U
upant
Guest
which has been my point from the start
- Status
M
Maximian
Guest
Indeed it has. It seems difficult to grasp for some
Who received the information?
As Christians, yes, we believe that the writings were and are inspired. This is universal in Christianity, though some book’s were and are disputed.
Of course there were. The people who eventually wrote them spread the very same Gospel orally. If my wife is going to write a book, chances are I know the story before she writes. My great grandchildren, on the other hand, will most likely have to read it.
This is how information is passed down. I see no reason to believe the Spirit wouldn’t use this method.
All of the writings were circulated for for most of that time before 300 AD.
Which Protestants? I have been given no authority to personally interpret scripture. At no point in my childhood was I given a Bible and told to go interpret. The very nature of sola scriptura is in opposition to personal interpretation.
Lutherans have a set “confessions”. To actually be Lutheran, one adheres to those confessions where doctrine is involved. Some who claim to be Lutheran don’t. That should be no surprise. Over the decade+ that I’ve been here, I’ve seen plenty of personal interpretation of scripture and Catholic doctrine by Catholics, too.
But we know about it because it is written down in scripture. Those who witnessed the events we look to that established the Church wrote them down.JonNC:
Im afraid that is incorrect. The Church’s teaching authority existed before any of the books of the New Testaments were written.
Last edited:
That process is known as a council. In those early councils, the notion of one Bishop being infallible ex cathedra was unknown. In those councils one Bishop having universal ordinary and immediate jurisdiction was unknown.
I am all for returning to the council system where Church authority is supposed to be.
Last edited:
M
Maximian
Guest
But how do you know what constitutes “scripture?”
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Inerrancy of Rome is a belief professed even by Eastern Fathers. St. Maximus the Confessor held it, Fathers at Chalcedon imply it, Eastern Monk who lived during Schism and had no relations with the West professed it. Rome had a faith that wouldn’t fail. Councils were mostly local yet Papal legates attended them. Most of the time Rome influencing them in any way had no sense as other Patriarchates didn’t always attend either.
Council of Chalcedon basically says that it is customary for any Bishop to appeal to Rome if he disagrees with decision of his Archbishop or Patriarch and bases Constantinople’s rights on this. Council of Sardica says how anything judged in Imperial City of Constantinople can be re-judged by Rome. No mention of anyone capable of re-judging things judged by Rome. Pope St. Gregory says he can annul Eastern Synods with strike of a pen and gets no opposition for that.
How can we distinguish between false and true councils? Historically heresies like Nestorianism were approved by Robber Councils. What is the criteria for Council to be truly infallible and binding?
W
Walk-worthy
Guest
It’s my understanding the protestant movement was not a rejection of God or the faith, but a rejection of the corruption that existed in the 16th century church. Is that true?
I think I posted the Lutheran approach earlier.
In short, a broad consideration of the by the early Church.
Nicea canon six extends the same authority to Alexandria as it did to Rome in its jurisdiction.
Inerrancy of Rome outside of councils wasn’t held.
The dispute of universal jurisdiction is not a dispute of primacy. It is a dispute of supremacy.
By what basis are the Seven ecumenical councils accepted as authoritative?
Last edited:
L
lanman87
Guest
I hate to jump in, but the verse used for Eternal Security is John 6 is verse 37-40
All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
The teaching from this passage is clear. Everyone who believes (is converted) are given to Christ because it is the will of the Father. And whoever is given to Christ by the Father will never be cast out and Christ will never lose them, but will be raised up in the last day.
Of course the alternate position can be found in John 15:1-11.
Then the question has to be, “Is Christ contradicting himself in John 6 and John 15”?
From what I’ve been taught, that answer goes something like this.
That those who the branches who do not bear fruit are those who have attached themselves to Christianity marginally. They are those who had an emotional experience and professed Christ but their heart was never changed so when Christianity turns out to be something different than a happy and emotional experience they fall away… They are those who are intrigued by Christianity, or whom are Profess Christianity for social or selfish reasons, come among us for a while and even take part in the work of the church, but because they haven’t truly been converted by the Spirit, and are still selfish in their heart, then they fall away. Christ explains this in his explanation of the Parable of the Sower in Matthew 13: 18-23
Notice there is a change in language in John 15:7. If you abide in me, and my words abide in you…
Those that abide in Christ in John 15:1-6 are those who are have attached themselves to Christ in some marginal way. But those that abide in Christ as those in whom Christ said “My words abide in you” are the ones who are given to Christ by the Father (and they abide in each other) and who will never be cast out. This also parallels the teaching of the Sower in Matthew 13. Those that are truly part of Christ are those that hear the word and whose hearts are truly converted.
So to sum it up. Those Jesus was talking about in John 6 that are given by the Father and will never be cast out, Those that Jesus is talking about in John 15 who abide in Christ and the word abides in them (and they bear fruit and prove to be His disciples) and those in the Parable of the sower in Matthew 13:23 who hear the word and understand it (in this case understand is deeper than intellectual understanding, it is pointing to an understanding that results in changed actions, what we would call a change in the heart or affections) to the point of of bearing fruit, are all one and the same group of people.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
No, Nicea simply says that custom of Patriarchate is similar. Alexandria was outranked by Constantinople (which needed to assert it’s privileges) thus there is no way it was on par with Rome. If indeed Alexandria had those privileges Constantinople would not need to assert them as them outranking Alexandria would result in them getting those privileges too. It wasn’t unique to Patriarchs, it was unique to Rome and later Constantinople claimed that too- but not based on it’s status as Patriarchate. Also history shows that people skipped appealing to their Patriarchs but appealed to Rome instantly. If Rome indeed was equal to others but had higher status in primacy (whatever that means in practice), then this rule meant that Rome can overrule anyone on anything.
Also I was more of talking about inerrancy than jurisdiction in that sentence. Inerrancy of Rome was more of held in a way where Rome’s faith would not fall to heresy ever. For that reason George the Hagiorite professed inerrancy of Rome and warned Emperor from schisming. It isn’t a point of jurisdiction Rome had or not- it is a point that schisming from Rome means schisming from Church of Christ and why schism from Church whose faith is guaranteed to be pure? They can not lose their status of being inside the Church, so why should we separate from those who are in the Church? That was logic of St. George the Hagiorite, Georgian Orthodox Saint canonized post-schism who lived during Schism. He is not a Catholic Saint nor western in any way.
Appeals without jurisdiction make no sense. Appeals were canonical not empty threats. Re-trials held in Rome held more authority than any other re-trials held by any other Patriarch (even outside Rome’s jurisdiction). Council of Sardica tried establishing norms for custom that was already held. Constantinople based it’s jurisdictional appeals on Rome’s power (but actually did not claim to be above nor on par with Rome) during Chalcedon.
They got accepted by Rome as such, as did all Ecumenical Council of Catholic Church up to (and including) Vatican II.
Last edited:
G
grantklentzman1
Guest
I don’t see anything particularly wrong with praying the Lord’s Prayer. I think it all has to do with whether it is vain repetition and if your heart is engaged with God through it. In fact, I pray the Lord’s prayer occasionally as a Baptist.
M
Maximian
Guest
It was a rejection of the faith. It rejected the priesthood, the mass, the veneration of saints and purgatory, plus several books of the Bible.
That there was some corruption in the church then as now was just an excuse.
That there was some corruption in the church then as now was just an excuse.
C
CroatCatholic
Guest
Well, maybe he has an attraction to the Church. And, whether that be true or not, this could be useful as we could talk to him and teach him about our faith. Right?
Peace!
Peace!
Last edited:
S
stoplooklisten
Guest
Thank you for your care in writing. But, I have some responses:
- The human heart is deceitful; who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9). So, who truly knows who has a good heart bearing fruit out of good soil? Not every seed grows. Bearing fruit takes requires time.
- Many Protestant groups forbid baptism and the Lord’s Supper to youth. Commonly, they wait until the youth are teenagers and more naturally able to provide “a credible profession of faith”? Do Baptist leaders truly know who is “saved” and who is “not saved”? Do not many of the baptized later fall away?
- If we selectively choose Bible verses and use the ones we like and bypass the ones that provide difficulty, do we not come short of declaring the “whole counsel and purpose of God” ? (Paul in Acts 20:26-27)
- The disciples of Jesus found this to be a hard saying in the “Bread of Life Discourse” of the same John Chapter 6 that you quoted: “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.” (John 6:56-57).
- Almighty God maintained a Holy Presence among the Jews in the Temple. Only high priests (like Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist) could minister there and only at designated times. During King David’s time, Uzzah lost his life when the Presence of God was not properly reverenced. At age 12, Jesus was found in the Temple near the Presence of God doing his Father’s business. Christ is a Real Presence among his people in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist. We do well to “do business” with the Trinity via the Eucharist.
E
Erundil
Guest
Too bad he has some idea of “what-Catholic-Church-seem-to-him” but he he didn’t make any efforts to understand that this image is false:
This topic is a Chinese whispers game.
Last edited:
T
tomo_pomo
Guest
hello welcome, are you still there?
Ive been asking this question Protestants before, but nobody answered yet:
What do you make of Jesus words “even the gates of hell will not prevail it”?
And then actively saying that early Church got corrupted and it’s not the Christ Church anymore.
Does that mean Protestants don’t believe Jesus and the words in Bible? or what do Protestants make of it?
Thank you
Ive been asking this question Protestants before, but nobody answered yet:
What do you make of Jesus words “even the gates of hell will not prevail it”?
And then actively saying that early Church got corrupted and it’s not the Christ Church anymore.
Does that mean Protestants don’t believe Jesus and the words in Bible? or what do Protestants make of it?
Thank you
Exactly what it says. Christ’s victory is insurmountable.
If it was corrupted, than is man’s doing, not The Holy Spirit’s. Man does not have control over Christ’s victory. Additionally, the Church includes, not just the Church Militant, but also the Church Triumphant (and the Church Suffering if you’re so inclined ).
So, I’m not impressed with the argument that the existence of non-Catholic communions and their contentions about certain Catholic doctrines being wrong equates to the gates of Hell triumphing over the Church. The gates of Hell will not prevail because of Christ, not because of Peter or any other human being.
A nonsensical polemic.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Except phrase says that Church will not be beaten by Hell… not that Christ’s victory won’t.
- Status