Church of Christ teaches Jesus had siblings?

  • Thread starter Thread starter akarmitage
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think you are quite right about that. I believe that some things are “essential,” and yet the Bible is not 100% clear on exactly how to carry them out. Baptism and obervance of the Lord’s Supper are clearly commanded, but, as a perusal of various Baptist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran systematic theologies will soon show, there is room for differences on just what the Bible says these things mean and do, and on exactly how they are to be observed.

I think Ryle came up with an interesting list of seven essential parts and six leading principles of Christian public worship, yet throughout he is cognizant that there is more than one way to incorporate these elements.

“Now it is true that there is little said concerning the nature of public worship in the New Testament, and in this respect there is a wide difference between the law of Moses and the law of Christ. The Jewish religion was full of strict and detailed directions concerning worship; the Christian religion contains very few directions, and even these are very simple and general. . . The Jew could turn to the writings of Moses and see at a glance every item of his worship; but the Christian can only point to a few isolated texts and passages which are to be applied to every Church according to circumstances. In fact there is nothing in the New Testament which is equivalent to Exodus or Leviticus in the Old. Nevertheless a careful reader of the Scriptures can hardly fail to pick out the essential parts and principles of Christian worship. So it may be said that where these essentials are present, there is Christian worship; but where they are absent, the worship is defective, imperfect and incomplete.” churchsociety.org/issues_new/doctrine/anglican/iss_doctrine_anglican_RyleWorship.asp
I now understand what Ryle thinks but I was asking you:): How about the following doctrines: Baptism (necessary vs not necessary) and the Eucharist (true presence vs symbol). Did God preserve the truth regarding these 2 doctrines? If so how did He do it i.e. how can a Christian know which one is correct, regarding both doctrines? Like I mentioned: Scripture alone does not help us, the Baptist, Presbyterians, Lutherans etc. etc., just as it does not help us resolve the supposed siblings of Jesus.
 
And yet it is this Tradition that has given you these Scriptures. Each and every time you quote the NT you are giving tacit submission to our Sacred Tradition.

For you would not know that Hebrews is inspired…

except through the Tradition of the CC.

Unless you are willing to explain how it is that you know that the Gospel of Barnabas is not inspired, we must assume the, er…logical necessity of your reliance on our Church’s Sacred Tradition.
“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 the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.”
[St. Irenaeus-Against Heresies 170 A.D. (Book III, Chapter 3, Paragraph 3)]
 
I now understand what Ryle thinks but I was asking you:):
As I mentioned in my previous post, I think “there is room for differences on just what the Bible says these things mean and do, and on exactly how they are to be observed.”
How about the following doctrines: Baptism (necessary vs not necessary) and the Eucharist (true presence vs symbol). Did God preserve the truth regarding these 2 doctrines?
God preserved the truth that we are to observe the Lord’s Supper and to perform Baptisms. What He did not preserve for us are details about exactly how these things should be done or exactly what their meaning is. If someone reads the relevant sections of Baptist, Lutheran, and Presbyterian systematic theologies, they will see, as you have pointed out, that scripture can be used to support a variety of opinions with respect to the real presence. I don’t think it’s possible to know with certainty which, if any, is correct; therefore, I am comfortable with any of them.

I’m currently Anglican. For specifics on Anglican teaching, I can refer you to the Articles of Religion. justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1928/Articles.htm

I’m in substantial agreement with my church’s teaching on these issues, but I don’t take so dogmatic a stance on any of them that I’d consider someone a non-Christian just because they have a different understanding of these things from scripture than my church does. As Ryle said, “In the New Testament there is an absence of direct injunction concerning worship, and thus Churches have a reasonable liberty in arrangements for worship.”
 
You are comfortable with the idea that water baptism is necessary or the belief that it is not necessary.
I probably didn’t understand your point about the necessity of water baptism. Every church I’ve attended has said that baptism is necessary, but not absolutely necessary. That is, exceptions exist, such as the thief on the cross or the person who planned to be baptized but got run over by a bus before the scheduled day. Churches differ, but it’s on matters like how old you need to be and how much water you need to use (immerse, pour, or sprinkle) and whether it’s a means of grace or a statement of faith. All of them that I know of regard baptism as commanded by Christ and an ordinance or sacrament that needs to be done.
 
I think you are quite right about that. I believe that some things are “essential,” and yet the Bible is not 100% clear on exactly how to carry them out.
Nor is the Bible clear about what these “essential” teachings are.

That determination of what is essential and what is secondary is made by the* Church.*

So each and every time a Christian discusses an essential teaching he is giving tacit submission an outside entity that discerned that this teaching is, indeed, “essential”.
 
I probably didn’t understand your point about the necessity of water baptism. Every church I’ve attended has said that baptism is necessary, but not absolutely necessary. That is, exceptions exist, such as the thief on the cross or the person who planned to be baptized but got run over by a bus before the scheduled day. Churches differ, but it’s on matters like how old you need to be and how much water you need to use (immerse, pour, or sprinkle) and whether it’s a means of grace or a statement of faith. All of them that I know of regard baptism as commanded by Christ and an ordinance or sacrament that needs to be done.
Of course exceptions exist; I totally agree. Regarding teachings such as the Eucharist, I think I’ve got the gist of it…🙂
 
That Tertullian is not a ECF has already been pointed out to Radical. Knowing it is untrue with the intent to deceive is to lie.
I am afraid that I couldn’t take you seriously
did you even read your earlier post? …or, to be more precise, did you read the newadvent link? Regarding Tertullian it reads:

Like most Latin Fathers he speaks not of two Natures but of two Substances in one Person, united without confusion, and distinct in their operations.

note how he is referred to as a Latin Father?..as in latin early church father…expecting that you and PR will probably bluster on that too, I’ll provide this link from Christian Classics Ethereal Library…it relates to volume 3 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers - Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian. and in case you are wondering, Ante-Nicene Fathers = ECFs from before the 1st Nicene council. Also, you might note that it mentions that Tertullian “is often called the ‘father of Latin Christianity’”…again that would be “father” as in “early church father”.

…but hey, if you and PR want to keep pretending that patristic scholars don’t consider Tertullian an early church father, by all means don’t let reality get in your way.
 
…but hey, if you and PR want to keep pretending that patristic scholars don’t consider Tertullian an early church father, by all means don’t let reality get in your way.
It’s irrelevant, really, Radical.

You were corrected on your misinformation once (at least). You forgot about that. And now you are being corrected again.

You would do well to keep this in mind after a few short weeks, should you make an attempt to promote Tertullian again as an ECF, that he is not. 🤷
 
I am afraid that I couldn’t take you seriously

did you even read your earlier post? …or, to be more precise, did you read the newadvent link? Regarding Tertullian it reads:

Like most Latin Fathers he speaks not of two Natures but of two Substances in one Person, united without confusion, and distinct in their operations.

note how he is referred to as a Latin Father?..as in latin early church father…expecting that you and PR will probably bluster on that too, I’ll provide this link from Christian Classics Ethereal Library…it relates to volume 3 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers - Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian. and in case you are wondering, Ante-Nicene Fathers = ECFs from before the 1st Nicene council. Also, you might note that it mentions that Tertullian “is often called the ‘father of Latin Christianity’”…again that would be “father” as in “early church father”.

…but hey, if you and PR want to keep pretending that patristic scholars don’t consider Tertullian an early church father, by all means don’t let reality get in your way.
Your link is not Catholic…and web page reads: Calvin College. More important, Tertullian is considered an ecclesiastical writer rather than a Father of the Church. And why? At one point he followed orthodoxy Christianity later to join a heretical sect called the Montanist, thus he was not in communion with the Catholic Church. Plus he is not a saint.

Sorry but your link is wrong.
 
You were corrected on your misinformation once (at least). You forgot about that. And now you are being corrected again.
so what do you think? is it that if you repeat a claim often enough (no matter how outrageous that claim might be), the claim becomes true?
You would do well to keep this in mind after a few short weeks, should you make an attempt to promote Tertullian again as an ECF, that he is not. 🤷
you referenced wikipedia a while back…didn’t it dawn on you to at least check that source before making your outrageous claim that Tertullian wasn’t an ECF…or a simple search should have led you to this site by a Catholic

You are also wrong wrt relevancy…Tertullian, the “founder of Latin Christianity” rejected the PVofM and that speaks volumes as to the apostolicity of that view.
 
Your link is not Catholic…
so what?
…and web page reads: Calvin College. More important, Tertullian is considered an ecclesiastical writer rather than a Father of the Church.
by whom?..the Catholic newadvent link provided by Porknpie designated him a Latin father.
Sorry but your link is wrong.
by all means provide your links from Catholic patristic scholars indicating that he shouldn’t be regarded as an early church father…that would be an actual patristic scholar and not some apologist that finds Tertullian’s views difficult to circumvent
 
Tertullian, the “founder of Latin Christianity” rejected the PVofM and that speaks volumes as to the apostolicity of that view.
You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that our beliefs as Catholics come from Tertullian, an early ecclesial writer.

They do not.

Let me assure you that our beliefs come from Christ, through the Apostles.

That segues nicely with a question to which I am still awaiting an answer: how is it that you know that the Gospel of Barnabas (who was an apostle) is not inspired? Were you not of the opinion that for something to be considered* theopneustos* it must be written by an apostle?
 
God preserved the truth that we are to observe the Lord’s Supper and to perform Baptisms. What He did not preserve for us are details about exactly how these things should be done or exactly what their meaning is.
More accurately, God did not explicitly present the truth of how we are to observe and administer these sacraments in His written word. But, again, sacred Scripture is not the sole medium of divine revelation in the deposit of faith. It co-exists in harmony with sacred Tradition. So we must look at the ancient traditions of the Church for a clarification of the written word. St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the apostle John, clearly relates what the Christians of the nascent church understood about the Eucharist, and by his testimony he clarifies the meaning of John 6 and shows how the sacred text ought to be interpreted. He writes: “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer (worship), because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again.” [Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Vll.l (c.A.D.110)]. St. Justin Martyr (d.165) adds: " For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh are by transmutation are noursished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." [First Apology, 66]. That the Eucharist did not embody the Real Presence of Christ by transubstantiation, but merely symbolized the body and blood of Christ, or served as a means to draw Jesus to be present spiritually, was not a belief that was traditionally held by the early Christians who were taught either by one of the Twelve or a close successor of the apostles. According to what these Church Fathers wrote, the celebration of the Eucharist was an essential part of worship, and the Blessed Sacrament served as a physical instrument of grace. Many people abstained from attending worship and receiving the Eucharist because they couldn’t accept the belief that the bread and wine actually were the body and blood of Christ. But God has preserved the fullness of His truth concerning the Eucharist first and foremost through the transmission of sacred Tradition.

With regard to the question of the Sacrament of Baptism, the NT, for instance, only implies that infants and children before reaching the age of reason should be included among its recipients. Peter baptized the entire household of Cornelius which normally would include infants or at least very young children (Acts 10:47-49). Likewise, Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household (Acts 16:15). The word “household” comes from the Greek word oikos, which means a household that includes infants and children. Further, Lydia’s household is baptized on account of her faith and not that of her family members or servants, just as in the Catholic tradition infants are baptized on the basis of their parents’ faith, for in sin we are conceived (Ps 51:5). Cornelius was a man “who feared God with his entire household”, so his children, too, would have been baptized on account of his faith. Again, we must look to Tradition and the practice of the early Church to confirm whether infants and young children actually were baptized together with adolescents and adults from the beginning according to God’s will. St. Justin Martyr (d.165): “And many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples from childhood, remain pure and at the age of sixty or seventy years.” [First Apology, 15:6]. Aristides: “And when a child has been born to one of them, they give thanks to God (reference to baptism); and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who has passed through the world without sin.” [Apology, 15 (A.D.140)]. “Polycarp declared, ‘Eighty and six years have I served him, and He never did me injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and Saviour?’” [Martyrdom of Polycarp, 9 (156)]. St. Irenaeus: “For He came to save all through means of Himself – all I say who through Him are born again to God – infants, children, and boys, and youth, and old men.” [Against Heresies ll.22.4 (180)]. Christian division and dissension is the result of severance from the historic Christian faith and perusing the Scriptures divorced from Tradition.

PAX
🙂
 
I am afraid that I couldn’t take you seriously

did you even read your earlier post? …or, to be more precise, did you read the newadvent link? Regarding Tertullian it reads:

Like most Latin Fathers he speaks not of two Natures but of two Substances in one Person, united without confusion, and distinct in their operations.
Radical, have not fear! It’s pretty common in the English language to put the most important thought of an author in the first sentence of a paragraph. The first 8 words…

“Ecclesiastical writer in the second and third centuries,”
note how he is referred to as a Latin Father?..
Father means “teacher of spiritual things”… he was a Latin Teacher. For more help on this subject, check this link out below on "“Fathers of the Church”.

newadvent.org/cathen/06001a.htm

Among other insights, it discusses at some length the criteria for being a “church father”

The same result is obtained by modern theologians, in their definitions; e.g. Fessler thus defines what constitutes a “Father”:
  1. orthodox doctrine and learning;
  2. holiness of life;
  3. (at the present day) a certain antiquity.
The criteria by which we judge whether a writer is a “Father” or not are:
  1. citation by a general council, or
  2. in public Acts of popes addressed to the Church or concerning Faith;
  3. encomium in the Roman Martyrology as “sanctitate et doctrina insignis”;
  4. public reading in Churches in early centuries;
  5. citations, with praise, as an authority as to the Faith by some of the more celebrated Fathers.
    Early authors, though belonging to the Church, who fail to reach this standard are simply ecclesiastical writers (“Patrologia”, ed. Jungmann, ch. i, #11).
In the article, there is also a comment that appealing to the Fathers appeals to tradition.

“Appeals to the Fathers are a subdivision of appeals to tradition.”

So the same Catholic church which through tradition gave you the canon of scripture that you are using, is the same Catholic church that is defining the Church Fathers. If you accept the former, then you logically have to accept the latter. Or, if the latter is in error, then you can not trust the former (the biblical canon) to be reliable.

Radical, I do wish you a blessed Christmas season and Happy New Year. I do appreciate your posts on CAF as you make me a better Catholic every day, with every question you post and every reply that I read either from myself or others. 🙂

(note to all: my avatars are painted by “PIE”. She is quite talented.)
 
That segues nicely with a question to which I am still awaiting an answer: how is it that you know that the Gospel of Barnabas (who was an apostle) is not inspired? Were you not of the opinion that for something to be considered* theopneustos* it must be written by an apostle?
you have misunderstood my opinion, but I would be happy to answer your question…I would just suggest that you start a new thread for that new topic…please invite Joe, as he seems to want similar questions answered. Cheers.
 
you have misunderstood my opinion, but I would be happy to answer your question…I would just suggest that you start a new thread for that new topic…please invite Joe, as he seems to want similar questions answered. Cheers.
Hey Radical, I know we won’t agree but it is fun to discuss anyway…🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top