No, you are just at a loss.
If your tagline is true, then you will be willing to explore the early church fathers, and the sources of the Divine Liturgy. When you do this, you will see that the Church has always communed with the saints, those who have passed over, and those that have not. Why rob yourself of your birthright?The early church first had Jesus, then the Apostle’s, then the Apostle’s writings, canonized or not. It has always had God’s Word.
Right, it was possible for that council to make such a decision b/c the H.S. was infallibly working through the Apostles. I don’t see evidence that this infallibility was guaranteed to continue via future, infallible magisterial councils vs. the infallible and inspired Bible. In fact, we have the opposite. We have Jesus warning us that error will arise right from among us and lead many astray. He also warns about the deceptiveness of the Devil and how he will appear as an angel of light. And finally we have numerous warnings about the importance of closely adhering to God’s Word
We can do the same with our evaluation of the church too.
So I have to believe that the H.S. doesn’t guide us to understand His Word, but the H.S. does guide the church. And why should I believe this? Just b/c there are differences in interpretation? People pick and choose what to believe whether it’s the bible or the church as an authority
How do I check the spirit of the Catholic church then?
I agree! If Scripture isn’t the way of testing the spirit of the Catholic church, then IT is a spirit unwilling to be checked!
so, you are saying that tradition is the measure to test the spirit of the church? How then do we test the traditions???
And the 30,000+other denominations believe the same thing. The answer is in closely adhering to God’s Word. That is the test.
And there were many years also where God’s people went astray and yet God still kept his promise without us claiming the gates of hell prevailed.
I realize that, but since the NT is Scripture today it applies to the NT as well.
Well, at least we agree on something!
Where are you looking for the evidence?
Exactly where. I’ll look it up.
Can you show me that this is why the church decided it?
So, Paul praises them for imitating him and for keeping his ordinances, and then goes on at length about a superstition??? God inspired Him to go on and on about a needless superstition?!
I do partially think of it that way, and I don’t see it as a superstition to be modest. If a woman’s hair is her glory, and it should dishonor her head (husband) not to cover it, then it is like any other of your “assets” being exposed. (I say ‘should’ dishonor her head, b/c Paul says: “doth not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.”. Of course, today, anything goes if you let culture dictate things…). Ever notice that the majority of models, sexy actresses and worse have long hair? I know short hair can be seen as sexy, but generally, throughout history, long hair has been viewed somewhat as something reserved for the husband’s eyes only. In any case, this Scripture is deeper than just modesty. It’s about submission. But I don’t want to get too o.t.
…speaking directly to the Apostles
He does not specify how He will be with us always. Perhaps it is in partially through the church (not just one denomination), partially through the believer in whom the Holy Spirit lives, and partially through the Bible. God promised He wouldl preserve His Word and that is the place we know is never without error.
You would have to define “age”, but more or less, I will probably answer yes it did.
Yes, that is what I am suggesting at least.
Jesus is with us in His Spirit. God abides in those who believe in Him, and fruit of that faith is very visible (the church).
So, in the sense that they didn’t adhere to “Bible only” they were “Bible only”??
uch:
Yes, but Word is both oral and written. He commissioned them to go and teach obedience. This is where apostolic succession begins. Then, as Paul writes to the young bishop Timothy:
Ok, so if the "age " ended with the death of the last Apostle, then there is no more need for Jesus to be with us? We don’t need bishops anymore? Yes, God abides in those who believe in Him, and the fruit of that faith is visible in the church. And He has entrusted the tenents of the faith to the shepherds, and promised to keep them in all truth, until His return.
Perhaps you can consider something more carefully for me. What good does it do to have an an inerrant book on your shelf if we don’t have–either individually or collectively–the capability to interpret it without the admixture of error? It might as well NOT be inerrant, right? The effect of inerrancy is gone if there is no way to interpret without admixture of error what that inerrant truth is, right?
I agree. They also had the memory of their oral apostolic teachings, their memory of their liturgical practice, and their personal oral “Bible commentaries” of their very own writings. St. Ignatius of Antioch (AD 50-110), for example, learned Christianity from St. John the Apostle himself. He probably had an original autographed copy of St. John’s Gospel, his letters, and his Book of Revelation. Unlike you and I, koine Greek was not some ancient language which only the very learned could decipher, but instead was the vernacular language of the day, much easier to understand. In fact, St. Ignatius wrote his personal letters in the same koine Greek. His knowledge of Biblical languages must have been superior to Strong’s, I think.
Hmmmm…actually I haven’t said that. Some communities had some writings, other communities had other writings. However, the material deposit of faith was not necessarily collected into one handy volume. Yet, it was indeed “once and for all” delivered" or “traditioned” accord to St. Jude’s testimony, so the deposit of faith was complete in the first century, in both oral and written form, with handy extra-Biblical sermons and commentaries from those who knew the Apostles personally.
Correct. Surely you know that the gift of infallibility isn’t given individually to everyone, nor is it given to anyone such that they exercise that gift ALL THE TIME. Thus, there is always going to be an admixture of error within the speculative theology and various individual opinions within the Church. One should distinguish that which is called in Scripture dogmata from that which is merely speculative.
I’d say that some individuals and local or “particular” Churches (not the universal Church) claimed that some non-biblical texts were “inspired.” For example, Origen, Patriarch of Alexandria claimed the “Sherpherd of Hermas” was “inspired.” Also, two heads of the Catechetical School of Alexandria included the Didache as among the sacred texts. Yet, the universal Church never made such a claim.
I don’t think “error” and “gates of hell prevailing” are the same thing. Heresy is the “obstinate” denial of the dogmata of Christ, not merely error made “in good faith.”
Like you, I dont’ agree with that assumption. We know from historical evidence that many in the East did not accept Revelation. It was not “common knowledge” to many local regions or particular Churches of Christianity as to what the true Bible consisted of. However, it seems that by all historical accounts, the earliest testimony shows that EVERY Church of Christ did consider the larger version of the Book of Daniel as Scripture. Every one of them. Which begs the question, why don’t Protestants accept this longer version of Daniel? Makes ya wonder, don’t it? See more here: How Big is Your Book of Daniel?
We can say that the Church universal, what Scripture calls in Greek kata holos (“throughout the whole”) or “catholic” did indeed have the Bible (at least after the last book was finally written, that is). What we cannot say is that Bible alone = God’s Word. What we cannot say is that Bible was the same collection of texts held everywhere, always, and by all in the early Church. What we cannot say is that the Bible is the sole authority, the sole rule of faith among the Christians of the first century, the 2nd century, etc. They held fast to tradition (Gk paradosis) as taught by those having historic apostolic succession, both oral and written.
Well, in the first 1/3 of the first century, we had Jesus, the full Word of God. In the second 1/3 of the first century, we may have had some NT writings, but the Church relied almost exclusively on the oral preaching (Gk paralabano) of the apostles and those ordained by them to teach in the name of Christ. In the third 1/3 of the first century, all of the NT writings were complete, but the Church relied on these writing and STILL upon the oral preaching of the apostles and those ordained by them to teach in the name of Christ.
No. I read in the Liturgy of the Hours everyday. It includes mostly Sacred Scritpure. Yet, it also includes non-Biblical “bible commentaries” of the earliest Christians, saints, and doctors of the Catholic Church. That such writings are read do not consitute error. If they are read as though they were inspired Sacred Scripture, then that would be error.
I think perhaps this says more about your incorrect understanding of infallibity.
Why not? God’s graces abound yet not everyone responds to them.
Well, that’s not exactly what John says. He says Jesus did many other things that cannot all be written. He doesn’t say all the teachings are not written. You don’t really think there is a Catholic teaching that is not found in Scripture, do you?
This could mean miracles He performed, etc…
but no where promising to assist their successors
I DO believe it is important to try to pass on the truth, but there is no guarantee they will remain faithful. Besides, b/c you see seeds of certain (now Catholic) beliefs (like real presence, etc.) in ECF writings does not mean the church was actually practicing/teaching those things. I am saying that since these things were not “infallibly” pronounced until hundreds of years later, it’s possible that these beliefs and practices were gradually (and wrongly) embraced by the church. After all, since the people didn’t have Scripture themselves to test the teachings and practices against, it’s entirely feasible that they were led astray through no fault of their own.
If you read the entiretly of that passage it goes on to say “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” Peter is telling us that the people who gave us prophesy were speaking on God’s behalf and not just on their own (private interpretation). And even if you do take this verse as you do, it is possible for the H.S. to aid our interpretation.
I think teachers are important. I’m not saying we don’t need human authority in the church. I am saying that we should 2Tim 2:15 “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
not just though…Eph 2: 8"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God"
I do have faith b/c of the words preached by the Apostles.
John 17:7"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
And in correcting the disobedient, the church ought to reason with him from the Scriptures. Again, “thy word is truth”.
The same could apply to the CC if they are not submitting to the authority of God. My dilemma is determining whether or not it truly has.
Oh my. Let’s use your analogy a little differently. What you are saying is like saying this: What good does it do to have God walking the face of the earth if we don’t have–either individually or collectively–the capability to understand him without the admixture of error? What about those who were alive at the time of Jesus? Did they understand everything Jesus taught? Didn’t He have followers anyway? What led them to believe in Him? Would you say his early followers were deluded by following Jesus b/c no one was guiding them? What about the coming of the H.S.? Were these people not saved until the church evolved? They weren’t already saved b/c they only heard Jesus through thier fallible understanding? I’m much more inclined to believe that we are saved b/c we have faith in the same things those early disciples did.
No, the CC is the one that says that. I’m glad you agree that its senseless!
Now you’re really understanding sola scriptura. Wish we did. Darn it, but we don’t. Follow me, trust me anyways, as I think I know where I’m going.
I think the Protestant is saying that it is possible, through the H.S., to interpret The Book, but most of us don’t claim to have the corner market on that interpretation. I also think most Protestants agre that, even though some things are “hard to understand”, the essentials are there and most anyone with the equivilant of a high-school education can figure it out.
Faith in and imitation of (obedience) Jesus is the “way”, and its really not that hard to understand how to do that. The differences are merely technicalities which God is not limited by; like the mode of baptism for instance. Even when to get baptised isn’t so important. Bottom line: when you believe, you get baptised. Even by CC teaching there is “baptism of desire” etc… so if the need for the remission of original sin through baptism is even true, God isn’t limited to the actual baptism of babies. Btw, I don’t believe the Jews even believe in original sin.
It is true that some people distort the basics of Scripture and try to condone heinous acts through it. They do the same thing with civil law and even the “moral law”. People can get ugly. Most of us are sane and see Hitler and Coresh and extremists as not very good examples of correct interpretation. Some people won’t listen to natural law/conscience never mind the basics of Scripture.
You can find extreme examples, sure, but like I said, there are insane people. Its a fact of life. Most of us can read the Bible with grace and understand how to be saved. Some people like to complicate things and get overly-technical, and some are power-hungry. THAT is why we have so many divisions.
The basis of the “shelf-life” theory is that many things contradict the Scriptures
That is fine, so long as they didn’t eventually throw in a few of their own personal opinions. I’m all for liturgical practice, bible commentaries and such, as long as they line up with Scripture.
I see what you’re saying, but its no guarantee of faithfulness. I’m not saying he wasn’t faithful, but that somewhere along the lines…
Perhaps the CC has excused itself by saying this? And how would I distinguish their dogmata and speculation as orthodox unless I compare it to something? (like the Bible )B/c we are talking about the preservation of God’s Word (which was a promise God Himself made) I can agree with the canonization process as God inspired, but I cannot agree that it means I must believe everything else those individuals believed or the instutution as it has developed.
I moved this topic to another thread called apostolic succession.
What else would it mean?
And you are saying this because you believe the promises of Jesus do not apply?
Because the Holy Spirit was unable to protect them? Which people, not having scriptures, were led astray?
Yes, the Catholic Church teaches this.
Actually, I think faith comes from inside of each person. It can be stirred by hearing, but comes from within, not without.
It is true that scripture is useful for instruction and reproof, but it is not the only source of discipline. When Jesus told the apostles “what you bind on earth is bound in heaven” He empowered them to continue His authority of His church on earth. This is being discussed in another thread also.
I think just about everyone can fit that category, don’t you? Do you really think Luther was in “obstinate denial”? Do you really think your atheist friend is in “obstinate denial”. I know some people are, but I think (or hope at least) that most make errors “in good faith”. That’s why I love God’s justice. He knows our obstacles to perfect faith:thumbsup:
lol -I know it doesn’t mean that! (Don’t forget, I’m still a Catholic
)Before I left the CC, I considered the claims of the “orthodoxy”. I find them quite persuasive actually. But I’m not convinced of those necessarily either. I do, however, think they are more true to the original “traditions” of what Christianity later evolved into (IOW, the RCC “evolved” even more).
I’ve read excerpts. I believe everything essential to our salvation is essentially there in Bibles without the Deuterocanon.
But you cannot prove that it doesn’t. I have to trust in the CC’s definition of what “God’s Word” is, to believe that statement.
But you have to read them as if they are (in a sense) b/c the church wouldn’t allow them to be read otherwise! Obviously, the church gave the breviary its “Nihil Obstat” to it. That means nothing in it contradicts church teaching, right? And nothing in church teaching is supposed to contradict the bible, right? And the CC is the only one who can even make that determination (of contradicting the Bible), right? It may not pronounce “ex cathedra” that it is infallible, but it is implicitly implied.
I know the CC’s definition of infallibility, but I see that, implicity, it goes much further than that definition…
That God kept His promise of preserving His Word. It matters not how.
I don’t believe the promises of Jesus about “the gates of hell” apply to the church as the CC defines it (church).
Nope :tsktsk:
Yep. I don’t think he started out that way, but he sure did end up there.
Absolutely, without a doubt, he is just as hard as nails. He believes he is the center of the universe all by his own self!
Yes, thanks be to God, without whose mercy we will all go into the pit.I know some people are, but I think (or hope at least) that most make errors “in good faith”. That’s why I love God’s justice. He knows our obstacles to perfect faith:thumbsup: lol -I know it doesn’t mean that! (Don’t forget, I’m still a Catholic
You only think this because you are unfamiliar with the ECF.
Indeed, the scripture is suffiicient for training in righteousness.
But you cannot prove that it doesn’t. I have to trust in the CC’s definition of what “God’s Word” is, to believe that statement. But you have to read them as if they are (in a sense) b/c the church wouldn’t allow them to be read otherwise! /QUOTE]
Well, you can see the damaging results of that.
JoyToBeCatholic;2064929:
Right.
Can you explain how you see that?
I think you chose the ideal venue! :dancing:I’m enjoying this conversation. Again, I’m not going to stand firmly to what I’m proposing here. I’m just putting my inner objections in “writing” for the first time. I’m not even convinced of them yet
Well, we can’t judge that for sure, but according to some later writings I see the possibility he was. I can only hope I will never be that obstinate. I’m not purposely opposing the faith. I’m sincerely trying to understand it
Again, you are passing judgement. Let’s leave it to God, eh? And even if he is doing that, he may not be realizing it. With a little godly enlightenment he may be able to see his pride.
I am not unfamiliar with them. I’m not a scholar by a long-shot either.
I just did: