It's NOT in the Bible

[PastorVW]

Let me take a shot at this post first…

Pastor Vince,

Thank you for being so kind and respectful! I do need to point out that at this point I am not actually a Pastor, as I am disabled/retired. I am still an ordained elder in good standing and a Chaplain in the Civil Air Patrol (USAF Aux.). Still many folks do call me Pastor because it is easier

I must respectfully take exception to the notion that Evangelicals (and all Protestants) base their beliefs regarding the core of doctrine on Scripture alone.

Cool, let’s talk about it!

[

The NAE defines an Evangelical

](http://www.nae.net/church-and-faith-partners/what-is-an-evangelical)

as one who holds to “the belief that lives need to be transformed through a “born-again” experience and a life long process of following Jesus” through obedience to the Bible and that the Evangelical position is that this comes by grace through faith.

Fair enough, my denomination is part of NAE. I will point out that my definition of “grace through faith” is wide enough to encompass many Catholics.

However, it is evident that children, the mentally infirm, and the like are not capable of faith. Thus, Evangelicalism depends on the concept of an age of reason to complete its soteriology.

Here is were I beg to differ. It would be more accurate to say that some Evangelicals - including Weslyeans like me. Others would take the position that anyone who dies without being personally converted is lost, no matter what their age.

I think it is also important to note that this issue does not affect the personal salvation of adults. If you are old enough to wonder if you are past the age of reason, you are already past it.

Furthermore, as a Weslyean, I recognize Tradition as being valuable and instructive - especially in areas where Scripture is not totally clear - as long as Tradition is not contradicted by Scripture.

The problem is that nowhere in the Bible is there stated to be an age of reason. Instead, the Scriptures are firm that we are conceived in sin (Psalm 51) and that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). To insert an asterisk that states that those who have not yet accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior through no fault of their own can nevertheless be saved is seemingly to go against those passages.

In addition to Tradition, we are permitted to reason based of the Scriptural data we do have.

In 2 Sam 12, David is dealing with the aftermath of his adultery. The Lord has already told him the the child will die. He fasted and wept until the child died. His servants were worried about him - but when the child died, he got up bathed, dressed and ate. When asked about the change, this is what he said:
*
(2 Sam 12:22 NIV) He answered, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, ‘Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let the child live.’
(2 Sam 12:23 NIV) But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? **I will go to him, *but he will not return to me."

The most natural interpretation of this verse is that David expected to see his child in heaven.

We also reason from the nature of God. He who sent his Son to die for the sins of the whole world - yes, we DO NOT believe in limited atonement. In addition we know that it is God’s will that everyone be saved (it’s our sinful will that gets in the way of that):

(2 Pet 3:9 NIV) The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

We also know a great deal about how the Lord feels towards children:

(Mat 19:14 NIV) Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

So, the question is: What about people who are not capable of choosing to accept or reject the Lord’s offer of forgiveness and new life in Christ?

I think the answer is obvious: Until they are capable of choosing, the Lord chooses for them. Is there a verse that directly says this? No. Is there a lot of Scriptural data that strongly suggests this? Absolutely.

When is that age of accountability? I think it varies a great deal between individuals. My oldest biological dughter was four years old when she hopped up in my lap and asked if she could “ask Jesus into my heart”. Pastor “Dad” was very suspicious that she really didn’t understand. About 10 minutes worth of questions proved that Dad was wrong and that she most certainly DID UNDERSTAND. She prayed at that time, and three years later, she asked to be baptized.

This brings up another question: Accountable for what? My personal, pastoral opinion is that all of us are accountable for what we understand. Kids who are raised in the church gradually come to a full understanding of the faith. In the case of my son, he waited well into his teens to decide. He made his choice when he was 17 - I had the honor of Baptizing him. (BTW, we both Baptize and Dedicate children - according to the parents wishes and beliefs).

 

[PastorVW]

Another Evangelical tradition not found in Scripture, and seemingly against it, is the use of church buildings. Acts 2:42 states that the Apostles and their disciples held all things in common and sold all other property to feed the poor, and Acts 2:46 identifies their places of worship as being their homes and the Temple in Jerusalem. The latter no longer exists, and thus, the only strictly biblical place of worship is in the home. The commandment to worship at home precludes the establishment of a church building that is not a house of a disciple, and the requirement to sell unnecessary property would require the church building to be sold. And yet, virtually all Evangelical churches own a church building. When I have put this question to Evangelicals, the response is that the building is a necessity, but then again, the use of a non-biblical rationale for establishing the manner of worshiping God is directly against sola scriptura.

You are confusing accounts of Biblical experiences with commands. As one of my professors - the one I had for the study of the Book of Acts - we need to experience the teachings of the Apostles, not teach the experiences of the Apostles. We find their teachings primarily in the Epistles.

Even if one does look at the Book of Acts as a model, consider this:

(Acts 19:8 NIV) Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God.
(Acts 19:9 NIV) But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way. So Paul left them. He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus.

It appears that, at least in this case, Paul lead a church hat held at lest some meetings in a larger setting.

For these reasons and many others, I am convinced that there is actually no such thing as sola scriptura.

I think that you are confused as to what the doctrine of sola scriptura actually is. It is not a requirement that absolutely everything that is done in the church be found in, or commanded by, the Scriptures. It is simply that we teach nothing AS ESSENTIAL TO SALVATION that cannot be proven from the Word of God. There are, many, many things that are not covered by that statement. In these things, we look first to the Word, but also to Tradition and Reason, and finally to experience.

Every church has traditions, and many of them were inherited from the Catholic Church, such as the age of reason and church buildings.

I think it is true that we owe a great deal to the believers who have come before us - and for a full 3/4 of the time since the church was established, this was basically the Catholic Church. We have 1500 years of common history - it would be amazing if we did not have many, many countless traditions in common. I will be the first to admit that too many Evangelicals think that nothing happened between the Apostle Paul and Martin Luther. I, for one, am spending more time on the works of people like Augustine.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Pastor Vince,

I appreciate your thoughtful response. I think a chaplain is by definition a pastor so I’ll go ahead and call you the latter.

You are confusing accounts of Biblical experiences with commands. As one of my professors - the one I had for the study of the Book of Acts - we need to experience the teachings of the Apostles, not teach the experiences of the Apostles. We find their teachings primarily in the Epistles.

This is indeed a Wesleyan view, based on his quadrilateral way of forming doctrine (Scripture, Tradition, Reason, Experience). The thing is that the Wesleyan Quadrilateral is not sola scriptura.

I think you, like many in the Methodist tradition, hold to prima scriptura rather than sola scriptura. That is why you can turn to tradition and reason to answer some of my questions about the age of reason and church buildings. That then raises the question of what tradition is authoritative; that is, would Jesus allow the Church not to have an authoritative tradition?

Instead of going down the apologetics road with that, I’ll share a thought with you. I think that John Wesley did not work from whole cloth in forming Methodist doctrine. His stated objective was to re-discover the Biblical method of Christian perfection, but that method is Catholicism. Thus, his aim was to re-Catholicize the Church of England, although he himself could never say that because that would get him arrested and probably executed. So he did the best he could with the English and American political climates being what they were. Unfortunately the Methodist movement got splintered and, for example, the United Methodist Church compromised with other Protestant bodies for the sake of ecumenism, putting Wesley in the back seat.

In addition to personal experience in the UMC, I’ve had some dialogue with a member of the Order of St. Luke who decried the loss of Methodist heritage that the UMC has suffered. Frankly, they are very close to Catholicism, along the same lines of high-church Anglicanism. I have expressed to several Methodists a deep home that the Ordinariate will also be made available to Methodists as it seems to be such a natural fit.

I think it is true that we owe a great deal to the believers who have come before us - and for a full 3/4 of the time since the church was established, this was basically the Catholic Church. We have 1500 years of common history - it would be amazing if we did not have many, many countless traditions in common. I will be the first to admit that too many Evangelicals think that nothing happened between the Apostle Paul and Martin Luther. I, for one, am spending more time on the works of people like Augustine.

God bless you as you do so!

 

[PastorVW]

LOL. Seems like you’ve got a double-vision of “Steves” here to “contend” with I’ll gracefully bow out of this if it becomes confusing for you, because I think the other Steve and I will basically discuss things from a similar light anyway.Thanks for that response. I suppose my point is that, it is one thing (a very noteworthy and important thing) for us to all have the capability to call one another Christians, and even brothers and sisters in Christ. But we must be careful not to assume, or derive from this capability, that this signifies a unity in belief in salvific doctrine, for this is an entirely different thing. It seems you agree with me on this point, although I’m not entirely sure.

I believe that there is a core of belief, without which it is both improper to apply the term “Christian” and without which there is not possibility of Salvation through Christ. I do not know if we agree on what these beliefs are (though I hope we do), but I trust that we both agree that this core of belief exists.

And the more prevalent point of all this is the fact that sola scriptura is at the very heart of this division of essential salvific doctrine, and this is no trivial matter. It is absolutely critical, for souls are at stake. At the end of the day, ecumenism much reach through all the necessary charity, all the hand-shakes, all the niceties, all the accommodations…and grasp firmly the division, that which makes it NOT OKAY for us to rest in our differences, and speak boldly about what those differences are, and why those differences potentially put eternal lives at risk.

I definitely agree that ignoring our differences is not OK. Ditto, for the idea that they aren’t really that important. Clearly they are.

On the other hand, with very real differences being a reality the last thing we need to do is to create additional differences where they do not exist. I think we avoid doing that by listening to each other and by making sure that we really understand what the other is saying. We often use words that have slightly different meanings within our respective churches and religious circles. Words as simple as “pray” and “hope” can foster misunderstandings.

In what follows, I speak solely for myself. I think that a great deal of the differences between us on the matter of Salvation by Faith is a matter of perspective. Catholics insist that we cannot be saved merely by believing without good works being done by Grace. As an Evangelical, I believe that we are saved by faith alone - by as many, many people wiser than I have said, “The Faith that saves is NEVER alone.” It is always accompanied by repentance and good works done by Grace.

The more I look at this aspect of Salvation, the more I believe that trying to separate Justification and Sanctification is like trying to separate the head and tail of a coin. They are both part of Salvation and can never stand alone. Yet it seems that we spend entirely too much time trying to do just that. It is Grace that Justifies resulting in Forgiveness - and it is by Grace that regenerate people do good works as a result of the process of Sanctification.

Thus, it is true to say that we are saved by faith alone - but it is also true that faith without works is DEAD. It is no Faith at all.

If I understand Catholic Theology correctly at this point, the good works needed to complete Salvation are done BY GRACE IN CHRIST. It is not that one does enough good works entirely through their own efforts to merit Salvation.

As long as the entire process of Salvation is accomplished by Grace, through Faith and Repentance I have no problem with saying: No good works, no regenerate life, NO SALVATION.

In other words, PastorVW, simply being able to call you my brother in Christ merely allows us to come together peacefully in discourse, in commonality of our spiritual ambitions, and in recognition of the One Who makes our charity and peace possible, to discuss very serious matters about what it truly means to be unified in belief and practice, to truly follow Him and BE Christian, as opposed to being LABELED as Christian. For I would assume you would agree that salvation does not come from that label, no matter who allows it to be attributed to another.

When I call you a brother in Christ, it is because I hope and trust that we serve the same Lord and will share the same eternity - in spite of our very real and important theological differences. It’s much more than just a label - and therefore I do not apply it lightly.

For instance, I would never apply it to a Mormon - no matter how nice the person might be - because they have a radically different Christ and a radically different Gospel.

I realize that you may not apply the term in the same way I do, and that is OK.

Well, it’s getting late - I had better wrap this up. One last question: Why the quote from Lewis, who was both a great Christian and a non-Catholic?

 

[PastorVW]

This is indeed a Wesleyan view, based on his quadrilateral way of forming doctrine (Scripture, Tradition, Reason, Experience). The thing is that the Wesleyan Quadrilateral is not sola scriptura.

I think you, like many in the Methodist tradition, hold to prima scriptura rather than sola scriptura. That is why you can turn to tradition and reason to answer some of my questions about the age of reason and church buildings. That then raises the question of what tradition is authoritative; that is, would Jesus allow the Church not to have an authoritative tradition?

Yep, I think you understand where I am coming from. I would be careful to note that we do hold to sola scriptura in matters essential to Salvation.

Instead of going down the apologetics road with that, I’ll share a thought with you. I think that John Wesley did not work from whole cloth in forming Methodist doctrine. His stated objective was to re-discover the Biblical method of Christian perfection, but that method is Catholicism. Thus, his aim was to re-Catholicize the Church of England, although he himself could never say that because that would get him arrested and probably executed. So he did the best he could with the English and American political climates being what they were. Unfortunately the Methodist movement got splintered and, for example, the United Methodist Church compromised with other Protestant bodies for the sake of ecumenism, putting Wesley in the back seat.

It is very accurate to say that Wesley was much more friendly with Catholics than most Protestants would ever think of being. He also held the Sacraments in very high regard, as do I.

Sadly, you are 100% right about the UMC putting Wesley in the back seat. I might even say that in many conferences Christ has been put in the trunk. Many ministers have transferred into our little denomination from the UMC as a matter of faith and conscience.

In addition to personal experience in the UMC, I’ve had some dialogue with a member of the Order of St. Luke who decried the loss of Methodist heritage that the UMC has suffered. Frankly, they are very close to Catholicism, along the same lines of high-church Anglicanism. I have expressed to several Methodists a deep home that the Ordinariate will also be made available to Methodists as it seems to be such a natural fit.

Although our services are much like many other “low church” Evangelicals, our Anglican (and Catholic) roots really come out in Holy Communion, Baptism and at weddings. We definitely have a lot more in common with our Catholic brothers and sisters than most evangelicals do.

 

[SteveGC]

PastorVW, thank you for that thoughtful reply. My biggest concern regarding Catholic vs. non-Catholic salvific doctrine is related to Baptism, the Eucharist, knowledge of mortal/venial sin, and sacramental Reconciliation.

The faith vs. works debate is really straining at gnats. At the end of the day, most of us agree that salvation is through grace, via the gift of faith with which we cooperate and act on to obey the commands of our Lord.

The C.S. Lewis quote was chosen because his body of work is an endless treasure trove of wisdom and insight into the nature of living as a Christian. Many believe he would’ve become Catholic if he’d lived longer, but no matter. It does not detract from his appeal to Christians of all kinds, including many astute, scholarly Catholics. He understood what you and I are discussing here very well - that we are rightly compelled to come together as brothers in Christ and share our faith, and that matters of doctrinal difference are also vitally important because of their salvific nature. And the specific quote was chosen because as a regular member on CAF threads, it is quite applicable. Present company excluded, of course.

 

[PastorVW]

PastorVW, thank you for that thoughtful reply.

And sometimes I feel like I don’t have two brain cells to rub together

The faith vs. works debate is really straining at gnats. At the end of the day, most of us agree that salvation is through grace, via the gift of faith with which we cooperate and act on to obey the commands of our Lord.

I obviously agree, and yet the most often leveled false charge against Catholics in evangelical circles is that they believe in Salvation by works not Grace. With our more “holistic” view of Salvation as including both Justification and Sanctification Wesleyans tend to have much less problem with a view so close to our own.

My biggest concern regarding Catholic vs. non-Catholic salvific doctrine is related to Baptism, the Eucharist, knowledge of mortal/venial sin, and sacramental Reconciliation.

Some interesting points for further discussion. Of course, on Baptism and the Eucharist, our views largely reflect our Anglican roots. Wesley held an especially high view of the Eucharist or Holy Communion. In fact, he encouraged those seeking Christ to receive it as often as possible. The last time I administered the sacrament, I preached on encountering Christ - because that is what I believe happens.

The issue of mortal vs. venial sin is an interesting one, in that we know all Christians sin to some degree - and at the same time those of us who do not hold to unconditional eternal security believe that it is possible to sin so egregiously as to disrupt one’s relationship with Christ and “loose” one’s salvation as a result. I really don’t like the term “loose”, because it implies accidental loose rather than deliberate forfeiture. So although we do not have as formal a division of sins as our Catholic friends, we certainly understand the basic concept and share it to some degree.

Out of all the points you mention, I would probably have the greatest trouble with sacramental reconciliation - by which I assume you mean confession, correct?

Two pastoral observations on the subject - both of which will do little to settle the issue:

1. I have, on more than one occasion, pointed out to fellow evangelicals who have said something like, “those Catholics can do anything they want a just go to a Priest and confess” that in our world you don’t even need the Priest, you can just confess directly to God. Guess which one requires more sincerity?
2. I have yet to find a pastor who has not heard a confession. Theology aside, Christians are still driven to obey James 5:16 - and the pastor (or youth leader - I have been both) always seems to be high on the list of people to confess to. I think they want to hear another person affirm that they are forgiven and in many cases they need guidence as to how to avoid the same sin in the future.

I also think that we tend to be so afraid of “Catholic theology” that we do fail to obey some scriptural commands, of which Jame 5:16 is a prime example.

The C.S. Lewis quote was chosen because his body of work is an endless treasure trove of wisdom and insight into the nature of living as a Christian.

And your kind words towards him say a great deal about you and your attitude towards believers from other communions. Both Catholics and Evangelical Protestants have come a long way in the right direction since the 1500’s. ECT and the Gift of Salvation Document are both very positive things.

Finally, let me say that I believe that there is a very real form of Christian unity that transcends organizations. I have heard Catholics say, without conceding anything of their Theology, that some of us Evangelicals will be shocked to get to heaven and find that we have been Catholics in a sense without knowing it.

In our church, we recite the Apostles Creed every time the Lord’s Supper is served. I think this is a VERY GOOD THING. One of the reasons I think this is because I believe strongly in the catholic church (lower case “c” intentional). Like Wesley, should I continue to trust Christ and reach heaven, I expect to find a great many Catholics and Orthodox there - so I think it’s a good idea to get to know some of you now

 

[Cat_Herder]

The issue of mortal vs. venial sin is an interesting one, in that we know all Christians sin to some degree - and at the same time those of us who do not hold to unconditional eternal security believe that it is possible to sin so egregiously as to disrupt one’s relationship with Christ and “loose” one’s salvation as a result. I really don’t like the term “loose”, because it implies accidental loose rather than deliberate forfeiture. So although we do not have as formal a division of sins as our Catholic friends, we certainly understand the basic concept and share it to some degree.

Just FYI Pastor, the three elements that go into the mortal/venial sin distinction are in Hebrews 10:25-26. They are (1) a grave sin (2) committed willfully (3) and with full knowledge.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Just FYI Pastor, the three elements that go into the mortal/venial sin distinction are in Hebrews 10:25-26. They are (1) a grave sin (2) committed willfully (3) and with full knowledge.

The conversation is so interesting that I am afraid to disrupt it.
The sins have been a matter of some unbalance in the Church. Calvin would say that we cannot know what will happen after death. Leibniz spoke of this world as the best of the worlds (the best God could do!). Jansenist were so afraid of God that they built places where to put Eucharist in the Church and it was surrounded by grades. God Almighty could not be approached like in Jewish times (only the Holy Priest would enter the Tabernacle) or in some degree the Orthodox with a special place for the Priest.

On the Other hand, there were movements of the Sweet-Jesus-who-is-in-my-heart and that is soooo Sweeeet that I am almost give orders to Him … so there is no sin at all …

On the other hand, Freud and Jung and the conceptions of the Unconscious, and new data of the neurosciences and the genetics and DNA makes us understand that many things we considered sins and lack of will or bad-will were genetics or fruit of the unconscious, repressions and so on.

So, it is hard in today’s society to think on sin. For many people, sin is out of fashion, there is no sin, there is always a cause: the mother+the father+teachers+the environment+society (whatever that means)+anything but me. I am not responsible, my faults are the faults of somebody else.

Nevertheless, as my teacher of Ethics awoke us in a sleepy afternoon class, “there is evil that cannot be explained” like the Holocaust, the Gulags, the Ruanda massacres and so on.

To say to the modern world that we are sinners (no matter the distinctions) is a tough job. But it is a necessary job.

To say that man sins is to say that the order of this world is NOT the order that God wants. It is to say that who who governs this world is God not us. It is to say that God has a project to this world. That we must obey him. That 50% of divorces as in today’s society is not God’s will. Or abortion. Or killing for oil.

It is not in the Bible but it is in the Bible. It is not in the Bible for these were not contemporary to the Bible problems. But it is in the spirit of the Bible a reflection for today’s world.

That only we, 21st Christians, can do.

 

[PastorVW]

Just FYI Pastor, the three elements that go into the mortal/venial sin distinction are in Hebrews 10:25-26. They are (1) a grave sin (2) committed willfully (3) and with full knowledge.

Before I commit fully to a response to the above, I want to take time to examine closely all of Heb. 10 for context - but my initial response is that these verses do indeed provide a lot of guidance as to what kind of sin leads to the “loss” of salvation.

What is interesting is that while some things clearly would meet all three conditions for anyone - for others the “full knowledge” requirement would mean that the same act might have different consequences for to different people. Many new Christians just don’t know that what they are doing is wrong - while those who have had time to grow in the Lord absolutely know that what they are doing is wrong. (I thank God that the Lord didn’t show me everything I had to change when I first came to know Him - I would have been overwhelmed and very discouraged.)

Short on time today, hope to spend more time here later this week!

 

[nickybr38]

Before I commit fully to a response to the above, I want to take time to examine closely all of Heb. 10 for context - but my initial response is that these verses do indeed provide a lot of guidance as to what kind of sin leads to the “loss” of salvation.

What is interesting is that while some things clearly would meet all three conditions for anyone - for others the “full knowledge” requirement would mean that the same act might have different consequences for to different people. Many new Christians just don’t know that what they are doing is wrong - while those who have had time to grow in the Lord absolutely know that what they are doing is wrong. (I thank God that the Lord didn’t show me everything I had to change when I first came to know Him - I would have been overwhelmed and very discouraged.)

Short on time today, hope to spend more time here later this week!

Grave matter is not mortal sin unless one has the full knowledge. Which means those new Christians who do not know what they are doing is grave matter are not committing a mortal sin.

As a Protestant to Catholic convert I have been having a difficult time finding the distinction between grave matter and mortal sin. Mostly because as a Protestant I was basically taught that the only real sin is the action we take against our conscience… so I feel as if ANY sin I commit is mortal… as in, a direct violation of God’s will despite internally suspecting an action is wrong or ill advised.

Still, suspecting something is wrongly motivated is still not a mortal sin if I am not aware that the action is actually grave matter…

Phew. The thing is, our consciences are formed by our society, by our parents, and by the Holy Spirit… but how do we tell the difference between what has been indoctrinated into us wrongly and what is actually from God?

For me, the answer is seeking the Church which our Lord has given us and forming my conscience to fit with what that church teaches is wrong. Simple as that.

 

[Nicea325]

No, you are not. The United Methodist Church was formed by a merger of the Methodist Episcopal Church and the Evangelical United Brethren.

However, I am ordained in the Free Methodist Church. I am now disabled/retired and now serve in a formally independent church that recently became a Covenant Church. (With the knowledge and support of my superintendent - who fills the role of a Catholic Bishop we do not have a church in this area.)

Within the Wesleyan “camp” the Free Methodist Church, along with the Nazarene Church and several other small allied denominations have remained “conservative” theologically speaking. While there are a few conservative United Methodist conferences (think Diocese), most are extremely theologically liberal. As a result, those of us in the more conservative Wesleyan groups have much more in common with our Catholic brothers and sisters.

Thanks for sharing

 

[Nicea325]

A lot of Catholics seem to say “Sola Scripture isn’t in the Bible”. Well, if Protestants don’t believe the Catholic Church’s claims, what else would they consider is an infallible authority besides the Bible?

Scripture doesn’t need to say that it is the only infallible authority, as Protestants just don’t think anything else is infallible. It isn’t that Sola Scripture is the only means of authority, it’s just that nothing else is infallible, therefore, beliefs should only be based on Scripture.

Actually the bolded words are false. The Bible did not decide all by itself it is the infallible Word of God, it needed another external and infallible source. What could that be? The Church…the Mystical Body of Jesus (Eph 1:22-23).

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

Actually the bolded words are false. The Bible did not decide all by itself it is the infallible Word of God, it needed another external and infallible source. What could that be? The Church…the Mystical Body of Jesus (Eph 1:22-23).

I haven’t really been keeping up with this thread, so if you answered this already, I apologize.

I’m wondering if you could explain your understanding (CC’s understanding) of Eph 1:22-23.

 

[Nicea325]

I haven’t really been keeping up with this thread, so if you answered this already, I apologize.

I’m wondering if you could explain your understanding (CC’s understanding) of Eph 1:22-23.

Yes. How can many believe only the Bible is infallible and Christ Church be fallible? Did not Christ promise to guide His Church into all Truth? Jesus made no reference to the Bible,but the Church. Likewise, scripture also states the church is the pillar of truth,not the Bible.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

Yes. How can many believe only the Bible is infallible and Christ Church be fallible? Did not Christ promise to guide His Church into all Truth? Jesus made no reference to the Bible,but the Church. Likewise, scripture also states the church is the pillar of truth,not the Bible.

Since you listed Eph 1:22-23, I’m asking specifically about that because I’m curious to know what the Catholic Church believes this passage means. I don’t see any of your commentary in there…

18 I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints,19 and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might20 which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.22 And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church,23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

 

[Zenkai]

Actually the bolded words are false. The Bible did not decide all by itself it is the infallible Word of God, it needed another external and infallible source. What could that be? The Church…the Mystical Body of Jesus (Eph 1:22-23).

But Protestants have no other source of knowledge, so the Bible is considered infallible.

 

[Nicea325]

Since you listed Eph 1:22-23, I’m asking specifically about that because I’m curious to know what the Catholic Church believes this passage means. I don’t see any of your commentary in there…

18 I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints,19 and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might20 which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.22 And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church,23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

I am sorry,here it is:

His body: **the church **(Eph 1:22); and Col 1:18. Only in Eph and Col is Christ the head of the body, in contrast to the view in 1 Cor 12 and Romans 12:4-8 where Christ is equated with the entire body or community. Fullness: see Col 1:19. If in Christ “dwells the fullness of the deity bodily” (Col 2:9), then, as God “fills” Christ, Christ in turn fills the church and the believer (Eph 3:19; 5:18). But the difficult phrases here may also allow the church to be viewed as the “complement” of Christ who is “being filled” as God’s plan for the universe is carried out through the church (cf Eph 3:9-10).

 

[perro_sarnoso]

“The Bible”…is not in the Bible.

There are a lot of things that are not in the Bible.

However, there is an interesting admonition to the “sola scriptura” crowd…it’s at the end of the Gospel of John where he says that [not all the things that Jesus said and did are contained in scripture] and that if that were the case…there wouldn’t be enough books in the world to contain them].

The protestant denominations are not in the Bible - but the Catholic faith is, …we are the original Christians.

 

[faith4christ]

Another point to make, and I apologize if this was already mentioned, I came in half way through, But if you remember when Jesus said that NOT all things are written in the Bible and also references the elders,

John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

John 5:36-39 But I have a greater testimony than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to perfect; the works themselves, which I do, give testimony of me, that the Father hath sent me. [37] And the Father himself who hath sent me, hath given testimony of me: neither have you heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. [38] And you have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him you believe not. [39] Search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and the same are they that give testimony of me.

So in al fairness that its’self rebukes Sola scriptura, am I right or wrong?