists are wrong?
After all, they have a church hierarchy that is teaching
things!!!

Because Arianism
was outlawed at the Council of Nicea? Mormonism fails in that
it has no evidence from anywhere prior to Mr. Smith’s magical
golden tablets of blaspheme. Further, you know a tree by its
fruits - they forbid people from eating and drinking certain
things, they have taught polygamy, they have said, “The US will
be destroyed in fire and ice unless the state of Missouri (? could be
another state in the Midwest) is returned to the Mormons…”
To quote Arthur Pen-dragon, King of the Britons: “let us not go
[there], it is a silly place.”

SDA are wrong
because they attack traditions established by God - including
the very scriptures themselves (they refuse to use anything but the
KJV even though there are mistakes in that translation). As the
Church has always been immaculate, this means that the
traditions which formed out of the first church have precedence over
later ones. They contradict dogmas which have been defined for
centuries.

So, you have
experience of fighting AGAINST the rogue elements in the PCUSA.
GREAT! What experience do you have with the PCA? And, by
PCA, I mean that PCA churches that follow church doctrine (which
means following scripture).

Not as much.
Most of the experience I have is with the dominant denominations.
I especially know about the inner workings of ECUSA and PCUSA.
Most of my understanding of the PCA was through a couple of friends
in college (one went to PTSem another was just a random friend).
I learned about some Baptist, Congregationalist, and Methodist
organization but nothing particularly held.

I suppose that
the one I learned best was Luther. After all, Presbyterianism
without dogmatic double-predestination (for we all believe in some
form of predestination), really becomes a form of generic
Protestantism. I rejected consubstantiation and maintained a
very literal interpretation of much of the Bible (as much as you
do).

The fact that
you gave sermon at 12 years of age speaks volumes about the PCUSA.
No offense to you personally, but a 12-year old should not be giving
sermons.

That’s an
opinion and not a substantiated one. Two to five minute talks
are more than legitimate for a middle-schooler, especially
considering the fact that I knew my stuff and that the audience was
middle-schoolers.

Instead of
referring to writings outside the Bible, you can explain how that
proof-texting is taking things out of context.

Or, they can cite
the Gnostics.

Refer me to
some of the writings of early Christians and I would be delighted to
read them.

This is my
favorite author. I admit, he is not scripture. I say that
mournfully because his teachings are inspiring and, in a way, they
are inspired. Imagine if John and Paul had come together and
written with the poetry of John and Paul’s dogmatic ways!
It is one of the most beautiful texts outside of the Bible itself.

Ignatius of
Antioch (and if you read the below, you’ll get some of this)
was the bishop of Antioch and was arrested by the Romans for being a
Christian. The following are the letters he wrote while in
captivity while being sent to Rome for execution. (He took an
overland route).

Legend has it
that Ignatius was the Apostle John’s disciple. He was one
of the first, best opponents of the Gnostics in the early Church.

- Epistle
to the Ephesians
- Epistle
to the Magnesians
- Epistle
to the Trallians
- Epistle
to the Romans
- Epistle
to the Philadelphians
- Epistle
to the Smyraeans
- Epistle
to Polycarp

This is the first
post-Apostolic Father. It is called the letter of Clement to
the Corinthians even though it never bore Clement’s name.
It was supposed to have been written somewhere between 69 and 96 AD.
It is ascribed to the Clement mentioned in Phillipians. Was it
by him? I don’t know. It seems, however, that this
author is familiar with the most of the writings of the New Testament
with the exception of the Johanine text, but this shouldn’t be
surprising as that wasn’t written until around 90.

Personally, I
like believing the old legends. There is a sort of mystery and
awe to them. But, I am also the type of person who likes to
believe that Arthur will return in England’s hour of greatest
need. (I don’t really, but childhood heros die hard [if
you think that’s bad, you should see how people have problems
with the death of Optimus Prime]).

Either way, the
letter is certainly from the Church in Rome to the Corinthians.
Interestingly enough this means that we have three documents
regarding the Church in Corinth from the first hundred years of
Christianity - even if you take a more modern approach and
believe that 2 Cor. was Pseudepigrapha (documents written by a
later author under an original author’s name) [1].
I am beginning to start an analysis of how the Church in Corinth
evolved, but that will take some time, especially since I don’t
own Eusebius’ history of the Pre-Constantine Church.

Anyway, enough talk about the work,
here is a link:

- Clement
Epistle to the Romans

I would state
that it's the Catholic church's refusal to back the authority of
scripture that has allowed gnosticism to flourish.

Often I have been
told that an opinion cannot be wrong. As with your statement
above, I disagree. This opinion is unfounded.

Look into
history. Stare it in the face. When you read up on the
Gnostics, you find that they overwhelmingly supported the idea that
God revealed himself to each individual and so each individual was to
interpret revelation and the will of God. On the other hand,
the orthodox, those who professed that Christ had come in the flesh,
taught that there was only one correct understanding of scripture and
that there was only one body to interpret - the Church.

If you don't
know what books do & don't belong in the Bible (and don't have a
way to judge them), then how can you say gnosticism is wrong?

I know exactly
what belongs in the Bible. I’ve known the entire time.
You are the one who has no authoritative proof. ;

Protestanism
has condemned Catholicism...not the first generation to the 15th
century.

Does it not
concern you that your beliefs are 1500 years younger than mine?

Only orthodoxy
or gnosticism? That's a bunch of CARP.

www.Earlychristianwritings.org
- if you don’t believe me, read for yourself. This
site is run by a man who is decidedly Gnostic, but the documents here
are all real. Tell me, do you see anyone who does not support
bishops or, if not bishops, Gnosticism and the foulest of heresies?

If people come
together, due to the fact that the Catholic church is teaching things
which are NOT true to the Bible, and analyze scripture to understand
what it actually states that is gnosticism? That's just
silly.

In the beginning of the Church there
were two groups: Gnostics who opposed bishops or said that all were
bishops and orthodoxy. If you did not agree with the orthodox,
then you had one other choice… So, in early
Christianity, if you did not listen to and follow the bishop, then
you were a Gnostic.

First, I would
be happy to read any such letter. I did a google search, and
did not find this letter from Clement to the Romans. Please
provide a link.

Sorry, discussed above. Meant,
“Letter of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians.”

As for
Clement...why did the book of Acts (or the writings of Paul or John
or Peter, or anyone else!?) not state that the Church was to have a
pope, who was to be seated in Rome, who was to lead the Church?
Wouldn't that be pretty important?

Well, does your
Church account for the fact that the Apostles appointed successors?
No? Then when you explain your Church I will explain that
aspect of mine.

Indeed, at an
early age I had MANY problems with the Catholic church. Prior
to truly becoming a Christian, I made the statement that "if I'm
going to belong to a Church, I at least want to belong to one that
uses their own manual." Prior to truly knowing Christ, or
having the Spirit work in my life, I knew that the Catholic church
did not conform to scripture, and that bothered me
relentlessly.

Not to be indecorous (word of the day),
but if you didn’t know scripture until now (and it is debatable
as to whether you know it well enough yet), then how did you know
that the Catholic Church is inconsistent with scripture?

You next say some things which are very
perplexing. You state that you do not know what is in
scripture, yet you say that the Deuterocanon is not in scripture
elsewhere. You say that it is possible to prove scripture with
scripture, yet you say that you don’t know what scripture is.
You say that scripture is the final authority yet, without some
defined canon, you cannot say even which scriptures are final
authority. You claim that the entire Bible is literally true,
yet you claim that it may include stuff which is not even
inspired…
Perhaps you might explain these seemingly contradictory opinions?

Can you refine
your statement, please? 2 Timothy 3:6 has nothing to do with
tradition. Please let me know which verse you meant.

Don’t worry about it. It
was based on misunderstanding.

I NEVER SAID
ALL TRADITION IS BAD!!!!

I’m sorry.
I misunderstood. I took you statements to the effect of,
“Traditions are based on the thoughts of men,” condemned
tradition. Yet, if the above is the case, how do you discern
which extra-Biblical traditions are right if you cannot even say that
the Bible is right?

The
Reformation (specifically) looks back to Augustine, Paul, the
Gospels, and even the Old Testament (even as far back as Genesis &
the fall).

The Reformation
is nearsighted. It does not look at anyone from 96 AD to the
fifth century (and it makes very vague reference to Augustine
which will be explained below) and it does not look at anyone after
that until Wycliffe. There’s about 1300 years completely
unaccounted for! I’m sorry, this is without history.

The
Reformation (specifically) looks back to Augustine

Really?
That’s odd, because your interpretation of the Bible is
decidedly not Augustinian. I’ll give you an
example, in City of God, book XI, chapters 7 through, Augustine gives
us an interpretive understanding of scripture. He says that the
light there is not corporeal light but the light of Heaven and
knowledge and that on the seventh day he created his rest and did not
rest at all. I find this more symbolic interpretation to be
much different from your interpretation.

Christ did not
die for all men. Christ died for: he chose us in him before
the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In
love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus
Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will- to the praise
of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he
loves.

You forget 2
Corinthians 5. Christ died for all as a means of the Father
redeeming the world. (cf. vs. 15ff). Yet, this does not mean
that all will benefit from his death but rather only those who have
been predestined and known as above. But, this matter is not
for debate here, so let us leave it for another time.

At this point you
might argue that the Catholic Church destroyed all of those
documents, but I will put that theory to the test.

I did not say
that.

Sorry,
anticipated your argument, thus the word, “might.”
Most people who do not like to admit that tradition is needed to
define scripture will make up wild conspiracy theories. I
attempted to make a preemptive address of this.

AHEM!
People DID believe the scriptures to be historically accurate prior
to the Reformation, thank you very much. Augustine spoke out
against those that believed & taught this.

But Augustine
also spoke out against people who opposed the bishops.
Remember, a lot of the sacramental language of the Catholic Church -
especially regarding ordinations - comes from Augustine.

Yet, once again,
this is not what the statement addressed. It spoke to whether
Protestantism could meet the measure of history.

Additionally,
since most people were illiterate prior to very recent times, they
were UNABLE to challenge the Catholic church. If that's what
the Catholic church said was in the Bible, what were they to do?
Read it to prove otherwise!? HARDLY!

Well, I suppose
this is a welcome change. At least your conspiracy theory is
realistic. Face it, though, your argument is a conspiracy
theory at best and the same proof offered against the burning of
documents works against your theory as well.

That whole
PCUSA thing again, huh?

You know, I wrote
the word, “Might,” above. If you have difficulties
with the words of man, how do you know that you can read the Word of
God?

AHEM!
People DID believe the scriptures to be historically accurate prior
to the Reformation, thank you very much.

Please go back
and re-read the argument. Historical accuracy has nothing to do
with the argument at hand. You also said a lot about science
and its purpose. As my statement is that Protestantism is
illogical, this really doesn’t prove anything, does it?

You know
what's really wonderful about these arguments? Unless you give me
some sort of dogmatic proof from scripture, I could simply quote
poetry at you…

This is the
problem I have with the Catholic church! If you do not believe
that the scripture is the base-line (the end-all and be-all of
understanding God), then you are right, you can quote any "holy"
book.

This does not
address the point. You yourself have admitted that your
collection of scripture is fallible. Why could I not, then,
assert that ANYTHING is scriptural?

Worse yet.
What if the Catholic church made a statement you did not agree
with...what would you, what COULD you measure it against? You
have nothing because the Church is considered equal with scripture,
and scripture equal with tradition.

Here’s
something which will no doubt scandalize you: if the Church says
something dogmatically and I don’t believe it, I am in error.

For
instance, the Catholic church teaches circumcision. But, Paul
clearly demonstrates & states that we have a NEW covenant with
God

I could yell at
you for this one. But I think I will simply say, “Whoever
told you that was an idiot and has no flipping clue what he was
talking about.” .

If you
want to do circumcision, go the whole way & emasculate
yourself!!!

I wish the best
for your testimony… er… testicles as well.

:-D

[1]
1 & 2 Timothy are said to be this way [I doubt it]
and so is 2 Cor. 2 Cor, and this is my own experience, does
have a very different style from the rest of the Pauline literature,
but this could be because of a number of other issues [Paul was being
really emotional, he kept hearing different news from Corinth and
therefore changed his message, etc] . You can do with that what you
will, this is modern scholarship which provides an interesting lens
to look at the texts but I really could care less.

It is much simpler to look at it as the writings of Paul
especially since, if it is from another’s hand, it is clearly
in the Pauline school. This means that Paul’s thoughts
would have influenced it if not wholly guided it. It is
debatable, therefore, whether there is any new material introduced to
the Pauline tradition.

Either way, the text is inspired so the only way that we
might consider using all of this information is a means of
contrasting some of the language with the language in the other
Epistles - as is often done with the Gospels - to see how
they are using different words to say some of the same things.
[For example, with the Sadducee question regarding marriage and the
resurrection, Luke has a lot more to say than Matthew].