SPLIT: What did Christ teach that wasn't written,and if it wasn't written how can you be sure He taught it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter n2thelight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Post by JA4 “Thanks for clarifying this. However, since the only thing we know that is inspired-inerrant are the Scriptures. What others taught after the apostles (NT itself) does differ in content at times. Things are being added as time goes on and cannot be truly said to be of Christ or His apostles. This is where problems arise.” end quote.

There is nothing taught in the traditional Catholic Faith that is against Scripture or the Apostolic teachings. Things taught throughout the 2000 years of the Church and Her history just elaborate further on what was taught by Jesus.
 
40.png
justasking4:
Thanks for clarifying this. However, since the only thing we know that is inspired-inerrant are the Scriptures. What others taught after the apostles (NT itself) does differ in content at times. Things are being added as time goes on and cannot be truly said to be of Christ or His apostles. This is where problems arise.
Forgive me for not being able to make head or tail of your long post; I’m just too distracted today to try to follow the failure of the quote system.

Just a comment to your last bit:

The Apostolic Churches do not consider later clarifications of doctrine to be “additions.” They are not ‘additions’ but rather they represent the guidance of the Holy Spirit fulfilling Our Lord’s promise to guide His Apostles “into all the truth.”

I see this in light of Abraham’s faith. Did Abraham believe that Jesus was the Messiah? Specifically, of course, he did not. But implicitly, he did. He did not NEED to know the details at the time. Similarly, the Apostolic and sub-Apostolic Church did not NEED to know how the hypostatic union describes the Person and natures of Jesus Christ. But the Nicene Church did NEED to know that, and was guided in that part of “all the truth.”

It is not a question specifically of what Christ DID teach when he was with us in the flesh but of what Christ DOES teach through the Holy spirit. We believe Him when He says He will be with us “all days” in the Commission to make disciples of all nations, to baptize, and to TEACH.
Yikes! What is WITH the quote feature lately??? Let me start over with this.
 
Thanks for clarifying this. However, since the only thing we know that is inspired-inerrant are the Scriptures. What others taught after the apostles (NT itself) does differ in content at times. Things are being added as time goes on and cannot be truly said to be of Christ or His apostles. This is where problems arise.
Well, problems arise for those who are unable to discern the Teachings of the Apostles from the opinions of men. This is why Jesus charged the Apostles with this task, and they appointed faithful men, who were able to teach others also.

"… the preaching of the Apostles. It is God’s word, not men’s. “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers,” 1 Thes 2:13.

When you have a “problem” it is because you are really not trusting God to be able to guard the word that he has implanted in the hearts of His people. He is weak, or a liar, so that He would implant His Word, then let it get lost.
 
Back to the topic,you all claim that what Christ taught that was’nt written was passed down orally,you base this on the asumption of aposlic sucession,beginning with Peter.However outside of one verse to which you all take out of context,this has yet to be proven.
Which verse? The Matthew 16 “upon this rock” bit? That’s hardly the only support for apostolic succession. Heck, the Orthodox don’t even believe Peter had special authority, and they recognize apostolic succession.
Most if not all of Catholic teachings hinges on Peter being the fitst Pope,meaning if its not in the scriptures, you can play it off by saying it was given orally,one of the reasons you have for not accepting sola scriptura.
We do generally have written attestation for even the parts of Tradition not contained in Scripture, you know. We don’t just insist that there are seekrit Catholic-only facts that have only been passed down orally all this time.

Tradition isn’t just a list of teachings that aren’t explicit in Scripture. (In fact, there’s no special list at all.) Tradition is the whole matrix of early Christian understandings and practices out of which the New Testament Scriptures themselves arose, and to which they testify. The apostles were preaching and founding churches long before they got around to writing their letters and gospels and whatnot.

There are things we can know about the early Christians by studying their letters, their hymns, their liturgical manuals, even the decorations on their tombs – and, yes, by paying attention to what each generation told the next to do and believe. It would be silly to reject that information just because it is not contained in inspired Scripture. Obviously, since these other sources are not inspired, no single source must be allowed to lead us into error, but a broad consensus across multiple sources can leave us reasonably confident that we know what mainstream Christians were up to.

That’s where “Catholic” or “Universal” as a name for the Church itself comes in, by the way. The “Catholic Church” was the collective of all the local churches that followed the same traditions of belief and practice. Other groups that had gone astray were not part of that “Catholic” collective, even if they claimed to derive their strange teachings from the Scriptures.
So you make the claim of it being tradition,and again I say,if it goes against scripture,one cannot believe in it.Period!
Agreed, if it goes against Scripture, properly understood. Things consonant with Scripture but merely not mentioned there would be a different story, though, would they not?

Usagi
 
And do tell why not

Or are you saying that the Catholic Church decides whats scripture and what is not,and that it can be and not be at the same time?
This is a really old post, but I had to quote it. The answer to this is YES the Catholic Church decides what’s scripture and what is not. That is what it did with the Bible. The end of the question doesn’t even really need to be answered (again…or at all).
I know somebody else mentioned this, but I am guessing it didn’t sink in.
 
So you make the claim of it being tradition,and again I say,if it goes against scripture,one cannot believe in it.Period!
You do realize that the Catholic Church gave you that scripture that you believe in, don’t you?
 
You do realize that the Catholic Church gave you that scripture that you believe in, don’t you?
The Catholic church did not “give” anyone the Scriptures. Rather God used the church to define what the canon of the NT was to be for the edification of believers.
 
The Catholic church did not “give” anyone the Scriptures. Rather God used the church to define what the canon of the NT was to be for the edification of believers.
Well, that is what we mean when we say “give”. Everyone who wrote the NT was Catholic, all those that preserved the books were Catholic, all those God used to define the canon were Catholic, and all the believers were Catholic.👍
 
The Catholic church did not “give” anyone the Scriptures. Rather God used the church to define what the canon of the NT was to be for the edification of believers.
I’m not sure what you think the difference is. God led the Catholic Church to know what the full Biblical Canon was, and the Church told the rest of the world what God had guided them to use as Scripture. Funny how non-Catholics agree with the Holy Spirit’s guidance for the canon of the NT but not the OT. :confused:
 
How about the hypostatic union.
Excellent point, Uther!

In response to several great heresies going on at different times, the Church has convened all the bishops to combat the evil of heresies.

Many Protestants take for granted the fact that the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, and other doctrines were protected by the Catholic Church early on in its existence, and it was dogmatically (here, meaning definitively) declared to be a Truth of the faith.

The nature of God as a man in Christ has been disputed for a very long time, and the only reason Protestants have that truth in their individual churches is because the Holy Spirit led the Church to several very important councils over several hundred years.

At the Councils of Nicea (325 AD) and Constantinople (381 AD), the Trinitarian doctrine took its intial form. Christ was declared “consubstantial”, meaning of the same substance, with the being of God; and in the Council of Constantinople, the doctrine was further defined that the Holy Spirit was eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Prior to 431 AD, various Christians (Nestorius, etc.) purported that Christ’s human person was of little consequence in the story of salvation, and that Christ was two persons (Jesus vs. the Son of God) rather than two natures (True God and True Man).

The First Council of Ephesus (the Third Ecumenical Council, 431 AD) was conveined specifically to counter these attacks against what the Church held to be universally true, and they reaffirmed the doctrine that Christ was of two natures, and that Mary literally gave birth to “God as a man”, thus her title of Theotokos came to be.

[On a side note, at the First Council of Ephesus, they combated *peligianism, which equated to “works righteousness” because it said that we did not need divine aid in order to become holy; it also denied Original Sin, and purported that Christ’s death was really unnecessary].

By 449 AD, people epically failed again with their teaching, and the Holy Spirit convened the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD (a.k.a the Fourth Ecumenical Council) in order to combat the teachings of Eutyches (it is believed that it may have been a misunderstanding by language barrier) that Christ had only possess the divine Logos and not a human soul. In fact, here the Hypostatic Union took shape; the Logos incarnate, Christ, was born with the divine nature of God and the human soul embodied in one person.

Thus, in the first four Ecumenical Councils, over a period of 125 years, did the doctrine of the Trinity finally take the shape of what we have today. Nobody today - no Christian, at least - argues with what the results of these Councils were.

Every belief that the councils defined existed before the councils were even convened.

This is the beauty of Apostolic Tradition. It was handed to the Apostles by Christ Himself, yet because of our fallen nature, Christ would send the Holy Spirit out upon His Church to continue guiding us in to full understanding of that which He gave us.

Thus, we see with the Apostles not always understanding things as Christ intended:
From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised. Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, “God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you.” He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.”

St. Matthew 16:21-23

For they did not yet understand the scripture that he had to rise from the dead.

St. John 20:9

They were just as human as the rest of us; they could not understand things all the time, and Peter even feared for the death of his beloved Teacher. Yet Christ still tells them, and Peter specifically:

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, “Feed my sheep.”

St. John 21:15-17

Christ gave the Apostles a very special mission, even though they were sinners just like the rest of us. And as shown from other Scripture (which you have, by the way, happily ignored N2), St. Paul tells Timothy to appoint other worthy men to pass on the teachings.
 
The Catholic church did not “give” anyone the Scriptures. Rather God used the church to define what the canon of the NT was to be for the edification of believers.
All the New Testament authors were Catholic clergy, so it’s accurate to say that the Catholic Church “gave” us the New Testament. And yes, God used the Catholic Church to define the whole Biblical Canon (Old and New Testament).
 
I’m not sure what you think the difference is. God led the Catholic Church to know what the full Biblical Canon was, and the Church told the rest of the world what God had guided them to use as Scripture. Funny how non-Catholics agree with the Holy Spirit’s guidance for the canon of the NT but not the OT. :confused:
Well, there is a difference: Catholics didn’t just “compile” the New Testament, they wrote it.
 
Originally Posted by justasking4
The Catholic church did not “give” anyone the Scriptures. Rather God used the church to define what the canon of the NT was to be for the edification of believers.

guanophore
Well, that is what we mean when we say “give”. Everyone who wrote the NT was Catholic, all those that preserved the books were Catholic, all those God used to define the canon were Catholic, and all the believers were Catholic.👍
Since the Scriptures never use the word catholic in referring to believers what do you mean by the term?
 
All the New Testament authors were Catholic clergy, so it’s accurate to say that the Catholic Church “gave” us the New Testament. And yes, God used the Catholic Church to define the whole Biblical Canon (Old and New Testament).
This is the first i have seen the word “clergy” used for the authors of the NT. Secondly the Jews already knew by the time of Christ what were the OT Scriptures.
 
This is the first i have seen the word “clergy” used for the authors of the NT. Secondly the Jews already knew by the time of Christ what were the OT Scriptures.
No they didn’t. It has already been pointed out that there was disagreement among the Jewish sects.
 
Originally Posted by justasking4
This is the first i have seen the word “clergy” used for the authors of the NT. Secondly the Jews already knew by the time of Christ what were the OT Scriptures.

LittleDeb
No they didn’t. It has already been pointed out that there was disagreement among the Jewish sects.
If they didn’t know what the OT Scriptures were then what is Jesus referring to in Matthew 21:42 when He says:
Jesus *said to them, “Did you never read in the Scriptures,‘The stone which the builders rejected,This became the chief corner stone;This came about from the Lord,And it is marvelous in our eyes’?

The Scriptures Jesus is referring to is the OT. Correct?
 
Since the Scriptures never use the word catholic in referring to believers what do you mean by the term?
Actually, the word catholic is in there- Acts 9:31, “ekklesia kataholos” - it’s just not in your English translation.
 
Since the Scriptures never use the word catholic in referring to believers what do you mean by the term?
“The combination “the Catholic Church” (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110.” -New Advent.org

“The true Church of Christ, as it is revealed to us in prophecy, in the New Testament, and in the writings of the Fathers of the first six centuries, is a body which possesses the prerogative of Catholicity, i.e. of general diffusion, not only as a matter of right, but in actual fact.” -NewAdvent.org

There was always one true Church, from the beginning, and it was that Church that combatted the heresies as they came up. It became known as the Catholic Church, ie. the universal Church while the NT Scripture was being written and compiled by those who, being followers of Christ in that true Church, were by definition Catholic. If they had not been Catholic, they would have been heretics, and their writings would not have been included in the Canon of Scripture. This was determined by whom? The Catholic Bishops in union with the Bishop of Rome, the Pope.

Sorry to have to break it to you but what you have in your New Testament was indeed brought to you, and preserved through the centuries before presses for you, by that Catholic Church. Moreover, the writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit and the writings, the books of the NT are inerrant. They cannot and do not teach error. How do we know this? Because the infallible teaching office of the Church (matters of faith and morals) identified which of the books available to them were actually inerrant. Inerrancy cannot be determined without an infallible authority. If you reject the infallible authority, ie. the Catholic Church, then you reject the inerrancy of NT Scripture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top