J
I respectfully ask evangelical, protestant and sola scriptura proponents...
- Status
J
jericho777
Guest
I would say you are out of context…on Luke 8:10…Jesus is speaking only to the Apostles.
And if God limits the understanding only to those chosen…then God is contradicting Jesus to what He told the Apostles…in Matthew 28…19 Therefore go and make disciples of** all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, **
Why would Jesus instruct to baptize all, if these are to be limited to some only?
Now…we have a conundrum…I will just repost the question…
Okay…here comes -](another christian brother)/-] both of us…doing the same things as you do…reading and re-reading and references and all…and both you come to differing interpretation of a certain passage…so who is going to be right and who is going to be in the wrong?
How are you going to resolve your differences?
Definitely agree with you our will should not in any way shape our doctrines. You still haven’t proved that to me but you don’t have to either.
Understanding? No more like hermeneutics. Besides somebody tells you what to believe and you do it without question.
No more like back to Gen 1:1.
So you wrote a book to conform to your doctrines. You are contradicting your previous premise that doctrines must come from scripture not the other way around.
God does speak through His word. To have a definitive infallible human source is not a reality. Even claims of this are not demonstrate able.
Let’s start here if you will. Would you agree God only chose Israel to be saved apart from the rest of the world?
J
joe370
Guest
When it comes to the teachings of Jesus Christ - you bet!!
What was your answer to my question???
J
jericho777
Guest
I don’t think Joel Osteen claims to be infallible unlike the cc. There is a difference. I do not follow JO so what ever people do with his teachings is up to them.
J
jmcrae
Guest
joe370;8479800:
“Blindly”? No. It was only after seeing that the Catholic Church is the only one established by Jesus Christ, that I realized that to follow the Catholic Church is really, in modern times, the only possible way to really follow Christ rather than myself or my own personal opinions. Everything else came later, and the Proverbs remind us not to lean on our own understanding, but to accept the wisdom of teachers.
Jesus established a Church with teachers in it - these are the teachers whose wisdom we must accept.
“Without question” - hardly. I always have tons of questions. The difference between you and me is not the amount of questions we have, but rather, the attitude with which we ask them. Your attitude is a hostile “prove it to me” attitude. My attitude is, “I believe - help thou mine unbelief.”
J
joe370
Guest
j
Of course the CC could have discerned the truth regarding the canon at any time prior to the 4th century when the CC finally discerned the truth regarding the correct inclusion of books in the canon and the correct exclusion from the canon - for the church universal…
The 64000 dollar question is:
From whom did the CC derive the authority to make such a proclamation? The answer of course is:
Apostolic tradition and the perpetual guidance of the holy spirit. If not from God then how can I really know what I am reading, is in fact the inspired word of God, as opposed to something like Barnabus, Shepherd of Hermas, Clement and the Apocalypse of Peter, the Didache etc.?
The only church that existed from Pentecost to the 4th century actually read books such as Barnabus, Shepherd of Hermas, Clement and the Apocalypse of Peter, the Didache in the various catholic churches in certain parts of the Roman Empire and were thought to be genuinely inspired writings by some, but not by all, and the CC, right up until the 4th century had never made any pronouncements regarding the canon so again, some books that are not found in the bible today were considered authentic by some and some books found in our bible today were questioned as to their authenticity by some early on, but thanks to the CC, that is no longer an issue.
Jericho, I never claimed that I am infallibly led by anything. I assume you are referring to the CC…
Of course the CC could have discerned the truth regarding the canon at any time prior to the 4th century when the CC finally discerned the truth regarding the correct inclusion of books in the canon and the correct exclusion from the canon - for the church universal…
The 64000 dollar question is:
From whom did the CC derive the authority to make such a proclamation? The answer of course is:
Apostolic tradition and the perpetual guidance of the holy spirit. If not from God then how can I really know what I am reading, is in fact the inspired word of God, as opposed to something like Barnabus, Shepherd of Hermas, Clement and the Apocalypse of Peter, the Didache etc.?
The only church that existed from Pentecost to the 4th century actually read books such as Barnabus, Shepherd of Hermas, Clement and the Apocalypse of Peter, the Didache in the various catholic churches in certain parts of the Roman Empire and were thought to be genuinely inspired writings by some, but not by all, and the CC, right up until the 4th century had never made any pronouncements regarding the canon so again, some books that are not found in the bible today were considered authentic by some and some books found in our bible today were questioned as to their authenticity by some early on, but thanks to the CC, that is no longer an issue.
Perhaps you can PM me and let me know?
J
jericho777
Guest
And you still used non inspired materials for faith and morals. Do you blame the Holy Spirit for this?We still are infallibly led…Jericho…with an unbroken line of successors going all the way from Peter…currently named Benedict XVI.
How do you think the Church was led prior to any writings…between AD 33 to about AD 55 or so?
By the Apostles…and their successors…the bishops…to this day. And who guided the early christians…prior to the canonization of the Bible canon? The bishops…and the teaching authority of the CC…the Magisterium…guided by Sacred Tradition. The Bible is actually part of Sacred Tradition…it is a subset of it.
Even without the Bible, there still would be the CC.
That is why, even with all those writings circulating, there were the bishops to guide the faithful…and are still to this day, guiding the faithful.
From St. Ignatius of Antioch (disciple of John, 3rd bishop of antioch)…writing around AD 110 or so, on his way to his martyrdom…Letter to Smyrneans…
Epistle of Clement of Rome to Corinth:
CHAPTER 42 – THE ORDER OF MINISTERS IN THE CHURCH.
The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done sol from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.”
CHAPTER 44 – THE ORDINANCES OF THE APOSTLES, THAT THERE MIGHT BE NO CONTENTION RESPECTING THE PRIESTLY OFFICE.
Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.
For sure the OT was used while the NT was being written.
You can’t use corrupt scriptures and still have integrity in your doctrines. For that fact how can you prove your ST is inspired? Was it canonized 400 years later and were any of the traditions considered non inspired also?
J
jericho777
Guest
It means there is no mutual mutual exclusivity to the truth. I don’t see infallibility in scriptures for the church. It is very possible to make a mistake.
This is from post 239 Before you go getting all warm and fuzzy on me I said “the church must rightly interpret scripture” not “they were the rightful interpreter of scriptures.” Sorry
J
joe370
Guest
Jericho, these were questions I asked myself as a former Protestant:
I get the impression that you might believe that the CC played no role in the decision making process regarding what should have been part of the holy canon and what shouldn’t have been part of the holy canon; is that true?
Perhaps you believe that all of the books in the bible (minus those pesky 7 OT books in the catholic bible) - were embraced by every Christian since the apostolic age, leading up to the reformation?
Hypothetically, if the CC had never existed, then who would have been charged with the mission to safeguard sacred scripture through those tumultuous centuries leading up to the protestant reformation?
I get the impression that you might believe that the CC played no role in the decision making process regarding what should have been part of the holy canon and what shouldn’t have been part of the holy canon; is that true?
Perhaps you believe that all of the books in the bible (minus those pesky 7 OT books in the catholic bible) - were embraced by every Christian since the apostolic age, leading up to the reformation?
Hypothetically, if the CC had never existed, then who would have been charged with the mission to safeguard sacred scripture through those tumultuous centuries leading up to the protestant reformation?
J
joe370
Guest
I didn’t say anything about truth itself. Of course there can be only one truth regarding any one doctrine. Is there “mutual mutual exclusivity” to the interpretation of truth? Of course there is. Is there anyway for you and I to know the correct interpretation of any one truth when one interpretation of truth regarding the same doctrine (eg the Eucharist) - does in fact exclude another interpretation?
OK. Which church rightly interprets scripture?
J
joe370
Guest
Addendum:
Of course only once I came to the conclusion that the CC was in fact the church founded by God and forever guided by God, and I will blindly accept, without question, whatever God’s CC teaches…
P
pablope
Guest
[/QUOTE]pablope;8480640:
Prove what to you, Jericho?
I think you are beating a dead horse here…several, including me, have answered this belief of yours.
And you do it too, right? Let me see one example…you follow blindly a protestant Bible that lacks 7 OT books…without question…maybe you asked your pastor…and you were given the standard protestant response…have you bothered to investigate further?
And I have another question for you…which I hope you will answer honestly…why do you believe Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark? Where is the chapter and verse in the Bible where Mark claims authorship of the Gospel of Mark? And after finding this chapter and verse…why do you now believe the Mark’s gospel is inspired? Why should it be in the Bible?
Sorry…you got this the other way around. The doctrines of the CC were handed down by the Apostles (from Jesus)…and this deposit of faith was complete before anything was written down. The Bible reflects the teachings of the CC, which was written by catholics, for catholics.
It is actually the protestant who come up with doctrines based on their interpretation of various passages of the Bible.
Is the Word of God limited to the written word? And why do you think it is not a reality to have a definitive infallible human source? Do you think God cannot do it?
In Matt 28…19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Does this verse say only Israel?
1Tim 2…3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants** all men **to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
Where does this passage say only Israel will be saved?
P
pablope
Guest
OK. Which church rightly interprets scripture?
If you don’t mind, Joe…I will repost a question which Jerich has been dancing around…not wanting to give a straight enough answer…
P
pablope
Guest
P
pablope
Guest
OK. Which church rightly interprets scripture?
Allow me Joe…to post this related question…which Jericho has danced around in giving a honest enough answer…kind of related to your question…
Let me give you another real life example…
An individual Christian, baptized and all, very devout and faithful, and a church doing its duty diligently, do not interpret a passage the same way…there are very serious differences…(and I think this happens within protestant circles all the time)…
So, who do you think has the correct interpretation…the church or the individual?
Whose interpretation should prevail, the church or the individual?
How would the church and the individual resolve their differing interpretation?
J
joe370
Guest
Jericho, protestants, as per SS, are allowed to interpret the various passages of the Bible regarding any one doctrine, as they see fit with zero authoritative oversight. It simply stops at the bible via private interpretation for each and every protestant, making each and every protestant the authoritative oversight for just himself alone, which is the case with every SS advocate. There is no universal authoritative oversight a protestant can defer to, outside the bible. Everyone is just on their own…
Catholics too are allowed to interpret the various passages of the Bible regarding any one doctrine, as they see fit, but the difference is, unlike protestantism, there are checks and balances in place, just as there should be in anything, in the form of authoritative oversight in the CC to delineate the inner workings of any one doctrine when catholics sometimes disagree with one another. For catholics who cannot agree on certain things luckily, it doesn’t just stop at the bible for them, otherwise catholicism might be in the same predicament protestantism is in, and if and when we catholics can’t agree on something, we do as the bible tells us to do; we “take it to the church” ,and trust the church’s judgment because we believe that God is the One guiding her and protecting doctrinal truth both from within and without.
What’s wrong with the catholic way? It’s certainly scriptural, effective and clearly the key to oneness and unity of the CC!
J
joe370
Guest
Pablope, it’s impossible if scripture alone via private interpretation is the methodology employed. There is no universal authoritative oversight for all to defer to when doctrinal differences occur. Man, that’s some crazy stuff. It’s a doctrinal free-for-all with no possible resolution in sight unless someone is willing to compromise which I have never seen happen.
L
louis91766
Guest
I guess it would depend on which passage you are talking about. Take for example the passage which reads: “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” What is the spirit of that passage? Or should everything in Scripture be interpreted in a legal sense, so that you need to hire a lawyer to get a legal interpretation of it? Many people believe that religious commandments should be taken in the spirit in which they are given and that it is wrong to look for loopholes which will allow you to essentially reject the spirit of the commandment. Take for example the current situation on marriage annulments in the Catholic Church. Before Vatican II, they were running at a few hundred per year, whereas after Vatican II, all kinds of psychological reasons were allowed even after twenty years of marriage. So people could get married have two or three children, live together for many years and then one of the spouses is unfaithful to the marriage and says that he did not know what he was doing at the time he had exchanged wedding vows. And the Catholic marriage tribunal buys it and gives the annulment. Is this really in the spirit of the passage quoted? It was not thought so before Vatican II. So if a Church interprets Scripture one way before Vatican II and changes its mind and interprets Scripture a different way after Vatican II, would you say that it is interpreting Scripture rightly?
M
Marybeloved
Guest
The Church declared the books she chose to be inspired- It doesn’t follow that those she excluded are “corrupt scripture”. Just uninspired; The Popes write books and encyclicals all the time to teach and exhort- Such as B16’s latest best-seller “Jesus of Nazareth”, as do Bishops, Priests, Lay teachers of the Faith and others- These are not inspired scripture. But it does not follow that they are “corrupt scriptures”. They are sacred writings, good for our edification, like a good sermon, but not scripture.
We accept the truth and inspiration of Sacred Tradition on the exact same basis that we accept the truth and inspiration of the 27 books of the New Testament- The Apostles taught us, in and through the church by the authority of Jesus Christ and God the Holy Spirit, and we believe them on faith. That’s why when the Church taught us the Trinity, The Hypo-static Union (Jesus’ true nature), The truths in the creeds and The inspired Books (scripture), we accepted it…faith.
Peace!
M
Marybeloved
Guest
We should always be careful to distinguish church teaching from abuse by individuals. Annulments have been part of the Church from the early centuries. And wrong intent in any sacrament is an impediment that can void it.
If the American Catholics who sit at the tribunals are abusing their jobs and the faith, they have Christ to judge them at the end, if they don’t repent. But anyone can abuse their responsibilities- The horrible priestly scandals are clear proof of that. Also, as said, sacraments (not just marriage) can be null and void if not done in the proper way and with impediments/obstacles. Marriage is unique in that it’s between the two people. Wrong intent is a valid reason for nullifying a marriage because it means the sacrament never took effect. If you go to confession with no intention of repenting, or intending to sin right after, it’ll be void. If you pretend to believe but mock baptism in your heart, the sacrament will be null and void. That’s because sacraments are a matter of grace- God gives it, but the soul can reject it, or place obstacles and so seal the soul from receiving the grace conferred.
There’s a lot of knowledge about psychological/mental conditions that has come forth in the last decades that was previously unknown, and have been discovered to have the effect of preventing one from giving a valid consent (wrong intention) therefore no sacrament occurrs, because of the impediment. This is not a change in teaching/interpretation as you suppose but discovery of facts previously unknown. For example, sociopaths are incapable of “giving themselves” as are people with severe NPD- If it’s shown that they were suffering from this at the time of the sacrament, obviously it voids it, as marriage is all about making a complete gift of yourself to another.
Also, there have been problems in the culture since the sixties (sexual revolutions)- many people do not take marriage seriously anymore and many enter it with improper intents and motives (eg not planing to be faithful, not planning to have kids,some not even planning on staying in it till death)- This also means that the incidences of invalidly contracted marriages (as sacraments) are many more now than in the previous decades before the sixties when marriage was very important and was properly prepared for and understood. So there could be many reasons why the annulments are more now- Abuses by the tribunals, new knowledge about psychological problems that destroy/void the proper intent for a valid marriage previously unknown, social problems wrought by the sociocultural revolutions of the sixties to the present.
What the doctrine of infallibility protects is not the individuals who take up various offices and duties but the Church herself- from teaching error. The teaching Organ is prevented from using the authority of God in the teaching voice of the Church to proclaim error, so that we have the same faith for 2 millennium despite sometimes the most horrible leaders- They have not been able to teach lies through the teaching organ of the church! I heard a story of 2 popes who each had planed on over-turning some aspects of the officially proclaimed truths of the church- One changed his mind immediately he became pope and one died before he could begin to implement his wicked scheme. It just means that they may be the sons of the devil- But they will never be able to manipulate the teaching organ into proclaiming falsehoods.
Peace!
- Status