Scripture: Why does the CC having made it 'canon' mean the CC is what it claims?

[JoyToBeCatholic]

In my thread about "What if it’s against my conscience…) people have been trying to make me see that the Bible wouldn’t be canon in the first place had it not been for the church, therefore, I should submit to the church. (that’s the short version ). Anyway,I said that Jesus said the Holy Spirit would bring all things to their (Apostles) remembrance. If the Scriptures are inspired by God, and if the Apostles had all things in their remembrance, and if the H.S. guided them to write these things, I cannot possibly believe that He only had them write some of their teachings.

I started to think that this is circular reasoning but wasn’t sure if I was right. I was right. It is circular reasoning, b/c I’m using a NT passage to validate the authenticity of the NT (hope I said that right).

So, I’ve been thinking about it. Ultimately, what is it that has brought me to where I am in my faith. And I figured it out (or at least, I think I did), and I think you will see where I’m coming from if I lay it all out for you:

Ok, I’m just an agnostic looking for the one true God and the way to everlasting peace. I use reasoning not unlike that which you’ll find here: www.whyjesus.com . I look at the impact of Christianity on the world and the fact that Jesus is historical (even according to non-Christians!) and I become persuaded that the answer most likely lies in the claims of Christianity. So I look at ALL of the early writings of that period. I start first with the o.t., since Jesus obviously believed in it, and go on from there to everything that exists, canon or not. Firstly, I will find in the o.t. claims that Gods word will endure forever (among many other incredible claims about Gods word ). Then I will look at every Bible in publish today and find that these claims are in every single one of them. I will also see MOST of the same books in every single one of them. I think, at that point, I can rest assured that God indeed has lived up to His promise.

Does it really matter *how *God’s Word was preserved??? God has kept all of His promises, and I gasp sometimes at the means through which He has done so. One only needs to look at the o.t. to see some pretty shocking events that God ordained to bring about His will. So what if He used a theologically imperfect church to begin attempting the preservation of His Word?( I really don’t mean that as a derogatory comment), but what I’m saying is:

Does it HAVE TO MEAN that God used an infallible church to do it???

Btw, I really want to try to keep this thread on-topic. I feel obligated to answer every post as best I can, but if it gets off-topic I may have to bypass something for the sake of saving time. (i’m seeing evidence that i’m taking way too much time here lately)

Thanks

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

I should continue this with:

…Now I look for a church. What am I going to choose? I will look for the one that most accurately aligns with the church of the NT. Obviously, everyone is going to differ as to which church that is. Does this mean they are all wrong? Does it mean only 1 is right?

Coming to the rational that I can believe in Christ, and I can believe the Bible, it follows that the only way to find Christ’s church is to seek out the one that most closely aligns with the church portrayed in the Bible. I think they all resemble it somewhat. None of them are perfect, but I can find baptism, eucharist (with differing understandings of it), confession, etc… The important thing is that in each of them we find (for the most part, hopefully) commited Christians loving God and doing the best they can to obey His commands. Are they all doing it “right”? I don’t think God is limited by any of our methods and beliefs about the things Jesus instituted (baptism, eucharist, etc.) and Scripture proves it: The gentiles were baptized with the H.S. without water baptizm first. …and these are the things that separate Christianity.

Seriously, even the Catholic Church doesn’t believe there is no salvation outside of itself. In the end, it’s all a matter of each and every person’s individual interpretation. Isn’t it?!

Peace

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Btw, It’s not whyjesus.com It is www.why-jesus.com

 

[JimG]

Coming to the rational that I can believe in Christ, and I can believe the Bible, it follows that the only way to find Christ’s church is to seek out the one that most closely aligns with the church portrayed in the Bible.

The better way would be to seek out the Church founded by Christ. For it is this Church that in the course of its preaching, wrote the bible.

 

[dbacks5439]

Well, by the time the Catholic Church set the canon, there were hundreds of Gospels, epistles, and letters written (supposedly) by the apostles and several ECF’s. We needed a group of people to look at the authenticy of each document. Those that met the criteria were included, while those that didn’t weren’t. If we didn’t have an infallible Magisterium to do this, then the canon would change all the time, for there would be constant arguments. We look at the protestants who took books out of the canon and look what happened. The number 30,000 comes to mind.
We didn't pick books which fit our theology. Rather, the books picked the theology that we believe in now. All we did was verify the authenticy of the books, and whatever was written in the accepted books is what we believe, because after we selected the canon were we able to infallibly interpret the scriptures and not what was considered the scriptures.

 

[Chancellare]

You were doing a fairly good series of steps and reasoning in discovering your faith until your last paragraph.

The first sentence refers to the possibility that God, in His infinite mercy, will save others who have not yet been reached by the Gospel and the Magisterium. This does not include those who are already reached and taught but still insists on following wrong doctrines that have already been explained and researched on those doctrines. Which will not lead you to salvation. Which is bad.

The matter of following your own personal interpretation has already been discussed in other threads like “Sola Scriptura” and other related threads on the subject. Simply put, following your own interpretation is just as bad.

 

[guanophore]

We didn't pick books which fit our theology. Rather, the books picked the theology that we believe in now. All we did was verify the authenticy of the books, and whatever was written in the accepted books is what we believe, because after we selected the canon were we able to infallibly interpret the scriptures and not what was considered the scriptures.

I disagree with the secong part of this. I think infalliblity existed from the time it was given, long before the books were written or organized.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

I disagree with the secong part of this. I think infalliblity existed from the time it was given, long before the books were written or organized.

Not, to ignore the other posts here (I’ll try to resond to them later) but his post struck me too, as does your comment.

I made this point on one of my other threads:

Since advocates for the CC point to the fact that the CC went through a great process to determine which writings were canonizable… **Before an infallible pronouncement was made about which writings were canonizable, we have to assume that the early church was circulating and reading writings that were *not *inspired, **correct?

The church always had the bible. But the church did not always recognize which specific writings were inspired. Do you see that having other, non-inspired books being circulated and read aloud in the churches indicates that the church was (at that very early time) infallible? It was using erroneous, uninspired texts in its churches! Furthermore, the fact that the early church was unsure, for a time, which writings were inspired proves that tradition was not infallible. If tradition and infallibility already existed in the church, canonizing writings would not have been such a difficult process.

So, either it was already common knowledge which writings were inspired and the Catholic church merely recognized them as such (as any group could have done), or the church was imperfect at the start and wasn’t even sure of which traditions were apostolic. You can’t argue that tradition was solid and the church was infallible if it took hundreds of years for the church to determine which inspired writings lived up to those inspired traditions. It sounds like everything was pretty uncertain. If you agree, then, the Catholic’s arguement that the non-Catholic’s belief in a church that went apostate until a reformation means the gates of hell must have prevailed against the church (which we know it can’t) falls apart. It’s just as easy to apply the “church evolution” theory in this case to a reformation. Not having been perfect does not = “gates of hell prevail”. The truth was there, and even if most of the church was following some not-so-orthodox teachings, God had a plan to bring about the restoration of His Word.

Many times in the OT God’s people have totally gone off the deep end in turning away from God, constructing a golden calf, etc… But would we say the gates of hell prevailed??? If the church went astray, God remained faithful still and the gates of hell did not prevail.

All I am trying to demonstrate here is that, yes, there was a time when we did not have our perfect, leather-bound, gold-trimmed bibles. Catholics often try to shoot-down sola scriptura b/c of that fact, but church infallibility can just as easily be refuted by the same argument. It obviously couldn’t perfectly define what traditions were apostolic if it was accepting (for a time) uninspired texts as suitable for circulation and teaching in the church.

Regardless of who “pronounced” that God’s Word was God’s Word, it is God’s Word b/c God said He would preserve His Word.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Not, to ignore the other posts here (I’ll try to resond to them later) but his post struck me too, as does your comment.

I made this point on one of my other threads:

Since advocates for the CC point to the fact that the CC went through a great process to determine which writings were canonizable… Before an infallible pronouncement was made about which writings were canonizable, we have to assume that the early church was circulating and reading writings that were *not *inspired, correct?

The church always had the bible. But the church did not always recognize which specific writings were inspired. Do you see that having other, non-inspired books being circulated and read aloud in the churches indicates that the church was (at that very early time) infallible? It was using erroneous, uninspired texts in its churches! Furthermore, the fact that the early church was unsure, for a time, which writings were inspired proves that tradition was not infallible. If tradition and infallibility already existed in the church, canonizing writings would not have been such a difficult process.

So, either it was already common knowledge which writings were inspired and the Catholic church merely recognized them as such (as any group could have done), or the church was imperfect at the start and wasn’t even sure of which traditions were apostolic. You can’t argue that tradition was solid and the church was infallible if it took hundreds of years for the church to determine which inspired writings lived up to those inspired traditions. It sounds like everything was pretty uncertain. If you agree, then, the Catholic’s arguement that the non-Catholic’s belief in a church that went apostate until a reformation means the gates of hell must have prevailed against the church (which we know it can’t) falls apart. It’s just as easy to apply the “church evolution” theory in this case to a reformation. Not having been perfect does not = “gates of hell prevail”. The truth was there, and even if most of the church was following some not-so-orthodox teachings, God had a plan to bring about the restoration of His Word.

Many times in the OT God’s people have totally gone off the deep end in turning away from God, constructing a golden calf, etc… But would we say the gates of hell prevailed??? If the church went astray, God remained faithful still and the gates of hell did not prevail.

All I am trying to demonstrate here is that, yes, there was a time when we did not have our perfect, leather-bound, gold-trimmed bibles. Catholics often try to shoot-down sola scriptura b/c of that fact, but church infallibility can just as easily be refuted by the same argument. It obviously couldn’t perfectly define what traditions were apostolic if it was accepting (for a time) uninspired texts as suitable for circulation and teaching in the church.

Regardless of who “pronounced” that God’s Word was God’s Word, it is God’s Word b/c God said He would preserve His Word.

You seem to believe that the Church functioned in precisely the same manner then as it does now – this is not true. The Mass was not celebrated publicly; it was more often a secret gathering of a small group of people who knew one another. Also, there was not a set liturgy until much later; perhaps they spent time reading scripture, but certainly there was no liturgical calendar as there is today. Et cetera…

The Mass was the Eucharist; there wasn’t widespread “use of incorrect scriptures” in “churches”. There were small gatherings of the faithful who followed Christ’s commandment to celebrate the Eucharist and spread His teachings – much of which was done orally.

The important thing to remember is that Christ did not hand the Apostles a Bible; the NT was written decades (and more) later. The Holy Spirit guided both the oral tradition and the writing of scripture, to ensure the Church’s infallibility in teaching faith and morals.

Finally, infallibility is not the same as omniscience. The Spirit protects the Church from error; it doesn’t whisper in the Pope’s ear.

Peace,
Dante

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

The first sentence refers to the possibility that God, in His infinite mercy, will save others who have not yet been reached by the Gospel and the Magisterium. This does not include those who are already reached and taught but still insists on following wrong doctrines that have already been explained and researched on those doctrines.

Doesn’t the CC teach something to the effect that, if through no fault of his own he fails to recognize the authenticity of the CC’s claims, he is not held accountable for his continuing in error. Invincible ignorance, I think? (and worded much better than that ) Furthermore, I’m not “insisting on following wrong doctrine”. I know God knows my intentions.

I can err no matter what I decide. If I go by my fallible interpretation of Scripture and end up following a heretical church (in your opinion), I can just as easily go by my fallible evaluation of the Catholic church and end up following error (in my opinion). Either way I am going to either imperfectly, and mistakenly, determine to follow error, or imperfectly, and luckily, determine to follow the “fullness of truth”.

I can’t get past what I perceive as inconsistencies between church teaching and bible teaching. The Devil is very deceptive and often appears as an angel of light. I feel more secure using my sincerest interpretation of Scripture than I do taking the church’s word for it no matter how convincing it looks.

In the end, “real” Christians are united through thier imitation of Christ. I know not all professing Christians do this, and they’ll have to answer to God for it. The only thing separating us is how we differ in defining the modes for certain ordinances/sacraments (like baptism, confession, etc.) and we know that God is not limited by our beliefs and interpretations of those things. The important thing is that we know God commanded these things and we do them.

I feel more secure looking for a church that has the ordinances I see in Scripture, and follows as closely as possible the NT model for what the church should look like, how it should operate, and how the members live amongst themselves and the world.

 

[guanophore]

Not, to ignore the other posts here (I’ll try to resond to them later) but his post struck me too, as does your comment.

I made this point on one of my other threads:

Since advocates for the CC point to the fact that the CC went through a great process to determine which writings were canonizable… Before an infallible pronouncement was made about which writings were canonizable, we have to assume that the early church was circulating and reading writings that were *not *inspired, correct?

I don’t really think of it that way, though I may be in error. We read all kinds of inspired writings. My Catholic prayer book, for example, has writings of the Holy Fathers, Popes, and Thomas a Kempis. They are also valuable for devotional reading. Yes, the early church did read many writings that did not make the canon. They were not counted as infallible teaching, for various reasons.

The church always had the bible. But the church did not always recognize which specific writings were inspired.

I disagree. The Church had the Jewish Canon, that was used by Jesus and the Apostles. But, until they produced the NT, it did not exist. Christ’s promise of infallibility was given to the Apostles prior to His resurrction, before any of the NT was yet written.

Do you see that having other, non-inspired books being circulated and read aloud in the churches indicates that the church was (at that very early time) infallible? It was using erroneous, uninspired texts in its churches!

No, that would mean that homilies given by priests today are wrong to use also. I admit, I have heard some sermons read by priests, their own, or those of another, that are appalling. I have heard letters from the Bishop read at Mass. They are on a different level of teaching from the scripture, is all.

Furthermore, the fact that the early church was unsure, for a time, which writings were inspired proves that tradition was not infallible. If tradition and infallibility already existed in the church, canonizing writings would not have been such a difficult process.

I disagree. The process of discernment between the documents does not prove that the gift of infallibility did not exist. Discernment is always difficult, especially when the subject matter is complex. Look what the cardinals go through to elect a Pope!

So, either it was already common knowledge which writings were inspired and the Catholic church merely recognized them as such (as any group could have done), or the church was imperfect at the start and wasn’t even sure of which traditions were apostolic.

I disagree. Also, infallible does not equal “perfect”. Clearly Jesus has not perfected His bride. He promised to lead her into all truth. The process of perfection is still going on. However, it is true that certain writings were widely recognized as being on a different level. You can see this by the tesimony of Peter:

2 Peter 3:15-16
So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures."

Here Peter acknowledges that, at least some of Paul’s letters are on par with “the other scriptures”. We must assume that some of them were not, because we have evidence that they existed, but they were not preserved and contained within the canon, so the Holy Spirit must have wanted it that way.

(continued)

 

[guanophore]

You can’t argue that tradition was solid and the church was infallible if it took hundreds of years for the church to determine which inspired writings lived up to those inspired traditions.

Why not? How many years would it take YOU to complete the discernment process?

It sounds like everything was pretty uncertain.

No, I think Peter’s testimony about the epistles of Paul is very certain. Yes, there were many documents, as attested by Luke at the beginning of his gospel:

Luke 1:1-4
1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, 2 just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent The-oph’ilus, 4 that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed. "

But notice that the teachings were delivered orally, by those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning. Notice that Theophilus had been informed (orally). The writings were done to confirm the truth of the traditions that had already be passed on.

If you agree, then, the Catholic’s arguement that the non-Catholic’s belief in a church that went apostate until a reformation means the gates of hell must have prevailed against the church (which we know it can’t) falls apart. It’s just as easy to apply the “church evolution” theory in this case to a reformation. Not having been perfect does not = “gates of hell prevail”. The truth was there, and even if most of the church was following some not-so-orthodox teachings, God had a plan to bring about the restoration of His Word.

I do not agree. But, you are right, if I were to agree, then I would have to concede that the gates of hell had prevailed. I also agree that, in spite of any unorthodox behavior within or without, God will always restore His Word. Jesus is the Word, and he is present in oral tradition as well as written.

All I am trying to demonstrate here is that, yes, there was a time when we did not have our perfect, leather-bound, gold-trimmed bibles. Catholics often try to shoot-down sola scriptura b/c of that fact,

No, we shoot it down because it is heresy. The bullets we use to shoot it are that the Church, infallibly protected by the Holy Spirit, produced that Bible, and is the best authority for interpreting it.

but church infallibility can just as easily be refuted by the same argument. It obviously couldn’t perfectly define what traditions were apostolic if it was accepting (for a time) uninspired texts as suitable for circulation and teaching in the church.

Your arguement agains infalliblity is based upon an erroneous foundation. Inspired writings have always been, and continue to be, circulated and encouraged for reading by the faithful. It would do you well to study up on the various levels of inspiration and infallibilty.

Regardless of who “pronounced” that God’s Word was God’s Word, it is God’s Word b/c God said He would preserve His Word.

Yes, it is so because of God, but it IS relevant who pronounced it as such. The reason that the testimony of the contents of the canon ARE true is because it was pronounced so by God THROUGH His Holy Church.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Doesn’t the CC teach something to the effect that, if through no fault of his own he fails to recognize the authenticity of the CC’s claims, he is not held accountable for his continuing in error. Invincible ignorance, I think? (and worded much better than that ) Furthermore, I’m not “insisting on following wrong doctrine”. I know God knows my intentions.

Yes – you are correct here.

I can err no matter what I decide. If I go by my fallible interpretation of Scripture and end up following a heretical church (in your opinion), I can just as easily go by my fallible evaluation of the Catholic church and end up following error (in my opinion). Either way I am going to either imperfectly, and mistakenly, determine to follow error, or imperfectly, and luckily, determine to follow the “fullness of truth”.

I can’t get past what I perceive as inconsistencies between church teaching and bible teaching. The Devil is very deceptive and often appears as an angel of light. I feel more secure using my sincerest interpretation of Scripture than I do taking the church’s word for it no matter how convincing it looks. snip

Do you believe that when Christ said this:

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. (Matt 16:18)

that he meant the following things?

1. Peter was thereby designated the Vicar of Christ.
2. Peter, personally, would be the authoritative foundation of the Church thereafter – that is, his successors would carry the same authority as that which Christ conferred on him.
3. Christ will ensure that His Church will not fall to evil – that is, it will always lead its members to full union with Him.

If you do believe these things, then you must, by extension, accept that

1. the Church has teaching authority given by Christ
2. the Church’s infallibility on morals and faith is guaranteed by Christ’s promise that it would not fail.

How could Christ promise that His church would never succumb to evil without protecting it from teaching incorrectly on faith and morals? And, with all due respect (truly), Christ made no such promise to protect your (or my) interpretation of scripture from error.

The devil may sometimes appear as a light of wisdom, but he also me appear in our over confidence.

Peace,
Dante

 

[guanophore]

I know God knows my intentions.

I can err no matter what I decide. If I go by my fallible interpretation of Scripture and end up following a heretical church (in your opinion), I can just as easily go by my fallible evaluation of the Catholic church and end up following error (in my opinion). Either way I am going to either imperfectly, and mistakenly, determine to follow error, or imperfectly, and luckily, determine to follow the “fullness of truth”.

You are quite right, that God in His infinite Mercy looks upon the intentions of your heart. You are quite right, also, that we can err no matter what we decide. However, whenever we do our absolute best to follow Him in truth, He will lead us the rest of the way.

I can’t get past what I perceive as inconsistencies between church teaching and bible teaching. The Devil is very deceptive and often appears as an angel of light. I feel more secure using my sincerest interpretation of Scripture than I do taking the church’s word for it no matter how convincing it looks.

You seem to imply that the Devil may be in the Church teachings? Don’t say you ‘can’t’ get past the peceived inconsistencies. Say rather “I have not yet resolved in myself the apparent inconsistencies”. Of course you must strive to resolve them, and continue to educate yourself on why they exist. We all are in process. For example, this week in the Liturgy is a particular line I just abhor. I heard it read right now on the radio as I write to you. However, I choose to accept that my understanding is incomplete. I will participate in the liturgy anyhow, even though I cringe every time I hear it.

In the end, “real” Christians are united through thier imitation of Christ. I know not all professing Christians do this, and they’ll have to answer to God for it.

I am not sure what this means…or that I can agree with it. We are united into One body of Christ because we are brought into that body by Christ. There are some who imitate Him, or think they are, that are not members of HIs body.

The only thing separating us is how we differ in defining the modes for certain ordinances/sacraments (like baptism, confession, etc.) and we know that God is not limited by our beliefs and interpretations of those things. The important thing is that we know God commanded these things and we do them.

I think there are other things that separate also, but I agree that these doctrinal differences are some of those things. It is helpful, for unity, to do those things that God has commanded. There are vast differences, though, about what those commandments are, and how we most rightly follow them.

I feel more secure looking for a church that has the ordinances I see in Scripture, and follows as closely as possible the NT model for what the church should look like, how it should operate, and how the members live amongst themselves and the world.

You must decide for yourself. However, I challenge you this way. Supposing it is not for you to “look for a church” at all? Supposing that God has already chosen the body of believers in which He wants you to reside? What if your call is reallly to discern His will for you, just as it was the call of the early church to discern what books belonged in the Bible? And what if the church He is calling you toward has authority other than what you can find in the Bible only?

 

[Chancellare]

Doesn’t the CC teach something to the effect that, if through no fault of his own he fails to recognize the authenticity of the CC’s claims, he is not held accountable for his continuing in error. Invincible ignorance, I think? (and worded much better than that ) Furthermore, I’m not “insisting on following wrong doctrine”. I know God knows my intentions.

I can err no matter what I decide. If I go by my fallible interpretation of Scripture and end up following a heretical church (in your opinion), I can just as easily go by my fallible evaluation of the Catholic church and end up following error (in my opinion). Either way I am going to either imperfectly, and mistakenly, determine to follow error, or imperfectly, and luckily, determine to follow the “fullness of truth”.

I can’t get past what I perceive as inconsistencies between church teaching and bible teaching. The Devil is very deceptive and often appears as an angel of light. I feel more secure using my sincerest interpretation of Scripture than I do taking the church’s word for it no matter how convincing it looks.

In the end, “real” Christians are united through thier imitation of Christ. I know not all professing Christians do this, and they’ll have to answer to God for it. The only thing separating us is how we differ in defining the modes for certain ordinances/sacraments (like baptism, confession, etc.) and we know that God is not limited by our beliefs and interpretations of those things. The important thing is that we know God commanded these things and we do them.

I feel more secure looking for a church that has the ordinances I see in Scripture, and follows as closely as possible the NT model for what the church should look like, how it should operate, and how the members live amongst themselves and the world.

I see your point.

In the end, it is only God our Father who sees our real intentions behind our visible actions and deepest thoughts and thus judges us on the basis of those. Even God Himself gave man the freedom to choose good or bad.

One can only lead the horse to the water but one cannot make it drink.

 

[gardenswithkids]

…I can’t get past what I perceive as inconsistencies between church teaching and bible teaching. The Devil is very deceptive and often appears as an angel of light. I feel more secure using my sincerest interpretation of Scripture than I do taking the church’s word for it no matter how convincing it looks. …I feel more secure looking for a church that has the ordinances I see in Scripture, and follows as closely as possible the NT model for what the church should look like, how it should operate, and how the members live amongst themselves and the world.

Indeed, you are correct: the devil is very deceptive and he can appear as an angel of light. What you seem to imply is that you somehow avoid the devil’s deception by using your own sincere interpretation of scripture. While you claim to rely on scriptures, you rely on yourself– for the correct interpretation scripture and the ability to pick the right church.

Misinterpretation of God’s words maybe the devil’s more devious deceptions to trip up sincere Christians. The serpent in Genesis first said, “Did God really tell you not to eat from any of the trees in the garden?..You certainly will not die…” The Catholic Church allows us to enjoy many “fruits from the garden” in the scriptures, but it warns against private interpretation apart from tradition because that “fruit” may lead to spiritual death. Yet the serpent lures us again through private interpreation, “Did God’s Word really tell you that’s wrong…”

Using scripture alone, without the help the Magesterium and traditon for interpreting the Bible, leaves Christians vulnerable to demonic deception. You may think what you are experiencing is “light” from the Holy Spirit, but you may instead encounter the devil disguising himself as an angel of light. Be careful–as your wrote, the devil is very deceptive.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The church always had the bible. But the church did not always recognize which specific writings were inspired. Do you see that having other, non-inspired books being circulated and read aloud in the churches indicates that the church was (at that very early time) infallible? It was using erroneous, uninspired texts in its churches! Furthermore, the fact that the early church was unsure, for a time, which writings were inspired proves that tradition was not infallible. If tradition and infallibility already existed in the church, canonizing writings would not have been such a difficult process.

Nice try, but no cigar.

The early Church did not depend on written documents, but on the oral traditions of the Apostles (the earliest Christian writings we have are a full generation after the Crucifixion.) By the mid-second century, the custom arose of reading “the memoirs of the Apostles” at mass (cf Justin’s First Apology.)

When false teachings circulated, they were not circulated by the Church, but by heretics – such as the Gnostics. The Church never taught that things like the Gospel of Truth were genuine.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

I think we are prolly going to go around in circles about this, and I don’t want to argue by saying the same things over again. We will have to agree to disagree on what I’m not responding to.

Luke 1:1-4
1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, 2 just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent The-oph’ilus, 4 that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed. "

But notice that the teachings were delivered orally, by those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning.

The text does not have to mean this. You may be reading into it. In fact the words “were delivered” (v2) suggests that they were written. “by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses…” can then refer to the writer.

if I were to agree, then I would have to concede that the gates of hell had prevailed.

Why? Did the gates of hell prevail when the Israelites constructed the golden calf?

Don’t say you ‘can’t’ get past the peceived inconsistencies. Say rather “I have not yet resolved in myself the apparent inconsistencies”. Of course you must strive to resolve them, and continue to educate yourself on why they exist.

That’s what I’m here for

We are united into One body of Christ because we are brought into that body by Christ. There are some who imitate Him, or think they are, that are not members of HIs body.

Why does “His body” have to refer solely to the CC? I see these Scriptures of evidence of how important lineage (succession) is:

Luke 8:21 And he answered and said to them, My mother and my brothers are these which hear the word of God, and do it.” (Luk 8:19-21)

St. Matthew 3:9):
And think not to say within yourselves, we have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

1Tim1:3 …, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
4Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

As to your challenge: I am simply seeking the will of God (although not always simple to know what that is ). I could be wrong, but even if I were to set aside these doctrinal issues, I would have to choose to join the Mennonites b/c I’ve never seen such good fruit amongst a community of people like this before. And they are very good at teaching how to practically live out a Christian life - and ultimately that’s what it’s all about; “the shoeleather” to quote a friend. It is precisely in my search to do God’s will that I believe I would be better encouraged, helped and edified to DO God’s will (acts of mercy, etc…) through that community. Reading their literature and engaging in their studies; hearing their deep, spiritual insights. It’s like finding an entire community like St. Francis, Therese, etc…

Couple that with the doctrinal things I agree with them on (which was luck, b/c I had no idea that was so to begin with!) and it’s very, very hard to believe that God doesn’t have a hand in it.

Peace

 

[Chancellare]

I can’t get past what I perceive as inconsistencies between church teaching and bible teaching. The Devil is very deceptive and often appears as an angel of light. I feel more secure using my sincerest interpretation of Scripture than I do taking the church’s word for it no matter how convincing it looks.

There is hope:
Study the Early Church Fathers beginning from where NT left to St Augustine. Much better if you also go all the way up to original Reformation doctrines of Luther. You’ll be surprised that even succeeding Protestants revised Luther’s teachings to suit their own “personal interpretations” as you yourself prefer. Because of this even the Protestants protested against Protestants.

In the end, “real” Christians are united through thier imitation of Christ. I know not all professing Christians do this, and they’ll have to answer to God for it. The only thing separating us is how we differ in defining the modes for certain ordinances/sacraments (like baptism, confession, etc.) and we know that God is not limited by our beliefs and interpretations of those things. The important thing is that we know God commanded these things and we do them.

Knowing God’s commandment and doing them presupposes a discipleship attitude. Following one’s own interpretation does not.

I feel more secure looking for a church that has the ordinances I see in Scripture, and follows as closely as possible the NT model for what the church should look like, how it should operate, and how the members live amongst themselves and the world.

Same suggestion:
Study the Early Church Fathers and see for yourself who follows closely the Scriptural ordinances.

 

[gardenswithkids]

… I could be wrong, but even if I were to set aside these doctrinal issues, I would have to choose to join the Mennonites b/c I’ve never seen such good fruit amongst a community of people like this before. And they are very good at teaching how to practically live out a Christian life - and ultimately that’s what it’s all about; “the shoeleather” to quote a friend. It is precisely in my search to do God’s will that I believe I would be better encouraged, helped and edified to DO God’s will (acts of mercy, etc…) through that community. Reading their literature and engaging in their studies; hearing their deep, spiritual insights. **It’s like finding an entire community like St. Francis, Therese, **etc…

It would be wonderful to encounter an entire community of people like St. Francis, Therese, etc. But what happens to those who aren’t yet like St. Francis or Therese? Even saint Francis wasn’t once like St. Francis.

Jesus told many parables. It’s very Biblical to let weeds grow with wheat. Are the “weeds” permitted to grow along with the “wheat”? If everyone is saintly, what they do with immature or rebelious Christians? Do they mistakingly pull out those like young Francis–the wild son of a wealthy Italian merchant-- before he had a chance to grow and mature?