A
adawgj
Guest
Why don’t you explain why there is no gap? That’s the reason were asking.
- Status
R
ragsbinwashed
Guest
I thought that I explained my reason in post 561 Were I cited Rev.14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. Rev. 12:17 says much the same thing. 17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Only this verse talks of a remnant which is the seed of the woman (church). A remnant (for example fabric) is a small piece at the end of a bolt. This is appropriate for Rev.12:17 because it is talking about a church in the end times that Satan is making war with. This small group will be persecuted but " the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." It is this group that has filled the gap.
rags
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
You might be on to something… A bunch of little Churches running amock, requiring the Apostolic See to set things straight.
G
guanophore
Guest
This is the very reason that it was not necessary to change the doctrines committed to the Church. Despite the faithlessness of some shepherds of the flock, the faith of the remnant never wavered. The One Faith was defined by Christ, not by those who departed from it. He knows His own, they follow His voice, and have done so since He was taken up into heaven. He did not give us authority to change what He taught.
A
adawgj
Guest
Ok, I came in late on this thread so I didn’t know your reason. Now the good question is who is the group?
R
ragsbinwashed
Guest
Rev14:12
E
estesbob
Guest
Where did you derive the authority to interpret scripture for the rest of us? Why should we trust your personal interpretation of Scripture?
R
ragsbinwashed
Guest
You don’t agree with my interpretation? I don’t pretend to interpret scripture FOR anyone. This is my personal opinion on these scriptures. However I do believe that they are accurate
I don’t think that you should trust my interpretation. What you should do is study it out for yourself.
Acts17:10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
G
guanophore
Guest
There is a commonly mistake regarding this passage, which most “bible christians” use to bolster the errant doctrne of Sola Scriptura. Many who oppose the Apostolic faith point to this passage as a model of how each individual should study the scriptures daily, and test what they have heard to see if it agrees.
While Catholics will acknowledge that the Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Scriptures have the same Source, and therefore, cannot contradict one another, what we see in this passage that makes the Berean people “noble” is that they received the Apostolic Teaching with joy and eagerness. This is what we do NOT see today in the multiplicity of “bible christians”, who seem to believe that Jesus intended for His Church to extract Truth from the Scriptures, rather that receive it from an authorized Source.
E
estesbob
Guest
And if we come to different conclusions how do we reconcile that?
R
ragsbinwashed
Guest
Could you explain this? Does it mean that you have faith in the apostles and not Jesus?
Again I’m not quite sure what you mean by this.
Jn.17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
Jn.8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
rags
R
ragsbinwashed
Guest
E
estesbob
Guest
And of course the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura is one of those doctrines that came after the Gap-unheard of for the first 1,500 years after Christ founded our Church. It is interesting that protestants placing so much value on their personal interoperation of a book the Catholic Church gave them
R
ragsbinwashed
Guest
The CC didn’t give us the bible GOD did.
E
estesbob
Guest
Of course he did. Since Jesus is God and Jesus and the Catholic Church are one and the same(one can not separate Jesus from his Church) saying God gave us the Bible and the Catholic Church gave us the Bible is saying the same thing.
Of course before the so called reformers there was no dispute about this. It is only after the “reformers” decided everyone could interpret Scripture as suits them that Protestantism splintered in thousands of different directions
G
guanophore
Guest
No, you will find that, in most things Catholic, it is not “this…and not that”. Rather, Catholicism is more often both/and. The faith that Jesus communicated to His Aposltes was not given in writing (except upon their hearts). He did not write, nor did he instruct them to write. The NT was never intended to be a full compendium of the faith, as it has been treated since the Reformation.
We believe that Jesus was the fullness of God’s public revelation to humanity. He build One Church, comprised of One Faith:
Jude 3
contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.
And this faith was “once for all delivered to the saints”. We call this the Divine Deposit. We are not at liberty to add or subtract from it, which is what separates us from our Protestant sibings, who have done so, and continue to do so, interpreting the scriptures outside of that Divine Deposit.
This One Faith entrusted to the Church is also called Sacred Tradition - the Word of God that was not initially committed to writing. It is the faith that the Apostles believed and taught, the faith into which converts were baptized, and the faith which has been preserved infallibly in the Church by the Holy Spirit.
Sacred Tradtition is the other half of the revelation of God that was lost during the Reformation.
2 Thess 2:14-15
15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
Those faiths referred to as Apostolic Faiths are those who have followed this Apostolic commandment to hold to the traditions that were taught. Sacred Tradition is found in rituals, prayers, creeds, dogmas and conciliar pronouncements. There is not any of it now that has not been written somewhere, but in that time, none of the NT yet existed, so it was all transmitted through the paradosis (handing down) from an authorized teacher to the disciples.
This is distinguished from the traditions with a small “t” which are of men, things such as clothing and practices that are not Divine in origin.
Indeed our separated brethren have a great love for the Scriptues, and the Holy Spirit works through them to draw all to Himself. But, unlike the Bereans, who read the Scirptures through the lens of the Apostolic teaching, they are separated from it, so read it through the lens of their own experience and education (or lack of it) resulting in a myriad of contradicting understandings.
R
ragsbinwashed
Guest
You’re saying that the CC is God? Do you worship your church god?
G
guanophore
Guest
This is another one of those “both/and” situations rags. Yes, God gave us the Bible. He chose to use Catholics to write, compile, propogate, and canonize it. It is a Catholic book, inspired by the Holy Spirit, inerrant.
It was never meant to be separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced it, and since it has been, we see the continuing fracturing of Protestantism under the heresy of Sola Scriptura.
To correct it, one must model the Bereans, and receive the Apostolic preaching with joy and eagerness, then look at the Scriptures through the lens of this teaching.
R
ragsbinwashed
Guest
The Bible consists of Old Testament = 39 books. They were canonized more than 600 years before the Catholic Church existed (with all due respect); Jesus’
It is written’ quotes were from the Greek LXX, but never from any apocryphal writings. The New Testament consists of 27 books which were canonized by the early Christians around 200 AD. • See writings by Eusebius (Commentaria in Matthaeum, Tomus, XVII.30) on Origen’s description of the canon. He himself in book iii.25, Loeb ed., vol I, pp. 257, 259) gives us a clear canon with Recognized Books’ (27 in current NT), Disputed Books’, and altogether wicked and impious books’.• See the declaration of Athanasius of Alexandria, in his 39th Festal Letter (AD 367) that the canon consisted of 27 books.
The formation of the NT canon was thus not done by any church or specific council, but rather by general consent as the early church leaders
sifted’ the wheat from the chaff under guidance of the Holy Spirit. This was later formalized at the council of Rome towards the end of the 4th century AD under pope Damasus. So yes, the Catholic Church had maybe 10% part to play in 382 AD when the established canon was formalized’ by a council in Rome. That hardly qualifies them to claim to have given us the bible.What do you mean? Correct what? The bible?
What teaching are you referring to? Searching the scriptures?
E
estesbob
Guest
Christ and his Church are one in the same.
- Status