Sola Scriptura ?

[Teflon93]

It doesn’t widely exist, as you can tell by discussions on this board over Vatican II and a desire by many to return to pre-Vatican II doctrine and liturgy.

In general, a 2000-year-old institution has a LOT of tradition. Much of it has stood the test of time, all of it has been tested over time. The Catholic Church does change (look up the Counter-Reformation); it prefers to change slowly, and only with good reason. Revolutions such as Vatican II deeply trouble the Church, which is why there is so much lingering animosity toward them.

The alternative is to change swiftly, and you might look to the plight of the Episcopal and Presbyterian and Methodist churches to see what’s wrought then.

They’re in much greater peril than we Catholics would ever be simply because they won’t even admit to the power of tradition, nor that it can change, and thus fundamental reinterpretations of Scripture (like gay marriage, or pro-abortion, or environmentalism) result in dramatic alterations in the lives of everyday Protestants in a way very rarely seen in the Catholic Church.

Or the Orthodox churches, for that matter.

 

[Pophead]

The Scriptures arise from the Church. They are the heart of her worship. Although they are very much accessible to the believing Christian, the “solo Scriptura” position as you outline it here is actually *sola ego. *Solipsism is anti-Christian.

Mercygate,

Whatever, my current position it is not SVD. It is what it is and currently it is not much, however it is going to be determined by a careful and prayerful read of the titbits from this thread and the more substantial and researched articles referred to me earlier on in this discussion which I have refered to on page five of this thread.



You have never listened to U2…??? Not even on the radio or TV ??? The song I was referring to was titled: I still haven’t found what I’m looking for’ — from the album ‘Joshua Tree’ – In my opinion one of the better albums by the group.

In a sense I find that my experience of God preceeded my discovery of the Bible, and if I had never found one I am sure I would still have enjoyed His words to my mind and sensations to my heart. The words of the Bible that ultimately cornered me, were in a sense carried on the wind. The seemed to emerge out of the ether of my childhood darkness and woe me to taste and see that the LORD is good. I suspect had I lived in Tibet and had never been taught Scripture, or even heard so much as a sermon…God would have spoken to me through creation, through what He had placed in me, as residual light (etc), as well as directly by His Spirit to mine, and I might have then and there began to write my own Scriptures…like the Apostle Paul.

What yardstick would be used to measure if what I wrote was the word of GOD or not ? Prior writings ? Old Testament, New Testament, Church Fathers, Traditions … if all these things conflicted, surely the only measure if my writings were word of God or not, would never be known. Would I conclude that all writings of men, might contain elements of God’s word, or would all the writings of men not be ? This I might carry to mean poetry, music, art and so on and so forth.

 

[Pophead]

add:

I was once a stuanch objector to the work of C.S. Lewis and particularly His views regarding Scripture.

One thing that is never been too welcome in my heart is dishonesty. To me a dishonest person is one who will not pursue truth to it’s ruddy end. (a loose quote from C.S. Lewis.

Just to stimulate further thought on this matter of Scripture and the correct position it should hold in our hearts, minds, souls, and bodies…I thought this little excerpt might be invigorating: (my last post for tonight…family time)

:coffeeread:

From a letter to Clyde S. Kilby, May 7, 1959, from C. S. Lewis

Whatever view we hold of the divine authority of Scripture must make room for the following facts:

1. The distinction which St. Paul makes in 1 Cor vii between ouk ego all’ ho kurios [not myself but the Lord] (v. 10) and ego lego oux ho kurios * (v. 12).

1. The apparent inconsistencies between the genealogies in Matt. i and Luke ii; with the accounts of the death of Judas in Matt. xxvii 5 and Acts i 18-19.

1. St. Luke’s own account of how he obtained his matter (i 1-4).

1. The universally admitted unhistoricity (I do not say, of course, falsity) of at least some of the narratives in Scripture (the parables), which may well also extend to Jonah and Job.

1. If every good and perfect gift comes from the Father of lights, then all true and edifying writings, whether in Scripture or not, must be in some sense inspired.

1. John xi 49-52 Inspiration may operate in a wicked man without him knowing it, and he can then utter the untruth he intends (propriety of making an innocent man a political scapegoat) as well as the truth he does not intend (the divine sacrifice).

It seems to me that 2 and 4 rule out the view that every statement in Scripture must be historical truth. And 1, 3, 5, and 6 rule out the view that inspiration is a single thing in the sense that, if present at all, it is always present in the same mode and the same degree. Therefore, I think, rule out the view that any one passage taken in isolation can be assumed to be inerrant in exactly the same sense as any other: e.g., that the numbers of O.T. armies (which in view of the size of the country, if true, involve continuous miracle) are statistically correct because the story of the Resurrection is historically correct. That the over-all operation of Scripture is to convey God’s Word to the reader (he also needs his inspiration) who reads it in the right spirit, I fully believe. That it also gives true answers to all the questions (often religiously irrelevant) which he might ask, I don’t. The very kind of truth we are often demanding was, in my opinion, not even envisaged by the ancients.

• Quoted in Michael J. Christensen, C. S. Lewis on Scripture, Abingdon, 1979, Appendix A.*

 

[JimG]

SVD. I guess you would have to classify me as a SVD–Solo Verbi Dei (by the Word of God alone).

I believe that the second Person of the Trinity, whom St. John refers to as “The Word” in his Gospel, took on a human nature, becoming incarnate of the Virgin Mary.

That Person, known in his humanity as Jesus, being the Word of God, is the sole expression of the Father’s essence.

His teachings were handed down to his Apostles, who then handed them down to the Church, which produced the New Testament. That, along with the old testament scripture–primarily, the Septuagint which was already in existence, became the Catholic bible.

The Church, being established by Christ, is the authentic interpreter of the bible. That’s my belief, and the belief that has been handed down from the beginning.

 

[mercygate]

In a sense I find that my experience of God preceeded my discovery of the Bible, and if I had never found one I am sure I would still have enjoyed His words to my mind and sensations to my heart.

We call this “actual” grace.

The words of the Bible that ultimately cornered me, were in a sense carried on the wind. The seemed to emerge out of the ether of my childhood darkness and woe me to taste and see that the LORD is good. I suspect had I lived in Tibet and had never been taught Scripture, or even heard so much as a sermon…God would have spoken to me through creation, through what He had placed in me, as residual light (etc), as well as directly by His Spirit to mine, . . .

This is a very “Catholic” notion. Creation reflects the creator and communicates the divine and natural moral law.

and I might have then and there began to write my own Scriptures…like the Apostle Paul.

What yardstick would be used to measure if what I wrote was the word of GOD or not ? Prior writings ? Old Testament, New Testament, Church Fathers, Traditions … if all these things conflicted, surely the only measure if my writings were word of God or not, would never be known.

To qualifiy for scriptural canonicity, the Church required that the writings be either of apostolic origin or associated with an apostle (e.g., Mark, Luke), and that they be texts that were being read in the liturgy. One of the tests was: Are people reading this in church? Another test was that the writings could not contradict the deposit of faith. In other words: the Church tested the Scriptures against the gospel it had received via apostolic succession. As you may know, Revelation, James, Jude 2 Peter Hebrews and 2 & 3 John were all disputed. By the late 4th Century the canon was closed, so no: your writings would not be “scripture like Paul.”

Would I conclude that all writings of men, might contain elements of God’s word, or would all the writings of men not be ?

Not asking the right question here. The answer would be “neither of the above.”

This I might carry to mean poetry, music, art and so on and so forth.

Much holy truth inheres in the arts, even in the arts of heathens.

 

[Pophead]

Dear Friends,

After reading and assimilating the facts presented in this thread, I can only conclude the following:-

Firstly, this shall all be about reconciliation, for these are the days of great preparation by the Bride of Christ, for her Bridegroom; the Lord Jesus Christ.

Secondly, we need to bear in mind that the Church (building) is the place of meeting for both the Bride and those who are not yet in the Bride. So reconciliation or unity before those who are in the world and those who are in the Church (building) is a crowning moment, which will bring glory to the name of our GOD, for our GOD is a jealous God and He will glorify His name in all the earth through His Bride.

Thirdly, so far in Church History, there was only one time when she was in full health and that was on the day of Pentecost, when the Spirit of Christ was poured forth as declared the prophet Joel.

Fourthly, Church History bears record that the Bride has lost connection with her coming Head; the Lord Jesus Christs; by attempting to establish here own autonomy in the earth.

How has she done this ?

A. Usurping her true Head. (as did Lucifer, now Satan)
B. Replacing her true Head.

1. With herself as Head.
2. With the Scriptures as Head.
3. With man as her head ( Ultimately the 666)

What is the Bride supposed to be doing ?

I believer she needs to be under here Head; the Lord Jesus Christ, as the woman is to be under the man. It is the divine order. If she is under herself she is in grave error, if she is under the Scripture she is in error and God forbid that she surrender her crown to the man-of-sin.

It is true she has a glory of her own, but it is only of value if she is under the autonomy of her Bridegroom; the Lord Jesus Christ, to whom she is to be united at the marriage supper of the Lamb.

She has been sealed for this very event; and the seal is not her own or that of Scripture or the man-of-sing but the Spirit of Christ.

(As I am already disatisfied with the position of Sola Scriptura, and took a little peep at Solo Scriptura and can find no basis for Solo Verbi Dei, I readily submit to the autonomy of the Spirit of Christ within, for if a man have not the Spirit of Christ; he/she is none of His.)

I am going to string a new thread regarding the matter of the doctrine of Christ. I look forward to your (name removed by moderator)ut and insights.

Sincerely,
Pophead.

 

[Teflon93]

If the Word of God as contained in Scripture was sufficient to make Man a perfect work, why was it necessary for the Word of God to be made flesh in the form of Christ?

 

[cmancone]

I think you have it exactly pophead. It is not the Bible or Tradition that we should listen to and learn from, it is the Word of God. That Word can come to us through scripture, but it can also come to us through modern day prophets, and it can come to us when God chooses to speak to us personally. Jesus is the head of the Church of Christ, not the Pope, and not the Bible.

 

[Contarini]

Thirdly, so far in Church History, there was only one time when she was in full health and that was on the day of Pentecost, when the Spirit of Christ was poured forth as declared the prophet Joel.

Fourthly, Church History bears record that the Bride has lost connection with her coming Head; the Lord Jesus Christs; by attempting to establish here own autonomy in the earth.

But that’s more than “not being in full health.” That makes being a Christian impossible. We can only be Christians by being part of the Bride. But if the Bride loses connection with Christ she is no longer the Bride at all. Christ would have to become incarnate all over again. If the Church has ever fully apostasized, then it is an act of dishonesty and hypocrisy to remain a Christian.

How has she done this ?

A. Usurping her true Head. (as did Lucifer, now Satan)
B. Replacing her true Head.

1. With herself as Head.
2. With the Scriptures as Head.
3. With man as her head ( Ultimately the 666)

This is ridiculous.

What is the Bride supposed to be doing ?

I believer she needs to be under here Head; the Lord Jesus Christ, as the woman is to be under the man. It is the divine order. If she is under herself she is in grave error, if she is under the Scripture she is in error and God forbid that she surrender her crown to the man-of-sin.

It is true she has a glory of her own, but it is only of value if she is under the autonomy of her Bridegroom; the Lord Jesus Christ, to whom she is to be united at the marriage supper of the Lamb.

She has been sealed for this very event; and the seal is not her own or that of Scripture or the man-of-sing but the Spirit of Christ.

(As I am already disatisfied with the position of Sola Scriptura, and took a little peep at Solo Scriptura and can find no basis for Solo Verbi Dei, I readily submit to the autonomy of the Spirit of Christ within, for if a man have not the Spirit of Christ; he/she is none of His.)

I am going to string a new thread regarding the matter of the doctrine of Christ. I look forward to your (name removed by moderator)ut and insights.

Sincerely,
Pophead.

What this amounts to is that there are things you find fault with in the Church, and so it suits you to make sweeping accusations. You aren’t seriously interested in dialogue or inquiry. You have it all sewn up inside your own head and you have your own Ideal Church which you have created. That is far more blasphemous than anything of which you accuse traditional Christianity.

I study Church history for a living, and it’s often depressing. But if there’s one thing of which I’m convinced, it’s that by and large the historic Church has sought to be obedient to Christ. We have often let our own sinfulness mess up our understanding of what that meant. But we have never abandoned allegiance to Christ.

By accusing us of doing so, you risk doing so yourself–creating your own authority based on your private interpretation of what ideal Christianity should look like.

Be careful. I have been down this road, and it’s a dark road.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Honestly Contarini, all the research I’ve done has lead me to conclude the exact opposite.

But have you read authors who are coming from a different perspective than your own, or are you only reading evangelical Protestant scholars?

You say:

I’ve seen plenty of scholarship that completely disagrees with every part of that statement.

Of course. But how much of it was *not *coming from an evangelical Protestant perspective? Generally in scholarship, if the only people who maintain something are people with one particular ideological perspective, you should ask tough questions about their scholarship. They may in fact be right, but the matter needs to be examined in the light of what people with other perspectives have to say. (And yes, the same thing is true of secular perspectives, of course.) In the light of Christian faith, there may be reasons only to listen to believing scholars on certain issues. But we are allegedly discussing the matter without the benefit of assuming the Christian Faith to be true.

I almost always hear that the accuracy of the book of acts is impeccable, and that Luke was quite the reliable historian. Interesting. Personally, I believe my sources.

Of course you do, because they speak for your faith tradition. That’s quite right and proper, as long as you are honest about the fact that you are accepting the authority of your tradition.

Tell me: which of your sources are not evangelical Protestants?

Again, I’ve heard the exact opposite. There are a very great many copies of early texts, allowing us to reconstruct very accurately virtually the entire NT. There are some quibbles here and there, which have virtually no impact on any matter of doctrine.

That’s overstated. A number of the readings rejected by the critical consensus support the divinity of Christ. We can still make a good case for the divinity of Christ without those readings, but it would be easier to do if the “Textus Receptus” were correct.

The two possible exceptions are the ending of Mark and the story of Jesus and the adulterer (let he who has not sinned throw the first stone). As far as all my research has determined, the original texts of the Bible are very well known, with those exceptions.

Those are the only lengthy differences, at least in the NT. (Given that the LXX is often accepted today as an independent witness to the original OT text, one could make a case that the original OT text is far more in doubt than most Protestants recognize.)

You are correct though, textual criticism only ensures that we have accurate copies of the originals, not that the originals are accurate in and of themselves. I see no reason to doubt that though, and have only seen evidence to the contrary.

What have you looked at? Have you read any non-evangelical scholarship at all? I’m not even talking about the radicals–I’m talking about relatively middle-of-the-road scholars such as E. P. Sanders. Obviously, if you only read people who support your perspective, you will see no reason to doubt your beliefs!

Here you have a problem. First, being Bible-alone doesn’t make you a radical

“Radical” is a relative term and is not worth arguing over. You misread the sentence. If I had been saying that all Bible-alone Protestants were radical (a statement I consider meaningless), I would have put a comma after “radical.” “Radical” modifies both the following words–i.e., I was talking about people who radically reject tradition and claim to hold to a very strict version of sola scriptura.

Second, there are as many non-scriptural witnesses and ECF that argue against Catholic beliefs as there are that argue for it.

I don’t even know how one would go about doing a numerical analysis to test this claim, or what it would prove. Note what I said: I said that the writings of the early Christians support many, not all, of the things maintained by Catholics over against “radical Bible-alone Protestants” were correct. In other words, the early Church was clearly a lot more like Catholicism than it was like fundamentalist Protestantism. I myself am neither–I’m an Anglican. So you will get no argument from me when you say that the early Christian writings don’t always support current RC dogma–I agree with you. But the points on which they do not are relatively minor points that divine RCs from other traditional Christians.

 

[Contarini]

If you want, I’ll go get some quotes from Augustine on how “the Rock” in Matthew 16:18 refers to Peters confession, and was not referring to Peter (he was quite clear on this point).

No, I don’t think he’s clear that it doesn’t refer to Peter. However, that would be one of the points peculiar to the RCC, and one of the more debatable RC doctrines.

If you start with the things on which there is consensus in the early Church–baptismal regeneration, the presence of Christ in the Eucharist (however defined), the sacrificial character of the Eucharist, the authority of presbyters and bishops, with the latter in succession from the apostles, the necessity of good works for final salvation, prayer for the dead, honor to be paid to martyrs and to the blessed Virgin (though in the earliest centuries not necessarily including asking for their prayers). . . . you have something that looks very different from most contemporary forms of Protestantism and which most Protestants would identify as “Catholic” if they saw it in action (I know this, because I get accused of being Catholic all the time for defending these things).

This fact makes them very suspect in all cases. It’s really best to stick with the Bible.

That makes no sense. You admit that the same thing is true (to a lesser degree) of the Bible. So why not throw out the Bible too, by your logic?

However, the really important point is that one of the things the early Christians clearly had a consensus about was the authority of the Bible–at the very least, of the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms, most of the rest of the Writings, the Four Gospels, Acts, the letters of Paul, and a few other epistles (Esther, the “Apocrypha,” some of the General Epistles, and Revelation were a bit more debatable). That is why we believe in the Bible today. Throw out the witness of the early Church, and it makes no sense to believe the Bible as a whole in the face of the testimony of most modern scholars (all those who do not start from the premises of orthodox Christianity, though obviously they have biases of their own).

All that aside, I fail to see your point? Are you trying to disprove Sola Scriptura by casting doubt on the Bible? That’s what you (and everyone else here) seems to be doing. We all agree that the Bible is the word of God, so why am I arguing for it’s legitimacy?

Because you want to say that the Bible is the Word of God while rejecting the witness of the historic Church. This is inconsistent and self-defeating, because there is no way you would believe that the 66 books of the Bible are the Word of God except that the Church (not speaking of the RCC here, but the Church as you have encountered it) delivered those books to you as the Word of God. I am not saying that you would not believe in any part of the Bible or anything taught in the Bible without the witness of the historic Church. You might well decide that some parts of the Bible, together no doubt with some other writings that spoke to you personally, were divinely inspired. But if you were really relying either on your personal intuition or on the consensus of scholarship (not selecting for scholarship informed by a particular theological perspective) or on some combination of the two, the probability of your coming up with exactly these 66 books is not much greater than that of monkeys typing Shakespeare.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[JimG]

I think you have it exactly pophead. It is not the Bible or Tradition that we should listen to and learn from, it is the Word of God. That Word can come to us through scripture, but it can also come to us through modern day prophets, and it can come to us when God chooses to speak to us personally. Jesus is the head of the Church of Christ, not the Pope, and not the Bible.

OK, lets see here: Not the Pope, Not the Bible, Not Tradition. The Word can come to us in any of these ways or also through modern day prophets (who?) or God speaking to us personally.

It seems to me that as a practical matter, that leaves me, and you, as head of my own church. Only I can decide when God has spoken to me personally. Only I can evaluate what I receive from scripture, or Tradition, or the historic Church. I, therefore, am my own pope.

As far as finding that unity that Jesus spoke of, “that they may all be one, Father, as you and I are one,” well that’s just a lost cause and an impossibility according to this plan.

 

[Teflon93]

OK, lets see here: Not the Pope, Not the Bible, Not Tradition. The Word can come to us in any of these ways or also through modern day prophets (who?) or God speaking to us personally.

It seems to me that as a practical matter, that leaves me, and you, as head of my own church. Only I can decide when God has spoken to me personally. Only I can evaluate what I receive from scripture, or Tradition, or the historic Church. I, therefore, am my own pope.

As far as finding that unity that Jesus spoke of, “that they may all be one, Father, as you and I are one,” well that’s just a lost cause and an impossibility according to this plan.

Well, not quite all the way to the atomic church of Me, Jim—I’d say most of the Protestant denominations I’ve been part of have been in the chrysalis stage—a cult of personality around the pastor, who to be successful must be charismatic and preach entertaining sermons. It is an authority based not upon apostolic succession but upon entertainment value.

This is not to belittle Protestant ministers, nor to claim that all of them are entertainers; I think this is a consequence of the lack of respect for apostolic succession derived from the ideological fetters of the Reformation.

I attended a Methodist church recently where the pastor, who had not even attended seminary yet, mused in his sermon whether or not he was even a Methodist. He had opted against becoming a Lutheran after attending their service and finding it boring (I kid you not).

This kind of thing creeps in once you get rid of the notion that the clergy are not only called but selected.

I can only imagine how such incidents must grate at those Protestant clergymen who do take their faith and its propagation seriously.

 

[chet]

Catholics say “amen” to this. There is nothing in this statement that rejects either Sacred Tradition or the Church Magisterium. This agrees with what Dei Verbum says:

8. And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

Keep in mind this is Kaycee’s selected quote in support of sola Scriptura. Actually, this quote supports the Catholic understanding of the Church Magisterium, the authority of Sacred tradition, and the idea of Apostolic succession (as a mark of the true Church). I assume Kaycee included this quote because it refers to “hidden mysteries” which he may have understood to be what Catholics refer to as " Sacred tradition." Actually what Ireneus refers to as “hidden mysteries” are the teachings of the Gnostics, a heretical group. This is quite distinct from the Catholic idea of Sacred Tradition which is part of the deposit of faith and is not secret.

Again, Catholics can say “amen” to that. This statement does not reject Sacred Tradition or the Church Magisterium. Another quote from Dei Verbum:

*But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. *

2 Corinthians 11:3-4,12-15, 13:3-6

But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully. But what I am doing I will continue to do, so that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds. since you are seeking for proof of the Christ who speaks in me, and who is not weak toward you, but mighty in you. For indeed He was crucified because of weakness, yet He lives because of the power of God For we also are weak in Him, yet we will live with Him because of the power of God directed toward you. Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you–unless indeed you fail the test? But I trust that you will realize that we ourselves do not fail the test.

My Lord Jesus Christ,with The Father,and The Spirit of Truth and the Apostles require me to not reject Sacred Scripture,Sacred Tradition or the Church Magisterium.There for I also say"

Dei Verbum !

"

 

[chet]

No, I don’t think he’s clear that it doesn’t refer to Peter. However, that would be one of the points peculiar to the RCC, and one of the more debatable RC doctrines.

If you start with the things on which there is consensus in the early Church–baptismal regeneration, the presence of Christ in the Eucharist (however defined), the sacrificial character of the Eucharist, the authority of presbyters and bishops, with the latter in succession from the apostles, the necessity of good works for final salvation, prayer for the dead, honor to be paid to martyrs and to the blessed Virgin (though in the earliest centuries not necessarily including asking for their prayers). . . . you have something that looks very different from most contemporary forms of Protestantism and which most Protestants would identify as “Catholic” if they saw it in action (I know this, because I get accused of being Catholic all the time for defending these things).

That makes no sense. You admit that the same thing is true (to a lesser degree) of the Bible. So why not throw out the Bible too, by your logic?

However, the really important point is that one of the things the early Christians clearly had a consensus about was the authority of the Bible–at the very least, of the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms, most of the rest of the Writings, the Four Gospels, Acts, the letters of Paul, and a few other epistles (Esther, the “Apocrypha,” some of the General Epistles, and Revelation were a bit more debatable). That is why we believe in the Bible today. Throw out the witness of the early Church, and it makes no sense to believe the Bible as a whole in the face of the testimony of most modern scholars (all those who do not start from the premises of orthodox Christianity, though obviously they have biases of their own).

Because you want to say that the Bible is the Word of God while rejecting the witness of the historic Church. This is inconsistent and self-defeating, because there is no way you would believe that the 66 books of the Bible are the Word of God except that the Church (not speaking of the RCC here, but the Church as you have encountered it) delivered those books to you as the Word of God. I am not saying that you would not believe in any part of the Bible or anything taught in the Bible without the witness of the historic Church. You might well decide that some parts of the Bible, together no doubt with some other writings that spoke to you personally, were divinely inspired. But if you were really relying either on your personal intuition or on the consensus of scholarship (not selecting for scholarship informed by a particular theological perspective) or on some combination of the two, the probability of your coming up with exactly these 66 books is not much greater than that of monkeys typing Shakespeare.

In Christ,

Edwin

The Nature of the Church
First, Jesus made Peter head of this Church (Matt. 16:18), yet Jesus was certainly not making Peter the head of an invisible Church. It is Christ’s own prerogative to be head of the invisible communion of Christians stretching from heaven to earth (Eph. 5:23). Therefore, he must have made Peter the head of a visible, earthly church. (We will not argue here that Jesus made Peter the head; even if one disagrees, the remaining arguments prove our case.)
Second, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), which are for use in Church government (compare Isa. 22:22 – the only Old Testament parallel to this verse). But one cannot govern an invisible communion of believers, only a visible one.
Third, Jesus gave Peter the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19), which Matthew 18:17-18 indicates is used in Church discipline. But one cannot exercise Church discipline over an invisible body. Indeed, Matt. 18:17-18 refers it to public excommunication, in which an individual is treated by the church as “a gentile or a tax collector” (that is, as an unbeliever).
Fourth, Jesus explicitly stated that Peter would exercise the power of binding and loosing on earth. This shows his authority is an earthly one, over an earthly Church.
Fifth, Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18), meaning that it would never perish. But it would be ridiculous to promise that an invisible Church would not pass out of existence since some of the Church’s members are in heaven and Christ’s heavenly Church cannot pass away by its very nature. Only a visible, earthly communion needs a promise that it will never perish.
There are thus abundant reasons to conclude that the Church Jesus was discussing in Matthew 16:17-19 was a visible communion of believers, and, since only the Catholic Church goes back that far, only it can be the one Christ founded.

Thanks Edwin.

 

[chet]

OK, lets see here: Not the Pope, Not the Bible, Not Tradition. The Word can come to us in any of these ways or also through modern day prophets (who?) or God speaking to us personally.

It seems to me that as a practical matter, that leaves me, and you, as head of my own church. Only I can decide when God has spoken to me personally. Only I can evaluate what I receive from scripture, or Tradition, or the historic Church. I, therefore, am my own pope.

As far as finding that unity that Jesus spoke of, “that they may all be one, Father, as you and I are one,” well that’s just a lost cause and an impossibility according to this plan.

SOUNDS LIKE THE PLAN OF SOMEONE ELSE MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE.Genesis 3:5

“For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

 

[cmancone]

Hi Pophead,

I just saw your bit about the geneologies of Jesus. I’d like to propose another, much better alternative:

carm.org/diff/2geneologies.htm

 

[Pophead]

I think you have it exactly pophead. It is not the Bible or Tradition that we should listen to and learn from, it is the Word of God. That Word can come to us through scripture, but it can also come to us through modern day prophets, and it can come to us when God chooses to speak to us personally. Jesus is the head of the Church of Christ, not the Pope, and not the Bible.

Dear cmancone,

You have understood some of what is in my heart and I thank you for you kind words. It took me several hours of reading and soul searching before I completely understood how matters stand and how I might find rest in the still small voice of the Spirit of Christ in my inner man. There is no finer JOY that to have calm assurance that one is correctly seated at the feet of the Alpha and Omega; whose voice is like the sound of many waters.

I will read this thread with excitement from day to day as others find the pearl of great price of greater signifance than silver and gold, for such as I have give I unto thee. In Jesus name.

Thank-you,
Pophead.

ps. I thank you for the link to Carm; a resourse I used to use when discussing LDS doctrine. I eventually decided to read Joseph Smith’s discourses for myself, as most unusual man indeed.

 

[chet]

Pophead

Thirdly, so far in Church History, there was only one time when she was in full health and that was on the day of Pentecost, when the Spirit of Christ was poured forth as declared the prophet Joel.

Fourthly, Church History bears record that the Bride has lost connection with her coming Head; the Lord Jesus Christs; by attempting to establish here own autonomy in the earth.

How has she done this ?

A. Usurping her true Head. (as did Lucifer, now Satan)
B. Replacing her true Head.

1. With herself as Head.
2. With the Scriptures as Head.
3. With man as her head ( Ultimately the 666)

What is the Bride supposed to be doing ?

Matthew 28:19-20

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you;

P.S. Have you ever been to the Lamb’s Supper? I have and it it the greatest gift he left His Church! Luke 24:35

They began to relate their experiences on the road and how He was recognized by them in the breaking of the bread.

Acts 2:42

They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

 

[Contarini]

Thanks Edwin.

Well, the last statement in your post is nothing but empty propaganda, to be honest. For one thing, the Orthodox have the same credentials you do in that regard–as do the other two Eastern Christian communions.

Edwin