Authority in Catholicism and Protestantism..

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lincoln7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am Christian. And this is not relativism. Objective truth exists. But if it is not math, we cannot know the truth with absolute certainty this side of heaven. Unless you think human reasoning and decision making is generally infallible when it comes to matters of religion.

You believe that the Pope is infallible because of your own fallible reasoning. None of us can be completely sure. We just, each of us, try our best.
I do not think, I believe finite humans such the writers of the OT & NT and the men who gave us complex doctrines (Trinity,Incarnation,etc) were guided by the Holy Spirit in order to reveal His ABSOLUTE Truth as stated in John 16:13.

I did not say objective Truth…but ABSOLUTE Truth. God is TRUTH…not half-truths. The pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals not everything he says or does. The pope is just as humans as you and I.

Yes we try our best to cooperate with God’s graces.
 
Who we have as authoritative witnesses to Christ are the Apostles.

They had their followers…there were over a hundred at Pentecost in the Upper Room, not just the apostles and Mary. Pentecost is the beginning of the Church.

You are sounding like those of non-denominational backgrounds who think the true church or followers disappeared or died away, and Constantine created the Catholic Church…restorationist…I would consider the latter mythical.

Christ did not pick just one man but 12. Christ came to a gathering of disciples…the foundation of the dynamic of Church.

I think our understanding of Christ is very different from one another…ours is based on the apostolic witness of the apostles, their followers, and the work the Church did so that by 100 AD, we had episcopal form of administration, most books of Sacred Scripture discerned and chosen for public revelation, the form of worship in the liturgy…that is akin in spirit, tone, and parts to the Mass today after 2,000 years, our sacraments which are concrete and not relative symbolism, and the Apostles Creed…all set up to insure the true faith would be passed down through time.

Mary herself said all generations would call her blessed…she the greatest believer and model par excellence of Christianity…

Yes, you have to see the difference between relativism and individualism vs the gathering of believers under Christ and the institution of the Church who draws her life from Christ Himself and His sacraments through the Holy Spirit.
 
Your Ayn Rand example is excellent. I’m also encouraged no one (probably) would argue with my assessment.
Sure. If it’s understood in the way that I presented it.
In my mind, it puts Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants at the same level, w.r.t. final authority. Of course, at most one of the three groups can be right, but then the division really comes down to evidence and reasons, and not arguments from authority. Work needs to be done in order to provide these strong reasons for accepting various authorities.
I don’t think anyone can trump the Catholic position on final authority. Having the Vicar of Christ here makes us “all in”, you know? Either it’s true, or it’s not.

But having that authority on our side gives us every advantage, don’t you think?
 
How do you know this is God himself?

I can only be as certain as the current evidence and argument justifies.
A philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid, is of course “untrue”. Since all the levels of research are not equal. Nor in the same areas of expertise.

Let quickly look at a few different areas.

Statistical probability to start with. Mathmatics professors Stoner and Dr. Newman calculated the probability of one individual fulfilling “just” 48 of Christs prophecies which exceed 150. The odds turned out to be 1 in 10 to the 157 power. A degree of statistical certainty which indicates Jesus is exactly who he claimed to be…The Living God.

No theologian or historian would dispute the fact that Jesus was the single most influencial figure ever to walk the earth. His action, words, and miracles changed the course of history. He inspired entire societies to incorporate compassion and mercy in their cultures. He refined the standards of morality thus “civil” man. He not only changed the course of nations; He bought an unexplainable measure of purpose, peace, and love into the lives of hundreds of millions of individuals. Never mind a psychological profile of Jesus, there is no fault, no issue, there is in a word; Perfection, which cannot be ignored.

Let me place this in perspective for you, exactly what it would require to hold the title of God?.

First lets state this, no Book ever written has produced more of an impact then the Bible. Thats why its called the Greatest Book Ever Written, you know a better one? Second no individual in History has been more written about or captured in the arts than Jesus, and for a woman that would be Mary.

To qualify for “God” one would have to reveal incredible truths that would otherwise go undiscovered. You would have to bring extraordinary, perhaps even miraculous benifit to the hearts and minds to those around you, and those who read your work… for eternity. Certainly you would have to produce life-altering changes and not just to one or two people, but millions. You would have to have the “ability” to impart hope to those in despair, joy to those who’s hearts of broken, you would have to able to bring unattainable peace in the midst of paralyzing fear. You would have to have the ability to transform a hateful heart to a loving one, a mind driven by greed to one overflowing with generosity, a life ruled by arrogance and ignorance into one driven to serve others.

And… if you were truly God, you would have the power to give sight to the Blind, deliverance to the Captive, forgiveness to the Wrongdoer, and life to the Dead! Certainly this would earn one the title God.

Think about it, a man from a backward time with no mass communication, born of a peasant couple, only means of tranportation were His legs. He didn’t even speak in public till the age of Thirty and then for 3-short years. How does a man as such from an obscure village in the middle east, change so many millions of lives over the course of History?

He proclaimed His message not only in a short time, but a small area, mostly small villages. He was falsely accused and sentenced to death by an official who believed Him to be innocent. He died the death of a condemned criminal, executed between two other condemned criminals, His Mother and a few close friends were the only ones present.

Then after all this He Rose from the Dead and appears to His followers, His followers were transformed into confident, fearless believers who witnessed to His message at the cost of countless lives. They didn’t even have “paper” let alone a means to communicate via radio, televison, etc. While we can contest some of the canons we cannot contest the validity of many in particular Paul, Peter, Mark and Matthew. Ignatius of Antioch quoted Matthew 3X in his letters, and in Arabic, which means the original text remains hidden another “yet” to be discovered. Luke and Acts are the Evangelists works and refer to Mark to a degree. however, the intention wasn’t to improve but add additional information in 75-AD The evangelist indicates the tradition did not originate in a “MYTH” about Gods, but in the life lived out by Jesus Christ. The absolute reality of Jesus facing the reality of what the world had in store for Him, the same struggle all must come to terms with being born, the meaning of existence and death.

The following generation of Bishops confirms the Apostles and there works can be read. And so forth and so on.

Jesus never “wrote” a word thats known or recorded. He “spoke” One Truth to twelve Apostles, then sent them out into the world to Deliver that Word. And they established the Apostolic Churchs. Jesus mentions CHURCH but “once” in the entire New Testament, and He builds that Church on St Peter, and tells Peter the Gates of hell will never prevail against it.

The Church guided by the Holy Spirit in its Holy Mysteries has withstood every Kingdom, Temporal Ruler, Empire and evil that set out to destroy it. From Nero, to Attila to the Goths to the muslims, to Napoleon to Hitler, Lenon and Stalin and all the rest. GONE, the Apostolic Church’s remain.

The Church stands guided by the Lord, the Faith remains intact, the purpose and intended goal continues. These Souls cannot be distracted by the advancement of evil. Its been tried and tested time after time after time, its the story of the Bible front to back.

If you follow history back to the first century you will see that the same church exists which Christ himself established. And if evil had “prevailed” against Gods Church than I would be researching elsewhere.
 
That’s right! We have very good reasons for accepting Jesus’s message in the Bible. There are good historical reasons for believing that he is the Son of God.

Human reason is not infallible. Therefore, its conclusions, even conclusions about inerrancy or infallibility, may be wrong, and should always be suspect.

The existence of a perfect book or a perfect teaching authority does not help, because no one can ever perfectly know which authority is perfect!
Question remains is the Bible the Greatest Book ever written or not? And if you won’t believe it what will you believe? This isn’t Criminal Court we do not need evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt. Whats required is a preponderance of evidence. And I do believe we not only have it, but have had it for 2000 years here at the Catholic Church. The rest is called FAITH. “Which is to believe what you do not see, the reward is to see what you believe” Augustine.

Read what “one” of those passing Temporal Rulers had to say.

“I know men: and I tell you that Jesus Christ is not a man. Superficial minds see a resemblance between Christ and the founders of Empires, and the Gods of other religions. This resemblance Does Not Exist! Everything in Christ astonishs me. His Spirit awes me, His will confounds me. Between Him and everyone else in the world, there is no possible term of comparison. He is truly a being by Himself. His ideas and sentiments, the Truth which he announces, His manner of convincing, are not explained by either human organization or by the nature of things… The nearer I approach, the more carefully I examiine, everything is above me, everything remains Grand, a Grandeur which overpowers. One can find ansolutely no-where, but in Him alone, the imitation of the example of His life. I searched in vain in History to find the similar to Jesus Christ. Neither History, Humanity, nor the ages, or nature, offer anything with which I am able to compare this or explain it. Here with Jesus everything is extrodinary” Napoleon

And you mean the historical arguements which you already admitted you didn’t even bother to read on this thread?

“reason is not infallible. Therefore, its conclusions, even conclusions about inerrancy or infallibility”

Who is talking “reason” we are talking living History, among many other areas.
 
But having that authority on our side gives us every advantage, don’t you think?
I see no advantage whatsoever. You must have come to accept this authority based on your own reasons, so your acceptance of infallible authority is in fact fallible.

What are the advantages?
 
Question remains is the Bible the Greatest Book ever written or not?
Besides Nature, it is the greatest book so far.
And if you won’t believe it what will you believe?
There is little about which I can be certain. Portions of the Bible are probably wrong.
And you mean the historical arguements which you already admitted you didn’t even bother to read on this thread?
Huh?
Who is talking “reason” we are talking living History, among many other areas.
So your historical analysis and ``living History’’ are not reasonable?
 
I see no advantage whatsoever. You must have come to accept this authority based on your own reasons, so your acceptance of infallible authority is in fact fallible.

What are the advantages?
Well, let’s take it from your POV, which is that we are all starting from the same position: we are our own authority.

Each of us (Christians) then makes a decision to trust in some other authority–some say they “choose Christ”, some choose the Bible, some still choose themselves and whatever seems palatable to them, and then some choose the Vicar of Christ (Catholics.).

The advantage Catholics have is that we are the closest to getting the message from Christ. Because, of course, those who say they follow Christ have no way of actually knowing what Christ said, and those who choose the Bible as their authority are contradicting their own paradigm (for the Bible doesn’t actually say it is the authority), and those who choose what seems palatable to themselves are really only creating a god in their own image.

So it does seem advantageous to set your authority on the one that’s the Vicar of Christ, when Christ isn’t available to speak in Person about the common life, worship and teachings of the Church.
 
anthony022071, thanks for some good historical discussion!

To me it simply demonstrates that the council had no knowledge of an infallible papacy and his tome was viewed just as fallible as anything else that a bishop could produce. So they examined it. Not that I disagree with his tome!! The quote you provide first in your response gives Leo praise for its orthodoxy and clarity on this matter, but I’m weary of thus seeing them as supporting the notion of the modern papacy, which I see as a gradual development over ages. I think we will agree to disagree over the Honorius affair…
Of course they examined the letter. Why would they not,even if they believed that the pope was infallible? It does not indicate that they believed the pope was fallible. People will test what they believe to be true whenever they have the opportunity,just to confirm what they believe. Even if they doubted,the fact remains that the popes were always right about the doctrines concerning Jesus and the Trinity,and councils and the other regional churches were not. It was the teachings of the church of Rome that were the standard for orthodoxy.

How is the modern papacy different from the papacy of the early centuries? There is plenty of evidence from writings of bishops,monks,and emporers and popes themselves which show that the popes were widely regarded as infallible and had universal jurisdiction.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=235272

The earliest evidence is the letter of Pope Clement.

Pope Clement I:

“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us *, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy.” (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).

St. Irenaeus,Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3):

In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels.

St. Dionysius of Corinth:

“For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying” (Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170]).

“Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement” (ibid., 4:23:11).
First place of honour amongst equals is what I mean by it.
But that doesn’t describe the relationship between the church of Rome and the other regional churches as shown in history,in the statements of councils,individual bishops,monks,historians,emporors and popes.*
 
Besides Nature, it is the greatest book so far.?
Nature is splendid, which of these books on nature should we place next to the Bible? :confused:

Do you take into consideration Nature is Gods direct intervention in the Universe? Your abilty to live within Nature this moment is a Gift of His, not promised for tommorrow. Do you believe then He is worthy of some type of Thank You or Worship for this gift? How do we correctly worship this Living God we concluded exists? If we conclude He gave us Nature, so then is it for us to proceed in complete abandonment is this physical world of the one who Blessed us with this physical world? Or do His commandments apply to this physical realm we are committed to.
There is little about which I can be certain. Portions of the Bible are probably wrong.?
So then your certain of little, and skeptical about portions of Bible. What parts are you certain of and why? And what parts are you skeptical about and why?

When you say probably this indicates doubt in your own thinking. We are searching for God and His Church in which we are to correctly worship God and give Thanks. So the doubts will need to be voiced, or I would be assuming, thus we can proceed to clear understanding.

As PR states lets look at your POV. We are at point zero attempting to create a very real model of a Church, which is what we are talking here Church/Authority. At the moment discussing your idea thus “theory” of what this church should be, so by all means lets proceed and construct this belief system. The floor is yours

We have concluded Jesus Christ…real? Really died on the Cross? So then we are making progress?

What of His journey from Birth to the Cross This incarnation is a Mystery to consider no? If God is sinless, then what do we say about Mary for example? What about His commandments and covenants from the OT through the NT?

Or what about these Apostles who are the only source to Christs Word. What about their teachings and their students? Ecumenical Councils? Thus a few examples.
So your historical analysis and ``living History’’ are not reasonable?
Without a doubt they are, but, preponderance of evidence remember, based on various fields of study. Leads me back to the Apostolic Church’s and for me… Rome.

Your reasoning on Chirst and the theory of “church” is based on what Biblically speaking?

The “church” your contemplating? Or the need for a church, in your understanding is the unknown. If we proceed backward from this book the Bible through time we must decide as inviduals what are we going to believe in this book?

I also have to consider when I read any book, did I understand correctly the message the author is conveying. My own understanding may or may not be correct. We can state for certain some completely miss the message, which the Bible states also. Who is to guide us here since no author is alive?

Do we believe the book contains all we need to know about God, why is our individual understanding of this book more relevant than anothers who use just the same book? If we are to assume some of the book is true, some may be skeptical, who decides this, who draws the line in this line drawing game? Who has this, well,… authority? More important what are their conclusions founded on?

This authority states what “is” True? You see, even if we reduce this to just you. You become the authority. So what is true in this Kingdom of God in your uncertain, skeptical opinion?

However just my observations in thinking out loud, you’ll see I do much of that. Its usually a result of unresolved conflict, in this situation understanding where you are coming from. But my point is I am interested in your position or as stated POV.
 
Pablope,
Anders did not have disagreements with Calvin…this is what he wrote…Strangely, mastering Calvin didn’t lead me anywhere I expected…But more importantly, I discovered that Calvin upset my Evangelical view of history… The more I studied Calvin, however, the more foreign he seemed, the less like Protestants today… Calvin shocked me by rejecting key elements of my Evangelical tradition. Born-again spirituality, private interpretation of Scripture, a broad-minded approach to denominations – Calvin opposed them all. I discovered that his concerns were vastly different, more institutional, even more Catholic…How could my Church claim Calvin as a founder, and yet stray so far from his views?
So…Linc…if you have tested it…do you agree with his findings?
Im unsure how his conclusions that Calvin believed in things his particular church did not therefore led him to reject all of the Theology of Calvin and then furthermore to reach the conclusion that Rome is the one true church to follow. If in some aspects modern Protestantism can deviate from the reformers it must be considered if its a good thing, and if not, then we reform. I don’t see the argument that Calvin would disagree with his particular denomination therefore means the CC is correct, with respect.
On the issue of authority…you keep objecting to a papacy…as unbiblical and a modern development…well, how about the Consistory that calvin established in Geneva?
My question to you…where did Calvin get the authority to establish his Consistory in Geneva? And the authority he exercised there?
Is it Biblical? Where is the Biblical basis for it?
If it is unbiblical…would you then also conclude that what Calvin exercised is unbiblical…and his teachings that flowed from his exercise of authority is also unbiblical?
The level of authority ascribed the the reformers comes from their exegesis of scripture, they hold it as the sole infallible rule of faith for the church. Thats the position, we do have tradition, we do have church authority, but it is all below the infallible scriptures. The CC position presented is one, with respect as always, of sola eclessia, rather than sola scriptura. (I use that as a descriptive term, not an insult.)
Calvin’s lifelong goal was to gain the right to excommunicate “unworthy” Church members. The city council finally granted this power in 1555 when French immigration and local scandal tipped the electorate in his favor
So Calvin’s excommunications flowed, not from Church authority, but from the City council of Geneva…so this is an innovation, correct?
Id say Calvin’s life long goal was pastoral care of the church… The article seems to portray him in the classic “not a nice man” manner. If were going to use his alliance with secular authority as an argument against his theology, then surely the same standards must be applied to the medieval papacy, and its uses of the spurious donation of constanatine and secular powers to pursue its aims?

kind regards 🙂

Lincs.
 
Of course they examined the letter. Why would they not,even if they believed that the pope was infallible? It does not indicate that they believed the pope was fallible. People will test what they believe to be true whenever they have the opportunity,just to confirm what they believe. Even if they doubted,the fact remains that the popes were always right about the doctrines concerning Jesus and the Trinity,and councils and the other regional churches were not. It was the teachings of the church of Rome that were the standard for orthodoxy.
With respect, i think these men had no knowledge of the idea of an infallible papacy. Leo was quite correct yes, but not all popes have been quite so orthodox… see schaff here for example:
ow is the modern papacy different from the papacy of the early centuries? There is plenty of evidence from writings of bishops,monks,and emporers and popes themselves which show that the popes were widely regarded as infallible and had universal jurisdiction.
Pope Clement I:
“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us *, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy.” (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]). *
The letter from the plurality of equal elders in Rome known to us as 1 Clement, i don’t think supports the idea of a modern papacy, or even a papacy at all. there is no evidence in the letter itself at all of a single monarchial bishop as begin present in Rome. There is a brief treatment of this here: beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/this-bridge-should-be-illuminated.html
St. Irenaeus,Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3):
In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels.
If you are able, an excellent treatment of Irenaeus is “Louise Abramowski, Journal of Theological Studies, 1977. Abramowski, L. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III. 3, 2: Ecclesia Romana and Omms Ecclesia” I was pointed to this by Beggars all and managed to find a copy, if you can its only a few pages and gives an excellent treatment of this, and his other famous quote on agreeing with the roman church.

Critical analysis of these documents make it clear that the papacy is unheard of in the earliest church.

kind regards

Lincs.
 
Lincoln7:
The letter from the plurality of equal elders in Rome known to us as 1 Clement, i don’t think supports the idea of a modern papacy, or even a papacy at all. there is no evidence in the letter itself at all of a single monarchial bishop as begin present in Rome.
Actually there is evidence. On the contrary,there is no evidence the letter was written to debunk the primacy of Rome. Clements words say a lot.
Critical analysis of these documents make it clear that the papacy is unheard of in the earliest church.
Absolutely false.
 
anthony022071,
Quote:
< Some people in the early Church had doubts about certain books were sacred scripture,but Pope Damasus and later the Council of Carthage gave the list of books which were to be accepted as sacred. There must be an infallible authority to do this,otherwise Christians would have accepted inauthentic books with false teachings,and it would have been impossible to reject them with God-given authority. >

Must be an infallible authority? Or God can use fallible men to achieve his purposes.
Both. Without an infallible authority,the Church would be like a ship without a rudder. False doctrines would spread unchecked through human error and at the instigation of the devil,and the Church would be subverted. You will likely admit that the Holy Spirit sustains the true doctrines in the world. In the Catholic Church,this is done through the agency of the teaching office of Peter,just as with the ancient Hebrews it was done through the agency of prophets. As you say,God use fallible men to achieve his purposes. But if God uses men to teach with his authority true doctrines to the whole Church,then they are not fallible in that capacity,because God sustains them in truth,and he would not allow for them to fail to carry out the purpose for which he uses them.
 
Hi Nicea325,
Actually there is evidence. On the contrary,there is no evidence the letter was written to debunk the primacy of Rome. Clements words say a lot.
I’m not arguing the letter was written to debunk the primacy of Rome. It betrays to us a certain level of knowledge of the roman church of its importance, but I see this as being down to its nature as the largest church, seated in the heart of the empire. What I object to is seeing the letter as evidence of a papacy. I don’t think the text supports this, as the link with the extract demonstrates, there is no single bishop in Rome at such an early date. Clement was one amongst a plurality of elders, the various house churches here had a plurality of elders. - beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/this-bridge-should-be-illuminated.html
Absolutely false.
The case I’m making is in the link… 1 Clement is not from a commanding Pope, but from the whole church, and a multiplicity of elders.

Kind regards

Lincs.
 
Well, let’s take it from your POV, which is that we are all starting from the same position: we are our own authority.

Each of us (Christians) then makes a decision to trust in some other authority–some say they “choose Christ”, some choose the Bible, some still choose themselves and whatever seems palatable to them, and then some choose the Vicar of Christ (Catholics.).
Except that my reason leads me to the conclusion that it is very unlikely that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ. Therefore, I cannot accept his authority, and in fact it would be a great disadvantage to follow his teachings, because I think that they are only moderately better than the teachings of other theologians (and that is only because of Ratzinger’s genius; a different Pope, and my answer would be different).
 
Except that my reason leads me to the conclusion that it is very unlikely that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ. Therefore, I cannot accept his authority, and in fact it would be a great disadvantage to follow his teachings, because I think that they are only moderately better than the teachings of other theologians (and that is only because of Ratzinger’s genius; a different Pope, and my answer would be different).
Fair enough.

Is there something that Ratzinger has said as Vicar of Christ that contravenes that which a different pope has said?
 
Do you take into consideration Nature is Gods direct intervention in the Universe?
My suspicion is that God set the initial conditions in the universe, and interacts with us by taking our decisions into account in his arranging the initial conditions. He cares about us, and we become in a sense co-creators in this universe, through our intercessions.
Do you believe then He is worthy of some type of Thank You or Worship for this gift? How do we correctly worship this Living God we concluded exists?
We cannot know for certain, but I imagine that, as with most parents when given gifts by their children, it is the thought that counts.
So then your certain of little, and skeptical about portions of Bible. What parts are you certain of and why? And what parts are you skeptical about and why?
I am uncertain about the entirety of the Bible. I am certain of some mathematical truths.

In terms of the Bible, my greatest confidence is in the Gospel accounts, as being historical evidence of a great miracle (greatest miracle?) the resurrection. However, I could be wrong even in this.

Common Christian beliefs that I do not accept (that I think are unlikely), are virgin birth and ascension. Peculiar Catholic beliefs that I deny are real presence, authority of Pope, Marian teachings, etc.
We have concluded Jesus Christ…real? Really died on the Cross? So then we are making progress?
Definitely. Even if we come to uncertain conclusions, so long as we increase our confidence and remove other ideas from serious consideration, we are making progress.
This incarnation is a Mystery to consider no? If God is sinless, then what do we say about Mary for example? What about His commandments and covenants from the OT through the NT?
I am agnostic about whether Jesus was sinless. I think it unlikely that Mary was perfect. And his covenant teachings are highly confusing; it is difficult for me to determine what they mean, or who to trust about them.
Or what about these Apostles who are the only source to Christs Word. What about their teachings and their students? Ecumenical Councils? Thus a few examples.
I generally do not accept their teachings without further reason. This includes Paul’s, Peter’s and John’s writings in the Bible.
Your reasoning on Christ and the theory of “church” is based on what Biblically speaking?
The “church” your contemplating? Or the need for a church, in your understanding is the unknown. If we proceed backward from this book the Bible through time we must decide as individuals what are we going to believe in this book?
I also have to consider when I read any book, did I understand correctly the message the author is conveying. My own understanding may or may not be correct. We can state for certain some completely miss the message, which the Bible states also. Who is to guide us here since no author is alive?
My reasoning is based on what I know of nature, my common sense, my philosophy, my understanding of logic and history, etc. I think that we both have used our own reason, and got to different conclusions about which each of us admits he is not certain. Is this not so?

There is no final authority about what we choose to believe, except for us. Since we are fallible, our conclusions are fallible, and so no further authority will be very helpful in establishing certainty. The security and comfort of a magisterium is a false comfort; you still need to choose to accept it, and what if you are wrong?
 
Book seem to be a points of contention.

Lets read the actual context in question which does speak of the Church/Apostles/Tradition/Scripture. 5-Books here’s whats relevant.

Title Chapter III. Book III -A Refutation of the Heretics, from the Fact That, in the Various Churches, a Perpetual Succession of Bishops Was Kept Up.

Title Chapter IV.-The Truth is to Be Found Nowhere Else But in the Catholic Church, the Sole Depository of Apostolical Doctrine. Heresies are of Recent Formation, and Cannot Trace Their Origin Up to the Apostles.

Book 3 Chapters 1-3

In this, the third book I shall adduce proofs from the Scriptures, so that I may come behind in nothing of what thou hast enjoined; yea, that over and above what thou didst reckon upon, thou mayest receive from me the means of combating and vanquishing those who, in whatever manner, are propagating falsehood. For the love of God, being rich and ungrudging, confers upon the suppliant more than he can ask from it. Call to mind then, the things which I have stated in the two preceding books, and, taking these in connection with them, thou shalt have from me a very copious refutation of all the heretics; and faithfully and strenuously shalt thou resist them in defence of the only true and life-giving faith, which the Church has received from the apostles and imparted to her sons. For the Lord of all gave to His apostles the power of the Gospel, through whom also we have known the truth, that is, the doctrine of the Son of God; to whom also did the Lord declare: “He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me, and Him that sent Me.”

Chapter 1.
We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
These have all declared to us that there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced by the law and the prophets; and one Christ the Son of God. If any one do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions of the Lord; nay more, he despises Christ Himself the Lord; yea, he despises the Father also, and stands self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation, as is the case with all heretics.

Chapter 2.
When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, “But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world.” And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.
But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.
Such are the adversaries with whom we have to deal, my very dear friend, endeavouring like slippery serpents to escape at all points. Where-fore they must be opposed at all points, if per-chance, by cutting off their retreat, we may succeed in turning them back to the truth. For, though it is not an easy thing for a soul under the influence of error to repent, yet, on the other hand, it is not altogether impossible to escape from error when the truth is brought alongside it.

Cont.
 
Chapter 3.
It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and [12-13] the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

Book 3 Chapter 4
Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?

Cont
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top