2 Questions on the Early Church and Scripture

[PRmerger]

so up to the 4th century everyone managed quite well without a Bible and in fact its only quite recently that the Bible is in general circulation and even now many do not have a Bible which was once on the index because a few protestants sought to finance and distribute the good news - the bad news it seems is ding dong bell,protestants are going to hell only Catholics in heaven - twinc

And it’s this Bible, codified by the Catholic Church, that you’re still searching, twinc, to find a verse which tells us how we know which verses need to be verified and which don’t?

(Hint: it’s no where to be found.)

[SIGN1]For no where in Scripture do we have any indication of what verses need to be verified and what verses don’t.[/SIGN1]

It’s a man-made tradition–one I think you made up on the spot, actually, in order to try to make sense of this “the Bible will always verify itself” nonsense.

 

[twinc]

And it’s this Bible, codified by the Catholic Church, that you’re still searching, twinc, to find a verse which tells us how we know which verses need to be verified and which don’t?

(Hint: it’s no where to be found.)

[SIGN1]For no where in Scripture do we have any indication of what verses need to be verified and what verses don’t.[/SIGN1]

It’s a man-made tradition–one I think you made up on the spot, actually, in order to try to make sense of this “the Bible will always verify itself” nonsense.

what sort of nonsense thinking is this - for it follows that the only ones who could compile the Bible were the only Christians that were around about that time - the protestants also compiled it because they were then the Church also - since then they have been doing a bit of compiling on their own - is there some doubt why Saul went into the cave ? - twinc

 

[PRmerger]

what sort of nonsense thinking is this - for it follows that the only ones who could compile the Bible were the only Christians that were around about that time - the protestants also compiled it because they were then the Church also - since then they have been doing a bit of compiling on their own - is there some doubt why Saul went into the cave ? - twinc

No doubt at all that Saul went into the cave.

Just sayin’ that you have expressed 2 man-made, non-Biblical traditions:
-Scripture verifies itself. (Not found in Scripture)
-some verses require verification and some don’t. (Also not found in Scripture)

That’s all I’m saying.

 

[PRmerger]

• the protestants also compiled it because they were then the Church also -

Excellent! They originally had priests, bishops, councils, celebrated the Divine Liturgy, believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, believed in Sacred Tradition.

Then, alas, they departed from the Teaching of the Apostles. :sad_yes:

 

[twinc]

Fair enough.

We’re all in agreement, then, that the Bible is not the sure norm for understanding what God has revealed?

not at all,at all,at all - the Bible is the sure if not main norm for understanding what God has revealed or are you going to make an exception or two the main norm - twinc

 

[twinc]

Excellent! They originally had priests, bishops, councils, celebrated the Divine Liturgy, believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, believed in Sacred Tradition.

Then, alas, they departed from the Teaching of the Apostles. :sad_yes:

not at all,at all.at all - according to my Anglican wife[RIP] and my other non catholic relatives and friends - they broke away to return to the teachings of the Apostles - because of them the gates of hell did not prevail is what they say and believe - twinc

 

[PRmerger]

not at all,at all,at all - the Bible is the sure if not main norm for understanding what God has revealed or are you going to make an exception or two the main norm - twinc

Huh? You just admitted that the norm is to take it to the church. Right here.

And you can’t argue with Scripture which says that the foundation is the Church, not the Bible.

 

[PRmerger]

not at all,at all.at all - according to my Anglican wife[RIP] and my other non catholic relatives and friends - they broke away to return to the teachings of the Apostles - because of them the gates of hell did not prevail is what they say and believe - twinc

Again, fair enough. Different discussion.

I am just heartened to see that you believe that the early church was composed of a pope and bishops and priests who celebrated the Eucharist.

And it was this Church that decided–without the Bible to tell them–what was theopneustos and what was not. That’s called Sacred Tradition, and it’s something you (correctly) believe that’s not in the Bible.

 

[twinc]

Again, fair enough. Different discussion.

I am just heartened to see that you believe that the early church was composed of a pope and bishops and priests who celebrated the Eucharist.

And it was this Church that decided–without the Bible to tell them–what was theopneustos and what was not. That’s called Sacred Tradition, and it’s something you (correctly) believe that’s not in the Bible.

oh no,no the early Church had the written gospel - it seems Matthew as was his wont made notes as he went along and produced an early gospel in Hebrew- they even had deacons etc and had Agape more so than Eucharist as we know and accept it - twinc

 

[PRmerger]

oh no,no the early Church had the written gospel - it seems Matthew as was his wont made notes as he went along and produced an early gospel in Hebrew- they even had deacons etc and had Agape more so than Eucharist as we know and accept it - twinc

Yes, twinc, but Christians wouldn’t know, infallibly, that the Gospel of Matthew was inspired and, say, the Gospel of Peter was not until the CC pronounced it theopneustos.. There were *lots *of manuscripts being passed around.

How would one know whether it was truly God’s Word or not, until the Catholic Church told you?

That is, there is nothing in these 2 excerpts that tell you whether they’re inspired or not. You need the Catholic Church to tell you this!

“Now it was the last day of the unleavened bread, and many were going forth, returning to their homes as the feast was ended. But we, the twelve disciples of the Lord, wept and were grieved, and each one, being grieved for that which had come to pass, departed to his home. But I, Simon Peter, and Andrew my brother took our nets and went to the sea; and there was with us Levi the son of Alphaeus, whom the Lord…” source

and

“Moreover, what I have now said in regard to abstaining from wanton looks should be carefully observed, with due love for the persons and hatred of the sin, in observing, forbidding, reporting, reproving, and punishing of all other fault.” source

If you were an early Christian, would you know just from reading those texts whether they were part of God’s revelation?

:nope::nope:

 

[JRKH]

so up to the 4th century everyone managed quite well without a Bible

This is true. They managed quite well because they had a unified Church headed by Bishops, and the bishop who is the successor of Peter heading up the Bishops. It is they, who for the first 400 years preserved and taught the essential truths of the Gospel.

and in fact its only quite recently that the Bible is in general circulation

Thanks to Mr. Guttenburg and his marvelous printing press.

and even now many do not have a Bible which was once on the index because a few protestants sought to finance and distribute the good news - the bad news it seems is ding dong bell,protestants are going to hell only Catholics in heaven - twinc

Not exactly sure what you mean here…

But suffice it to say that those “protestants” who decided to “finance and distribute teh good news” were distributing that which had already been Compiled, Codified, Canonized, Copied, Distributed, Defended, Preserved, and Taught from for 1100 years by the Catholic Church.

Peace
James

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

what sort of nonsense thinking is this - for it follows that the only ones who could compile the Bible were the only Christians that were around about that time - the protestants also compiled it because they were then the Church also - since then they have been doing a bit of compiling on their own - is there some doubt why Saul went into the cave ? - twinc

Oh come on now. Lets come back to earth on this one. That statement is like saying the Americans helped write the magna carta… even though there were no known americans at the time and everyone in England was English.

not at all,at all.at all - according to my Anglican wife[RIP] and my other non catholic relatives and friends - they broke away to return to the teachings of the Apostles - because of them the gates of hell did not prevail is what they say and believe - twinc

If I believe that I am the president it does not make it so. Sorry friend, believing something, no matter how sincerely, does not make it true.

Also, we know exactly where the Anglican church came from. The Anglican Communion was under the authority of the Pope in Rome for 300 years before Henry the 8th broke away from the one true faith when refused an annulment from his (third?) wife. That doesnt sound a whole lot like returning to the teachings of the apostles to me, since they taught that what God has joined together let no man put asunder (Mark 10:9).

oh no,no the early Church had the written gospel - it seems Matthew as was his wont made notes as he went along and produced an early gospel in Hebrew- they even had deacons etc and had Agape more so than Eucharist as we know and accept it - twinc

Proof? Sources?

And if they had deacons, priests, bishops, and a pope, then that sounds pretty durn Catholic to me.

If Agape was more important than the Eucharist then why was the Didache written and disseminated along with, and in some cases before, the majority of the books we consider Canonical?

 

[Pat_De]

I don’t have to show that everything I believe is in Scripture. That’s *your *non-Scriptural, man-made tradition, Pat.

Your opinion speaks for itself.

ABSSSOLUUUTELY NOT, Pat! Jesus Christ–Him and Him ALONE-- is what is required to bring a person to salvation.

I’m glad to hear that, but what do you mean by “bring a person to salvation”? Is that Jesus bringing one to do the Sacraments? Or is it just what you stated? or what? Please clarify…thanks.

 

[Pat_De]

ABSSSOLUUUTELY NOT, Pat! Jesus Christ–Him and Him ALONE-- is what is required to bring a person to salvation.

I was looking at this again and I guess the better way to have put the question is like this. Are the Scriptures sufficient in itself to lead one to salvation as opposed to bring one to Salvation? More semantics, but there is a difference in the two terms, thus requiring clarification on my part.

 

[Pat_De]

Quick question here:

Why is it that most (not all, but most) protestants will swear till they are blue in the face that “scripture interprets itself”, “the Holy Spirit will guide us all into Truth (pretty much as a mandatory)”, “The bible is all we need”, and sundry other hogwash, but what they really mean is “MY interpretation is correct, and no need to prove it”?

I know I know, Catholics do that too, but we have the weight of History, the apostles, and Sacred Tradition behind us.

Anyway back to the original topic.

FSC

Because it does and people that love the truth will defend it till they are more than blue in the face as you put it. Is the Scripture the living word of God… is it not and to His children is it not… and children need repetition to learn and to understand do they not?

 

[romesweethome]

The first person to historically disagree on the topic of baptism and john 3, was John Calvin. All Christians believed it for over 1500 yrs.

Ask your friend to prove that the disciples of the apostles and everyone following them, were wrong. Ask her for her sources and proofs, not generalities from scripture which do not specify who was heretical.

 

[PRmerger]

I was looking at this again and I guess the better way to have put the question is like this. Are the Scriptures sufficient in itself to lead one to salvation as opposed to bring one to Salvation? More semantics, but there is a difference in the two terms, thus requiring clarification on my part.

Thank you for your humble way to re-phrase the question.

And to answer your question: sadly, the Scriptures do not say they are sufficient in itself to lead one to salvation. :nope:

 

[PRmerger]

Your opinion speaks for itself.

Then you are ok with believing in things not found in Scripture, for clearly the man-made doctrine, “It has to be found in Scripture for me to believe it” is not found in Scripture.

Is that Jesus bringing one to do the Sacraments? Or is it just what you stated? or what? Please clarify…thanks.

Indeed, it is Jesus bringing one to do the Sacraments.

 

[JRKH]

I was looking at this again and I guess the better way to have put the question is like this. Are the Scriptures sufficient in itself to lead one to salvation as opposed to bring one to Salvation? More semantics, but there is a difference in the two terms, thus requiring clarification on my part.

Anything, or anyone can be sufficient to bring one to salvation in Jesus Christ if God so chooses. God may use many methods and means to bring one to salvation.
The Scriptures are indeed, God breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, (2 Tim 3:16)
But even more useful, as attested to by Christ, who taught orally and taught his diciples to teach orally, is the Christian life well lived. Even more useful is one who reads it with humility and an open heart.
St Francis of Assisi famously said, "Preach the Gospel always. When necessary, use words.

Many in the SS camp, in particular those with calvinistic leanings, will call particular attention to the fact that it is God who calls us and without that “call”, that “first cause”, we can do nothing. We can’t even come to believe until God plants that belief in us first.
Well if that be true, then Scripture is of no use until God calls, and when He does, He will find a way, through writing and/or through the example of others to bring such a one to Himself.

So - Is Scripture sufficiant? Could be. It could also be insufficient and even counter to the salvation of another depending on if God has called them and given them the grace to properly see.
I have read many posts right here on this board from people who do not believe, how reading the bible, particularly the OT has actually prevented someone from beliving in God.
So perhaps there is another question that can be asked. Are the Scriptures sufficient to preventsomeone from coming to faith in Jesus Christ?

Peace
James

 

[twinc]

Thank you for your humble way to re-phrase the question.

And to answer your question: sadly, the Scriptures do not say they are sufficient in itself to lead one to salvation. :nope:

Yep! the scriptures gladly do say that they are sufficient in itself to lead one to salvation - Jn.20:31 - twinc