A
- Status
R
Richard_Kastner
Guest
I didn’t make a mistake I fully intended to reiterate my claim that the word of God is all sufficient.
Hear this well Pax.
1Jn.5:9If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
10He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
11And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
13These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
The witness that John talks about here is THE WORD OF GOD. It says in v. 10He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: The word of God is Jesus.
Jn.1:14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, So, if you have the witness in yourself. You have Jesus dwelling in you because you have THE WORD OF GOD dwelling in you. And when we BELIEVE in Jesus Christ THE WORD OF GOD. We have eternal life. Let me ask you Pax. What can you, your church, or any man give that is needed more than this? All that mankind needs is to come to a faith in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ and recieve eternal life and this is clearly pointed out in THE WORD OF GOD as I have pointed out here in 1 Jn. 5. If you do not believe this I can only feel a deep sadness for you and pray that you accept Him not only as your Savior, but also as your Lord.
Well, again you come to an erroneos conclusion because your premise is faulty. Scripture is given to us to show us individually what we need for eternal life and as I have shown above that is a faith in Jesus Christ and we know this through the manifestation of His all sufficient word. Jesus established His church in order to bring that all sufficient word to the world (matheteuo, make disciples) Matt. 28:19-20
My goodnes, how do you figure this. Again, the word of God is given to show us Jesus. It is all sufficient to that task. However we are not up to the take of understanding all that is written in scripture. This is where the Holy Spirit comes in Jn.16: 13Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth
In your opinion, how does it operate?
Well first of all, I don’t have any doctrine. I’m not sure what you mean here are you saying we need something more than a faith in the atoning blood of Jesus Christ. If so, what would that be?
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
“Show me a hero and I will write you a tragedy” (F.Scott Fitzgerald)
Pax, what do St John Henry Newman, Pope Benedict XV1, and St Thomas Aquinas have in common? They are of the viewpoint Catholic Catechism is subjugated to Scripture. That there’s not 2 streams of thought going on, Scripture and Tradition, that they feed into each other. That there is not one article of our Faith which cannot be found or justified by a sound study of Scripture. The Councils didn’t make anything up, they didn’t invent anything. Everything originated in and through the Word of God. Personally, I find it a blessing there are not 2 systems of thought we have to grapple with.
:shrug:Emailing can lead to misunderstanding - some studies claim 85% of our communication is non-verbal!
The Magesterium of the Church provides us the official teaching of the Church. This does not preclude a Catholic from private interpretation
J
joe370
Guest
Hey Kevin…
As a former Lutheran, this was the question that helped me answer your question: was it the CC or one of the PC’s that finally decided which books were inspired by God (written by fallible, sinful people) - and therefore included in the holy bible, and which books were not inspired by God ( again, written by fallible, sinful people) - and therefore excluded from the holy bible?
If we can trust that this church, guided by the HS (which ever church you selected) - got it right about the correct inclusion/exclusion of the books in the infallible word of God, then certainly we can trust that this church, guided by the HS (again, which ever church you selected) - can infallibly interpret the infallible word of God, thanks to the ineffable guidance of the HS - right or wrong? If God left the world with His inerrant word, then doesn’t it make sense that He would also leave the world with an inerrant interpreter, forever guided by the inerrant HS? Who is qualified to resolve doctrinal differences found in the inerrant holy bible? People like Josiah and Moondweller tell me that the CC leadership, guided by the HS is NOT qualified to resolve doctrinal differences found in the inerrant holy bible, so it must be one of the myriad PC’s guided by the HS, which begs the question: where were these authoritative protestant church leaders for the first 500 years of Christianity when doctrinal differences (in the face of heretical movements) - were being resolved by the CC, never to impugn the works of these church leaders of course?
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
Joe370 Reading from your post you are an ex-Lutheran may I recommend the autobiography of Scott Hahn, I highly recommend it. Read, devour and enjoy
(If you haven’t already done so). He was very high up in the Lutheran Church and taking Bible in hand decided to discredit the CC, instead he was converted:thumbsup:
Cornelius was not a Christian, yet because of his righteous works he was found to be worthy in the eyes of God.
The African Synod of Hippo approved the N.T. in 393, repeated by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419.
For the CC full dogmatic articulation of the Biblical canon was not made until the Council of Trent in 1546.
Sacred Scripture may be infallible. Other Christian denominations other than the CC have access to Sacred Scripture. I cannot hold to the belief that at the transept of the CC God should permit the Holy Spirit thus far and no further.
In precis, the question has been raised before “What constitutes membership of the CC? Is it by name alone or by work of the Holy Spirit, the Grace and Glory of God?”
The disciples were amazed to find those who were not immediate followers of Christ driving out devils. Our Lord’s reaction was those who are not against us are with us.
(If you haven’t already done so). He was very high up in the Lutheran Church and taking Bible in hand decided to discredit the CC, instead he was converted:thumbsup:Cornelius was not a Christian, yet because of his righteous works he was found to be worthy in the eyes of God.
The African Synod of Hippo approved the N.T. in 393, repeated by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419.
For the CC full dogmatic articulation of the Biblical canon was not made until the Council of Trent in 1546.
Sacred Scripture may be infallible. Other Christian denominations other than the CC have access to Sacred Scripture. I cannot hold to the belief that at the transept of the CC God should permit the Holy Spirit thus far and no further.
In precis, the question has been raised before “What constitutes membership of the CC? Is it by name alone or by work of the Holy Spirit, the Grace and Glory of God?”
The disciples were amazed to find those who were not immediate followers of Christ driving out devils. Our Lord’s reaction was those who are not against us are with us.
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
From where did the Catholic Church get its title?
From where did the Orthodox Church get its title?
There is claim made that one excommunicated the other (around 560 A.D.) - the East excommunicated the West, the West excommunicated the East. Over their divergent understanding of the Divinity of Christ.
Hence the titles, Catholic (we are the one true Church) and Orthodox (we are the one true Church).
There has always been division within the Catholic Church, one of the signs it is a gift from God is its ability to function and claim it is a unity of worship.
From where did the Orthodox Church get its title?
There is claim made that one excommunicated the other (around 560 A.D.) - the East excommunicated the West, the West excommunicated the East. Over their divergent understanding of the Divinity of Christ.
Hence the titles, Catholic (we are the one true Church) and Orthodox (we are the one true Church).
There has always been division within the Catholic Church, one of the signs it is a gift from God is its ability to function and claim it is a unity of worship.
P
Pax
Guest
Richard in Christ,
I have no problem with your point here or the scriptures you’ve quoted. However, IMHO there is much more to be said about the Church and I would start with the gospels and then move through Acts and all of the rest of the NT to consume every word that pertains to the Church. Some of this material has already been presented on this thread.
The give and take of the discussion so far indicates to me that we have disagreements on the relationship of scripture, tradition, and the Church. Sola scriptura plays down the role of the Church and the role of Tradition to a degree that I find to be inconsistent with scripture itself.
I said,
and you responded,
I basically made the point because you did not include what I have stated in any of your remarks. “From my point of view” this omission is a serious one, and it would “From my point of view” give an indication of your views. If you agree with my point then we may be “from my point of view” making progress to finding areas of common ground. I have never spoken with any sola scriptura advocate that gives recognition to the Church and Tradition to the degree that scripture does. This is where I run into difficulty.
God bless.
P
Pax
Guest
AmericanJosiah in Christ,
I said,
I am not trying to pick a fight here, but IMHO you did rant and you did call the Catholic Church a cult.
I also have no idea why you believe that I would bad mouth your particular denomination. If you examine my posts on any thread you will not find me bad mouthing any denomination. Please note that every post that I have addressed to you begins with "AmericanJosiah in Christ,"
I use that Christian appellation when addressing my non-Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ because I love and respect them. I may disagree with various teachings such as “sola scriptura” and I do defend my points of view vigorously. If my methods and language appear too strong and I have thus offended you, then I apologize. Perhaps our styles of communication are such that I rub you the wrong way. If so I apologize. My intent is not to antagonize.
If I misunderstood your remarks by misconstruing your words in what I quoted then please know that I can readily forget the remarks if they were not intended as read. Even if you did mean them, please know that I bear no ill will toward you. Again, I apologize for anything that I may have said by way of statements or manners that rubbed you the wrong way.
God bless.
I said,
You responded:
Please review the following from two of your posts.
The bold emphasis is mine.
I am not trying to pick a fight here, but IMHO you did rant and you did call the Catholic Church a cult.
I also have no idea why you believe that I would bad mouth your particular denomination. If you examine my posts on any thread you will not find me bad mouthing any denomination. Please note that every post that I have addressed to you begins with "AmericanJosiah in Christ,"
I use that Christian appellation when addressing my non-Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ because I love and respect them. I may disagree with various teachings such as “sola scriptura” and I do defend my points of view vigorously. If my methods and language appear too strong and I have thus offended you, then I apologize. Perhaps our styles of communication are such that I rub you the wrong way. If so I apologize. My intent is not to antagonize.
If I misunderstood your remarks by misconstruing your words in what I quoted then please know that I can readily forget the remarks if they were not intended as read. Even if you did mean them, please know that I bear no ill will toward you. Again, I apologize for anything that I may have said by way of statements or manners that rubbed you the wrong way.
God bless.
P
Pax
Guest
Richard in Christ,
I have no problem with the verses you quoted and I stand up with a big Alleluia and an Amen. The problem is that scripture says an awful lot more than the passages you quoted. Moreover, you have yet to quote scripture where it says that it is “all sufficient for salvation,” and the passages in your post do not accomplish that for you.
I’m curious…what would give you the impression that my rejection of sola scriptura that I might not believe and accept Christ as my Savior and Lord. I ask this because of your remark that,
I do not believe that the Church exists for the sole purpose of bringing Christ’s word to the world according to the formula of sola scriptura. This is where I have difficulty and it is, as I mentioned before, that the relationship between scripture, tradition, and the Church are under appreciated by those that advocate sola scriptura. I believe, that the Church guided by the Holy Spirit is the ultimate arbiter and promulgator of how scripture is to be interpreted and understood. No individual or collective can do that. Only the Church Jesus established is capable of proclaiming the word to the world in the fullness of truth.
If you and I could agree that the role I described for Christ’s Church in relation to scripture is true, then we would be reaching for some common ground even if we did not agree on just what Church that might be. Sola scriptura advocates generally will not make that leap, but routinely claim that the individual can arrive at the fullness of the truth on their own provided they are guided by the Holy Spirit. I do not believe that the guidance given by the Holy Spirit to an individual is greater than the guidance given to the Church by the Holy Spirit. In the hierarchy of understanding and promulgating the truth of scripture, the individual is far and away behind the Church.
Scripture tells us that when we have a disagreement, particularly one that cannot be solved with the help of a couple of brothers, to ultimately take it to the Church. That is the order set up by Jesus.
God bless.
P
Pax
Guest
Richard in Christ,
I said among other things:
The answer will be explored in a positive sense and it will be explored in a negative sense. Much of what I have been driving at over the course of our discussion points to the answer, but perhaps a few points of focus will make some of that material a little more clear and meaningful.
It is important to note that the Church began at Pentecost. The event of Pentecost happened of course long before the scripture was written that reported it. The Church began before the NT was written and it was the leaders of the Church that wrote the NT. The fact is that the early Church operated for quite awhile before any of the New Testament was written and it existed long before the Canon of scripture was established. It was the Church that canonized scripture. Scripture did not self assemble. No single person could discern what was to be included in the Canon of Scripture and what was to be excluded. The individual is not capable of making any such distinctions between any of these, and it is clear that the individual is not up to making the necessary interpretations of scripture in order to be saved. Scripture is not read or understood in a vacuum.
The Church wrote the NT and then, as the only qualified and appointed authority of Christ, compiled the canon of both the New and Old Testaments. The Church knows scripture from the inside out. The Church sits upon a two thousand year mountain of scriptural scholarship and understanding. The Church that Christ appointed does not twist the scripture as Peter warns of some individuals. Peter even warns us that those that twist scripture do so to their own destruction. This demonstrates my point as to why scripture is “materially sufficient” but not “all sufficient.” Scripture itself makes it clear that false doctrines and the twisting of scripture brings “destruction.” Scripture’s “material sufficiency” cannot stop that from happening. An able, apt, and faithful teacher of scripture can steer the flock in the direction of correct interpretation and doctrine.
Scripture operates to its fullest when read within the heart of the Church Jesus established. When scripture is understood from within the heart of the Church and her liturgy, scripture is then understood within the body of Christ Jesus. Jesus is the truth. Scripture tells us emphatically that the truth is a person, and makes it clear that Jesus is that person. The person of Jesus is identified with the church in a number of ways. The Church is called the body of Christ on earth. The Church is also called the bride of Christ. These kinds of descriptions are given to us to show the intimate relationship that Jesus has with his Church which he promised would never fail and that he would be with until the end of time.
We benefit greatly by reading scripture. I read it privately everyday and simply can’t get enough of it. I find this to be a great blessing and grace from God. My love of the word of God is one that includes a huge sense of awe. My understandings of scripture are never hindered by the teachings of the Church or by guidance provided by the Church in the interpretation of scripture. Instead, my reading of scripture has been enormously enriched by learning to read it from the heart of the Church.
I believe that scripture operates by being read and understood from the heart of the Church which is the body of Christ. If I attempted to do my reading on my own and believing somehow that the Holy Spirit would guide me in a way that is contrary or superior to the guidance rendered to the Church, then I would soon be off in my own world of error. Scripture contains, as Peter says of Paul’s letters, things that are difficult to understand. I agree with Peter and take his words seriously. The Church, which is the body of Christ, is guided by the Holy Spirit in a fashion that will never fail regardless of my own weaknesses which can cause me to falter.
God bless.
I said among other things:
You then asked:
The question you have asked is “the question” that everyone should ask whether they are a Catholic or a non-Catholic Christian. There are, I am sure, better and more complete answers than I can offer, but I will give it a shot.
The answer will be explored in a positive sense and it will be explored in a negative sense. Much of what I have been driving at over the course of our discussion points to the answer, but perhaps a few points of focus will make some of that material a little more clear and meaningful.
It is important to note that the Church began at Pentecost. The event of Pentecost happened of course long before the scripture was written that reported it. The Church began before the NT was written and it was the leaders of the Church that wrote the NT. The fact is that the early Church operated for quite awhile before any of the New Testament was written and it existed long before the Canon of scripture was established. It was the Church that canonized scripture. Scripture did not self assemble. No single person could discern what was to be included in the Canon of Scripture and what was to be excluded. The individual is not capable of making any such distinctions between any of these, and it is clear that the individual is not up to making the necessary interpretations of scripture in order to be saved. Scripture is not read or understood in a vacuum.
The Church wrote the NT and then, as the only qualified and appointed authority of Christ, compiled the canon of both the New and Old Testaments. The Church knows scripture from the inside out. The Church sits upon a two thousand year mountain of scriptural scholarship and understanding. The Church that Christ appointed does not twist the scripture as Peter warns of some individuals. Peter even warns us that those that twist scripture do so to their own destruction. This demonstrates my point as to why scripture is “materially sufficient” but not “all sufficient.” Scripture itself makes it clear that false doctrines and the twisting of scripture brings “destruction.” Scripture’s “material sufficiency” cannot stop that from happening. An able, apt, and faithful teacher of scripture can steer the flock in the direction of correct interpretation and doctrine.
Scripture operates to its fullest when read within the heart of the Church Jesus established. When scripture is understood from within the heart of the Church and her liturgy, scripture is then understood within the body of Christ Jesus. Jesus is the truth. Scripture tells us emphatically that the truth is a person, and makes it clear that Jesus is that person. The person of Jesus is identified with the church in a number of ways. The Church is called the body of Christ on earth. The Church is also called the bride of Christ. These kinds of descriptions are given to us to show the intimate relationship that Jesus has with his Church which he promised would never fail and that he would be with until the end of time.
We benefit greatly by reading scripture. I read it privately everyday and simply can’t get enough of it. I find this to be a great blessing and grace from God. My love of the word of God is one that includes a huge sense of awe. My understandings of scripture are never hindered by the teachings of the Church or by guidance provided by the Church in the interpretation of scripture. Instead, my reading of scripture has been enormously enriched by learning to read it from the heart of the Church.
I believe that scripture operates by being read and understood from the heart of the Church which is the body of Christ. If I attempted to do my reading on my own and believing somehow that the Holy Spirit would guide me in a way that is contrary or superior to the guidance rendered to the Church, then I would soon be off in my own world of error. Scripture contains, as Peter says of Paul’s letters, things that are difficult to understand. I agree with Peter and take his words seriously. The Church, which is the body of Christ, is guided by the Holy Spirit in a fashion that will never fail regardless of my own weaknesses which can cause me to falter.
God bless.
J
joe370
Guest
Joe370 Reading from your post you are an ex-Lutheran may I recommend the autobiography of Scott Hahn, I highly recommend it. Read, devour and enjoy
Did it already, and I really enjoyed it.
P
Pax
Guest
We are all saved by God’s grace through the merits of Jesus Christ’s passion, death, and resurrection.
That is a true statement, but I will, nevertheless, show you how your question must be answered with a “yes.”
I will start answering your question with a rhetorical question and then proceed.
Just how much error in our Christianity is allowed before it brings about our destruction as pointed out in 2 Peter 2:1, and 2 Peter 3:16 and elsewhere in scripture?
I doubt that you believe that someone can deny the Trinity, deny that Jesus is God, deny the virgin birth, deny that scripture is the inspired word of God, and live like a pagan and still be saved. I doubt that you believe that this same person could be saved even if they had as you stated, “faith in the atoning blood of Jesus Christ.”
Keep in mind that there are many possibilities for what is and is not included within a person’s particular system of belief. A person could have faith in the atoning blood of Jesus Christ, but could be pretty mixed up on many other aspects of Christianity including the divinity of Jesus. You do not have to look far to see these kinds of things articulated by people.
So “yes”, more is needed and scripture makes it pretty clear that more is needed. One cannot not mix and match as they wish. If they do, they do not have the whole of Jesus Christ, and what they do have may not be enough. Naturally, I judge no one. All is up to the infinite mercy of God in conjunction with his perfect justice. I only put forth that which I believe to be true and congruent to the fullness of Christian teaching.
I hope this helps.
P
Pax
Guest
AmericanJosiah in Christ,
I have not meant to ignore you or anyone else. I simply cannot respond to everything. I have a tough enough time keeping up with my job and other responsibilities, let alone addressing everything that comes my way via this forum.
I believe what I believe for the many reasons I provided over the course of my participation on this thread. My apologetic does not boil down to your claims. Your analogy is not analogous to the case at hand.
It is important to appreciate the linkages in the chain of material presented. The Catholic Church is capitalized because it is a commonly used formal name. The meaning of “catholic” from scripture is synonymous with the meaning of the capitalized word “Catholic” in the name Catholic Church. There is no poor grammar anywhere in any of this. The term catholic was used in the NT to describe the church. The term “catholic church” was used by a disciple of the apostle John(i.e. Ignatius of Antioch) and the term has been associated with the church from the earliest times. Those facts seem rather significant to historians inside and outside of the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church preexists all of the others. This is pretty good evidence if you ask me, especially since secular historians agree with that point. Those historians are not all friendly to the Catholic Church and have no axe to grind in favor of the Church.
I find it intriguing how you so easily dismiss these connections as well as the promises of Jesus to what is obviously the historical church established by Jesus. I find it intriguing that you do not believe that Jesus’s promises and grants of power and authority would not continue with the Church he established for all time. I find it intriguing that you would somehow dismiss all of that in spite of the fact that Jesus said that he would be with his church until the end of time.
Scripture tells us in Matthew 16:18 that “upon this rock I will build my church.” Please note that Jesus never said “churches.” Why should I believe that Jesus didn’t make these promises to the one church that he established exclusively and perpetually?
You’ve made comments about accountability in reference to the Catholic Church. The church is the body of Christ. That fact should give you pause concerning the weakness of your attack. The church is made up of individuals and they will all be accountable for their actions whether they be a prophet, a teacher, a bishop, a pope or anyone else. The church is something bigger and much greater than the individual member. Christ is the head of the Church and we are members of his body. Your attacks of accountability are peculiar and misplaced considering those facts.
God bless.
B
Bengoshi
Guest
Obviously, a lot of Christian doctrines are not explicit in Scripture. This question has already been discussed and answered early on this thread by AJ. Just look at Acts 17:11 where the Bereans verified from the Scriptures if what the apostle Paul preached was correct/true. This is a clear example of norming. That all teachers, preachers, evangelists, pastors, etc. are subject to the Scriptures and not the other way around. If St. Paul himself was subjected to this kind of scrutiny, then who are we, or the Pope for that matter, to be exempt from such norming?
P
Pax
Guest
I apologize for offending you…I’ll try harder to be more circumspect in my remarks.What a very nice and civil thing to say. I will just choose to ignore this.
God bless.
M
moondweller
Guest
Excellent analogy, AJ.
R
Richard_Kastner
Guest
What you are sayig here is that we are saved by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, but we’re not saved by that sacrifice. This is a contradiction. You can’t have it both ways. I believe and I think that scripture bears this out that salvation is a matter of our believing in the blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Consider Jn. 3:16 16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. There are no adendums or caveats attached to this statement only “whosoever believeth”
Let me answer your retorical question. None!
See, that’s just it Pax. If you deny these things you will not, cannot have “faith in the atoning blood of Jesus Christ.”
You seem to think that because a person says that they believe in Jesus’ sacrifice that that is indeed the case. I’m not at all sure that a person could have faith in the atoning sacrifice of Christ and not be convinced of Christ’s divinity. I don’t think that that is possible. Again Jn. 3:16 16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. When you believe in Jesus Christ you believe that He is the only begotten Son of God and therefore divine.
Let me say this again. The only thing necessary for our justfication before a holy God is a belief (conviction) that His son paid the price for our sins. Rom.5:8But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
That having been said. The story doesn’t end there. Rom.6:3Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
When we die with Christ in the waters of baptism, we are resurrected out of the waters a new creature and now the second phase of our Chrstian walk begins. That of sanctification.
How does this happen? Well, again we go to the all sufficient word of God. Jn.17:17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. What is the truth? Jn.14: 6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
And Jn.1:14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. So, you see once we are justified and again I must stress that the only thing necessary for our justfication before a holy God is a belief (conviction) that His son paid the price for our sins. Once we are justified we begin the process of sanctification through the study of THE WORD OF GOD. Which is the manifestation of Jesus. And is all sufficient to our salvation. Which leads us to the third and final phase of our Christian walk. That is glorification. When we see Jesus comming in the clouds of glory to take us home. I can’t wait.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
- Actually, it’s never found in the Bible.
- For centuries, “catholic” was ONLY an adjective. In English grammar, adjectives are not capitolized. The adjective meant (and means) “whole” “universal” “general” “all-embracing.” I realize that centuries later, it would be made into a proper noun and moniker for a denomination (and in that case, the capitolization is proper grammar) but it is misleading (if not outright misstating) to capitolize the adjective centuries earlier to imply the existence of the denomination. I refer to my illustration used earlier: Let’s say I refer to my car as “awesome.” In 2072, Toyota comes out with a sports car with the moniker of “Awesome.” Do you think it sound for it to be foundationally argued that the first Toyota Awesome belonged to me in 2010? Read the quotes presented as they were written - and the definition of the church as I gave becomes affirmed by those individuals. BTW, the same point for the Orthodox churches. The adjective “orthodox” was also used for centuries AS SUCH. Later, much later, those adjectives would be made into proper nouns and associated with the denominations we now know by that moniker. Did you know there are at least 3 denominations with the legal moniker “The Christian Church?” The Bible mentions that, do you think those references are to one of those 3 denomiantions? I’m sure you get my point…
Funny you should post that. Because I had a rather long (and very good) conversation with my History 101 prof in college some years ago on THAT very point. A Catholic, with a Ph.D. in Classical History, stressed that Christianity was an amazingly loose movement - not institutional in any sense, and this should be expected since it was widely dispursed, illegal and often underground. He found it remarkable that obviously, Jesus left no organization behind but that Christians kinda “figured this out” on their own - slowly, as necessary. He argued that some PROTO to The Catholic Church and all the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches probably began in the third century, but didn’t really take any shape until the fourth - but that NO denomination today can claim to be it, only that they stem from this. He is Catholic, BTW.
Oh, I don’t AT ALL!
I just note the obvious: He never promised The Catholic Church anything. And He never stated that students and followers are infallible and unaccountable.
What DID He say in this regard? That we are to beware of false teachers, antichrists and those that lead many astray. He praised the Ephesian Christians for doing what The Catholic Church forbids: regarding teachers as accountable, testing/norming them, declaring them false. And I so vividly think of Genesis chapter 3 (you might want to read it again). It’s TRYING to figure out where Catholics get this idea that students and followers are infallible/unaccountable… While Jesus DID say something about teaching and leading PEOPLE (He said nothing about any denomination), where does He say that students and followers are infallible/unaccountable? MUCH of His ministry was correcting students and rebuking people for NOT following - odd if such are infallible and unaccountable. Surely, then, God was wrong to rebuke Adam and Eve since students are infallible and cannot be held accountable for what they say/do.
On this foundational Catholic claim that students and followers of Christ are infallible and unaccountable, read the following: 2 Peter 2:1, Titus 2:1, 1 Timothy 6:3, Revelation 2:2, James 3:1, Matthew 13:52, Luke 20:46, Ephesians 4:14 - for starters.
Do you believe that truth matters - especially doctrine concerning our very souls?
Do you believe that teachers of doctrine are accountable for what they teach as such?
Do you believe that The Catholic Church teaches doctrine?
(Warning: Be careful and read your Catechism # 87 before you answer !)
IF so, then The Catholic Church is accountable for what it teaches.
And thus you’ve embraced norming (including for teachings of The Catholic Church)
And the question comes to the issue of this thread that we are to discuss: WHAT best serves as the norma normans in this norming?
Thank you.
Pax
- Josiah
- Status