J
justasking4
Guest
:extrahappy:Very good 9 out of 10 (you forgot to put the capital C in Church).
- Status
D
dawid
Guest
The latter.
J
justasking4
Guest
They would disagree with you. They to claim direct apostolic succession.
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
The Catholic Church agrees with the Orthodox that they have a legitimate claim to direct apostolic succession.
However, it does go through the Catholic Church.
C
Cinette
Guest
“One cannot have salvation except in the Catholic Church headed by Peter” St Augustine (354-430)When you want to be a Christian but you refuse to go to the Church founded by Christ ( and preserved by Christ through His promise), you must rely on the Bible alone because you don’t have a Church and you don’t have a teaching authority. If your gathering doesn’t have a teaching authority, you have chaos and schism and every man and woman is their own church leader. It is not a pretty situation but there it is.
J
justasking4
Guest
Where did Jesus or His apostles ever teach such a thing? Chapter and verse please.“One cannot have salvation except in the Catholic Church headed by Peter” St Augustine (354-430)
C
Cinette
Guest
I know but they are our first cousins
C
cfrancis
Guest
OK, how do you determine the “nature” of a writing? What about a writing’s “nature” would tell us it’s inspired?
OK, it appears your position is: the Gospel of Matthew is Scripture because it’s in the Bible, and if it’s in the Bible, it’s Scripture."
If i understand you correctly, your Bible is that which determines if a tradition is true; how, then, would an early Christian, before the canon ofr Scripture was declared, determine if the Gospel of Matthew was Scripture?
Sure, but not one of them tells us, “If an apostle writes to you, it is inspired by God and to be included in a collection of Scripture.” So we still have no direct Biblical evidence for your standard of Apostolic authorship, only circumstantial evidence.
OK, so Matthew, Mark and Luke do not tell us who wrote them, but John does. Based upon the criteria you set, only John should be in the NT.
This “truth about God” issue is a key point: before the canon was declared, we know Scripture existed, but the issue was identifying those writings that were Scripture among the numerous contenders/impostors. This “truth about God” then existed outside of the written Word (Scripture) and was part of the criteria used to discern Scripture from among the contenders.
C
cfrancis
Guest
Shoot, I’m still waiting for chapter and verse for the canon of Scripture
J
justasking4
Guest
By the time the NT was finalized the truth about God would have been known in the OT which was already recognized as Scripture by the Jews and Apostles.
J
justasking4
Guest
i to wish there was one…Shoot, I’m still waiting for chapter and verse for the canon of Scripture
C
Cinette
Guest
Tell you what - YOU give me chapter and verse of proof of the Trinity and then you will have my answer - Deal?
R
ron77nyc
Guest
The Church came before the Bible but that does not excuse obedience to the Bible. Here are some apostolic teachings that the Church does not follow.I have just come upon this thread and need to clarify something from our separated brothers and sisters - I would very much appreciate to understand something at the outset:
- Which came first: the Bible or the Catholic Church?
Jesus said: “you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition… in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Matthew 15:6,9).
“You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it” (Deuteronomy 4:2). (This instruction is also repeated in Deut 12:32, Proverbs 30:6 and Revelation 22:18-19).
1 Cor 4:6 I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, so that you may learn from us not to go beyond what is written, 2 so that none of you will be inflated with pride in favor of one person over against another.
Please correct me if I’m not seeing this correctly.
U
Usagi
Guest
Those two churches are the eastern and western halves of the Church that spread outward from Jerusalem starting on Pentecost.
They are presently in schism from each other, though they share many beliefs and practices that later Christian groups have rejected.
We Catholics believe that the bishop of Rome has supreme authority over the Church as the successor of Peter; the Orthodox do not. There are other differences, but that one is at their core.
We Catholics would say that the Catholic Church carries on the intended structure of the Church and therefore has the most direct claim to be “the Church Christ founded,” though she is sadly lacking full unity with a number of the most ancient bishoprics. The Orthodox would presumably claim just the opposite.
Either way, that schism is entirely different from the Catholic/Protestant situation. Neither side has attempted to completely recreate the Church from scratch, essentially forming entirely new Christian bodies of their own. One of those two (I say the Catholic Church, obviously) is still organized as Christ wished, and the other is its closest offshoot. They share the vast majority of the ancient Church’s teachings, practices, and understandings, far more so than any group developed later. (Though I think the Orthodox are right in viewing the remaining differences as far greater than we Catholics tend to. We tend to come from a perspective of “Wow, these guys are much more like us than those Protestants! How much of a gap can there still be to cross?” We tend to see Eastern-style theology and practices as different but valid, whereas I’m not sure the Orthodox feel the same way about us.)
I greatly respect the Orthodox, and would happily become Orthodox were it demonstrated to me that the Catholic Church is the one in the wrong. I would have a much harder time returning to any Protestant group, as I fear they have lost too much in attempting to get back to the beginning with only part of the data.
Are you Orthodox, ja4? I notice that many of the Catholic teachings and practices to which you object are relatively recent developments, not shared by our brothers and sisters in the East and highly dependent on the Catholic understanding of papal authority. If you hold strongly to the usual Protestant theological commitments, though, I don’t think you’d find Orthodoxy that much more acceptable than Catholicism.
Usagi
C
cfrancis
Guest
So we need no NT to know the “truth about God” - only the OT?
Your answer, though, doesn’t address the other issues I raised:
You appear to rely heavily on tradition for your belief in the canon of Scripture, a belief with no Biblical support.
So, if you have this Christian belief with no Biblical support, but plenty of support in tradition, why is this not an issue for you?
J
justasking4
Guest
Deal!Tell you what - YOU give me chapter and verse of proof of the Trinity and then you will have my answer - Deal?
To keep it simple how about Gen 1:1,26, Isaiah 6:8;
For the deity of the Father- John 6:27, Eph 4:6
For the deity of Christ- Hebrews 1:8
For the deity of the HS- Acts 5:3-4
J
justasking4
Guest
No. The OT lays down a foundation for the NT in what God is like.
Your answer, though, doesn’t address the other issues I raised:
The biblical support would be the writings themselves in which the church has recognized as Scripture. The writings themselves witness to the fact that they are Scripture.
I do have biblical support for my beliefs about the canon. See my previous response. I also have no problem using external methods such as traditions and what others have said to support my beliefs.
C
cfrancis
Guest
What about:
1 Corinthians 11:2
Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.
2 Thessalonians 3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.
We agree, and the Catholic Church has abided by this.
Note, this is Paul writing in 1 Cor 4. Which, according to you, means Paul should not have written 1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15, and 2 thess 3:6 (provided above).
In a bigger picture, Paul is saying, “don’t go beyond the OT…” which, according to your logic, makes his own writings - and the writings of all the NT - superfluous.
L
Lampo
Guest
Why do you wish this?i to wish there was one…
C
cfrancis
Guest
Your logic is running around in circles! “It’s in the Bible because it’s Scripture, and it’s Scripture because it’s in the Bible…”
If you do believe “The biblical support would be the writings themselves” why can yo unot provide Biblical evidence for the canon?
Which writings in the NT tell us they are inspired?
If you have no problem using tradition and what others (outside the Bible) have said to support your beliefs, why do you have a problem if others do the same?
- Status