How Did The Trinity Doctrine Develop

[RobbyS]

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.

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:

– Mark L. Chance.

Old Scholar repeats Luther’s demand that he be convinced from Scripture and nothing else. He’s a fundamentalist but by this I mean a fundamentalist like the old Saducees who believed nothing that was not set down in the Pentateuch. Or the Rabbinical Jews who after the destruction of the Temple, who froze the canon, and devoted themselves to its explanation in the Talmuds. The Reformers were very much like those old Rabbis. They rejected the authority of the priests but set themselves up as teachers and created their own sort of Talmud. How many millions of words have they used up, trying to make Scripture fit their new doctrines?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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

But writings eventually gathered into a NT of writings cannot be quoted as evidence of their own inspiration. Why is that so hard to understand ?​

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?

I’m not questioning their validity - I have already said I accept them, in post 115. But accepting them now is not the same thing as imagining they must have been recognised as God-breathed Scripture when they were first composed.​

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.

**On what is that based ? Nothing but habit. **​

• 1. You have not done anything to show that the word translated “Scripture” means anything more than “written text”.
• 2. Nor is there any reason to suppose the text quoted refers to any NT writing
  **Far too much is being taken for granted. So I certainly am saying it ## **

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.

**That would be hard to apply to books that had not been written, let alone recognised. **​

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.

Then it won’t mention:​

• windows in Heaven
• four corners of the earth
• waters under the earth
• the Lord’s fight with the monster Rahab
• Leviathan
• Behemoth
  **It is a bad idea for us to impose on the Bible our notions of what it ought to be like - it’s what it is, & we have no right to mess about it with it so that it fits our preconceptions. **

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

**That test proves Christ a false prophet - & Jeremiah, & Ezekiel. Ezekiel prophesies Nebuchadnezzar will take Tyre (Ezek. 26); three chapters & 13 years’ siege later, he comes up with a substitute prophecy (Ezek. 29). ****I don’t recall Jesus returning before the end of the generation He was speaking to (Matt.24.34); nor did the prophesies in Isaiah 35 come true, apart from the Return from Exile. Examples could be multiplied. **​

The “argument from predictive prophecy” is ludicrous. It’s a pack of lies, & does nothing but expose the Bible to contempt & disbelief. Quite apart from requiring an heroic ability to rip texts out of their contexts. Muslims use the same nonsensical approach to “prove” that the Bible predicts their false prophet. With such methods, anything can be proved - & very often is

**Even if that were not a problem, that would not make it perfect in other ways. **

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

**But others do - such as the Book of Mormon. Any semi-educated fanatic can do as much. And they often do. Claims are utterly, totally, & completely meaningless. **​

**I accept the Bible for a lot of reasons - & claims in the texts to being inspired are not among them. Which is just as well, because the books say almost nothing on the subject of inspired Scriptures. **

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I answered this one in a post already…

**Then I should like to be able to find it **​

 

[savedsinner]

But Peter is speaking of prophecy, not the gospel and salvation.

I am sorry, I should have given the passage I was speaking of.

I was not referring to 2 Peter 1:20 “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation”.

I was referring to 2: Peter 3:15-16 “So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.”

And in this passage, Peter is not referring to prophecy, he is referring to the subjects he has just covered in the last two chapters of his letter which Paul parallels in his letters, and which the false teachers were distorting.

These things are:

• God’s will to save (Rom 2:4, 9:22-23; 1 Cor 1:7-8)
• The coming of Christ (1 Thes 4:16-17; 1 Cor 15:23-52)
• Preparedness for the Judgement (Col 1:22-23; Eph 1:4-14; 4:30; 5: 5-14)

I would recommend that you go back and read 2 Timothy again, it is just a few pages and won’t take too much of your time.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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. **

**## That is not quite what he said: **

• newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm
• 1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known**hidden **[mysteries (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10662a.htm), which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves.

The mysteries of the Church were & are completely different from those he writes against

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?

**There is a difference between the Fathers, & those who try to use their words against the Church: they were Catholics, & men of the Church. These other people seek to undermine the teaching of the Church by using Scripture - the books either committed to, or growing from within, the Church - to do so. **​

**What is said to catechumens who do not know the basics of the Faith & need to be taught it, is not applicable as a criticism of that which is kept for those who are more advanced in faith & knowledge. So the quotation from St.Cyril of Jerusalem proves nothing against the Church’s Tradition & Faith. **

 

[mlchance]

How many millions of words have they used up, trying to make Scripture fit their new doctrines?

At least a few. Old Scholar claims he doesn’t believes “doctrine that cannot be clearly found in Scripture.” Where in Scripture does it say the power of the keys passed away with the last of the Apostles?

He claims St. Peter was never in Rome, despite the undeniable historical evidence that, for example, St. Peter was martyred in Rome. Pretty hard to be martyred somewhere you’re not.

He claimed in another thread that St. Joseph was about the same age as the Blessed Virgin. Where is this found in Scripture?

He claims Scripture clearly shows the Blessed Virgin had other children even though nowhere in Scripture is anyone other than Jesus specifically identified as her child.

The real issue ought to be clear, Old Scholar: You believe what you believe even though a whole lot of it cannot be found in Scripture. Furthermore, by irrationally rejecting Tradition and historical scholarship, you have less to back up your man-made doctrines and traditions than does the Church, which can always refer back to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition to rationally explain her doctrines and practices.

But, just so we’re on-topic, “How Did The Trinity Doctrine Develop”? Over time, based on Scripture, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church defined and explained the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

– Mark L. Chance.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.

Now you must give an example of what I have said that Scripture doesn’t support. Don’t give me an opinion, but what I claimed to be truth.

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:

Mark 16:14 * Afterward **he appeared unto the eleven *as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. 15) And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17) And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18) They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. 19) So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. 20) And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Now the Lord was speaking only to the eleven as Matthias had not yet been appointed. Notice also that there were apostles that did not believe He had been arisen and so He said “to them that believe” and gave the powers only to those apostles that believed He had risen.

Now if you believe any of those apostles are still living today, then they still have the power. Otherwise, you would need to show where Christ said that the power would “succeed” down.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Old Scholar repeats Luther’s demand that he be convinced from Scripture and nothing else. He’s a fundamentalist but by this I mean a fundamentalist like the old Saducees who believed nothing that was not set down in the Pentateuch. Or the Rabbinical Jews who after the destruction of the Temple, who froze the canon, and devoted themselves to its explanation in the Talmuds. The Reformers were very much like those old Rabbis. They rejected the authority of the priests but set themselves up as teachers and created their own sort of Talmud. How many millions of words have they used up, trying to make Scripture fit their new doctrines?

What convinces you besides Scripture? Do you believe what you are told by a priest? Where did the priest get his information? Of course he got it from the church. Well where did the church get it? Did they read where someone said that was so or did they get it from an authoritative source, such as the Scriptures? Did they make the claim that what they had heard was equal to or superior to Scripture? On what basis do they make that claim? Is it merely that so and so told so and so and then so and so told so and so and then so and so told so and so and on and on…

There has to be a standard—an authoritative source. Because some man wrote something down in a catechism and claimed it to be true does not make it so. Your church and mine has agreed that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. That makes it the only really authoritative source we have. How could we take the chance to simply believe what someone said? Every one of the early church fathers, even while teaching the truth, also had some things completely wrong and many of them were considered heretics for their belief BECAUSE IT COULD NOT BE SUPPORTED BY SCRIPTURE(for emphasis only—not shouting). You probably make the claim that the magesterium is the source of truth when in reality it is merely a collection of men who vote and then the majority rules. That’s even how they elect a pope. Where is the standard in that?

 

[JOE_OBERR]

Joe Oberr continued.
… 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.

There is no document or teaching of the Catholic Church stating that all doctrine is established in Scripture. Please provide the reference.

If this were true than the doctrine listing the Old & New Testament books of Scripture would have to include the inspired list of canonical books, which of course it doesn’t.

So who made the decision of which books of the 250 plus that were considered inspired are canonical??? Obviously some person or entity outside of Scripture. That is one example why the Catholic Church has never said all doctrine is established in Scripture. Scripture cannot define itself.

The other reason is that the gospel the apostles preached predated the bible as we know by 350 or so years. Hundreds of thousands of people were Catholic long before the canon was established.

Even if one were to point to a Scriptural list of canoncial books it would be circular as the so called valid list would be in the document the list is supposedly proving.

 

[Old_Scholar]

But writings eventually gathered into a NT of writings cannot be quoted as evidence of their own inspiration. Why is that so hard to understand ? ## I’m not questioning their validity - I have already said I accept them, in post 115. But accepting them now is not the same thing as imagining they must have been recognised as God-breathed Scripture when they were first composed. ## **On what is that based ? Nothing but habit. **​

• 1. You have not done anything to show that the word translated “Scripture” means anything more than “written text”.
• 2. Nor is there any reason to suppose the text quoted refers to any NT writing
  **Far too much is being taken for granted. So I certainly am saying it ## **

**That would be hard to apply to books that had not been written, let alone recognised. **## Then it won’t mention:​

• windows in Heaven
• four corners of the earth
• waters under the earth
• the Lord’s fight with the monster Rahab
• Leviathan
• Behemoth
  **It is a bad idea for us to impose on the Bible our notions of what it ought to be like - it’s what it is, & we have no right to mess about it with it so that it fits our preconceptions. **

**That test proves Christ a false prophet - & Jeremiah, & Ezekiel. Ezekiel prophesies Nebuchadnezzar will take Tyre (Ezek. 26); three chapters & 13 years’ siege later, he comes up with a substitute prophecy (Ezek. 29). ****I don’t recall Jesus returning before the end of the generation He was speaking to (Matt.24.34); nor did the prophesies in Isaiah 35 come true, apart from the Return from Exile. Examples could be multiplied. **​

The “argument from predictive prophecy” is ludicrous. It’s a pack of lies, & does nothing but expose the Bible to contempt & disbelief. Quite apart from requiring an heroic ability to rip texts out of their contexts. Muslims use the same nonsensical approach to “prove” that the Bible predicts their false prophet. With such methods, anything can be proved - & very often is

**Even if that were not a problem, that would not make it perfect in other ways. **

**But others do - such as the Book of Mormon. Any semi-educated fanatic can do as much. And they often do. Claims are utterly, totally, & completely meaningless. **​

**I accept the Bible for a lot of reasons - & claims in the texts to being inspired are not among them. Which is just as well, because the books say almost nothing on the subject of inspired Scriptures. **

Because of space limitations, see next post…

 

[Old_Scholar]

**I believe I have answered this already in another post but I will do it again.

I suppose you don’t have questions about the inspiration of the Old Testament because there are thousands of references there that said, “The word of the Lord came to me,” etc. I don’t believe that is in question.

However it is a little more difficult for the New Testament because it had not yet been written.

However we know Jesus gave us the New Testament. The resurrection was the proof that God had approved His teachings. His stamp of approval was put on Jesus when He was raised from the dead. **

Acts 2:22 *Ye men of Israel, hear these words; **Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God ***among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:23) Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 24) Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

Acts 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Romans 1:3 * Concerning** His Son Jesus Christ our Lord***, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4) And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

This is certainly a very strong case that God had approved Jesus and had sent Him. We don’t need further proof of that.

John 16:12 * I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13) Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come*.

**I feel certain you would agree that Jesus promised the apostles would get the knowledge and truth.

He had already taught them so much but He promised them more.**

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

**This was His promise to be sure they would remember everything and He had already promised them the knowledge of future events. (second part of 16:13)

Now we know without a doubt that they were taught by Jesus and promised the holy Ghost Who would tell them all they should know and also the future**. This was the truth that their writings would be inspired.

In addition, the apostles knew as they wrote their words that they were inspired. They claimed a two-fold promise of Jesus; that the teachings were based on the foundation that Jesus provided and that their words were inspired.

Ephesians 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone;

2 Peter 3:1 This second epistle beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 2) That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

Heb 2:3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; 4) God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

**From reading Scripture, it is obvious that the apostles thought their words were inspired and they believed Jesus’ promise. It is even more evident in all of Paul’s epistles. They were all convinced that the Holy Spirit empowered both their teaching and writing.

In Luke 10:7 and in Matthew 10:10, Jesus draws from the Old Testament and this indicates to a reasonable person that the Scripture is not complete, nor the end of the matter. If any writings are considered inspired, surely the words of Jesus would be. In II Peter 15-16, Peter certainly considers Paul’s writings Scripture and alludes to them giving them such status. In Jude 17-18 as well, the writings are considered Scripture.

The doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture is anchored so deeply in the teaching of Jesus, if we are to believe the Bible at all. His resurrection should prove the reliability of what we read in Scripture. Scripture is the assurance of the grounds of our faith and gives us a theological primer for the understanding of the Bible as a guide for our spiritual life.
**

 

[Old_Scholar]

There is no document or teaching of the Catholic Church stating that all doctrine is established in Scripture. Please provide the reference.

If this were true than the doctrine listing the Old & New Testament books of Scripture would have to include the inspired list of canonical books, which of course it doesn’t.

So who made the decision of which books of the 250 plus that were considered inspired are canonical??? Obviously some person or entity outside of Scripture. That is one example why the Catholic Church has never said all doctrine is established in Scripture. Scripture cannot define itself.

The other reason is that the gospel the apostles preached predated the bible as we know by 350 or so years. Hundreds of thousands of people were Catholic long before the canon was established.

Even if one were to point to a Scriptural list of canoncial books it would be circular as the so called valid list would be in the document the list is supposedly proving.

You should study your catechisms a little more. I will list some that pertain to the Scripture as the basis for doctrine:

186 From the beginning, the apostolic Church expressed and handed on her faith in brief formula normative for all.1 But already very early on, the Church also wanted to gather the essential elements of her faith into organic and articulated summaries, intended especially for candidates for Baptism:

This synthesis of faith was not made to accord with human opinions, but rather what was of the greatest importance was gathered from all the Scriptures, to present the one teaching of the faith in its entirety. And just as the mustard seed contains a great number of branches in a tiny grain, so too this summary of faith encompassed in a few words the whole knowledge of the true religion contained in the Old and the New Testaments.2

Sure seems to support what I said so far:

127 The fourfold Gospel holds a unique place in the Church, as is evident both in the veneration which the liturgy accords it and in the surpassing attraction it has exercised on the saints at all times:

**There is no doctrine which could be better, more precious and more splendid than the text of the Gospel. Behold and retain what our Lord and Master, Christ, has taught by his words and accomplished by his deeds.**102
But above all it’s the gospels that occupy my mind when I’m at prayer; my poor soul has so many needs, and yet this is the one thing needful. I’m always finding fresh lights there; hidden meanings which had meant nothing to me hitherto.103

249 From the beginning, the revealed truth of the Holy Trinity has been at the very root of the Church’s living faith, principally by means of Baptism. It finds its expression in the rule of baptismal faith, formulated in the preaching, catechesis and prayer of the Church. **Such formulations are already found in the apostolic writings, **such as this salutation taken up in the Eucharistic liturgy: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."81
Source

Where do they find the truth for the dogmas?

 

[rtconstant]

**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! **

Yes it is a claim of the Church just like the infalibility of the Scriptures is a “claim” of the Church. Scriptures cannot claim themselves infallible. We first must believe the Scriptures to be a reliable source before any of its claims can be believed. The reason that we believe the Scriptures are infallible is because the Church has declared them so and whether you want to acknowledge it or not that is why you accept them as infallibel as well. What other authority can make such claims?

Also, you ask for evidence from Early Church Fathers and then say that you won’t accept any wrightings of the Church. Well that includes the ECF’s. Then you tack on the additional requirement that it can’t be from fallible men. Well that pretty much takes away all authoritative sources including the Bible as it was indeed written by fallible men. We today believe the Scriptures are inspired because the Church has declared them so.

If you do not believe that The Church has teaching authority then it is up to you provide another source which has the power to declare the Scripture’s infallible and then you must show how that this source was indeed the one behind declaring the Canon.

 

[Old_Scholar]

I am sorry, I should have given the passage I was speaking of.

I was not referring to 2 Peter 1:20 “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation”.

I was referring to 2: Peter 3:15-16 “So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.”

And in this passage, Peter is not referring to prophecy, he is referring to the subjects he has just covered in the last two chapters of his letter which Paul parallels in his letters, and which the false teachers were distorting.

These things are:

• God’s will to save (Rom 2:4, 9:22-23; 1 Cor 1:7-8)
• The coming of Christ (1 Thes 4:16-17; 1 Cor 15:23-52)
• Preparedness for the Judgement (Col 1:22-23; Eph 1:4-14; 4:30; 5: 5-14)

I would recommend that you go back and read 2 Timothy again, it is just a few pages and won’t take too much of your time.

Thanks, I enjoy Paul’s epistles…

I understand what you are saying but you must realize that Peter was the ignorant one. Peter had the gift of great speech but we are not even sure he could write or read. The Scriptures say he was ignorant, so maybe he was speaking of himself. Other wise what Scripture was he talking about? Scripture tells us that when a person has the Holy Spirit, then all things are easy to understand. I thoroughly believe that.

There are some things in Scripture that are difficult to understand however, as Peter states. It is very difficult if you are not a believer but once you are filled with the Holy Spirit, Scripture comes easy. Peter was writing to those that would be facing heretics and those who did not understand what the Scriptures were about and warning them of what to expect. The Jews still did not understand this new teaching of Jesus and they had been violent. Peter knew he was not going to be there much longer and all this has to be considered when reading what he wrote here. A scholarly reading of his epistle will show this and indicate that he is trying to prepare them for this eventuality.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Yes it is a claim of the Church just like the infalibility of the Scriptures is a “claim” of the Church. Scriptures cannot claim themselves infallible. We first must believe the Scriptures to be a reliable source before any of its claims can be believed. The reason that we believe the Scriptures are infallible is because the Church has declared them so and whether you want to acknowledge it or not that is why you accept them as infallibel as well. What other authority can make such claims?

Also, you ask for evidence from Early Church Fathers and then say that you won’t accept any wrightings of the Church. Well that includes the ECF’s. Then you tack on the additional requirement that it can’t be from fallible men. Well that pretty much takes away all authoritative sources including the Bible as it was indeed written by fallible men. We today believe the Scriptures are inspired because the Church has declared them so.

If you do not believe that The Church has teaching authority then it is up to you provide another source which has the power to declare the Scripture’s infallible and then you must show how that this source was indeed the one behind declaring the Canon.

You are making a circular argument here. You say the Bible is not infallible, it is merely a collection of books; only the church is infallible, because it gave us the Bible, but yet it was the Scriptures that gave us the church…Hmnnnn…Explain this please!

What you are saying is that God did not inspire the writers of the New Testament, therefore it is not an inerrant word of God as most people believe. You are saying it is just a book. But I must ask you, if that is so, then where does the Church claim to have gotten its authority?.. I thought so. So your agrument is invalid.

The writings I want to accept from the early church fathers are the writings from the first three centuries. They are the ones that are most true because that was before Rome had “done its thing” and too many things changed. If you can find support for any of the RCC doctrines from the centuries I mentioned, then I would have to study them carefully.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

At least a few. Old Scholar claims he doesn’t believes “doctrine that cannot be clearly found in Scripture.” Where in Scripture does it say the power of the keys passed away with the last of the Apostles?

He claims St. Peter was never in Rome, despite the undeniable historical evidence that, for example, St. Peter was martyred in Rome. Pretty hard to be martyred somewhere you’re not.

He claimed in another thread that St. Joseph was about the same age as the Blessed Virgin. Where is this found in Scripture?

He claims Scripture clearly shows the Blessed Virgin had other children even though nowhere in Scripture is anyone other than Jesus specifically identified as her child.

The real issue ought to be clear, Old Scholar: You believe what you believe even though a whole lot of it cannot be found in Scripture. Furthermore, by irrationally rejecting Tradition and historical scholarship, you have less to back up your man-made doctrines and traditions than does the Church, which can always refer back to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition to rationally explain her doctrines and practices.

But, just so we’re on-topic, “How Did The Trinity Doctrine Develop”? Over time, based on Scripture, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church defined and explained the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

– Mark L. Chance.

– Mark L. Chance.

That’s the the manner, & the history, of its development & definition, in a nutshell ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Now you must give an example of what I have said that Scripture doesn’t support. Don’t give me an opinion, but what I claimed to be truth.

Mark 16:14 *Afterward **he appeared unto the eleven *as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. 15) And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17) And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18) They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. 19) So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. 20) And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Now the Lord was speaking only to the eleven as Matthias had not yet been appointed. Notice also that there were apostles that did not believe He had been arisen and so He said “to them that believe” and gave the powers only to those apostles that believed He had risen.

Now if you believe any of those apostles are still living today, then they still have the power. Otherwise, you would need to show where Christ said that the power would “succeed” down.

– Mark L. Chance.## **The very St. Irenaeus you quoted against the Catholic ****understanding of Tradition witnesses to the fact of the Apostolic ****Succession. **

The bishops are not Apostles, for** they are not eye-witnesses of the earthly Life of Christ - but the Apostles’ authority to bind & loose, & to baptise & teach, which is that of Christ, is perpetuated in that of the bishops. If there is a Church, with the mission Christ gave it, it can have no authority & mission but Christ’s authority & mission. So either the Church ceased to exist when the last Apostle died - or it survives today , & has in it the Apostolic commission, authority, & s**uccession. ****

**It is superstition to accept the Bible while rejecting the very authority which has - under & in Christ - recognised & preserved the Bible. **

 

[rtconstant]

You are making a circular argument here. You say the Bible is not infallible, it is merely a collection of books; only the church is infallible, because it gave us the Bible, but yet it was the Scriptures that gave us the church…Hmnnnn…Explain this please!

Ah well I can see part of the problem now. I can see why you would think that circular but your doing so because of a flawed assumption. The Bible didn’t give us the Church. Jesus Christ gave us the Church. His teachings were then continued by the Apostles and then further continued by those they instructed. Understanding of the OT and the creation of the NT is an outpouring of that teaching.

The Bible is a product of the Church not vice versa. The Bible helps to gives us clarification, background and practical understanding of the Faith but it does not give us the Faith. Faith flows from the Holy Spirit and is not dependant on litteracy.

u are saying is that God did not inspire the writers of the New Testament, therefore it is not an inerrant word of God as most people believe. You are saying it is just a book. But I must ask you, if that is so, then where does the Church claim to have gotten its authority?.. I thought so. So your agrument is invalid.

To simplify things lets just stick with the subject of authority. How about these:

Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid. — (Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8, J.R. Willis translation.)

Ignatius by the way lived in the latter half of the 1st century.

As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same (Irenaeus: Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189])

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (ibid., 3:3:1–2)

Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition (Origen: The Fundamental Doctrines 1:2 [A.D. 225]).

[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop Fabian by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way (Letters 75:3 [A.D. 253]).

 

[epostle]

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!

*Matthew 28
[16]
Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them.
[17] And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some doubted.
[19] 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,
[20] teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." *
Jesus does not exclude those who doubted, but he did admonish them for their unbelief. You can’t assume they remained in unbelief after their Lord and Saviour spoke directly to them, and scripture does not give any indication that they remainded in unbelief.

You may be correct in the claim that the office of Apostle is somehow special over and above the office of bishop, in that God may have granted the original 11 special graces. However, if your claim that there was no continuity of office after the Apostles died is true, then the Apostles must still be alive, because Jesus said, “I am with you always…” and they will be alive until the close of the age. (we have them hidden in the Vatican basement ) Or, you mean that Jesus is with the Apostles always, including after their death, meaning that the Apostles are to make disciples of all nations and baptize while they are in heaven.

Neither of these make any sense. The only logical conclusion is that Jesus is talking to the Apostles and their successors, who will be here at the close of the age.

 

[mlchance]

Mark 16:14…

Now if you believe any of those apostles are still living today, then they still have the power. Otherwise, you would need to show where Christ said that the power would “succeed” down.

You’re still being obtuse. I don’t need to show any such thing. You claimed Scripture says the power passed away with the last of the Apostles. There is nothing in the passage from Mark’s Gospel that you quoted that says the power passed away with last of the Apostles. If you can’t produce Scripture that says the power passed away with the last of the Apostles, you’re arguing from silence, or, to put it another way, you’re making stuff up.

So, again, where does Scripture say the power passed away with the last of the Apostles?

– Mark L. Chance.