- Status
P
PC_Master
Guest
Yes – this is the important question. But also important is whether these doctrines can be clearly seen in those times without any reading into the past what we have in the present.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
Who decides what is “clearly seen”?
Hand out Bibles to people that know nothing of them and ask them if the Trinity is “clearly seen” by them.
If it isn’t does that invalidate the doctrine of the Trinity?
If any group of christians at any point in history does not grasp in fullness any doctrine–so what?
That doesn’t mean that the doctrine isn’t true!
That doesn’t mean it didn’t exist before!
If Christians of an early time believed in a mustard seed and christians of a later time believed in the full mustard tree the mustardness of the original seed is still a fact and is still mustard!
That fact doesn’t take christians of an earlier time having Full Knowledge of the mustard tree!
The Truth of Mustard from the seed to the tree is still truth in every developmental step along the way and one’s perception of the mustardness as one looks back in time has nothing to do with the objective reality of the thing in question always being mustard!
It also isn’t dependet on anyone who has knowlege of the tree either liking all or some of the features of the full tree or only liking some features of the previous seed!
And who can decide what is “clearly seen” at any point of development from seed to tree?
The magisterium of the Catholic Church united to the Pope as successor to Peter!
The magisterium of the Catholic church speaks authoratatively and independent of what Any Early church Father thought about anything.
When it speaks of mustard at any stage of development what it says is true and it doesn’t have to prove anything to people who live later on who have view of the entire tree.
It especially doesn’t have to prove anything to people who will not listen to it and listen to the church and most especially those who Choose not to even recognize the seed.
You know–the people who would deny that the Body and Blood of Jesus are in the Eucharist!
That is true regardless of any consent of the Early Church Fathers–even though anyone with any intelligence at all that reads them up until the Canon of scripture was adopted would know that such belief was Massively in evidence!
Bottom line: don’t believe people who lie about the Full Mustard Tree–don’t believe people who don’t even comprehend the original Mustard Seed–and don’t believe any agent of satan that would try to disprove the magisterium of the Catholic Church by seeing what they want to see in the Early Church Fathers.
Just remember: who would most want to divide the Catholic Church?
Satan!
The unity of the Catholic Church remains despite the naysayers who try to destroy that unity by lying about what the Early Church Fathers believed about the mustard seed as it grew into the Mustard Tree that we have today!
And yes that Tree continues to grow today bearing fruit as Jesus promised!
Hand out Bibles to people that know nothing of them and ask them if the Trinity is “clearly seen” by them.
If it isn’t does that invalidate the doctrine of the Trinity?
If any group of christians at any point in history does not grasp in fullness any doctrine–so what?
That doesn’t mean that the doctrine isn’t true!
That doesn’t mean it didn’t exist before!
If Christians of an early time believed in a mustard seed and christians of a later time believed in the full mustard tree the mustardness of the original seed is still a fact and is still mustard!
That fact doesn’t take christians of an earlier time having Full Knowledge of the mustard tree!
The Truth of Mustard from the seed to the tree is still truth in every developmental step along the way and one’s perception of the mustardness as one looks back in time has nothing to do with the objective reality of the thing in question always being mustard!
It also isn’t dependet on anyone who has knowlege of the tree either liking all or some of the features of the full tree or only liking some features of the previous seed!
And who can decide what is “clearly seen” at any point of development from seed to tree?
The magisterium of the Catholic Church united to the Pope as successor to Peter!
The magisterium of the Catholic church speaks authoratatively and independent of what Any Early church Father thought about anything.
When it speaks of mustard at any stage of development what it says is true and it doesn’t have to prove anything to people who live later on who have view of the entire tree.
It especially doesn’t have to prove anything to people who will not listen to it and listen to the church and most especially those who Choose not to even recognize the seed.
You know–the people who would deny that the Body and Blood of Jesus are in the Eucharist!
That is true regardless of any consent of the Early Church Fathers–even though anyone with any intelligence at all that reads them up until the Canon of scripture was adopted would know that such belief was Massively in evidence!
Bottom line: don’t believe people who lie about the Full Mustard Tree–don’t believe people who don’t even comprehend the original Mustard Seed–and don’t believe any agent of satan that would try to disprove the magisterium of the Catholic Church by seeing what they want to see in the Early Church Fathers.
Just remember: who would most want to divide the Catholic Church?
Satan!
The unity of the Catholic Church remains despite the naysayers who try to destroy that unity by lying about what the Early Church Fathers believed about the mustard seed as it grew into the Mustard Tree that we have today!
And yes that Tree continues to grow today bearing fruit as Jesus promised!
P
Philthy
Guest
Ohhh, the truth has to hurt!
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Jane scripture was scripture the moment it was penned.
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
You are absolutely correct. And, it was the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit which assembled the Scripture into one Book, declared it Sacred so the faithful would know it to be so, and dedicated the human and financial resources for it diligently and carefully copied and preserved it for our benefit.
C
cpayne
Guest
Maybe psychologically we’re asking a bit too much here. You have to admit that this would be an extraordinarily difficult point for someone to concede: that, under Christ, they owe their salvation and their scriptures directly to the Church to which they no longer belong.
S
savedsinner
Guest
I don’t think that you understood the thrust of her comment.
There was not a concession on which books were inspired.
The church had to hold several councils to work it out.
They did not make them inspired, but they with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, recognized which ones were inspired.
And you accept this decision of the Church as to which new testament books are inspired, and which were not, even though the fathers were not unanimous of the issue.
But I will go back to my original post on this thread of which issue the fathers were unanimous on, you didn’t make a comment on it.
They were unanimous of the fact that the heretics interpreted scripture apart from the traditions and teachings of the church.
T
Teflon93
Guest
It’s not that difficult. Many of us have come around.
And it’s not as if Protestants today stood in Luther and Calvin and Zwingli’s shoes and rejected the Church.
Fact is, most of them don’t really think about where the Bible came from. I know my wife and I didn’t. Needless to say, our various Protestant pastors really didn’t talk about that much.
J
Janet_S
Guest
From St Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory (AD 434):
newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm
Chapter 2 [5.] But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation?** For this reason,—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters.** For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation… . .
Chapter 25 [64.] Here, possibly, some one may ask, Do heretics also appeal to Scripture? They do indeed, and with a vengeance; for you may see them scamper through every single book of Holy Scripture,—through the books of Moses, the books of Kings, the Psalms, the Epistles, the Gospels, the Prophets. Whether among their own people, or among strangers, in private or in public, in speaking or in writing, at convivial meetings, or in the streets, hardly ever do they bring forward anything of their own which they do not endeavour to shelter under words of Scripture. Read the works of Paul of Samosata, of Priscillian, of Eunomius, of Jovinian, and the rest of those pests, and you will see an infinite heap of instances, hardly a single page, which does not bristle with plausible quotations from the New Testament or the Old… . .
[67.] Such were they whom the Apostle Paul rebukes in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians, when he says, “For of this sort are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.” 2 Corinthians 11:12 The apostles brought forward instances from Holy Scripture; these men did the same. The apostles cited the authority of the Psalms; these men did so likewise. The apostles brought forward passages from the prophets; these men still did the same. But when they began to interpret in different senses the passages which both had agreed in appealing to, then were discerned the guileless from the crafty, the genuine from the counterfeit, the straight from the crooked, then, in one word, the true apostles from the false apostles. “And no wonder,” he says, “for Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. It is no marvel then if his servants are transformed as the servants of righteousness.” Therefore, according to the authority of the Apostle Paul, as often as either false apostles or false teachers cite passages from the Divine Law, by means of which, misinterpreted, they seek to prop up their own errors, there is no doubt that they are following the cunning devices of their father, which assuredly he would never have devised, but that he knew that where he could fraudulently and by stealth introduce error, there is no easier way of effecting his impious purpose than by pretending the authority of Holy Scripture.
B
banjo
Guest
Steven K. Ray wrote an article on this, here is an excerpt.
Discussing certain variations in the interpretations of the Fathers, Pope Leo XIII (The Study of Holy Scripture, from the encyclical Providentissimus Deus, Nov., 1893) writes, “Because the defense of Holy Scripture must be carried on vigorously, all the opinions which the individual Fathers or the recent interpreters have set forth in explaining it need not be maintained equally. For they, in interpreting passages where physical matters are concerned have made judgments according to the opinions of the age, and thus not always according to truth, so that they have made statements which today are not approved. Therefore, we must carefully discern what they hand down which really pertains to faith or is intimately connected with it, and what they hand down with unanimous consent; for ‘in those matters which are not under the obligation of faith, the saints were free to have different opinions, just as we are,’ according to the opinion of St. Thomas.”
you can read the entire piece on his website at…
catholic-convert.com/Default.aspx?tabid=83
Scroll down to “Unanimous Consent of the Fathers” dated 7/31/2006
Discussing certain variations in the interpretations of the Fathers, Pope Leo XIII (The Study of Holy Scripture, from the encyclical Providentissimus Deus, Nov., 1893) writes, “Because the defense of Holy Scripture must be carried on vigorously, all the opinions which the individual Fathers or the recent interpreters have set forth in explaining it need not be maintained equally. For they, in interpreting passages where physical matters are concerned have made judgments according to the opinions of the age, and thus not always according to truth, so that they have made statements which today are not approved. Therefore, we must carefully discern what they hand down which really pertains to faith or is intimately connected with it, and what they hand down with unanimous consent; for ‘in those matters which are not under the obligation of faith, the saints were free to have different opinions, just as we are,’ according to the opinion of St. Thomas.”
you can read the entire piece on his website at…
catholic-convert.com/Default.aspx?tabid=83
Scroll down to “Unanimous Consent of the Fathers” dated 7/31/2006
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
We no more needed the consent of the fathers for the NT than Jesus needed any consent for the OT scriptures.
J
JaneFrances
Guest
To which OT Scriptures are you referring? Just the ones Jesus quoted?
S
savedsinner
Guest
Which old testament are you referring to?
The Hebrew, the Greek, or just the books of the Law which the sagisees accepted? Or maybe the Version of the old testament which the Authors of the New Testament quoted from?
And which of the 35 - 42 books which were in circulation through out all the different churches at the time of the canonization of the New Testament would you be referring to?
Not to be too rude, but that was just a clueless answer.
I have read many of your posts and I know that you can do better than that.
J
Janet_S
Guest
Many people take the Bible for granted just like they take electricity for granted:
–I get electricity when I turn on a switch.
–I get the Bible when I purchase it from a Christian book store. I’m not sure how, but it came to us directly from God.
There’s a lot more to the story.
–Electricity is a secondary energy source which comes to us from the conversion of other energy sources.
–The Bible came to us from God the Holy Spirit** through the Church.** It was translated, preserved, and protected** by the Church.** Discerning which books were inspired was a process undertaken by the Church. Not all books we now have in our Bible were accepted by all Christians (Hebrews, James, Revelation for example.) Likewise, some books considered by some Christians to be inspired were not accepted by the Church (Didache, Shepherd of Hermes, Letter of Barnabus for example.)
Since there were no Protestants until the 1500’s, that means the inspiration of the Bible was discerned by non-Protestant Christians. Also the Bible was translated, preserved, and protected by non-Protestant Christians–Catholics and Orthodox–at least for the first 1500 years of Christianity.
Protestants got the Bible from the Catholic Church. Even Martin Luther acknowledges this:
To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.
–I get electricity when I turn on a switch.
–I get the Bible when I purchase it from a Christian book store. I’m not sure how, but it came to us directly from God.
There’s a lot more to the story.
–Electricity is a secondary energy source which comes to us from the conversion of other energy sources.
–The Bible came to us from God the Holy Spirit** through the Church.** It was translated, preserved, and protected** by the Church.** Discerning which books were inspired was a process undertaken by the Church. Not all books we now have in our Bible were accepted by all Christians (Hebrews, James, Revelation for example.) Likewise, some books considered by some Christians to be inspired were not accepted by the Church (Didache, Shepherd of Hermes, Letter of Barnabus for example.)
Since there were no Protestants until the 1500’s, that means the inspiration of the Bible was discerned by non-Protestant Christians. Also the Bible was translated, preserved, and protected by non-Protestant Christians–Catholics and Orthodox–at least for the first 1500 years of Christianity.
Protestants got the Bible from the Catholic Church. Even Martin Luther acknowledges this:
The Bible didn’t appear in the book store miraculously assembled and neatly bound. To think so is to be a-historical.
To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.
T
Teflon93
Guest
Certainly was in my case!
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Whose version of history Janet?
R
Rbt_Southwell
Guest
So, myfavoritemartin, which manuscripts do we give primacy to over the others (since we have old but not original copies)?
Which ending in St Mark’s Gospel do you think is the correct one?
The Shorter version? Or the longer one?
And while we’re at it; are you SDA? Many of your statements sound exactly like my sister-in-law’s when she is discussing her faith with my brother.
Robert
C
Calvinator
Guest
Out of curiosity, has your church ruled infallibly on any of the questions you are posing?
R
Rbt_Southwell
Guest
Calvinator,
No the Church has not. It is not a question of ‘infallibility’ since the Word (Jesus) came before the assembling of the Scripture.
Both endings are given in all Catholic bibles. I can’t speak for Protestant versions, maybe you can enlighten me.
Remember, Calvinator, The early Catholic Church (before the Great Schism and later Protestant break) assembled the Canon from many Jewish scrolls and putative post-Resurrection codices.
The Gospel of Mary didn’t make the cut. Neither did the Gospel of Thomas.
The books which were assembled were because of TWO very important criteria:
One: Jesus and the Apostles referenced them through allusions and quotations (from the Septuagint, what we call now the OT), and,
Two: Only those books in the NT which dovetailed (nice image huh? a little paraclete-ism!) with what the Church taught that Jesus told them to teach was included.
Thus we have a Bible to reflect what the Church taught and needed to teach and spread the Gospel, not as a how-to-be-your-own-pastor-of-a-church handbook.
Robert
- Status