P
PRmerger
Guest
What do you think the early Christians used for 4 centuries, before there was a Bible?
- Status
F
Faith1960
Guest
So we can trust the Bible is truth despite not being written down and passed on orally?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes.
J
jcrichton
Guest
Correct! …that’s why I don’t put too much efforts in following the “latest” discoveries that would “prove” wrong what Scriptures hold as True from millennia.Wait? Oh, no, you can throw in as many examples as you like!Yes, of course any man or woman can commit errors, especially before the days of spellcheck and the Internet. At least the Holy Spirit knows what he’s doing, right?
When new findings are discovered, rather than disproving Scriptures, they support it!
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi, Monte!
…I suspect that “scholars” deep down want to be “celebrities” (Broadway Stars) and they must churn their field and mix in the ego trips (intellect and elite) in order to get “equivalent” highs (‘me, know secret of scrolls’).
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi!
…that’s the beauty of Apostolic Succession and Tradition; doubt can creep in when a chunk of history and information is missing; the Holy Spirit made sure that the three pillars would support the Church: Written, Oral and Hierarchy!
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi, PR!
…Protestants claim that Scriptures are the final word on the Word (Revelation) of God–while the Catholic Church holds that Jesus Delegated His Authority to the Church and she, Guided by the Holy Spirit, has determined the various Doctrinal unfolding (“enhancements”) of God’s Revelations. Hence, the Church sets a Doctrine which, through dogmatic Teaching, must be Believed by all her members; conversely, Protestantism hold that they rely only on Scriptures as their absolute authority (a demeanor since they also subscribe to the pendulum authority: chose and pick & vote and establish/reestablish).
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi, Faith!
…I think the reason why we have so much trouble today is that we have stopped relying on the Holy Spirit and have listened to the “scholars” who keep telling us that a physical text is better than having both the Written and Oral Traditions… aside from the rejection of the Holy Spirit, we run into the huge problem of “permanence:” old world tech did not produce hard-copies that would be invulnerable to time and environmental conditions; hence, the lack of surviving originals or close enough copies of the originals…
Maran atha!
Angel
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, there is no such thing as “Protestants claim”. Protestantism is a behemoth of beliefs, with no authority for what it means to be a Protesant.
And what you have described above as the “Catholic view” sounds exactly like what Hatikvah is claiming Luther believed, so I’m trying to get some clarification from him.
I’m quite sure that Luther diverged from the Catholic view, but right now Hatikvah is demonstrating that Luther proclaimed the Catholic Church’s understanding of the Word of God.
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi, PR!
…your conclusion seems to ignore ignorance–there are those who reject the Church while purposely ignoring her direct involvement and contribution in Christendom and the world at large; to them things came into being through happenstance!
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi, Faith!
…the Bible as Written Sacred Writings did not exist till the end of the fourth century as an officially held Canon of Scriptures.
However, scrolls containing the Old Testament did exist and the New Testament was being Written as the Holy Spirit Inspired St. Paul and the other Writers. The Writings of the New Testament came as a result of the expansion of the Church: the need to maintain uniform Doctrinal Teaching and the need to fight the various heresies that were unfolding, along with the Teachings of the Apostles.
Eventually (between 50 AD and 90 AD) the Gospels and Epistles were inked–though the main teaching venue was the Oral Tradition (which would incorporate the various Writings and the developing Liturgy).
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
…I concur about the hugeness of Protestantism; yet, generally they hold the view of “no Church” authority–rather, they (as far as all those whom I’ve encountered) hold that the Bible is the final authority (that’s why I term it “claim”).
…I follow what you are saying but I think you missed this:
…the highlighted segment is the clause/claim that non-Catholics use to both deny Church Authority (the need of it) and assert their own “correct” doctrine.
Maran atha!
Angel
P
PRmerger
Guest
Ah. So Scripture is the highest authority–that’s Luther’s view.
So Hatikvah: you said your view differs from Luther’s. How does it differ?
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Absolutely.
Much easier for me to defend the canon and it’s origin as a Catholic than it was a Protestant
E
eddie_too
Guest
in response to the OP, no one actually “knows” Jesus is the messiah. we “believe” in Him.
most fundamentally, we believe because almighty God has given us the gift of faith.
however, we humans also have the use of reason and our faith is supported by our use of reason. an objective review of all available information, facts, history, etc., both strengthens and leads to faith in Jesus Christ.
i noticed that more recent posts have returned to the importance and reliability of sacred scripture. i always resolve this debate about sacred scripture by reminding myself that if all the Lord’s followers needed to follow Him was a book, He would have written it Himself.
for that reason, the Bible without oral tradition and the magisterium will, generally, lead people away from the Lord’s Gospel and probably even lead them away from salvation.
most fundamentally, we believe because almighty God has given us the gift of faith.
however, we humans also have the use of reason and our faith is supported by our use of reason. an objective review of all available information, facts, history, etc., both strengthens and leads to faith in Jesus Christ.
i noticed that more recent posts have returned to the importance and reliability of sacred scripture. i always resolve this debate about sacred scripture by reminding myself that if all the Lord’s followers needed to follow Him was a book, He would have written it Himself.
for that reason, the Bible without oral tradition and the magisterium will, generally, lead people away from the Lord’s Gospel and probably even lead them away from salvation.
H
Hatikvah
Guest
Well, Protestantism has a few key distinctions that we can point out. It must absolutely be distinguished from Restorationism.
- There is no true Church that is literal and earthly, but all Christians are in Christ with the Holy Spirit;
- The Bible has the final word on all matters, being the Word of God;
- All believers are in a “universal priesthood,” meaning that we have direct contact with God through prayer as Christians without the need for human mediators like priests in this manner
- There is some connection to early Protestantism or proto-Protestantism (e.g., Methodism developed out of Anglicanism, or the Baptists are Anabaptists)
Rejecting the Church is a theological matter, yes, and it has been repeated over and over directly (Nestorianism, Oriental Orthodoxy, perhaps Eastern Orthodoxy, early and proto-Protestantism, as well as some early heretical groups). However, denying the Church’s role in the history of the world at large, and the Western world in particular, is a historical matter. It would be very foolish to do so, especially when we speak of this history of Europe.
Oh, be careful here. While this claim works for Protestants, it does not work for all non-Catholic Christians. Restorationists believe that their church, whichever it may be, has been restored and that they now have the Truth of Jesus Christ (e.g., Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Iglesia ni Cristo, a plethora of other groups all over the world). They have Scripture, yes, but they also use their own form of church authority because it has been restored in those beliefs.
Oriental Orthodox and Nestorians had their own issues, and I guess you can find those online. Eastern Orthodoxy had a squeaky relationship with the Church in the past, so… again, its own issue. The point is that the argument must be tailored to suit the person or group you’re arguing against.
I used careful language like “perhaps” to avoid making a premature claim. I did not know Luther’s full view of the relationship between Sacred Tradition and Scripture. Now, I do. I say that it fits my current view quite well, so I do not have anything differing from such a view as we speak.
meltzerboy
New member
I question whether the Quakers, as a whole, deny the Trinity. I know present-day Quakers may have different views regarding traditional dogma and doctrine; but, based upon early Quakerism, the Trinity was not denied.Well, Protestantism has a few key distinctions that we can point out. It must absolutely be distinguished from Restorationism.
These are the only points that get across, though I’m making it roomy for some more peculiar movements. The Quakers, for example, hold to all of these and consider themselves Protestant, but they deny the Trinity. As for theology, Protestantism itself is pretty similar but not entirely the same.
- There is no true Church that is literal and earthly, but all Christians are in Christ with the Holy Spirit;
- The Bible has the final word on all matters, being the Word of God;
- All believers are in a “universal priesthood,” meaning that we have direct contact with God through prayer as Christians without the need for human mediators like priests in this manner
- There is some connection to early Protestantism or proto-Protestantism (e.g., Methodism developed out of Anglicanism, or the Baptists are Anabaptists)
Rejecting the Church is a theological matter, yes, and it has been repeated over and over directly (Nestorianism, Oriental Orthodoxy, perhaps Eastern Orthodoxy, early and proto-Protestantism, as well as some early heretical groups). However, denying the Church’s role in the history of the world at large, and the Western world in particular, is a historical matter. It would be very foolish to do so, especially when we speak of this history of Europe.
Oh, be careful here. While this claim works for Protestants, it does not work for all non-Catholic Christians. Restorationists believe that their church, whichever it may be, has been restored and that they now have the Truth of Jesus Christ (e.g., Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Iglesia ni Cristo, a plethora of other groups all over the world). They have Scripture, yes, but they also use their own form of church authority because it has been restored in those beliefs.
Oriental Orthodox and Nestorians had their own issues, and I guess you can find those online. Eastern Orthodoxy had a squeaky relationship with the Church in the past, so… again, its own issue. The point is that the argument must be tailored to suit the person or group you’re arguing against.
I used careful language like “perhaps” to avoid making a premature claim. I did not know Luther’s full view of the relationship between Sacred Tradition and Scripture. Now, I do. I say that it fits my current view quite well, so I do not have anything differing from such a view as we speak.
J
jcrichton
Guest
…because they subscribe to “Scriptural authority” they believe that any deviation from their original founders (Luther, Calvin, etc.) is sound since they cite Scriptures as their authority to deviate; hence, the myriads of splinters asserting that they are the “true church.”
Maran atha!
Angel
P
PRmerger
Guest
I don’t think this is the Lutheran, Anglican and Episcopal view.
But I may be wrong.
Any Lutherans, Anglicans or Episcopalians here who can correct me? (And offer references to back your assertion)
This simply cannot be true, logically.
How can the Bible be the final word on the 27 book canon of the NT?
Clearly,*** the Church*** had the final word on this, and all Christians who accept this 27 book canon implicitly believe in the Church having the final word.
J
jcrichton
Guest
…I don’t think that Catholics believe that Sacred Scriptures alone can guide us to the fullness of Truth; yet, the Word of God is there for us to both study and reflect upon.
If we cannot believe that Christ is the Messiah and that He is God from Scriptures it is because we reject the Holy Spirit’s Guidance. Hence, God’s Wisdom in Founding a Church and Giving her the Sacred Traditions (Oral and Written) as well as a governing (order) body.
Maran atha!
Angel
- Status