Protestants: How Do You Know That Your Interpretation of the Bible is the Right one? Part II

[JRKH]

I don’t have much time but let me give a couple of quick answers here.

JRKH: To you, the pope is the vicar of Christ; to me another man of God! For the better part of my adult life(including my walk with Christ) I have honestly had an indifferent view of the pope I mean, I would see him on TV, but really had no feelings one way or the other! Don’t get me wrong; even though I don’t agree with him, or accept that he has any authority over me, I do respect him, and if I met him, would shake his hand! That’s what cool about respect; you can respect someone in a position of authority, without agreeing with them

This is great.
It also provides an easy jump off point for you should you ever feel drawn toward the Church. you wouldn’t have this “hurdle” in your way.
We have been blessed in recent times with truly great Popes.

Before He left this earth, Jesus told US, that the Father would be sending us an Advocate, who was, the pope? No, it was…drum roll please, the Holy Spirit! And yes I believe it is possible to be led and directed by the Holy Spirit

I really don’t see where I would dispute this except to say that, where two or more Christians disagree on a matter concerning faith or morals, and BOTH feel led by the Holy Spirit, there needs to be a “Tie Breaker” - That is the Church - (Read Acts 15:1-29)

Hey, I know what the title of this thread is, but what if we "flipped the script, and asked catholics,"how can you be sure…? I mean without the same (sometimes ad nauseum) answers, you know, the one church, founded circa 33 A.D, read the ECF’s, if you read Matthew 16:18, etc,.

Yes but they are good answers. Try stringing together Mt 1:18-19, Mt 18:15-18 and Acts 15:1-29 then toss in the "Pillar and Foundation quote from Paul and see if you don’t see a pattern of Authority there.
Church is used only twice in the Gospels - Both time to confer Authority.

I mean, for example, do you really believe that James 5:16, is justification for confessing to a priest? I still believe that only God forgives sins!

So do we

And the “effectual fervent prayers of a righteous man”, well, gosh that could be any Christian or prayer warrior! And I really like Peter’s message in 1 Peter 1:25:thumbsup:One more thing about James 5:16; I have sharedconfessed and repented sins with other believers; and it is very uplifting and cleansing.

Glad to hear it

As I have stated before - In any discussion between catholics and non-catholics, the simple fact is that it will all come down to a question of Authority.

Example,
Can you show me a Council called among all the Protestant denominations that would equate to the Council of Jerusalem?
All where representatibves of the Protestants get together and discuss a matter of great import to the Church - Contraception or something.
This Council makes a ruling, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and issues a letter to All the Churches and fully expects ALL the Churches Abide by that ruling.

Just think about that if you want to consider “Christian Unity” which is what Christ wanted for us.

Peace
James

 

[MrS]

Example,
Can you show me a Council called among all the Protestant denominations that would equate to the Council of Jerusalem?
All where representatibves of the Protestants get together and discuss a matter of great import to the Church - Contraception or something.
This Council makes a ruling, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and issues a letter to All the Churches and fully expects ALL the Churches Abide by that ruling.

Just think about that if you want to consider “Christian Unity” which is what Christ wanted for us.

Peace
James

Very well presented James. It is definitely a good point to add to discussions on authority.


.

 

[Radical]

Keep Studying and praying.

thanks for the encouragement and the overall pleasant tone of your responses… praying is always good, but I believe that I really should spend less time studying and more time “looking after widows and orphans.”

I’m really a pretty simple Christian.

they tend to be the best kind IMHO

You are right - Many Protestants are close to Catholics on the core issues. Some are even Identical. This is why any discussion among us Christians will always come back to authority.

agreed. The OP could have been taken back one step and addressed to both non-Catholics and Catholics by asking, “How do you know that you are correct in your assessment of the RCC’s claims (regarding its authority)?”

One can also easily read a purely literal understanding of the Real Presence in Paul’s Statement about Eating and drinking condemnation on yourself by receiving the Eucharist unworthily.

I respectfully disagree.

Let me ask this - Which would be worse for your salvation?
Christ was speaking figuratively - But I err and take him seriously - thereby treating the Eucharist as Christ Himself - reverently - desposing of even the smallest crumb and drop reverntly.
OR
Christ was speaking literally - But I err and think it is not really him - So any left over “bread or juice” is just tossed or dumped.
Just consider teh implication of each.

Some time ago I had considered how Pascal’s wager would work if applied to the “Real Presence” or to the RCC’s claims regarding its authority, however, it wasn’t much of a consideration, b/c even if one thinks that one should follow the implications of Pascal’s wager, one cannot force oneself to believe that which one finds to be patently unbelievable.

Actually it was a combination.
If you accept the Bible’s compilation as an “Inspired” endeavor, then why would you reject the DC’s.

b/c, upon investigation, I conclude that these books were not recognized as scripture/of prophetic authority by those who first possessed them.

If you doubt the “inspiration” of the compilation, why accept the NT as established?

b/c, upon investigation, I conclude that these books were recognized as scripture/of apostolic authority by those who first possessed them.

Well there weren’t any “Protestant” preachers around in the 1st century, so if you want to read about the early Church Clement was there.

true, no protestants, b/c those who called themselves Catholic (at that time), had not fallen into such error that protesting was required

Yes - In some ways I wish that things weren’t so full of Pomp surrounding the Pope. But I would ask you to consider how humble our recent popes have been. They didn’t seek the title. They didn’t want the Job. In both JP II and Ben XVI we have men who would much rather be teaching at university. Yet they were called and must sreve. These men are more “prisoners” in these fancy robes and titles than they are “overlords”.
Can you see what I mean?

Sure, if the history of the RCC only contained popes that were of the character of the last two, Papal primacy would be a much easier pill to swallow.

Keep Seeking - God will work with and in you.

thanks…God bless you.

 

[Always_For_Him]

JRKH: One more thing about James 5:16; I have sharedconfessed and repented sins with other believers; and it is very uplifting and cleansing.

This is a beautiful feeling isn’t it!!! This is God’s grace. When you TRULY are sorry for your sins, want to repent and never do it again, and openly confess to someone who understands, but also expects your followthrough, you are forgiven. This is what we feel when we go to confession, God’s graces for having done so. It is healing. God’s grace is healing and helps us grow stronger. It is a much better way than just saying it to yourself, with nothing to really hold you accountable. When you REALLY mean it, you will want to cleanse yourself. The Sacrament of Reconciliation established by Christ to give us grace for doing so, IS the way Christ wanted us to do it.

 

[JRKH]

thanks for the encouragement and the overall pleasant tone of your responses… praying is always good, but I believe that I really should spend less time studying and more time “looking after widows and orphans.”

alas that is true of all of us.

they tend to be the best kind IMHO

That is because when we accept the Kingdom as a child (simply) life is easier.

agreed. The OP could have been taken back one step and addressed to both non-Catholics and Catholics by asking, “How do you know that you are correct in your assessment of the RCC’s claims (regarding its authority)?”

That could certanly be a topic for another thread.
Of course it probably has been in the past. (meaning there are probably already threads like that)

I respectfully disagree.

That is when we must follow Jesus Prayer for unity and Instructions about how to deal with such disputes. We should “Tell it to the Church”.

Some time ago I had considered how Pascal’s wager would work if applied to the “Real Presence” or to the RCC’s claims regarding its authority, however, it wasn’t much of a consideration, b/c even if one thinks that one should follow the implications of Pascal’s wager, one cannot force oneself to believe that which one finds to be patently unbelievable.

You are right. No one can force a belief. I just wanted you to note and consider the consequences of the two possiblities. Not necessarily from the personal “reward” standpoint, but from the “Love of God” standpoint.

b/c, upon investigation, I conclude that these books were not recognized as scripture/of prophetic authority by those who first possessed them.

b/c, upon investigation, I conclude that these books were recognized as scripture/of apostolic authority by those who first possessed them.

And so you place your personal conclusion above that of The One and Fully United Christian Church at the time. Not only that, but in accepting aprt of the Canon and rejected another part, you are saying that the council was “partly protected” by the Holy Spirit.
As to the question of “those who first possessed them”, this has been discussed on other threads. Those who first possessed them were so good at understanding what was inspired that they missed the Messiah when He came.
Secondly, here is a LINK that demonstrates that Jesus and the Apostles were familiar with AND used the DC books.

true, no protestants, b/c those who called themselves Catholic (at that time), had not fallen into such error that protesting was required

But you believe that they were in such error to select a wrong Bible Canon??

Sure, if the history of the RCC only contained popes that were of the character of the last two, Papal primacy would be a much easier pill to swallow.

thanks…God bless you.

no one would deny that there were some real stinkers on the Seat of Peter over the centuries. However these men were never able to pollute the teachings of the Church. now that’s protection. I can see that this is difficult for someone who was not raised in the tradition of the Catholic church, and doubly hard for Americans with our independent streak.
Please though just consider the possiblity.
Also, I posed a question to 1blever above about a “Protestant” council that can be equated to the Council at Jerusalem. I’d love to hear your take on that question.

Peace
James

 

[Always_For_Him]

I respectfully disagree.

That is your right to disagree. I hope you can understand that the source of the information came from the Catholic Church. You have not been taught the fullness of Christ’s Deposit of Faith. You have been taught parts of it, but not all of it. Just because you have never been taught it by your church or don’t agree with what the Catholics on this thread are beautifully and painstakingly trying to teach you, does not make what the Catholic Church has always taught about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist not true. It means that your church doesn’t believe it. Martin Luther and the Reformers believed in the Real Presence of the Eucharist. Why has man changed the teachings and dropped it in the last 500 years? It came through the Reformation. That is of man, not of Christ or His Church. Look at all that has been changed by man in the last 500 years. It is astounding.

Read the ECF’s. Read the Lamb’s Supper by Scott Hahn. Just reading the ECF’s WILL convince you of what the early Church believed. I know it will. I pray that it will. I also pray that when you read some of the scholarly posts by those who know how to explain it so beautifully, that God will open your heart to the Truth as we are trying to teach you so you can know the Truth. Non-Catholics say all kind of things that “they believe” that Catholics believe. They are wrong most of the time. They have been “taught” this error by someone else.

b/c, upon investigation, I conclude that these books were not recognized as scripture/of prophetic authority by those who first possessed them.

The dc books were part of the Alexandrian Septuagint which WAS used by Jesus and the Apostles. They taught from them. If Jesus taught from them, who is man to throw them out? The Catholic Church included them. The Jews eliminated them long after the death of Jesus. They were using them for decades after the death of Jesus. It was Martin Luther who threw them out. He wanted to throw more out too, but his counterparts would not let him.

true, no protestants, b/c those who called themselves Catholic (at that time), had not fallen into such error that protesting was required

This brings me to want to discuss the reasons for the Reformation. Please read the history of Why the Reformation happened. Martin Luther’s intial problem had NOTHING to do with the Church’s teaching on faith and morals. It was on the errouneous sale of indulgences. If you do the research on the initial reasons, you will find that the Church had already begun the process to fix the problems. What is so sad is that there was no need for a Reformation. As Luther gained power and political influence, he began teaching his own gospel. He was repeatedly asked to stop teaching error. His teachings were denounced as heretical (as the church always had to do to keep Christ’s Truth pure and free from error), and he was formally excommunicated. If you give a man an inch, he will make it a mile - especially in the realm of Christianity where Christ’s Way for us is hard to live by. We were never supposed to be our own interpreters of Scripture. Man was never supposed to just teach what he thinks it means. The Bible was never supposed to be separated from the authority that wrote it. The Truth has already been revealed. It was revealed to the Apostles, they taught it in context, and their successors wrote it down. It is hard to write context down. It was written to be a tool, not to be taken by unauthorized man on his own authority to try to figure out what Truth is in it. The Truth was already revealed 2,000 years ago by Christ to His Church. When man takes the Church’s book and re-creates meaning from it, it is error. People believe that error as Truth. We have to unite, get out of our selfish ways and come to believe the Truth as the Apostles taught it, not by how we have learned it from man separated from Christ’s Church for 500 years teaches it.

Most protestants say that the Church had “fallen into such error that protesting was required”. Really, this can only be because this is the non-Catholic churches way of justifying their existence and for the members of those churches to have something to believe as a valid reason to be a part of a church that is not the Apostolic Church founded by Christ. Why else would anyone be part of churches that are separated from Christ’s Church as a result of the Reformation?

Sure, if the history of the RCC only contained popes that were of the character of the last two, Papal primacy would be a much easier pill to swallow.

You are right. Man is sinful. What is so beautiful is that the popes that were not of the caliber of our last two, NEVER changed or brought error to Christ’s Deposit of Faith. It remains the same as when the Apostles were teaching us of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, confession of sins, regenerative baptism by water. These are sacraments that JESUS instituted to give grace until His return. They are His gifts to US!!! Please study them and their historical understanding and practice. They are beautiful, but they require obedience just as Christ did. Really, it is not that difficult. Reading the ECF’s, the little that I have had the opportunity to read, really have driven this home. We are supposed to be obedient and follow the teachings and traditions as they have given us, and nothing else. Anything else is created by man and to follow those teachings or our own feelings and interpretation is to lead to our own destruction.

 

[MDK]

Errors per the teachings of the catholic church, or per the Holy Word of God?

No difference between the two. The Bible that you don’t understand was written by Catholics, for Catholics, in the context of Catholicism. The reason you don’t understand it,is that you take it out of the proper context, and dissect and decide for yourself what God tells you. This never works.

On the other hand, the Catholic Church has protected and taught God’s word for almost 2000 years. It is extremely arrogant of you to come in and tell the pillar and bullwark of truth established and protected by God that they are wrong. It takes humility to come to God. Please start again from humility, and perhaps you will find truth… Any search for truth will inevitably lead you to the Catholic Church, the Body and Bride of Christ.

 

[Always_For_Him]

No difference between the two. The Bible that you don’t understand was written by Catholics, for Catholics, in the context of Catholicism. The reason you don’t understand it,is that you take it out of the proper context, and dissect and decide for yourself what God tells you. This never works.
.

For those who have never been a part of the Catholic Church, they don’t realize that their churches are teaching some error. What they learn in their churches is truth to them. They don’t believe that their church is wrong, or that they have been taught error in any way. Well meaning, beautiful Christian people teaching errant teaching, in the end, teach error. They just don’t know.

On the other hand, the Catholic Church has protected and taught God’s word for almost 2000 years. It is extremely arrogant of you to come in and tell the pillar and bullwark of truth established and protected by God that they are wrong. It takes humility to come to God. Please start again from humility, and perhaps you will find truth… Any search for truth will inevitably lead you to the Catholic Church, the Body and Bride of Christ.

It is very difficult to admit something so intimate and personal as your spiritual teaching, your faith, your faithful practices as wrong. People have faith in their churches and their pastors. They don’t know that churches as a result of the Reformation have separated themselves from Apostolic teaching and Christ’s Church and are teaching their own gospel. When you believe that you know the Truth, it takes a mack-truck to make you realize that you have been taught error. I would love for the converts and re-verts to expound on this for us.

 

[JRKH]

For those who have never been a part of the Catholic Church, they don’t realize that their churches are teaching some error. What they learn in their churches is truth to them. They don’t believe that their church is wrong, or that they have been taught error in any way. Well meaning, beautiful Christian people teaching errant teaching, in the end, teach error. They just don’t know.

It is very difficult to admit something so intimate and personal as your spiritual teaching, your faith, your faithful practices as wrong. People have faith in their churches and their pastors. They don’t know that churches as a result of the Reformation have separated themselves from Apostolic teaching and Christ’s Church and are teaching their own gospel. When you believe that you know the Truth, it takes a mack-truck to make you realize that you have been taught error. I would love for the converts and re-verts to expound on this for us.

Nicely stated -
It is sometimes difficult for us to get outside of our selves and try to see whre the other is coming from.
It doesn’t mean we give up on defending the faith or trying to bring folks home, but it is important to do it with Love.

Peace
James

 

[heiscominginthe]

Originally Posted by Always For Him
For those who have never been a part of the Catholic Church, they don’t realize that their churches are teaching some error. What they learn in their churches is truth to them. They don’t believe that their church is wrong, or that they have been taught error in any way. Well meaning, beautiful Christian people teaching errant teaching, in the end, teach error. They just don’t know.

Yet, when it comes to debating the Word of God, there are churches who challenge the CC bases soley on the Word of God, the bible and the CC will politely decline since their bible lies within the volumes of interpretations of the bible.

In other words, they cannot stand on the Word alone.

 

[JRKH]

Yet, when it comes to debating the Word of God, there are churches who challenge the CC bases soley on the Word of God, the bible and the CC will politely decline since their bible lies within the volumes of interpretations of the bible.

In other words, they cannot stand on the Word alone.

I dare say neither can you.
You rely on your own interpretation or on the teachins you have recieved from others.
We rely on the teachings of Christ’s Church just as He instructed us to do.

You disobey Christ’s teaching as contained in the bible and when confronted with the contraditions you conveneintly ignore them and try to change teh subject.
I have been in enough conversations with you sir that I know your tactics.

Peace
James

 

[SCALCO]

This is a beautiful feeling isn’t it!!! This is God’s grace. When you TRULY are sorry for your sins, want to repent and never do it again, and openly confess to someone who understands, but also expects your followthrough, you are forgiven. This is what we feel when we go to confession, God’s graces for having done so. It is healing. God’s grace is healing and helps us grow stronger. It is a much better way than just saying it to yourself, with nothing to really hold you accountable. When you REALLY mean it, you will want to cleanse yourself. The Sacrament of Reconciliation established by Christ to give us grace for doing so, IS the way Christ wanted us to do it.

:yup:

 

[Radical]

And so you place your personal conclusion above that of The One and Fully United Christian Church at the time.

Well let’s be precise about this. I look at historical evidence and note the personal opinions of few ECFs (both of those who accept the apocrypha and those who didn’t like Jerome) and I note the personal opinions of a rather limited number of church leaders who attended church councils and ruled on the matter. Those at the council of Laodicea (IMHO) seemed to have a better understanding than those at the council that you prefer. In any event, what you call the conclusion of The One and Fully United Christian Church at the time was merely the unified opinion of a small body of men and that opinion happened to differ with the unified opinion(s) of other small bodies of men.

Not only that, but in accepting aprt of the Canon and rejected another part, you are saying that the council was “partly protected” by the Holy Spirit.

I am saying that the early church did a good job with its determination wrt the apostolic authority of the various writings that it possessed. (To be very candid with you, the inclusion/exclusion of a book such as Revelation is not that important to me…the reality/historicity of Christ’s death and resurrection does not hinge on that book at all and that, after all, is the central message of the gospel. Now I accept Revelation as part of the Word of God, but I also recognize that some ECFs didn’t and I do take that fact into account.)

As to the question of “those who first possessed them”, this has been discussed on other threads. Those who first possessed them were so good at understanding what was inspired that they missed the Messiah when He came.

Some/most of them did and some of them didn’t…it seems to me that when you want me to believe in a monarchical hierarchy you will point to the obedience that Christ required wrt those sitting in the seat of Moses, but when it comes to considering how we arrived at the canon for the OT, you want to dismiss any authority possessed by those sitting in the seat of Moses.

Secondly, here is a LINK that demonstrates that Jesus and the Apostles were familiar with AND used the DC books.

This demonstration seems very weak. An easy example is the first claim. It states: Matt. 2:16 - Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents. Wisdom 11: 7 actually reads: *For a manifest reproof of that commandment, whereby the infants were slain, thou gavest unto them abundance of water by a means which they hoped not for: * Hardly a prophecy unless any mention of slain infants amounts to a prophecy. Another example is that it claims: Rom. 4:17 - Abraham is a father of many nations follows Sirach 44:19. Gen 17:5 reads: No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. Romans 4:17 follows Gen 17:5 and there is no need to even consider Sirach 44:19. (These are the only two I looked at as it appeared to be a grand waste of time. Is there any claim in that link that could be said to be legitimate?)

no one would deny that there were some real stinkers on the Seat of Peter over the centuries. However these men were never able to pollute the teachings of the Church. now that’s protection.

I believe that the suggested protection is merely in the eye of the beholder. The stinkers were notorius for their pursuit of war, wealth. wine and/or women. What purpose (for them) would have been served by developing doctrine? For the most part (apart from raising wealth for the pursuit of the other three W’s through the sale of indulgences and developing doctrine in that regard for the purpose of increasing the take) developing any doctrine could have only rocked the boat. Did they develop any good doctrine? …or is it that they simply left that area alone? Further, as I believe the RC doctrine to be in error, the best that can be said (from my perspective) is that they didn’t add to the existing error (and even then it might be necessary to resort to saying that what they did and said was not an official teaching).

Also, I posed a question to 1blever above about a “Protestant” council that can be equated to the Council at Jerusalem. I’d love to hear your take on that question.

Well let us get the facts as set out in Acts 15. Those in attendance were:
a) Two apostles (at least one of whom enjoyed direct revelation from Christ) representing one of the very oldest local churches and who had their authority verified by miraculous signs and wonders
b) the members of the very first local church including some who were Pharisees and some who were prophets (and most/many of whom would have seen Jesus in the flesh and heard his words).
c) Two more apostles (both of whom enjoyed direct revelation from Christ) and who had their authority verified by miraculous signs and wonders
Frankly, I can’t think of any council that could be equated with the council of Jerusalem b/c such a group of Christians has long ceased to exist. Paul indicates that an apostle is marked by signs, wonders and miracles (2 Cor 12:12). I don’t see any one after 90 AD +/- who was marked with that office (who is the last preson that you can name who travelled, preached and was able to preform miracles on a regular basis)? Now if the Pope, or the RC bishops all possessed such an ability, it sure would be hard to argue against their claim to apostolic succession, but alas…

Peace

 

[pismopal]

This is a beautiful feeling isn’t it!!! This is God’s grace. When you TRULY are sorry for your sins, want to repent and never do it again, and openly confess to someone who understands, but also expects your followthrough, you are forgiven. This is what we feel when we go to confession, God’s graces for having done so. It is healing. God’s grace is healing and helps us grow stronger. It is a much better way than just saying it to yourself, with nothing to really hold you accountable. When you REALLY mean it, you will want to cleanse yourself. The Sacrament of Reconciliation established by Christ to give us grace for doing so, IS the way Christ wanted us to do it.

My first confession…on my knees and trying hard to be exhaustive in recounting my sin and telling another person…a man like me but with Holy Orders and who I knew empathized with my temporary agony. When I received absolution with tears in my eyes…I felt as light as a feather and for once clean in spirit and renewed…like a child with a new pair of shoes.
I declare that even if confession were not a Sacrament…I would still do it…what a wonderful experience I have Christ and his Church to thank for this and it is there for the asking…wow.

 

[JRKH]

Well let’s be precise about this. I look at historical evidence and note the personal opinions of few ECFs (both of those who accept the apocrypha and those who didn’t like Jerome) and I note the personal opinions of a rather limited number of church leaders who attended church councils and ruled on the matter. Those at the council of Laodicea (IMHO) seemed to have a better understanding than those at the council that you prefer. In any event, what you call the conclusion of The One and Fully United Christian Church at the time was merely the unified opinion of a small body of men and that opinion happened to differ with the unified opinion(s) of other small bodies of men.
I am saying that the early church did a good job with its determination wrt the apostolic authority of the various writings that it possessed. (To be very candid with you, the inclusion/exclusion of a book such as Revelation is not that important to me…the reality/historicity of Christ’s death and resurrection does not hinge on that book at all and that, after all, is the central message of the gospel. Now I accept Revelation as part of the Word of God, but I also recognize that some ECFs didn’t and I do take that fact into account.)
Some/most of them did and some of them didn’t…it seems to me that when you want me to believe in a monarchical hierarchy you will point to the obedience that Christ required wrt those sitting in the seat of Moses, but when it comes to considering how we arrived at the canon for the OT, you want to dismiss any authority possessed by those sitting in the seat of Moses.
This demonstration seems very weak. An easy example is the first claim. It states: Matt. 2:16 - Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents. Wisdom 11: 7 actually reads: *For a manifest reproof of that commandment, whereby the infants were slain, thou gavest unto them abundance of water by a means which they hoped not for: * Hardly a prophecy unless any mention of slain infants amounts to a prophecy. Another example is that it claims: Rom. 4:17 - Abraham is a father of many nations follows Sirach 44:19. Gen 17:5 reads: No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. Romans 4:17 follows Gen 17:5 and there is no need to even consider Sirach 44:19. (These are the only two I looked at as it appeared to be a grand waste of time. Is there any claim in that link that could be said to be legitimate?)

I believe that the suggested protection is merely in the eye of the beholder. The stinkers were notorius for their pursuit of war, wealth. wine and/or women. What purpose (for them) would have been served by developing doctrine? For the most part (apart from raising wealth for the pursuit of the other three W’s through the sale of indulgences and developing doctrine in that regard for the purpose of increasing the take) developing any doctrine could have only rocked the boat. Did they develop any good doctrine? …or is it that they simply left that area alone? Further, as I believe the RC doctrine to be in error, the best that can be said (from my perspective) is that they didn’t add to the existing error (and even then it might be necessary to resort to saying that what they did and said was not an official teaching).
Well let us get the facts as set out in Acts 15. Those in attendance were:
a) Two apostles (at least one of whom enjoyed direct revelation from Christ) representing one of the very oldest local churches and who had their authority verified by miraculous signs and wonders
b) the members of the very first local church including some who were Pharisees and some who were prophets (and most/many of whom would have seen Jesus in the flesh and heard his words).
c) Two more apostles (both of whom enjoyed direct revelation from Christ) and who had their authority verified by miraculous signs and wonders
Frankly, I can’t think of any council that could be equated with the council of Jerusalem b/c such a group of Christians has long ceased to exist. Paul indicates that an apostle is marked by signs, wonders and miracles (2 Cor 12:12). I don’t see any one after 90 AD +/- who was marked with that office (who is the last preson that you can name who travelled, preached and was able to preform miracles on a regular basis)? Now if the Pope, or the RC bishops all possessed such an ability, it sure would be hard to argue against their claim to apostolic succession, but alas…

Peace

You seem to raise several good points in your respinses, but unfortunately I don’t have time to really review them in depth - I will try to do so later if I can.

One thing I have to note that you ignored my point about Jesus instruction for us to “Tell it to The Church” and then to abide by the decision of "The Church.
Now it should be noted that He did NOT say Tell it to the Apostles. The hrase was, “Tell it to the Church”.

So - Whenever we reach these kinds of impasses on beliefs etc. where we persieve our brother to be sinning by teaching a false doctrine, and we go and tell him but he refuses to listen, then we bring several aothers that “Each fact may be confirmed”, and he refuses to listen to them, It is time to submit it to The Church for decision so that we may abide by Christ’s instructions AND conform ourselves to His prayer that we be of One Mind.

So - My Friend - Are you willing and able to submit this difference of opinion to The Church?

Peace
James

 

[heiscominginthe]

I dare say neither can you.
You rely on your own interpretation or on the teachins you have recieved from others.
We rely on the teachings of Christ’s Church just as He instructed us to do.

You disobey Christ’s teaching as contained in the bible and when confronted with the contraditions you conveneintly ignore them and try to change teh subject.
I have been in enough conversations with you sir that I know your tactics.

Peace
James

James, it is easy for you to say what has been given me is contradiction or not of God, but yet you have not posted one iota of proof.

So tell me, is it water baptism that saves a man? Or is a man saved by faith?

When a man is to be baptized in water, is it done in the name of Jesus as it says in scripture or is it done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as the CC teaches?

If a baby is baptized in the CC, is he saved for life?

Does being baptized into the CC save a man?

 

[SSTeacher]

You seem to raise several good points in your responses, but unfortunately I don’t have time to really review them in depth - I will try to do so later if I can.

One thing I have to note that you ignored my point about Jesus instruction for us to “Tell it to The Church” and then to abide by the decision of "The Church.
Now it should be noted that He did NOT say Tell it to the Apostles. The phrase was, “Tell it to the Church”.

So - Whenever we reach these kinds of impasses on beliefs etc. where we perceive our brother to be sinning by teaching a false doctrine, and we go and tell him but he refuses to listen, then we bring several others that “Each fact may be confirmed”, and he refuses to listen to them, It is time to submit it to The Church for decision so that we may abide by Christ’s instructions AND conform ourselves to His prayer that we be of One Mind.

So - My Friend - Are you willing and able to submit this difference of opinion to The Church?

Peace
James

Hi James,

Excuse me for interpolating but I think your last sentence highlights one of the difficulties for post–Reformation non–Catholic western Christians and raises what is for me the key question i.e. where is the Church to which the difference of opinion must be submitted? There is no help to be found in this situation by holding up the Bible as the authority. The Bible can guide those who are willing to be guided by it and it can inspire those who are willing to be inspired by it but it cannot control spiritual insurrectionists or adjudicate on differences of opinion amongst believers.

Ruefully,
Mick
:sad_bye:

 

[JRKH]

Hi James,

Excuse me for interpolating but I think your last sentence highlights one of the difficulties for post–Reformation non–Catholic western Christians and raises what is for me the key question i.e. where is the Church to which the difference of opinion must be submitted? There is no help to be found in this situation by holding up the Bible as the authority. The Bible can guide those who are willing to be guided by it and it can inspire those who are willing to be inspired by it but it cannot control spiritual insurrectionists or adjudicate on differences of opinion amongst believers.

Ruefully,
Mick
:sad_bye:

What you say is very true and is at the very crux of the matter in any of these discussions which is why I tend to bring it up. The fact is that most of the discussions we have here on doctrine have been discussed, debated and resolved by The Church long ago. Why should we, as Christian Bothers and Sisters be rehashing the same issues over again. The fact is that we shouldn’t. We should be getting on with the Building of the Kingdom.

The sad thing is that the, “post–Reformation non–Catholic western Christians”, are trapped and confounded by their very adherance to Sola Scriptura. They cannot find “The Church” among themselves to submit disagreements to and so are left forever divided. Even when it is pointed out to them that Christ Himself told us to “Tell it to The Church”, they cannot and so are left, not only confused among themselves, but in disobedience to Christ - Convicted by the Very Book that they hold up as Authority.

As to where “The Church” is, I suggest to any who wish to truly learn, to look not just in the Bible, but also at the writings of those who were the second and third and fourth generation Christians. Those who really WERE the early Church. Those who were trained by the Apostles themselves or by others closely associated with them. You will find that they are catholic in their views on many things including the importance of the Authority of the Church. Also this will provide one with a very real sense of how the Church developed doctrinally over those early days.
Once one does seriously look into these things, they will in all likelyhood come to the same conclusion that you seem to have. It has to be either the Cstholic or the Orthodox.

Peace
James

P.S. hey Mick - It’s nice to hear from you again. Seems like a long time my friend.
jim

 

[JRKH]

I’m back, but it is late and I am tired.
My Lady is having a hard time so I don’t know if I will be able to devote a great deal of time to the board for at least the next couple of days.
To your points

Well let’s be precise about this. I look at historical evidence and note the personal opinions of few ECFs (both of those who accept the apocrypha and those who didn’t like Jerome) and I note the personal opinions of a rather limited number of church leaders who attended church councils and ruled on the matter. Those at the council of Laodicea (IMHO) seemed to have a better understanding than those at the council that you prefer. In any event, what you call the conclusion of The One and Fully United Christian Church at the time was merely the unified opinion of a small body of men and that opinion happened to differ with the unified opinion(s) of other small bodies of men.

Based upon what you have said here you seem t have a low opinion of Jesus Promise to be with His Church until the end of the Age. That He would protect His Church and guide it through the Holy Spirit. You seem to think that the Canon of the Bible was set by “just a small body of men…” You also fail to note that this “Body of men” was composed of Bishops of the Unified Christian Church of the time.
The fact is that the canon was set at at Hippo and Carthage and ratified by (I think) seven other councils ALL before the Reformation. NONE of the councils made any changes to the canon.
As to those within the Church who expressed other opinions, (NC’s always bring up Jerome) you will note that they all were obedient to the “Tell it to the Church” instruction and submitted their personal will to the will of the Holy Spirit as expressed through the Church in council. That includes Jerome who was charged with translating the Books into Latin.
I might also mention that it seems that St Paul also thought that the wider canon was fine. In writing to Timothy he said that “All Scripture was God Breithed and Useful…” Now think for a minute about where Paul and Timothy preached and established Churches. What language were those people speaking and what Scripture were they likely using? Did Paul not spend his time preaching outside of Palistine? Did he not take the Gospel to the Gentiles in the Greek Speaking world? Wouldn’t the most familiar Scriptures in these areas be the Septuigent?
And Paul says - ALL Scripture.
Food for thought.

I am saying that the early church did a good job with its determination wrt the apostolic authority of the various writings that it possessed. (To be very candid with you, the inclusion/exclusion of a book such as Revelation is not that important to me…the reality/historicity of Christ’s death and resurrection does not hinge on that book at all and that, after all, is the central message of the gospel. Now I accept Revelation as part of the Word of God, but I also recognize that some ECFs didn’t and I do take that fact into account.)

I will be just as candid with you. I too place most of my emphasis on the Gospels and the Epistles. My concern about the “missing books”, that is the different canon is that it IS different. Many Non-Catholics hold up the Bible as the sole rule of faith, but one of the first things they did was to change it. That in itself makes no sense.

Some/most of them did and some of them didn’t…it seems to me that when you want me to believe in a monarchical hierarchy you will point to the obedience that Christ required wrt those sitting in the seat of Moses, but when it comes to considering how we arrived at the canon for the OT, you want to dismiss any authority possessed by those sitting in the seat of Moses.

This only means that I too get caught up in details and sometimes don’t explain myself well. Actually my position is more consistant than the noncatholics on this issue. You see I recognize that Jesus, in telling His disciples who were Jews to obey the Pharasees, was illustrating that, we are to be obedient to the rightful authorites placed over us by God. In the OT case it was the Pharasees. In the NT case it is the Visible Church built upon Peter and the Apostles - Both of which are Headed by God.
That is why it makes much more sense to accept the fuller canon of the Bible, because it was arrived at by the Authority of the Church Jesus Founded and Promised to Protect, instead of trying to say that Jesus’ Church got one part right and one part wrong.

This demonstration seems very weak. An easy example is the first claim. It states: Matt. 2:16 - Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents. Wisdom 11: 7 actually reads: *For a manifest reproof of that commandment, whereby the infants were slain, thou gavest unto them abundance of water by a means which they hoped not for: * Hardly a prophecy unless any mention of slain infants amounts to a prophecy. Another example is that it claims: Rom. 4:17 - Abraham is a father of many nations follows Sirach 44:19. Gen 17:5 reads: No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. Romans 4:17 follows Gen 17:5 and there is no need to even consider Sirach 44:19. (These are the only two I looked at as it appeared to be a grand waste of time. Is there any claim in that link that could be said to be legitimate?)

Be that as it may, as I mentioned above, it seems that St Paul thought the Septuigent was fine.

(Continued Below)

 

[JRKH]

(Continued From Above)

I believe that the suggested protection is merely in the eye of the beholder. The stinkers were notorius for their pursuit of war, wealth. wine and/or women. What purpose (for them) would have been served by developing doctrine? For the most part (apart from raising wealth for the pursuit of the other three W’s through the sale of indulgences and developing doctrine in that regard for the purpose of increasing the take) developing any doctrine could have only rocked the boat. Did they develop any good doctrine? …or is it that they simply left that area alone? Further, as I believe the RC doctrine to be in error, the best that can be said (from my perspective) is that they didn’t add to the existing error (and even then it might be necessary to resort to saying that what they did and said was not an official teaching).

And yet Doctrine and teaching is what it is all about. it is not the “three W’s”, as you put it, that really effect our salvic walk today but the teachings and doctrines that have been passed down.
I would also note that there were many stinkers among the kings, priests, etc in the OT yet God never abandoned the Jews and when Jesus Came on the scene He sacrificed at the Temple in Jerusalem in spite of the poor teachers (“brood of vipers”) in charge. Why? because that is where the Spiritual Authority was. Just as Spiritual Authority now lies in Christ’s Church which He founded and built upon Peter.

Well let us get the facts as set out in Acts 15. Those in attendance were:
a) Two apostles (at least one of whom enjoyed direct revelation from Christ) representing one of the very oldest local churches and who had their authority verified by miraculous signs and wonders
b) the members of the very first local church including some who were Pharisees and some who were prophets (and most/many of whom would have seen Jesus in the flesh and heard his words).
c) Two more apostles (both of whom enjoyed direct revelation from Christ) and who had their authority verified by miraculous signs and wonders
Frankly, I can’t think of any council that could be equated with the council of Jerusalem b/c such a group of Christians has long ceased to exist. Paul indicates that an apostle is marked by signs, wonders and miracles (2 Cor 12:12). I don’t see any one after 90 AD +/- who was marked with that office (who is the last preson that you can name who travelled, preached and was able to preform miracles on a regular basis)? Now if the Pope, or the RC bishops all possessed such an ability, it sure would be hard to argue against their claim to apostolic succession, but alas…

Peace

It would indeed be nice if we still lived in an age and place of such times and wonders. But alas …
I don’t see all of the non-catholic pastors, bishops, etc possessing this ability either so it seems a poor point to raise.

As to those in attendance at the Council - Certainly there were those with direct connections to Christ, but if this is a criteria for settling the dispute at the time, I might point out that Antioch had in its midst just such a person in St Paul. Why didn’t they just accept a decsion by St. Paul? So even with St Paul right there among the Antiochians they could not reach a solution. Did they Pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance? I’m sure they did, but it didn’t seem to help. Did they, “Agree to disagree?” No - they sought a true resolution to the issue so as to maintain unity and be of “One Mind”.
Thus it was that they sent to the “Church Leadership” in Jerusalem.

Thus the fact remains that, from the earliest times, it was recognized that there was to be an Earthly, Visivble, Authoritative Church to which the faithful could appeal for decisions and that those decisions were binding. It is demonstrated in the Bible itself.

You can certainly point to the fact that there were Apostles Present. But those Apostles were also the First Bishops of The Church. They had the authority to Bind and Loose - Whatever. Peter had the “Keys to the Kingdom”. They passed on this authority to the next Generation of Bishops, many trained by the Apostles themselves, who built upon what they were taught by the Apostles. This included the “councilior” method of dealing with major doctrinal issues. Of course this couldn’t always be adhered to do to distance and periodic persecutions, but it has overall worked quite well down through the centuries.

I hope this is at least somewhat helpful.

peace
James