An Unrealisitc Request about Jesus and Paul

[ralphinal]

Alright, both TU and Radical have raised a similar point.

Here is my response. Where does the message change? Where does the mode change? Why would it change? By whose authority did it change?

If at one time both oral and written teachings held sway, and you both say they did, how, when and why would this change.

The message of the Gosple is for all men in all times, as is the Church. Is there a logic in saying that it started this way but has changed now?

 

[Radical]

Ralphinal,

Where does the message change?

The message passed on by the apostles could change if a matter was reinterpreted, lost or altered or if a new matter was added.

Where does the mode change?

The apostles were actual eye-witnesses with a special authority. They all died and are no longer available to verify their teachings. As such, there is a question as to whether the scriptures in their current form and/or whether tradition in its current form are accurate reflections of apostolic teaching.

Why would it change?

The message would change if tradition contained error, if infallible tradition was rejected or if the interpretation of scripture changed. (I believe that we agree that scripture itself does not contain error.)

By whose authority did it change?

If the message changed, I would suggest that the change was a work of man.

If at one time both oral and written teachings held sway, and you both say they did, how, when and why would this change… Is there a logic in saying that it started this way but has changed now?

I don’t see it as a matter of logic. It is a fact that the apostles died. It is a fact that a lot of time has passed and that during that time tradition has evolved. Has the Holy Spirit guided that evolution or has man been controlling that change?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Alright, both TU and Radical have raised a similar point.

Here is my response. Where does the message change? Where does the mode change? Why would it change? By whose authority did it change?

The message itself never changed, of course; Once the apostles and disciples wrote down their revelation is when the mode began to change; By the authority of God’s action of inspiring the writings of the apostles and disciples. However, the preached word of God has never ceased. Without a sure source of apostolic teaching (their writings) we don’t have an assurance that the oral message would remain uncontaminated.

If at one time both oral and written teachings held sway, and you both say they did, how, when and why would this change.

Why would it change? Because God changed it. Ask the author haha. It should be stated though, and this is one many Protestants may disagree with; the Word is only a means of grace when it is proclaimed orally. The Bible is not a manual for self-help, it’s a story that must be told.

The message of the Gosple is for all men in all times, as is the Church. Is there a logic in saying that it started this way but has changed now?

The logic is self-evident. The Church relied on oral tradition and it ended up in an East-West schism and a Western Reformation due to the abuses of the doctrines of men having gained equal authority with the Word within Christendom.

 

[ralphinal]

The message itself never changed, of course; Once the apostles and disciples wrote down their revelation is when the mode began to change; By the authority of God’s action of inspiring the writings of the apostles and disciples. However, the preached word of God has never ceased. Without a sure source of apostolic teaching (their writings) we don’t have an assurance that the oral message would remain uncontaminated.

Except that Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to lead the Church. He also set the Church up with authority, including matters of discipline.

Why would it change? Because God changed it. Ask the author haha. It should be stated though, and this is one many Protestants may disagree with; the Word is only a means of grace when it is proclaimed orally. The Bible is not a manual for self-help, it’s a story that must be told.

I agree with the last part. It is not enough to give a man a Bible and say “He has enough.” When God changed it, who did he tell? That almost sounds Mormon or Muslim

The logic is self-evident. The Church relied on oral tradition and it ended up in an East-West schism and a Western Reformation due to the abuses of the doctrines of men having gained equal authority with the Word within Christendom.

And the Reformation created Unity in the Christian faith

 

[ralphinal]

Ralphinal, The message passed on by the apostles could change if a matter was reinterpreted, lost or altered or if a new matter was added.
The apostles were actual eye-witnesses with a special authority. They all died and are no longer available to verify their teachings. As such, there is a question as to whether the scriptures in their current form and/or whether tradition in its current form are accurate reflections of apostolic teaching.
The message would change if tradition contained error, if infallible tradition was rejected or if the interpretation of scripture changed. (I believe that we agree that scripture itself does not contain error.)
If the message changed, I would suggest that the change was a work of man.

I don’t see it as a matter of logic. It is a fact that the apostles died. It is a fact that a lot of time has passed and that during that time tradition has evolved. Has the Holy Spirit guided that evolution or has man been controlling that change?

As a Catholic, we hold that the Holy Spirit has lead the Church because Jesus said he would. The question should be looked at from two angles. First, does the Catholic CHurch contain errors? Second, does the EO contain errors? If the answer to both is yes, then the church founded by Christ vanished from the Earth, making Jesus a lier./

 

[With_Questions]

As a Catholic, we hold that the Holy Spirit has lead the Church because Jesus said he would. The question should be looked at from two angles. First, does the Catholic CHurch contain errors? Second, does the EO contain errors? If the answer to both is yes, then the church founded by Christ vanished from the Earth, making Jesus a lier./

I don’t get this.

Why does it follow that unless the church founded by Christ is totally free of error, that the church founded by Christ vanished from the Earth, making Jesus a liar?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Except that Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to lead the Church. He also set the Church up with authority, including matters of discipline.

I agree. Christ promised the Holy Spirit will lead them into all truth; that truth is what we have in Scripture.

I agree with the last part. It is not enough to give a man a Bible and say “He has enough.” When God changed it, who did he tell? That almost sounds Mormon or Muslim

I agree. Giving someone a Bible does nothing to convert them. The Scriptures are for the already-converted. He didn’t have to tell anyone. His action of inscripturation in the sacred writings tells us that He changed the mode from oral to written.

And the Reformation created Unity in the Christian faith

Yep. It’s called Lutheranism

 

[ralphinal]

I don’t get this.

Why does it follow that unless the church founded by Christ is totally free of error, that the church founded by Christ vanished from the Earth, making Jesus a liar?

Because Jesus made several promises about his Church. First, it would be visible, like a city on a hill. Second, the gates of Hell would never prevail against it. Third, the Holy Spirit would guide it to all Truth. Now, if it vanished, Jesus was wrong. If it fell away, Hell prevailed and Jesus was wrong. If it teaches error, the Holy Spirit no longer guides it, Jesus was wrong.

 

[ralphinal]

I agree. Christ promised the Holy Spirit will lead them into all truth; that truth is what we have in Scripture.

Then why are there more than one denomination? Why the dispute over dogma? Why are the problems? IF all you need is scripture, why are we divided? This is always the hang-up.

I agree. Giving someone a Bible does nothing to convert them. The Scriptures are for the already-converted. He didn’t have to tell anyone. His action of inscripturation in the sacred writings tells us that He changed the mode from oral to written.

I agree about the Bible being for the already converted. Paul never wrote to those who had never been taught. Even the Gosples seem to be targeted discourses to support the positions of the Church. I disagree about the shift from oral and Written to just written. I see it more as a tool to allow for ease of transmission. Even in the first century, it would be easier to use letters than always visit. Not to mention 12 people can only be in 12 places at once.

Yep. It’s called Lutheranism

Now that is funny. You should put which Synod.

 

[With_Questions]

Because Jesus made several promises about his Church. First, it would be visible, like a city on a hill. Second, the gates of Hell would never prevail against it. Third, the Holy Spirit would guide it to all Truth. Now, if it vanished, Jesus was wrong. If it fell away, Hell prevailed and Jesus was wrong. If it teaches error, the Holy Spirit no longer guides it, Jesus was wrong.

I still don’t get it.

I will for the moment overlook the different definitions of “Church” in play.

I know Jesus said that that the Holy Spirit “will guide you into all truth”. John 16:13.

Now I will overlook for the moment the issue on what the preposition “you” refers to and go to this question.

Why does it follow from this verse that if “you” teach or believe error that the Holy Spirit is no longer guiding you and that Jesus was wrong? I don’t get it.

 

[Reformed]

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work - 2 Timothy 3:16-17

I’m not sure you are on safe ground my friends? We all agree that Jesus is God in the flesh; therefore He is superior than Paul and other writers in the Holy Bible. But the Faith (Catholic and Protestants) would not play the writings of Paul against the writings of James, nor the sayings of Jesus. Also, we cannot leave out the Old Testament if we are going to understand the New Testament. The gospel of John is the most Calvinistic book in the entire Bible. Start with John chapters 3, 6, 10, and 17. The sayings of Jesus is equal to the writings of Paul, Peter, James, Luke, Mark, John, Jude, etc. All Scripture is God-breathed. I find that most communities who reject justification by faith alone will attack the writings of the Apostle Paul.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Then why are there more than one denomination? Why the dispute over dogma? Why are the problems? IF all you need is scripture, why are we divided? This is always the hang-up.

This is not due to the sufficiency of Scripture. It is due to the deficiency within human nature. We dispute over dogma and divide into sects because of human sinfulness. An infallible Magisterium or bishopric doesn’t prevent this, either. If the source of knowledge is to blame in these cases, it would apply equally to Scripture and to the Church. It is not, however, the source.

I agree about the Bible being for the already converted. Paul never wrote to those who had never been taught. Even the Gosples seem to be targeted discourses to support the positions of the Church. I disagree about the shift from oral and Written to just written. I see it more as a tool to allow for ease of transmission. Even in the first century, it would be easier to use letters than always visit. Not to mention 12 people can only be in 12 places at once.

I would mostly agree with you. The reason it is written is to preserve it in a concrete, tangible, and infallible source of what the apostles taught. If someone comes up to me and claims to teach me a dogma based on tradition, how am I to confirm whether his dogma comes from an apostle? Or, and maybe more importantly, what does tradition teach that is necessary for my salvation that Scripture does not?

Now that is funny. You should put which Synod.

None, but our confessions are the same. Synod does not = denomination

 

[Radical]

Ralphinal, from your perspective and understanding you arrive at this either/or asssertion where either the RCC and the EO must be free from error or Jesus is a liar:

First, does the Catholic CHurch contain errors? Second, does the EO contain errors? If the answer to both is yes, then the church founded by Christ vanished from the Earth, making Jesus a lier./

I, however, possess a different understanding. First, I note that Jesus is the incarnate Word. Perhaps his promise is fulfilled by giving us the written Word. Perhaps Jesus has never left nor forsaken the church as the Word has always been there for us and perhaps it is the heirarchy of the Roman Church that has stepped away from him. An example of such a step away from the Word would be an instance where the heirarchy appointed a bishop for Rome who did not possess the qualifications for an overseer set out in the New Testament.

Second, you seem to equate the heirarchy of Rome with the Church. I note today that far from all Roman Catholics follow the exact teachings of Rome (and this is after Rome has enjoyed a string of respectable Popes and where many other options within Christianity are available). Consider what percentage of Roman Catholics would have felt obliged to believe everything Rome asserted after it endured a string of less than respectable Popes and when it was the only game in town. In other words, the Roman heirarchy could have slipped into error without taking every Roman Catholic with it.

Those are but two understandings or possibilities that allow for the RCC or the EO to contain error without making Jesus out to be a liar. Further possibilities also exist.

 

[iaskquestions]

Ralphinal, I would suggest that sola scriptura is an answer to a rather modern question. That question could be worded as: “Where, at this time, is the full message from God (with regards to salvation) to be found in a form free from any error?” The answer to that question would not always have been the same. The answer in 30 AD is different from the answer in 60 AD and both of those answers could be different from the answer in 1520 AD (or in 2008 AD, for that matter).

The answer to that question does not change with time. The answer to it was and always is, “the church”. Scripture is not the pillar and bulwark of the truth, but the church is (1 Tim 3:15). Scripture itself does not give us the names of the books that should be included in scripture! It was the church that decided which books belong to scripture and which don’t. If the church didn’t have the fullness of the truth, it would not have been able to do so. But because the church had the fullness of the truth, it was able to reject books which were forgeries and which proclaimed a false gospel.

 

[iaskquestions]

If someone comes up to me and claims to teach me a dogma based on tradition, how am I to confirm whether his dogma comes from an apostle?

The Catholic answer to that is simply, “Ask the church!” If that ‘someone’ is teaching a dogma based on tradition, ask the church whether the dogma is right. The church being the pillar and bulwark of the truth, knows the tradition better than anyone else!

 

[iaskquestions]

First, I note that Jesus is the incarnate Word. Perhaps his promise is fulfilled by giving us the written Word.

I would not agree. Jesus never asked (there is no written record) his disciples to write down everything that was necessary. His promise, for us, is fulfilled in his church, whom the gates of Hades will not previal over (in other words, the church cannot teach error).

Consider what percentage of Roman Catholics would have felt obliged to believe everything Rome asserted after it endured a string of less than respectable Popes and when it was the only game in town. In other words, the Roman heirarchy could have slipped into error without taking every Roman Catholic with it.

The popes including Peter were all sinners without exception. But they didn’t teach error. That’s the difference. Those few scandelous popes were too busy in their sinful behaviour to teach anything. Popes have slipped into error in the past, however, they did not teach that error as being infallible truth.

Those are but two understandings or possibilities that allow for the RCC or the EO to contain error without making Jesus out to be a liar. Further possibilities also exist.

It’s a different thing to contain error (i.e. being sinful) than to teach error. Every sin is after all, an error. But the promise of Christ assures us that he will not let his church teach error.

 

[ralphinal]

Had Jesus not intended the Church to be eternal and the rule of Faith, he would have said so. Further, he would not have told us to take those who will not change “before the Church.” He would not have set up a system for the placement of bishops, or for them to teach. Simply put, he could have done as God did with the OT prophets: direct messages independent of the clerical authority.

Further, Jesus said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church which he describes as a city on a hill. He intended the Church to be both loss community of beleivers AND a visible collection of people united in faith. One as he and the Father are one.

Human failings cause division. Human pride is what prevents Catholics from accepting the teachings of Rome. I have yet to see one moral law that Rome has that is not scriptural and good for all mankind. Catholics who are pro-abortion, for example, will have to answer for it. I cannot say it any clearer.

When Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to guide us to all Truth, it does require our compliance. We must go along with the teachings. It is clear when someone deviates from it. Homosexual marriage is a great example. Abortion is another. In 1975, only ONE major denomination was vocally opposed to abortion, and some were vocally pro-abortion. Even the Southern Baptists were in favor of a woman’s “right to choose.” ONly the Catholic Church carried the banner, and we caught hell for it. Now, look at Christianity. Others have seen us, the city on the Hill, and have returned to protect the unborn.

How can you tell if it was there from the beginning? Look at the early writings for one. Look at the CHurches in union with Rome and the EO. Almost all of the Protestant points are there: prayer for the dead, praying to saints, Mary as intercessor, all seven sacrements. If these Churches have these, then logically they learned them from the same sourse. It ahd to be prior to the Great Schisim, so it had to be in the first 10 centuries. You go back far enough, and you see that they date from the Second and First Centuries. The only conclusion that a resonable person can make is that they were part of the Apostolic Church. Now, you can be Mormon and say that CHurch went apostate or you can say that the doctrine developed in a way that you do not like today, but you cannot deny that it was there.

 

[Radical]

Iaskquestions,

The answer to that question does not change with time. The answer to it was and always is, “the church”.

I guess that depends on how one defines “church”. As the universal church possesses the scripture, one could most certainly say that the full message from God (with respect to salvation) can be found in the church, but if the church (or the portion of it in question) has added error to the message, then the answer to the complete question could not be the church, as it would fail to meet the “without error” requirement.

Scripture is not the pillar and bulwark of the truth, but the church is (1 Tim 3:15).

And? The full sentence that continues into 1 Tim 3:15 reads:

Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

As such, we have Paul providing written instruction (which is scripture) so that people within the church would know how to conduct themselves.

It is one thing to say that the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth and quite another to claim the foregoing means that the Roman heirarchy has not taught error or that scripture is not formally and/or materially sufficient.

Scripture itself does not give us the names of the books that should be included in scripture!

agreed

It was the church that decided which books belong to scripture and which don’t.

I would say that it was ultimately God who made that decision, and that the church was merely his tool. As such, I would reword your last sentence as follows:

If the church didn’t have God’s guidance, it would not have been able to do so. But because the church had God’s guidance, it was able to reject books which were forgeries and which proclaimed a false gospel.

 

[Radical]

I would not agree. Jesus never asked (there is no written record) his disciples to write down everything that was necessary.

the stated purpose of the gospel of John is to provide details so that the reader may believe and be saved (John 20:31) The author was selective (John 21:25). As such, there is a strong indication that the gospel of John alone contains what is necessary for salvation.

His promise, for us, is fulfilled in his church, whom the gates of Hades will not previal over (in other words, the church cannot teach error).

First, the assertion that the church cannot teach error does not necessarily mean that the heirarchy of Rome cannot teach error, unless they are one and the same thing.(Something I am not prepared to grant) Second, the promise that the gates of Hades will not prevail against it is hardly an clear statement that the church (or a part of it such as the heirarchy of Rome) will not teach error.

The popes including Peter were all sinners without exception. …It’s a different thing to contain error (i.e. being sinful) than to teach error.

The assertion was that the RCC and the EO could not both teach error without Jesus becoming a liar. I gave two examples of how error could be taught without making Jesus a liar. Making a distinction between impecability and infallibility does not support the assertion, nor does it address the two examples I gave.

 

[ralphinal]

the stated purpose of the gospel of John is to provide details so that the reader may believe and be saved (John 20:31) The author was selective (John 21:25). As such, there is a strong indication that the gospel of John alone contains what is necessary for salvation.

In which case any and all denominations not teaching the Real Presence are in trouble. Right?

First, the assertion that the church cannot teach error does not necessarily mean that the heirarchy of Rome cannot teach error, unless they are one and the same thing.(Something I am not prepared to grant) Second, the promise that the gates of Hades will not prevail against it is hardly an clear statement that the church (or a part of it such as the heirarchy of Rome) will not teach error.

Why would teaching error not be a victory for the devil?

The assertion was that the RCC and the EO could not both teach error without Jesus becoming a liar. I gave two examples of how error could be taught without making Jesus a liar. Making a distinction between impecability and infallibility does not support the assertion, nor does it address the two examples I gave.

I did not see the examples, please point them out to me. SOrry.