Information On The Church Of Christ

[eddie_too]

1. Study the scriptures with an honest heart and with continual prayer.

that is identical to my number two and it does nothing for anyone else besides the person doing the studying. it also limits the understanding of the bible to the knowledge, understanding and wisdom of the one praying. it also forsakes all of the knowledge, wisdom and understanding as well as writings and words of the billions of other christians who have ever lived.

 

[Traverse]

Eddie, I never said the church wasn’t necessary for salvation. We aren’t to foresake the assembling of ourselves together that is the habit of some.

 

[eddie_too]

sorry traverse,

i misunderstood. i thought you wrote that the bible contained all that was necessary for salvation.

 

[Traverse]

That is some great sarcasm.

The institution and organization of the church is covered in scripture.

 

[mackbrislawn]

1. Study the scriptures with an honest heart and with continual prayer.

Of course this assumes that you have copies of the scriptures to study and know how to read them to begin with.

This assumption has not been true for the vast majority of the existence of Christianity and Judaism. So, in view of this, how did one get access to scripture? You belonged to a group that did have copies and someone who could read and you met together every week to have them read to you. Of course this was a communal experience in that everyone heard the scriptures at the same time and understood them in the context of the group. It was not a solitary study like someone in a motel room reading a Gideon bible.

That is a reason of the importance of assembling together. The group together possessed scripture, not individuals. This means it is the Church that is the possessor and custodian of scripture, and, the interpreter of scripture. It is to the Church that we go to learn the gospel and to acquire scriptural knowledge.

 

[Traverse]

I agree! I just don’t think it follows that you can trust in infallibility. Elders will give an account for how they guide the souls they are shepherding. If someone trusts their overseer they do good, but if they are able to see if the overseer is ever in the wrong then they are able to do so.

Catholics make decisions on what they believe every day. They choose to follow the teachings of their magisterium. Likewise, a member of the Church of Christ can choose to believe what an elder of their congregation says. Both make the decision to follow church teaching, likely based on their own study. This is what the early christians did at any rate.

Yeah, some people can’t read and some people can hear and some people can’t see, but that doesn’t mean they can’t hear an explanation and understand it and reason about it.

 

[in_servitude]

Your logic here does not follow. You could say the same thing about a bible alone church. “They reject the gospel.” rather than “They saw something else in it so therefore their authority was misplaced.” Likewise I could say divisive catholics reject the church’s authority, or I could say that they misinterpreted catholic rulings from the past to decide that current leadership is faulty. Therefore church authority doesn’t work."

“They reject the gospel.” No. “They reject person A’s understanding of the gospel.” (And so on for tens of thousands of times.) “They saw something else in it so therefore their authority was misplaced.” What authority? There is no authority in a bible alone church.

Again, you are the one claiming a perfect church in your particular version of the bible. The Catholic Church understands that it is a living/growing entity - just like everything else that God creates. People are free to enjoy the fruits of that or not.

What would be your opinion of the fact that we were warned about demons posing us with false miracles?

Matthew 7:15-20

False Prophets.
15“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves.16 l By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Just so, every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So by their fruits you will know them.

I suppose what you mean by “false miracles” is preternatural events. The demonic working in opposition to good. That also happens today - plenty of it.

The fruit of the events at Fatima in the year 1917 ultimately destroyed an atheist-communist government. I call that a good fruit. Would you like to argue in opposition to that?

Therefore it’s irrelevant to our discussion.

You made the claim that supernatural activity is dramatically lower today than it had been in the past. The events at Fatima in 1917 argue that, “Actually, God is very much involved today, and is interacting with us in dramatic supernatural fashion.” I love the repeated, large scale miracles at Fatima in 1917 because they are so overt, so obvious, and so irrefutable.

Does the church not also teach by example? Approving murder and carrying it out sounds to me like a proclamation of faith and morals.

No. It is what is written that forms the teachings of the Church. It is hard enough to keep people from using their own creativity to twist the teachings even when they are clearly explained in writing. To add your “teach by example” to the mix, then there wouldn’t even be a teaching. The Church that Jesus himself assembled was comprised of a person that was not exactly teaching properly by example - as Judas betrayed Christ.

Pope Francis’s interviews, for another example, do not rise to the level of authoritative teaching.

Because it contains all that is necessary for salvation.

I make the point that the “bible alone churches” accept a practice that results in the killing of their own children, and you say it doesn’t matter?

Look at the qualifications for elders in the new testament.

Are these not men appointed based on their character and their ability to teach? So their own knowledge is useful then isn’t it?

As we have explored earlier, a person’s knowledge is not sufficient to help their flock steer clear of killing their own children. So, perhaps not as useful as it would seem on paper.

 

[Traverse]

“They reject the gospel.” No. “They reject person A’s understanding of the gospel.” (And so on for tens of thousands of times.) “They saw something else in it so therefore their authority was misplaced.” What authority? There is no authority in a bible alone church.

I don’t think you quite understood what I was trying to say so let’s just move on.

Again, you are the one claiming a perfect church in your particular version of the bible. The Catholic Church understands that it is a living/growing entity - just like everything else that God creates. People are free to enjoy the fruits of that or not.

How did I claim this? I claimed perfection in that we received a complete and whole revelation. Do you think I am claiming something other than the verse below…?

[Jud 1:3 NASB] 3 Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.

I suppose what you mean by “false miracles” is preternatural events. The demonic working in opposition to good. That also happens today - plenty of it.

Well yeah. If it’s a natural event it’s not a miracle.

The fruit of the events at Fatima in the year 1917 ultimately destroyed an atheist-communist government. I call that a good fruit. Would you like to argue in opposition to that?

You could certainly argue that one of the secrets regards the fall of the USSR, but that is in no way the same as it causing the fall of a communist government. Are you referring to something specific?

The fruit I see is more devotion to Mary. But since I am not catholic you understand what I would think of that, and I understand you don’t see an issue there. That’s another topic.

You made the claim that supernatural activity is dramatically lower today than it had been in the past. The events at Fatima in 1917 argue that, “Actually, God is very much involved today, and is interacting with us in dramatic supernatural fashion.” I love the repeated, large scale miracles at Fatima in 1917 because they are so overt, so obvious, and so irrefutable.

You are using the example of one event almost a hundred years ago in comparison with the first century when you would find many christians gifted with tongues to the point that they needed instruction on how to control it so they wouldn’t look crazy?

Miracles in scripture exist for a purpose. Typically they demonstrate God’s authority. What purpose do you believe Fatima served?

No. It is what is written that forms the teachings of the Church. It is hard enough to keep people from using their own creativity to twist the teachings even when they are clearly explained in writing. To add your “teach by example” to the mix, then there wouldn’t even be a teaching. The Church that Jesus himself assembled was comprised of a person that was not exactly teaching properly by example - as Judas betrayed Christ.

I know you didn’t mean it, but that is quite the sola scriptura argument.

Pope Francis’s interviews, for another example, do not rise to the level of authoritative teaching.

What does? Most of the times in his interviews he is just making comments and sharing his thoughts but every once in a while he states a teaching. What about that statement becomes un-authoritative? Just because it’s an interview?

I make the point that the “bible alone churches” accept a practice that results in the killing of their own children, and you say it doesn’t matter?

What I’m saying is that that topic is a completely different discussion and has nothing to do with whether or not the bible’s contents contain the knowledge for how we can achieve our salvation. I didn’t say the bible alone is sufficient for how to learn biology. I certainly did not suggest that the bible alone is all a person needs period. We need the church and the edification that comes from speaking to each other in hymns and spiritual songs.

As we have explored earlier, a person’s knowledge is not sufficient to help their flock steer clear of killing their own children. So, perhaps not as useful as it would seem on paper.

So to clarify, your argument is that if a person isn’t sinless then they can’t be a part of the true church.

 

[in_servitude]

I don’t think you quite understood what I was trying to say so let’s just move on.

OK.

How did I claim this? I claimed perfection in that we received a complete and whole revelation. Do you think I am claiming something other than the verse below…?

[Jud 1:3 NASB] 3 Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.

Are you saying that the bible is perfect and all that is needed, but that since humans are involved in the reading, that we are going to corrupt the teachings given in the perfect and whole revelation?

Catholics say that Christ is the perfect and whole revelation, so that is a very large difference between the two of us.

Well yeah. If it’s a natural event it’s not a miracle.

You could certainly argue that one of the secrets regards the fall of the USSR, but that is in no way the same as it causing the fall of a communist government. Are you referring to something specific?

On October 5, 1910, a new government was established in Portugal through a coup. A key aspect to this government was its promotion of atheism and the persecution of the Church. A stated goal of the government was to wipe out all Christianity within 40 years. In the early 1900s, from what I understand, Portugal was considered the capital of the atheist movement.

However, the government lost the ability to push its agenda of atheism as a direct result of the events at Fatima. 10% of the country had witnessed the miracle at Fatima, so it wasn’t possible to argue a godless universe.

In August of 1919, Pais was elected President - who dissolved the Parliament and reestablished relations with the Holy See.

All of this history took place outside the Church.

The fruit I see is more devotion to Mary. But since I am not catholic you understand what I would think of that, and I understand you don’t see an issue there. That’s another topic.

The miracles that occurred in 1917 validated what the seers claimed - which was that Mary was asking for people to return to a holy way of life, repent, and pray.

I am completely devoted to Jesus through Mary, as I suspect many other Catholics are. Fatima is not the sole reason for my own personal devotion, but it plays a role.

You are using the example of one event almost a hundred years ago in comparison with the first century when you would find many christians gifted with tongues to the point that they needed instruction on how to control it so they wouldn’t look crazy?

Miracles are happening daily, from where I sit. I hold Fatima up only because it is so overt, so amazing, and so irrefutable.

Miracles in scripture exist for a purpose. Typically they demonstrate God’s authority. What purpose do you believe Fatima served?

To call people to holiness, to prayer, to Christ.

I know you didn’t mean it, but that is quite the sola scriptura argument.

If you remove the element of the guiding Spirit, then yes, I will agree that it looks like that. But, I argue that those writings that flow from the Rock are a gift of the Holy Spirit. That changes the meaning.

What does? Most of the times in his interviews he is just making comments and sharing his thoughts but every once in a while he states a teaching. What about that statement becomes un-authoritative? Just because it’s an interview?

Catholics understand that there are gradations of importance in the various teachings that come from the Church. Dogma is most important and will not ever change (the Creeds, for example). Then, there is doctrine - which is not as important as dogma and technically can change but is unlikely to change. It is more likely to become dogma over time. Then there are disciplines and practices which are practically guaranteed to change over time.

The pope’s interviews do not rise to the level of doctrine, is what I’m trying to say.

What I’m saying is that that topic is a completely different discussion and has nothing to do with whether or not the bible’s contents contain the knowledge for how we can achieve our salvation. I didn’t say the bible alone is sufficient for how to learn biology. I certainly did not suggest that the bible alone is all a person needs period. We need the church and the edification that comes from speaking to each other in hymns and spiritual songs.

What I was trying to say was that a person who is leading a church needs more than knowledge to do so properly. I say that because something like the pill caused evil effects even before people understood what was going on. So, to lead people and keep them free from error takes more than knowledge. I wasn’t saying that a person has to be super intelligent to know every possible stumbling block. But, rather, a person would need to be guided by the Spirit in order to teach correctly. Especially as new and different challenges arise in the centuries to come. There are going to be all sorts of opportunities to do something seemingly acceptable, but is actually problematic and evil.

So to clarify, your argument is that if a person isn’t sinless then they can’t be a part of the true church.

That is not what I was intending to say. Catholics view the leadership as enjoying a special relationship with Christ through the Spirit where the teachings are in line with all that is good and holy.

 

[Traverse]

Are you saying that the bible is perfect and all that is needed, but that since humans are involved in the reading, that we are going to corrupt the teachings given in the perfect and whole revelation?

Catholics say that Christ is the perfect and whole revelation, so that is a very large difference between the two of us.

I think we have different definitions of perfect. I mean perfect as in complete. Christ is perfect in that He is sinless and also God. There’s a difference between the two uses. I submit that the bible is “perfect” in that it claims to be sufficient to equip man for every good work. This is not to say that a man can’t stand up and say “It is good that you love one another.” What he says is true, but it doesn’t make it something not already contained in scripture. So there are traditions that are good to follow, absolutely. But I don’t believe the bible really sets a precedent for “sacred” tradition.

I don’t understand your meaning that Christ is the revelation of God. It would seem that the revelation is about Christ, not Christ Himself. Christ is Christ. Revelation is teaching that has been revealed. Am I mistaken?

On October 5, 1910, a new government was established in Portugal through a coup. A key aspect to this government was its promotion of atheism and the persecution of the Church. A stated goal of the government was to wipe out all Christianity within 40 years. In the early 1900s, from what I understand, Portugal was considered the capital of the atheist movement.

However, the government lost the ability to push its agenda of atheism as a direct result of the events at Fatima. 10% of the country had witnessed the miracle at Fatima, so it wasn’t possible to argue a godless universe.

In August of 1919, Pais was elected President - who dissolved the Parliament and reestablished relations with the Holy See.

All of this history took place outside the Church.

That is very fascinating and I’d like to read more, but I’ll be honest and say it sounds entirely circumstantial.

Miracles are happening daily, from where I sit. I hold Fatima up only because it is so overt, so amazing, and so irrefutable.

I would be interested in your witness of miracles you’ve seen.

If you remove the element of the guiding Spirit, then yes, I will agree that it looks like that. But, I argue that those writings that flow from the Rock are a gift of the Holy Spirit. That changes the meaning.

Does that imply that those writings are infallible?

Catholics understand that there are gradations of importance in the various teachings that come from the Church. Dogma is most important and will not ever change (the Creeds, for example). Then, there is doctrine - which is not as important as dogma and technically can change but is unlikely to change. It is more likely to become dogma over time. Then there are disciplines and practices which are practically guaranteed to change over time.

The pope’s interviews do not rise to the level of doctrine, is what I’m trying to say.

If something that was not dogma can become dogma doesn’t that mean dogma as a whole has changed to accommodate a new teaching? This is the thing I struggle with in Catholicism. If the gospel was delivered “once and for all to the saints” there shouldn’t be anything new showing up.

What I was trying to say was that a person who is leading a church needs more than knowledge to do so properly. I say that because something like the pill caused evil effects even before people understood what was going on. So, to lead people and keep them free from error takes more than knowledge. I wasn’t saying that a person has to be super intelligent to know every possible stumbling block. But, rather, a person would need to be guided by the Spirit in order to teach correctly. Especially as new and different challenges arise in the centuries to come. There are going to be all sorts of opportunities to do something seemingly acceptable, but is actually problematic and evil.

Fair point then. The problem is that the Holy Spirit was promised to the church, but not necessarily to prevent the teaching of error. If that was its purpose there would have been no need to rebuke the Corinthians because they wouldn’t have been teaching error.

That is not what I was intending to say. Catholics view the leadership as enjoying a special relationship with Christ through the Spirit where the teachings are in line with all that is good and holy.

Where are those teaching derived from?

 

[in_servitude]

I think we have different definitions of perfect. I mean perfect as in complete. … But I don’t believe the bible really sets a precedent for “sacred” tradition.

I believe that the bible is one of the many good fruits that flows from Sacred Tradition. That is different than saying that the bible sanctions or institutes Sacred Tradition. My impression is that bible alone believers will say that there was a properly operating Sacred Tradition at one point - and the bible results from that - but it is now no longer functioning.

I don’t understand your meaning that Christ is the revelation of God. It would seem that the revelation is about Christ, not Christ Himself. Christ is Christ. Revelation is teaching that has been revealed. Am I mistaken?

In order to better explain what I was trying to relay, I will quote directly from “The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation” aka “Dei Verbum” #some of 2 and #some of 7:

1. In His goodness and wisdom God chose to reveal Himself and to make known to us the hidden purpose of His will (see Eph. 1:9) by which through Christ, the Word made flesh, man might in the Holy Spirit have access to the Father and come to share in the divine nature (see Eph. 2:18; 2 Peter 1:4). Through this revelation, therefore, the invisible God (see Col. 1;15, 1 Tim. 1:17) out of the abundance of His love speaks to men as friends (see Ex. 33:11; John 15:14-15) and lives among them (see Bar. 3:38), so that He may invite and take them into fellowship with Himself. … By this revelation then, the deepest truth about God and the salvation of man shines out for our sake in Christ, who is both the mediator and the fullness of all revelation.

1. In His gracious goodness, God has seen to it that what He had revealed for the salvation of all nations would abide perpetually in its full integrity and be handed on to all generations. Therefore Christ the Lord in whom the full revelation of the supreme God is brought to completion (see Cor. 1:20; 3:13; 4:6), commissioned the Apostles to preach to all men that Gospel which is the source of all saving truth and moral teaching, and to impart to them heavenly gifts. This Gospel had been promised in former times through the prophets, and Christ Himself had fulfilled it and promulgated it with His lips. …

Christ is the fullness of all revelation. As we know, Christ is the living God who is very much in our lives today. And, the two of us are also living members within the Body of Christ. Thus, if we are not participating within that body in as pure and holy a manner (even though we might consider ourselves personally “saved”), we are not living the Word.

That is very fascinating and I’d like to read more, but I’ll be honest and say it sounds entirely circumstantial.

The history of Portugal in the early 1900s is very interesting. I will repeat that the military that successfully took power by force in 1910 was also stationed in and around Fatima in order to block the citizens from witnessing the miracle in October. They actually underestimated the number of people that would converge (and the driving rain didn’t help the military in this situation) and so were not successful. Plus, the miracle was visible over a 600 square mile area (people in isolated mountain towns who had no knowledge of the expected event also saw the miracle, for example.)

The history is a treasure for anyone desiring to learn about one of the many ways that God interacts with us.

I would be interested in your witness of miracles you’ve seen.

To be consistent with forum rules, I’ll refrain from doing that in this thread. I’ll PM you.

Does that imply that those writings are infallible?

Anything given by the Church when the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra is infallible.

If something that was not dogma can become dogma doesn’t that mean dogma as a whole has changed to accommodate a new teaching? This is the thing I struggle with in Catholicism. If the gospel was delivered “once and for all to the saints” there shouldn’t be anything new showing up.

The Catholic teaching on contraception (I think) is working its way from doctrine to dogma. I say that due to the unusual circumstances surrounding the HHS mandate debate where 100% off all US Bishops condemned the HHS mandate on the grounds that it forces people to participate in intrinsic evil. Are you saying that when it does become dogma, then the teachings (from a Catholic perspective) of Christ has changed?

Fair point then. The problem is that the Holy Spirit was promised to the church, but not necessarily to prevent the teaching of error. If that was its purpose there would have been no need to rebuke the Corinthians because they wouldn’t have been teaching error.

I assert that Paul had authority to correct the Corinthians because of Sacred Tradition. Today, the problem is that if there is no place to go where we know that the teachings are coming under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (similar to the way the Apostles wrote their letter in Acts 15 - stating it was WE - them plus the Holy Spirit).

Where are those teaching derived from?

I believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church in their derivation. Otherwise, these are just thoughts from people that are just as error prone as the next theologian.

Are you asking where to learn about the teachings that are considered infallible today?