Authority in Catholicism and Protestantism..

[PRmerger]

It’s possible Muhammad got this idea from the following:

“Kollyridians or Collyridians were adorers of Mary in 4th century Arabia, as Epiphanius mentioned in his writing against heretics (see: Haer. 78, 23; 79). He coined the expression Collyridians which has the meaning of “cake-eater-sect”. Leontius of Byzance had a different name for them. He called them “Philomarianites”, meaning Mary-lovers (PG 87, 1364). The priestesses of this sect used to present Our Lady with cakes or a special kind of bread (kolluris) intended as offerings as was the custom in pre-Christian times. This sect, mainly consisting of women or at least led by woman priests, propagated what amounts to a Goddess cult regarding Our Lady. Epiphanius had this warning on their behalf: “Although Mary is the most beautiful and holy and worthy of praise, we don’t owe her adoration” (Haer. 79, 7, PG 42, 752). In a different passage Epiphanius uses even stronger words: “Adoration must cease. For Mary is no goddess nor has she received her body from heaven. (oute gar theos hae Maria oute ap’ouranou exousa to soma)” (Haer. 78, 24). Collyridians are also known and mentioned by John Damascene (PG 94, 728).” (The Marian Library/International Marian Research Institute, Roman Catholic commentary)

Yes, perhaps.

 

[Lincoln7]

Wow his has been busy!

So, as Dr White has once pointed out: The church defines the extent of the canon, it claims to be the only one capable of interpreting the canon. It defines the extent of sacred Tradition, and claims to be the only one capable of interpreting this Tradition. As such then, it can not be equal to or below these things. This position then is sola eclessia? Church alone?

Kind regards

Lincs

 

[IggyAntiochus]

It is evident to you now whose living how many centuries later? And why? Because you have those centuries all behind you which explained the Trinity in a deeper way. Was it that evident then? If it was so evident as you claim,then how odd they had to wait nearly 350 years to explain it?

Do you believe that there was no orthodox concept of the Trinity until the Council of Nicea? If the Apostles taught Trinitarian doctrine, then it was present when they were teaching it! The reason for the explanation was not to present the idea from the cloth, but to refute those who came along later to challenge it.

Exactly! Not only that,but you are also forgetting one thing: Sacred Tradition. The Catholic bishops who were not Arianist also stated that Sacred Tradition also taught Jesus was God. They did not use the Bible-only for their support or evidence.

Who is claiming they didn’t?

Exactly! Called Sacred Tradition which precedes anything NT writing.

Who is claiming that the doctrine of the Trinity does not precede the writings of the NT?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

“Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort,” – 2 Corinthians 1:3

“Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ.” – Ephesians 1:3

Other verses: John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; 1 Peter 1:3;

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…. No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.” – John 1:1

“Thomas said to him, ‘My Lord and my God!’” – John 20:28

"You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being." – Revelation 4:11 (the words of the 24 elders to Jesus). 

“…Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.” – Acts 20:28

“…the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” – Titus 2:13

“…To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours” – 2 Peter 1:1

“That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved…. for, ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’” – Romans 10:9,13.  Note: Paul reveals Jesus to be the same “Lord” referred to in Joel 2:32, which he quotes.  In Joel 2:32, “LORD” is Jehovah/Yahweh.

“Then Peter said, ‘Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.’” – Acts 5:3-4

“Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.” – 2 Corinthians 3:17-18

Eternal (Heb. 9:14)
Omniscient (1 Cor. 2:10-11)
Omnipresent (Psa. 139:7)
Savior (Rom. 8:1-27)

Jesus is not the Father: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. The grammatical construction of this verse is very revealing with regards to Trinitarian doctrine. First, each person of the Trinity is identified individually with use of the definite article preceding each (the Father…the Son…the Holy Spirit). The use of the definite article for each person of the Trinity identifies each as unique and distinct from the others. Yet at the same time, this verse groups each into a singular entity by use of the singular form “the name of”. What is this name? The singular name of God is Yahweh/Jehovah, and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit share that name. Other verses identify the Father and the Son as two separate persons (John 3:17, 35; 5:22-23, 31-32; 8:16-18; 11:41-42; 12:28; 14:31; 17:1-26; Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 15:24-28; 2 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:3; 4:4; Eph. 1:2; 6:23; Phil. 1:2; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1-2; 1 Tim. 1:1-2; 2 Tim. 1:2; Tit. 1:4; Phm. 3; James 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:2; 1 John 4:10; 2 John 3).

Jesus is not the Holy Spirit: The first evidence of this is discussed in detail in the preceding paragraph – Matthew 28:19 identifies the Son and the Holy Spirit as separate persons, using definite articles preceding each. Next, Jesus tells us that He would send the Holy Spirit (“When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.” – John 15:26). This verse is revealing in that each person of the Trinity is mentioned as separate individual persons. Key elements in this verse include 1) Jesus will send the Holy Spirit, 2) from the Father, 3) the Holy Spirit will go out from the Father, 4) and will testify about Jesus. Another verse that identifies Jesus and the Holy Spirit separately is John 16:7, “But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.” Here we have two important elements: 1) Jesus will go away, and 2) send the Holy Spirit. Since Jesus arose and ascended in his physical human body, the Spirit He sends is not Jesus Himself. Another important verse is John 14:16, “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever” (emphasis added). Once again, the elements are here to show that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are separate. Jesus said He would ask the Father. If Jesus were simply a manifestation of the Father, then He would be asking Himself, which sounds neurotic rather than orthodox. The verse also refers to the Holy Spirit as “another Counselor” separate from Jesus.

The Father is not the Holy Spirit: We find Paul describing in Romans 8:26-27 that the Holy Spirit intercedes for us with the Father. If the Holy Spirit were the same person as the Father, he would not need to intercede with himself.

contenderministries.org/biblestudy/trinity.php

The Holy Spirit is also referenced in direct relation to Jesus in Isaiah:

[bibledrb]Isaiah 11:1-2[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]Isaiah 42:1[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]Isaiah 61:1[/bibledrb]

Isaiah is such an awesome book

I will go back to my lurking, carry on

 

[PRmerger]

Wow his has been busy!

So, as Dr White has once pointed out: The church defines the extent of the canon, it claims to be the only one capable of interpreting the canon. It defines the extent of sacred Tradition, and claims to be the only one capable of interpreting this Tradition. As such then, it can not be equal to or below these things. This position then is sola eclessia? Church alone?

Kind regards

Lincs

Well, if this what you mean by Church Alone, then I’m good with that definition, (given the understanding that this all occurs under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, of course.)

 

[PRmerger]

Who is claiming that the doctrine of the Trinity does not precede the writings of the NT?

Okay. So from this we are to presume that you are agreed that the dogma of the Trinity is extracted from the kerygma, and NOT from Scriptures?

It did seem as if you were proposing that the dogma of the Trinity came from the Scriptures.

But if you’re claiming that the dogma of the Trinity indeed preceded* the writings of the NT, then

*(Now, of course, this is to be understood with some nuance. The entire Catholic faith, including the dogma of the Trinity, was indeed whole and entire, given once for all to the saints, before a single word of the NT was ever put to papyrus…but it must not be understated that the dogma of the Trinity EVOLVED and the Church’s understanding grew in faith and wisdom, just like Christ did. )

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Okay. So from this we are to presume that you are agreed that the dogma of the Trinity is extracted from the kerygma, and NOT from Scriptures?

The Trinity was taught by Christ and His Apostles before the New Testament Scriptures were written, yes. Is it extracted from the kerygma and not the Scriptures? That depends. Once apostolic preaching ceased, the Scriptures become the normal source for the doctrine. During the apostolic period, prior to the NT, yes, it was taught by apostolic preaching.

It did seem as if you were proposing that the dogma of the Trinity came from the Scriptures.

No. But the writings contain enough information to be sufficient in giving the dogma. That is, they contain all that was substantially taught by Christ and the Apostles.

But if you’re claiming that the dogma of the Trinity indeed preceded* the writings of the NT, then :thumbsup

Well, of course, because the Trinity precedes the Scriptures!!

 

[PRmerger]

No. I believe it is evident from those verses. The Church did, too.

Well, only because they read the Scriptures through the lens of Sacred Tradition.

When one reads the Scriptures after he has divorced himself from this Tradition one comes up with all sorts of weird interpretations.

Take this comment that someone made today on my blog, “3 Minute Apologetics”:

Doesn’t it also state that there should be no stairs leading to G-d’s altar?

Seriously? This, now is an abomination before God?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[PRmerger]

Well, of course, because the Trinity precedes the Scriptures!!

Now, Iggy, you need to be very, very careful here.

In the above statement you are referring to the Eternal Trinity, yes?

But in your previous statement you said,

Who is claiming that the doctrine of the Trinity does not precede the writings of the NT?

(Bold mine)

And that’s quite different, no?

So you are good with saying that the DOCTRINE of the Trinity precedes the writings of the NT?

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Well, only because they read the Scriptures through the lens of Sacred Tradition.

When one reads the Scriptures after he has divorced himself from this Tradition one comes up with all sorts of weird interpretations.

Take this comment that someone made today on my blog, “3 Minute Apologetics”:

Seriously? This, now is an abomination before God?

http://alumni.iws.edu/images/AltarSteps05.jpg

Yes, because we’re only to use Jacob’s Ladder, since our worship is to be regulated by Scripture.

However, perhaps, for the purposes of the discussion, I should lay out how we view this entire subject. I have a sneaking suspicion that reformed views are going to be imputed to ours here and I want to avoid that, because I don’t want to defend a position I don’t hold to.

Tradition A = Apostolic revelation, delivered through preaching

Tradition B = Apostolic writings

Tradition A and Tradition B contain the same doctrinal content

Tradition A is passed to the church and ceases with the end of the apostolic period

Tradition B is passed to the church and ceases with the end of the apostolic period

Tradition C develops, which is the interpretation of Tradition A and Tradition B by the church and is the regula fidei, expressed in the form of the creeds and conciliar decrees.

Due to the nature of the permanence of Tradition B, and the fact that Tradition A does not remain in a documented form, Tradition B becomes the norm of the church’s infallible authority, however, it is always interpreted through the lens of Tradition C.

This isn’t a perfect chart by any means, and I’m sure there are gaps, but I at least want to lay some groundwork.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Now, Iggy, you need to be very, very careful here.

In the above statement you are referring to the Eternal Trinity, yes?

But in your previous statement you said,
(Bold mine)

And that’s quite different, no?

So you are good with saying that the DOCTRINE of the Trinity precedes the writings of the NT?

They are both true. The doctrine and the Trinity itself.

 

[Nicea325]

Do you believe that there was no orthodox concept of the Trinity until the Council of Nicea? If the Apostles taught Trinitarian doctrine, then it was present when they were teaching it! The reason for the explanation was not to present the idea from the cloth, but to refute those who came along later to challenge it.

Who is claiming they didn’t?

Who is claiming that the doctrine of the Trinity does not precede the writings of the NT?

No I do not believe the orthodox belief of the Trinity did not exist until 325 A.D. and I never suggested a position. Yes the Apostles taught it,but what you seem to forget is that the doctrine…developed over time! It was not all set in stone as you may believe. It took the church centuries to fully comprehend such a mystery of God and to explain it in depth. All doctrines develop over time, but that is not to say it was understood strictly at the time it was ratified. Exactly! If it preceded the NT,then obviously scripture could not have explained solely because the NT canon was not set for centuries after Christ death. The church gave us the fullness and complexity of the doctrine,not the Bible.

 

[Nicea325]

The Trinity was taught by Christ and His Apostles before the New Testament Scriptures were written, yes. Is it extracted from the kerygma and not the Scriptures? That depends. **Once apostolic preaching ceased, the Scriptures become the normal source **for the doctrine. During the apostolic period, prior to the NT, yes, it was taught by apostolic preaching.

Really? Where does Scripture explicitly teach or any of the 12 teach such a position?

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Really? Where does Scripture explicitly teach or any of the 12 teach such a position?

No one is saying it does. It’s a matter of historical reality. Oral tradition is not written down. Written sources are always more accurate than oral information.

 

[PRmerger]

No one is saying it does. It’s a matter of historical reality. Oral tradition is not written down. Written sources are always more accurate than oral information.

You misunderstand what Catholics mean by Sacred Tradition (for that is what we’re talking about, not “oral” tradition.) Sacred Tradition is the lens through which we understand the Scriptures. As such, and it is a “lens”, it cannot be written down.

 

[PRmerger]

They are both true. The doctrine and the Trinity itself.

Finish the sentence, please, Iggy. The doctrine and the Trinity itself existed before the New Testament.

Yes?

 

[PRmerger]

Tradition A is passed to the church and ceases with the end of the apostolic period

No, Iggy. That is not how Tradition A ought to be described.

Tradition A, if we’re following your model, is passed to the successors of the apostles, and then to their successors, and to their successors…<snip 2000 years> and then to our current successors of the apostles, the college of bishops.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Finish the sentence, please, Iggy. The doctrine and the Trinity itself existed before the New Testament.

Yes?

Yes

 

[IggyAntiochus]

No, Iggy. That is not how Tradition A ought to be described.

Tradition A, if we’re following your model, is passed to the successors of the apostles, and then to their successors, and to their successors…<snip 2000 years> and then to our current successors of the apostles, the college of bishops.

What I mean is the start or source of Tradition A.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

You misunderstand what Catholics mean by Sacred Tradition (for that is what we’re talking about, not “oral” tradition.) Sacred Tradition is the lens through which we understand the Scriptures. As such, and it is a “lens”, it cannot be written down.

I am talking about the differences between oral and written.