M
Mickey
Guest
Yes. You have p(name removed by moderator)ointed the evasion–and it is frustrating.
- Status
F
Fredricks
Guest
Wow.
Be careful Awful, we can debate but seriously friend.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
This *isn’t *a new question. Don’t act so shocked. I am saing it underlies the questions you already have pending.
And you removed part of the quote to make it look extreme.
F
Fredricks
Guest
Sounded disrespectful of the Lord. But I will let it go. It was probably just me.
take care
E
Eden
Guest
Where? I didn’t see the inconsistency.
Here’s more from Bishop Wuerl:
“When we speak of the Scriptures as the inspired word of God, we mean that God is the author of the message that the human author communicates. Acting as the principal author, God inspired the human authors of the Scriptures to understand and freely write the truths revealed by God. The Catholic Church believes that God chose human authors who would use their own skills, abilities, words and style to communicate God’s message.”
"The interpretation of Sacred Scripture is one of the vexing questions of our age, and has been since the division of Western Christendom. Who can faithfully and authentically interpret the word of God and what God truly intended to teach us?
Certainly history has demonstrated that if interpretation of Scripture is left to each individual opinion, the message of the Bible is fragmented into a never-ending variety of conflicting and even contradictory opinions - all proclaimed God’s word and will.
On the other hand, it is evident that God’s word was entrusted to the whole Body of Christ the Church. Members of that body look to its visible head, the Pope, and to the bishops and their teaching office for an authentic rendering of God’s words as understood and applied to today’s world. Just as it has the exclusive ability to distinguish which writings constitute the Bible, so too the Church alone possesses the means to understand and interpret Scripture infallibly."
“The Sacred Scriptures are a precious gift of God to his people and the priceless patrimony of the Church. They help us both to know and to praise the living God. Given the richness of God’s revelation, is it any wonder that God has entrusted the Sacred Scriptures to the teaching office of his Church to protect, interpret, apply and proclaim? We should rejoice and thank God for the wonderous gift of God’s revelation to us in Sacred Scripture.”
You have just read the First Vatican Council in context from a bishop with apostolic succession.
J
Joe_Gloor
Guest
What a silly question.
Both the Vatican Council and the Cathechism are true.
There is no contradiction at all.
The Vatican Council is only saying that the books are not inspired because they were determined by the Church to be inspired.
They are inspired by God.
Which writings were to be included in the list of sacred books, that is which are inspired by God, are those discerned by the Church “by the apostolic Tradition.”
So you agree with the apostolic Tradition as far as which books are inspired.
But you, like Peter sinking in the sea after having walked upon it, lose your faith in the apostolic Tradition. “You of little faith,” he said, “why did you doubt?”
E
Eden
Guest
This is disappointing. You could have been taking all that typing time explaining the Protestant view of the history of the Bible but instead we get derision.
Are you a minister? I saw some Protestants refer to you as “Dr. Fredericks” a while back and I meant to ask.
N
Nicene
Guest
Which protestant sect do you originate from in the early centuries?
Here they are:
Simonians
Cerinthians
Basilidians
Carpocrations
Valentinians
Marcionites
Cerdonians
Ebionites
Docetae Montanists
Encratites
Alogi
Monarchians
Antidicomarianites
Adoptionists
Tertullianists (revival of earlier heresy some canon different doctrine)
Origenists (catholic canon for the most part breakaway group)
Novatians
Manicheans
Millenarians
Donatists (some canon, different doctrine)
Audeans Arians (apostates)
Macedonians
Massalians
Aerians
This takes us to approximately the year 360.
Their writings:
The Apocryphon of James
The Gospel of Truth
The Treatise on the Resurrection
The Tripartite tractate
The Apocryphon of John
The Gospel of Thomas
The Gospel of Philip
The Hypostasis of the Archons
On the Origin of the World
The Exegesis of the Soul
The book of Thomas the Contender
The Gospel of the Egyptians
Eugnostos the Blessed
The dialogue of the Savior
The Apocalypse of Paul
The first Aspocalypse of James
The second Apocalypse of James
The Apocalypse of Adam
The Acts of Peter and the Twelve apostles
The Thunder perfect mind
Authoratative Teaching
The Concept of our Great Power
The discourse of the 8th and 9th
The prayer of Thanksgiving
Asclepius
The Paraphrase of Shem
The 2nd Treatise of the great Seth
The Apocalypse of Peter
The Teachings of Silvanus
The 3 Steles of Seth
Zostrianos
The Letter of Peter to Philip
Melchizedek
The thought of Norea
The Testimony of Truth
Marsanes
The Interpretation of Knowledge
Allogenes
Hypsiphrone
The Sentences of Sextus
Trimorphic Protennoia
The Gospel of Mary Magdeline
The Act of Peter
When did the protestant sects (which you claim to come from, and this is all of them) drop these books and accept the authority of catholic canon instead? How come these texts were recieved as inspired by these protestant groups?
These are all the group that are not part of the catholic church.
Ignatius of Antioch 107-110 A.D
See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
F
Fredricks
Guest
I am an elder.
Dr. BH and I are friends from another setting, thats all.
Its funny because Fredricks is part of my name but not my last, its an inside joke.
That is now thanks to my friend, an outside joke!
I use my four names rather interchangebly on discussion boards, which poses a problem when you forget what you call yourself!
PS
BH, how is YOUR team doing in the tournament?
Looks around for Liberty Flames and does not see them!
F
Fredricks
Guest
Nicene
That statement meant to indicate that some Protestant groups are faithful to the teachings of the early church. Not linear succession
That statement meant to indicate that some Protestant groups are faithful to the teachings of the early church. Not linear succession
N
Nicene
Guest
You go against Scripture here.
2 Thess 2:1: Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling to meet him, we beg you, brethren, 2: not to be quickly shaken in mind or excited, either by spirit or by word, or by letter purporting to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.
Apparently they weren’t as discerning as you make it out to be. They were accepting letters and Paul has to correct the situation. And he even takes precautions to make sure it is so:
2 Thess 3:17: I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. This is the mark in every letter of mine; it is the way I write.
The church has to do the same with the councils, as with the council of Jerusalem (or is the council of Jerusalem not acceptable either?) because the councils are led by the Holy Spirit.
Acts 15:28: For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:
Or is it still your contention that “God does not need them to assert anything.” nullifying the Council of Jerusalem?
You have effectively eliminated the Holy Spirit from the church in all your posts, which in essense is man made doctrine warned about by the apostles in their epistles particularly Paul, Peter, John, James, and Jude.
These would be the original protesters the apostles warn about. Are you still claiming them? We see their handywork in the previous post.
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
N
Nicene
Guest
Ahh but the apostles themselves denounce those who go off on their own i.e. protesters, particularly regarding scripture. The apostles are building one church, yet you maintain that it is supposed to be many churches. The ancient protestants, according to the apostles, were claiming the same things you are. How do you square that with what the apostles warn about without twisting scripture?
How do you justify that action? The Holy Spirit obviously doesn’t want that sinse He is guiding the apostles. He teaches that schism and seperation are a sin. Saying otherwise contradicts scripture.
As well by saying the above you have indicated that the Holy Spirit abandoned the church, thus nullifying Christs promise. In so doing you undermine your position making it invalid.
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
N
Nicene
Guest
Part 3 to this statement. Earlier you indicated that scripture was accepted by all christians as connanical. The above shows how wrong you are. One church, the catholic church, did this. No other Christian as you are asserting. The proof is in the pudding above. It took an authority granted by Christ to be able to do this. Where did that authority lie? With the catholic church in the councils. Do you still wish to refute the Holy Spirit continaually worked in the church (which was and is catholic) to ensure Christs promise?
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
E
Eden
Guest
I checked in to see if posts #282 and #283 have been answered yet, but alas, they have not.
N
Nicene
Guest
Were you ordained through the authority of the bible?
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
J
JaneFrances
Guest
Once again, it should be obvious to everyone that Mr. Fredricks has once again thrown out a fiery torch in the hopes of defeating the straw man he’s created.
Not once has a Catholic apologist in this dialogue denied that God HIMSELF is the source and summit of all revelation. In the tradition of Mr. Fredricks, it would be appropriate here to point out that NO ONE has argued this point—i.e., we all agree.
Yet, Mr. Fredricks’ protests, such as the one above, insinuate that we have somehow placed “God himself” in an opposing position to “the church” as “the foundation.”But, I can see how this is profitable diversion for Mr. Fredricks. . .
And it bides the time, while we’re waiting for substantial answers, to offer some measure of clarification to a point Mr. Fredricks has attempted to misrepresent towards his own devises.
First, “we all agree,” that God is the one, ultimate foundation. “Officially,”
We know “officially” that
We know “officially” that
We know “officially” that
We know “officially” that
We know “officially” that
We know “officially” that St. Paul tells St. Timothy, in a passage of God’s Word, Sacred Scripture, that
No “Catholic’s personal interpretation” needed:
“Officialy,” God is the foundation for EVERYTHING. His Word is Truth. His Word is transmitted through Scripture and Tradition, by the teaching authority of the Church. His Word tells us that the “pillar and foundation of the truth” is the Church.
Now, what exactly was Mr. Fredricks’ point?
Oh, right. . .diversion.
I fell for it!
At least it was good distraction while we’re waiting. . .
J
JaneFrances
Guest
And I’m bumping this one. . .'cause I want to know too!
E
Eden
Guest
B
BrianH
Guest
Until you address authority, the definition of the church, and Roman primacy, you will not get to the heart of your differences sir.
On another note, NCAA?? WHO CARES
I have devoted my attention to our shared interest in Division II womens basketball
BH
F
Fredricks
Guest
I do not reject that the early church taught. What is rejected is Catholicism’s of key terms in this debate.
I am going to take this from a present perspective:
- First, one could look at extrabiblical historical evidence.
Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Seutonius, even the Talmud, would give us quite a bit of information about him. Notably, the claim that he rose from the dead. - We would read the Bible to ascertain what genre of literature we are dealing with.
When one reads the gospels, they see fallible people, hard sayings, and several events(women first seeing Jesus which would not have carried the weight of a man in that culture) that would make no sense for a community inventing things about a leader or a movement. The gospels are historical. - The chief claim of this group is that he was raised from the dead. All existing theories for this fall by the wayside. A group of committed followers overcame persecution, all manner of obstacles to form the world’s largest religion.
These books fulfill prophecy, contain no errors historically, and claim to be from Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, and Jude. Interestingly early Christian history attributes the other gospels to men like Mark and Matthew who are minor players in the biblical story, instead of exaggerating their authors. So if we accept the historicity of the resurrection and the historicity of his followers, which stand up to all historical scrutiny, we accept that these followers wrote accurately and there writings are inspired, as Paul said all scripture(which Peter said Paul’s letters were) is.
What is the alternative? Some claim that inspiration is determined or discerned through
magisterium and Tradition. Because both of those terms, as defined by Catholicism are not biblical from our perspective, we do not believe that is a viable alternative.
We do not discount all historical records of the development of the canon. We understand that early Christian’s criteria included apostolicity, theological orthodoxy, antiquity, and use. Undoubtedly, contrary to the Bible dropping from heaven comments, we acknowledge that early Christians heavily debated the canon. We know the different canons listed in books. I have read the history books. Where you see Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium(because you believe that the Bible supports those), we do not.
- Status