How Did The Trinity Doctrine Develop

[RobbyS]

Final - part 3 of 3.

The gospel as written down is salvation history, how God has intervened in human history to save us, it is not a catechism to organically & systematically explain the gospel as preached by the apostles.

Yes, and the New Testament is a collection of writings that tell us that Jesus Christ is the key to understanding that history. Furthermore, its writers are almost totally uninteresting in the secular history of the time, probably because they thought all of that was about to come to an end.

 

[Old_Scholar]

For a “scholar” you don’t seem to comprehend what you read very well.

I never said the LDS and the Mormons weren’t the same.

I said the SDA and the Mormons aren’t the same.

You are apparently SDA (Seventh Day Adventist), and your posts confused the two.

Again… you dodged actually answering a post that refutes yours.

Oh well…

**You are correct of course…I read that too quickly I guess. Your first comment listed LDS and I suppose I just saw LDS instead of SDS. I apologize for the error and my comment made because of me reading it wrong. Ellen White would not appreciate my comments either. However, I am not a Seventh Day Adventist. However much of my comments about the LDS are the same for them. It is gratifying that they also believe in the importance of the body and make sure it is always in excellent shape. I don’t know their belief well enough but I suspect their idea of the body being the temple of God parallels the LDS.

Also, you said I missed a refutation. With the many posts I get in response to my posts, it is hard to have to go back each time and re-read them to try and figure out what you are referring to when you make such a general statement. Would you please tell me what it is that I missed so that I can respond to the right thing? I appreciate it.

I believe you will agree that the number of responses makes it a little difficult to find out exactly what you are referring to.

Thanks…**

 

[Old_Scholar]

Proof of this claim?

– Mark L. Chance.

Matt. 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

Luke 24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. 50) And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them. 51) And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

Jesus was speaking only to the eleven here and promising them that the Holy Spirit would come and give them special power. He made no mention or insinuation that they would “pass” this power on to anyone else.

Jesus and the Disciples thought the return would be in this same generation and nothing was done to say that this power would or could be passed on to anyone else. When the apostles all died, there was no one who possessed this power. Had there been, there would have been a record of it but there is none.

 

[Church_Militant]

You are correct of course…I read that too quickly I guess. Your first comment listed LDS and I suppose I just saw LDS instead of SDS. I apologize for the error and my comment made because of me reading it wrong. Ellen White would not appreciate my comments either. However, I am not a Seventh Day Adventist. However much of my comments about the LDS are the same for them. It is gratifying that they also believe in the importance of the body and make sure it is always in excellent shape. I don’t know their belief well enough but I suspect their idea of the body being the temple of God parallels the LDS.

Apology accepted. Thank you.

I don’t think that any faithful Catholic has a problem with our bodies being a temple of the Holy Spirit, but we might have issues with the scrupulosity and legalism of the two groups you mentioned (as well as some n-Cs) as to the specifics of what is involved in maintaining it. That is a topic for another thread though.

Also, you said I missed a refutation. With the many posts I get in response to my posts, it is hard to have to go back each time and re-read them to try and figure out what you are referring to when you make such a general statement. Would you please tell me what it is that I missed so that I can respond to the right thing? I appreciate it.

I believe you will agree that the number of responses makes it a little difficult to find out exactly what you are referring to.

Thanks…

Here is the post that I referred to and you’ll note that it does indeed have a great deal to do with the Trinity.

Originally Posted by Church Militant
I suggest Deuteronomy 6:4 (The Jewish Sh’ma)

Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.

Those who reject the Trinity will often point out this verse as a proof text which on its face is pretty convincing…until one looks into the Hebrew that this comes from.

The Hebrew word “echad” is used there for “one” and it is important to note what this word means. It is also used in Genesis 2:24 where it says

Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh.

The fact is that the one means “one unity” which, although it doesn’t prove the Trinity, certainly disqualifies the Sh’ma as a counter argument.

Also important is Genesis 1:26 which says, And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth.

Was the Almighty talking to Himself? Indeed not! This can only be seen as an example of interaction between persons of the triune God as further expressed in the Word of God.

 

[Old_Scholar]

I have, & it does not claim to be inspired, let alone to be Holy Scripture.​

When did receiving wisdom from Christ amount to proof of inspiration; or even to a hint of it ? And when, for that matter, did a claim to receive wisdom prove the claim real ? A book outside the Bible can easily be written with a Christ-given wisdom and prudence.

I’ve answered a lot of your questions, often at length - you, OTOH, have not yet explained how you know the NT writings are meant to be Holy Scripture.

Actually the Scriptures themselves tell us so and the apostles, such as Peter, verify it.

For a Christian to question the validity of the Scriptures is something I find strange. How could one claim to be a Christian and not believe in the Scriptures?

Well lets go back to 2 Tim 3:16. We are told that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God and that it is “God-breathed". We know the Bible is the inspired word of God because of the many prophecies that foretells of Him in the Old Testament, made hundreds of years prior to His coming. We are told of His virgin birth and how He would be rejected, as well as many other things about Him.

Psalm 22 was written about 1000 years before Christ was born and it came to pass.

Archaeology supports the accuracy of the Bible from all the ancient finds of cities, etc. found in Scripture.

Let’s just use a little common sense in the case of the Bible. This book is a collection of 66 different books written over a period of thousands of years in multiple languages by authors from every station in life. It deals with every major topic one finds in life. Although it was amassed from so many authors and so many books, it shows an amazing congruency and it never contradicts itself. That is a miracle in itself. To say that God did not inspire it and make sure it was assembled correctly, etc. would simply not be true. It had to have the hand of God in producing it.

You can’t say that Paul’s words that say "all Scripture is inspired by God” doesn’t apply to the New Testament because Paul’s subject matter was the Scriptures. Paul believes the Scriptures are “God-Breathed”; that is that they hold the same authority as if God were to come down and speak to us directly. Every word recorded in the original documents are considered to be chosen by God. Certainly the early church believed the book was the “Word of God,” and even the Roman Catholic Church believes it as well.

So we have to decide whether we believe the Scriptures are indeed “God-Breathed”, and truly the words of God or merely a collection of books written about men who were telling stories about God. If the latter is true, then it should show characteristics like those of other books written by men about God. But if if did indeed come from God, then it should be a book that is astoundingly different; a one of a kind collection.

Can we examine the Bible and determine for ourselves if it is indeed a message that has its source as God? In order to do that we must admit that God is real and exists. If you don’t believe that then you are talking of something else entirely; another point altogether.

If God “wrote” the Bible, then we could expect certain things from it. There was a book written by Josh McDowell who wrote that if this was a book that had a message from God, then it would have some unique properties. I’m not sure I can remember the ones he gave but I know some of them.

First it would have to be distributed throughout the world so that we could obtain it easily.

Then it would have to be preserved throughout time without being corrupted.

It would have to be completely accurate historically.

It would not have any scientific error or false beliefs that the people of that time held.

The answers it presents in life, would be true and unified for the difficult questions of life.

Is there any other book that can claim it meets all that criteria? You could compare it with other ancient texts to see but you will find that no other book meets all the above.

Even though the Old Testament does not possess the wealth of evidence that the New Testament does, it has been proven accurate by scientific discoveries and the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. They include almost all the Old Testament canon and date from 250 B.C. to 100 A.D. And the Septuagint shows that the copies we have today of the Bible have been perfectly preserved, at least from the oldest copy we possess—400 A.D.

To not believe the Bible is the inspired word of God is not something that can be proven, whereas the Bible itself can be proven to be real and accurate.

There is a test the Bible gives itself for all messages claiming to be from God:

“But the prophet who shall speak a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he shall speak in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die. And you may say in your heart, ‘How shall we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?’ When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.” Deut 18:20-22

There is no other book that expresses the same message as the Bible or that can make the claim of being “God-Breathed.”

 

[epostle]

Originally Posted by Old Scholar
2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17) that the person dedicated to God may be capable and equipped for every good work.

Can you refute that?

The previous 2 verses refutes the chronic abuse of 2 Tim 3:16, in addition, it says “All scripture…” It does not say “only scripture”.

2 Tim 3:
[14] But as for you, continue in what you have learned (TRADITION) and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it (MAGISTERIUM)
[15] and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings (SCRIPTURE) which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

Sola scripturists NEVER include the previous 2 verses when quoting 2 Tim. 3 16 because verse 14 and 15 demolishes the SS position.

Originally Posted by Old Scholar
Why then do you suppose Christ made so many comments saying that God was greater than He and that God was the only God and that He did not know what God did? Can you explain that?

John 10:30 - Jesus says, “I and the Father are one.” They are equal. The Jews even claimed Jesus made Himself equal to God. Jesus’ statement in John 14:28, “the Father is greater than I,” cannot contradict John 10:30 (the Word of God is never in conflict). Jesus’ statement in John 14:28 simply refers to His human messianic role as servant and slave, which He, and not the Father or the Holy Spirit, undertook in the flesh.

 

[Old_Scholar]

How else would one explain the thousands of hearers that St Peter converted on Pentecost Sunday?

Act 4:4 “But many of those who heard the word believed; and the number of the men came to about five thousand.” And since not one word of the New Testament would be written until 43AD, the only word the author of Acts could have been referring to was the spoken, or oral, word of God. More examples of the spoken word of God

Acts 6:2 “And the twelve summoned the body of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables… 6:4 “But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”

Acts 10:44 “While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word.

Acts 13:5 “When they arrived at Sal’amis, they proclaimed the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews”

Acts 13:46 “And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles.”

1 Thes 2:13 “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.”

Notice the key words of “preaching, spoken, heard, proclaimed”. And how St Paul says in 1 Thes 2:13 that what he utters is literally the word of God. He couldn't have been referring to the NT as the final book of the NT wasn't written until 100 AD and no one knew what the canon of the NT was until 392 AD when the Catholic councils and the Pope settled the issue. 


These are just six quotes where it is plain the word of God was spoken, I could quote another 50 or so but I think these make the point. Literally 98% of the times scripture refers to the word of God in the NT the context is the spoken word.

Jesus taught the apostles “everything”, Jn 15:15 “all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you.” What is this “all that I have heard from my father”? What book of the bible claims to be a summary of this “all”? No claim is made. This “all” is the gospel Jesus taught his apostles.

Since Jesus came to save us from our sins, this salvation is known in its fullness in the gospel the apostles preached. Certain elements of this gospel were written in the scriptures, not the fullness that was preached and witnessed by the apostles. How did Jesus convert his followers? By his loving kindness and preaching the word of God. 


 Every word he spoke was literally the word of God, but only what he taught the apostles was important and carried forth by the apostles in their preaching.

Nowhere does scripture say the word of God is only what is written in scripture. That is a tradition of men which popped up in the 16th century by a Catholic priest of the Augustinian order who lost his faith. We should always reject traditions of men as they are not of the Spirit of God. (cont’d)

I have no doubt of what you have said. However, the apostles preached what God had told them and then they wrote down everthing necessary for us to know that regarded faith and morals; salvation and obedience to God.

Please read my following post because there is not room here for me to properly respong.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Joe Oberr continued.

The early church fathers knew that what the apostles preached that had to do with our salvation and faith as well as morals was then written down so that we would know the truth. They also believed what was written was sufficient

Tertullian said: “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.”

The early church fathers believed that what was preached or taught was the oral presentation of Scriptural truth. Neither Tertullian or Irenaeus claimed that there were other issues of doctrine or tradition that was not found in Scripture.

Irenaeus believed that Church doctrine was never transmitted exclusively viva voce—this was a Gnostic line of thought. It was common knowledge and taken for granted in that time that for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had to establish its Scriptural basis first. Even today, the RCC still makes the claim that all their doctrines are established in Scripture. I disagree with that, however, they still make the claim.

Cyril of Jerusalem also held the belief that his authority as a bishop was subject to his conformity to the written Scriptures in his teaching. This is from one of his lectures:

“This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.” (The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril, Lecture 4.17)

“But take thou and hold that faith only as a learner and in profession, which is by the Church delivered to thee, and is established from all Scripture. For since all cannot read the Scripture, but some as being unlearned, others by business, are hindered from the knowledge of them; in order that the soul may not perish for lack of instruction, in the Articles which are few we comprehend the whole doctrine of Faith…And for the present, commit to memory the Faith, merely listening to the words; and expect at the fitting season the proof of each of its parts from the Divine Scriptures. For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men: but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith. And, as the mustard seed in a little grain contains many branches, thus also this Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments. Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts”. Ibid, Lecture 5.12

It is said that by the end of the 3rd century, virtually the entire New Testament could be reconstructed from the writings of the Church Fathers.

If in fact, there was some other “oral” teaching that the apostles made that is not written down in Scripture, then I feel certain that someone should be able to show proof of that. Who would know what was said? No one living today or for the last 1900 years, has heard anything the apostles had to say. Or is there anyone naive enough to believe that the oral word has been passed down “orally” through all this time? To believe there was something else taught by the apostles that is not in Scripture, wouldn’t we have to have some “written” evidence.

I would ask that someone explain what spiritual “truth” would be omitted from the competence of the Bible to supply? What “good work” is unprovided for?

 

[Old_Scholar]

I’m not interested in trying to; why would I want to ? I’ve asked you to explain how appeals to the NT can be made when not one of of its books has even been recognised as inspired Scripture; merely to quote them is not a reply. All I’ve been given in this exchange is one evasion after another. 2 Tim 3.16 BTW - like 2 Timothy generally - does not so much as imply its own inspiration.​

The NT books are part of Scripture - in no way do I deny that. But I know why I believe them to be inspired - & only Revelation says anything that even resembles a claim to
be God-breathed. Not only does a claim prove nothing at all, but that leaves the other 26 unaccounted for. If they had not been canonised by the Church, there would be very good reason to think them purely human. As happened to a good number of them for many years, even centuries. I’ve given examples.

I answered this one in a post already…

 

[Old_Scholar]

cont’d

What did Jesus commission his apostles to do when he was assumed to heaven? He told them to go out and PREACH. That is, speak directly to his hearers, not write. Then when questions were asked they could respond immediately, verbally.

He did not tell them to go forth and write. What good would that have done for evengalization in a period of 90% plus illiteracy? And no printing press as Gutenberg didn’t appear until the 15th century. Examples:

Mt 28:19-20 “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you…" How did they teach? By preaching and proclaiming the word of God so it could be heard and understood.

What book, chapter & verse of the bible claims to have a complete record of this “all that I have commanded you”? There is none. Jesus being the omnipotent, omniscient God that he is, knew the best way to teach was orally. After all, St Paul does say that faith comes by “hearing”, he doesn’t say it comes by reading scripture or having scripture read to you.

Though scripture can witness, illumine and nourish the gospel as preached by the apostles and their successor bishops in the Catholic Church.

Mk 16:15-16 And he said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Here Jesus says if we want to be saved we have to HEAR the gospel as preached by the apostles, believe it and be baptized. Their successors are the bishops of the Catholic Church so if we have faith in Jesus and really love him, we will obey him by listening to the Church he founded, the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15).

Notice he says we are saved if we hear the gospel as preached by the Church. He does not say we are saved by reading the bible.
Lk 24:46-47 …and (Jesus) said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.”

Catholic doctrine is not supported by the word of God as found in apostolic Tradition, it is the word of God. The word of God does not need support since God is truth and can neither deceive nor be deceived.

The Catholic Church does not, nor has it ever made the claim that all their doctrine/dogmas can be supported by scripture. The easiest example is the canon of scripture. Where is the inspired list of the canon of scripture? There is none. Even if there was one in the bible it would a case of circular reasoning.
Also, the Catholic Church (Pope St. Siricius in the 390s) defined the canon of the bible in the late 4th century. At this point the gospel had been preached about 360 years.

About half of the Roman Empire was now Catholic.
All of this without anyone knowing for sure which of the 250 plus books of the NT era were actually inspired. So obviously the preached gospel came first, including dogma and doctrine, and then the written gospels and NT letters came second.

Some Catholic doctrine can be supported in the bible, but it is not necessary as that claim has never been made by the Church

Scripture by definition is the written word of God. The 46 books of the OT and 27 of the NT were defined in 390s, therefore there are no other inspired books. That issue was settled long ago.

What I’m pointing out is that Jesus said if we want to be saved we must hear the gospel as preached, not the gospel as written down. (cont’d)

So if the doctrines are not supported by Scripture, then what does support them?

 

[rtconstant]

Matt. 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

Luke 24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. 50) And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them. 51) And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

Jesus was speaking only to the eleven here and promising them that the Holy Spirit would come and give them special power. He made no mention or insinuation that they would “pass” this power on to anyone else.

Jesus and the Disciples thought the return would be in this same generation and nothing was done to say that this power would or could be passed on to anyone else. When the apostles all died, there was no one who possessed this power. Had there been, there would have been a record of it but there is none.

Actually your first Scripture quotation supports the continued teaching authority of the Church. Notice that He says that He will be with them until the end of the World. The Apostles were mortal men. Yet the authority that He grants will by His own words endure to the end.

I understand that it is because of this that you state that Jesus thought the world would end soon. Yet this make quiet a few assumptions and it also suggests that what He said is wrong and I’m not sure that’s a place you want to go.

Also, your final assertion needs correction. There is indeed quiet a record of the continued authority of the Apostles. The record is the Catholic Church. You simply chose for some reason to not accept it.

 

[Ignatius]

If the Trinity is not taught in the Bible, how did it get to be a doctrine of Christendom?

OK, now I’m really confused. I thought you were presenting yourself as a nondenominational orthordox christian believer. Are you saying that you don’t even believe in the Holy Trinity?

Shouldn’t it be in the Bible with no question left at all about it?

Actually, Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible. The Bible only says that Scripture is profitable for instruction, correction and teaching, not the sole rule of faith. Shouldn’t it explicitly be in the Bible with no question left at all about it?

 

[mlchance]

Matt. 28:18…

Luke 24:49…

Jesus was speaking only to the eleven here and promising them that the Holy Spirit would come and give them special power. He made no mention or insinuation that they would “pass” this power on to anyone else**.**

So, IOW, like much of what you claim to be fact based in Scripture, all you really have is an argument from silence. That’s not terribly convincing. Why is that you’re allowed to read what you want into Scripture, but others aren’t?

This also makes me wonder. When the 11 chose Matthias to replace Judas, didn’t Matthias the same authority as the other Apostles? What about St. Paul? He wasn’t one of the Twelve, but he was still an Apostle. Didn’t St. Paul admonish Timothy to “lay hands too readily on anyone,” thus indicating that Timothy had the same authority to lay on hands that the Apostles did? Don’t extrabiblical Christian documents dating to the 1st century A.D. talk about the fact that the Apostles chosen their successors?

Since Jesus promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against his Church at the same time he gave St. Peter the power of the keys, doesn’t this heavily imply that said power must somehow extend beyond the life of St. Peter (who, BTW, was martyred in Rome circa A.D. 65, thus nicely demolishing your nonsense elsewhere about St. Peter never being in Rome)?

Why don’t you just admit that you’re adhering to your own preferred man-made traditions and non-authoritative interpretations of Scripture that no one really has any reason to take terribly seriously, especially given the ongoing illogic that permeates so much of what you say? (Which brings us back to your frequent arguments from silence.)

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Old_Scholar]

I have, & it does not claim to be inspired, let alone to be Holy Scripture.​

When did receiving wisdom from Christ amount to proof of inspiration; or even to a hint of it ? And when, for that matter, did a claim to receive wisdom prove the claim real ? A book outside the Bible can easily be written with a Christ-given wisdom and prudence.

I’ve answered a lot of your questions, often at length - you, OTOH, have not yet explained how you know the NT writings are meant to be Holy Scripture.

The early church fathers knew that what the apostles preached that had to do with our salvation and faith as well as morals was then written down so that we would know the truth. They also believed what was written was sufficient

Tertullian said: ** “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.”**

**The early church fathers believed that what was preached or taught was the oral presentation of Scriptural truth. Neither Tertullian or Irenaeus claimed that there were other issues of doctrine or tradition that was not found in Scripture.

Irenaeus believed that Church doctrine was never transmitted exclusively viva voce—this was a Gnostic line of thought. It was common knowledge and taken for granted in that time that for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had to establish its Scriptural basis first. Even today, the RCC still makes the claim that all their doctrines are established in Scripture. I disagree with that, however, they still make the claim.

Cyril of Jerusalem also held the belief that his authority as a bishop was subject to his conformity to the written Scriptures in his teaching. This is from one of his lectures:**

** “This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.” (The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril, Lecture 4.17)

“But take thou and hold that faith only as a learner and in profession, which is by the Church delivered to thee, and is established from all Scripture. For since all cannot read the Scripture, but some as being unlearned, others by business, are hindered from the knowledge of them; in order that the soul may not perish for lack of instruction, in the Articles which are few we comprehend the whole doctrine of Faith…And for the present, commit to memory the Faith, merely listening to the words; and expect at the fitting season the proof of each of its parts from the Divine Scriptures. For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men: but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith. And, as the mustard seed in a little grain contains many branches, thus also this Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments. Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts”. Ibid, Lecture 5.12**

Source

**It is said that by the end of the 3rd century, virtually the entire New Testament could be reconstructed from the writings of the Church Fathers.

If in fact, there was some other “oral” teaching that the apostles made that is not written down in Scripture, then** I feel certain that someone should be able to show proof of that. Who would know what was said? No one living today or for the last 1900 years, has heard anything the apostles had to say****. Or is there anyone naive enough to believe that the oral word has been passed down “orally” through all this time? To believe there was something else taught by the apostles that is not in Scripture, wouldn’t we have to have some “written” evidence.

I would ask that someone explain what spiritual “truth” would be omitted from the competence of the Bible to supply? What “good work” is unprovided for?

 

[Old_Scholar]

Actually your first Scripture quotation supports the continued teaching authority of the Church. Notice that He says that He will be with them until the end of the World. The Apostles were mortal men. Yet the authority that He grants will by His own words endure to the end.

I understand that it is because of this that you state that Jesus thought the world would end soon. Yet this make quiet a few assumptions and it also suggests that what He said is wrong and I’m not sure that’s a place you want to go.

Also, your final assertion needs correction. There is indeed quiet a record of the continued authority of the Apostles. The record is the Catholic Church. You simply chose for some reason to not accept it.

**Sorry but there is no record of any continuation of power the apostles had. We only have a “claim” of the church that it is true. There is no evidence at all and I challenge you to find proof in any writings of the early church fathers or any where else except in the writings of the church—the fallible writings of man. As a matter of fact, the Roman Catholic Church still teaches that all doctrines are supported by Scripture. They do not make the claims that several are making on this thread.

But since you made that claim, now the burden of proof is on you to prove it! **

 

[Old_Scholar]

OK, now I’m really confused. I thought you were presenting yourself as a nondenominational orthordox christian believer. Are you saying that you don’t even believe in the Holy Trinity?

Actually, Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible. The Bible only says that Scripture is profitable for instruction, correction and teaching, not the sole rule of faith. Shouldn’t it explicitly be in the Bible with no question left at all about it?

I have not prsented myself as a non-denominational orthodox Christian believer. I have stated exactly what I am and I have not said I do not believe in the Trinity either. I have tried to have a discussion about it in order to see who can prove it. It would seem that I will have to prove it by Scripture as none has done so, this far.

 

[Old_Scholar]

So, IOW, like much of what you claim to be fact based in Scripture, all you really have is an argument from silence. That’s not terribly convincing. Why is that you’re allowed to read what you want into Scripture, but others aren’t?

Excuse me but aren’t you also making your argument from silence as the Scriptures do not say or indicate that this power would be passed down. Jesus only gave it to the 11, as Scripture says. Show me the Scriptures that say it was to succeed the apostles. Christ only gave it to the apostles and when they died, the power died as well. It was no longer necessary because they had completed the task of getting everything necessary down in written form. Even the RCC believes that.

This also makes me wonder. When the 11 chose Matthias to replace Judas, didn’t Matthias the same authority as the other Apostles? What about St. Paul? He wasn’t one of the Twelve, but he was still an Apostle. Didn’t St. Paul admonish Timothy to “lay hands too readily on anyone,” thus indicating that Timothy had the same authority to lay on hands that the Apostles did? Don’t extrabiblical Christian documents dating to the 1st century A.D. talk about the fact that the Apostles chosen their successors?

**The Scriptures do not say that Matthias had these powers and there is no record of him using it, as there is of some of the other apostles. Paul was especially converted by Christ Himself and had all the power bestowed upon the apostles as witnessed by the Scriptures.

As to Timothy, by the laying on of hands, he would be ordaining bishops as that was, and still is in most churches, a requirement of being ordained; that you be ordained by one ordained.**

Since Jesus promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against his Church at the same time he gave St. Peter the power of the keys, doesn’t this heavily imply that said power must somehow extend beyond the life of St. Peter (who, BTW, was martyred in Rome circa A.D. 65, thus nicely demolishing your nonsense elsewhere about St. Peter never being in Rome)?

**Do you believe the gates of hell have prevailed upon the church?

Peter himself said that it was Paul who ordained Linus of Rome and there is no record of Peter ever being in Rome. Just what a couple of the 2nd century writers commented and did not even make the claim directly. Irenæus said in passing, that Peter and Paul, the two glorius apostles, had organized the church at Rome. Irenæus was also famous for saying that the four gospels should not be accepted. **

Why don’t you just admit that you’re adhering to your own preferred man-made traditions and non-authoritative interpretations of Scripture that no one really has any reason to take terribly seriously, especially given the ongoing illogic that permeates so much of what you say? (Which brings us back to your frequent arguments from silence.)

**Of course you haven’t really said but I believe you to be a Roman Catholic and to me it is quite amusing that anyone of the RCC would make the claim that I prefer “man-made” traditions and “non-authoritative” interpretations of Scripture. ** Are you really accusing *me *of that, realizing where your beliefs and doctrines come from?

I believe nothing as doctrine that cannot be clearly found in Scripture. I do not believe man-made traditions. At least the type of traditions you call “holy Traditions.” Of course there are traditions of every church but nothing at all that would contradict the Bible, just traditions of procedure, administration, etc.
– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Apology accepted. Thank you.

I don’t think that any faithful Catholic has a problem with our bodies being a temple of the Holy Spirit, but we might have issues with the scrupulosity and legalism of the two groups you mentioned (as well as some n-Cs) as to the specifics of what is involved in maintaining it. That is a topic for another thread though.
Here is the post that I referred to and you’ll note that it does indeed have a great deal to do with the Trinity.

**I thought I had already commented on this in Deut. but maybe it was on another thread.

In any event it is also one of the verses some use in order to reject the Trinity. It can mean a few different things. One could say that it proves there is only one God, not three; one could say it proves that Jesus is not God (remember that at that time this was said, no one knew of Jesus).

Remember that in Mark 12:29, Jesus said: * And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our*** God is one Lord.

And then again in Luke 18:19, And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

So this is one of those verses many of you do not believe can be interpreted, except by the church, so why then do you attempt to use it to show that there is a Trinity?

I’ll come back to this one later…

But on a side note, remember that God is not alone. He has angels, archangels, the Holy Spirit, etc. So it proves nothing to show that He said, “Let us.”

 

[Old_Scholar]

Sorry but it’s that time again—back to my cell…Later…

 

[mlchance]

Excuse me but aren’t you also making your argument from silence as the Scriptures do not say or indicate that this power would be passed down.

Not so, because I’m not the one arguing Scripture is the only authorative source about Christian doctrine and practice. You, OTOH, frequently make such arguments about things that Scripture doesn’t actually state.

Jesus only gave it to the 11, as Scripture says. Show me the Scriptures that say it was to succeed the apostles. Christ only gave it to the apostles and when they died, the power died as well.

Show me Scripture that states what you claim. If you can’t, you are indeed arguing from silence. Furthermore, if you can’t show Scripture that says Christ gave “it” only to the Apostles and that “the power” died with them, you quite obviously demonstrate the falsehood of the following claim:

I believe nothing as doctrine that cannot be clearly found in Scripture.

– Mark L. Chance.