H
Hisalone
Guest
It appears you cant back up your claim.
- Status
E
estesbob
Guest
It’s not very difficult to determine what the one true Church is as only one Church has been around since Christ rose from the dead. A Church, by the way, that has had consistent teaching for 2000 years as opposed to an individual coming up with a new revelation and running off to found their own Church- which happens several times a week among Protestants.
You simply cannot explain how if the spirit will lead those who study scripture to the truth why so many comes up with different versions of it.
E
estesbob
Guest
No-I explained why your example didn’t prove your point. Surely if the Catholic Church is guilty of changing Scripture you can give us examples.
And if you have a problem with the Church supposedly changing Scripture why do you not have a problem with your Bible having less books that were contained in Scripture for the first 1100 years of its existence.?
I will give you one thing, at least you’re honest and acknowledge that Scripture was codified and passed down through the ages by the Catholic Church. You’d be surprised how many of our separated brethren deny that.
E
estesbob
Guest
Which he gave to his Church.
C
ckempston
Guest
I readily admit that differences among those who call themselves Christians is a problem. I don’t have a solution, and I don’t agree with the Catholic one, so there’s not much I can do. When it comes down to it, I just trust in God to sort it all out.
C
cazayoux
Guest
With the scripture you quote in mind, what do you make of the following?
Salut!
michel
E
estesbob
Guest
He did. He left his Church to teach the truth so that each succeeding generation wouldn’t have to figure it out for themselves.
C
ckempston
Guest
Estebob, you are making a lot of assumptions. One of my Bibles is a Catholic Bible, because I find the so-called Apocrypha to be quite useful. You’ll find me to be very catholic in a lot of my positions, but I stop short of returning to the Catholic church for various reasons.
I’m not sure I agree that you explained why my example didn’t prove my point. To recap, the challenge was to name a time the Catholic church changed the Bible. I provided the Johannine comma. Is this, or is it not, an example of the Catholic church changing the Bible? Let’s leave aside what Protestants do for a moment, because I can hardly be considered one. I’m somewhat of a heretic of heretics.
I’m not surprised that many “Protestants” are ignorant of church history. If they studied it more, they would likely be embarrassed by their spiritual founders, and would probably, like me, find themselves uncomfortably agreeing with Rome on a lot of things.
C
ckempston
Guest
Jesus sent his Apostles as God sent him.
That’s about all I make of it. Are you making a connection with passing on authority here? I can see that, it’s pretty self-evident, but that’s a long leap to Apostolic Succession leading to the current Roman Catholic church.
C
cazayoux
Guest
1 - God sent Jesus with all authority on heaven and earthJesus sent his Apostles as God sent him.
That’s about all I make of it. Are you making a connection with passing on authority here? I can see that, it’s pretty self-evident, but that’s a long leap to Apostolic Succession leading to the current Roman Catholic church.
2 - Jesus sent the apostles as God sent Him
… not a leap at all for the next part
3 - The apostles held an office (bishopric). The office remained even if the apostle was gone. Acts 1 shows this since Judas position (bishopric) was filled.
4 - The apostles ordained others to teach.
Salut!
michel
C
ckempston
Guest
I follow somewhat, but I have an objection with Judas. His replacement was a result of prophecy fulfillment as stated by Luke. This would have been a perfect opportunity for God to clear up any misconceptions about his intentions for Apostolic Succession, but he didn’t. He could have said: “We have maintain this office in the Church forever, so let another take his place.” Unfortunately, that’s not what he said.
C
Chris258
Guest
Very interesting.
My apologies if I misrepresented your position on spiritual authority.
C
ckempston
Guest
Not a problem. It’s not always easy to get my position across since I am somewhat atypical for a non-catholic. I admit that I have a dilemma:
Personal Interpretation or Submission to Apostolic Authority
Personal interpretation has problems that I readily admit, and Catholics seem to be well aware of. Since the only other choice seems to be submission to Apostolic Authority, that would seem to be the logical choice. However, as I’ve pointed out, I have a hard time reconciling some of the things said Apostolic Authority has said and done through the ages with the belief that the Bible is God’s Word.
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
Therein lies the real dilemma, Ck.
How do we know whether the authority asserted is truly Apostolic? If it is submission to the writing of the actual apostles…the “Word made more sure.” An authority which equates itself to their teachings and claims to determine what those teachings actually are has no way to verify its teachings as apostolic other than a claim to authority which already presupposes that it is apostolic.
C
cazayoux
Guest
Again … the authority that the Church claims is only with respect to teachings on faith and morals.
Men are not impeccable.
It is sad, but true, that there have been those that have **said **things that were incorrect, but they weren’t regarding faith and morals.
It is sad, but true, that there have been those that have **done **things
that were not in line with Catholic teachings.
This does not invalidate the Church’s authority to teach the deposit of faith left by the Apostle’s which come from Jesus himself.
michel
C
Chris258
Guest
Would you say it’s possible that, looking at the Bible simply as a historical document in addition to extra-biblical documents that corroborate his claim to be the divine Himself, that this figure Jesus did intend to establish a visible authority on Earth that was dependable (i.e. by Jesus’ word, we know that this authority teaches without error in His name)?
If he did not intend to do so, then we have another dilemma to add. It seems if that is the case, we have no other alternative than to teach to the emerging generations only our interpretations of what he said.
And as you say, if there is a teaching Authority he entrusted to his Apostles, then how shall we identify it? What other ways besides a Succession of Apostles would there be to objectively identify it?
What do you think?
:hypno:
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
He did leave us with a visible authority in the form of the Church. However, due to the direct revelatory nature of the ministry of the Apostles which has now ceased, the Church is not on the same level of authority. The authority it possesses is derivative in nature and must be in submission to the authority that God revealed in the Sacred Scriptures. As long as the Church is using its authority in submission to the Sacred writings and not placing itself either in contradiction to them or on the same plane of inspiration…then the Church is truly practicing apostolic authority.
If the teaching that it proclaims is in harmony with the teachings of the apostles (the Gospel purely preached and the Sacraments rightly administered) then you can objectively identify it.What do you think?
C
cazayoux
Guest
Don’t forget that it was the Church, long after the Apostles were gone, that state which writings were inspired and which were not.
The authority of the Church to decide this is what gives us the bible we have and call inspired and inerrant.
michel
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
The Church did recognize the canon of the Scriptures; the texts were inspired and canonical, however, simply by God’s action of inspiring them.
C
cazayoux
Guest
I agree that the writings were inspired long before the canon was set. No quarrel here.
What *authority *‘recognized’ what writings were inspired?
There were many other writings that some thought were inspired that did not make it into the canon.
There were writings that made it into the canon that many thought were not inspired.
Huge discussion here.
Once the decision was made, however, all discussion stopped.
If you do not trust that the Catholic Church authoritatively made this decision, how do you know that your bible is correct?
It may be missing one of those writing that many thought were inspired that are not part of the Catholic canon.
How do you know that your bible doesn’t have NT writings in it that are not inspired.
Who told you that those specific books in our NT were inspired?
michel
- Status