Scriptures Cannot be alone... Scripture is clear

[kepha]

Now that's out of the way:
Would you consider, after reading 2 Timothy, that succession includes doctrinal teaching? If so, then how can the apostolic writings not be included in that succession?

I never said apostolic writings were excluded, I said apostolic succession is part of Tradition, which is inseparable from apostolic writings (scriptures) which is inseparable from the Magisterium (teaching authority).

What you've quoted I think is inaccurate. To conclude that the Nicean Creed does not include Scripture is to ignore what should be rather self evident - most of the words are scriptural. The use of only begotten (monogenes), God being Maker of Heaven and Earth, of things seen and unseen, by whom all things were made, etc. The use of of homoousios, while not from the Bible, is a scriptural concept, and it scarcely would have been included if the fathers had not concluded it was taught in Scripture by concept if not by word. Kelly makes this exact point from Irenaeus.

I never said anything about the the Nicene Creed, I said St. Athanasius gives the Church's rule of faith, and then applies it to the passages of Scripture misinterpreted by the Arians. There is simply no other way to understand his defense of the Faith against them.

Read more: http://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/other-religions/protestanism/baptists-at-nicea-by-fr-hugh-barbour-o-praem/

I also doubt the assertion that the Arians rejected the Nicean understanding on the basis purely that it was a Greek philosophical term. The main reason they didn't like the term was theological, but they also used the argument that because the Gnostics, in particular Paul of Samosata, had used the term, it should be rejected. Of course, this is a pretty specious argument in the first place (what then should we make of the use of Logos in John?!)

I never said Greek philosophy was purely the source of Arius' errors, it was one source.

But in any case, that doesn't sustain the real point you're making, that somehow Nicea is proof of a non sola scriptura position.

But it does.
Everywhere in his writings, St. Athanasius takes the Church's faith as the rule whereby the Scriptures are to be rightly interpreted. This rule of ecclesiastical faith (Greek: ho skopos tes ekklesiatikes pisteos) he adopts as a canon for rightly establishing the sense of the sacred text. The Arian heretics, on the other hand, use their private opinion (Greek: ho idios nous) as their rule or canon of interpretation. The evidence is glaring. You simply cannot admit that the rule of ecclesiastical faith TOGETHER with Scriptures, was used to refute Arius. It's documented in the canons of Nicae.

Patently, it is (at least as the Reformers understood it, not as people either misunderstand or, in the case of many hyper-Proestants, misapply it)

Why cherry pick the doctrines on the Trinity and reject everything else?

The Council of Nicea dealt with many of the same canonical issues in 325 that are dealt with in the Church's current canon law, both Eastern and Western. Its decrees concern the qualifications, precedence and jurisdiction of bishops and priests (canons 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 19), the proper role of deacons at the celebration of the Eucharist (canon 18), measures to ensure the validity of the ordination of bishops (canon 4), uniformity in the celebration of the Church's Eucharistic Liturgy (canon 20), the preservation of the celibacy of the clergy (canon 3) and the treatment of penitents and their reconciliation (canons 11, 12, 13, 14). It's worth quoting a few of these canons that show the Council's Catholic character quite unambiguously.

So why does every classical Protestant confession of faith mention Nicae???

Peter was not always infallible. To say he was requires you to basically invoke a no true scotsman argument to say things like "when Peter led people astray by not eating with Gentiles, he wasn't teaching."

I am familiar with the scenario. Peter was hiding because he was afraid of the Jews. How does one teach and lead people astray while hiding? Paul's exhortation to Peter had nothing to do with Peter's infallibility, but his behavior. Peter also wrote 2 infallible encyclicals. Are you saying 1 and 2 Peter must be fallible because Peter had weaknesses? Every single anti-Catholic in this forum hasn't the first clue what infallibility means. They refuse to be taught. Sad.

At that point, it becomes pointless to talk about someone being infallible - instead, one can only speak about what is taught as being infallible (indeed, this is the position of Rome in regards to papal infallibility). My position is simply that the teaching of the apostles which is infallible is that which flows from the Lord by the power of the Holy Spirit. It's telling to me, for instance, that Paul on at least one occasion is quick to separate what is his teaching, and what is the Lord's teaching.

Do you mean Galatians 2:2 where Paul travels to Peter, James, and John to make sure his gospel is true? Maybe you have a verse showing where test tube babies or human cloning is immoral. Or do you mean that is up to the Holy Spirit to directly tell each individual believer about moral issues that are not in the Bible? If you want to digress with a different topic such as infallibility, we can run all over the map.

Does he expect tradition to have different content to the Scriptures? Did he expect there were things that the apostles did not teach that were important doctrinal points that the church needed to know? Yes or no?

I asked you how the Church knew if a scripture was authentic, and you didn't answer me.

"...Those books which are apostolic belong in the canon of scripture. If a book had been handed down by the apostles as scripture (like the books of the Old Testament) of if it was written by one of the apostles or their associates (like the books of the New Testament), it belonged in the Bible. Apostolicity was thus the test for canonicity.But how could one know which books were apostolic? Certainly not by a book's claim to be apostolic, since there were many false gospels and epistles circulating under the names of apostles. Neither did the Holy Spirit promise a revelation to each individual Christian of what books belonged in the Bible.But how was the test for apostolicity carried out in the early Church? Basically, there were two tests, both of them involving tradition.

First, those books were reckoned as apostolic which agreed with the teachings the apostles handed on to the Church. Gnostic scriptures and other writings which did not agree with the apostolic tradition were rejected out of hand. This is something Evangelical scholars admit.

Protestant scripture scholar F. F. Bruce writes that,

"[The early Fathers] had recourse to the criterion of orthodoxy.... This appeal to the testimony of the churches of apostolic foundation was developed especially by Irenaeus.... When previously unknown Gospels or Acts began to circulate... the most important question to ask about any one of them was: What does it teach about the person and work of Christ? Does it maintain the apostolic witness to him...?" (The Canon of Scripture, 260).

​

Second, those books were regarded as apostolic which were preached in the various churches as being from the pen of an apostle or the associate of an apostle -- not just its doctrines, but the book itself. If a given work was not regarded as apostolic and was not preached as such in the churches, then it was rejected. This was also an appeal to tradition because it looked to the tradition of the churches as a guide for apostolicity. If the tradition of the Churches did not recognize a book as apostolic, it was not canonized.
The fact that this was also used by the early Church to establish apostolicity is also something admitted by Protestant scholars. F. F. Bruce writes:

"It is remarkable, when one comes to think of it, that the four canonical Gospsels are anonymous, whereas the 'Gospels' which proliferated in the late second century and afterwards claim to have been written by apostles and other eyewitnesses. Catholic churchmen found it necessary, therefore, to defend the apostolic authenticity of the Gospels.... The apostolic authorship of Matthew and John as well established in tradition. But what of Mark and Luke? Their authorship was also well established in tradition" (ibid., 257).
​

Eventually, the New Testament canon was settled at the Council of Rome in the year 382 under Pope Damasus I. Up to this point, its specific books were not firmly settled.

 

[kepha]

Now a Protestant apologist will either have to agree that the men at the Council of Rome included all of the right books and only the right books in the canon or he has to disagree. If he disagrees, then he is going to have to disagree with the New Testament canon in the very Bible he uses, because it was the Council of Rome that established that canon.
But if he agrees that the Council of Rome included all the right books and only the right books in the New Testament canon then he is going to have to say that the early Church made an infallible decision (infallible because they included all the right and only the right books, thus making an inerrant decision under God's providential guidance -- which is infallible guidance). They made this infallible decision three hundred years after the death of the last apostle. But if Church councils are capable of arriving at infallible decisions three hundred years after the death of the last apostle, the Protestant apologist has no reason to claim they are incapable of this later on in Church history.

THE CANON OF TRADITION

The fact that when the Church made its decision it did so hundreds of years after the death of the last apostle is significant, but no less significant is the fact that when it made the decision it did so on the basis of tradition.

As we noted, the Church was confronted by conflicting traditions concerning which books should be included in scripture. Some traditions, for example, said that the book of Hebrews belonged in the canon; others said it did not. One of these traditions (the one indicating inclusion in the canon) was apostolic, the other (the one indicating exclusion) was merely human. In order to decide whether the book of Hebrews belongs in scripture, the Church had to decide in favor of one tradition over the other. Thus in order to settle the apostolicity of a scripture, it had to settle the apostolicity of a tradition.

As a result, the Church can not only make rulings of what is apostolic and what is not hundred of years after the death of the last apostle, it can also rule on which traditions are apostolic and which are not -- and do so centuries into the Church age.
Therefore, the Church can rule on the canon of tradition the same way it ruled on the canon of scripture. The Church is the living Bride of Christ, and she recognizes the voice of her husband. She is able to point at proposed scriptures and say, "That one is apostolic; that one is not." And she is able to point at proposed traditions and say, "That one is apostolic; that one is not. In this one I recognize the voice of my husband; in that one I do not."

The mechanism by which we establish the canon of tradition is thus the same as the way we established the canon of scripture. The same principle works in both contexts. The Church is the witnesses to both canons.

THE CANON PROBLEM

But the Protestant apologist has an even more fundamental problem because in order to justify his principle of sola scriptura or the "Bible only theory," he would have to claim that we know what books belong in the Bible without acknowledging the authoritative role of apostolic tradition and the Church in finding this out. If, as on the Protestant theory, we must prove everything from scripture alone then we must be able to show what belongs in the canon of scripture from scripture alone.

In fact, we cannot even begin to use sola scriptura before we have identified what the scriptures are. If one claims to know what the scriptures are then one is making a claim of propositional knowledge, and which could only be revealed by God since we are talking about a supernatural subject, meaning he is making a claim to propositional revelation. But if all propositional revelation must be found in the Bible, then the list of the canon must itself be contained in the scriptures. The Protestant apologist must therefore show, from scripture alone, what books belong in the Bible.

But this is something he cannot do. There is no canon list contained in scripture. Many books of the Bible (in fact, virtually all of the books of the New Testament) are not quoted by other books of the Bible, much less explicitly quoted "as scripture" (something on which Protestant apologists, as a matter of necessity, are very big). And the Bible gives us no set of tests by which we can infallibly prove which exact books belong in it. The fact is that there is no "inspired contents page" in the Bible to tell us what belongs within its covers.

The Protestant apologist is in a fix. In order to use sola scriptura he is going to have to identify what the scriptures are, and since he is unable to do this from scripture alone, he is going to have to appeal to things outside of scripture to make his case, meaning that in the very act of doing this he undermines this case. There is no way for him to escape the canon of tradition.
Apostolic Tradition was the key to the canon in two ways --
1) by telling us what doctrines apostolic books must teach (or not teach)
2) and by telling us which books themselves were written by the apostles and their associates.

Ironically Protestants, who normally scoff at tradition in favor of the Bible, themselves are using a Bible based on tradition. In fact, most honest Protestants would admit that they hold to the books they do because when they first became Christians someone handed them ("traditioned" or "handed on") copies of the Bible that contained those books!
THE TWO CANONS: SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION

I will say, though, that while there were only a few that we know of that were extant at the time (Apocryphon of John, possibly Thomas), Irenaeus says there were many. However, he argues that they are self evidently forged, and that they only serve to "bewilder the minds of foolish men, and of such as are ignorant of the Scriptures of truth." In other words, the forgeries post date the established Scriptures, and those likely to be duped are precisely those not already familiar with the Scriptures.

So?

In my scenario, if I was dead, what would the ongoing authority be?

The one reading the manual.

In terms of tools, do the tools have authority of their own about how to repair the car, or do I select the tools based on what is needed to accurately follow the procedure in the manual?

You would look silly changing a tire with just the manual and no tools.

This is exactly what my illustration is designed to show. The doctrinal authority flows from the apostles, yes? The father's assumed any tradition to be identical in content to the Scriptures, as the primary sources of the apostolic teaching, yes? The fathers, and other leaders, have authority to teach, yes, but that's a different thing to having authority to decide what the teaching is. Their witness to apostolic teaching is not tied to their authority to teach, (being able to teach is a separate issue to what the specifics of the content is) but by the fact that they were witnesses to the antiquity of the apostolic teaching.

Tradition is a different mode of transmission, that does not mean it is inferior to Scripture and it does mean it is separate. They are mutually verifying. The authorship of the Gospels is verified by Tradition. See the above quote by F. F. Bruce, and see below.

No, I'm saying if you want to prove a doctrine was taught by John (for example), you have to put it in John's mouth. If Irenaeus says something was taught by John, and doesn't go to the Scriptures to demonstrate it, I would expect him to say that Polycarp taught the exact same teaching, and that he heard the same teaching from John.

Ignatius of Antioch, third bishop of Jerusalem, was taught by John, but you dismiss what he says.

That was one criteria used for proving inspiration. Any honest inquirer can see that the Bible came from the Catholic Church. What gets me is the psychotic anti-Catholics who claim the Church was evil, corrupt, killing the "real believers" by the millions, at the same time canonize the books of the Bible under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit.

Again, at this point, Catholic=/= Roman. And obviously saying "the Bible came from the Catholic Church," is an incredibly loaded statement. Did the teaching of the Bible predate the church? Did the church write the Scriptures? Did the church have Scriptures (even NT ones) before a single ecumenical council?

The Bible, proven, compiled, preserved, and proclaimed by the Catholic Church is not a loaded statement, it is a historical fact, acknowledged by most educated Protestants. There was not one enscripturated New Testament word penned for 20 years after Pentacost, the last NT book enscripturated was around 95 AD, and NO NT CANON FIXED until 382 AD. The Church did not make the books inspired, she found them to be what they were.

But obviously the church had an established orthodoxy before any canonical set list, yes? Canonisation was always based fundamentally on the principle that they were recognising intrinsic authority, not ascribing extrinsic authority. That people disagreed on which texts should be canonical says nothing about the authority of the texts themselves.

The Church did not make the books inspired, she found them to be what they were.

Not sure you understood my point. I'm saying you can't use Clement as a proof text for how we should understand succession post the patristic era, because he lived in an era when apostles and first generation believers were still alive. Circumstances are very different between when there are living witnesses to when there are not.

Why not? Clement was the 4rth Pope. John already had a chair, so it would be redundant for John to hold the Chair given to him by Jesus plus the Chair of Peter. That's why he wasn't the Pope. One must succeed Peter to be Pope.

In describing this succession, Tertullian notes that St. Clement was ordained by St. Peter, and was Bishop of Rome:

Let them exhibit the origins of their churches, let them unroll the list of their bishops, coming down from the beginning by succession in such a way that their first bishop had for his originator and predecessor one of the apostles or apostolic men; one, I mean, who continued with the apostles. For this is how the apostolic churches record their origins. The church of Smyrna, for example, reports that Polycarp was placed there by John, the church of Rome that Clement was ordained by Peter. In just the same way the other churches produced men who were appointed to the office of bishop by the apostles and so transmitted the apostolic seed to them.

Eusebius, the first Church historian, writes that “Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies [in Philippians 4:3], his co-laborer and fellow-soldier.” (co-laborer and fellow-soldier are roles for a bishop)​

Ah, well, I would say there is no New Testament priesthood, or at least in the sense that Catholics like to argue there is. But that to me is a different matter to whether people can have authority in the church, and whether that authority should be given or taken. I'm always sceptical about people who try to take authority on themselves.

Me too.

 

[phil112]

................... But if Church councils are capable of arriving at infallible decisions three hundred years after the death of the last apostle, the Protestant apologist has no reason to claim they are incapable of this later on in Church history......................

The catholic church was never the church of God. But, for the sake of debunking your little nonsensical statement let's say they were right at this point in time.
You aren't catholic, you are a Baptist. You just made a statement endorsing "once saved always saved". Not surprising that you don't go to confession, seeing as once a catholic is right it is impossible for them to ever be wrong. Confession being there to confess sins, and you just said catholics are incapable of making errors, that little booth is simply for show.

You, dog, and other catholics put the pope and catholic hierarchy on the same level as Christ. Christ is the only man that ever walked the earth that was incapable of being wrong or making a mistake. You sit at your keyboard and tell us that it is impossible for the catholic church to be wrong. Blasphemy.

You and dog are perfect examples of the proselytes Christ was talking about in Matthew 23:15.

 

[Nick01]

I never said apostolic writings were excluded, I said apostolic succession is part of Tradition, which is inseparable from apostolic writings (scriptures) which is inseparable from the Magisterium (teaching authority).

So you accept, then, that the passage you cited from Timothy cannot be used as a clear proof of oral tradition by apostolic succession, because Paul is clearly not envisaging an exclusively oral tradition in what he’s saying? In fact, Tertullian seems to believe that Paul is referring in particular to what he is writing when he says “these things”, in defence of public passage of the apostolic deposit over and against a private teacher to student passage. (Prescription, 25)

I never said anything about the the Nicene Creed, I said

St. Athanasius gives the Church's rule of faith, and then applies it to the passages of Scripture misinterpreted by the Arians. There is simply no other way to understand his defense of the Faith against them.

The article said, and the part you quoted said:

“The Council did not declare that the doctrine it proposed was simply a restatement or clarification of the Scriptures, but that "the Catholic and Apostolic Church" believes it, and condemns the contrary. The Scriptures are not cited even once in the Fathers' definition, hardly a likely thing had they been adherents of some "Bible only" ideology.”

I can only assume from the prose that the definition referred to here is at least partially, if not totally, a reference to things such as the Nicene Creed. If not, enlighten me as to what is meant by ‘definition’ - you are the one using this as as your argument, not me.

I never said Greek philosophy was purely the source of Arius' errors, it was one source.

I’m not sure you’re reading your own source material. The argument made was that Arius accused the homoousian party of using Greek philosophy. It’s debatable that the argument was against the source of the concept philosophically speaking, but certainly the Arian party (and other undecided elements) did take umbrage at the use of the term homoousias, given it was also used by the Gnostics.

So no, you never said Greek philosophy was the source of Arius errors. What you said (via copy paste) was that the Arians accused the homoousians of using Greek philosophy. Two very different things.

But it does.

Everywhere in his writings, St. Athanasius takes the Church's faith as the rule whereby the Scriptures are to be rightly interpreted. This rule of ecclesiastical faith (Greek: ho skopos tes ekklesiatikes pisteos) he adopts as a canon for rightly establishing the sense of the sacred text. The Arian heretics, on the other hand, use their private opinion (Greek: ho idios nous) as their rule or canon of interpretation. The evidence is glaring. You simply cannot admit that the rule of ecclesiastical faith TOGETHER with Scriptures, was used to refute Arius. It's documented in the canons of Nicae.

The problem is that you have yet to establish the proof necessary to establish your argument - that the church’s rule of faith was not itself based on the Scriptures, and that the father’s assumed all the church’s faith to be, at bottom, Scriptural. That’s what we’re discussing, not that the church had a rule of faith, or that such a rule of faith could be correct.

Why cherry pick the doctrines on the Trinity and reject everything else?

The Council of Nicea dealt with many of the same canonical issues in 325 that are dealt with in the Church's current canon law...

So why does every classical Protestant confession of faith mention Nicae???

Which classical Protestant confessions affirm the whole Council of Nicea as being authoritative?

I am familiar with the scenario. Peter was hiding because he was afraid of the Jews. How does one teach and lead people astray while hiding? Paul's exhortation to Peter had nothing to do with Peter's infallibility, but his behavior. Peter also wrote 2 infallible encyclicals. Are you saying 1 and 2 Peter must be fallible because Peter had weaknesses? Every single anti-Catholic in this forum hasn't the first clue what infallibility means. They refuse to be taught. Sad.

This is the kind of circle drawing that frustrates me incredibly in these kinds of conversations. Roman Catholics tell us we need an infallible church that makes infallible judgements in order to have any foundation of faith, but then narrowly defines what infallibility means in such a way that in a technical sense, it is only when you get to Trent that Rome can be said to have a canonical set of OT and NT Scriptures that is universally binding (given the rest are provincial councils, historically spurious events, or private letters from individual bishops or popes.)

And no, the text clearly does not mean he was actually hiding. Paul specifically says Peter led led other Jews astray by his conduct.

But look, this is a side issue, and there’s a lot of material to get through as it is. I’ll accept for the sake of argument that one can be fallible, but otherwise infallible under certain other conditions. That still doesn’t demonstrate the requirements sufficient for the point you’re making.

Do you mean Galatians 2:2 where Paul travels to Peter, James, and John to make sure his gospel is true? Maybe you have a verse showing where test tube babies or human cloning is immoral. Or do you mean that is up to the Holy Spirit to directly tell each individual believer about moral issues that are not in the Bible? If you want to digress with a different topic such as infallibility, we can run all over the map.

1 Corinthians 7.

No, I don’t have a verse saying test tube babies or human cloning are immoral. I don’t pretend to be dogmatic on the issues. The church might decide to have a consensus opinion on that matter, and might believe those things to be immoral or not. But that doesn’t mean that it’s opinion on those things is infallible, apostolic, or final.

I asked you how the Church knew if a scripture was authentic, and you didn't answer me.

You didn’t ask me anything. You simply said that Irenaeus was not a sola scripturast. If you’re referring to something else you wrote, then you’ll have to point it out to me, because it was not what I was replying to.

As to what you write after, again, your argument, if I accepted it, only goes so far as demonstrating that the Church recognised the Scriptures intrinsic authority. Doing so says nothing about any intrinsic doctrinal authority within the church, or within tradition.

But I don’t accept your characterisation.

Again, your copy paste of EWTN badly mishandles Protestant scholars, in this case, not one less than FF Bruce. Have you read Bruce? I suspect not.

The point of Bruce’s paragraph is not that somehow tradition itself, in its own authority, was required to invalidate false gospels. IF YOU READ Bruce, you will quickly discover that, as pointed out by Kelly in regards to Irenaeus, he assumes the apostolic witness in the Scriptures to fundamentally be linked to apostolic antiquity, for which orthodoxy was a kind of shorthand (this is because the orthodoxy was established by the older writings.)

See what Bruce writes one page earlier:

“This argument [the antiquity of the writings] could have been employed more freely than it was in settling problems of authenticity, at a time when so many works were appearing which claimed to have been written by apostles and their associates. But perhaps most of the churchmen who concerned themselves with this problem lacked the information or the expertise to appeal confidently to the evidence for dating such documents: they preferred to judge them by their theology.”

In other words, the appeal to orthodoxy, used almost always against specific heresies, was only possible because the orthodox tradition predated the heterodox or heretical teaching. That the church fathers used orthodoxy in itself says nothing, as Irenaeus shows us (via Kelly) that orthodoxy was itself dependent on an assumption that traditional teaching was identical to the Scriptures.

The fact that this was also used by the early Church to establish apostolicity is also something admitted by Protestant scholars. F. F. Bruce writes:

"It is remarkable, when one comes to think of it, that the four canonical Gospsels are anonymous, whereas the 'Gospels' which proliferated in the late second century and afterwards claim to have been written by apostles and other eyewitnesses. Catholic churchmen found it necessary, therefore, to defend the apostolic authenticity of the Gospels.... The apostolic authorship of Matthew and John as well established in tradition. But what of Mark and Luke? Their authorship was also well established in tradition" (ibid., 257).

Basically subject to what I said above. Recognising canon is different to determining canon. No book became canonical that was not already widely read back to the apostolic age. Rome and the Western Church was one of the last jurisdictions to accept Hebrews as authoritative, for instance! But even then, tradition alone was apparently not the only factor, as Bruce himself notes immediately after the section you quoted:

“...but it was felt desirable to buttress the authority of tradition with arguments which gave those two Gospels a measure of apostolic validation. As early as Papias, Mark is said to htive set down in writing Peter’s account of the sayings and doings of the Lord, and Peter’s apostolic authority was not in doubt.” etc etc (Ibid, 257)

In any case, as far as I know, the Roman Catholic Church has never pronounced a binding statement on the authorship of the gospels, for instance. In fact, I believe the Pontifical Bible Comission declared some decades ago now that in the respect of the specific question of the authorship of Matthew, it was not at all a matter of faith whether or not one believed the apostle Matthew wrote Matthew or not. So it would seem that even with the RCC and its emphasis of tradition, we’re in no better position to answer those questions than if we simply take a historico-critical approach.

Eventually, the New Testament canon was settled at the Council of Rome in the year 382 under Pope Damasus I. Up to this point, its specific books were not firmly settled.

I don’t believe there to be any decretal, or for that matter any discussion of the canon, from the Council of Rome, and the only decretal that might be connected is commonly understood to be a forgery, dating from more closely around the 500s. Come back to me on this if you dig anything up.

Now a Protestant apologist will either have to agree that the men at the Council of Rome….

Well, I simply reject that the Council of Rome historically discussed the issue, so it’s irrelevant.

THE CANON OF TRADITION

Again, the church did not operate for hundreds of years without an authoritative source of doctrine, or without reference to NT Scriptures. Again, there is already a concept of NT Scriptures by the time 2 Peter was written. Fathers from the earliest times used Scripture as a primary apostolic source. This happened well in advance of any council, ecumenical or otherwise. Whether everyone agreed on the texts or not (and I’ll again point out the Western church was the last to accept Hebrews) does not change the fact that the apostolic writings were what was considered authoritative. Essentially, the whole premise of the argument is that it is a problem if someone doesn’t authoritatively say which books are in and which are out. The fact is, there was no uniform tradition of the canon - if there was, there would be no need for councils to discuss the issue! Many of the church fathers obviously had differing opinions on which texts were authoritative, because some cite, say, the gospels many times, but others cite Revelation relatively infrequently.

At that point, I have two options - I can either deal with the historical issues surrounding the authoritative writings directly, or I can believe some other authority and what it tells me is the canon (in this case, Rome) because I have an a priori belief that said authority has the ability to determine what is in the canon and how to interpret it it correctly.

THE CANON PROBLEM

…

If, as on the Protestant theory, we must prove everything from scripture alone then we must be able to show what belongs in the canon of scripture from scripture alone.

This is a straw man argument. Again, as I have said before, that is not what sola scriptura means. All sola scriptura suggests is that the Scriptures are the sole infallible and finally authoritative source of doctrine and rule of faith. It does not mean that everything that is true or useful must be reasoned directly and verbatim from scripture. Most of your copy paste labours under this false premise, so forgive me if I skip over large portions of it. If you think I’ve done so erroneously, point me back in the right direction

Much of the argument also supposes that Rome’s position is simply one that accepts tradition, but it is also quite clear to me that, because it is arguing that only the church can infallibly determine what is in Scripture, let alone interpret it, therefore it is in fact the Church (as the institution of tradition) that is the final authority, not the Scriptures. If you are ok with arguing that, then that’s fine. But that is what the page you have linked to is arguing, in some respects more stridently than you have done, as I’ll point out below.

So?[in reply to Ignatius on false gospels]

So it seems inaccurate, on the basis of Ignatius, to characterise the apostolic position on rejecting spurious writings was one based on some intrinsic authority in the church, as expressed in the article you linked to as “[the church being able] to point at proposed scriptures and say, "That one is apostolic; that one is not." And she is able to point at proposed traditions and say, "That one is apostolic; that one is not. In this one I recognize the voice of my husband; in that one I do not."

Instead, the church, having already a body of apostolic teaching stemming from the apostles themselves in their writings, knew that writings that contradicted those, or that postdated them, were not apostolic. Irenaeus does not propose a Roman position at this point, but posits one in which the apostolic teaching, emblematised by the Scriptures, are the bulwark against false teaching.

The one reading the manual.

Why not the manual itself? The manual is the primary source document of how to repair my car - the one reading the manual is only accessing that primary source, and may not even have met me before.

You would look silly changing a tire with just the manual and no tools.

Quite correct. My point is simply that, in this scenario, the tools themselves are dictated by the manual. It is useless using a saw if the manual calls for a hammer. In fact, it really doesn’t matter which hammer I use, as long as its a hammer. The point is, it is the manual which dictates things, not the tools.

Tradition is a different mode of transmission, that does not mean it is inferior to Scripture and it does mean it is separate. They are mutually verifying. The authorship of the Gospels is verified by Tradition. See the above quote by

F. F. Bruce, and see below.

If the two are simply ‘different modes of transmission’, and are the same in content, and are not separate, then why not favour the Scriptures?

If we need the gospels to be verified by tradition, then do we also need tradition to be verified by scriptures? How do we establish the validity of either without working in circles, if they are both needed to ensure the veracity of the other?

Ignatius of Antioch, third bishop of Jerusalem, was taught by John, but you dismiss what he says.

I’ve spent quite a lot of time discussing Ignatius with you. Where have I simply dismissed what he said? I may not agree with him on every matter, but I haven’t dismissed him out of hand. Find me somewhere where Ignatius teaches something without the use of the Scriptures, and puts it in the mouth of John. Again, if there is such a teaching, I am genuinely interested in looking at it.

 

[Nick01]

The Bible, proven, compiled, preserved, and proclaimed by the Catholic Church is not a loaded statement, it is a historical fact, acknowledged by most educated Protestants. There was not one enscripturated New Testament word penned for 20 years after Pentacost, the last NT book enscripturated was around 95 AD, and NO NT CANON FIXED until 382 AD. The Church did not make the books inspired, she found them to be what they were.

Again, Catholic =/= Roman, at least in the early centuries. The Fathers quote from NT Scriptures before any canonical council (Rome doesn’t count, Carthage and Hippo were provincial councils and so it seems questionable how ‘fixed’ we should make their judgements by RC standards). Otherwise, yes, the Bible as we have it was compiled, preserved and proclaimed by the church. But that is very different to saying that the Bible (in terms of the Old Testament and the Greek NT documents and the apostolic deposit) are the result of the institutional Catholic Church. It isn’t.

Why not? Clement was the 4rth Pope. John already had a chair, so it would be redundant for John to hold the Chair given to him by Jesus plus the Chair of Peter. That's why he wasn't the Pope. One must succeed Peter to be Pope.

In describing this succession, Tertullian notes that St. Clement was ordained by St. Peter, and was Bishop of Rome:

…

Again, not sure what you’re arguing. My point is simply that apostolic succession as a vehicle for oral teaching had a different meaning in the first generations than it should do today. Tertullian, and Eusebius are not making any particular assertions about the Petrine seat, or even apostolic succession, for that matter. In fact, Tertullian says this immediately after the passage you cited (and Tertullian is well worth reading more completely):

“But even if they do invent something [a list of succession back to an apostle], it will be useless to them. If their teaching is compared with the teaching of the apostles, the differences and contradictions between them will cry out that theirs is not the work of any apostle or apostolic man. For the apostles would not have differed from each other in their teaching and the apostolic men would not have contradicted the apostles. Or are we to believe that the men who learned from the apostles preached something different?

Consequently they will be challenged according to this standard by those churches which, though they can produce no apostle or apostolic man as their direct founder, since they are much later foundations (churches are being founded every day), yet, because they agree in the same faith, are reckoned to be no less apostolic through their kinship in doctrine. So, when the heresies are challenged by our churches according to these two standards, let them one and all show how they regard themselves as apostolic. But they are not, and they cannot prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor can they be received into peace and communion by churches which are in any way apostolic when they are in no way apostolic on account of their disagreement in creed.” (Prescriptions against Heretics, 32)

It seems pretty obvious that Tertullian has in mind a separation of apostolic succession and doctrinal authority here. One can assert succession without being apostolic, while one can have no clear succession, be established in sound doctrine, and be apostolic.

 

[Dogknox]

Re: DOG DUCKS, FAILS TO PROVE THAT THE RCC GIVES GOD'S TRUTH

[/COLOR]
No, dog, I don't have to establish my epistemology, since I expounded it clearly below. It is your turn.
Let's have a cogent answer, Dog(non-John)Knox,

What is your position? Bluster only obfuscates.

Is it
1) The Bible is only true because the RCC says so?
or is it
2) The RCC is only true because the Bible says so?

You can't have it both ways or be guilty of the fallacy of circular reasoning (A is so because of B; B is so because of A.)
So which is it dog? Do you prove the Bible from the RCC,
or do you prove the RCC from the Bible?

If you come clean, we might disgust this profitably.

I hope you are not afraid to give a straight answer.

Jesus tells you in his scriptures, the "Mouth of God" tells you...
The Church Jesus established is the Pillar and the foundation of truth!!
Jesus established a TEACHING Church, with all of God' AUTHORITY given to his church to TEACH all nations!
Jesus is "ALWAYS WITH" his CHURCH to the very end of TIME!
Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide his Church FOREVER!!
Jesus cannot lie... The Church Jesus established is the Body of Jesus!
The One Holy Church Jesus established was given a SHEPHERD to speak for Jesus until his return!
The One Church Jesus established is Holy & BLAMELESS!

Jesus cannot lie... The Catholic Church headed by Peters successor, the pope is the "Body Of Jesus"!

Your church was started by a >MAN< your church is NOT the body of Jesus!
Your church CAN'T teach a lick.. Because they have NO authority to teach, your church has ONLY the scriptures as an authority! If you or your church was to teach anything then the scriptures are NOT the ONLY authority.. Proving your Church is the LIE!

 

[Dogknox]

Re: DOG DUCKS, FAILS TO PROVE THAT THE RCC GIVES GOD'S TRUTH

Jesus tells you in his scriptures, the "Mouth of God" tells you...
The Church Jesus established is the Pillar and the foundation of truth!!
Jesus established a TEACHING Church, with all of God' AUTHORITY given to his church to TEACH all nations!
Jesus is "ALWAYS WITH" his CHURCH to the very end of TIME!
Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide his Church FOREVER!!
Jesus cannot lie... The Church Jesus established is the Body of Jesus!
The One Holy Church Jesus established was given a SHEPHERD to speak for Jesus until his return!
The One Church Jesus established is Holy & BLAMELESS!

Jesus cannot lie... The Catholic Church headed by Peters successor, the pope is the "Body Of Jesus"!

Your church was started by a >MAN< your church is NOT the body of Jesus!
Your church CAN'T teach a lick.. Because they have NO authority to teach, your church has ONLY the scriptures as an authority! If you or your church was to teach anything then the scriptures are NOT the ONLY authority.. Proving your Church is the LIE!

I reply AGAIN: Atwood "All you have is the bible"!!
* Your bible tells you to>> "Listen to the CHURCH!"
* Your bible tells you:>> "Jesus established ONE CHURCH!

Jesus tells you in his scriptures all this (below)
* "Jesus loves his CHURCH"!
* "His Church is HOLY"!
* Jesus' Church is BLAMELESS"!
* "Jesus is ALWAYS with his church FOREVER"!
* "Jesus' church has all of God' authority to TEACH all nations"!
* "The Church is Jesus' BODY"!
* "God is LOVE"!
* "You MUST LOVE"!
* "Man is RIGHTEOUS by DOING RIGHT"!
* "Man is Righteous by what he does NOT BY FAITH ALONE"!
* "The Sheep are people that go to heaven because of their ACTIONS of love"!
* "The Goats are people going to eternal fire because of their Faith ALONE,having NO actions"!
Atwood "You MUST eat the flesh of Jesus, to have eternal life"!
Atwood "You MUST drink the blood of Jesus to have eternal life"!
* "Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to GUIDE his church FOREVER"!
* "Peter was given the KEYS from God in person"!
* "God made Peter his SHEPHERD, for his flock"!
* "Peter STRENGTHENS the other Apostles"!
* "Jesus' one church has a hierarchy of authority, Bishops, Priests, Deacons!"
* "The TEACHING of the Bishop SAVES men"!
* "Woman are saved by Childbearing"!
* "You MUST be re-born to enter the kingdom"
* "Baptism makes DISCIPLES of all nations"!
* "Disciples are Jesus' brothers"!
* "All in Mary' family generations have ALWAYS honored her as blessed"!
* "Jesus ALWAYS honors Mary his mother"!
* "The CHURCH uses Scriptures they are USEFUL for teaching, rebuking, training, correcting!
* "The Church was given the AUTHORITY by God in person, to forgive or retain sins"!

* Atwood Your bible tells you: "Not accepting the scriptures CONDEMNS YOU"!
* Atwood Your bible also tells you: "Not accepting the scriptures is REJECTING Jesus"!

 

[kennethcadwell]

Re: DOG DUCKS, FAILS TO PROVE THAT THE RCC GIVES GOD'S TRUTH

I reply AGAIN: Atwood "All you have is the bible"!!
* Your bible tells you to>> "Listen to the CHURCH!"
* Your bible tells you:>> "Jesus established ONE CHURCH!

Jesus tells you in his scriptures all this (below)
* "Jesus loves his CHURCH"!
* "His Church is HOLY"!
* Jesus' Church is BLAMELESS"!
* "Jesus is ALWAYS with his church FOREVER"!
* "Jesus' church has all of God' authority to TEACH all nations"!
* "The Church is Jesus' BODY"!
* "God is LOVE"!
* "You MUST LOVE"!
* "Man is RIGHTEOUS by DOING RIGHT"!
* "Man is Righteous by what he does NOT BY FAITH ALONE"!
* "The Sheep are people that go to heaven because of their ACTIONS of love"!
* "The Goats are people going to eternal fire because of their Faith ALONE,having NO actions"!
Atwood "You MUST eat the flesh of Jesus, to have eternal life"!
Atwood "You MUST drink the blood of Jesus to have eternal life"!
* "Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to GUIDE his church FOREVER"!
* "Peter was given the KEYS from God in person"!
* "God made Peter his SHEPHERD, for his flock"!
* "Peter STRENGTHENS the other Apostles"!
* "Jesus' one church has a hierarchy of authority, Bishops, Priests, Deacons!"
* "The TEACHING of the Bishop SAVES men"!
* "Woman are saved by Childbearing"!
* "You MUST be re-born to enter the kingdom"
* "Baptism makes DISCIPLES of all nations"!
* "Disciples are Jesus' brothers"!
* "All in Mary' family generations have ALWAYS honored her as blessed"!
* "Jesus ALWAYS honors Mary his mother"!
* "The CHURCH uses Scriptures they are USEFUL for teaching, rebuking, training, correcting!
* "The Church was given the AUTHORITY by God in person, to forgive or retain sins"!

* Atwood Your bible tells you: "Not accepting the scriptures CONDEMNS YOU"!
* Atwood Your bible also tells you: "Not accepting the scriptures is REJECTING Jesus"!

I like some of what you say, but not all of it is biblical.
Like women are saved through child birth, that is not true. Women are saved just like any of the rest of us, faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and following His teachings.

The other thing is if you are one of those who are trying to refer to the Catholic church as the one and only true church then you have been mislead as well.
The true church of the Lord is the body of believers all around the world, not what denomination you belong to Catholic, Baptist, Evangelist, and so forth. If your faith is in Jesus you are of the true church no matter which faction your in.

The scriptures do say to honor those who came before us, but they are still not to be treated any different then you and me. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ, with just different positions in the church.

 

[Atwood]

I found this at a site biblicalcatholic dot com/apologetics/num1 dot htm

all below is a quote from that site:

Quotes emphasizing Sacred Scripture​

"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 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. All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." II Timothy 3:14-17 (RSV)


ANASTASIUS OF ANTIOCH
"It is manifest that those things are not to be inquired into, which Scripture has passed over into silence. For the Holy Spirit has dispensed and administered to us all things which conduce to our profit" Anagog Contemp in Hexem lib 8 init


ATHANASIUS
"...for the tokens of truth are more exact as drawn from Scripture, than from other sources..." De Decretis 31
"The holy and inspired Scriptures are sufficient of themselves for the preaching of the Truth" Contra Gentiles 1,1
"These [canonical] books are the fountains of salvation, so that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the oracles contained in them: in these alone the school of piety preaches the Gospel; let no man add to or take away from them." Festal Letters 39
"For they were spoken and written by God" De Incarnatione 56
"...the Scriptures...will learn from them more completely and clearly the exact detail of what we said" ibid 56
"Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us" Ad Epis Aeg 4
"Divine Scripture is sufficient above all things" De Synodis 6


ANTONY OF EGYPT
"The Scriptures are enough for instruction" Vita S. Antoni 16


AUGUSTINE

"What more shall I teach you than what we read in the Apostle? For Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser than we ought" De Bono Viduitatis 2
"Let us therefore give in...to the authority of the Holy Scriptures" De Peccatorum 33
"Let us search for the Church in the Sacred Scriptures" Epis 105
"[H]e will find there in much greater abundance things that are to be found nowhere else, but can be learnt only in the wonderful sublimity and wonderful simplicity of the Scriptures"De Doctr Christ 2,42,63
"It believes also the Holy Scriptures, old and new, which we call canonical, and which are the source of the faith by which the just lives..." De Civ Dei 19,18


BASIL THE GREAT
"The hearers taught in the Scriptures ought to test what is said by teachers and accept that which agrees with the Scriptures but reject what is foreign" Moralia 72,1
"Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth" Epis Ad Eustathius


CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA
"How can we prove and certify as true something which Sacred Scripture does not attest?" Glaphyra on Genesis PG 69,53c


CYRIL OF JERUSALEM
"In regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not the least part may be handed on without the Holy Scriptures. Do not be led astray by winning words and clever arguments. Even to me, who tell you these things, do not give ready belief, unless you receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of the things which I announce. The salvation in which we believe is not proved from clever reasoning, but from the Holy Scriptures." Catechetical Lectures 4,17


"...that you also, by ranging over the Sacred Scriptures, may lay hold of salvation for yourself, and, sated with the Scriptures, you may say: 'How sweet to my palate are your promises, sweeter than honey to my mouth!' [citing Psalm 118(119):103]" ibid 9,13
"Now do not fix your attention on any skill of language on my part, for perhaps you may be deceived; unless you get the testimony of the prophets on each point, do not believe what is said. Unless you learn from the Holy Scriptures regarding the Virgin, the place, the time, the manner [concerning the Incarnation], 'do not receive the witness of man' [citing John 5:34]." ibid 12,5
"'He was buried, and He rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures' [1 Cor 15:4]. An Apostle has sent us back to the testimony of the Scriptures; from the same source we will do well to discover the hope of our salvation." ibid 14,2
"Let us assert of the Holy Spirit, therefore, only what is written; let us not busy ourselves about what is not written. The Holy Spirit has authored the Scriptures; He has spoken of Himself all that He wished, or all that we could grasp; let us confine ourselves to what He has said, for it is reckless to do otherwise." ibid 16,2


JOHN CHRYSOSTOM
"Therefore I beg you all that you give up what appeals to this one or that one and that you address all these questions concerning these things to the Scriptures." Homily 13 on 2 Corinthians
"If anything is said without Scripture, the thinking of the hearers limps. But where the testimony proceeds from the divinely given Scripture, it confirms both the speech of the preacher and the soul of the hearer." Commenting on Psalm 95
"But when Scripture wants to teach us something like that, it interprets itself and does not permit the hearer to err. I therefore beg and entreat that we close our ears to all these things and follow the canon of the Holy Scripture exactly." Homily 13 on Genesis
"As a trusty door, Scripture shuts out heretics, securing us from error..." Joann 58
"Everything in the divine Scriptures is clear and straightforward; they inform us about all that is necessary" Epis 2 ad Thess 3,4


IRENAEUS
"eing most properly assured that the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and by His Spirit" Against Heresies 2,28,2
"The Apostles at that time first preached the Gospel but later by the will of God, they delivered it to us in the Scriptures, that it might be the foundation and pillar of our faith" ibid 3,1,1
"Since, therefore, the tradition from the Apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those Apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him" ibid 3,5,1


JEROME
"Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ" In Isaiah Prologue


ORIGEN
"It is necessary to take the Holy Scriptures as witnesses; for our comments and statements without these witnesses are not trustworthy" In Jerem 1,7
"For he knows that Scripture, as a whole, is God's one perfect and complete instrument, giving forth, to those who wish to learn its one saving music..." In Matt tom 2


TERTULLIAN
"If it is nowhere written, then let it fear the woe which impends on all who add to or take away from the written word" Ad Hermogenes 22
"It is right that His conduct be investigated according to the rule of Scripture" Ad Marcion 3,17




THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH
"It would be acting according to demonic inspiration to follow the thinking of the human mind and to think there could be anything divine apart from the authority of the Scriptures"Pascal Letter of 401

 

[Dogknox]

Re: DOG DUCKS, FAILS TO PROVE THAT THE RCC GIVES GOD'S TRUTH

I like some of what you say, but not all of it is biblical.
Like women are saved through child birth, that is not true. Women are saved just like any of the rest of us, faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and following His teachings.

The other thing is if you are one of those who are trying to refer to the Catholic church as the one and only true church then you have been mislead as well.
The true church of the Lord is the body of believers all around the world, not what denomination you belong to Catholic, Baptist, Evangelist, and so forth. If your faith is in Jesus you are of the true church no matter which faction your in.

The scriptures do say to honor those who came before us, but they are still not to be treated any different then you and me. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ, with just different positions in the church.

1 Timothy 2:15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

You say: The true church is the body of all believers???!
I reply You can't be more wrong!!!!

There are thousands and thousands of man made churches NOT even two believe the same things... All from the same scriptures, these thousands have arrived at erroneous truths! God cannot lead into error, there can only be one truth!

kennethcadwell To say what you say you MUST reject the scriptures to say it!

Jesus established ONE CHURCH.. He is ALWAYS with that one church to this day>> As the scriptures tell you!

 

[Atwood]

Re: DOG DUCKS, FAILS TO PROVE THAT THE RCC GIVES GOD'S TRUTH

I reply AGAIN: Atwood "All you have is the bible"!!
* Your bible tells you to>> "Listen to the CHURCH!"
* Your bible tells you:>> "Jesus established ONE CHURCH!

Then you better start listening to me as a teacher in that one catholic Church, the Body of Christ. So give heed to what I teach.
Of course I recommend that you be like a noble Berean & check it out in God's Word, as they did when Paul spoke at Berea.

Here is some to consider:

Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for
He shall save His people from their sins.

Sirs, what must I do to be saved? . . .
Believe on the Lord Jesus, & you shall be saved.

knowing that ye were redeemed, not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, from your vain manner of life handed down from your fathers;


13 For ye have heard of my manner of life in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and made havoc of it: 14 and I advanced in the Jews’ religion beyond many of mine own age among my countrymen, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

Pharisees and scribes, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? . . . And he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? . . . . And ye have made void the word of God because of your tradition. Ye hypocrites,

Ye leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men. 9 And he said unto them, Full well do ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your tradition. . . . . making void the word of God by your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things ye do.

 

[Dogknox]

Re: DOG DUCKS, FAILS TO PROVE THAT THE RCC GIVES GOD'S TRUTH

I like some of what you say, but not all of it is biblical.
Like women are saved through child birth, that is not true. Women are saved just like any of the rest of us, faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and following His teachings.

The other thing is if you are one of those who are trying to refer to the Catholic church as the one and only true church then you have been mislead as well.
The true church of the Lord is the body of believers all around the world, not what denomination you belong to Catholic, Baptist, Evangelist, and so forth. If your faith is in Jesus you are of the true church no matter which faction your in.

The scriptures do say to honor those who came before us, but they are still not to be treated any different then you and me. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ, with just different positions in the church.

kennethcadwell
I add... "Jesus is ALWAYS with his Church to the end of time" as the scriptures tell you (Great Commission).

FACT: Jesus did not start any other churches.. Jesus established just one.. The Holy Catholic Church, the Church of the Apostolic Fathers!!

All of these other churches around today; are ALL started by men that reject Jesus' words; "I am with you ALWAYS to the end of time"! THEY...
They MUST reject his words.. "I am with you ALWAYS to the end of time" otherwise there would be NO need for these THOUSANDS of man made churches to try and RESTORE Jesus' body (church) back for him!

 

[kennethcadwell]

Re: DOG DUCKS, FAILS TO PROVE THAT THE RCC GIVES GOD'S TRUTH

1 Timothy 2:15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

You say: The true church is the body of all believers???!
I reply You can't be more wrong!!!!

There are thousands and thousands of man made churches NOT even two believe the same things... All from the same scriptures, these thousands have arrived at erroneous truths! God cannot lead into error, there can only be one truth!

kennethcadwell To say what you say you MUST reject the scriptures to say it!

Jesus established ONE CHURCH.. He is ALWAYS with that one church to this day>> As the scriptures tell you!

I see where you are coming from in 1 Tim, but notice it is not the childbearing that actual saves, it is faith.
If they have no faith in Jesus as their Lord and Savior that childbearing will not save them.

If you are baptist and fully accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and follow Him then you are saved.
This goes with Catholic, evangelist, and so on.....

What I say is not a rejection of scripture, nowhere in the bible does it mention the Catholic church as the church.
It speaks of the body of believers in Christ Jesus. The Catholic church did not start tell many years after the crucifixion.

Then you go to say that the other churches ( denominations ) teach erroneous truths, so does the Catholic church.

 

[kennethcadwell]

Re: DOG DUCKS, FAILS TO PROVE THAT THE RCC GIVES GOD'S TRUTH

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Plain Truth about
the Roman Catholic Church
[/FONT][TABLE="width: 95%"]
[TR]
[TD][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Roman Catholic Church claims to have started in Matthew 16:18 when Christ supposedly appointed Peter as the first Pope. However, the honest and objective student of the Scriptures and history soon discovers that the foundation of the Roman church is none other than the pagan mystery religion of ancient Babylon.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]While enduring the early persecutions of the Roman government (65-300 A.D.), most of professing Christianity went through a gradual departure from New Testament doctrine concerning church government, worship and practice. Local churches ceased to be autonomous by giving way to the control of "bishops" ruling over hierarchies. The simple form of worship from the heart was replaced with the rituals and splendor of paganism. Ministers became "priests," and pagans became "Christians" by simply being sprinkled with water. This tolerance of an unregenerate membership only made things worse. SPRINKLED PAGANISM is about the best definition for Roman Catholicism.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Roman Emperor Constantine established himself as the head of the church around 313 A.D., which made this new "Christianity" the official religion of the Roman Empire. The first actual Pope in Rome was probably Leo I (440-461 A.D.), although some claim that Gregory I was the first (590-604 A.D.). This ungodly system eventually ushered in the darkest period of history known to man, properly known as the "Dark Ages" (500-1500 A.D.). Through popes, bishops, and priests, Satan ruled Europe, and Biblical Christianity became illegal.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Throughout all of this, however, there remained individual groups of true Christians, such as the Waldensens and the Anabaptists who would not conform to the Roman system.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Papacy and Priesthood[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In the Bible there are no popes or priests to rule over the church. Jesus Christ is our High Priest (Heb. 3:1; 4:14-15; 5:5; 8:1; 9:11), and all true Christians make up a spiritual priesthood (I Pet. 2:5). Jesus Christ has sanctified all Christians who believe on Him (Heb. 10:10-11), so all priests today are unnecessary and unscriptural. Furthermore, the practice of calling a priest "father" is forbidden by Jesus Christ in Matthew 23:9. There is only ONE mediator between God and men (I Tim. 2:5).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Catholic church teaches that Peter was the first Pope and the earthly head of the church, but the Bible never says this once. In fact, it was Peter himself who spoke against "being lords over God's heritage" in I Peter 5:3. Popes do not marry, although Peter did (Mat. 8:14; I Cor. 9:5). The Bible never speaks of Peter being in Rome, and it was Paul, not Peter, who wrote the epistle to the Romans. In the New Testament, Paul wrote 100 chapters with 2,325 verses, while Peter wrote only 8 chapters with 166 verses. In Peter's first epistle he stated that he was simply "an apostle of Jesus Christ," not a Pope (I Pet. 1:1). The Roman papacy and priesthood is just a huge fraud to keep members in bondage to a corrupt pagan church.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Worship of Mary[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Roman Catholics believe that Mary, the mother of Jesus, remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus and was sinless all of her life. She is worshiped in the Catholic church as the "Mother of God" and the "Queen of Heaven." St. Bernard stated that she was crowned "Queen of Heaven" by God the Father, and that she currently sits upon a throne in Heaven making intercession for Christians.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Bible teaches otherwise. In the Bible, Mary was a sinner just like the rest of us. She said herself that she needed a "Saviour" (Lk. 1:47), and she even had to offer a sacrifice for her sins in Luke 2:24. Jesus was only her "firstborn" son, according to Matthew 1:25, because she later had other children as well (Mt. 13:55; Gal. 1:19; Psa. 69:8). There's only ONE mediator between God and men, and it isn't Mary (I Tim. 2:5). The last time we hear from Mary in the Bible she is praying WITH the disciples, not being prayed to BY the disciples (Acts 1:14). The Bible never exalts Mary above anyone else. Neither should we.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Purgatory[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Catholic Church teaches that a Christian's soul must burn in purgatory after death until all of their sins have been purged. To speed up the purging process, money may be paid to a priest so he can pray and have special masses for an earlier release.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This heresy began creeping into the Roman Church during the reign of Pope Gregory around the end of the sixth century, and it has no scriptural support. In fact, Jesus warned us about this pagan practice in Matthew 23:14 when He spoke of those who devoured widows houses and made long prayers for a pretence. Psalm 49:6-7 tells us that a person couldn't redeem a loved one, even if such a place did exist: "They that trust in their wealth, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches; None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:"[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Peter addresses this issue in Acts 8:20 when he says, "Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money." God's word is clearly against the doctrine of purgatory.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Mass[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]By perverting the Christian practice of the Lord's Supper (Mat. 26:26-28; I Cor. 11:23-27), the Catholic Church has created the Mass, which they believe to be a continual sacrifice of Jesus Christ:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Christ...commanded that his bloody sacrifice on the Cross should be daily renewed by an unbloody sacrifice of his body and blood in the Mass under the simple elements of bread and wine." (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, Pg. 13, Article: "Mass, Sacrifice of")[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Jesus never made such a command. If you'll check the above references in Matthew 26 and I Corinthians 11, you'll see for yourself that the Lord's Supper is a MEMORIAL and a SHOWING of Christ's death until He comes again. It is not a sacrifice. The Catholic Encyclopedia states the following:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"In the celebration of the Holy Mass, the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ. It is called transubstantiation, for in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of bread and wine do not remain, but the entire substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ, and the entire substance of wine is changed into his blood, the species or outward semblence of bread and wine alone remaining." (Vol. 4, pg. 277, Article: "Consecration")[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Catholic Church teaches that the "Holy Mass" is a LITERAL EATING AND DRINKING OF THE LITERAL FLESH AND BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST. The priest supposedly has the power to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Now, what does God's word say about such practices? If you'll read Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:11-12, and Acts 15:29, you will find that God absolutely FORBIDS the drinking of blood all through the Bible.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Rome teaches that the Mass is a continual "sacrifice" of Jesus Christ, but God's word states that Jesus made the FINAL sacrifice on Calvary! This is made perfectly clear in Hebrews 10:10-12:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The mass is unnecessary and unscriptural.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Image Worship[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Catholic religion is filled with all sorts of symbols, images, and relics. The Catechism of the Council of Trent states these words:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"It is lawful to have images in the Church, and to give honor and worship unto them..."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It's lawful to honor and worship images? Not according to God's word. Exodus 20:4-5 says, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me." Image worship is unscriptural and will end with the eternal damnation of those who practice it (Rev. 14:11).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Salvation by Works[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Through infant baptism, keeping sacraments, church membership, going to mass, praying to Mary, and confession (just to mention a few), the Catholic church has developed a system of salvation through WORKS. God's word says that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not through works:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Eph. 2:8-9)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (Romans 4:5)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Jesus Christ came into this world to lay down His sinless life for YOU--to pay for your sins, because you couldn't. Jesus is your only hope for salvation. Only by receiving Him as your Saviour can you enter the gates of Heaven. There is no other way.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me." (John 14:6)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Lord Jesus Christ has come and PAID for your sins by shedding His own Blood on Calvary. By receiving Him as your Saviour, you can be WASHED from all your sins in His precious Blood (Rev. 1:5; Col. 1:14; Acts 20:28; I Pet. 1:18-19). Notice these important words from Romans 5:8-9:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Jesus PAID your way to Heaven for you! By receiving Him as your Saviour, you will be receiving God's ONLY means of Salvation for you. Are you willing to forsake YOUR righteousness and receive Jesus Christ as your Saviour, your ONLY HOPE for Salvation? Romans 10:13 says, "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Romans 10:9 says, "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Are you willing to forsake your own righteousness, and trust Jesus Christ alone? He will save you just as He promised. Why not receive Him today and trust Him to give you a better way of life?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/FONT]

 

[Atwood]

Re: DOG DUCKS, FAILS TO PROVE THAT THE RCC GIVES GOD'S TRUTH

I may tone down the quotes some, as they are obnoxious.

Jesus tells you in his scriptures, the "Mouth of God" tells you...
The Church Jesus established is the Pillar and the foundation of truth!!

The Church upholds the truth. And the RCC is not the Church. So you needs enter the Church, the Body of Christ by trusting Christ as your Savior. The fact that the RCC teaches so many lies proves it is not the Church, for the Church is the pillar & base of the truth. No organization which is a pillar & base of child rape is the Church.

Jesus cannot lie…[but you & the RCC can!] The Catholic Church headed by Peters successor, the pope is the "Body Of Jesus"!

You prove then that the RCC is not the Catholic Church, since the actual catholic Church is headed by the Lord Jesus & never Peter nor any successor of his. There are not Peter successors in the Bible, nor office of papa.

Thus you need to repent of not believing the Lord Jesus.
The Lord Jesus never said that Peter had any successor. And God's word never mentions any pope. The Bible never calls any individual human the Body of Christ; individuals are members; Christ is the Head. The Pope is not Christ & all His members.

Your church was started by a >MAN [The Lord Jesus!]< your church is not [sic] the body of Jesus!

My Church is the only Church there is. It was started by a Man indeed, the man Jesus Christ, who is also YHWH.

My Church is the only Church, & it has teachers; moreover everyone in it has an anointing (1 John 2).
My Church teaches the Scriptures, the Word of God. We teach as the Lord Jesus did with "It is written." The fact that we teach God's word hardly proves that what we teach is a lie.

 

[Atwood]

The dog continues with what seems an obsession of his with the obscure verse, which he quotes inexact. I already showed him what one of his supposed heros, Chrysostom says, how it is the race of women, not individual women in view.

Yes, though Eve sinned, the woman's (singular collective) function is preserved through child-bearing. Nothing to do with how to be saved from the Lake of Fire.

Imagine Joanna 3:16: For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son that whatever woman bears a child should not perish, but have everlasting life??? Baloney.

Sirs, what MUST I DO TO BE SAVED?

Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved.

 

[Dogknox]

Re: DOG DUCKS, FAILS TO PROVE THAT THE RCC GIVES GOD'S TRUTH

I see where you are coming from in 1 Tim, but notice it is not the childbearing that actual saves, it is faith.
If they have no faith in Jesus as their Lord and Savior that childbearing will not save them.

If you are baptist and fully accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and follow Him then you are saved.
This goes with Catholic, evangelist, and so on.....

What I say is not a rejection of scripture, nowhere in the bible does it mention the Catholic church as the church.
It speaks of the body of believers in Christ Jesus. The Catholic church did not start tell many years after the crucifixion.

Then you go to say that the other churches ( denominations ) teach erroneous truths, so does the Catholic church.

You said.. I see where you are coming from in 1 Tim, but notice it is not the childbearing that actual saves, it is faith.
If they have no faith in Jesus as their Lord and Savior that childbearing will not save them.

I reply: Notice the Faith the woman needs is NOT "ALONE"!
Yes all need faith but "Faith ALONE" never saves! FACT: "Faith ALONE" sends the persons soul to eternal fire!

kennethcadwell If the baptist FULLY accepted Jesus, he would believe the words of Jesus don't you think??!

The Great Commission: "Go make DISCIPLES of all nations "BAPTIZING"! Clearly: Baptism makes disciples!!
Disciples are Jesus' BROTHERS!!! Thus "Baptism" makes God' children! All of Jesus' brothers call God father! All of Jesus' brothers are made by BAPTISM!

49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers.

Fact... Jesus never named his church!!! The Apostolic Fathers gave Jesus' church her name!!

Ignatius of Antioch "Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; * just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2[A.D. 110]).

DO YOU SEE IT?? "Just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church"

 

[Atwood]

Re: DOG DUCKS, FAILS TO PROVE THAT THE RCC GIVES GOD'S TRUTH

I must say it is a big waste of time to obsess on the obscure verse in Paul where the Dog alleges women are saved by child-bearing. But I give you some quotes from what is evidently a RCC site,

Unam Sanctum Catholicum

Quote below:

Rather than me give my own exegesis of this passage, I thought I might rather just state what many other authorities have said on the matter, for as far as I know the exact nature of this passages has never been defined and there is still disagreement on what St. Paul means. . . .,

First, let's state what this verse obviously cannot mean - that the act of bearing children guarantees a woman a place in heaven. This would be so far out of keeping with everything else taught in Scripture that I'm not going to waste time refuting it (though of course, I have met Protestants who assert this).
. . .
Some Protestants put a more "faith healing" spin on the verse that I think is equally inadmissible from a Catholic viewpoint. Here's one I found randomly online:

The primary meaning of save in Greek is to be kept safe and sound, to save someone from injury, to restore someone to health, and to keep someone from perishing. This interpretation is consistent with Paul’s theology, that if we trust the Lord, He will keep us safe when we go through calamities. Paul’s concept of salvation is much broader than ours—we tend to think of Jesus saving us from hellfire and leaving us alone to fight office politics, natural disasters, health problems, and other difficulties by ourselves. But Paul saw Jesus as saving us through all things, even if they cause our death....Paul is instructing Timothy to reassure the women in his congregation who are anxious about the prospect of giving birth. This interpretation is completely consistent with Paul’s theology and his pastoral technique of reassuring people. So I think we have to go with this one. Paul says that a woman who trusts Jesus will be kept safe through the perils of childbirth.

This, too, is inadmissible from a Catholic viewpoint and many Protestants would also disagree - we all know mothers who had faith and virtue but still had painful or very complicated labors. Our faith must always be in God, not in how we think God will or will not act in any given circumstance; faith healers tend to misplace their faith and put it on faith itself - their faith is in their faith. . . .

At any rate, there is no single agreed upon interpretation as far as I can see. Whenever I have come across a Father who commented on this verse they were usually in agreement with Chrysostom and Haydock, although I think the thesis put forward by the Navarre editors has merit as well.

 

[kennethcadwell]

Re: DOG DUCKS, FAILS TO PROVE THAT THE RCC GIVES GOD'S TRUTH

You said.. I see where you are coming from in 1 Tim, but notice it is not the childbearing that actual saves, it is faith.
If they have no faith in Jesus as their Lord and Savior that childbearing will not save them.

I reply: Notice the Faith the woman needs is NOT "ALONE"!
Yes all need faith but "Faith ALONE" never saves! FACT: "Faith ALONE" sends the persons soul to eternal fire!

kennethcadwell If the baptist FULLY accepted Jesus, he would believe the words of Jesus don't you think??!

The Great Commission: "Go make DISCIPLES of all nations "BAPTIZING"! Clearly: Baptism makes disciples!!
Disciples are Jesus' BROTHERS!!! Thus "Baptism" makes God' children! All of Jesus' brothers call God father! All of Jesus' brothers are made by BAPTISM!

49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers.

Fact... Jesus never named his church!!! The Apostolic Fathers gave Jesus' church her name!!

Ignatius of Antioch "Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; * just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2[A.D. 110]).

DO YOU SEE IT?? "Just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church"

Baptist do believe in the words of Jesus.
I have been in both baptist and catholic churches most of my life, and have seen the good teaching's in both and i also have seen the errors in both their teachings.
If you believe the Catholic church does not teach some errors than you have misinformed.

I gave you a list of errors in post 334.

Baptism is part of a believers walk, being a disciple means being a follower of Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.
Then you say Jesus never named His church, which is true.
But if you go back and look in the book of Acts you will they were labeled in the bible, and that label is Christian not Catholic. All Christians rather Catholic, Baptist, or other are part of the true church of the Lord.


The Lord Jesus is our only mediator to God, if we go to Him in prayer and repent and ask forgiveness of our sins they are forgiven. We do not have to go to another brother ( priest ) in Christ and do a confession to them to have that forgiveness. There is nothing wrong with doing that, but it is not a requirement.

 

[Dogknox]

Re: DOG DUCKS, FAILS TO PROVE THAT THE RCC GIVES GOD'S TRUTH

The Plain Truth about
the Roman Catholic Church
[TABLE="width: 95%"]
[TR]
[TD]The Roman Catholic Church claims to have started in Matthew 16:18 when Christ supposedly appointed Peter as the first Pope. However, the honest and objective student of the Scriptures and history soon discovers that the foundation of the Roman church is none other than the pagan mystery religion of ancient Babylon.
While enduring the early persecutions of the Roman government (65-300 A.D.), most of professing Christianity went through a gradual departure from New Testament doctrine concerning church government, worship and practice. Local churches ceased to be autonomous by giving way to the control of "bishops" ruling over hierarchies. The simple form of worship from the heart was replaced with the rituals and splendor of paganism. Ministers became "priests," and pagans became "Christians" by simply being sprinkled with water. This tolerance of an unregenerate membership only made things worse. SPRINKLED PAGANISM is about the best definition for Roman Catholicism.
The Roman Emperor Constantine established himself as the head of the church around 313 A.D., which made this new "Christianity" the official religion of the Roman Empire. The first actual Pope in Rome was probably Leo I (440-461 A.D.), although some claim that Gregory I was the first (590-604 A.D.). This ungodly system eventually ushered in the darkest period of history known to man, properly known as the "Dark Ages" (500-1500 A.D.). Through popes, bishops, and priests, Satan ruled Europe, and Biblical Christianity became illegal.
Throughout all of this, however, there remained individual groups of true Christians, such as the Waldensens and the Anabaptists who would not conform to the Roman system.
The Papacy and Priesthood
In the Bible there are no popes or priests to rule over the church. Jesus Christ is our High Priest (Heb. 3:1; 4:14-15; 5:5; 8:1; 9:11), and all true Christians make up a spiritual priesthood (I Pet. 2:5). Jesus Christ has sanctified all Christians who believe on Him (Heb. 10:10-11), so all priests today are unnecessary and unscriptural. Furthermore, the practice of calling a priest "father" is forbidden by Jesus Christ in Matthew 23:9. There is only ONE mediator between God and men (I Tim. 2:5).
The Catholic church teaches that Peter was the first Pope and the earthly head of the church, but the Bible never says this once. In fact, it was Peter himself who spoke against "being lords over God's heritage" in I Peter 5:3. Popes do not marry, although Peter did (Mat. 8:14; I Cor. 9:5). The Bible never speaks of Peter being in Rome, and it was Paul, not Peter, who wrote the epistle to the Romans. In the New Testament, Paul wrote 100 chapters with 2,325 verses, while Peter wrote only 8 chapters with 166 verses. In Peter's first epistle he stated that he was simply "an apostle of Jesus Christ," not a Pope (I Pet. 1:1). The Roman papacy and priesthood is just a huge fraud to keep members in bondage to a corrupt pagan church.
The Worship of Mary
Roman Catholics believe that Mary, the mother of Jesus, remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus and was sinless all of her life. She is worshiped in the Catholic church as the "Mother of God" and the "Queen of Heaven." St. Bernard stated that she was crowned "Queen of Heaven" by God the Father, and that she currently sits upon a throne in Heaven making intercession for Christians.
The Bible teaches otherwise. In the Bible, Mary was a sinner just like the rest of us. She said herself that she needed a "Saviour" (Lk. 1:47), and she even had to offer a sacrifice for her sins in Luke 2:24. Jesus was only her "firstborn" son, according to Matthew 1:25, because she later had other children as well (Mt. 13:55; Gal. 1:19; Psa. 69:8). There's only ONE mediator between God and men, and it isn't Mary (I Tim. 2:5). The last time we hear from Mary in the Bible she is praying WITH the disciples, not being prayed to BY the disciples (Acts 1:14). The Bible never exalts Mary above anyone else. Neither should we.
Purgatory
The Catholic Church teaches that a Christian's soul must burn in purgatory after death until all of their sins have been purged. To speed up the purging process, money may be paid to a priest so he can pray and have special masses for an earlier release.
This heresy began creeping into the Roman Church during the reign of Pope Gregory around the end of the sixth century, and it has no scriptural support. In fact, Jesus warned us about this pagan practice in Matthew 23:14 when He spoke of those who devoured widows houses and made long prayers for a pretence. Psalm 49:6-7 tells us that a person couldn't redeem a loved one, even if such a place did exist: "They that trust in their wealth, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches; None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:"
Peter addresses this issue in Acts 8:20 when he says, "Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money." God's word is clearly against the doctrine of purgatory.
The Mass
By perverting the Christian practice of the Lord's Supper (Mat. 26:26-28; I Cor. 11:23-27), the Catholic Church has created the Mass, which they believe to be a continual sacrifice of Jesus Christ:
"Christ...commanded that his bloody sacrifice on the Cross should be daily renewed by an unbloody sacrifice of his body and blood in the Mass under the simple elements of bread and wine." (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, Pg. 13, Article: "Mass, Sacrifice of")
Jesus never made such a command. If you'll check the above references in Matthew 26 and I Corinthians 11, you'll see for yourself that the Lord's Supper is a MEMORIAL and a SHOWING of Christ's death until He comes again. It is not a sacrifice. The Catholic Encyclopedia states the following:
"In the celebration of the Holy Mass, the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ. It is called transubstantiation, for in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of bread and wine do not remain, but the entire substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ, and the entire substance of wine is changed into his blood, the species or outward semblence of bread and wine alone remaining." (Vol. 4, pg. 277, Article: "Consecration")
The Catholic Church teaches that the "Holy Mass" is a LITERAL EATING AND DRINKING OF THE LITERAL FLESH AND BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST. The priest supposedly has the power to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.
Now, what does God's word say about such practices? If you'll read Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:11-12, and Acts 15:29, you will find that God absolutely FORBIDS the drinking of blood all through the Bible.
Rome teaches that the Mass is a continual "sacrifice" of Jesus Christ, but God's word states that Jesus made the FINAL sacrifice on Calvary! This is made perfectly clear in Hebrews 10:10-12:
"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God."
The mass is unnecessary and unscriptural.
Image Worship
The Catholic religion is filled with all sorts of symbols, images, and relics. The Catechism of the Council of Trent states these words:
"It is lawful to have images in the Church, and to give honor and worship unto them..."
It's lawful to honor and worship images? Not according to God's word. Exodus 20:4-5 says, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me." Image worship is unscriptural and will end with the eternal damnation of those who practice it (Rev. 14:11).
Salvation by Works
Through infant baptism, keeping sacraments, church membership, going to mass, praying to Mary, and confession (just to mention a few), the Catholic church has developed a system of salvation through WORKS. God's word says that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not through works:
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Eph. 2:8-9)
"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (Romans 4:5)
Jesus Christ came into this world to lay down His sinless life for YOU--to pay for your sins, because you couldn't. Jesus is your only hope for salvation. Only by receiving Him as your Saviour can you enter the gates of Heaven. There is no other way.
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me." (John 14:6)
The Lord Jesus Christ has come and PAID for your sins by shedding His own Blood on Calvary. By receiving Him as your Saviour, you can be WASHED from all your sins in His precious Blood (Rev. 1:5; Col. 1:14; Acts 20:28; I Pet. 1:18-19). Notice these important words from Romans 5:8-9:
"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him."
Jesus PAID your way to Heaven for you! By receiving Him as your Saviour, you will be receiving God's ONLY means of Salvation for you. Are you willing to forsake YOUR righteousness and receive Jesus Christ as your Saviour, your ONLY HOPE for Salvation? Romans 10:13 says, "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Romans 10:9 says, "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Are you willing to forsake your own righteousness, and trust Jesus Christ alone? He will save you just as He promised. Why not receive Him today and trust Him to give you a better way of life?

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

kennethcadwell you have fallen for LIES!!!!!
What you have been sold as truth, is lies..!

Example... This.. the official religion of the Roman Empire. The first actual Pope in Rome was probably Leo I (440-461 A.D.), although some claim that Gregory I was the first (590-604 A.D.).

It is OBVIOUS your source has never looked at documented historical HISTORY!!
History cannot be changed no matter how you want it to!!

THINK: When Constantine established the Holy Catholic Church as the official church of the world there were HUNDREDS of BISHOPS recorded in the Catholic Church at the time!!! These BISHOPS did not spring up out of thin are the day Constantine accepted the Catholic Church!!!

I also POINT OUT! There was NO other churches until 1054 A.D. when the Orthodox church broke from the Catholic church! To this day the Orthodox church eats the flesh of Jesus and drinks Jesus blood.. PROVING the One Church Jesus established has ALWAYS eaten the flesh of Jesus and drank Jesus' blood

POPES..

1. St. Peter (32-67)
   
2. St. Linus (67-76)
   
3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
   
4. St. Clement I (88-97)
   
5. St. Evaristus (97-105
   
6. St. Alexander I (105-115)
   
7. St. Sixtus I (115-125) -- also called Xystus I
   
8. St. Telesphorus (125-136)
   
9. St. Hyginus (136-140)
   
10. St. Pius I (140-155)
    
11. St. Anicetus (155-166)
    
12. St. Soter (166-175)
    
13. St. Eleutherius (175-189)
    
14. St. Victor I (189-199)
    
15. St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
    
16. St. Callistus I (217-22)
    
17. St. Urban I (222-30)
    
18. St. Pontain (230-35)
    
19. St. Anterus (235-36)
    
20. St. Fabian (236-50)
    
21. St. Cornelius (251-53)
    
22. St. Lucius I (253-54)
    
23. St. Stephen I (254-257)
    
24. St. Sixtus II (257-258)
    
25. St. Dionysius (260-268)
    
26. St. Felix I (269-274)
    
    

1. St. Eutychian (275-283)
   
2. St. Caius (283-296) -- also called Gaius
   
3. St. Marcellinus (296-304)
   
4. St. Marcellus I (308-309)
   
5. St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
   
6. St. Miltiades (311-14)
   
7. St. Sylvester I (314-35)
   
8. St. Marcus (336)
   
9. St. Julius I (337-52)
   
10. Liberius (352-66)
    
11. St. Damasus I (366-83)
    
12. St. Siricius (384-99)
    
13. St. Anastasius I (399-401)
    
14. St. Innocent I (401-17)
    
15. St. Zosimus (417-18)
    
16. St. Boniface I (418-22)
    
17. St. Celestine I (422-32)
    
18. St. Sixtus III (432-40)
    
19. St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
    
20. St. Hilarius (461-68)
    
21. St. Simplicius (468-83)
    
22. St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
    
23. St. Gelasius I (492-96)
    
24. Anastasius II (496-98)