Objective Truth in Scripture

[NDfan]

OK. Then let’s use the “reasonable man” standard. By the evidence we DO have, a “reasonable man” would conclude that it is far more consistent with the facts to believe that the Resurrection DID happen than that it did not.

Untrue. There are plenty of reasonable people that don’t believe in the resurrection. This is your opinion. You and I believe this but it is not based on reason. It’s based on our Faith.

In John 14, Jesus is speaking only to the Eleven. Nobody else is recorded as being in the room.

And your point is?? So when Jesus tells the Apostles he is building a church it was only for them and not us? This is a ridiculous statement. You’re assuming that Jesus only intended it for the Apostles. Jesus never spoke to Stephen, Barnabus, Luke, Mark etc. etc. Does that mean the work they did was invalid because Jesus did not speak to them directly??

Matthew 28 tells us that only the Eleven were on the mountain to receive Jesus’ command to teach and his promise to be “with you to the end of the age.”

So again Jesus is only with the 11 to the end of the age and not us??

YES the Great Commission is the work of the whole Church. But we ain’t doin’ our job if our “teaching” is not united with the teaching of the Apostles and their successors – and in communion with the one who was entrusted to stengthen the brethren. Christians are not free-lancers.

Yes we should be one I agree 100%. But we are not. And you can’t show me that everything the RCC teaches is in line with the Apostles. You still haven’t answered my simple question on Genesis 3. John clearly writes in his gospel and revelations that Jesus defeats satan who is the serpent. But the RCC teaches that it is Mary who crushes the serpents head. Hmmm wonder who is right John or the RCC

There is ample documentation (the same documentation that ratifies the Resurrection) that the Church that came into being at Pentecost is the same Church that we know as the Catholic Church today. That’s not theology. That’s just history.That is not how doctrinal development works. If it were not for doctrinal development you would not believe in the Holy Trinity.No. No. No. That is NOT how it works. Trust me. This was not about Jesus in a smoke filled room telling the apostles things that they would pass on in secret and then just drop into the doctrinal corpus some time in the future.

Again which documentation is this?? As far as the Trinity yes I would still believe in it. Why because the Trinity is in the Bible. I may not call GOD the Father, the Son, and The Spirit by that name but I would still believe in its existence.

As far as doctrinal development you can’t create doctrine that contradicts scripture or that doesn’t exist in scripture. You act like our Faith is still evolving and that Jesus is still revealing truths about our Faith that gets put into new doctrine. Do you know how ridiculous a statement that is? That would mean 2000 years ago or just 500 years ago people were living with an incomplete Faith. With regard to your smoke filled room, that is the implication given when you state that oral teachings have been passed down that are not written. That they are a special revelation no one was supposed to write down.

A LOT of Catholics have an exaggerated notion of “oral” tradition.

Very exaggerated. Glad we agree.

But we CAN show continuity of development. There definitely IS a paper trail.

Again which paper trail?

It “subsists” fully in the RCC. Everything else is something “other” than the Apostolic faith. Less. More. “A different gospel.”

That’s based on the assumption that the RCC has never deviated from anything the Apostles ever ever taught. You can’t prove that. There is no paper trail of that at all. Did the Apostles teach Mary defeats satan? No. Did the Apostles teach indulgences? No. I can keep going and going.

 

[Trinitarian]

That’s an interesting way to put it but there’s only one problem. You’re assuming that the RCC has the absolute infallible truth to begin with. You can’t make that claim unless you yourself are infallible which you are not. So then how do you know that what Protestants are protesting is not a corrupt truth of the RCC and that they (the protestant) in fact have the real truth??

I have to disagree with you to a point. I can not know, though I can reason it, that the Church is in absolute possession of the truth put I need not be infallible to recognize corruption of the truth. I do not have to be flawless to recognize flaws.

Christ told the Church, if scripture is to be believed, that he would protect her from error. That is either truth or it is not.

 

[NDfan]

ND,
Not to derail, but I have been reading along. What was the early church? Where did it go? What faith were the ECFs?

The early church was the Christian church which eventually became known as the catholic church. Catholic being universal. The ECFs surely were part of this church. But I would contend that it wasn’t the Roman Catholic church. If anything it was probably the Orthodox church. But Ralphinal that doesn’t mean that the church never errored. The Roman Catholic church became very political in nature and skewed from it’s mission. Popes were more worried about dominating the state instead of just focusing on the church. That’s why the Monasteries became so prominent. They wanted to get back to grass roots worship of Jesus. It’s also what gave rise to Islam. Instead of spreading the Gospel outward towards the rural areas which is where the majority of the muslims came from, the church concentrated on the more urban areas.

I’m not saying we throw away the Roman Catholic Church. But I also believe they have errored seriously with some doctrines. To not make a correction because some Pope wanted to be considered infallible is no excuse. I think we have the Catholic (universal) church at the top and then the Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, the Protestants, the non-denominationals all underneath that umbrella of Christianity.

 

[mercygate]

Untrue. There are plenty of reasonable people that don’t believe in the resurrection. This is your opinion. You and I believe this but it is not based on reason. It’s based on our Faith.

I’m not taking faith out of the equation. But it IS reasonable, in view of the evidence, to believe in the Resurrection.

And your point is?? So when Jesus tells the Apostles he is building a church it was only for them and not us? This is a ridiculous statement. You’re assuming that Jesus only intended it for the Apostles. Jesus never spoke to Stephen, Barnabus, Luke, Mark etc. etc. Does that mean the work they did was invalid because Jesus did not speak to them directly??

No. But we do not receive the faith in a vacuum. THE faith is passed along in Communion with the Apostles.

So again Jesus is only with the 11 to the end of the age and not us??

To the extent we are in Communion with the Eleven, and those who follow them, Jesus is with us more fully than elsewhere.

Yes we should be one I agree 100%. But we are not. And you can’t show me that everything the RCC teaches is in line with the Apostles. You still haven’t answered my simple question on Genesis 3. John clearly writes in his gospel and revelations that Jesus defeats satan who is the serpent. But the RCC teaches that it is Mary who crushes the serpents head. Hmmm wonder who is right John or the RCC

I am looking into your allegation. But my Hebrew has vanished. Greek’s still pretty good though. Start a new thread about where John in his Gospel speaks of the serpent; I’m not recalling.

Actually the Catholic view of Revelation relates “The Woman” of Genesis to “The Woman” of the Apocalypse" – though not excluding other symbolism as well. Jesus is the One who Triumphs, of course.

Again which documentation is this?? As far as the Trinity yes I would still believe in it. Why because the Trinity is in the Bible. I may not call GOD the Father, the Son, and The Spirit by that name but I would still believe in its existence.

Not likely. Less likely that you would believe in the homoousion and the hypostatic union, in three Persons: co-equal, consubstantial, co-eternal, than that you would believe in the Resurrection. The Trinity, as believed by Christians, is by no means explicit in Scripture. We take it for granted but it took nearly 200 years to lay down the wording in finished form.

As far as doctrinal development you can’t create doctrine that contradicts scripture or that doesn’t exist in scripture.

Doctrine develops as we come to understand better what inheres in the original deposit of faith and as we come to see the underlayers of Scripture more clearly.

You act like our Faith is still evolving and that Jesus is still revealing truths about our Faith that gets put into new doctrine.

The Church teaches emphatically that there is no new public revelation. Development must follow upon well-defined lines.Do you know how ridiculous a statement that is?Yes. But since it is not what the Church DOES, I don’t have to worry about how ridiculous it is, now do I?

That would mean 2000 years ago or just 500 years ago people were living with an incomplete Faith.

Think about Abraham. Did Abraham believe in Jesus. Formally? No. But his faith was the faith of the ages. So materially, YES! He did believe in Jesus.

With regard to your smoke filled room, that is the implication given when you state that oral teachings have been passed down that are not written. That they are a special revelation no one was supposed to write down.

I NEVER made such a statement. Those who do try to pass that off as how Tradition is passed on are incorrect. In a certain sense, it is more accurate to say not that DOCTRINE develops – but that our UNDERSTANDNG of doctrne develops. 'Nother thread. This is about objective standards for interpreting Scripture

Again which paper trail?

Those “losers” the ECFs and all the written history of the faith.

That’s based on the assumption that the RCC has never deviated from anything the Apostles ever ever taught. You can’t prove that. There is no paper trail of that at all. Did the Apostles teach Mary defeats satan? No. Did the Apostles teach indulgences? No. I can keep going and going.

Well, many people have gone “on and on” before you. And like you, they had a self-styled view of what all of this is about and how it works. I ought to know. I was one of you.

 

[NDfan]

The ECFs are a “losing battle”? I agree. It is because of the ECFs that I’m no longer Protestant. And I read them in a secular university, not in the context of the Catholic Church.

Right so the ECFs were part of the Catholic church. But not the Roman Catholic church. The Roman Catholic church did not exist. What ECF’s from the 1st or 2nd century talk about the Roman Catholic Church??

The authors of the New Testament were not part of the Catholic Church?

Yes but not the Roman Catholic church.

There is complete historical continuity from the Catholic Church of today back through the ages to the same Church that ratified the canon, and from them to those who wrote the New Testament.

As you say that’s pure poppycock. But let’s just say that the historical church has always been. Don’t put a name on it. We’ll just say Jesus church. You can’t tell me that this church never errored in creating doctrine, or that it deviated from it’s mission.

The REASON we accept the OT is JESUS. The Jews rejected Him. They don’t even SEE the prophecies Christians see when we read the OT.

Yes you are absolutely right. But that doesn’t mean they are not the authorities on which documents are true canon or not. Your implication is that the apocryphal books only contain the prophesies of Jesus. Isaiah is probably the biggest and we still argue with the Jews over interpretations of the prophecies. But there’s plenty of proof that the Apocryphal books don’t belong as cannon. The Roman Catholic Bible that was used in Germany and I believe in parts of the Netherlands never had the apocryphal books. And as I said before Jerome who wrote the vulgate flat out states they should not be considered as authoritative scripture.

With your signature, “PEACE”? Sometimes you seem to be anything BUT peaceable.

Well please forgive me then. Sometimes it’s hard to gauge a person’s demeanor when writing in these forums. I think we’re having a good debate, no malice intended at all on my part. Again if I seem that way then please tell me. I’m usually chuckling when I type or saying to myself “good point”.

PEACE

 

[NDfan]

I have to disagree with you to a point. I can not know, though I can reason it, that the Church is in absolute possession of the truth put I need not be infallible to recognize corruption of the truth. I do not have to be flawless to recognize flaws.

Ok so then are you saying you can recognize every flaw? Are you admitting that the RCC has flaws or saying they don’t?

It may be your opinion the RCC has the complete truth. But again since you personally don’t possess the entire truth and are not infallible it would only be opinion.

Now if I can demonstrate that there is an error within the RCCs’ teachings would you be willing to admit they could be wrong? Or will you just say that you trust them more?

Christ told the Church, if scripture is to be believed, that he would protect her from error. That is either truth or it is not.

Where does he say this??

 

[mercygate]

Right so the ECFs were part of the Catholic church. But not the Roman Catholic church. The Roman Catholic church did not exist. What ECF’s from the 1st or 2nd century talk about the Roman Catholic Church??

Yes but not the Roman Catholic church.

When did the “catholic” church become the “Roman Catholic Church” as a separate entity from THE “catholic” church?" Careful. You’re going to have to tiptoe around the paper trail.

As you say that’s pure poppycock. But let’s just say that the historical church has always been. Don’t put a name on it. We’ll just say Jesus church. You can’t tell me that this church never errored in creating doctrine, or that it deviated from it’s mission.

Yes. I DO say that. Do I say that mistakes have never been made in discipline? Of course not. But in teaching? Hasn’t happened.

Yes you are absolutely right. But that doesn’t mean they [the Jews] are not the authorities on which documents are true canon or not.

But since the Jewish canon was not closed until quite late into the Christian era, this whole point is moot. For us, the canon as received by the Church is THE canon.

Your implication is that the apocryphal books only contain the prophesies of Jesus.

Huh? This does not track at all.

Isaiah is probably the biggest and we still argue with the Jews over interpretations of the prophecies. But there’s plenty of proof that the Apocryphal books don’t belong as cannon.

True. And he Apocryphal books are NOT in the canon. We do, however, receive the Deuterocanonical books of the Septuagint.

The Roman Catholic Bible that was used in Germany [does not contain the Deuterocanonical books]

Well, the Latin Bible Guttenberg set into type (in Germany) certainly contains the Deutrocanonical books, as did Luther’s translation.

and I believe in parts of the Netherlands never had the apocryphal books. And as I said before Jerome who wrote the vulgate flat out states they should not be considered as authoritative scripture.

Jerome held this opinion under the influence of his Jewish tutors. He also deferred to the Church on the matter. And nobody can deny that the Deuterocanonical histories certainly connect the historical dots in the post-exilic period.

Well please forgive me then. Sometimes it’s hard to gauge a person’s demeanor when writing in these forums. I think we’re having a good debate, no malice intended at all on my part. Again if I seem that way then please tell me. I’m usually chuckling when I type or saying to myself “good point”.

PEACE

OK.

 

[NDfan]

I’m not taking faith out of the equation. But it IS reasonable, in view of the evidence, to believe in the Resurrection.

Yes but reasonable to whom? You and I who have strong Faith? How about the Atheist that could be the most reasonable person around that disagrees? Would you say he/she is unreasonable then?

No. But we do not receive the faith in a vacuum. THE faith is passed along in Communion with the Apostles.
To the extent we are in Communion with the Eleven, and those who follow them, Jesus is with us more fully than elsewhere.

I would agree 100%. But that would imply that everything you believe is in communion with them. You can’t show me exactly what Peter believed aside from what is written in scripture. You also can’t assume that something an ECF believed in say the 4th century was passed to him from Peter. Those types of writings don’t exist. Why must we think that if someone in the 4th century believed something, that somehow that it is more authoritative than anyone today?

I am looking into your allegation. But my Hebrew has vanished. Greek’s still pretty good though. Start a new thread about where John in his Gospel speaks of the serpent; I’m not recalling.

I said John tells us that Jesus defeats satan who is the serpent. Or are you denying that the serpent is satan?

Actually the Catholic view of Revelation relates “The Woman” of Genesis to “The Woman” of the Apocalypse" – though not excluding other symbolism as well. Jesus is the One who Triumphs, of course.

Yes but they do this to defend the copy error that was made in Genesis 3:15. Clearly the woman there is Eve. Eve is called the woman in Genesis. And it is her offspring that crushes the serpent. It being a masculine pronoun. The Septuagint writes HE as well as does the NASB which I believe is approved by the RCC. Jesus is an offspring of Eve. If the woman is Mary then that implies enmity did not exist between us and satan until Mary was born. That makes no sense.

Not likely. Less likely that you would believe in the homoousion and the hypostatic union, in three Persons: co-equal, consubstantial, co-eternal, than that you would believe in the Resurrection. The Trinity, as believed by Christians, is by no means explicit in Scripture. We take it for granted but it took nearly 200 years to lay down the wording in finished form.

Actually that’s not entirely true and the ECFs would disagree with you. The Trinity was always believed by the ECFs. The Arians refuted the belief which sparked the Council of Nicea. Here is a quote from Athanasius:

“Vainly then do they (the Arians) run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, **for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture” **(De Synodis, 6).

Doctrine develops as we come to understand better what inheres in the original deposit of faith and as we come to see the underlayers of Scripture more clearly. The Church teaches emphatically that there is no new public revelation. Development must follow upon well-defined lines.Do you know how ridiculous a statement that is?Yes. But since it is not what the Church DOES, I don’t have to worry about how ridiculous it is, now do I?

But to say that doctrine develops implies the early church did not have a good understanding of the Faith. There may be some intricate parts of scripture that we understand better. But they cannot be forced as required belief for salvation. Otherwise the early church again had an incomplete Faith. Not sure why you don’t see that.

Think about Abraham. Did Abraham believe in Jesus. Formally? No. But his faith was the faith of the ages. So materially, YES! He did believe in Jesus. I NEVER made such a statement. Those who do try to pass that off as how Tradition is passed on are incorrect. In a certain sense, it is more accurate to say not that DOCTRINE develops – but that our UNDERSTANDNG of doctrne develops. 'Nother thread. This is about objective standards for interpreting Scripture
Those “losers” the ECFs and all the written history of the faith.

OK so then here’s a logical follow-up question. Abraham was counted as righteous because he believed GOD. It was his Faith that made him righteous. Now if our understanding of scripture develops over time, are you saying that the early church did not understand as well as we do?

Well, many people have gone “on and on” before you. And like you, they had a self-styled view of what all of this is about and how it works. I ought to know. I was one of you.

It’s not a self-styled view. You’re assuming that everything the RCC teaches today is the same as it was 2000 years ago. you base this on some writings of the ECFs. Well here is the biggest problem you have. We don’t have many writings from the ECFs from the 1st and 2nd century. Let’s just look at Polycarp who was believed to have known John. Show me any of his teachings that confirm say the Marian dogmas. Or how about Ignatius, Clement, or Irenaeus? The ECFs that we believe had direct contact with the Apostles. I’ve read everything there is to read from these guys and they don’t support many of the teachings we have today. Your explanation is that we have a better understanding of scripture. Better than those who knew the Apostles?

 

[J_C]

Well again you say that your limited study moves you to accept the authority of the RCC. If it’s limited then how do you really ever know? Are you just taking it on blind Faith to some degree?

to a large degree, yes I’d say some “blind” faith. I’m not a scholar. scholars disagree. we don’t come to truth by means of intellectual effort alone. in fact, often we come to truth in spite of intellectual effort. besides, all study is going to be limited. I really don’t think any one person can know everything, so no matter how much a person studied, there would always be stuff missing. So how would you know?

I accept scripture as inspired. But scripture that’s in the Catechism is copied inspiration. It’s not new inspiration. But why do you make the jump to say that only the RCC is authorized to interpret it? I gave an example to mercygate of a mistake that was made in Genesis when the English translation of the vulgate was being created. Doctrine was created from this mistake. So does the RCC have the authority make a mistake and NOT correct it but only defend it??

I believe in the Bible, every single word of it. It is the word of God. It comes to us through the Jews, and through the Catholic Church. This is historical fact, even if you don’t accept the mystical aspects of it. as for errors in translation, I understand there are a few. But this doesn’t bother me, because I don’t get my theology directly from the Bible, but from the Church. Church teachings aren’t dependent on single verses, but on accumulations of Biblical materials, as well as the full scope of Tradition that spans centuries and the lifetimes of many individual teachers.

the Church came first, and as we know from the Bible itself, the Chruch was fully functional the moment Jesus instituted it at the ressurrection. Acts describes the earliest controversies, but Acts wasn’t written while the controversies were being resolved, it was written later. So from Acts, and other NT writings, we see the Church in action, fully functional. So the Church came first. That means the Church has primacy over anything written in the Bible, not that they disagree in any sense at all. In fact, the Bible fully supports all Catholic doctrine, as it must since no true doctrein could come to be if it were in opposition to the Biblical narratives.

will continue latter, am out of time just now, thanks.

 

[ralphinal]

The early church was the Christian church which eventually became known as the catholic church. Catholic being universal. The ECFs surely were part of this church. But I would contend that it wasn’t the Roman Catholic church. If anything it was probably the Orthodox church. But Ralphinal that doesn’t mean that the church never errored. The Roman Catholic church became very political in nature and skewed from it’s mission. Popes were more worried about dominating the state instead of just focusing on the church. That’s why the Monasteries became so prominent. They wanted to get back to grass roots worship of Jesus. It’s also what gave rise to Islam. Instead of spreading the Gospel outward towards the rural areas which is where the majority of the muslims came from, the church concentrated on the more urban areas.

I’m not saying we throw away the Roman Catholic Church. But I also believe they have errored seriously with some doctrines. To not make a correction because some Pope wanted to be considered infallible is no excuse. I think we have the Catholic (universal) church at the top and then the Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, the Protestants, the non-denominationals all underneath that umbrella of Christianity.

Thanks. Now I see where you are coming from.

 

[NDfan]

When did the “catholic” church become the “Roman Catholic Church” as a separate entity from THE “catholic” church?" Careful. You’re going to have to tiptoe around the paper trail.

The first schism when East split from West.

Yes. I DO say that. Do I say that mistakes have never been made in discipline? Of course not. But in teaching? Hasn’t happened.

Sorry but I disagree. I gave you one already which is a big one.

But since the Jewish canon was not closed until quite late into the Christian era, this whole point is moot. For us, the canon as received by the Church is THE canon.Huh? This does not track at all.True. And he Apocryphal books are NOT in the canon. We do, however, receive the Deuterocanonical books of the Septuagint.Well, the Latin Bible Guttenberg set into type (in Germany) certainly contains the Deutrocanonical books, as did Luther’s translation. Jerome held this opinion under the influence of his Jewish tutors. He also deferred to the Church on the matter. And nobody can deny that the Deuterocanonical histories certainly connect the historical dots in the post-exilic period.

Never said the apocryphal books don’t provide some good history. But some of it is inaccurate. The septuagint did not include all the apocryphal books. That’s incorrect. There were several manuscripts of the septuagint and many did not include them. That’s the problem. It’s like some of the manuscripts that don’t include Mark 16:9-20.

Also the Targums which is the Aramaic translation of the OT did not include the apocrypha and neither did the earliest versions of the Syriac translation called the Peshitta. Josephus stated that the canon was closed after Artaxerxes I reign ended in 423BC. Aquila’s Greek version of the OT which was made around 128 A.D. and adopted by the Alexandrian Jews, did not include the apocrypha either.

We also have other inconsistencies regarding the apocrypha in the codexes themselves:

• Codex Vaticanus does’t have 1 and 2 Maccabees, which is canonical according to the RCC but includes 1 Esdras which is rejected.
• Codex Sinaiticus doesn’t have Baruch and is supposed to be canonical but has 4 Maccabees which is rejected.
• Codex Alexandrinus includes 1 Esdras and 3 and 4 Maccabees which are not canonical

OK.

PEACE

 

[mercygate]

I’m going to break up the responses because these things are becoming MONSTERS.

Yes but reasonable to whom? You and I who have strong Faith? How about the Atheist that could be the most reasonable person around that disagrees? Would you say he/she is unreasonable then?

Not my job to question. Believing is not LESS reasonable than NOT believing. Faith is a free and divine gift of grace. If belief were a slam-dunk matter of pure, unaided reason, it would not be FAITH, would it?

I would agree 100%. But that would imply that everything you believe is in communion with them. You can’t show me exactly what Peter believed aside from what is written in scripture.

True. I cannot show you, for example, that Peter could articulate clearly the teaching on the hypostatic union.

You also can’t assume that something an ECF believed in say the 4th century was passed to him from Peter. Those types of writings don’t exist.

We don’t assume that – though people often seem to think that’s how it works. But we do belive that the authority to teach is the very teaching authority given to the Apostles on Mount Olivet.

Why must we think that if someone in the 4th century believed something, that somehow that it is more authoritative than anyone today?

Doctrine taken from the Fathers is by consensus. If St. Euthanasius the Gorge-dweller of Ethiopia is a lone voice testifying to something in the year 344, and if it is not consistent with the rest of the deposit of faith, it would not be credited. But when something is attested (like infant baptism) in more than one place as having been “received from the apostles”, then it carries some weight. The hand-to-hand transmission of the content of our faith was pretty conservative. We have records going all the way back to the early 2nd Century. For example, when the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. gives Mary the title “Mother of God” (which all mainstream Protestants hold to), we find that in the liturgy, she was called “theotokos” nearly 200 years earlier.

I said John tells us that Jesus defeats satan who is the serpent. Or are you denying that the serpent is satan?

Go back up thread. You said something about the serpent being mentioned in John’s Gospel.

Yes but they do this to defend the copy error that was made in Genesis 3:15. Clearly the woman there is Eve. Eve is called the woman in Genesis. And it is her offspring that crushes the serpent. It being a masculine pronoun. The Septuagint writes HE as well as does the NASB which I believe is approved by the RCC. Jesus is an offspring of Eve. If the woman is Mary then that implies enmity did not exist between us and satan until Mary was born. That makes no sense.

Again: I am not in a position to go back over this for myself at this time. But the short answer (and I do not mean to be glib) is: No Mary, no Jesus. Catholic typology always understands the type to be less than the fulfillment. Through sin, Eve becomes the mother of all the dying. Through her “yes”, Mary becomes the new Eve and the true mother of all the living.

 

[NDfan]

to a large degree, yes I’d say some “blind” faith. I’m not a scholar. scholars disagree. we don’t come to truth by means of intellectual effort alone. in fact, often we come to truth in spite of intellectual effort. besides, all study is going to be limited. I really don’t think any one person can know everything, so no matter how much a person studied, there would always be stuff missing. So how would you know?

I can only go by my faith and what I have learned but certainly would never claim to know everything. I feel the RCC has made some errors but denies they have because of the claim of infallibility.

I believe in the Bible, every single word of it. It is the word of God. It comes to us through the Jews, and through the Catholic Church. This is historical fact, even if you don’t accept the mystical aspects of it. as for errors in translation, I understand there are a few. But this doesn’t bother me, because I don’t get my theology directly from the Bible, but from the Church. Church teachings aren’t dependent on single verses, but on accumulations of Biblical materials, as well as the full scope of Tradition that spans centuries and the lifetimes of many individual teachers.

I can appreciate your viewpoint. I also believe in the Bible which is why I went to Bible college and studied theology. I place less emphasis on tradition because of what I see in today’s world. We have corruption in our churches and I believe fully those corruptions can get into our teachings. If we look at the middle ages when the Papacy moved to Avignon France, those Popes were terrible. No ethics or morals at all. I have a problem considering somebody infallible with that type of behavior.

the Church came first, and as we know from the Bible itself, the Chruch was fully functional the moment Jesus instituted it at the ressurrection. Acts describes the earliest controversies, but Acts wasn’t written while the controversies were being resolved, it was written later.

Well that’s not entirely true. Paul wrote letters to resolve issues in Corinth and Galatia. Not at the very moment but it was still in response to it. Many times the letters were sent because they could not personally get there. And just because the writings came later doesn’t dismiss the validity of the writings. They’re not mutually exclusive. Without the writings we may not have these teachings.

So from Acts, and other NT writings, we see the Church in action, fully functional. So the Church came first. That means the Church has primacy over anything written in the Bible, not that they disagree in any sense at all. In fact, the Bible fully supports all Catholic doctrine, as it must since no true doctrein could come to be if it were in opposition to the Biblical narratives.

Well we would derail the thread getting into this discussion but let me just say that RCC doctrine contradicts scripture or is inconsistent with scripture. We can go to another thread on this.

will continue latter, am out of time just now, thanks.

OK thanks JC PEACE

 

[mercygate]

Actually that’s not entirely true and the ECFs would disagree with you. The Trinity was always believed by the ECFs. The Arians refuted the belief which sparked the Council of Nicea. Here is a quote from Athanasius:

“Vainly then do they (the Arians) run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, **for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture” **(De Synodis, 6).

This makes the Catholic case. The CHURCH understood the doctrine, but articulated it more clearly in response to the Arian challenge. What was “obvious” to the Church and “clear” from Scripture was – from the same scriptures – NOT so obvious to the Arians. The council “stated the doctrines exactly” thus interpreting Scripture in such a way that it could no longer be read otherwise.

But to say that doctrine develops implies the early church did not have a good understanding of the Faith. There may be some intricate parts of scripture that we understand better. But they cannot be forced as required belief for salvation. Otherwise the early church again had an incomplete Faith. Not sure why you don’t see that.

Abraham.

OK so then here’s a logical follow-up question. Abraham was counted as righteous because he believed GOD. It was his Faith that made him righteous. Now if our understanding of scripture develops over time, are you saying that the early church did not understand as well as we do?

Good question. To some extent that would be true. But only insofar as each age brings different assumptions to the faith; different questons. As different challenges arise, we are drawn ever-deeper into the mystery of the faith as the Church lives out our history of being guided “into all the truth” “until the end of the age.”

It’s really very beautiful and quite reassuring.

You’re assuming that everything the RCC teaches today is the same as it was 2000 years ago. you base this on some writings of the ECFs.

Not entirely. Some of the later dogmatic formulations, though arising from antiquity, are not found in the Ante-Nicene Fathers.

Well here is the biggest problem you have. We don’t have many writings from the ECFs from the 1st and 2nd century. Let’s just look at Polycarp who was believed to have known John. Show me any of his teachings that confirm say the Marian dogmas. Or how about Ignatius, Clement, or Irenaeus? The ECFs that we believe had direct contact with the Apostles. I’ve read everything there is to read from these guys and they don’t support many of the teachings we have today. Your explanation is that we have a better understanding of scripture. Better than those who knew the Apostles?

LOL! This is useually the argument Catholic give when Protestants assert that the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, or the Petrine Primacy are “not in the Bible!”
So it’s the Marian dogmas that are giving you trouble? Took me years to get past that hurdle. Scott Hahn said at one point, close to his conversion, "I have only three problems with Catholic theology: Mary.

Mary. and

Mary.

It is helpful to review the restrictions and conditions by which our understanding of doctrine develops. (See? You have given me a better expression than I had before. “Development of understanding” is far more accurate than “doctrinal development.”) It proceeds in 4 ways: Objectively, Subjectively, Hermeneutically, and Reflexively. The first one means that doctrine cannot expand or contract.

Here: time for a break. Barista! A double for my friend ND fan.

 

[NDfan]

I’m going to break up the responses because these things are becoming MONSTERS.

yeah you read my mind on that one

Not my job to question. Believing is not LESS reasonable than NOT believing. Faith is a free and divine gift of grace. If belief were a slam-dunk matter of pure, unaided reason, it would not be FAITH, would it?

Right. That’s why I say it’s tough to use the reasonable person test. What we think is reasonable someone else thinks is crazy. As reasonable as it may seem for someone to deny the resurrection, you and I would say that’s ridiculous it’s very reasonable.

True. I cannot show you, for example, that Peter could articulate clearly the teaching on the hypostatic union.We don’t assume that – though people often seem to think that’s how it works. But we do belive that the authority to teach is the very teaching authority given to the Apostles on Mount Olivet.Doctrine taken from the Fathers is by consensus. If St. Euthanasius the Gorge-dweller of Ethiopia is a lone voice testifying to something in the year 344, and if it is not consistent with the rest of the deposit of faith, it would not be credited.

But that’s a dangerous game because you could never know if that was really ever part of the faith. Consensus doesn’t mean it is right.

But when something is attested (like infant baptism) in more than one place as having been “received from the apostles”, then it carries some weight.

Actually just as a sidebar, infant baptism was not taught by the Apostles. Infant baptism started around 200AD after the doctrine of original sin was developed. In most places where we find the necessity of baptism either in a dogmatic or historical point of view, it was only meant for those who were capable of comprehending the gospel and wanted to accept Jesus by an act of their own will. This is an example though of doctrine developing over time that didn’t exist with the Apostles.

The hand-to-hand transmission of the content of our faith was pretty conservative. We have records going all the way back to the early 2nd Century.

Well after spending 40 years in the RCC I’m familiar with these documents. I don’t see the support for some of the current teachings.

For example, when the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. gives Mary the title “Mother of God” (which all mainstream Protestants hold to), we find that in the liturgy, she was called “theotokos” nearly 200 years earlier.

But again this doesn’t mean that it was a teaching of the Apostles.

Go back up thread. You said something about the serpent being mentioned in John’s Gospel.

No I said John states that Jesus defeats satan and satan is the serpent.

Again: I am not in a position to go back over this for myself at this time. But the short answer (and I do not mean to be glib) is: No Mary, no Jesus.

Mercygate come on now. Do you really believe that if Mary didn’t give birth to Jesus we would never have a savior? That’s a terrible argument that the RCC always uses to elevate Mary. Like if she didn’t cooperate GOD could never have saved us. She didn’t have a choice. The Angel told her she would conceive. He didn’t ask her if she would consider giving birth to Jesus. But GOD knew this ahead of time which is why he favored her i.e. “charitoo”.

Catholic typology always understands the type to be less than the fulfillment. Through sin, Eve becomes the mother of all the dying. Through her “yes”, Mary becomes the new Eve and the true mother of all the living.

Mary is never called the new Eve in scripture. This is purely an RCC doctrine and was never taught in the early church. This logic is used to defend the error that is made in Genesis 3:15. It goes something like this: The RCC recognizes that Jesus defeats Satan and that Genesis 3:15 is an allusion to our great savior. But we the RCC see it as an allusion to the entire virgin birth. Given Mary’s cooperation with GOD to give birth to Jesus she indirectly participates in our salvation. That’s called the title of co-mediatrix. Instead of just saying that a copy error was made from the Latin to English they can’t. Why? Because a Pope has already declared it doctrine so it has to be defended.

PEACE

 

[NDfan]

This makes the Catholic case. The CHURCH understood the doctrine, but articulated it more clearly in response to the Arian challenge. What was “obvious” to the Church and “clear” from Scripture was – from the same scriptures – NOT so obvious to the Arians. The council “stated the doctrines exactly” thus interpreting Scripture in such a way that it could no longer be read otherwise.

Stating the doctrines exactly doesn’t equate to interpretation. What he is saying is that scripture so obviously states it that it can’t be refuted. The arians denied the term trinity and the council pulled right from scripture the elements to support it. When Jesus says I and the Father are one in the same, and that the Spirit of God descended to Jesus when he was baptized. What else could that imply but that they are one in the same.

Abraham.

I lost you here.

Good question. To some extent that would be true. But only insofar as each age brings different assumptions to the faith; different questons. As different challenges arise, we are drawn ever-deeper into the mystery of the faith as the Church lives out our history of being guided “into all the truth” “until the end of the age.” It’s really very beautiful and quite reassuring.

But again that implies that the early church lived without some of the truth we have. The truth is the same today as it is tomorrow and as it will be always. It doesn’t evolve because then it is only partial truth.

Not entirely. Some of the later dogmatic formulations, though arising from antiquity, are not found in the Ante-Nicene Fathers.

Right but then you can’t claim sacred tradition because certain things are neither sciptural nor traditional. It’s like adding a new requirement to our beliefs that the early church didn’t have. Like using a recipe for baking a cake for 10 years, but then in the 11th year stating that a new ingredient is required.

LOL! This is useually the argument Catholic give when Protestants assert that the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, or the Petrine Primacy are “not in the Bible!”

Well we can certainly discuss those in a different thread as well. I was just using Mary as an example.

So it’s the Marian dogmas that are giving you trouble? Took me years to get past that hurdle. Scott Hahn said at one point, close to his conversion, "I have only three problems with Catholic theology: Mary. Mary. and Mary.

I’m just using her again as an example. Remember I spent 40 years in the RCC so I’m very intimate with the teachings.

It is helpful to review the restrictions and conditions by which our understanding of doctrine develops. (See? You have given me a better expression than I had before. “Development of understanding” is far more accurate than “doctrinal development.”) It proceeds in 4 ways: Objectively, Subjectively, Hermeneutically, and Reflexively. The first one means that doctrine cannot expand or contract.

So you are saying my basic understanding needs to develop more so that my understanding of doctrine can develop?? I need to ask this first before replying.

But let me say this. Create another thread and later on we can debate charitably the doctrines of Mary. I can assure you that many of them are inaccurate and can provide much proof. We can also debate Transubstantiation which by the way is different than real presence for me. I believe in the real presence but not Transubstantiation. Then if you are up to it we can discuss Peter.

Here: time for a break. Barista! A double for my friend ND fan.

Thanks make mine a Cafe Mocha. (mmmm tastes good )

 

[mercygate]

But that’s a dangerous game because you could never know if that was really ever part of the faith. Consensus doesn’t mean it is right.

Back to YOUR argument. If someone says something WASN’T part of the deposit of faith, but we find it well represented in the ECFs, then THAT is evidence that it was accepted by the Church and ipso facto “right.”

Actually just as a sidebar, infant baptism was not taught by the Apostles. Infant baptism started around 200AD after the doctrine of original sin was developed. In most places where we find the necessity of baptism either in a dogmatic or historical point of view, it was only meant for those who were capable of comprehending the gospel and wanted to accept Jesus by an act of their own will. This is an example though of doctrine developing over time that didn’t exist with the Apostles.

Check your sources. There are references from about 200 a.d. to having “received this practice from the Apostles.” That is but 3 generations from the Apostles themselves.

Well after spending 40 years in the RCC I’m familiar with these documents. I don’t see the support for some of the current teachings.

That’s because they were not confronted with the current questions.

But again this doesn’t mean that it was a teaching of the Apostles.

Theotokos? My point was that ALL of the Reformers, and subsequently the traditions descended from them, affirmed (and still do) that Mary is “Mother of God.” I.e., they Accepted the NECESSARY development of our understanding concerning the Person of Our Lord in relation to His humanity as received from the flesh of His mother.

No I said John states that Jesus defeats satan and satan is the serpent.

I’m not making this up. See your post #40: “John clearly writes in his gospel and revelations that Jesus defeats satan.”

Mercygate come on now. Do you really believe that if Mary didn’t give birth to Jesus we would never have a savior? That’s a terrible argument that the RCC always uses to elevate Mary. Like if she didn’t cooperate GOD could never have saved us. She didn’t have a choice.

The Angel told her she would conceive. He didn’t ask her if she would consider giving birth to Jesus. But GOD knew this ahead of time which is why he favored her i.e. “charitoo”.

Mary is never called the new Eve in scripture.

You have a problem with typology, huh? Well, Catholics and the Orthodox understand that as there was first Adam, there is a second Adam [that’s in the Bible – right?] and by extension the new Mother of all the living would be – who? Mary Magdalene?

This is purely an RCC doctrine and was never taught in the early church. This logic is used to defend the error that is made in Genesis 3:15. It goes something like this: The RCC recognizes that Jesus defeats Satan and that Genesis 3:15 is an allusion to our great savior. But we the RCC see it as an allusion to the entire virgin birth. Given Mary’s cooperation with GOD to give birth to Jesus she indirectly participates in our salvation. That’s called the title of co-mediatrix. Instead of just saying that a copy error was made from the Latin to English they can’t. Why? Because a Pope has already declared it doctrine so it has to be defended.

PEACE

That’s a jumbled but not far off description of the teaching. I’m pretty familiar with the apologetics game and all the stuff Protesetants throw at us. But this Hebrew transcription error is new to me. Can you give me a more exhaustive reference? Something credible, even if Protestant.

As for co-mediatrix, aren’t you a co-mediator when you bring people to Christ? It doesn’t make you equal to Jesus. But you are co-operating – as Paul says: a co-worker.

 

[Trinitarian]

Mercygate come on now. Do you really believe that if Mary didn’t give birth to Jesus we would never have a savior? That’s a terrible argument that the RCC always uses to elevate Mary. Like if she didn’t cooperate GOD could never have saved us. She didn’t have a choice. The Angel told her she would conceive. He didn’t ask her if she would consider giving birth to Jesus. But GOD knew this ahead of time which is why he favored her i.e. “charitoo”.

The fact is that Christ could have come anyway he designed, but he did in fact choose Mary. She is the Mother of God by God’s choosing. How should we scorn the Church for her elevation of Mary, even if she elevates Mary only slightly less then God did himself?

 

[Bwsherman]

Wow…I can see I hit a hot button issue with my question. Which I am still not sure if anyone has actually answered. I do believe one person said the answer was “no”, however, I think that person is Catholic.

To address another post…the reality of things like the resurrection we as Christians accept universally as being objectively true within a Christian context. Whether or not there is empirical evidence to support it. I think this thread has gotten off topic a bit.

As far as the ECF’s…It is from the writings of St. Ignatius, the third bishop of Antioch, that the first use of the term Catholic was utilized. “Wherever the bishop, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” -Letter to the Smymaeans Ch. 8.

The practices of the early Church, as found in the writings of the early Church Fathers as well as documents such as the Didache, attest to the unity of thought about things such as the Eucharist, the defferring to the bishop of Rome (Pope) for settling disputes, and the veneration of saints and Our Lady. This point I need not prove because all one needs to do is read the documents.

I suppose my whole point to asking this question was to state that without an authority outside of oneself and one’s pastor to establish objective truth in scripture, then all we have is one persons opinion compared to that of another. Who is correct in their assertions? I do not believe our loving God would allow for us to be so mislead by our own a priori experiences, as to leave us without a way to sort out the fact from the fiction. I understand the point of “well, all you are doing is relying on the Church and its subjective take on scripture” and to a certain extent this assertion is true; however, it must be understood how the Church looks at scripture. It looks at the eary Church writings, the way a particular passage has been used by the faithful, and lastly what the contemporaries have to say. The Church never begins at the present and works its way backward. It is quite the opposite.

One might wonder how could this point be proven. I would say look back to the early Church councils up to the present and see how the events are recorded. What do the councils say they are adding to or adjusting from the faith handed down to them? I would be willing to bet that no one can find this claim. Again, it might be thought that the councils recordings are not accurate of what realy happened. If one holds this belief, then how could he trust that what St. Jerome recorded in the Vulgate was the accurate portrayal of the scriptures as canonized in the fourth century?

Lastly, the point must be said that if in fact there is no objective truth found in scripture. At least none that can be 100% proved, how does one “know” that he is going to heaven? I am of course referring to the concept “once saved, always saved” which different denominations agree with and others do not. Who is correct? Both cannot be true and claim to rely solely on scripture.

If anyone could clarify this last point or has questions about what I have stated, I would greatly appreciate the dialogue.

Pax

 

[ralphinal]

Bwsherman,

The questions that you have raised cannot really be answered well. Many non-Catholics would say that the Holy Spirit guides them to the objective truth. They cannot say why he leads others to different objective truths. It is the primary failure of Sola Scriptura in its purest form. Now, if you look at prima scriptura, where scripture is the primary form of authority, you still have interpretation, but there is a tradition or teachign aspect as well.

You are correct. Once-Saved always saved cannot be right if conditional salvation is. They are mutually exclusive. As Catholics, we have a three legged stool. Some have a two legged. Some have one leg. That is hard to balance.