Non-Catholics: How do you know that the words of Jesus are true?

[benhur]

You always thought in the past that it meant that men were infallible (and perhaps impeccable) of their own accord.

Not really, but you still hold they are impeccable because of “office” on faith and morals.

Now you realize that God can use men to be infallible.

Yes, and quite conditionally. Apparently Barnabus did *not *meet the same conditions of Luke or Paul’s writings. Now if we would just stick to tighter conditions as the first Church did in determining true revelation and inspiration on faith and morals.

 

[icamhif]

How does that tell you that 1 and 2 Clement are not inspired?

It implies that I need to trust in the testimony of Christians in the first four centuries (including the Council of Carthage) in order to be confident that 1 and 2 Clement are not inspired.

(Of course, just because a document is not inspired, does not mean it teaches heresy,but that’s another topic for another thread.)

 

[PRmerger]

Not really, but you still hold they are impeccable because of “office” on faith and morals.

Absolutely NOT.

Please disabuse yourself of this idea right now.

Yes, and quite conditionally

Apparently Barnabus did *not *meet the same conditions of Luke or Paul’s writings.

What are these conditions?

And how did you come to know these conditions?

And please make sure that the author of Hebrews meets these conditions, too.

 

[PRmerger]

Why not be content to be (by your own confession)…"… a Christian…" and allow the Holy Spirit to guide you into a denomination, where you may …"…grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen." …2 Peter 3:18

Protector.

Because Christ spent 3 years trying to preach Truth and gave us a Church.

If you don’t want to be part of the Church He established, why be a Christian at all?

It ought to be supremely important to follow the right teachings He taught.

Right now, with the tens of thousands of Christian denominations, you don’t know what Christ wants you to believe on:

• Abortion
• Attend weekly services, don’t have to go to Church
• Baptism (sprinkling? Immersion? Infant? Adult? Sacrament? Ordinance? In Jesus’ name only? Using Trinitarian formula?)
• Charity or no charity (help one another or let them help themselves?)
• Church leadership, or no leadership
• Death/Soul Sleep
• Did Jesus use wine or grape juice at the Last Supper
• Divorce
• Drinking allowed, drinking not allowed
• Head coverings or no head coverings
• Health and wealth gospel
• Hell, or no hell
• Homosexuality
• Is God‘s Holy Name Jehovah
• Judge others, don’t judge others
• Lord’s day on Saturday or Sunday
• Music or no music (Singing or no singing)
• Once saved, always saved
• Ordination
• Predestination
• Rapture
• Sola scriptura/private interpretation
• The Eucharist (Communion)
• Tongues (some believe others are not saved if they don’t speak in tongues)
• Trinity vs. Unitarianism
• What’s a sin, what is not a sin
• When to celebrate the Lord’s Day
• Women pastors, no women pastors

---

 

[benhur]

Well, ben, your paradigm apparently is that you don’t need a Church to tell you what’s theopneustos.

 

[PRmerger]

It implies that I need to trust in the testimony of Christians in the first four centuries (including the Council of Carthage) in order to be confident that 1 and 2 Clement are not inspired.

And that is nothing but another way of saying, “I believe in Sacred Tradition”. And that also presumes that you are now no longer a Sola Scriptura advocate.

And that also presupposes that you do acknowledge that the charism of infallibility has been given to the Church.

At least, as it applies to the canon of the NT.

 

[PRmerger]

No, do not give up so easily.

I’m ok with your acknowledgement that men can be given the charism of infallibility.

And please understand that when you connect the dots you have to acknowledge that you are no longer a Sola Scriptura advocate.

 

[rcwitness]

Why not be content to be (by your own confession)…"… a Christian…" and allow the Holy Spirit to guide you into a denomination, where you may …"…grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen." …2 Peter 3:18

Protector.

You realize you just attempted to make Peter appear to suggest the Holy Spirit supports denominations?

We don’t believe the Holy Spirit guides people into a community which is out of Communion with the Universal Church.

Yes, people are born into those communities and some people want to learn about God and worship Him in those communities. And the Holy Spirit is accepted by men and women in those communities.

Yet that is different from saying God leads them there and that they are following the Holy Spirit in ALL things.

 

[benhur]

benhur;13060793:

The canon didn’t “need” re-affirming.

It simply was re-affirmed.

And re-affirmed.

And re-affirmed.

But numerous men.

Over a multitude of years.

And you submit to their authority each and every time you quote from the NT as theopneustos.

Perhaps secondarily, but primarily because they it is reasonable to believe they got it right ,irregardless of them being Catholic or not, or by any other name.

 

[icamhif]

And that is nothing but another way of saying, “I believe in Sacred Tradition”. And that also presumes that you are now no longer a Sola Scriptura advocate.

And that also presupposes that you do acknowledge that the charism of infallibility has been given to the Church.

At least, as it applies to the canon of the NT.

You are correct that I am no longer a Sola Sciptura advocate.

As for the rest of your points, you fail to acknowledge the fact that there are varying degrees of trust. Historians and scholars use the method of probability; they get much of their history from ancient documents that are also “polluted” with mythical elements, or even inaccurate details. They can trust that the recorded events are overall accurate, without taking at face-value all of the nit-picky details. In the same way, I can believe that what St. Polycarp says is overall trustworthy, without taking his word for everything he says. I don’t believe he’s infallible, but I believe that he at least deserves some respect for being a direct disciple of St. John.

 

[rcwitness]

PRmerger;13060804:

Perhaps secondarily, but primarily because they it is reasonable to believe they got it right ,irregardless of them being Catholic or not, or by any other name.

That seems to suggest that God left His Written Word established by chance. And that it may not have been Confirmed. That seems very shakey for christians who claim the Bible is the only rule of faith.

 

[benhur]

Yet that is different from saying God leads them there and that they are following the Holy Spirit in ALL things.

Correct. Only the Catholic Church teaches it has been perfectly led in all things on faith and morals by the Holy Spirit.

But part of Protector’s quote emphasizes not so much the method but who gets the glory . Reminds me of one of the five reformations"alone’'s, “For God’s glory alone”.

Blessings

 

[PRmerger]

You are correct that I am no longer a Sola Sciptura advocate.

Excellent!

As for the rest of your points, you fail to acknowledge the fact that there are varying degrees of trust. Historians and scholars use the method of probability; they get much of their history from ancient documents that are also “polluted” with mythical elements, or even inaccurate details. They can trust that the recorded events are overall accurate, without taking at face-value all of the nit-picky details. In the same way, I can believe that what St. Polycarp says is overall trustworthy, without taking his word for everything he says. I don’t believe he’s infallible, but I believe that he at least deserves some respect for being a direct disciple of St. John.

All true.

But that doesn’t explain how you know that the writings of Polycarp are NOT inspired but the epistle to the Hebrews is.

You know this through 1 way only: you trust in the authority of the Church.

 

[benhur]

You are correct that I am no longer a Sola Sciptura advocate.

 

[rcwitness]

Correct. Only the Catholic Church teaches it has been perfectly led in all things on faith and morals by the Holy Spirit.

But part of Protector’s quote emphasizes not so much the method but who gets the glory . Reminds me of one of the five reformations"alone’'s, “For God’s glory alone”.

Blessings

Ok, that would be putting a different intention on things.

We should do ALL things for God’s glory, yes! Amen.

Yet, ‘alone’ can be used deceptively, no?

For example, we should love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind and soul and Him only shall we serve. But this doesn’t exclude serving the needs of our neighbor.

Or doesn’t Paul acknowledge that we ought to give honor to some and double honor to other’s?

So the whole ‘alone’ business and jargon can be a bit of a scapegoat, I think.

 

[icamhif]

But that doesn’t explain how you know that the writings of Polycarp are NOT inspired but the epistle to the Hebrews is.

You know this through 1 way only: you trust in the authority of the Church.

Inspiration and reliability are two different issues. That is probably why we’ve been talking past each other.

 

[rcwitness]

Inspiration and reliability are two different issues. That is probably why we’ve been talking past each other.

Right.

Funny how all these denominations naturally agree (without the need of the Catholic Infallible Confirmation) on what writings made Scripture, but they can’t all be one body.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You are right that mainstream scholars are divided on whether Jesus even claimed to be God in the New Testament. Even the Scriptural proof-texts for Christ’s claim of divinity should come as at least somewhat cryptic to anyone who is neutral about the topic.

It is undeniably clear that doctrines developed in some way, shape, or form. The only question is in what way they develop. The Early Church may not have officially used the word “Trinity” before the Arian controversy, but there is good evidence from Fathers like Ignatius and Tertullian that they understood at least the basic concepts of it.

The question then becomes: Did the Council of Nicea develop the doctrine of the Trinity in the sense that it only took what has always been believed by the Church, and put it into more explicit and formal terminology? Or, did they actually develop the doctrine as a new understanding that was not recognized as Apostolic, beforehand?

These subtle questions are getting beyond my paygrade (I did a Masters equiv in Theology/Ch History).

I think the philosophic scaffolding and concepts required to tread carefully between the two great anathema’s of Judaism only started to be wheeled in by the time John wrote his Gospel. He clearly borrowed concepts of Greek philosophy (“Logos”) to explain how it was not anathema to say that a man could be claim to be the Creator of the Universe without:
(a) denying monotheism (there is only one God, not two or three)
(b) that God is pure Spirit

If Jesus ever came out and directly claimed to be, like God, the eternally existing Creator of the Universe, he would have been written off as a miracle working madman without followers. He was afterall stoned simply for implicitly claiming to be a prohphet. Hence the cryptic divinity claims in the NT… which may well have been formulated much less cryptically by John only at the end of his life and placed on the lips of Jesus in his Gospel.

Personally I believe the foundation of Christianity is really the Resurrection, not Jesus’s substantial unity with the Godhead. Obviously the Resurrection heavily contributed to the eventual explicitation and open preaching of Jesus’s complete one-ness with the OT Godhead at Nicea.

However, considered in isolation, the Resurrection of itself would not seem to essentially demand unity with the Godhead of the one resurrected. Indeed, it seems it was not originally interpretted that way but was first used to affirm Jesus’s Messianic claims.

What the leading apostles thought personally (if in their heart of hearts they eventually understood Jesus’s very confusing actions/words on this point) must have been extremely difficult to preach directly to the crowds (esp friendly Jews). How exactly would one preach that Jesus was God (as we understand that correlation now) and not be accused of polytheism and be anathematised and rejected?
How would one reject such an accusation…that is why Nicea was 300 years in the making.
Only then could the Trinity be asserted without also logically asserting polytheism.

 

[adf417]

icamhif;13060881:

Hi i

I am not an SS either, at least* not *

by PR’s and others presumed definition. Otherwise yes.

Blessings

WHAT!!! another definition of SS?

 

[benhur]

That seems to suggest that God left His Written Word established by chance. And that it may not have been Confirmed. That seems very shakey for christians who claim the Bible is the only rule of faith.

Hi rcw,

Let’s not confuse the giving of His word with the receiving of it. The giving is unconditional. The Great I am gave it. Although He does not give it again, write it again, He does in accordance to that name, I am, continue to guide it’s reception and preservation and understanding and that is conditional. So there is no problem with His Word, and it is not by chance that anything good happens with it. It can be confirmed. Just because I do not see it thru your paradigm does not negate or make my paradigm shaky, but in fact makes it firmer than ever. It really is in His hands, and can there be any better "hands’, to illumine the Body and each of it’s members as to the veracity of His Written Word, and to any tradition regarding it, unto every generation ?

Blessings