R
- Status
A
AD70
Guest
Coptic, how do you know that the church is the mystery hidden for all ages?
Exactly my point. The Bible defines the church.
po18guy
Well-known member
There is a member here at CAF that is Muslim living in a militantly Muslim nation. He began to read the Gospels and the words of Christ made him weep. They spoke to the core of his being. He has since rejected Islam and embraced Christianity. He knows the word of God when he sees it.Fatboys, no, I don’t need to.
My journey is present to God, and that is all I need.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
D
dzheremi
Guest
Indeed. It calls the Church, not itself, “the pillar and ground of the truth”. As is right to do, after all, since it was written and compiled by the Church, to be read in the Church, and preached by the Church throughout the whole world.
po18guy
Well-known member
Indeed, the NT bears witness to the Church. The bible is not an authority, since it must be properly interpreted. Scripture speaks of the authority which Christ gave to His Church. Disputes with a brother are not to be taken to the bible, but to the Church, which bears the final word.
A
AD70
Guest
Amen. The word is the truth. And it both defines the church and dictates the church’s calling. The church is to be the “ground and pillar”, that which upholds the truth of scripture. Unfortunately there are too many churches who would rather preach up the church rather than the Bible.
The church’s calling is not only to preach the scriptures but to submit to them, obey them and serve them as God’s sufficient rule.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Ad,
To say something is, is not to define it. If something is hidden and the mystery hidden for all ages you must ask yourself some questions.
You must imagine all ages. What does that mean? For all time perhaps? Before time perhaps?
If the Church is the body of Christ and Christ is the head then perhaps the Church is timeless.
Now the Bible nowhere says that the Bible is the mystery hidden for all ages.
So here is a question for your. If something is in time and something is timeless does the definition come from something that is timeless or from something in time?
Is it possible that it is not definition rather recognintion you are confused about…the Bible is saying…here it is, there it was, has always been…in that context it may be a definition however not in any way a definition since it has always been, will always be and is now.
A
AD70
Guest
I don’t get it. Are you implying that if the Bible is not properly interpreted or understood that it somehow loses its authority? I disagree. Just because a man may misinterpret the california vehicle registration laws does not mean that the laws themselves therefore lose their authority. He will still be penalized for his failure to uphold the requirements of the law, and his effectual accuser will be the very statute code which he violates.
So it will be with Scripture - John 12:48.
I agree that the church is the authority when it comes to interpreting the Scriptures. This must be admitted because the Scriptures themselves dictate the authority of interpretation to the church.
Therefore, the church’s relationship to the scriptures is the same as a lawyer’s relationship to the laws of the land. Although he may be authorized (by the law itself) to be regarded as an authority on the codes and statutes contained therein, he is always and forever one who remains absolutely subject to its statutes. The law itself will dictate to him the extent and the bounds of his authority in every area of his own life, including the area of his vocation as lawyer.
In other words, no matter how you slice it, the law itself retains its full authority over even the one who interprets it.
Therefore when the church is called upon to judge a matter, she must judge that matter according to the divine Scriptures. This is the example of James in Acts 15. After hearing the testimony of the apostles, he called upon Scripture (“the words of the prophets”) for the divine validation of their testimonies:
"After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. AND WITH THIS THE WORDS OF THE PROPHETS AGREE, JUST AS IT IS WRITTEN,
“‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen;I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.’
THEREFORE MY JUDGMENT IS THAT . . . " (Acts 15:13-19).
It is clear then - at least to me - that the Scriptures are the final authority in all matters pertaining to life and faith. DO YOU AGREE?
C
CopticChristian
Guest
po18guy
Well-known member
You are obviously from a bible Church. As blessed as the scriptures are, they are incomplete, and tell us so in many places. The bible came from the Church. It does not define the Church, the Church, by the God-given authority it has, defined which of the many writings used in those early centuries constitute the bible. The Catholic Church is Christ-centered, but relies on the bible, since Christ is infinitely superior to the bible, right?
I mean, the bible doesn’t save you, does it?
po18guy
Well-known member
po18guy
Well-known member
If the bible IS an authority, then it alone saves you, because it has the authority to save you. Do you believe this?
C
choliks
Guest
AD,
First you have to establish that the (registration) laws can exercise authority on its own. Authority, by definition, is a right or a power that is given to an individual or an organization. Only individuals and/or organizations can exercise a right or power, not an inanimate object. Surely, the tablets of the 10 commandments didn’t give Moses any authority.
Secondly, if you believe the Bible is the final authority, then you have to provide the instance where Jesus Christ breathed onto a book and saying that all authority has been passed onto IT.
One of the few passages where Jesus Christ bestowed authority was when he commissioned the twelve apostles:
Luke 9 said:
And again, after the resurrection:
John 20 said:
And at last, before ascending into heaven:
Matthew 28 said:
Furthermore, I believe, if you read the Bible from cover to cover, you will find that all instances of authority were held by individuals not by scripture.
I think what you are referring to is the authoritativeness of the Bible, which means differently from the Bible having the final authority. For Catholics, the Final Authority will always be Jesus Christ, and His authority is exercised through the Church. The determination of the canon of the Bible, which you deem to be the Final Authority, is one of the best examples of the authority given to and exercised by the Church. That same authority is passed on through Apostolic Succession. It cannot just be claimed by anyone outside of the line of succession.
P
Porknpie
Guest
A
AD70
Guest
P
Porknpie
Guest
AD70 -
IMHO, since you were never a Catholic you can’t be an apostate from a church that you never belonged to. Others may disagree. I’ve never seen anyone shunned on this website…usually just the opposite occurs.
Do you believe yourself to be a protestant?
A
AD70
Guest
I am from a Bible church. I hope that this does not disqualify me from this forum. I do disagree with some of your propositions, but if disagreement must mean disfellowship, then I will go away wondering what grace is in this place. With patience and prayer, I hope to gain clarity on these issues. I know what I currently believe. I will state what I believe. And I will see for myself if your catholic answers can persuade the heart.
In response to your proposition I would simply remind you that any passage which implies that the Scriptures were “incomplete” was obviously true only DURING the process of inscripturation. Therefore the point is invalid.
How can the man who is currently writing call his writings “complete?”
This is only true practically, but not true essentially.
When I speak of the Bible, I am not speaking of the leather and paper, nor the ink with which it is written. Rather, I am speaking of it’s essential contents. The propositions of Scripture are what I refer to when I say “the Bible.”
And when we speak of the Bible in this way, we understand that it is no mere inanimate object. Notice how the authors of Scripture refer to the life and dynamic nature of Scripture, using the profound literary device of PERSONIFICATION.
**1) The Scripture speaks: **
“And again another scripture says, They shall look on him whom they pierced.” (Jn 19:37) see also Romans 9:17.
2) The Scripture foresees the future and preaches:
“And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In you shall all nations be blessed” (Gal. 3:8).
3) The Scripture draws conclusions:
“But the scripture has concluded all under sin, so that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe” (Gal.3:22)
4) The Scripture is able to make men wise, and correct them, and instruct them in righteousness. It is able to thoroughly equip a man for every good work:
“From a child you have known the holy scriptures, which are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: so that the man of God may be complete, throughly equipped for every good work.”(2 Tim. 3:15-16)
5) The Scripture lives, has power, peirces, divides, and discerns:
“For the word of God is alive and powerful and sharper than any twoedged sword, peircing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb. 4:12).
Therefore when this literary device is applied to the Scriptures, we find that in the minds of the apostles, the Scriptures are equated with God himself, and therefore the authority of the Scriptures must be recognized as being equal with the authority of God himself.
S
StevenFrancis
Guest
The story of the bible, (that is, how it came to be, the canonization of the books, their inerrancy etc.), is really more of a subject than anyone could explain to anyone’s satisfaction in a post here at the Forums. I recommend this book to help answer those questions:
shop.catholic.com/where-we-got-the-bible.html
The short answer is: We know that the Bible is God’s word through a long diligent process that goes back to the beginnings of Jewish history, right on through Jesus Christ, (God incarnate among men), and his Apostles, to the Christian councils.
It is my understanding that the Mormon’s ALSO accept the Bible as the Word of God.
But then, the Mormon religion, goes on to add things. A whole other set of books, in fact, compiled into the book of Mormon.
Leaving aside that there is simply no archaeological evidence whatsoever that conforms to anything in the book of Mormon. The larger problem is the Mormon conception of Christ Himself. The Mormons don’t see Jesus as fully human and fully divine. They don’t believe the hypostatic union. This is a huge separation. In fact, who Jesus IS, pretty much defines a person’s worldview and beliefs.
The Mormon ideas and practices of missionary work, love of family, keeping the body pure as a temple for God, etc. are all noble and I don’t think you’ll find a Christian who will say a thing against any of those ideas. They are admirable. I have known Mormons my whole life, and have marvelous friendships with LDS members.
But Mormon theology is just simply not supported by Christian theology. They are different in substance and nature. There will be/and have been tons of folks here who will tell you all the specifics of what is wrong with LDS theology, history, etc., and can do it point by point. I just want to point out at the macro level that unless Jesus is fully divine, and fully human, then all manner of Christianity or it’s offshoots, cults and heretical groups are folly. If Christ IS fully divine and fully human, then He is God among us. Then we must believe Him when he began His Church with His Apostles. We must believe that He gave us the Holy Spirit ascension. We must believe that Spirt protects His Church from teaching error. That Jesus, His apostles, and His Church are the Truth. And that truth has never included polytheism, or that each man will become a God etc. It just simply isn’t there. And it’s not because of bad Bible translations, because the authors of the Bible, and the Church that produced the Bible are protected by the Holy Spirit from being false.
One can disagree with this. Millions DO disagree with this. But if you are a believer in Jesus Christ as the second person of the trinity, (or for that matter believe in the trinity to begin with, which I understand that Mormons don’t), then the LDS is a Chriistological, philosophical, theological, and logical impossibility, whereas Christianity is not impossible, and in fact, must be correct and held flawless, since it is of God incarnate.
This is a very broad answer, and I know you’re trying to get some specifics. I will count on some of my brothers and sisters for that. But for me, the minutiae are not important if the big stuff and axioms upon which minutiae are built don’t stand up to scrutiny.
If the elemental axiom is that unicorns don’t exist, and can’t exist, then what possible importance is there to what color someone thinks the are?
Yours in Christ,
Steven
po18guy
Well-known member
Because you are from a bible Church, you are especially welcome here. The 1,979 year old Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches’ view of scripture will be surprising to you, since you have come to believe that scripture alone is the foundation of a Church. Scripture alone is a fairly new idea, appearing 495 years ago. But, the Church is 1,982 years old. What happened in between? Neither the Catholic nor the Orthodox Churches believe in scripture alone, as neither organization was founded on the bible. They are both older than the bible. The bible did not exist as an approved collection of works until the late 300s. The bible you hold in your hands was declared to be inspired scripture by a Pope and Church council. Many writings which neither you nor I have seen were considered along with what the bible now contains, but were rejected. The authority of the Church determined what was inspired by God and what was not.
Clearly, Jesus did not write a thing, correct? He did not present a book to the Apostles. He taught them Himself and gave them the Holy Spirit to remind them of all that He had taught them. Decades later, they wrote some of those thing s down. Christ’s Church was founded upon the Apostles and was grown by their oral Apostolic teaching, guided by the Holy Spirit. The New Testament was slowly written, between 20-70 years after the Ascension of Christ. To claim that the bible is the sole foundation of a church is to believe that 1. Christ did not found a Church before He ascended, or that 2. No Church existed until they year 90 or so, when John finished the Apocalypse. These are both silly claims, right? If the bible is the foundation, then it can also be argued that no Church existed until everyone agreed upon what was scripture and what was not.
Consider: There is not a single original copy of any Apostolic writing anywhere. Not one. Every bit of scripture that existed evan way back in the fourth century was a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy, made over hundreds of years, in various cities, by numerous unknown copyists. How can this be reliable? How can these copies - whose scribes are unknown - possibly be claimed as genuine? Remember Jesus promising the Holy Spirit? Several hundred years later, the Church convened a council to settle the arguments that had been raging over what was inspired and what was not. In this council, the Church put down the heretics who had introduced their own writings along with the sacred authors’ works.
As to the bible, when I say incomplete, I refer to, for example, Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25, Acts 2:40, 1 Corinthians 11:34, Ephesians 6:21-22 and many other verses which tell us that most things that God revealed are not written down. They simply are not in the bible. They could not be in the bible, as the entire world would not hold the books that would be written. Consider: Isaiah 55:11 tells us that God’s word does not return to Him void. What about all of God’s truth that is not written in the bible? Is it lost forever? Did it return to God void? Isaiah says it did not, and does not. Where then, is it? It is in the living Tradition of the Church - it is neither not lost nor dead.
Our Lord Jesus tells us that man does not live on bread alone, but on every Word that comes from the Mouth of God (Matthew 4:4, quoting Deuteronomy 8:3). We know that every Word from the Mouth of God is not in the bible. Where is it, since John tells us that many things are not in there. Clearly, they must be somewhere else, as they are not lost - Jesus did not leave us orphans. God cannot be confined within the covers of a book - no matter how inspired it is.
God’s Word is living, and not dead, right? It must be spoken, as it has the breath of life in it. The living Word is transmitted now just as Jesus transmitted it. It is transmitted just as Paul did, via the spoken Word that he preached, as well as through those on whom Paul laid hands, such as Timothy. If this is not the case, then Paul was wrong and Timothy was a false teacher. If God can speak through your pastor, then God can also speak through the successors of the Apostles, such as Timothy.
Jesus sent Apostles forth, not the bible. The Church gave us the bible later on - much later on. Just as Matthias was chosen to succeed Judas, and just as Paul laid hands on Timothy and sent him, so also has the Church sent successors to those Apostles. We are blessed beyond measure to have the bible, but the search for God’s entire truth begins with the bible - it does not end there, since God is infinitely greater than the bible.
- Status