Anglicans and Catholic Church [article]

Jakkass wrote: »

I'll use a couple. I'm not limited.

The first being that the Scriptures contain all things that are profitable for teaching, reproof, correction and teaching in righteousness:


What does righteousness come from?


How are we saved? -


Through the grace of Jesus Christ! We aren't saved by any works of our own, we aren't saved by tradition, we aren't saved by any of these things. However, by accepting and understanding the Gospel, we gain life itself.



I accept the word catholic in it's original context meaning universal. I do not accept the word "Catholic" as a means of distinguishing one set of Christians as being profoundly more orthodox than the other. It reminds me of Paul's assessment of the church at Corinth:


Personally I am fed up of the denominational tit for tats that go on in the church. We should be far more interested in encouraging belief in Jesus Christ than meaningless point-scoring between denominational groups.



Your point makes no sense.

All your point amounts to is that universalism always existed. Yes, the Christian Church existed from the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and the roots were there beforehand. However, we have no evidence that the Roman Catholic Church always existed. That is the issue, not the issue that Christianity existed as a concept.

I believe Jesus has authority over me, not any Pope.

I havnt any money left for internt so I'm in a cafe, I'll make this quick.

you say Jesus is your only authority of course he is, and every kingdom needs a prime minister, thats who papa is. your problem is that you cant get one early church father prior to the reformation that agrees with you that the Pope is the authority on earth.

as for your qoute from scripture.

2 Tim. 3:14 - Protestants usually use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God's word. But examining these texts disproves their claim. Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before the Protestants' often quoted verse 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures, and Protestants generally ignore this fact.


2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul's teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.


2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is "profitable" for every good work, but not exclusive. The word "profitable" is "ophelimos" in Greek. "Ophelimos" only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.


2 Tim. 3:16 - further, the verse "all Scripture" uses the words "pasa graphe" which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of "pasa graphe" would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use "sola Matthew," or "sola Mark," but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word. This, of course, is not true and even Protestants would agree. Also, "pasa graphe" cannot mean "all of Scripture" because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.


2 Tim. 3:16 - also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.


2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul's reference to the "man of God" who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although Protestants use it to prove their case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.


2 Tim. 3:17 - further, Paul's use of the word "complete" for every good work is "artios" which simply means the clergy is "suitable" or "fit." Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.
James 1:4 - steadfastness also makes a man "perfect (teleioi) and complete (holoklepoi), lacking nothing." This verse is important because "teleioi"and "holoklepoi" are much stronger words than "artios," but Protestants do not argue that steadfastness is all one needs to be a Christian.


Titus 3:8 - good deeds are also "profitable" to men. For Protestants especially, profitable cannot mean "exclusive" here.


2 Tim 2:21- purity is also profitable for "any good work" ("pan ergon agathon"). This wording is the same as 2 Tim. 3:17, which shows that the Scriptures are not exclusive, and that other things (good deeds and purity) are also profitable to men.
Col. 4:12 - prayer also makes men "fully assured." No where does Scripture say the Christian faith is based solely on a book.


2 Tim. 3:16-17 - Finally, if these verses really mean that Paul was teaching sola Scriptura to the early Church, then why in 1 Thess. 2:13 does Paul teach that he is giving Revelation from God orally? Either Paul is contradicting his own teaching on sola Scriptura, or Paul was not teaching sola Scriptura in 2 Tim. 3:16-17. This is a critical point which Protestants cannot reconcile with their sola Scriptura position.



you can read more on this jakkass and ask John Salza, Catholic apologist any questions you wish, if you are really sure of yourself and open to the truth then you'll give him a bell and ask him. he is a nice man and I now and again mail him too.


I dont have the time for big debates as my financial situation has forced me off the computer ( maybe thats a good thing ).


I love you and you shall be in my prayers.
I ask for yours also.
God bless and take care
Stephen.