The great thing is that salvation is between the individual and God. I doubt God will take your opinoin into consideration when considering someone else’s soul, and vice-versa. God truly doesn’t need our (name removed by moderator)ut. I’m not being mean spirited here, BTW. I’m just saying that regardless of one’s personal opinion on salvation, it isn’t up to them. Lucky, really, when you think about it.
The post you responded to is pointing to the necessity of listening to Jesus’ Church and not just listening to yourself.The great thing is that salvation is between the individual and God. I doubt God will take your opinoin into consideration when considering someone else’s soul, and vice-versa. God truly doesn’t need our (name removed by moderator)ut. I’m not being mean spirited here, BTW. I’m just saying that regardless of one’s personal opinion on salvation, it isn’t up to them. Lucky, really, when you think about it.
I think we would still need Jesus.
I’m with you.
The teaching authority is still present within their “successors” within the Office of the Ministry. However, the apostolic witness was confirmed through direct revelation both in their oral teaching and eventually to what they passed into writing. Since the Church does not receive direct revelation from God, it is not infallible. It is inerrant only to the degree to which it adheres to the apostolic teaching committed to writing.
It became the sole infallible rule of faith under the circumstance that the only other infallible authority that the Church possessed (the Apostles, by receiving direct inspiration from God) passed away. Once they did, we no longer have access to their infallible teaching other than the Holy Scriptures.
I am not sure I can agree with the idea that the authority of the Apostles successors was completely subservient to the writings of the dead Apostles. In order for those Scriptures to have been properly understood, it was required that they be enveloped in the ongoing teaching Tradition passed from the Apostles themselves. So in a sense, they supported and edified each other.
This is true to the degree to which the apostles passed on their teachings to the direct disciples that they mentored. The teaching the apostles were handing on was infallible; the ones receiving it, however, were not. The traditions that assist us in interpreting the scriptures faithfully to the apostolic witness consists mainly in the creeds and confessions of the church.
The traditions and the scriptures in the writings of the apostolic fathers were mainly coinherent terms. The one referred to the other without any substantive difference between the two. Therefore, since we have no authoritative guide to what traditions actually come directly from the apostles and which are the invention of the Church, history, development, etc, we are and should be guided by that which we concretely know to be from the apostles and that is the scriptures they wrote down. The two-source theory of scripture partly containing apostolic writing and Tradition containing the remainder (partim-partim) doesn’t even begin to develop within the Church until St. Basil in the 4th century and is not fully developed until the 12th. For writers such as Irenaeus, the teaching contained in Scripture is the same as that passed on orally by the apostles.
Once again i will give plenty of scripture to syuppor [sic] everything i have said. i have to run now but will devote my time to that task tonight. Please… [provide] me a list of questions you want scriptural references for (the Church does not contradict scripture) and i will try to be thorough… I agree with your statement that Christianity is a faith based on a living Word… It is too a religion (unless you want to quabble about words). Christ may have hated religon… corrected and rebuked those with false religions whenever he could.
How can this be said when two of the gospel accounts were written by people that were not apostles (Mark, Luke)?
It is not meant to exclude them; but considering of 27 New Testament books, 3 were written by disciples, and one is considered unknown, it’s just easier than typing apostles and disciples over and over. Besides that, even the writings of the disciples were based on the biographical teachings of the apostles Peter and Paul.
??? What?
exactly!
Hello Mannyfit75,
I agree.
