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

[JimG]

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!

The Church did not use erroneous texts. What it did what recognize the erroneous texts as erroneous and as not in accord with what had been handed down from the apostles.

In fact, besides being of apostolic origin, one of the criteria for inclusion in the canon was that a writing had been used in the liturgy from very early on.

You write as though the Church was engaged as its primary mission, in sifting though a great number of writings. That was not what it was about. The Church was engaged in preaching the gospel, as it had been commanded by Christ. Christ did not command the writing of books; but those which were written, and were of apostolic origin, and were used in the liturgy, were eventually gathered together by the Church for catechetical and liturgical purposes.

The books of the bible arose from the preaching of the Gospel by the Church.

So if someone, in examining the bible, decides that it is trustworthy, the next step is to ask, what Church produced this bible? There are not many candidates. Only one Church was around at the time.

 

[guanophore]

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.

OK.

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.

I suppose there are many ways of reading it. What other scriptures do you think existed when the book of Luke was written? Are you really saying that you don’t think the teachings were delivered orally? Why didn’t Jesus write anything?

That’s what I’m here for Why does “His body” have to refer solely to the CC?

There is only one body. Every person of faith who has been baptized into it is a member of that one body. Or do you think there are more than one “bodies of Christ”?

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.

So, you are saying that apostolic succession really has no more value than a pile of rocks?

1Tim1:3 …, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,

Do you think these teachings were not oral?

4Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

Are you saying that you think Catholicism is a collection of fables, etc?

As to your challenge: I am simply seeking the will of God (although not always simple to know what that is ).

I recognize that.
JoyToBeCatholic;2061283:

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…

I love Mennonites also. I used to live near a community in North Central Ohio. They are very pious, deliberate, and faith filled people. The Catholic Church agrees with you that the Holy Spirit is working in these communities.

it’s very, very hard to believe that God doesn’t have a hand in it.

Oh I am certain that God has His hand on you, and that He will guide you into all truth.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

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”?

What if the weeds and wheat refer to those who do the will of God (wheat), and those who do not (weeds) in the world (not just an institution).

If everyone is saintly, what they do with immature or rebelious Christians?

They should follow the biblical mandate of “excommunication”

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?

God is what transformed St. Francis. Not the saintly around him. Perhaps if he had a proper, Christian upbringing, he never would have been so wild, etc… What if everyone isn’t saintly? THEN what do you do with immature or rebelious “Christians”? Absolutely nothing, that’s what.

 

[guanophore]

What if the weeds and wheat refer to those who do the will of God (wheat), and those who do not (weeds) in the world (not just an institution).

It is true that 'wheat" will produce and feed the world. However, Jesus was focused on teaching His disciples how to conduct themselves within the church. He was pointing out that He did not want us to focus on “weeding out” those growing out of place, but to leave that to the harvester.

They should follow the biblical mandate of “excommunication”

How does this work, exactly?

God is what transformed St. Francis. Not the saintly around him.

Certainly, but you have to admit that being around other saintly people, like the Menonites you described, certainly helps!

Perhaps if he had a proper, Christian upbringing, he never would have been so wild, etc… What if everyone isn’t saintly? THEN what do you do with immature or rebelious “Christians”? Absolutely nothing, that’s what.

What are you saying?! Above you say we should excommunicate. here you say nothing can be done?

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

The Church did not use erroneous texts. What it did what recognize the erroneous texts as erroneous and as not in accord with what had been handed down from the apostles.

In fact, besides being of apostolic origin, one of the criteria for inclusion in the canon was that a writing had been used in the liturgy from very early on.

You write as though the Church was engaged as its primary mission, in sifting though a great number of writings. That was not what it was about. The Church was engaged in preaching the gospel, as it had been commanded by Christ. Christ did not command the writing of books; but those which were written, and were of apostolic origin, and were used in the liturgy, were eventually gathered together by the Church for catechetical and liturgical purposes.

The books of the bible arose from the preaching of the Gospel by the Church.

So if someone, in examining the bible, decides that it is trustworthy, the next step is to ask, what Church produced this bible? There are not many candidates. Only one Church was around at the time.

Taking into account the deceptiveness of the Devil, and his attempts to destroy the church (which we know he will never succeed at), it is entirely plausible, in my estimation, that either:

Despite the seeds of now-catholic beliefs and practices that we might see in ECF writings, the church may not yet have actually been practicing/teaching those things (like real presence, etc.). Since we can’t see actual proof that it was so until it was pronounced as such in councils hundreds of years later. Without the widespread accessibility of Scripture like we now have there would have been no way for the layperson to test the teachings. I still don’t think this means the gates of hell prevailed as some people do. Even the Catholic church has stated that one is not culpable if through no fault of one’s own they are following error. (kinda like “baptism of desire”).

Or… Perhaps the church at that time was teaching those very “catholic” things, and perhaps they believed (as CAtholics still do) that they didn’t contradict scripture.

Honestly, if God promised to preserve His Word, does it matter how He did it?

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

It is true that 'wheat" will produce and feed the world. However, Jesus was focused on teaching His disciples how to conduct themselves within the church. He was pointing out that He did not want us to focus on “weeding out” those growing out of place, but to leave that to the harvester.

if that were true, then in Matthew 18 why would we need to “take it to the church”?

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

What are you saying?! Above you say we should excommunicate. here you say nothing can be done?

nope. please re-read it. maybe i didn’t word it well? I’m saying that if the church isn’t comprised of saintly people, the problem ends up that when there are disobedient people in it, no one will correct them. that is what i’m saying. sorry it wasn’t clear

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Are you really saying that you don’t think the teachings were delivered orally?

I think they were delivered orally by an infallible person (Jesus) and then through infallible authority of the Apostles through whom the NT was written.

Why didn’t Jesus write anything?

He did! He used His Apostles! Why didn’t His human body do it? I dunno! Does it matter?

There is only one body. Every person of faith who has been baptized into it is a member of that one body. Or do you think there are more than one “bodies of Christ”?

Of course not. I just define “the body of Christ” differently than Catholicism does.

So, you are saying that apostolic succession really has no more value than a pile of rocks?

Ick. Not meaning to sound so aweful, but I see it as a possibility that God sees it as such.

Do you think these teachings were not oral?

At one time, yes.

Are you saying that you think Catholicism is a collection of fables, etc?

I’m saying it could be.

 

[guanophore]

Taking into account the deceptiveness of the Devil, and his attempts to destroy the church (which we know he will never succeed at), it is entirely plausible, in my estimation, that either:

Despite the seeds of now-catholic beliefs and practices that we might see in ECF writings, the church may not yet have actually been practicing/teaching those things (like real presence, etc.). Since we can’t see actual proof that it was so until it was pronounced as such in councils hundreds of years later.

Joy, the teaching about Real Presence is in John chap. 6. And before you dust off the ECF with their “seeds” I recommend you study how the teaching of Christ was understood by those that were closest to Him. It did not happen “hundreds of years later”.

Without the widespread accessibility of Scripture like we now have there would have been no way for the layperson to test the teachings. I still don’t think this means the gates of hell prevailed as some people do. Even the Catholic church has stated that one is not culpable if through no fault of one’s own they are following error. (kinda like “baptism of desire”).

I think what you are saying is that the magesterium (the apostolic succession) was teaching error, and the lay people picked it up and believed it, because they were not able to see it was not in scripture.

Or… Perhaps the church at that time was teaching those very “catholic” things, and perhaps they believed (as CAtholics still do) that they didn’t contradict scripture.

I think this is the correct conclusion. the church has always taught these doctrines, they do not conflict with scripture, and they are still taught today as they were 2000 years ago.

Honestly, if God promised to preserve His Word, does it matter how He did it?

 

[JimG]

Honestly, if God promised to preserve His Word, does it matter how He did it?

It matters to Him that we turn to the truth which He handed down to his one Church through the Apostles and their successors. And it matters to me to do it His way.

If you think the devil succeeded in corrupting the Church from the very beginning, then no church is reliable. Why would I wish to trust the beliefs of any denomination which did not even appear on the scene until 15 or 16 or 17 or more centuries after the birthday of the Church?

Christ promised that the gates of hell would not overcome His Church; if they in fact did overcome, then Christianity is a losing proposition.

Your position seems to be, well, Satan may have prevailed, and the Church was wrong, but I myself can figure it all out at this late date by reading that book produced by the Catholic Church and figuring it out for myself.

 

[mason4220]

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.

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

Peace

If you concede that the gates of hell prevailed then Jesus Sined. Because he clearly says that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. We believe that Jesus being God could not sin. If he did sin then he is no more then a man and he is no different then any other man. His death could not possibly save us if all this is true. So the only thing to concede is the the gates could not prevail against the church and that the church is still in the world today.

 

[guanophore]

if that were true, then in Matthew 18 why would we need to “take it to the church”?

Matt. 18 is about a brother (wheat). The goal is to “win your brother”. It is one thing to try to restore a brother who has fallen. It is quite another to go around pulling up plants you don’t recognize, and think are weeds.

I'm saying that if the church isn't comprised of saintly people, the problem ends up that when there are disobedient people in it, no one will correct them.  that is what i'm saying.  sorry it wasn't clear

I think this is especially a problem in churches that don’t have disciplinary authority. How can they bind and loose, when they don’t have the authority that Christ infused within His apostles?

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

If you concede that the gates of hell prevailed then Jesus Sined. Because he clearly says that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. We believe that Jesus being God could not sin. If he did sin then he is no more then a man and he is no different then any other man. His death could not possibly save us if all this is true. So the only thing to concede is the the gates could not prevail against the church and that the church is still in the world today.

I realise that. I wasn’t saying the gates of hell prevailed. I’m saying that if the CC went into error, it doesn’t mean the gates of hell prevailed. I also don’t necessarily define “church” the way the CC does.

Peace

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Matt. 18 is about a brother (wheat). The goal is to “win your brother”. It is one thing to try to restore a brother who has fallen. It is quite another to go around pulling up plants you don’t recognize, and think are weeds.

Who does that? And what is “your brother/wheat” if he doesn’t listen to the church? Is he still your brother(wheat)?

I think this is especially a problem in churches that don’t have disciplinary authority. How can they bind and loose, when they don’t have the authority that Christ infused within His apostles?

The bible has authority, and it tells us this is how we settle a dispute with a brother.

 

[guanophore]

Who does that? And what is “your brother/wheat” if he doesn’t listen to the church? Is he still your brother(wheat)?The bible has authority, and it tells us this is how we settle a dispute with a brother.

You don’t know Christians that focus their energy on pointing out where other so called believers are in error? Plenty of Christians do it. If the bible has authority, and tells everyone how to settle disputes with others, then why aren’t all the bible believing Christians in unity with each other?

 

[gardenswithkids]

…And what is “your brother/wheat” if he doesn’t listen to the church? Is he still your brother(wheat)?..

I think the point of the wheat/weeds parable is that we can’t yet determine until the “final harvest” wheat from weeds. As to the your question about someone who doesn’t listen to the Church, Catholics term Protestants “separated brethren” because while they are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, they are our brothers in Christ.

The bible has authority, and it tells us this is how we settle a dispute with a brother.

The Bible say to take the dispute to the Church. Can a dispute be taken to an invisible Christian church? The Bible doesn’t name a specific denomination–it says “the church” implying there is only **one visible **church. It seems to me that since the Catholic Church determined the New Testament canon, that implies that the Catholic Church is the one, visible church of the Bible.

 

[gardenswithkids]

…Honestly, if God promised to preserve His Word, does it matter how He did it?

Forgive my ignorance, but does the Bible say that God promised to preserve His Word? I know the Bible says that God promised to preserve His Church, but I don’t recall this other promise. The verse may have just slipping my mind, but please refresh my memory.

(Then there’s point someone made on another thread of yours that the Word of God is Jesus Christ, not the Bible, for as St. John wrote, the Word became flesh and dwelt amoung us.)

 

[JimG]

The bible has authority, and it tells us this is how we settle a dispute with a brother.

How does the bible exercise its authority? If you have a doctrinal dispute with your brother, do you both go to a place where the bible is perhaps placed on a lectern, and recite your respective understandings of doctrine, then wait for it to speak, deciding between the two of you?

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

I think the point of the wheat/weeds parable is that we can’t yet determine until the “final harvest” wheat from weeds. As to the your question about someone who doesn’t listen to the Church, Catholics term Protestants “separated brethren” because while they are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, they are our brothers in Christ. The Bible say to take the dispute to the Church. Can a dispute be taken to an invisible Christian church?

No. In this case obviously we are talking about a physical church, but not necessarily one institution. I trust there are many churches/denominations that follow the Word of God. Also, at the time this was written, there was, literally, JUST one church.

Btw though, I never said the church I’m envisioning is an invisible church. I think one’s fruits are a good indication of one “called out”. I know of churches where most of the community bear very visible evidence of their good fruit . ( Yes, I see good fruit in the CC too - and a few rotten apples too. And yes, I’m sure there are rotten apples in EVERY community…)

Peace

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Forgive my ignorance, but does the Bible say that God promised to preserve His Word?

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. (Psalms 12:6-7)

Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. (Mark 13:31)

Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

(Then there’s point someone made on another thread of yours that the Word of God is Jesus Christ, not the Bible, for as St. John wrote, the Word became flesh and dwelt amoung us.) Yes, often in Scripture “the Word of God” refers to Jesus, but not always. In the passages I just cited it is clear that it isn’t speaking about the person of Jesus.

I think there are more Scriptures too…