Does it matter what denomination you are a part of?

[lanman87]

The one that makes the claim must provide the evidence. Where did the early Church proclaim that the scriptures are the rule of faith?

I mis-remembered a quote and looked it up last night. I was thinking of Tertullian in Against Paxeas

_ On your side, however, you must make Him out to be a liar, and an impostor, and a tamperer with His word, if, when He was Himself a Son to Himself, He assigned the part of His Son to be played by another, when all the Scriptures attest the clear existence of, and distinction in (the Persons of) the Trinity, and indeed furnish us with our Rule of faith , that He who speaks, and He of whom He speaks, and to whom He speaks, cannot possibly seem to be One and the Same.

So I admit that it does not say the Scriptures are the rule of faith rather it says the scriptures furnish (or provide) us with the rule of faith. In this particular dialogue Tertullian is speaking of the Trinity as part of the rule of faith.

To the early church the rule of faith was both the oral teachings of the Apostles and the Scriptures. There was no hidden or mysterious “Oral Tradition” that only the Bishops could define. Tradition was simply the doctrine that was committed to the church by the Lord and His apostles. This doctrine was identical regardless of how it was communicated.

This can be found in Irenaeus’s great work Against Heresies

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 the early church their was no distinction between the oral teachings and the scriptures. They both contained the Gospel message and the “rule of faith”. When the ECF speak of “Tradition” they aren’t making a distinction between “oral teachings” and “scripture”. They are speaking of the gospel that was taught by Christ and the apostles.

Continued…

 

[lanman87]

The one that makes the claim must provide the evidence. Where did the early Church proclaim that the scriptures are the rule of faith?

The idea of a “secret” or mysterious oral tradition that is separate from what is found in scripture and is handed down by the apostles to their successors isn’t even hinted at until the 4th Century and didn’t become an accept teaching of the church until the 5th Century.

But even the 4th century we see the Scriptures as being the the “rule and measure of every tenant”.

As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations. But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such licence, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings. (Gregory of Nyssa- On the soul and resurrection".

 

[goout]

MT1926:

The one that makes the claim must provide the evidence. Where did the early Church proclaim that the scriptures are the rule of faith?

The idea of a “secret” or mysterious oral tradition that is separate from what is found in scripture and is handed down by the apostles to their successors isn’t even hinted at until the 4th Century and didn’t become an accept teaching of the church until the 5th Century.

But even the 4th century we see the Scriptures as being the the “rule and measure of every tenant”.

As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations. But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such licence, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings. (Gregory of Nyssa- On the soul and resurrection".

Stop and think for a second.
You are quoting a Church Father, and that Gregory of Nissa is a person. A PERSON.
That person is speaking authoritatively about the Scriptures.
So you are (perhaps unwittingly) demonstrating the unity of these things in the Catholic Church.

You are ascribing to scripture an idolatrous and separatist position that is absurd, because the word only breathes with The Word in the Community that is one with The Word.

Please think: without a community, you have no scripture. They are a seamless garment.

 

[lanman87]

My advice to you and others is I would really tone down throwing the abuse and corruption in the face of Catholics.

I don’t mean to be uncharitable. It is a historical fact that the Catholic church has at times abused the flock and become corrupt and tyrannical. The same can be said for some Protestant/Evangelical churches. In either case, people have the right to leave a corrupt or tyrannical organization.

Finally, the biggest log of all is the fact that you haven’t proven that you are following the teachings of Christ. Sure you have a Bible and it is your sole rule of faith. However, you haven’t proven that the interpretations (the sole rules of faith that you follow) are the same interpretations the Apostles intended 2000 years ago. This is the biggest log of all, because unless you can prove that your interpretation is what the Apostles meant then in the end you are doing nothing more than teaching the “things of the men” who came before you (in your particular denomination) and handed it on to you.

I can say the sames things to you. If the Apostles taught Catholic doctrines that are disputed by Protestants then show me where they taught it. Show me where Paul or John calls Mary the Mediatrix of all Graces, show me where they say Mary is the ark of the new covenant, show me where they teach us to pray to saints, show me where they teach that Peter was the head of the church…and so on and so forth. If those things (and many others) were taught by the Apostles then I’m wrong. If they weren’t taught by the apostles but were the creations of theologians and philosophers then you are wrong.

 

[lanman87]

Stop and think for a second.
You are quoting a Church Father, and that Gregory of Nissa is a person . A PERSON .
That person is speaking authoritatively about the Scriptures.
So you are (perhaps unwittingly) demonstrating the unity of these things in the Catholic Church.

You are ascribing to scripture an idolatrous and separatist position that is absurd, because the word only breathes with The Word in the Community that is one with The Word.

Please think: without a community, you have no scripture. They are a seamless garment.

I think you misunderstand me. I’m not saying that there is no authority. I fully agree that there are those God has placed in authority and the scriptures need to be learned in a community. What I am saying is that those who are in authority are bound to teach the Gospel and nothing more. When the authority deviates from the Gospel that was delivered by the Christ and the Apostles then they lose their position of authority.

 

[MT1926]

So I admit that it does not say the Scriptures are the rule of faith rather it says the scriptures furnish (or provide) us with the rule of faith. In this particular dialogue Tertullian is speaking of the Trinity as part of the rule of faith.

Do you realize the only quotes you have provided so far are on the Trinity? The Trinity being a rule of faith is the context of all these posts so far.

Is believing in the Trinity our only Rule of Faith?

These authors are speaking of the Trinity here they are not speaking about everything we must believe.

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.

Yes and his point being they have LEARNED from NONE OTHERS. That is the context of what he says.

You are reading way to much into their writings.

Once again I am not arguing that the scriptures are not a pillar of faith. What I am arguing is who the “NONE OTHERS” are. The entire context of that document is that the Apostles were given perfect knowledge before writing. He isn’t writing this to say that the scriptures are our only grounds of the faith. He even goes on to tell us that others are already boasting that they know the real meaning of what was written. The “improvers” he mentions. This document is about him saying he has the correct interpretation because he knows whom he got it from. He is saying exactly what I am trying to say here Denomination Matters.

Also, I am not sure what you are trying to prove here because do you also agree with Irenaeus when he said…

Those pastors are to be heard to whom the apostles committed the Churches, possessing one and the same doctrine of salvation; the heretics, on the other hand, are to be avoided. We must think soberly with regard to the mysteries of the faith.

1. Now all these are of much later date than the bishops to whom the apostles committed the Churches; which fact I have in the third book taken all pains to demonstrate.

He says here that denomination does matter. Just wanted to add that he also seems to say that the dating of their claimed authority matters as well.

God Bless

 

[goout]

goout:

Stop and think for a second.
You are quoting a Church Father, and that Gregory of Nissa is a person . A PERSON .
That person is speaking authoritatively about the Scriptures.
So you are (perhaps unwittingly) demonstrating the unity of these things in the Catholic Church.

You are ascribing to scripture an idolatrous and separatist position that is absurd, because the word only breathes with The Word in the Community that is one with The Word.

Please think: without a community, you have no scripture. They are a seamless garment.

I think you misunderstand me. I’m not saying that there is no authority. I fully agree that there are those God has placed in authority and the scriptures need to be learned in a community. What I am saying is that those who are in authority are bound to teach the Gospel and nothing more. When the authority deviates from the Gospel that was delivered by the Christ and the Apostles then they lose their position of authority.

Ok. If scripture has that kind of integrity, and I believe it certainly does,
and you will admit the personal unity of the scriptures with the community,
how can the community it comes from err in core matters of faith?

If you don’t admit the full unified integrity of the community with the scriptures, you denigrate the scriptures themselves, because the scriptures were written by that very community of persons.

 

[MT1926]

In either case, people have the right to leave a corrupt or tyrannical organization.

On who’s authority?

Sure people have the right to leave a church founded by a human organization. However, as stated above Christ stated that we have no right to leave His Church. We are to continue to practice what they teach but we are not to do what they do.

Sure you can say I haven’t proven that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ but to me that is a moot point when you have already made the claim, by what you say here, that Christ never really founded a Church or at least it doesn’t exist today (Since we have the right to leave Christ’s Church and start our own if the leaders become corrupt)

I can say the sames things to you. If the Apostles taught Catholic doctrines that are disputed by Protestants then show me where they taught it.

See here is the problem that I am trying to get you to see. It doesn’t matter if I try to show you that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ and given the Authority to interpret the scriptures.

You have already made up your mind that Christ never founded and Authoritative Church.

You have already made up your mind that all that was left to us was a book that can be interpreted any way we wish.

How can I even begin to prove to you that this is what was taught when you already believe Christ never left us an authority to interpret the scriptures.

Show me where Paul or John calls Mary the Mediatrix of all Graces, show me where they say Mary is the ark of the new covenant, show me where they teach us to pray to saints, show me where they teach that Peter was the head of the church…and so on and so forth.

Do you even remember that you posted a Church Father on the Trinity who outright said these things on the Holy Spirit aren’t stated in scripture but can be logically understood.

Are you saying there is no logical connection between the OT ark carrying the Word and Mary carrying the Word? Is there no logical connection between me praying for you now and me still wanting to pray for you when I get to heaven? If God wants me to do it now because it brings me closer to Him then why wouldn’t He want me to do it even more in heaven? Peter being the head of the Church anyone who can’t see that a name change in the Bible means something important is happening doesn’t know their Bible as well as they think they do. I can handle arguing it wasn’t handed on but to outright claim Peter wasn’t in charge is reading through the lens of your man made tradition.

If those things (and many others) were taught by the Apostles then I’m wrong. If they weren’t taught by the apostles but were the creations of theologians and philosophers then you are wrong.

And this is the rub. From your point of view there is absolutely no way we can ever know. The real question is why would Christ set it up that way?

God Bless

 

[StarMapp]

Yes. Jesus made it clear that those who did not accept all of his teachings were not with him.

It makes perfect sense if you come to think of it. If he is establishing a Church that abolishes all others, why would he choose to die if he foresaw that the result is no change?. Be assured it’s a clean slate, no deja-vue.

There are no other “denominations”. Denomination, if applied in the Christian sense is a word that means “undermining”. It means the institutionalized attempt at weakening a solid Structure founded on… Rock.

The use of denomination is a label. It says in effect, “I found something about what Jesus taught that I cannot accept. It calls for me to make sacrifices or makes me uncomfortable. It calls for me to believe teachings, some mystical, that I am not prepared to accept. But it’s OK, I speak for Jesus when I say he was wrong”.

 

[lanman87]

And this is the rub. From your point of view there is absolutely no way we can ever know. The real question is why would Christ set it up that way?

You can show me in the scriptures, which is what was taught by the apostles.

Are you saying there is no logical connection between the OT ark carrying the Word and Mary carrying the Word?

I’m saying Logic can be faulty and come from out human minds and not from the teachings of the apostles. We can infer things that aren’t true, or partially true. Things that are inferred shouldn’t be taught as absolute truth. This is equally true for Catholic and Protestant/Evangelical teachers. They should be taught as possibilities and the teacher should inform the students that it is his opinion based on logic and they are free to disagree.

 

[lanman87]

k. If scripture has that kind of integrity, and I believe it certainly does,
and you will admit the personal unity of the scriptures with the community,
how can the community it comes from err in core matters of faith?

If you don’t admit the full unified integrity of the community with the scriptures, you denigrate the scriptures themselves, because the scriptures were written by that very community of persons.

The scriptures were written by God as He inspired men. Not the church. God gave the scriptures to the church, the church did not “write” the scriptures.

The reason the community errs is because we are fallen and rely own our intellect, logic, experiences and so forth. Disunity in the church is not because the scriptures are not sufficient, it is because mankind broken.

 

[Fauken]

I think you may want to consider re-wording that post. It sounds like you’re directing a lot of that stuff regarding mega-church pastors at him.

 

[SnoopSword]

Yes. Jesus made it clear that those who did not accept all of his teachings were not with him.

Please tell me where he said to follow the a Bible or NT

 

[unitive_mystic]

The Body of Christ is the Church. Anything else is an “ecclesiastical community” and doesn’t qualify as a legit church.

 

[unitive_mystic]

I think the amount of people that actually hate the catholic church is small but the rest probably do it out of ignorance.

 

[unitive_mystic]

Sometimes it gets hard for me to not get frustrated but the other day a very angry protestant was arguing with me and I asked him “what did Christians do the hundreds of years before they had the bible?” And he replied saying “they were jews” and kept on claiming that I was being prideful when I was simply suggesting real historical events.

 

[lanman87]

That is a lie. A warn out lie. A lie that needs to die in these final days.

I’ve admitted that what was taught by the apostles was also taught orally. The scriptures are the written record of what was taught by the apostles orally. When I say, “Show me by the scriptures” I am saying show me in the written record.

 

[MT1926]

You can show me in the scriptures, which is what was taught by the apostles.

I don’t understand your response?

My entire post was about who has the authority to interpret the scriptures? Who has the authority to say this is what that means.

If you you don’t believe Christ left us an authority to interpret the Scriptures then to say I will believe you if you show me in the scriptures is a meaningless response. Not only to me but it is meaningless to you as well.

Let me show you.

2 Timothy 2 states…You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, 2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

It is plain as day here (to me anyway) that St. Paul is telling Timothy that he is not suppose to go around handing out Bibles. He is telling him here’s the interpretation now take what I wrote hand it ONLY to faithful men that you can trust will teach it the exact same way I am interpreting it. If you don’t believe they can teach it the exact same way and you can’t trust them to give it only to other men who will do the same, then don’t give it to them.

To me that is my evidence from the scriptures that the Apostles intended for us to know what their proper interpretation was.

Now you have two option you can say I am correct on my interpretation which means now you have to show you have a line of hand offs back to Timothy. OR you can say I am wrong, which means we have absolutely no way of knowing, which is the rub.

I’m saying Logic can be faulty and come from out human minds and not from the teachings of the apostles.

Then without an authority how do you know we got it correct on the Holy Spirit? The Father you posted stated we have to use logic, not the scriptures, to understand the Holy Spirit.

Things that are inferred shouldn’t be taught as absolute truth.

The Trinity is inferred.

Not saying I don’t believe they got it wrong so don’t go there, just saying who gets to draw the line in the sand. How come you believe the Fathers got it right on the Trinity but got it wrong on John 6?

They should be taught as possibilities and the teacher should inform the students that it is his opinion based on logic and they are free to disagree.

What should be taught as opinions? Once again who gets to draw the line on what is and isn’t opinion?

Baptism fact or opinion?

Real presence fact or opinion?

Purgatory fact or opinion?

Trinity includes the Holy Spirit Logical opinion or illogical opinion?

You can make this claim but in the end someone still has to have the authority to say what should be taught as fact and what should be taught as opinion. If not then everything we mere humans interpret from the Bible is nothing more than opinion.

God Bless

 

[lanman87]

But wow they love that book from the store. They think it saves them.

No, we do not think the book saves us. We think we are saved by Grace through faith in Christ. The book is the written and verifiable message of the Gospel.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Listened to this podcast a few days ago, I found it very interesting!

https://www.redpillreligion.com/201...-philosophy-tiger-on-understanding-the-bible/