Is the Holy Spirit for all Christians? or only

  • Thread starter Thread starter SolaChristo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
mercygate:
Right. The point is to determine which is the “dominant” text to which the “lesser” texts must be reconciled, not to verse fling. One gets the impression that some people read Scripture verse-by-verse, keeping them on filing cards in a box, and then drag them up to use like spit-balls.

The responsible approach to scripture is to observe the entire mosaic, not just to pick out one tile at a time, as if it were independent of the greater picture.
Actually, when Scripture is interpreted correctly, there should never be a dominant or lesser text. If properly interrpreted, 100% of Scripture has 100% equal weight. The Catholic Church’s interpretation is the only one which makes this work.
 
40.png
mercygate:
Is that in scripture?
Besides 2 Tim 2:15?

How about the Church fathers? 😃 😃 😃 😉

as the source of teaching, the Lord, both by the prophets, the Gospel, and the blessed apostles, “in divers manners and at sundry times,” [Heb 1:1] leading from the beginning of knowledge to the end. He, then, who of himself believes the Scripture and voice of the Lord, which by the Lord acts to the benefiting of men, is rightly [regarded] faithful." … “For those are slothful who, having it in their power to provide themselves with proper proofs for the divine Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves, select only what contributes to their own pleasures. And those have a craving for glory who voluntarily evade, by arguments of a diverse sort, the things delivered by the blessed apostles and teachers, which are wedded to inspired words; opposing the divine tradition by human teachings , in order to establish the heresy”(Clement of Alexandria, book 7, ch 16, Scripture the Criterion by Which Truth and Heresy are Distinguished)
 
40.png
mercygate:
When did the idea that others were present at the Last Supper first appear in history?

What I am contending is that where the eleven are NOT, we cannot trust the teaching. Where communion with the eleven and their teaching is broken, the teaching may not be false, but it is not trustworthy.
Did you know that it is widley believed the upper room belonged to John Mark one of the 70 no one of the 12.
 
40.png
mercygate:
Actually in Luke 22:14 the group around the passover table is specified: And when the hour came, he sat at table, and the apostles with him.
In other places it says disciples.
Your ignoring my question about the Great Commision.
 
40.png
SolaChristo:
In other places it says disciples.
Your ignoring my question about the Great Commision.
It says desciples in John’s gospel because he doesn’t use the word apostles.

Elsewhere you will find it say apostles.
 
40.png
SolaChristo:
Did you know that it is widley believed the upper room belonged to John Mark one of the 70 no one of the 12.
Not in Scripture, I don’t want to hear it! 😛
 
40.png
SolaChristo:
In other places it says disciples.
Your ignoring my question about the Great Commision.
Although “disciples” may include others than the 12, it sometimes also refers only to the 12. Since Luke specifies with a word (Apostles) that never includes the extended number of general “disciples,” we take that as – you should pardon the expression – “Gospel.”

Same for the Great Commission. Jesus instructed the eleven to go to the mountain, and he confided to them the commission of making disciples, baptizing and teaching . . . So it is in communion with eleven that the of the Church accomplishes this mission: “that they might be one.”
 
40.png
mercygate:
Scripture is clear. The charisms are various but the truth is one and it is to be found in communion with the Apostles.
Outstanding sentence… and may I add

The Truth is not something, it is Somebody, and His Name is Jesus Christ. (thanks, Fr. Corapi)
 
40.png
MrS:
Outstanding sentence… and may I add

The Truth is not something, it is Somebody, and His Name is Jesus Christ. (thanks, Fr. Corapi)
👍
 
40.png
mercygate:
Although “disciples” may include others than the 12, it sometimes also refers only to the 12. Since Luke specifies with a word (Apostles) that never includes the extended number of general “disciples,” we take that as – you should pardon the expression – “Gospel.”

Same for the Great Commission. Jesus instructed the eleven to go to the mountain, and he confided to them the commission of making disciples, baptizing and teaching . . . So it is in communion with eleven that the of the Church accomplishes this mission: “that they might be one.”
Oh now Im really confused :confused:
The Great Commision is for the apostles but we can do it if its part of the Churchs’ mission?
But John 14-16 is only for the apostles?
 
40.png
SolaChristo:
Oh now Im really confused :confused:
The Great Commision is for the apostles but we can do it if its part of the Churchs’ mission?
But John 14-16 is only for the apostles?
No. THe principal is identical. Y’know: those gifts of the Holy Spirit Paul talks about? The gift of authoritative Apostolic teaching is to the Apostles and their successors. Insofar as I hold to the apostolic teaching, I am part of the Body of Christ and share in the whole mission of the Church.

I am perplexed that you find this to be confusing; it has been the consistent understanding of the Church for 2000 years. It’s not something made up and introduced a week ago – or 500 years ago.
 
40.png
SolaChristo:
In other places it says disciples.
But using your principle of interpreting Scripture by Scripture, we must accept that only the 12 were at the Last Supper because Luke says it unequivovally. It is not even as if there are conflicting texts – only here that Luke is more specific than the other Gospels.
 
40.png
SolaChristo:
Oh now Im really confused :confused:
The Great Commision is for the apostles but we can do it if its part of the Churchs’ mission?
But John 14-16 is only for the apostles?
No, mercygate said that the Church in general can do this in communion with the apostles. The Holy Spirit guides the bishops of the Church, who are the successors of the apostles, to teach truth. We as lay people can also make desciples of all nations when we do so in communion with them. We can also teach when in communion with them. In other words, if what we do is in agreement with them, then we can do it.

The distinction here is one of ability. The Holy Spirit enables the bishops to teach authoritatively and without error. The Holy Spirit gives the bishops, when united together, this charism. The Holy Spirit does not give everyone else this specific charism. This does not mean that we as lay people are not allowed to teach, or that we shouldn’t teach. It simply means that we must follow the teaching of the bishops, and that any teaching we give must be in communion wiith it.

The great comission is an action that Christ commanded the apostles to undertake. Teaching free from error is an ability that Jesus gave to the apostles through the Holy Spirit. We can choose to do the same action that Christ commanded the apostles to do, but we cannot use an ability that we do not have. Since we do not have to ability to teach free of error, we must make sure we agree with those who do. However, we can choose to undertake an action that was commanded, so long as we have not been commanded against it, which Christ did not do.
 
40.png
mercygate:
No. THe principal is identical. Y’know: those gifts of the Holy Spirit Paul talks about? The gift of authoritative Apostolic teaching is to the Apostles and their successors. Insofar as I hold to the apostolic teaching, I am part of the Body of Christ and share in the whole mission of the Church.

I am perplexed that you find this to be confusing; it has been the consistent understanding of the Church for 2000 years. It’s not something made up and introduced a week ago – or 500 years ago.
So where do we find the best, most authoritative record of apostolic teaching? Not corrupted by men of course 😉
 
40.png
SolaChristo:
So where do we find the best, most authoritative record of apostolic teaching? Not corrupted by men of course 😉
In the Bible as interpreted in accordance with the Magesterium of the Holy Catholic Church.

If we just took the Bible, well it really isn’t very authoritative at all, now is it? See, Luther, using the Bible as the most authoritative thing on earth, got one set of ideas. Calvin got some * different ideas. My friend Sean has ideas that are different still. So we can’t call the Bible authoritative on its own, because when each one of these people criticizes the other’s view by pointing to “the authority of the Bible,” the other person will just hold up his Bible and use it to argue his point. By definition, something that is authoritative is something that can’t be argued with. Well, all these non Catholic Christians do argue with each other, even though all of their teachings are being drawn from the “authoritative” Bible.

The problem is that the Bible is not systematic theology. If it was, we wouldn’t need anything else. If it just listed off point after point after point, then we could just go there and use that Bible and not need anything else. But it’s not that. The Bible is a collection of letters.

Let’s say that you didn’t know how to use your computer, so I came to see you and taught you how. Now assume I go home, and you go to download e-mail. However, you get an email with an attachment, and you don’t know how to download the attachment, because I never told you, or you forgot what I said. Say you write a letter to me asking how to download attachments. I write back, and say, “My dear Malachi, I am so thankful to hear from you. As far as the e-mail is concerned, all you need to know is to press the paperclip button.” You receive this letter and know what it means and are able to understand it completely.

This is the situation that the recipiants of Paul’s letters were in. Now assume you put the letter on your desk, and then someone else finds it later. They read it, and think, “all I need to know about e-mail is that button! Great!” However, when they go to use the email, they don’t understand what it says and don’t use the e-mail right, thinking they only have to press one button when in fact they have to do a lot more. This is the position that non-Catholics are in. They lack the context, whereas the original recipiants had the context.

Now Catholics don’t claim to know the context either. So how do we know what the Bible is meant to say? SImple! The author signed a deal with us, and He said He’d stick around and guide us whenever we try to figure it out!*
 
40.png
SolaChristo:
So where do we find the best, most authoritative record of apostolic teaching? Not corrupted by men of course 😉
In the Church that brought you the New Testament: the Catholic Church.
 
40.png
SolaChristo:
Yes, we would say, that the giftings are different. However you have not really answered Jer 31:33 and Heb 8:11.
these passages indicate that the New Covenant is that each of us will be instructed and to know God in an inimate way. Im not saying we all have the same giftings. I am saying that we all have this gift.
When you say “each of us”, do you mean believers only vs non-believers? If so, where did you get that from the Jeremiah verse? Where does it specify that some will know God intimately and some will not?
 
40.png
SolaChristo:
Yes, we would say, that the giftings are different. However you have not really answered Jer 31:33 and Heb 8:11.
these passages indicate that the New Covenant is that each of us will be instructed and to know God in an inimate way. Im not saying we all have the same giftings. I am saying that we all have this gift.
And I say that you test the gifts by weighing them in the light of apostolic teaching.

You are saying that the Holy Spirit works primarily on an individual. The Catholic position is that the Holy Spirit works on the individual primarily in communion with the Body of Christ.

Jesus came to preach the Kingdom. So Catholics view that Kingdom – the household of faith – as the primary matrix in which the Holy Spirit transmits the faith. As a Protestant, I understood faith to be primarily in the individual; each man is his own universe with a Book as his main link to God.
 
Jer 33:15: In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch to spring forth for David; and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land.16: In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will dwell securely. And this is the name by which it will be called: `The LORD is our righteousness.'17: "For thus says the LORD: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel,
18: and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to burn cereal offerings, and to make sacrifices for ever."19: The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah:20: "Thus says the LORD: If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night will not come at their appointed time,21: then also my covenant with David my servant may be broken, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and my covenant with the Levitical priests my ministers.


Were these verses fulfilled? If so, how do they gel with the previuos verses in Jeremiah and with the NT?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top