Prodigal's Isle

[Socrates4Jesus]

So its not a new doctrine if it was always there?

Is a doctrine that which is known, or unknown? That is, can i teach something i do not know, or can i teach only what i know or think i know?

 

[utunumsint]

By saying, “Yes indeed,” i take it you do agree that the Great Commission is for people like Johnny’s mom, as well as for priests, popes and bishops.

But regarding your objection that Johnny’s mom doesn’t have the capacity to go into all the world, let me ask you this: Which group is more likely to succeed in fulfilling Jesus’ command to go into all the world, teaching them to obey everything He commands?

1. 
   *]A few thousand popes, bishops and priests?
   *]Many, many millions of moms, dads and other Catholics?
   
   

1. 
   I think when considering this question, it is important to follow the example of Jesus.
   
   1-Did Jesus appoint only a few men as apostles, or the all Christians as apostles?
   It seems clear to me that he appointed only the twelve as apostles.
   
   2-How was Judas replaced?
   By the remaining eleven.
   
   3-How was Paul apointed?
   By Jesus.
   
   4-Are there others called Apostles?
   Apollos was. And I believe Barnabas could be considered an apostle as well, especially since he seems to be on equal footing with Paul during Paul’s early missionary journeys.
   
   5-Is there any evidence of a transition of authority/ministry from Apostle to helpers or coworkers of the apostles?
   I would say yes. In Timothy, Titus, Sylvanus, and Clement to name only a few examples.
   
   6-But was there an authoritative leadership in the early church, or was it mearly charistmatic?
   It seems that Hebrews 13: 17 proves that they were authoritative “**Obey your leaders **and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you.”
   
   7-Is there any example in other early church writings of similar authority?
   The first letter of Clement provides such evidence. In fact the term leader used in Hebrews 13:17 is exactly the same word used in the first paragraph of Clement’s letter. “For you did all things without respect of persons, and walked in the commandments of God, being obedient to those who had the rule over you, and giving all fitting honour to the presbyters among you.” The King James translates Hebrew 13:17 as follows “Obey them that have the rule over you,”.
   
   8-What does all this prove?
   It proves that there were authoritative rulers of churches in the early church. It proves that there was a succession of authority/ministry from the apostles who were themselves apointed by Christ. It proves that the church was hierarchical. It also proves that those who provided authoritative teachings had to be within this line of succession.
   
   9-Does this prove the Papacy?
   The doctrine of the papacy rests on apostolic succession. Once you accept apostolic succession, it makes sense that there would be a central leader whose’s leadership would be patterned after that of St Peter.
   
   God bless,
   Ut

 

[Thing]

Is a doctrine that which is known, or unknown?

A doctrine is that which is.
It is Truth.

That is, can i teach something i do not know, or can i teach only what i know or think i know?

Yes you can. The Scriptures and the Jewish faith taught the reality of Jesus the Messiah even though they did not know they did. Revealed Truth is not what you think it is, it is what it is.

The Church simply taught everything they went told and preserved the Scriptures that were handed down to them. Both of these are the revealed truth. Doctrines, or definitions, of parts of the revealed truth were not immediately developed as the concern of the very early and widely persecuted Church was simply to preserve what it was given intact, and to survive the horrors around them.
Later as the Church was free to practice they could study, and develop what could be known from all their Sacred Traditions.

 

[utunumsint]

Gee wiz, Professor! I simply don’t have enough information about these men to know whether your opinion is true. Will you give me one exact quote of Arius explaining his understanding of John 1:1-14? Or will you give me one exact quote of Sabellius explaining his understanding of Matthew 3:15-17?

If you are not privy to such information, then you are making the fallacy of arguing from ignorance (or lack of knowledge), aren’t you?

Please read this link on historical reasoning.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

Historical reasoning is based on the available evidence.

Athanasius wrote constantly on Arius, and it is a well known fact that Eusebius is a supporter of Arius. He never once claims that they modified scripture. He only claims that they erred in their understanding of scripture.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

I’m going to bow out for the rest of this thread.

Good luck on your search for truth soc.

God bless,
Ut

 

[pneuma07]

P7:

You’ve posted many replies, with many points; and i have not responded to every one. The reason is that if you make several points; and i respond with several questions; and then you reply to all of those questions, add more points to your several points, which makes many points; and i reply with several other questions, making many questions; and so on, and so on; well, very soon we will get to 1,000 posts and be no closer to the truth than when we started!

So if i’m responding to the wrong replies, let me know. We should focus on what you believe to be the most efficient way to get me off this island!

Dear Soc,

   I had just proposed a possible plan based on:

1. antecedent probability of a living guardian of revelation
2. Apostolic succession
3. papacy.

let’s call this Plan AAP.

You could give a feed back on this.

I see our team is going to remain without UT, so the strenghts are getting more limited.

IMHO, if we could get rid of the Invisible Church model ( or/and of the alternative “faithful remaining few” model) there would be a formidable step.

Let me therefore please ask what your present stance is about this ( or these) Church models.

If this is accomplished you can use the “notes” or marks about the true Church from the Creed ( if you accept the Nicene-Costantinople Creed). and …well the following is imaginable. .
.

This can be considered an alternative plan in itself. Let’s call it Plan IN.

We (at least I ) know very little about where you come from in terms of previous position within the protestant world. That means it’s you who can tell us what points are most alien or just hard to swallow. .

I follow your lead on the danger of becoming too detailed on sub-arguments.

So for now I’m rejecting the temptation to write down a long response to your intriguing considerations about one of my counter-arguments to one of the most frequent objections to the papacy…… .

Do you prefer Plan IN or plan AAP, or what else ?

Bless you
P7

PS If I can: if you pronounce at present mentally the words “becoming catholic”, does that elicit fear, hope or what else in you. ?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Dear Soc,

   I had just proposed a possible plan based on:

1. antecedent probability of a living guardian of revelation
2. Apostolic succession
3. papacy.

let’s call this Plan AAP.

…

You mean the Association for the** A**dvancement of the Papacy?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Not sure what post number that is. Can you help me out? (So many replies, so little time!)

 

[pneuma07]

Not sure what post number that is. Can you help me out? (So many replies, so little time!)

If you’re referring to Plan AAP, it’s OK if you, take it as summarized in the last post.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I think when considering this question, it is important to follow the example of Jesus.

1-Did Jesus appoint only a few men as apostles, or the all Christians as apostles?
It seems clear to me that he appointed only the twelve as apostles.

A few as Apostles (12 in fact).

Many as disciples (more than 70).

After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go. He told them, "The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field. Go! I am sending you out like lambs among wolves. Do not take a purse or bag or sandals; and do not greet anyone on the road. "When you enter a house, first say, ‘Peace to this house.’ If a man of peace is there, your peace will rest on him; if not, it will return to you. Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house.
“When you enter a town and are welcomed, eat what is set before you. Heal the sick who are there and tell them, ‘The kingdom of God is near you.’ But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, ‘Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.’ I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town.”

(Luke 10)

All as priests.

As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him—you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. …

But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

(1 Peter 2)

2-How was Judas replaced?
By the remaining eleven.

No, by God, who did not choose Matthias, but chose an enemy of Christ as the 12th Apostle:

"On one of these journeys I was going to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. About noon, O king, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions. We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’
"Then I asked, ‘Who are you, Lord?’
" ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ the Lord replied. ‘Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you. I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’

(Acts 26)

3-How was Paul apointed?
By Jesus.

True.

4-Are there others called Apostles?
Apollos was. And I believe Barnabas could be considered an apostle as well, especially since he seems to be on equal footing with Paul during Paul’s early missionary journeys.

I’ve never found a reference in the New Testament to either Apollos or Barnabas being Apostles. If you do some searching, i’m sure you will come to the same conclusion.

biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=apollos&version1=31&searchtype=all&bookset=2&limit=bookset

biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=barnabas&searchtype=all&version1=31&bookset=2

5-Is there any evidence of a transition of authority/ministry from Apostle to helpers or coworkers of the apostles?
I would say yes. In Timothy, Titus, Sylvanus, and Clement to name only a few examples.

Agreed.

6-But was there an authoritative leadership in the early church, or was it mearly charistmatic?
It seems that Hebrews 13: 17 proves that they were authoritative “**Obey your leaders **and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you.”

True.

7-Is there any example in other early church writings of similar authority?
The first letter of Clement provides such evidence. In fact the term leader used in Hebrews 13:17 is exactly the same word used in the first paragraph of Clement’s letter. “For you did all things without respect of persons, and walked in the commandments of God, being obedient to those who had the rule over you, and giving all fitting honour to the presbyters among you.” The King James translates Hebrew 13:17 as follows “Obey them that have the rule over you,”.

Sounds reasonable to me.

8-What does all this prove?
It proves that there were authoritative rulers of churches in the early church. It proves that there was a succession of authority/ministry from the apostles who were themselves apointed by Christ. It proves that the church was hierarchical. It also proves that those who provided authoritative teachings had to be within this line of succession.

But does it prove that the successors of the Apostles had the same authority to determine doctrine. Much of what Christians believe are found in the words of Peter, John and Paul, as much as in Jesus. What separates these men from the successors, it seems to me, is they had a direct line of communication with Christ. Even Paul, who did not become Christian until after Christ’s crucifixion, wrote that Jesus Himself visited Him and instructed Him.

9-Does this prove the Papacy?
The doctrine of the papacy rests on apostolic succession. Once you accept apostolic succession, it makes sense that there would be a central leader whose’s leadership would be patterned after that of St Peter.

But can i trust the Pope today to have as firm a grasp on the truth as Peter and Paul and John, who knew Christ in such an intimate way? I don’t doubt there has been a line of succession. I wonder whether there has been a gradual corruption of the truth over the centuries. See my concern?

God bless,
Ut

Blessings to you, too!

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I’m going to bow out for the rest of this thread.

Good luck on your search for truth soc.

God bless,
Ut

Thank you for the time you gave. If you change your mind and have something to add, please feel free to do so. But don’t feel obligated to get too involved.

Blessings to you, Ut!

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

A doctrine is that which is.
It is Truth.

Yes you can. The Scriptures and the Jewish faith taught the reality of Jesus the Messiah even though they did not know they did. Revealed Truth is not what you think it is, it is what it is.

The Church simply taught everything they went told and preserved the Scriptures that were handed down to them. Both of these are the revealed truth. Doctrines, or definitions, of parts of the revealed truth were not immediately developed as the concern of the very early and widely persecuted Church was simply to preserve what it was given intact, and to survive the horrors around them.
Later as the Church was free to practice they could study, and develop what could be known from all their Sacred Traditions.

Fascinating! Well, my young son, who just got his learner’s permit, wants to learn how to drive a car. Would you advise me to have someone who has never driven teach him how to drive, or do you think the more reliable (and safer) teacher is the one who has years of driving experience where she has never been in an accident or received a ticket from a police officer? Which should i trust to teach my son, the one who knows how to drive or the one who does not?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… IMHO, if we could get rid of the Invisible Church model ( or/and of the alternative “faithful remaining few” model) there would be a formidable step. …

Well, that was the easiest step thus far! I don’t subscribe to any invisible church, and neither does any Fundamentalist or Evangelical pastor or teacher to whom i’ve ever listened.

Now that we’ve made that giant leap for Gilligan’s kind, what shall we discuss next?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

It seems to me that the Church is made of visible people, so it cannot be invisible. But perhaps this invisible church deception is so diabolical it is invisible to those who hold it! If you think i have it, then please tell me how you know, and give me the cure, if there is one.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

http://blog.oregonlive.com/pac10/2007/09/medium_Gilligan.jpg

Q. 8.

I’m beginning to wonder why
That i wonder if the reason why
So few are left trying to answer why
Might be that there’s no good reason why
i should put my trust in the Catholic Popes!

Does anyone, any Catholic at all, know why?

Then again, maybe the reason why
That i wonder the reason why
So few are left trying to answer why
Is that there really is no good reason why
i should put my trust in the Catholic Popes.

Should i still deny
that is the real answer
to all my questions why?

They were unable to trap him in what he had said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they became silent.

(Luke 20:26)

 

[davidv]

http://blog.oregonlive.com/pac10/2007/09/medium_Gilligan.jpg

Q. 8.

I’m beginning to wonder why
**That i wonder if the reason why **
So few are left trying to answer why
Might be that there’s no good reason why
i should put my trust in the Catholic Popes!

Does anyone, any Catholic at all, know why?

I will vention an answer. Based on the solid foundation provided by Ut, I can trust the Pope because he is a successor of the Apostles and has been selected to hold the office for which Peter was originally appointed by no other than Jesus.

Then again, maybe the reason why

That i wonder the reason why
So few are left trying to answer why
Is that there really is no good reason why
i should put my trust in the Catholic Popes.

**Should i still deny **
**that is the real answer **
to all my questions why?
Is my answer above a “real answer”?

 

[Pax]

A few as Apostles (12 in fact).

I’ve never found a reference in the New Testament to either Apollos or Barnabas being Apostles. If you do some searching, i’m sure you will come to the same conclusion.
…
…

But does it prove that the successors of the Apostles had the same authority to determine doctrine. Much of what Christians believe are found in the words of Peter, John and Paul, as much as in Jesus. What separates these men from the successors, it seems to me, is they had a direct line of communication with Christ. Even Paul, who did not become Christian until after Christ’s crucifixion, wrote that Jesus Himself visited Him and instructed Him.

But can i trust the Pope today to have as firm a grasp on the truth as Peter and Paul and John, who knew Christ in such an intimate way? I don’t doubt there has been a line of succession. I wonder whether there has been a gradual corruption of the truth over the centuries. See my concern?



Blessings to you, too!

You will find a reference to Barnabas as an apostle in Acts 14:14 which says:

But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out among the multitude, crying,

1 Cor 1 and 1 Cor 3 makes some interesting references to Apollos. Paul speaks of Apollos in the same breath as he speaks of himself and Cephas giving a standing to Apollos that seems to be on par as an apostle. He is not explicitly described as an apostle but it is interesting the way Paul speaks of him.

I believe that we have evidence in the NT Church described in the book of Acts that would lead one to the conclusion that the successors to the apostles did have authority to make doctrine. In Acts 15:6 we read about the first council of Jerusalem where they consider the issue of circumcision and the gentiles. In this verse it says:

The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.

The elders are gathered with the apostles to consider the matter. Their deliberations are important.

Verse 15 says this:

And all the assembly kept silence; and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.

It is clear that the “apostle” Barnabas was actively involved in making a presentation with Paul at the council and that the apostles and elders listened to him.

Finally Acts 15:22-24 says this:

Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, with the following letter: "The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting. Since we have heard that some persons from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions,

It is again important to notice the role of “both the apostles and the elders” in sending people to the churches as well as making decisions on doctrines.

This seems good enough for the apostles during their own time, and it makes sense for this to be the future of the Church when the apostles pass to their eternal reward. We accept the decisions that emerged from the Council of Jerusalem as described in the book of Acts as error free. There is no reason to believe that the protection the Holy Spirit extended to the apostles and “the elders” at the council, which is referred to as the “whole church” would not also continue in future councils when it came to matters of doctrine.

I hope this helps.

 

[pneuma07]

http://th04.deviantart.net/fs24/300W/f/2008/018/d/e/the_invisible_man_by_stevedore.jpg

It seems to me that the Church is made of visible people, so it cannot be invisible. But perhaps this invisible church deception is so diabolical it is invisible to those who hold it! If you think i have it, then please tell me how you know, and give me the cure, if there is one.

thanks for this enjoyable humoristic approach !

What puzzles me is: what is the Church built by Jesus on the “petra”, according to those pastors in those denominations ?

What is the “Catholic Church” of the Creed, in case they choose to accept this element of Sacred Tradition ?

What is the Church to which all those good guys who think “That’s me !” when reading the “you” of the Great Commission belong ?

What, if not the “small case catholic church” aka the “church of all true believers wherever and whoever they are”, aka the invisible church. ?

In Christ.

 

[Thing]

Fascinating! Well, my young son, who just got his learner’s permit, wants to learn how to drive a car. Would you advise me to have someone who has never driven teach him how to drive, or do you think the more reliable (and safer) teacher is the one who has years of driving experience where she has never been in an accident or received a ticket from a police officer? Which should i trust to teach my son, the one who knows how to drive or the one who does not?

???
Hey you’re using my argument. The person with the most years of driving experience are the Apostles and their successors, not to mention the Holy Spirit whom was sent to them to ‘teach them all things’, because, Jesus had still many things to ‘tell them’ but they could not bear them ‘yet’. Later when Jesus dies, He will send the Spirit of truth to them and *He *will teach them all truth.

12 I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you. 14 He shall glorify me; because he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it to you. 15 All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine. Therefore I said, that he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you.

So yes the knowledge of the truth develops and the knowledge of the truth in the Apostles and their successors develops as they are helped and guided by the Spirit of truth.

Your problem is this; do I trust these men and the Spirit of truth who has guided them for the last 2000 years. Or do I look for something with no visable continuity or provinance but which attracts me just as much or even moreso than that which I am presented.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I will vention an answer. Based on the solid foundation provided by Ut, I can trust the Pope because he is a successor of the Apostles and has been selected to hold the office for which Peter was originally appointed by no other than Jesus.

Is my answer above a “real answer”?

Thank you for responding, David. I do value your opinions and those of the departed Professor. And i believe i’m making progress, for i can certainly see a different understanding of Jesus’ words to Peter in Matthew 16. It’s certainly likely that he, and not the truth he spoke, is the rock on which Christ built his church.

However, Ut has left an important question unanswered. If you have the time and the wisdom to answer the question, i’d like to ask you:

But does it prove that the successors of the Apostles had the same authority to determine doctrine. Much of what Christians believe are found in the words of Peter, John and Paul, as much as in Jesus. What separates these men from the successors, it seems to me, is they had a direct line of communication with Christ. Even Paul, who did not become Christian until after Christ’s crucifixion, wrote that Jesus Himself visited Him and instructed Him.

But can i trust the Pope today to have as firm a grasp on the truth as Peter and Paul and John, who knew Christ in such an intimate way? I don’t doubt there has been a line of succession. I wonder whether there has been a gradual corruption of the truth over the centuries. See my concern?