The Bishop is the Steward of God

St. Titus

St. Titus

When explaining the papacy to Protestant friends, I usually employ the term “steward” and use Denethor from Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings as an example of what that means.

Denethor was the steward of the King. Denethor was not the King, did not sit on the King’s throne, but he served as the representative of the King, caring for the King’s people and realm. Now then, Denethor failed in his duties, being seduced by evil, but that fact did not revoke his stewardship, it simply made him a bad steward.

But it is not just the bishop of Rome who is the steward of God. All bishops are. St. Paul says to his disciple Titus, bishop of Crete:

For a bishop must be without crime, as the steward of God: not proud, not subject to anger, not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre. (Titus 1:7)

(All translations say something very similar, though they may translate bishop as “overseer” or “elder.”)

The bishop is the steward of God. Yet this immediately makes one wonder, “who can legitimately be called a bishop?” T.D. Jakes calls himself a bishop. The Protestant church down the street from us calls their preacher a bishop. Countless other Protestant preachers do as well.

If Protestantism were true, anyone who claims they are teaching the true interpretation of the Bible can say they are a bishop. All they need is a small (or large) following and suddenly people call them “bishop.” Yet every Protestant preacher thinks and claims that he is teaching the truth from the Bible.

Every heretic through all time also thought they were teaching what was true. Heretics from of old would cite Bible passages allegedly supporting their (false) teachings. Most had followers, sometimes thousands and thousands of them, who were convinced that the heretical leaders were interpreting the Bible correctly.

If Protestantism were true, all we can do is pray and read the Bible and come up with what we think is true from it and then choose those Protestant churches that most closely conform with our interpretation of Scripture.

But because Catholicism is true, we can know who the bishops really are. They are the men, like St. Titus and St. Timothy, who stand in the unbroken line of the laying on of hands from the Apostles themselves. This is Apostolic Succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders.

God made sure that His Church was not be splintered into a thousand pieces. He made sure the Church would have rightful authority, not innumerable competing men claiming authority against all the others. He made sure that bishops could be truly called His stewards, and He gave all people a sure, easy way of knowing who the bishops were.

Share
This entry was posted in Faith and Reason, Saints and Angels and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

123 Responses to The Bishop is the Steward of God

  1. Monica says:

    That’s a really good example, actually. Stolen!

  2. Bill Burns says:

    Denethor is a great example. I also like to use Eliakim, because it allows me to compare Isaiah 22:22 with Matt. 16:19 to explain the role of the See of Peter.

  3. God’s Church is one.

    He knows who is in His Church and who is not. There are many good and faithful Christians who belong to Him, in the Catholic Church. And there are also those in the Catholic Church who do not belong to Him.

    This is true for every church where His name is proclaimed and His gospel for the forgiveness of sins is announced to sinners, who need it. That is the power of His Word. That it calls sinners to Himself, wherever they might be.

    We aren’t so prideful and foolish to believe that we are the ONLY ones who know the Truth.

    This sermon says it much better than I can:

    http://theoldadam.com/2012/01/25/preaching-this-sermon-would-probably-get-you-thrown-out-of-saddleback-church-calvary-chapel-or-willowcreek/

    Thanks.

    • Jonathan Brumley says:

      Steve,

      Have you accused Catholics of pride before this? I’m very confused how this relates to the post.

      Before anyone else knew Christ, the apostles were the only ones to know Him. They proclaimed Christ to an unbelieving world, and in doing so, they were implicitly proclaiming that the idolaters and unbelievers were wrong in their belief. I don’t believe it’s pride to proclaim something you believe is true, nor is it pride to state that someone else is wrong.

      • I also don’t accept the premise that believing you belong to the true Church means that you think no one else can know the Truth.

        • De Maria says:

          That is not what we believe. However, Scripture tells us that the fullness of the Truth is taught in the Church:
          Ephesians 3:10
          King James Version (KJV)
          10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

          Do you believe that your denomination teaches the Wisdom of God? Or do you claim this is only found in Scripture?

  4. Jonathan,

    Anyone who says that “we are the Church…and no one else” is, to me, a bit prideful.

    It seems to me that Jesus told us that that was His call. He knows who is, and who is not of the fold.

    It’s ok to criticize doctrine, or practice….but I think I would draw the line there when it comes to other professing Christians.

    Thank you, friend.

    • Jonathan Brumley says:

      Steve,

      We do believe that the Catholic Church is the Church which Christ founded, but we also believe that you and virtually all Protestants have been incorporated into this same Church through baptism. I gather you are Lutheran, and if that’s true, then you profess something a little different from what the Catholic Church teaches. But we don’t believe that wrong belief about some details (even if they are important details) removes a person from the Body of Christ. Does this make sense?

      That being said, the goal of a visibly unified Church for all Christians is extremely important. The differences of faith which divide us wound our unity. We can’t just teach different things, go different ways and pretend that that these differences don’t matter. We’re called to reconcile these differences so that we can be more fully unified in love and so that the world can also know we’re one.

      Here’s some examples of why what we believe matters:

      1. It is important that all Christians understand who God is and what He is like. The more we can know Him, the more we love Him. Arians in the 3rd century didn’t believe that Jesus Christ was the incarnation of God. But without knowing the His incarnation in the person of Jesus Christ, we can’t really know the extent of His humility.

      2. God is good, and the more we know about how he calls us to live helps us to live in a the way He wants us to live, and in doing so, we are made more and more to reflect His image. Knowing the good can also help keep us from temptation to sin. For instance, there’s plenty of Christian congregations which treat sexual sin as OK, or even as a good thing. But sexual sin leads to sexual addiction. We don’t want to be live as slaves to sin, therefore we need to know what is sin.

      There’s more here, knowing how we are called to worship, how to live together as one Body, etc. But I hope you are getting my point. If what the Catholic Church teaches is true, then it is right, just, and very good for Catholics to proclaim this truth to the world.

      We need to pray for each other and charitably discuss our differences so that we can resolve these and come to fuller unity.

      • Jonathan,

        Yes it is important that Christians know those things.

        We teach those things, as well.

        • De Maria says:

          Not all those things. For instance, the last time we talked, you objected to keeping the Commandments. You said it was impossible to keep even the first.

          Whereas, we believe and the Catholic Church teaches, that anyone who has faith in God can keep the Commandments.

  5. Bill Burns says:

    Jonathan, I think you spoke truest in your first statement. God’s Church is one. Jesus established one Church (Matt. 16:18) and desired that we would be one (John 17:21). Jesus didn’t found an invisible Church but a visible one, and not 5 or 30,0000 denominations, but one to which people are joined by baptism (Matt. 28:19 and John 3:5). But Protestant theology doesn’t teach this oneness, except in some abstract and diaphanous sense. When Devin talks about the Truth, he is not suggesting that baptized Christians are not baptized into the Church (unless he were denying the Church’s own teaching). He’s saying that Protestant teaching does not reflect the Truth in revelation because it pleads for many against the one (or at very least results in it).

  6. Bob says:

    Devin,
    If the RCC knows what a bishop is then why does your church deny the qualifications of a bishop as spelled out in I Tim 3:2-5:
    2-Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach,
    4-not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money.
    5-He must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with perfect dignity; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of the church of God?

    Notice verses 4-5 where it speaks of the man who is married and manages his own family well as a qualification for being a bishop. Your church disregards these qualifications of the Scripture.

    We already have seen in recent days the despicable behavior of some of your bishops who have brought much shame on the name of Christ and are not taken out of their offices by Rome.

    • Devin Rose says:

      Bob,

      We went over this recently. You interpret this passage to mean that only men married exactly once and that have children can be bishops. Yet these verses are St. Paul (celibate Apostle) writing to St. Timothy (young bishop, unmarried), whom St. Paul had himself ordained.

      The point was that bishops should be morally upright men, not married multiple times, not with crazy homes.

      Now then, have immoral, faithless men been made bishops in the Catholic Church before? Yes. And that is scandalous and wrong. Contrary to what you say, many of them have been removed from their office. But also many have remained in office til their retirement or death. That just means that these bishops failed to be good stewards, not that the Catholic Church is false.

      Unless of course you think you can produce a church that has been around longer than a decade or so that has no man (elder, overseer, bishop, whatever they may call themselves) who has done evil things. I would be interested in learning about such a church.

      • Bob says:

        Devin,
        My point is to show that a RC married man cannot be a bishop because he is married. This directly contradicts what Paul wrote in I Tim 3:2-5. He also lays out why this is important and essential for church leadership because how well a man manages his own home (wife and children) will indicate how well he can manage the church. Because your bishops have never married (with few exceptions) they fail the qualification test of managing a family of their own. Your church errs on it understanding of what are the qualifications of a bishop.

        RC’s make great claims about their church being the true church and being led by the HS. If this were true then we should expect it to follow the Scripture and deal truthfully with bishops who have brought great shame on the name of Christ. Its not just a couple but many who have done this. The fact so many have gotten away with this is a sign your church is not being led by the HS.

        BTW -The pope is called the vicar of Christ and holy father. Where in Scripture do we find such exalted titles for a bishop?

        • Devin Rose says:

          Bob,

          You presuppose sola Scriptura, which I reject, and you assume that doctrine cannot develop, which I reject, and you interpret the Bible contrary to the Apostolic Tradition, which I reject.

          Jesus says call no man “father,” yet St. Paul in many places calls himself the spiritual father of others! Including of St. Timothy. If you were interpreting the Bible consistently (in a literalistic way), you would condemn St. Paul for going against the clear words of Scripture by calling himself a spiritual father. This just shows that the prima facie apparent meaning of the words is not always the true one.

          The fact is that the definitions and roles of elder/overseer/bishop/presbyter were all developing at this time. The Bible uses the words interchangeably n many places. You take this early snapshot of their usage and extrapolate that everything said there must be precisely followed. Yet even in the late 1st century we see how these ordained roles had (legitimately) developed in 1 Clement and in St. Ignatius’ epistles.

          This also ignores St. Paul’s commendations for people to be celibate and so dedicated themselves to God in a way that married men cannot. And it ignores Christ’s words in Matthew 19 that some renounce marriage for the sake of the Kingdom, yet by interpreting this passage in 1 Timothy wrongly, you negate their words and deny that celibate men can be bishops (and by induction, Apostles, thus excluding St. Paul and likely St. John from being Apostles).

          God bless,
          Devin

          • Bob says:

            Devin,
            To deny Sola Scriptura i.e. that the inspired-inerrant Scripture alone is the ultimate authority for all Christians is to deny apostolic doctrine.

            Have you ever exegeted those passages about the way Jesus and Paul used the term “father”?

            Paul’s commendation for being single is in the context of marriage i.e. to marry or not. It is not about a qualification for church leadership.

            BTW- Peter could not be a pope today because he was a married man.

            • Devin Rose says:

              Bob,

              Sola Scriptura means that the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith. Emphasis on “sole infallible.” What chapter and verse of your Bible say: “the inspired-inerrant Scripture alone is the ultimate authority for all Christians is to deny apostolic doctrine”?

              St. Paul’s commendation for single/married life speaks directly to the fact that a celibate person can give themselves exclusively to God, while a married person has to be concerned with their spouse/family. He even says he wishes all people could be like him (celibate)!

              Sure, Peter was married and now all bishops are celibate. That does not prove anything though. Because such disciplines can legitimately develop.

              • Bob says:

                Devin,
                There is no verse that says “the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith.” However, ONLY the Scripture is the ONLY inspired-inerrant Word of God. Nothing else is and there is nothing else that is inspired-inerrant. This means that the Scripture alone is the highest authority in the church and it has no equal.

                Church leadership involves more than just to “give themselves exclusively to God.” It also involves other skills that are developed only in a marriage with children. That is why Paul commands that the bishop be married with children. It is in this relationship that the skills to guide the church are shown and tested.

                If you look at I Cor 7 you will find Paul’s addressing marriage and singleness but not church leadership.

                Your church’ position on a celibate leadership goes against the clear teaching of Scripture. There just is no way to get around this fact.

              • De Maria says:

                Bob says:
                February 28, 2013 at 4:00 pm
                Devin,
                There is no verse that says “the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith.” However, ONLY the Scripture is the ONLY inspired-inerrant Word of God. Nothing else is and there is nothing else that is inspired-inerrant.

                Not exactly.

                God did not breathe Scripture out of His mouth. To say that Scripture is inspired is a manner of speaking. It is a metaphorical saying.

                God inspired men to write Scripture. God first inspired those same men to speak His Word.

                2 Peter 1:19-21
                King James Version (KJV)
                19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

                20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

                21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

                This means that the Scripture alone is the highest authority in the church and it has no equal.

                Scripture says that the Church is the highest authority:
                Matthew 18:17
                King James Version (KJV)
                17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

                Ephesians 3:10
                King James Version (KJV)
                10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

                ….Your church’ position on a celibate leadership goes against the clear teaching of Scripture. There just is no way to get around this fact.

                The Teaching of Scripture:
                Follow Jesus example.
                Jesus was celibate.

                The Teaching of Scripture:
                Follow St. Paul’s example.
                St. Paul was celibate.

                The Teaching of Scripture:
                The unmarried man can focus upon God. While the married man must focus upon the needs of his wife.

        • Jonathan Brumley says:

          Because your bishops have never married (with few exceptions) they fail the qualification test of managing a family of their own. Your church errs on it understanding of what are the qualifications of a bishop.

          This reasoning doesn’t make sense, because both Timothy and Titus were bishops, but they were not married.

          • Bob says:

            Jonathan,
            Where in Scripture does it say that Timothy and Titus were bishops and were not married?

            • De Maria says:

              More importantly, where does it say they were married?

              Unless it is in Scripture, you don’t believe it. And Scripture does not mention that they were married.

              • Bob says:

                That is true. If they were not married and they were bishops then they are guilty of going against the Word of God.

              • De Maria says:

                Bob says:
                February 28, 2013 at 8:22 pm
                That is true. If they were not married and they were bishops then they are guilty of going against the Word of God.

                I doubt that you know the Word of God better than the unmarried Apostle who was inspired to write it down. Therefore, I will follow the Teaching of the Church which that same Apostle was inspired to call the Pillar of Truth, also in Scripture (1 Tim 3:15).

  7. Bill Burns says:

    1 Tim 3:2 in the Greek says, “??? ??? ??? ????????? ???????????? ?????, ???? ???????? ?????,”

    Which translates roughly, “it is necessary therefore the bishop irreproachable *to be, of one wife, husband.”

    meaning of one and no more. Otherwise there would be no need to use a numeric adjective with genitive when a simple indefinite article (a) would suffice. If choice indicates meaning in grammar (Steve Runge argues), then the choice of a numeric adjective is significant, and the choice not to use an indefnite article, likewise, significant. So the argument that a bishop must be married fails, and the position Devin takes, that a bishop can have no more than one wife (probably meaning no remarriage rather than no polygamy) stands.

    • Bill Burns says:

      Looks like WordPress can’t handle Greek. Let’s try

      δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα,

      • De Maria says:

        In addition, the point has been made that Apostles were Bishops. And St. Paul, St. John and Sts. Timothy and Titus were unwed. Not to mention our most exhaled example, Jesus Christ.

        • Bob says:

          How do you know that Paul, John, Timothy and Titus were bishops and not married? Where in Scripture does it say this?

          • De Maria says:

            Bob says:
            February 28, 2013 at 3:51 pm
            How do you know that Paul, John, Timothy and Titus were bishops and not married? Where in Scripture does it say this?

            From the witness of the early Church Fathers we know that St. John the Apostle, St. Timothy and St. Titus were not married.

            According to some, St. Paul was married when he was a Pharisee. But did not return to his family after he converted to Christ. He remained celibate thereafter.

            In Scripture, St. Paul advises the unmarried and widows that they should remain like him.

            1 Corinthians 7:8
            I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.

  8. Jonathan Brumley says:

    Hi Bob,

    Early church historians carefully recorded the bishops of their churches, and these documents record Timothy as having been appointed bishop in Ephesus in 65 A.D., where he remained bishop for 15 years. Titus, similarly, was bishop of Crete.

    Timothy’s position in Ephesus is consistent with Acts of the Apostles, where Paul left him behind. It’s also consistent with Paul’s letter to Timothy, where Timothy is said to have received a laying on of hands from Paul, and received instructions to appoint elders. Having the authority to appoint elders is the definition of a bishop – in my book.

    Regarding Timothy being married – it’s the conclusion that best fits the evidence. There’s no mention of a wife. I don’t see how he would have been able to maintain a wife and children while constantly traveling and spending time in prison.

    Adding to this is that Paul preferred and recommended celibacy (according to Paul, it’s better!), so it would make sense that his young traveling companion would have gotten similar advice. Timothy would likely have followed in the tradition of his “father in Christ” and not married.

    If you have some evidence otherwise that Timothy was married, then I would be interested to hear it.

  9. Bob says:

    Scripture does not say Timothy was not married nor that he was a bishop. If he became one later then we would expect him to be married since this is one of the qualifications to be a bishop. We also know that Peter was married and Paul alludes to other apostles being married in 1Corinthians 9:5.
    Peter was married and spent time in prison.

    Paul does recommend celibacy read of marriage to save people trouble. He does not command singleness for church leadership.

    • De Maria says:

      But neither St. John nor St. Paul were married. And Apostles are the first Bishops.

      Paul does recommend celibacy read of marriage to save people trouble. He does not command singleness for church leadership.

      He recommends being unmarried in order that one may better do the will of God. Certainly a trait which is most helpful for any leader of the Church.

      Do you deny it?

      • Bob says:

        A bishop is a person who is the leader of a local congregation of believers. They did not travel about and were associated with one church in a specific geographical area. What local congregation were John and Paul bishops of? What does the Scripture say?

        I deny that Paul commanded celibacy as a requirement for church leadership. It is not necessarily true that an unmarried person can do the will of God better. It might be God’s will for a person to marry than to be single.

        • De Maria says:

          Bob says:
          February 28, 2013 at 11:48 pm
          A bishop is a person who is the leader of a local congregation of believers. They did not travel about and were associated with one church in a specific geographical area.

          Where is that in Scripture?

          What local congregation were John and Paul bishops of?

          Ephesus, Antioch and Rome

          What does the Scripture say?

          The Scripture says that Christ is our Bishop. All Bishopricks are from Christ. That is why the Bishops are ambassadors of Christ.

          I deny that Paul commanded celibacy as a requirement for church leadership.

          That is fine. No one here said that St. Paul commanded it. We said that he suggested it for all the faithful. The Church, by virtue of the authority which Jesus Christ vested in Her, decided to impose that discipline (Matt 16:19).

          It is not necessarily true that an unmarried person can do the will of God better.

          But the Word of God in Scripture, recommends this discipline to all men in order that they have less distractions to accomplish the Will of God. Do you deny it?

          Do you claim that Scripture is wrong?

          It might be God’s will for a person to marry than to be single.

          And it is recommended by God’s Word, which reveals to us God’s will, that a person remain single. That is the teaching of Scripture. Do you deny it? Or do you simpoly reject the Teaching of Scripture?

  10. Jonathan Brumley says:

    Hi Bob,

    I would like to point out that Paul wrote 1 Timothy in 65 or 66 AD, during his first captivity in Rome. Church records say Timothy became bishop of Ephesus starting in 65 AD. In the letter, Timothy had already received a gift through the laying on of hands. He had been given authority to ordain other men. He was specifically instructed on how to deal with older men, because of his relative youth. He was charged by Paul to “guard what has been entrusted to your care”. All this points to Timothy already being ordained as bishop when the letter was written. So I think it strange that you conclude he became bishop “at some later point”.

    But regardless of this, either Timothy was married or unmarried. Either he was a bishop or he was not a bishop. I think he was an unmarried bishop. You think he must have been one of the other three possibilities, because you interpret “man of one wife” differently than I do. We both have reasons to think we’re right. Unfortunately, scripture is silent about any of these four cases being true, so the interpreter has to make guesses or make use of another authority to help figure it out.

    Regarding the instructions given to Timothy about how to select elders, this too requires interpretation. The interpreter has to determine what Paul meant when he said “man of one wife”, and also whether these instructions were intended for Timothy’s specific circumstance, or as regulations to be followed throughout the Church for all time. Again, we have to make guesses, or we can rely on some other authority to figure this out.

    You read scripture and try to figure this out on your own. But the authority Catholics use to guide our interpretation of scripture is the Church – which scripture calls the “pillar and foundation of the Truth”. We believe she is guided by the Holy Spirit and is being led “into all truth” when it comes to matters of faith.

    When it comes to how to select elders, deacons, and bishops – the Catholic Church does not believe this is a matter of faith. Rather, it’s a matter of authority and circumstantial prudence. The Church has, in fact, changed the selection process for elders (priests), deacons, and bishops, multiple times, throughout history. In fact, each of the different rites (Roman rite, Byzantine rite, etc.) have somewhat different criteria and selection processes.

    So, if your accusation is that the selection process today varies from Paul’s instructions to Timothy, then we have to plead “guilty”. One only has to look at the upcoming papal conclave to see how different things are from the day Jesus chose Peter.

    For instance, a change was made even recently, as now former Anglican priests, who are married, are being allowed to become Roman rite Catholic priests. So even though the Roman rite has required unmarried clergy for centuries, this rule is simply a matter of canon law, and those laws can be changed by men with the authority to do so. Whereas there are many things which are a matter of faith and unchangeable, the selection process for clergy is not one of these things.

    You might find these changes in administration process a compelling argument against the Catholic Church – but we don’t see it that way, because we believe the Church has the authority to determine the best way to select her leaders, and that she can add and remove rules as she sees fit. We don’t believe Jesus established an exact process to be used. We believe Paul had specific instructions for Timothy, but not that these instructions were the exact instructions for all time. We do think Jesus established men with the authority to decide the process – and those men passed on their authority to the next generation.

    So, as long as you rely on yourself as the interpreter of scripture, and we rely on the Church as the interpreter of scripture, I doubt we’re going to be able to come to any agreement on this issue. So I suggest we continue this discussion sometime on a different topic – the question of authority. Sola scriptura or the Church?

  11. Bob says:

    Bob,
    You articulate well how well your church has circumvented the Scripture for the sake of its traditions. Because it rejects Sola Scriptura it has opened itself up to unbiblical-nonapostolic doctrines and practices. Your church needs to be reformed if it is to accurately represent Christ.

    • De Maria says:

      Sola Scripturists circumvent the Word of God for the sake of their tradition. As you have admitted before, Sola Scriptura is not taught in Scripture.

      But if you have changed your mind again, show me from Scripture.

      • Bob says:

        Define Sola Scriptura then we can go from there.

        • De Maria says:

          Let me ask the people on this blog what they think.

          Bob keeps asking me to define for him Sola Scriptura? Isn’t that odd? Shouldn’t he define Sola Scriptura and be able to show me that definition in the Bible? After all, he is the expert on the doctrine and the one with the vested interest in defining it correctly.

          Bob says that he wants me to define it because Catholics don’t ever define it right. But, I counter that if he defines it, we won’t have that problem.

          So, for both reasons it is preferable, in my opinion, if he defines it and shows me where it is in Scripture.

          What do you think?

          • Bill Burns says:

            I think that’s a fair request, if he is the one presenting the doctrine of Sola Scriptura as evidence or as the criterion. Since it’s clearly not a criterion defined in scripture, we can only look to those who espouse it to define it.

            • De Maria says:

              Bill Burns says:
              February 28, 2013 at 10:45 pm
              I think that’s a fair request, if he is the one presenting the doctrine of Sola Scriptura as evidence or as the criterion. Since it’s clearly not a criterion defined in scripture, we can only look to those who espouse it to define it.

              You said,
              …since its clearly not a criterion defined in scripture….

              If its not in Scripture, then who defined Sola Scriptura? And where do we find this definition?

            • Bob says:

              Bill,
              I have run across many RC’s who claim to be against Sola Scriptura but I have never encountered a RC who has properly defined it. I think what is going on is that they have heard its false from some RC apologist and just parrot what he says without thinking it through for themselves. This is not a good way to dialogue.

              • De Maria says:

                Bob, you said,

                I have run across many RC’s who claim to be against Sola Scriptura but I have never encountered a RC who has properly defined it.

                You have an opportunity to set us straight. All you have to do is define it for us, then we won’t be able to make the mistake again.

                I think what is going on is that they have heard its false from some RC apologist

                Actually, I always ask the Protestant to define it and find it in Scripture. It seems fair to me, since you claim it is in Scripture, you should be able to point it out in Scripture.

                and just parrot what he says without thinking it through for themselves. This is not a good way to dialogue.

                I agree. Therefore, set us straight. Point out the chapter and verse where Sola Scriptura is defined in Scripture.

  12. Nelson says:

    I think Bob is playing games now. He is acting like a child when he has nothing else to say. Sorry to say this but his arguments have lost seriousness.

  13. De Maria says:

    The Teaching of Scripture:
    Follow Jesus example.
    Jesus was celibate.

    The Teaching of Scripture:
    Follow St. Paul’s example.
    St. Paul was celibate.

    The Teaching of Scripture:
    The unmarried man can focus upon God. While the married man must focus upon the needs of his wife.

  14. Bill Burns says:

    Bob, I have some other questions for you.

    1. If sola scriptura is the rule of faith, which translation of scripture is the base for it, and how do you derive that base from scripture?

    2. If the New Testament canon (as opposed to individual letters or books) wasn’t determined until centuries after the Early Church developed its ecclesial structure (with clearly celibate priests and bishops, such as Augustine), how can you trust the judgment of early Church Fathers who clearly had no problem with celibate bishops to choose correctly the documents that belonged to the canon?

    3. If sola scriptura and NO tradition is the rule of faith, why do you accept a Hebrew canon that was quite clearly developed out of a man-made Jewish tradition (that is, they *chose* the Hebrew-only canon late in the first century based on the criterion they determined at that time)? If you accept this *tradition* as somehow Divinely revealed, what do you do with the Oral Torah (a Jewish tradition) that accompanies the Hebrew canon?

    4. If you reject the early Church Tradition of using the Septuagint translation (see both Catholic and Orthdox canons), how can you accept the New Testament as the rule of Christian faith when it very clearly quotes the Septuagint (Greek) translation of scripture (for example, Luke 4:18-19, in which the Greek translation refers to the blind, while the Hebrew translation does not; Or Matthew 1:23 indicates that a virgin will conceive, in agreement with the Greek translation of Isaiah 7:14, which is claimed to be a mistranslation of “alma”; there are also references in the letters of Paul that point to psalms and proverbs that only exist in the Septuagint version of scripture, which most Protestants reject).

    5. Where did the Apostles get the idea that they could lay hands on a person (Stephen, Phillip, and the other set aside for diakonia in Acts 6) to convey on them an office? Jesus never did this in the gospels? Could this be one of the traditions they received by His actions (that is, directly revealed)?

    You still haven’t responded to my note about the Greek. Your understanding of the passage is highly influenced by your doctrine (which is unscriptural) and not at all in consideration of the actual text. You can keep up these protests, but please understand that your arguments just can’t be very convincing given the fact that you claim teachings that are not explicit in the text itself.

  15. Bob says:

    Where does Jesus command any of His followers to be celibate? Where does He make it a qualification for church leadership? Did He require it of His apostles (who are the highest leaders in the church)?

    Note what Paul says here in I Cor 9:1-5 on the rights of an apostle:
    Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?
    2 If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
    3 My defense to those who examine me is this:
    4 Do we not have a right to eat and drink?
    5 Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

    As you can see that he shows that Peter (one of the main leaders in the church) and the other apostles were married.
    Celibacy was never a requirement for church leadership.

    • De Maria says:

      Bob says:
      February 28, 2013 at 11:19 pm
      Where does Jesus command any of His followers to be celibate?

      Scripture highly recommends celibacy for the followers of Jesus:
      1 Corinthians 7:33 (KJV)
      32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: 33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

      Revelation 14: (KJV)
      4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb. 5 And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.

      Where does He make it a qualification for church leadership?

      The Word of God recommends it for all the faithful.

      Did He require it of His apostles (who are the highest leaders in the church)?

      He did not forbid it. Sts. John and Paul are both examples.

      Note what Paul says here in I Cor 9:1-5 on the rights of an apostle:
      Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?
      2 If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
      3 My defense to those who examine me is this:
      4 Do we not have a right to eat and drink?
      5 Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

      What version of the Bible did you use? Mine is significantly different and it is the most popular Protestant Bible:
      5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

      That doesn’t say that the Apostles were all married unless you read your tradition into it. Only that some brought their sisters and some their wives with them.

      As you can see that he shows that Peter (one of the main leaders in the church)

      No one denies it.

      and the other apostles were married.

      St. John was not married. That is the witness of history. Nor did Jesus make it a requirement that any of the Apostles be married.

      Celibacy was never a requirement for church leadership.

      Nor is marriage. Jesus and Sts. Paul, John, Timothy and Titus are witness of that fact.

  16. Bob says:

    Bill,
    1) There is no “base” in a translation for Sola Scriptura. Rather, it is grounded in the nature of the Scripture itself i.e. inspired-inerrant Word of God.
    2) The determining of the canon of the New Testament does not depend on any man or group of men being perfect or without error. The Holy Spirit has always worked through fallen –fallible men to accomplish His work. Look at Peter who was rebuked by Paul for not being straightforward about the gospel in Galatians 2
    :11-14. He was not infallible though he was one of the leading apostles.
    3) What do you mean by “tradition” and rule of faith? Do you know how the Old Testament Jews determined the canon of the Old Testament?
    4) I have no problem with the early church using the Septuagint. What we don’t know is if the apocrypha was in it because the earliest copy we have comes from the 4th century.
    5) It look like the laying on of hands perhaps came from Numbers 27:22-23
    6) This is not the place to get into Greek word studies heavily.

    If you want to defeat Sola Scriptura then all you need to demonstrate is that there something else that is inspired-inerrant and understood to be the Word of God. At least with this you would have shown that there is no such thing as a “sola”.

    • De Maria says:

      Bob said,
      If you want to defeat Sola Scriptura then all you need to demonstrate is that there something else that is inspired-inerrant

      Scripture says that Holy men were inspired by God:
      2 Peter 1:19-20
      King James Version (KJV)
      19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

      These men were inspired by God to first speak the Word of God without error. Therefore, Sacred Tradition is inspired-inerrant.

      Then these men wrote the same Sacred Tradition into Scripture without error. Therefore, Sacred Scripture is inspired-inerrant.

      and understood to be the Word of God.

      Hebrews 13:7
      King James Version (KJV)
      7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

      At least with this you would have shown that there is no such thing as a “sola”.

      I hope that helps you. There is no such thing as a “sola”. God inspired men to teach and then to write the Scripture:
      John 20:21-23
      King James Version (KJV)
      21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

      • Bob says:

        De Maria,
        You write–“These men were inspired by God to first speak the Word of God without error. Therefore, Sacred Tradition is inspired-inerrant.”

        Is there some Sacred Tradition that is not in Scripture that is inspired-inerrant Word of God? If so, please give me some examples and who in your church says they are.

        Are the popes and bishops inspired by God?

        • De Maria says:

          Bob says:
          Bob says:
          March 1, 2013 at 7:15 pm
          De Maria,
          You write–”These men were inspired by God to first speak the Word of God without error. Therefore, Sacred Tradition is inspired-inerrant.”

          Is there some Sacred Tradition that is not in Scripture that is inspired-inerrant Word of God?

          All the Traditions of Jesus Christ are in Scripture, either implied or explicit.

          If so, please give me some examples and who in your church says they are.

          The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
          80 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.” Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.

          Are the popes and bishops inspired by God?

          So are ordinary people. But the Pope and the Church are protected from error by the anointing of the Holy Spirit:

          Ephesians 3:10
          King James Version (KJV)
          10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

  17. Bill Burns says:

    So, then, you won’t define what it means or why we misunderstand it, but you will condemn us for not espousing the doctrine, which again, doesn’t appear explicitly in scripture? Please offer a definition of it so we can actually discuss what you believe it to be, then please provide evidence that it is explicitly required in scripture. If the apocrypha is not to be accepted, please provide scriptural grounds for its exclusion, or for that matter, scriptural grounds for a New Testament canon. So far, you’ve done none of those things, and you have based your arguments on your own preferences rather than anything from scripture.

    We can’t discuss this based on reason (since you won’t define the term you introduced into the discussion), and we can’t discuss this based on scripture (because you simply choose your interpretation over those of the early Church Fathers based on some privileged information you seem to have but that they lacked). So you have the key but are refusing to explain to us what it is. Are you trying to aid us on the way to salvation, or are you simply arguing to win an argument (which you don’t appear to be doing)?

    • Bob says:

      Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. It has no equal and all other rules, traditions or authorities are not equal to Scripture but subject to it. Only the Scripture is theopneustos i.e. God-breathed.

      • De Maria says:

        Bob says:
        March 1, 2013 at 7:32 pm
        Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church.

        Where is this rule in Scripture.

        It has no equal and all other rules, traditions or authorities are not equal to Scripture but subject to it.

        Sacred Tradition and Scripture are the Word of God.

        Only the Scripture is theopneustos i.e. God-breathed.

        Scripture says that holy men were moved by the Holy Spirit to speak His Word and then to write it. Holy men of God were God breathed. Tradition and Scripture were the result.

        • Bob says:

          The Scripture alone is the sole infallible rule of faith given that the Scripture alone is inspired-inerrant. It alone is inspired-inerrant because that is the nature of the Scripture. It alone is theopneustos i.e. God-breathed

          Please give me an example of a Sacred Tradition that is not in Scripture.

          Is there anything besides the Scripture that is theopneustos i.e. God-breathed? If so, what? Need some examples.

          • De Maria says:

            Bob says:
            March 1, 2013 at 9:21 pm
            The Scripture alone is the sole infallible rule of faith given that the Scripture alone is inspired-inerrant.

            Again, where is that in Scripture?

            It alone is inspired-inerrant because that is the nature of the Scripture. It alone is theopneustos i.e. God-breathed

            That is not what Scripture says. Scripture says that holy men of God were inspired to speak the Word of God and then to write it.

            And that is what we see in history.

            The Holy Spirit inspired Holy men of God first to teach the Word of God by word, without error.

            Then those same Holy men of God were inspired to write the Word of God without error.

            Therefore, the Teaching of the Church is inspired by God and contains no error. That is why Scripture says that the Church teaches the Wisdom of God (Eph 3:10).

            Please give me an example of a Sacred Tradition that is not in Scripture.

            There is no such thing. All Traditions of Jesus Christ are in Scripture either implied or explicit.

            Is there anything besides the Scripture that is theopneustos i.e. God-breathed?

            Scripture says that men are God breathed. Do you deny it?

            John 20:21-23
            King James Version (KJV)
            21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

            If so, what? Need some examples.

            Holy men of God were inspired to teach the Traditions of Jesus Christ by word. That is why the Teaching of the Church is called the Word of God (Heb 13:7). Because the Church continues to teach the same Gospel to this day.

  18. De Maria says:

    Bob, your faith in Sola Scriptura must be very weak. Otherwise, why are you putting yourself in a role of authority over Scripture? After all, if Scripture alone is sufficient for doctrine, your input is unnecessary? Isn’t that right?

    • Bob says:

      De Maria,
      Not sure I follow you. Sola Scriptura has to do with the nature of the Scripture and it being the ultimate authority over all men given that its the only source that is inspired-inerrant. It is up to those who teach Scripture are to do it correctly and not circumvent the Scripture to support doctrines that are not taught in Scripture.

      • De Maria says:

        De Maria,
        Not sure I follow you. Sola Scriptura has to do with the nature of the Scripture and it being the ultimate authority over all men given that its the only source that is inspired-inerrant.

        Then why do you need to explain it? Are you an authority over Scripture?

        It is up to those who teach Scripture are to do it correctly and not circumvent the Scripture to support doctrines that are not taught in Scripture.

        Who judges when one is teaching Scripture correctly? You?

        Who judges when one is circumventing Scripture to support doctrines that are not taught in Scripture? You?

        As for me, I believe you are committing that sin. You are circumventing Scripture to support doctrines which are not found in Scripture. That is my judgement. And I believe I have proven it. But, please answer my questions.

        • Bob says:

          No one is an authority over Scripture. All men are under its authority and are accountable to it.

          We all have the responsibility to understand the Scripture correctly. We are to hold our pastors and teachers accountable to teach the truth of the Scripture. To do that you must know the Scripture well and understand its doctrines. Only then will you be able to know if you are being taught the truth or not.

          Sadly RC’s don’t know Scripture well and do not hold its church accountable for teaching false doctrines.

          • De Maria says:

            Bob says:
            March 1, 2013 at 9:40 pm
            No one is an authority over Scripture. All men are under its authority and are accountable to it.

            All men are subject to God and His Word. The Church is the servant of the Word of God. But all men are subject to the Church which Jesus Christ placed here to Teach His Word (Matt 18:17; Matt 28:19-21).

            We all have the responsibility to understand the Scripture correctly. We are to hold our pastors and teachers accountable to teach the truth of the Scripture.

            Who is holding you accountable? We, the Catholic here, are subject to the Church. Who is holding you accountable for the errors you are teaching?

            To do that you must know the Scripture well and understand its doctrines.

            And you neither know Scripture nor understand its doctrines. So, either you consider yourself an authority over Scripture or an authority over us.

            I know you’re not my authority. So, you must think you are an authority over Scripture. Otherwise, why are you here spreading your errors?

            Only then will you be able to know if you are being taught the truth or not.

            We know that you are teaching error for three reasons.

            Your teachings contradict Scripture.
            Your teachings contradict Tradition.
            Your teachings contradict the interpretation of the Church Fathers throughout the centuries.

            Sadly RC’s don’t know Scripture well

            Even the least knowledgeable amongst the Catholics, understand Scripture better than you or any other Protestant. Because we know the Traditions of Christ which are the basis of the Scripture.

            and do not hold its church accountable for teaching false doctrines.

            You are teaching false doctrine. And you place yourself above everything and everyone. Including Scripture.

            You just teach whatever fanciful notion comes into your head without regard to whether it is right or wrong. But you will be judged. For you also will stand before the Just Judge. And if you don’t repent, your errors will come back to haunt you then.

            James 3:1
            My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.

            • Bob says:

              Remember: when it comes to interpreting the Scripture you are only giving me your private interpretation and not the official interpretation because your church has never interpreted the Scripture officially.
              Take for example your use of Eph 3:10. Your church has never interpreted that verse officially. So who holds you accountable to your interpretation of it given that its never been officially interpreted?

              Your church teaches doctrines that the apostles never taught. Doctrines such as indulgences, purgatory, the papacy and the Marian dogmas come to mind. No exegesis of any passages of Scripture will ever show these doctrines were taught by the apostles.

              What I have shown on this topic of the bishop that the rcc view on the bishop is incorrect. No one has been able to demonstrate that the bishop is to be single. What this shows is that it is your church that is contradicting Scripture.

              Where in Scripture does it say that ” all men are subject to the Church..”?

              • De Maria says:

                Bob says:
                March 1, 2013 at 10:13 pm
                Remember: when it comes to interpreting the Scripture you are only giving me your private interpretation and not the official interpretation because your church has never interpreted the Scripture officially.

                The New Testament is the official Teaching of the Church. It is the first book that the Church wrote which contains all the Teachings of Jesus Christ.

                You keep forgetting that Jesus did not write a Bible. He established a Church and commanded that Church to Teach His Commands.

                Take for example your use of Eph 3:10. Your church has never interpreted that verse officially.

                But it is consistent with the Teaching of the Church.

                So who holds you accountable to your interpretation of it given that its never been officially interpreted?

                The Church through the Priests and fellow Catholics who have reviewed my teachings. In twenty years, I have received nothing but encouragement from every Catholic corner (except on the occasion when I have made errors and I was quickly corrected.)

                Your church teaches doctrines that the apostles never taught.

                You teach doctrines which the Apostles never taught.

                Doctrines such as indulgences, purgatory, the papacy and the Marian dogmas come to mind.

                I’ve gone over everyone of those objections with you, from Scripture. And you had no intelligent response, except to repeat the charge as though by repeating it, we will suddenly believe it.

                No exegesis of any passages of Scripture will ever show these doctrines were taught by the apostles.

                Not to you. Because you believe nothing except what you want to believe. You hold nothing as authoritative, including Scripture. You, therefore, reject the Scriptures which teach those Doctrines.

                What I have shown on this topic of the bishop that the rcc view on the bishop is incorrect.

                What you have shown is that you don’t understand Scripture.

                No one has been able to demonstrate that the bishop is to be single.

                We have already shown you that many Bishops, starting with Christ, were single.

                What this shows is that it is your church that is contradicting Scripture.

                What this show is that you don’t understand the Word of God.

                Where in Scripture does it say that ” all men are subject to the Church..”?

                The Church is the house of God (1 Tim 3:15), which teaches the Wisdom of God even in the heavens (Eph 3:10) and which can make decisions which God approves (Matt 18:18) and anyone who disagrees with the Church is to be treated as a heathen (Matt 18:17). That is enough for us.

                Where does Scripture say that you can reject or deny the Teaching of the Church?

  19. Bob says:

    What “implicit” traditions did Christ give the church? Can you give me a couple of examples? I want to make sure I understand what these traditions are so I don’t misunderstand you.

    Can you exegete Eph 3:10? What did Paul mean by this in the context of chapter 3?

    • De Maria says:

      Bob says:
      March 1, 2013 at 9:16 pm
      What “implicit” traditions did Christ give the church?

      The Trinity for one.

      Can you give me a couple of examples?

      The dual nature of Christ for another. Is that enough? Or would you like more?

      I want to make sure I understand what these traditions are so I don’t misunderstand you.

      These are Traditions which are explained in Catholic Doctrine but are not found explicitly taught in the Bible.

      Can you exegete Eph 3:10? What did Paul mean by this in the context of chapter 3?

      Yes. Ephesians 3
      King James Version (KJV)
      1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
      2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: 3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

      St. Paul continues his discourse about the conversion of the Gentiles. And he mentions that he has been given the task of evangelizing the Gentiles and that is also why he has written to them.

      5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; 6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: 7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.

      But now it has been revealed to the Church (Apostles and prophets) by God that the Gentiles will be saved along with the Jews.

      8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: 10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

      And he has been given the task of teaching the Gentiles so that all men may be made members of the Church, which will continue to teach the Wisdom of God, even in the heavens.

      11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:

      According to the command of God, which is found in Matt 28:19-21. The Great Commission.

      What do yo think that it means?

      • Bob says:

        You wrote–“These are Traditions which are explained in Catholic Doctrine but are not found explicitly taught in the Bible.” If something is not explicitly taught in Scripture then its not apostolic nor scriptural. This is why I keep bringing up the various doctrines that your church teaches that were never taught by the apostles. If you keep this principle in mind and apply it to the teachings of your church you will see that I am right.

        • De Maria says:

          Bob says:
          March 1, 2013 at 10:45 pm
          You wrote–”These are Traditions which are explained in Catholic Doctrine but are not found explicitly taught in the Bible.” If something is not explicitly taught in Scripture then its not apostolic nor scriptural.

          You have admitted that Sola Scriptura is not explicitly taught in Scripture. Therefore, in that statement you have rejected your pillar of faith. In addition, none of the Protestant doctrines which contradict Catholic Teaching are found in Scripture explicitly taught. They are all derived by Protestant logic.

          You have also, in that statement, rejected the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, the dual nature of Christ, the Divinity of the Holy Spirit,

          This is why I keep bringing up the various doctrines that your church teaches that were never taught by the apostles.

          All Catholic Doctrines were taught by the Apostles.

          If you keep this principle in mind and apply it to the teachings of your church you will see that I am right.

          If you keep your principle in mind and apply it to Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, you will find that I am right. Neither of those are to be found explicitly in Scripture because they are utterly absent from Scripture.

          • Bob says:

            What are some examples of Protestants teaching ” which contradict Catholic Teaching are found in Scripture explicitly taught”?

            How does it follow that because I believe in Sola Scriptura that I reject the Trinity, the dual nature of Christ, the Divinity of the Holy Spirit?

            You claim-“All Catholic Doctrines were taught by the Apostles.” Where do we find the apostles teaching the treasury of merit, Mary’s immaculate conception and assumption and a celibate leadership? Where do they teach prayers to dead saints?

            • De Maria says:

              Bob says:
              March 2, 2013 at 11:20 am
              What are some examples of Protestants teaching ” which contradict Catholic Teaching are found in Scripture explicitly taught”?

              First, I said, “none of the Protestant teaching which contradicts Catholic Teaching is found in Scripture explicitly because they aren’t in Scripture at all.”

              Examples of these false doctrines are Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.

              How does it follow that because I believe in Sola Scriptura that I reject the Trinity, the dual nature of Christ, the Divinity of the Holy Spirit?

              You said, “If something is not explicitly taught in Scripture then its not apostolic nor scriptural.”

              None of those Doctrines are explicitly in Scripture.

              You claim-”All Catholic Doctrines were taught by the Apostles.” Where do we find the apostles teaching the treasury of merit, Mary’s immaculate conception and assumption and a celibate leadership?

              The Apostles taught us to follow Christ. Christ is a celibate leader.

              The Apostles taught that Mary was ever full of grace, “kecharitomene”, therefore Immaculately conceived.

              Jesus Christ taught the treasury of merit when He advised the young man to sell all he had and give it to the poor and thereby have treasure in heaven.

              Where do they teach prayers to dead saints?

              Luke 16:24
              And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, ….

              • Bob says:

                The Trinity is excitedly taught in Scripture. All 3 persons of the Trinity have explicit statements of deity. Christ dual nature is taught in Phil 2. The Holy Spirit is referred to as God in Acts 5:3-4.

                Full of grace, “kecharitomene” has nothing to do with being sinless or immaculately conceived. Look it up in a Greek NT lexicon.

                Treasury of merit is not supported in the least by Jesus telling the young man to sell everything. This is another example how you abuse to the Scripture.

                Luke 16:24 is about a parable and not about praying to the dead.

              • De Maria says:

                Bob says:
                March 3, 2013 at 1:09 am
                The Trinity is excitedly taught in Scripture.

                Please Bob, since you are making the claim, show me the chapter and verse which contain the words,
                Trinity: the union of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost in one Godhead.

                Or

                One God in three Divine Persons

                All 3 persons of the Trinity have explicit statements of deity.

                That sounds as though you have found three gods in Scripture.

                The fact is Bob, that the Catholic Church defined the Blessed Trinity for you and your ungrateful cult tries to take credit for this.

                The Blessed Trinity is suggested in Scripture, but not there explained directly.

                Christ dual nature is taught in Phil 2.

                But it is not there explicitly defined. Do you see the words “Jesus Christ is God and man“?

                The Holy Spirit is referred to as God in Acts 5:3-4.

                It is implied. But not taught directly.

                Full of grace, “kecharitomene” has nothing to do with being sinless or immaculately conceived. Look it up in a Greek NT lexicon.

                Is you lexicon above Scripture? I believe the Scripture. Your lexicon is made by men who are not members of Christ’s Church.

                Treasury of merit is not supported in the least by Jesus telling the young man to sell everything.

                It has far more support than Sola Scriptura which contradicts Scripture.

                It has far more support than Sola Fide, which also contradicts Scripture.

                This is another example how you abuse to the Scripture.

                Luke 16:24 is about a parable and not about praying to the dead.

                Father Abraham, have mercy! That’s an explicit prayer.

  20. Bob says:

    I have to admit this is one mind-numbing statement that you wrote in regards to my charge that RC do not know Scripture well: “Even the least knowledgeable amongst the Catholics, understand Scripture better than you or any other Protestant. Because we know the Traditions of Christ which are the basis of the Scripture.”

    I have been studying the Scripture for a long time. I have read-listened to the OT at least 50 times and the NT at 200 times. I have studied the history of the Bible and church history. So am I to believe that the least knowledgeable RC understands the Scripture better than I do? I know to many RC that this is not the case at all.

  21. De Maria says:

    Lol! Reading the letter of the word is not the same thing as knowing the meaning of Scripture. Knowing the chapter and verse is not the same thing as knowing the meaning of Scripture.

    The Key to understanding Scripture are the Traditions of Jesus Christ which are taught by the Catholic Church. They are the basis and substance of the Word of God in the New Testament. Catholics live according to those Traditions.

    You don’t understand and reject the Traditions of Jesus Christ which the Catholic Church teaches. In so doing, you reject the Word of God in Scripture as well.

    • Bob says:

      What specifically are the ” Traditions of Jesus Christ”? Where does your church list these Traditions?

      • De Maria says:

        I have found that Protestants always make false assumptions and then I have to correct them. So, therefore, you tell me and I’ll correct you.

        • Bob says:

          You used the phrase “Traditions of Jesus Christ” and I have never seen this phrase before. I want to understand what you mean by this. I do not want to misrepresent your church’s teachings.

          • De Maria says:

            The Traditions which Jesus Christ taught in His Gospel.

            • Bob says:

              Since the Traditions of Christ are His teachings found in the gospels where do we see Him teaching that His mother was conceived without sin and has never sinned?
              Where do we find Jesus praising her and her being without sin?

              • De Maria says:

                Bob says:
                March 3, 2013 at 12:26 pm
                Since the Traditions of Christ are His teachings found in the gospels where do we see Him teaching that His mother was conceived without sin and has never sinned?

                In the Gospel of St. Luke 1:28
                Luke 1:28
                Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
                28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

                Where do we find Jesus praising her and her being without sin?

                Jesus praised her in the very act of becoming her Son. And “kecharitomene” means she never sinned and no sin is ever mentioned of Mary in any Scripture.

  22. Bob says:

    De Maria,
    You wrote in regards to my claim that the Trinity is taught explicitly in Scripture with this response: “Please Bob, since you are making the claim, show me the chapter and verse which contain the words, Trinity: the union of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost in one Godhead.
    Or
    One God in three Divine Persons”

    You argue like a Jehovah Witnesses. This is the same kind of response I get from them. The Scriptures are clear that all members of the Trinity are referred to as God. The word “Trinity” is just a theological concept that is meant to show from Scripture that the Trinity is a biblical concept.

    In regards to the natures of Christ it does say explicitly that Jesus is God and man. We see it in Philippians 2:6-7—“ 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.” In these 2 verses we see the dual nature of Christ.

    In regards to New Testament Greek lexicons, your scholars would use them to understand the meanings of the words in the New Testament.
    Would you use an English dictionary if it was made by anti-catholic? Of course you would. Any tools such as commentaries, Bible dictionaries, Hebrew-Greek lexicons etc that helps one understand the Scripture should be used if you really want to get into the depths of Scripture. Sometimes they will expose errors in doctrine such as we see in the word “kecharitomene” which does not mean without sin or being immaculately conceived. Anyone who claims that it does is deceiving you.

    • De Maria says:

      De Maria,
      You wrote in regards to my claim that the Trinity is taught explicitly in Scripture with this response: “Please Bob, since you are making the claim, show me the chapter and verse which contain the words, Trinity: the union of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost in one Godhead.
      Or
      One God in three Divine Persons”

      I’m still waiting for that evidence.

      You argue like a Jehovah Witnesses. This is the same kind of response I get from them.

      So what? You’re talking to me now. I believe in the Blessed Trinity. But I’m not fool enough to insist that the Blessed Trinity is taught explicitly in Scripture.

      The fact is that the Catholic Church explicitly teaches in Sacred Tradtion that which is barely mentioned in Scripture. The fact is, that without the Catholic Church, you would not know about the Blessed Trinity.

      The Scriptures are clear that all members of the Trinity are referred to as God. The word “Trinity” is just a theological concept that is meant to show from Scripture that the Trinity is a biblical concept.

      If you claim all that is explicitly taught in Scripture, then you should be able to produce the chapter and verse.

      In regards to the natures of Christ it does say explicitly that Jesus is God and man. We see it in Philippians 2:6-7—“ 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.” In these 2 verses we see the dual nature of Christ.

      I don’t see an explicit statement. I see an implied teaching which the Catholic Church fleshed out for the benefit of all.

      In regards to New Testament Greek lexicons, your scholars would use them to understand the meanings of the words in the New Testament.

      On the contrary, our scholars speak Greek and don’t use lexicons the way you do. You think you understand a language by taking one word and looking in a specialized dictionary. But that is now how we understand the languages. We rely upon people who actually speak the language to tell us what the Biblical verse actually says.

      Would you use an English dictionary if it was made by anti-catholic?

      If I want to understand English, I use an English dictionary written by authorities in the language. The Oxford, Webster and such.

      Of course you would. Any tools such as commentaries, Bible dictionaries, Hebrew-Greek lexicons etc that helps one understand the Scripture should be used if you really want to get into the depths of Scripture.

      The problem with the common Protestant use of lexicons is that they have no idea how to speak the language. They go to the dictionary and look at the meanings and pick out one of the meanings without taking into account the tense being used or the tense being defined nor any other nuances of the language in the context of the words surrounding the word, nor in the context of the culture or time in history. And that describes precisely what you do.

      Sometimes they will expose errors in doctrine such as we see in the word “kecharitomene” which does not mean without sin or being immaculately conceived. Anyone who claims that it does is deceiving you.

      You are the one deceived and attempting to pass on the deception. You can’t see beyond the end of your nose, but we are not all blinded. You go on believing that you can understand the subtleties of foreign languages by the use of lexicons. We will continue getting advice from people who actually speak and understand the language.

      • Bob says:

        Can you show me from an official RC source such as a Greek lexicon or dictionary that says that “kecharitomene” means without sin and deals with the issue of conception?

        Can you refer me to RC source that deals with the Greek NT in terms of word meanings?

        • De Maria says:

          Bob says:
          March 3, 2013 at 1:04 pm
          Can you show me from an official RC source such as a Greek lexicon or dictionary that says that “kecharitomene” means without sin and deals with the issue of conception?

          Can you refer me to RC source that deals with the Greek NT in terms of word meanings?

          Aren’t you the same Bob with whom I’ve spoken about this matter about three or four times already? I’ve produced what you asked before only to have you say, “I don’t believe it.” “It isn’t true.” “He’s fooling you.”

          But, in case a fourth time will make a difference, here it is again:
          “Full of Grace” translates kecharit?m?n? the perfect passive participle of charit??. It denotes one who has been and still is the object of divine benevolence, one who has been favored and continues to be favored by God, one who has been granted supernatural grace and remains in this state.[1] Verbs ending in ??, such as haimat?? (turn into blood), thaumat?? (fill with wonder), spod??mai (burn to ashes) frequently express the full intensity of the action. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action.[2]

          Hence kecharit?m?n? has been suitably translated as “full of grace”, by the Vulgate and the Peshitto (The principal Syriac version of the Bible). This rendering expresses the conviction of the Church that the divine favor was fully bestowed on Mary, in the sense that she was ever immune from the lease stain of sin and that she abounded in graces of the supernatural life and in all the gifts and fruits of the Holy Spirit which flow from that life.
          http://kecharitomene.com

          • Bob says:

            Thank you for the definition of full of grace. When you look closely at the definition itself you will see it has nothing to do with sin or conception. It is a lie to make this term to mean she was without sin.

            • De Maria says:

              2 + 2 = 4

              Use your head. Where one is full of grace there is no room for sin.

              It is a lie to deny that this term is about immaculate sinlessness.

  23. Bob says:

    In regards to the Trinity being taught in Scripture do you doubt that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are called God in Scripture?

    • De Maria says:

      Bob says:
      March 3, 2013 at 1:06 pm
      In regards to the Trinity being taught in Scripture do you doubt that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are called God in Scripture?

      Is that three Gods or one, Bob? Your attempts to change the subject won’t work. The Trinity is not directly taught in Scripture. Without the Tradition of the Catholic Church unpacking the Doctrine for you, you would not have this Doctrine.

      • Bob says:

        The Jews believed only in one God and not more. They were monotheist i.e. the belief in the existence of one God.

        Where do you think the church got the idea of one God from? Scripture.

        Where did they get the idea of 3 person who share the same essence as God? The Scripture.

        The church is not the source of Scripture but God is. It is God Who revealed this via the Scripture.

        • De Maria says:

          I’m still waiting for that explicit teaching from Scripture.

          In the meantime, we both know that the teaching of the Blessed Trinity comes to us explicitly from Catholic Teaching. And is only implied in Scripture.

          Anyone saying different is being deceptive.

  24. Bob says:

    I wrote:
    “Where do we find Jesus praising her and her being without sin?”

    De Maria wrote:
    “Jesus praised her in the very act of becoming her Son. And “kecharitomene” means she never sinned and no sin is ever mentioned of Mary in any Scripture.”

    Where in Scripture did Jesus ” praise her in the very act of becoming her Son”?

    What Greek lexicon source on the NT says that “kecharitomene” means to be without sin?

    It is true that its never mentioned specifically that Mary sinned in Scripture. However its never mentioned that others such as Andrew, Philip or John sinned either. Should we assume they were all without sin to?

    • De Maria says:

      Bob says:
      March 3, 2013 at 1:24 pm
      I wrote:
      “Where do we find Jesus praising her and her being without sin?”

      De Maria wrote:
      “Jesus praised her in the very act of becoming her Son. And “kecharitomene” means she never sinned and no sin is ever mentioned of Mary in any Scripture.”

      Where in Scripture did Jesus ” praise her in the very act of becoming her Son”?

      2 + 2 = 4 Bob. You really ought to pick your brain back up from the Protestant door where you checked it in.

      Now, lets go through Scripture.

      Mary is the Mother of Jesus Christ.
      Jesus Christ is God.
      Do you deny any of that?

      I’ll assume you don’t. Now, since Jesus is Eternal God, he could have chosen any woman in time and in eternity which He wanted to be His Mother. He could have chosen Eve. Or Beyonce.

      But He didn’t. He chose Mary. God chose Mary and that is the highest praise tha any human being can ever receive. Do you deny it?

      What Greek lexicon source on the NT says that “kecharitomene” means to be without sin?

      Already answered.

      It is true that its never mentioned specifically that Mary sinned in Scripture. However its never mentioned that others such as Andrew, Philip or John sinned either. Should we assume they were all without sin to?

      Does Scripture call them “kecharitomene”?

  25. Jonathan Brumley says:

    Hi Bob,

    The point of all this is that the Bible does not teach sola scriptura.

    Rather, we are instructed “hold fast to” both the scripture and the oral Traditions passed down by the apostles. Unlike sola scriptura, this instruction is taught by Paul:

    2 Thess 2:15: “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or our letter.” (ESV)

    Tradition elaborates and explains what we find in scripture. And this is important, not just so that we know Luke’s meaning of “kecharitomene”, but also because scripture, by itself, is difficult to understand and easy to distort. (2 Peter 3:16) How do we know we’re not listening to a false interpretation? Follow the apostles and the bishops, who were trained and chosen by the apostles to shepherd the flock. For we can rest assured that these rightly-appointed leaders will never, as a collective, stray from the faith. Because scripture promises otherwise, that the Church is (and will always remain) the pillar and foundation of the Truth. 1 Timothy 3:15.

    Because it is the Church upon which we find the Truth, thus we are called to obey and submit to our rightfully ordained leaders, who watch over us and instruct us in the faith. Dissent is when we disagree with our leaders. Notice that Paul explicitly includes “dissensions” in his list of mortal sins in Galatians 5. Not just because he wants us to “get along”, but because he knew that no branch can survive if it is severed from the living trunk.

    Regarding Peter, we believe both he and his faith are the rock. His identification of the Messiah is the most important example of his faith. Scripture says that Christ is the cornerstone, the apostles are the “foundation stones” (Eph 2:20, Rev 21:14), and Peter is the Rock. But Peter has a unique, special role, among the apostles. He was given the keys to the kingdom, symbolizing his stewardship. Also, Jesus prayed that Peter’s faith (after he turned) “would not fail him”. That’s why Jesus, the good shepherd, singled out Peter, to “watch my sheep”. Jesus knew the importance of having an overseer to watch the sheep, so he left someone in charge. So Peter and the apostles passed on this stewardship to their successors, so that we would continue to have visible overseers as His representatives. Because of the special gift of faith which was passed on to Peter and his successors, the Church has always considered Peter the symbol of agreement and unity. From the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), up until today, any decision of any council of the Church has to have Peter’s agreement before it is considered a valid decision.

    • Bob says:

      Jonathan,
      What were the traditions that Paul refers to in 2 Thess 2:15? From where does he say these traditions come from?

  26. Bill Burns says:

    Bob, again, I need to ask you, are you here to shout down the opposition and win an argument, or are you here to try to lead others to what you believe to be the truth? That’s not a question anyone but you can answer.

    If you want to see the long tradition of the Catholic Church in regards to Mary’s perpetual virginity and sinlessness, you can start with the Catholic Answers’ tract on the phrase “full of grace,” which you will find here: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-full-of-grace

    It cites many extracanonical works and writings of early Church Fathers that reveal what the early Church believed about the blessed Mother. Keep in mind that many of these writings were produced at about the same time as scriptural texts. One they don’t mention is the Protoevangelion of James, the infancy gospel that tells the story of Mary’s conception, her betrothal to Joseph, their test by the Temple priests after she was found with child, and her in partu delivery of Jesus.

    As far as the meaning of the word ????????????, Strong’s Concordance indicates that ??????, charitoo, means “to grace” or “to be highly favored” (5487). Logos indicates that ???????????? is the past perfect form. It derives from ?????, which is “grace.” It seems that some concordances only indicate “highly favored one.” Given that the term ????? quite clearly is the word used by Paul in the introduction to his letters and translated almost everywhere as “grace,” it’s rather surprising that any concordance or lexicon would ignore this translation of ????????????. Here’s this from Louw Nida 88.66 88.66:

    “???????; ?????a, ???? f: to show kindness to someone, with the implication of graciousness on the part of the one showing such kindness—‘to show kindness, to manifest graciousness toward, kindness, graciousness, grace.’ ???????: ????????????, ? ?????? ???? ??? ‘the Lord is with you, you to whom (the Lord) has shown kindness[.]’”

    So we believe that Mary was given grace to preserve her from sin so that she would be a fitting vessel for the Son of God. That’s what Mary’s sinlessness was about. It had nothing to do with her own merit but with God’s grace working in her. He saved us after we fell in the hole of sin, but He saved her from falling into it at all.

    As far as the explicit presence of the Trinity in scripture, surely you must be joking. Whether people referred to any three of the Persons as God is beside the point. Just take a look at how many times in scripture the Angel of the Lord is also called God.
    What we’re talking about is precisely what they meant by the word God in reference to Jesus and the Holy Spirit, which was clearly not obvious from scripture as the Trinitarian and Christological controversies of the first four centuries attest. You are aware of the adoptionists, the modalists, and the Arians, yes? There were numerous ecumenical and regional councils convened to answer the question of Jesus’ relationship to the Father and what it meant as well as the nature of the Holy Spirit. Of course, the tradition had always said that He’s God, but scripture was not perspicuous enough to convince Arius, the Ebionites (and many other Jewish Christians), Apollonaris, the Sabellians, the Pneumatomachians, the Patripassians, and so on. The canon of scripture wasn’t even really settled until the 5th century. It was Sacred Tradition along with Sacred Scripture and interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church in service to them both that preserved the truth about Christ and the Trinity. Knock one of the legs off of that three-legged stool, and one would wind up on his heretical derriere. It was the authority of the bishops in union with Rome that brought back the Christian church (by then, long called Catholic because it was universal) from the abyss of Arianism. It’s estimated that nearly 90 percent of Christianity had bought into that heresy, which prompted St. Jerome to write, “the whole world groaned and marvelled to find itself Arian.” Only the Church guided by the Holy Spirit prevented the remaining 10% from folding.

    You may very well know the words of scripture (at least your prefered translation of it), but you apparently know little about the early Church. If you are aware of the writings of the Church Fathers, you must be using them very selectively, because these controversies were rampant, and the Fathers proved themselves to be wholly Catholic. Heck, it’s even obvious that the majority of them accepted the Septuagint as canonical (with a minority dissenting). It’s not in the least surprising given that Koine Greek was the common language of the Jewish diaspora. Most of them couldn’t speak Hebrew much less read it.

    If you want to debate these questions, maybe you should be informing us of where you get your interpretation, these 1900 years after the Fathers, who were closer to the time, spent more time on the original texts in the original languages, and largely agreed with each other. The Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth, as Paul wrote, and through it we get the canon of scripture—not from scripture itself. Augustine himself accepted scripture based on the judgment of the Church. Unless you’re truly claiming that the gates of Hell prevailed against the Church almost immediately, you really don’t have much of a case here. You can make claims about how the Holy Spirit protected the canon from error, and you won’t get an argument from us. What we will argue is how the Holy Spirit accomplished this end. He did it exactly as Jesus said He would, by guiding the Church in the truth (John 16:13).

    • Bob says:

      Bob,
      Do the Scripture identify and call the Father God, the Son God and the Holy Spirit God? It’s from these answers that we will be able to determine if the Trinity is taught in the Scripture or not.

      You wrote in regards to Mary being sinless- “So we believe that Mary was given grace to preserve her from sin so that she would be a fitting vessel for the Son of God. That’s what Mary’s sinlessness was about. It had nothing to do with her own merit but with God’s grace working in her. He saved us after we fell in the hole of sin, but He saved her from falling into it at all.”

      You are doing what so many RC’s do and you read into the texts of Scripture your doctrines. No one in Scripture even alludes that Mary was sinless or that she was “saved her from falling into it (hole) at all.” There is not one shred of evidence for this in Scripture. In fact what it does is to deny and make other Scriptures lies where it says all men born of 2 fallen human beings are sinners. See Romans 3:9, 22; 5:12, 18-19

    • De Maria says:

      Its obvious to me that Bob is here trying to shove his beliefs down our throats.

      He keeps repeating the same objections. And when we respond, he dismisses our responses with what amounts to a wave of the hand. And he repeats his baseless charges and on and on.

      Does anyone see anything different? How about you, Martin? You and he see eye to eye on some things. Do you think he is discussing the faith in good faith?

      • Bob says:

        I don’t dismiss your objections with the wave of a hand but by facts and the lack of evidence for your beliefs.

        • De Maria says:

          Bob says:
          March 3, 2013 at 6:27 pm
          I don’t dismiss your objections with the wave of a hand but by facts and the lack of evidence for your beliefs.

          1. Your silence is an admission that you are trying to shove your beliefs down our throats.

          2. You have yet to produce any facts which support your objections. All you’ve produced is unsupported opinions. And any facts we produce which annihilate your claims, you dismiss with a word.

  27. Bill Burns says:

    Sorry, forgot that Word Press hates Greek text. The missing words are for kacharitomene, charis, and charitoo in various forms.

  28. Bob says:

    De Maria,
    You said that “Jesus praised her in the very act of becoming her Son. ” Where in Scripture is this said? Where did the Lord Jesus Himself praise Mary for this or anything?
    When He has a chance to praise her, He does not. See Luke 11:27-28 for example.

    We both know that the meaning of “kecharitomene” says nothing about being sinless. For anyone to claim that it does means that person is being deceptive.

    • De Maria says:

      De Maria,
      You said that “Jesus praised her in the very act of becoming her Son. ” Where in Scripture is this said? Where did the Lord Jesus Himself praise Mary for this or anything?
      When He has a chance to praise her, He does not. See Luke 11:27-28 for example.

      Bob, Luke 11:27-28 explains why God chose Mary to be Jesus’ mother:
      28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

      Mary kept the word of God more perfectly than any other human being.

      We both know that the meaning of “kecharitomene” says nothing about being sinless. For anyone to claim that it does means that person is being deceptive.

      We both know that Mary is without sin and that “kecharitomene” means that she is “ever full of grace.” Anyone claiming different is lying.

  29. Bill Burns says:

    Bob, you are accusing us of lying, but that is precisely what the early Church believed. We trust the Church, and it has declared since the first century that this is the case. You can deny it, but if you simply go read the tract I linked, you’ll see that it is the case. If you want to deny history, that’s your business, but don’t expect us to give you much of a hearing.

    Concerning 2 Thessalonians 2:14, note that Paul said “hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. The traditions include the liturgy itself (liturgy of the Word and Eucharist, described in Paul’s own letters, but also in the Didache from 70AD and by Justin Martyr in the late second century), the homilies they gave, the prayers they used, the hymns they sang, the practices they followed. They prayed their faith and lived their faith, and that is what was passed down in Sacred Tradition (which is where we get the phrase lex orandi, lex credendi).

  30. Bob says:

    Bill,
    Your church is decieving you about Mary. We know this by looking and studying what the NT says about Mary and it does not claim what your church teaches.
    In the first century where did the churches after the apostles died teach that Mary was without sin and was to be prayed to?

    The traditions that Paul is referring to are his own and not about some other teachings that would come later. We know clearly what Paul taught via his letters and none of them teach the Marian dogmas, indulgences, the papacy etc.

  31. Bill Burns says:

    For someone to be full of grace means to be in the state of sanctifying grace, which means to be without sin. Again, you still haven’t bothered to read how tradition and the early Church defined it. You continue to project back onto history your own interpretation, which means you are making your own gospel, your own “truth.” This is the problem with sola scriptura. It doesn’t eliminate a Pope or a Magisterium. It creates a pope in every person who carries a bible. You’ll simply go on creating gods in your own image, because that is the result of having no authority outside of individual interpretation.

    Again, you aren’t convincing anyone here.

    • Bob says:

      Bill,
      We must first go to the scripture to see if it teaches that Mary was without sin or not. The reason we must do so is because all that we know of her is found in the scripture alone. Any other writings about her are not apostolic but apocryphal and not to trusted.
      This is why a Greek New Testament lexicon is so valuable. It helps us to understand what words mean in their original context. It also helps to protect from error and deception. Just look up the word in a lexicon and you will find it has nothing to do with sin or being sinless. If your church was teaching the truth about this then the definition would say it means to be sinless. The truth is that it does not.

      • De Maria says:

        Bob says:
        March 3, 2013 at 9:58 pm
        Bill,
        We must first go to the scripture to see if it teaches that Mary was without sin or not.

        On the contrary, Scripture says we must first go to the Church:
        Ephesians 3:10
        King James Version (KJV)
        10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

        In fact, Scripture is only a secondary resource to assist in teaching:
        2 Timothy 3:16
        King James Version (KJV)
        16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

        The reason we must do so is because all that we know of her is found in the scripture alone.

        All we know of her is from the Word of God in Sacred Tradition, Scripture and the Magisterial Teaching of the Church. Anyone who says different is a liar.

        Any other writings about her are not apostolic but apocryphal and not to trusted.

        Unlike you, the Church follows the Teaching of the Word of God which says:

        1 Thessalonians 5:21
        Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

        Your paranoid teaching is a doctrine of men which contradicts the Word of God.

        This is why a Greek New Testament lexicon is so valuable.

        It is valuable in the right hands. But in your hands, the proverb is proven true, “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”

        It helps us to understand what words mean in their original context.

        On the contrary, you take the word out of its true context when you remove it from the Scripture and without any understanding, apply to it a certain definition at random.

        It also helps to protect from error and deception.

        The Church is here to help us sort out the error and deception of the sort which you are trying to force down our throats.

        Just look up the word in a lexicon and you will find it has nothing to do with sin or being sinless.

        We have Greek experts who actually know how to speak the language and know what the word means precisely in the context it is being used.

        If your church was teaching the truth about this then the definition would say it means to be sinless. The truth is that it does not.

        We know that the Church is teaching the truth and always teaches the truth because we believe Scripture:
        1 Timothy 3:15
        King James Version (KJV)
        15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

        We also know that grace is the opposite of sin and that anyone who is always full of grace by definition is not tainted by sin. And anyone who says different, is being deceptive.

        • Bob says:

          De Maria,
          I wrote–
          “Just look up the word in a lexicon and you will find it has nothing to do with sin or being sinless.”

          You wrote:
          “We have Greek experts who actually know how to speak the language and know what the word means precisely in the context it is being used.”

          Can you give me the names of these Greek experts who speak Greek and say that ““kecharitomene” means without sin?

          • De Maria says:

            To what end Bob? You aren’t paying attention to anything we say, anyway.

            Kecharitomene means “always full of grace”. And where one is full of grace, there is no room for sin.

            2 + 2 = ?

            If you want the names, just follow the link that I gave in my response dated:

            March 3, 2013 at 3:52 pm

  32. De Maria says:

    Bob says:
    March 3, 2013 at 6:25 pm
    Bill,
    Your church is decieving you about Mary.

    On the contrary, the Protestants have deceived you and you are trying to pass on the deception.

    We know this by looking and studying what the NT says about Mary and it does not claim what your church teaches.

    Everything the Catholic Church teaches is taught in the New Testament.

    In the first century where did the churches after the apostles died teach that Mary was without sin

    Justin Martyr
    [Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course that was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied, “Be it done unto me according to your word” (Luke 1:38) (Dialogue with Trypho 100 [A.D. 155]).

    Irenaeus
    Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, “Behold, 0 Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.” Eve . . . who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband — for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children . . . having become disobedient [sin], was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient [no sin], was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

    Origen

    This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Homily 1 [A.D. 244]).

    and was to be prayed to?

    Not only Mary, but all the saints.

    Asking those who have gone before us for their prayers is an ancient practice. Examples can be found in the catacombs as well as the writings of the Early Fathers. This is a part of the doctrine of the communion of saints. The saints in heaven are not worshipped or thought to have any power in and of themselves. They are merely asked to pray for and with us. We believe they can do this in part because of what we read Scripture. We know that those in heaven care for us (Luke 15:7). We also know that they present our prayers to Jesus (Revelation 5:8). Finally we see that they add their own prayers to ours (Revelation 8:3-4).
    Origen

    But not the high priest [Christ] alone prays for those who pray sincerely, but also the angels… as also the souls of the saints who have already fallen asleep (On Prayer II [A.D. 233]).

    Pectorius

    Aschandius, my father, dearly beloved of my heart, with my sweet mother and my brethren, remember your Pectorius in the peace of the Fish [Christ] (Epitaph [A.D. 250]).

    Cyprian

    Let us remember one another in concord and unanimity. Let us on both sides always pray for one another. Let us relieve burdens and afflictions by mutual love, that if one of us, by the swiftness of divine condescension, shall go hence the first, our love may continue in the presence of the Lord, and our prayers for our brethren and sisters not cease in the presence of the Father’s mercy (Letters 56[60]:5 [A.D. 252]).
    http://www.staycatholic.com

    The traditions that Paul is referring to are his own and not about some other teachings that would come later.

    Sooo? St. Paul was not teaching about Christ?

    We know clearly what Paul taught via his letters and none of them teach the Marian dogmas, indulgences, the papacy etc.

    1. But unless you are claiming that St. Paul was unaware of the Gospel, all those Doctrines are included in the rest of the New Testament. And St. Paul does not make any reference against them.

    2. Besides, it wouldn’t matter if he had made a reference, because he clearly teaches the Doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, but you reject that.

  33. Bob says:

    De Maria,
    You wrote–“Everything the Catholic Church teaches is taught in the New Testament.” This statement is false. Celibate leadership, an infallible papacy, prayers to Mary are not even hinted at in the NT.

    I checked the quote you gave on Irenaeus and something is not right. In your quote it says “for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children . . . having become disobedient [sin], was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient [no sin], was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . .

    Compare the same quote from http://loveundefiled.blogspot.com/2011/12/st-irenaeus-against-heresies.html
    “for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children, and it was necessary that they first come to maturity before beginning to multiply—having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . .”

    This second quote does not have the words “sin- no sin” in brackets like your quote does. It looks like someone added the words “sin and no sin” to what Irenaeus originally wrote. If so, then your first quote on Irenaeus is wrong.

    Justin Martyr’s quote does not claim she was sinless either.

    “For the Lord Jesus alone of those who are born of woman is holy,
    inasmuch as He experienced not the contact of earthly corruption, by
    reason of the novelty of His immaculate birth; nay, He repelled it by
    His heavenly majesty.” (cited in Augustine, On the Grace of Christ, and
    on Original Sin, 2:47)

    • De Maria says:

      Bob says:
      March 3, 2013 at 10:42 pm
      De Maria,
      You wrote–”Everything the Catholic Church teaches is taught in the New Testament.” This statement is false. Celibate leadership, an infallible papacy, prayers to Mary are not even hinted at in the NT…..

      We’ve been through these objections before. Catholic doctrine is in the New Testament, either implied or explicit.

      But Protestant doctrines such as Sola Scriptura are not. Sola Scriptura contradicts Scripture.

      So does Sola Fide.

      Absolute assurance of salvation also.

      And the free use of contraception is also forbidden in Scripture.

      Homosexual clergy, female clergy, adultery in every form including divorce and remarriage, and every other Protestant doctrine which contradicts Catholic Teaching also contradicts the Scriptures because the Catholic Church wrote the NT and canonized the OT to create the Bible.

      By the way, the Protestants have added words to Scripture and taken 7 books out.

      Bob, you are caught up in a religion of men. A religion that has wreaked havoc on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

      It is quite ironic, that a person who rails against the Papacy as you do, should in turn try to assert authority over everyone who believes in the Papacy. Why is that? Are you jealous of the Pope?

      The Papacy was established by Jesus Christ and our first Pope was St. Peter. And the Papacy continues to this day. And you are not the Pope.

      You’re just another misled Protestant trying to force your doctrines down other peoples’ throats.

      • Bob says:

        When you claim something is either explicit or implicit then you are also claiming that the bible can be said to teach anything. It’s implicit that Muhammad was predicted as the advocate in John. It’s implicit that there would be no true church until God revealed to Joseph Smith what the true church was to be.

        The fact is that not all dc doctrines are not grounded in Scripture.

        • De Maria says:

          Protestant doctrines such as Sola Scriptura are not in the Bible. Sola Scriptura contradicts Scripture.

          So does Sola Fide.

          Absolute assurance of salvation also.

          And the free use of contraception is also forbidden in Scripture.

          Homosexual clergy, female clergy, adultery in every form including divorce and remarriage, and every other Protestant doctrine which contradicts Catholic Teaching also contradicts the Scriptures because the Catholic Church wrote the NT and canonized the OT to create the Bible.

          By the way, the Protestants have added words to Scripture and taken 7 books out.

          Bob, you are caught up in a religion of men. A religion that has wreaked havoc on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

          It is quite ironic, that a person who rails against the Papacy as you do, should in turn try to assert authority over everyone who believes in the Papacy. Why is that? Are you jealous of the Pope?

          The Papacy was established by Jesus Christ and our first Pope was St. Peter. And the Papacy continues to this day. And you are not the Pope.

          • Bob says:

            De Maria,
            So you believe that the power of Christ is incapable keeping a person saved forever? Are you familiar with the doctrine of election?

            What verse says “the free use of contraception is also forbidden in Scripture”?

            Found this quote on RC divorces -“The Barna Research Group estimates that 25 percent of Catholics who have been married have been divorced..”http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6150

            Was the OT recognized as Scripture before the RCC came into being?

            • De Maria says:

              Bob says:
              March 5, 2013 at 9:37 pm
              De Maria,
              So you believe that the power of Christ is incapable keeping a person saved forever?

              I believe Scripture which says:
              2 Peter 2:21-22
              King James Version (KJV)
              21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. 22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

              Are you familiar with the doctrine of election?

              Yes, Scripture is clear:
              2 Peter 1:10
              Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

              What verse says “the free use of contraception is also forbidden in Scripture”?

              Genesis 38:8-10
              King James Version (KJV)
              8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother’s wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. 9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. 10 And the thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also.

              Found this quote on RC divorces -”The Barna Research Group estimates that 25 percent of Catholics who have been married have been divorced..”http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6150

              Any Catholics who are divorced are doing it in spite of Catholic Teaching. Not because of it.

              Whereas Protestants are divorcing and remarrying with the consent of their religious leaders. And thus committing adultery with the consent of their religious leaders.

              Was the OT recognized as Scripture before the RCC came into being?

              Yes. But the OT was not canonized until the Catholic Church did it. Just as there are many apocryphal New Testament books, there are also many apocryphal Old Testament books. The Catholic Church decided which OT and NT books were to be included in the Bible. Then Protestants came along and cast out 7 of those books.

  34. De Maria says:

    Bob says:
    March 4, 2013 at 9:06 pm
    When you claim something is either explicit or implicit then you are also claiming that the bible can be said to teach anything.

    Not true. The Catholic System for the understanding of the Word of God is so brilliant it could only have been developed by the Wisdom of God.

    You see, the Catholic System recognizes the fact that Jesus Christ did not reveal the Word of God in writing. He revealed the Word of God in speech and action.

    One of the words He revealed was the establishing of ONE Church. And it is this Church which He commanded to pass down His Teachings (Matt 28:19-20). And she passes down these Teachings to this day, in word and action.

    The Church then wrote the Scriptures based upon His Teachings. And she continues to pass down the proper understanding of these Scriptures to this day.

    Tradition and Scripture are one Word of God. Scripture is the product of Tradition and Tradition is the meaning of Scripture.

    Therefore, when the Protestants rejected the Traditions, they rejected the line which keeps the understanding of Scripture tied to Jesus Christ.

    It’s implicit that Muhammad was predicted as the advocate in John.

    For you, because you’re Protestant and you have no line connecting you to Christ. But Tradition has no mention of Muhammad. That is why Catholics have no problem refuting any Muslim claims about the Bible. Because their claims have never been found in either Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture or Magisterial Teaching.

    It’s implicit that there would be no true church until God revealed to Joseph Smith what the true church was to be.

    For you because you’re a Protestant and have no line connecting you to Christ. But Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and Magisterial Teaching are adamant that there is one True and infallible Church established by Jesus Christ. And that Jesus Christ said this Church would never fall. And this Church is the Catholic Church.

    So, you can believe the foolishness taught by any or all Protestant sects and traditions of men. But we are tied directly to Christ by His own Sacred Traditions which the Church has passed down through the centuries, to this very day.

    • Bob says:

      It is true that if you depend on something being implicit then anyone can say the Bible complicatedly endorses Muhammad as the advocate. We see this with what your church has done to Mary by making her out to be some kind of goddess who never sinned and from whom all grace comes. This is the fruit of your implicit arguments.

      In regards to Sacred Tradition I came across this that I had never seen before:
      “Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, in his book Spirit of the Liturgy, explains briefly this traditional form of worship:

      “In the early Church, prayer toward the east was regarded as an apostolic tradition. …[I]t is certain that it goes back to the earliest times and was always regarded as an essential characteristic of Christian liturgy (and indeed private prayer)….”

      Does the RCC still practice this considering its claimed to be an apostolic tradition?

      • De Maria says:

        Bob says:
        March 4, 2013 at 10:18 pm
        It is true that if you depend on something being implicit then anyone can say the Bible complicatedly endorses Muhammad as the advocate.

        If you believe that the Bible teaches that Muhammad is the advocate, then provide the chapter and verse.

        As for me, I follow the Teaching of the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church does not teach anything about Muhammad in Sacred Tradition, Scripture or Magisterium.

        We see this with what your church has done to Mary by making her out to be some kind of goddess who never sinned and from whom all grace comes. This is the fruit of your implicit arguments.

        On the contrary, the Catholic Church does not teach that Mary is a goddess. Scripture does not say that Mary sinned. And Scripture says that Jesus Christ, the source of all grace, was born of her. Therefore, all grace comes through Mary.

        In regards to Sacred Tradition I came across this that I had never seen before:
        “Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, in his book Spirit of the Liturgy, explains briefly this traditional form of worship:

        “In the early Church, prayer toward the east was regarded as an apostolic tradition. …[I]t is certain that it goes back to the earliest times and was always regarded as an essential characteristic of Christian liturgy (and indeed private prayer)….”

        Does the RCC still practice this considering its claimed to be an apostolic tradition?

        It is from Scripture:
        Ezekiel 43:2
        And, behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the east: and his voice was like a noise of many waters: and the earth shined with his glory.

        Matthew 24:27
        King James Version (KJV)
        27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

        The Son of man, the Glory of God, Jesus Christ, is coming from the east. And we are awaiting Him in joyful hope. All Catholic Churches are designed so that we face the east when we pray. Therefore, we face the east when we pray the Mass.