non-Catholic Christians - "Did You Know"?

[justasking4]

ChristianRoots;3377812]

Quote:justasking4
Not necessarily so. For example we know more the World War 2 today than the person who lived through it and died in 1947. The reason is that we have had more and more data to look at that has come to light years after the war. The samething will also problably happen for 9-11. Even though we may have lived through it later historians will have access to far more material than we currently have available to us.

ChristianRoots
Unfortunately, this is how bias is also introduced to historical events. The danger now is someone starts giving his HIS OWN interpetation. How do we know which data appealed to him more (subconsciously, psychologically, etc.) in determining his results? Which data did he pay less attention to? Did he have an agenda to say things happened a certain way?

Just because an historian may have a bias does not rule out he can report history correctly. All historians have bias’. Actually some of the best history is done by “biased” people. Take the Jews who survived the holacaust. Their accounts of it are some of the best records we have of it.

And by the way this can work the other way as well:

If given the opportunity, would you rather interview a college professor about D-Day in the year 2044, or would you rather interview someone who actually took part in the invasion of June 6, 1944 in the year 1947?

It depends what you are after. The prof in 1944 would have a “limited” first person expierence of his life on that day. The prof in 2044 would have more knowldege about that day because he has more sources to study after 100 years.

Quote:justasking4
Its not necessary for people to believe His message to be saved and follow Him to have this indepth knowledge.

ChristianRoots
???

If it’s not necessary for people to have in-depth knowledge to follow Jesus except to believe His message, then why so much emphasis on bibilical study tools, or referring to early Christians as having an incomplete faith because they did not have all the current 27 books of the New Testament in their possession?

I’m addressing the issue of how much is known and how it is known. The Christians of the 1st -2nd centuries were limited in knowledge in what they could know. Christians of our era are not so limited but have a far greater knowledge base to understand things that did not.

Quote:justasking4
That certainly is possible. Lets take Jerome as an example. When he translated the Vulgate he was most likely alone and had a small and limited manuscripts to work with. It was a good translation. Today, we have more scholars, more manuscripts and greater technology to go even deeper and farther than he did.
Even though he lived closer to the events than we do we still have the advantage in scholarship etc to produce more accurate translations than he did.

ChristianRoots
I guess it’s safe to say you would rather live in the future, say ca. A.D. 3050 (according to you we will have a better translation of the Bible than now) rather than A.D. 400. Not me.

It depends what you want. If want to be a knowledgeable Christian then living today with all the resources available would be far superior to living in 400. If you lived in 400 most likely you would not own a complete copy of the Scriptures nor have had a chance to read the words of Christ.

Quote:justasking4
I agree that would be cool. However the Christian of today can have so much more if he-she is willing to avail himself to the resources that are available. To think that you can have your own personal copy of the entire Scripture is a treasure that Christians in the 1st 1500 years of church history would have most likely died for.

Depends what you mean by in depth knowledge? You can have a deep expierence of Christ but you will need the Scriptures to do so. See I Peter 2:2

And by the way, many people were illterate during the first 1500 years of the Christian era, you know with no printing press and all. Education to become literate was a full-time job and consequently was just for people who had the time and money.

 

[Lampo]

By Christ. He gives gifts to the church for its ediification and building it up. All Christians have some kind of gift from Christ.

Please show me the chapter and verse that shows Christ making you an authentic interpreter of Scripture.

What is the basis for this? Where explicitedly did Jesus teach the church would always be infallible in all that it teaches?

The magisterium is infallible when it teaches officially because Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles and their successors “into all truth” (John 16:12–13). What do you think 1 Tim. 3:15 means?

You can either risk on the inspired-inerrant Scripture…

Who told you what books were inspired-inerrant?

…or fallible men who lead your church. Thats a choice you will have to make since no one is infallible.

You come to this conclusion that the Pope is not infallible on your own fallible interpretation of Scripture, correct? Therefore, you could be wrong, correct?

Not just scripture but history shows evidence of it to.

So you are fallible when reading history too? Again, you *think * the Church is wrong on your own fallible interpretation. Maybe we should take all of our disagreements on Scripture to the pillar and bullwark of truth. Do you think the pillar and bullwark of truth has said whether the Pope is infallible?

 

[Lampo]

The prof in 2044 would have more knowldege about that day because he has more sources to study after 100 years.

It appears you are beginning to understand why doctrines develop in the Church! (the mustard seed?)

 

[Lampo]

The prof in 1944 would have a “limited” first person expierence of his life on that day. The prof in 2044 would have more knowldege about that day because he has more sources to study after 100 years.

What if everything was not written down or recorded, such as some of the oral teachings of Jesus and the Apostles? An example is the Canon of Scripture.

 

[guanophore]

What is the basis for this? Where explicitedly did Jesus teach the church would always be infallible in all that it teaches?

You already admitted on another thread that you believe Jesus gave His Spirit to the Apostles to guide them after His departure. Do you think the HS is too weak to guide them into all truth?

“When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.” John 16:13-15

You can either risk on the inspired-inerrant Scripture or fallible men who lead your church. Thats a choice you will have to make since no one is infallible.

Jesus is, ja4, and it is He who is the Head of the Church, not any fallible man. And the gift of the HS to guide into all truth (infallibility) is irrevocable. Denying this is a denial of the power of God to work through the clay vessels He has created.

Not just scripture but history shows evidence of it to.

History shows evidence of individuals misunderstanding scripture, and of individuals sinning against Christ, and His Church. But, since the Church has Christ as her head, an the HS as her soul, she cannot err.

 

[guanophore]

If you lived in 400 most likely you would not own a complete copy of the Scriptures nor have had a chance to read the words of Christ.

Sure you could! If you were rich, you could buy one, or if you were impoverished, you could go to the monastery, and spend all your days copying them by candlelight!

Depends what you mean by in depth knowledge? You can have a deep expierence of Christ but you will need the Scriptures to do so. See I Peter 2:2

It is a good thing that this is not true, because otherwise having a deep experience of God would be limited to the scriptures, which it is not. Pure spiritual milk is found in the Teachings of Jesus, some of which are represented in scripture, though not all. It is helpful to remember that the NT had not been compiled when this verse was written. the early church had the whole Gospel, even before a word of it had ever been written.

 

[ChristianRoots]

I’m addressing the issue of how much is known and how it is known. The Christians of the 1st -2nd centuries were limited in knowledge in what they could know. Christians of our era are not so limited but have a far greater knowledge base to understand things that did not.

You are pretty much saying here that sometime in the future, people will refer to your faith in 2008 as being incomplete.

 

[CentralFLJames]

You are pretty much saying here that sometime in the future, people will refer to your faith in 2008 as being incomplete.

Concur with your assessment. What he is pretty much saying is that in the time it took the Catholic Church to get where it was today it will take Protestants to 1,500 more years into the future since the Protestant rebellion was only 500 years ago. So if Protestants are diligent by about the year 3508 they might advance in their theology to rediscover Catholicism and be where Catholicism is now in 2008. That is, assuming they don’t study themselves into truth and disbanding sooner rather than later and rejoining the Catholic Church. I just hope they figure it all out while we are still here on earth.

James

 

[Lampo]

Yes. Just as everyone else who reads and studies it.

I should clarify what I mean by “authentic interpreter” of Scripture. Here is your quote:

Thats why we need teachers who can rightly discern and teach the Word.

You then said you are such a teacher. That’s a pretty good definition of what I mean by “authentic interpreter.” Doesn’t “rightly discerning” the Bible mean that you are correctly interpreting the Bible? You later go on to say that you are fallible and could be incorrect in all of your interpretations. How can you be right in discerning the Word of God if you could be wrong? That makes no sense to me.

You go by scripture alone, yet knowing that you could be wrong in 100% of your interpretation of it! That torchers logic. “Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation…” - 2 Peter 1:20.

JA4 is not the pillar and bullwark of truth. “But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” - 1 Tim. 3:15

JA4 was not promised to be guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth.
“When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.” - John 16:13-15

 

[Lampo]

Secondly, catholics believe all kinds of different things about their church. Some say you must believe everything and others say not. Some say your conscience is your supreme guide while others say no.

G.K. Chesterton said something to the effect of, “You can’t reject *part *of the Catholic Church without rejecting *all *of the Catholic Church.”

 

[justasking4]

You are pretty much saying here that sometime in the future, people will refer to your faith in 2008 as being incomplete.

Not necessarily to the faith being incomplete but in the future they may discover more manuscripts for example. For catholics this has been true. There are doctrines catholics believe today that were unknown to earlier catholics.

 

[justasking4]

What if everything was not written down or recorded, such as some of the oral teachings of Jesus and the Apostles? An example is the Canon of Scripture.

Then we couldn’t say we know what it is by now since oral teachings would not have been able to survive the centuries without corruption.

 

[justasking4]

G.K. Chesterton said something to the effect of, “You can’t reject *part *of the Catholic Church without rejecting *all *of the Catholic Church.”

How does this follow?

 

[justasking4]

Lampo;3378937]I should clarify what I mean by “authentic interpreter” of Scripture. Here is your quote:
You then said you are such a teacher. That’s a pretty good definition of what I mean by “authentic interpreter.” Doesn’t “rightly discerning” the Bible mean that you are correctly interpreting the Bible? You later go on to say that you are fallible and could be incorrect in all of your interpretations. How can you be right in discerning the Word of God if you could be wrong? That makes no sense to me.

Have you ever gone to a catholic bible study that was taught by someone in your church? If so, was the person who was teaching infallilbe?

You go by scripture alone, yet knowing that you could be wrong in 100% of your interpretation of it! That torchers logic. “Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation…” - 2 Peter 1:20.

Has your church infallibly interpreted 2 Peter 1:20? If not, are you not giving your “personal interpretation” of it?

JA4 is not the pillar and bullwark of truth. “But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” - 1 Tim. 3:15

Am i not part of the church? What is your personal interpretation of this passage?

JA4 was not promised to be guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth.
“When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.” - John 16:13-15

This is true. Only the discuples were promised this. There is no mention here of any later generation would be promised this.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3378006]
Originally Posted by justasking4
What is the basis for this? Where explicitedly did Jesus teach the church would always be infallible in all that it teaches?

guanophore
You already admitted on another thread that you believe Jesus gave His Spirit to the Apostles to guide them after His departure. Do you think the HS is too weak to guide them into all truth?

no

“When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.” John 16:13-15

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
You can either risk on the inspired-inerrant Scripture or fallible men who lead your church. Thats a choice you will have to make since no one is infallible.

guanophore
Jesus is, ja4, and it is He who is the Head of the Church, not any fallible man. And the gift of the HS to guide into all truth (infallibility) is irrevocable. Denying this is a denial of the power of God to work through the clay vessels He has created.

Notice the context of the promise. It was specifically to the disciples—here is the passage;

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you." John 16:13-15

The colored-bolded text is the object of the promise to. The “you” in the passage are the disciples and not anyone else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Not just scripture but history shows evidence of it to.

guanophore
History shows evidence of individuals misunderstanding scripture, and of individuals sinning against Christ, and His Church. But, since the Church has Christ as her head, an the HS as her soul, she cannot err.

You are contradiction yourself here. The church is made up of individuals who even you admit have erred. These individuals have misundestood and have taught error in the church itself which clearly demonstrates the church has erred.

 

[justasking4]

Concur with your assessment. What he is pretty much saying is that in the time it took the Catholic Church to get where it was today it will take Protestants to 1,500 more years into the future since the Protestant rebellion was only 500 years ago. So if Protestants are diligent by about the year 3508 they might advance in their theology to rediscover Catholicism and be where Catholicism is now in 2008. That is, assuming they don’t study themselves into truth and disbanding sooner rather than later and rejoining the Catholic Church. I just hope they figure it all out while we are still here on earth.

James

I don’t think you will see protestants going the same direction as the catholic church has. I doubt you will see in protestant churches by 3508 the marian dogmas, purgatory etc. Some might embrace all these unbiblical doctrines but i don’t think all will. But who knows…

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3378025]

Originally Posted by justasking4
If you lived in 400 most likely you would not own a complete copy of the Scriptures nor have had a chance to read the words of Christ.

guanophore
Sure you could! If you were rich, you could buy one, or if you were impoverished, you could go to the monastery, and spend all your days copying them by candlelight!

How many people do you think did this? How many of the common people who were struggling to put bread on the table would be able to do this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Depends what you mean by in depth knowledge? You can have a deep expierence of Christ but you will need the Scriptures to do so. See I Peter 2:2

guanophore
It is a good thing that this is not true, because otherwise having a deep experience of God would be limited to the scriptures, which it is not. Pure spiritual milk is found in the Teachings of Jesus, some of which are represented in scripture, though not all.

Do you believe then that believing in purgatory, marian doctrines, having statutes, praying to saints who have died, etc are some of the teachings of Jesus?

It is helpful to remember that the NT had not been compiled when this verse was written. the early church had the whole Gospel, even before a word of it had ever been written.

Not sure i understand you here. What do you mean when you write–“the early church had the whole Gospel, even before a word of it had ever been written”?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3375687]
Originally Posted by justasking4
What are the teachings of the apostles not recorded in the Scriptures? Where can i find them?

guanophore
You can find them in the prayers and practices of the Apostolic Faiths. These are the places where the teachings of the Apostles have been preserved.

Can you give me a specific prayer of an apostle that is not in Scripture?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Thats why we need teachers who can rightly discern and teach the Word.

guanophore
And how is one to identify an appropriate teacher?

He is to be strong in Christ, he is to be an example and not a new convert would be some signs of a teacher. It would also follow that he knows the Scriptures well and has studied them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
No need to. As i said previously we need teachers. Christ gave the church pastor-teachers to teach His word correctly to His people.

guanophore
Agreed, but how are they to be distinguished from the false teachers? How does one know they are not just having “itching ears” and gravitating to what is comfortable?

Test the teachers teaching with the scriptures. Are they using the scriptures correctly i.e. in context for example. If not, then this is a sign of a false teaching.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
The Christians of today can know far more about the faith than those who were closer in time to the events.

guanophore
This is an anti-Catholic myth that you have been taught, ja4. It is one of the foundation stones of Protestantism. On the contrary, Jesus explained everything to His Apostles, and they entrusted that message to faithful men who were able to teach others also.

It not an anti-catholic myth but a fact. Do you deny that a Christian of today who has the complete Bible in his possession, reads and studies it will have a greater understanding of a Christian in the second century who did not even have in his possession little if any scripture?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
We have far more at our disposal in terms of knowledge than anyone in the ancient past.
The sad thing about this is that so many Christians don’t avail themselves to the vast treasure. People in the 2nd century did not have their own Bibles and many churches didn’t either and yet today in the US many people have multiple copies of them and yet don’t read or study them.

guanophore
I agree with you, it is sad that more people do not even open the Bibles in the house. However, knowledge of God and relation with God is not reached by reading and study.

On what do you base this on?

God reaches out to use through his Divine Revelation. this is found in the Apostolic Teaching.

Is not that “Divine Revelation” the Scriptures at least?

Some of it may also be reflected in books, and one should study, but thinking that we can come into the fulness of faith by academic resources is hubris.

i never said this. You need the scriptures to determine if what people claim to be expierencing is of Christ or of their own minds or of the evil one. If that expierence or teaching is not supported by the inspired-inerrant Word of God it is to be rejected.

 

[richardwy]

we are constantly trying to seek the truth.

It’s not hard to find.

 

[Lampo]

Then we couldn’t say we know what it is by now since oral teachings would not have been able to survive the centuries without corruption.

But the Church founded by Jesus Christ *does *say such a thing and it has passed on the the oral teachings of Jesus and the Apostles without corruption.