"Starting" new churches . .

[bookgirl32]

When people say things like “start a church” it implies that nothing is right in their walk with God, that God will not bless them, that there is no grace and no hope of salvation for them. I hear the sound of the anathemas from Trent rolling through the centuries. Not a proclamation of the gospel but condemnation.

Did a different church begin b/c of the reformer’s beliefs, yes, did they set out to “start a new church”? No. At least that’s how I look at it. Do I or the CC believe that the majority of these churches are not blessed by God, no. Is the CC going to say, “everybody can go ahead and be one big happy family at this point, forget the differences”? No, but that doesnt’ mean that each and every church, or members of, are condemned. In fact, it firmly teaches that no one but God condemns.

 

[bengal_fan]

Yes, and everyone has to make that decision. You make that decision when you decide to believe in the Bible alone, which still leaves the actual interpretation of the Bible up to you, which is what leads to all the different interpretations. But you’re right in your post above.

well, i actually don’t believe in the “bible alone”. i am not a sola scripturist. i hold to prima scriptura which means scripture first. it is the rule of faith that holds primacy over all others. any tradition or teaching of the church (while authoritative) is subject to scripture. paul commended the bereans for listening to him (understanding he spoke with authority) but also checking to make sure what he said was true by comparing it to the scripture.

i just don’t believe that there are 3 equal authorities in the church (tradition, magisterium, and scripture… although i have heard some put tradition and magisterium together as well). i believe there is a primary authority (scripture) and that all other authorities (because they do carry significant weight) are subject to scripture.

but thank you for admitting that it always starts with our own interpretation. i have had people on here argue that they don’t start with their own interpretation, they just do what the church says. when i ask why they do what the church says, they say because it is the “one, true church established by Jesus”. i then ask why they believe that and base their actions on that. they say because the church says so . sort of circular.

i have no problem with the catholic church as another expression of the faith (and the oldest one at that… although the orthodox might disagree). i do have a problem with putting things on an equal level with the written down teachings of the apostles. it has led to requiring belief in things that were not made necessary by the apostles (per their writings). all Christians agree on the essentials (Nicene Creed… most orthodox would even include the filioque now as well), i see no reason why we must force (under penalty of eternal damnation) belief in things that are non-essential. now, these beliefs can be very beneficial (intercession of the saints, sacraments, marian dogmas, etc.), but they should not be required for salvation.

these “new” churches are simply new communities of believers who have a different experience with God. do they disagree with you and me on certain issues… oh yeah! but do i not count them as my brothers and sisters in Christ… oh no! as long as they can agree to the statements in the creed… i count them as fellow Christians all attempting to do the will of God here on earth.

i think we need these different perspectives and expressions and they cannot all be found within “one” church. but they are all found in the One Church (the church universal made up of all believers).

 

[bookgirl32]

well, i actually don’t believe in the “bible alone”. i am not a sola scripturist. i hold to prima scriptura which means scripture first. it is the rule of faith that holds primacy over all others. any tradition or teaching of the church (while authoritative) is subject to scripture. paul commended the bereans for listening to him (understanding he spoke with authority) but also checking to make sure what he said was true by comparing it to the scripture.

Well, by this argument, you better make sure you check everything with the OT.

i just don’t believe that there are 3 equal authorities in the church (tradition, magisterium, and scripture… although i have heard some put tradition and magisterium together as well). i believe there is a primary authority (scripture) and that all other authorities (because they do carry significant weight) are subject to scripture.

So, again, what would you have believed had you lived in the first 300 or so years of Christianity?

but thank you for admitting that it always starts with our own interpretation. i have had people on here argue that they don’t start with their own interpretation, they just do what the church says. when i ask why they do what the church says, they say because it is the “one, true church established by Jesus”. i then ask why they believe that and base their actions on that. they say because the church says so . sort of circular.

Again, it’s free will, so everyone does make a choice.

i have no problem with the catholic church as another expression of the faith (and the oldest one at that… although the orthodox might disagree). i do have a problem with putting things on an equal level with the written down teachings of the apostles. it has led to requiring belief in things that were not made necessary by the apostles (per their writings). all Christians agree on the essentials (Nicene Creed… most orthodox would even include the filioque now as well), i see no reason why we must force (under penalty of eternal damnation) belief in things that are non-essential. now, these beliefs can be very beneficial (intercession of the saints, sacraments, marian dogmas, etc.), but they should not be required for salvation.

Again, see question above.

these “new” churches are simply new communities of believers who have a different experience with God. do they disagree with you and me on certain issues… oh yeah! but do i not count them as my brothers and sisters in Christ… oh no! as long as they can agree to the statements in the creed… i count them as fellow Christians all attempting to do the will of God here on earth.

I also count them as brothers and sisters in Christ. I just wish they weren’t missing out on so much.

i think we need these different perspectives and expressions and they cannot all be found within “one” church. but they are all found in the One Church (the church universal made up of all believers.

But if you go to Scripture, there weren’t different perspectives, and it wasn’t okay that there was, we are in fact instructed again and again to hold fast to all that was taught to us by the Apostles, why would they even have taught it if it wasn’t necessary?

 

[JRKH]

well, i actually don’t believe in the “bible alone”. i am not a sola scripturist. i hold to prima scriptura which means scripture first. it is the rule of faith that holds primacy over all others. any tradition or teaching of the church (while authoritative) is subject to scripture. paul commended the bereans for listening to him (understanding he spoke with authority) but also checking to make sure what he said was true by comparing it to the scripture.

i just don’t believe that there are 3 equal authorities in the church (tradition, magisterium, and scripture… although i have heard some put tradition and magisterium together as well). i believe there is a primary authority (scripture) and that all other authorities (because they do carry significant weight) are subject to scripture.

The primary argument and stumbling block here is, what did the Church do in the first 350 years of its’ existance. During that time the only “Scripture” was the OT. During the first 350 years, there was NO NT canon to subject tradition and megisterium to. So as a Christian in the year 225 AD, what do you use to “subject” Tradition and Magestirium to?

(Snip)

**i have no problem with the catholic church as another expression of the faith (and the oldest one at that… although the orthodox might disagree). i do have a problem with putting things on an equal level with the written down teachings of the apostles. it has led to requiring belief in things that were not made necessary by the apostles (per their writings). **all Christians agree on the essentials (Nicene Creed… most orthodox would even include the filioque now as well), i see no reason why we must force (under penalty of eternal damnation) belief in things that are non-essential. now, these beliefs can be very beneficial (intercession of the saints, sacraments, marian dogmas, etc.), but they should not be required for salvation.

First of all, with the possible exception of John, none of the Gospels we have were written by the Apostles. We do have som letters from them, but considering that Jesus ministered for 3 years, and the Apostles for many years after that, do you really think that ALL of the teachings are written down? If I sat down and carefully read through all four Gospels It would take something less than a week. And I should believe that this contains the sum total of All that Jesus took Three years to pass on?
Jesus did not write a book, nor did He command His apostles to write a book. He commanded them to teach, to pass on what He had taught them. The primary method was oral teaching. The entire Church was built on the oral teaching and letters between the apostles, and their successors, the Bishops. The NT canon, those books from the ealiest times of the Church were gathered and canonized to assure the foundational facts and teachings were safeguarded.
The Church has always held that any teaching must not be in contradiction of the scriptures. However Tradition and the Magesterium look, not just at this one source, but also at the teachings and writings of the early Church Fathers. Such Holy men as St Augustine, St Polycarp, St Iranius, Eusebius of Ceasarea, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and many others. These are the Great an holy men who recorded, not just what Jesus taught, but how the church developed, and what the earliest Christians believed, how they met and worshiped etc.
The Magesterium of today, made up of theological scholars, philosophers, and prayerful men of the Church, don’t simply read the Bible and roll some dice to make their decisions. They ponder deeply and prayerfully. They read and study many old texts as well as new ideas and thoughts on todays topics. Only after much study and prayer do these men, charged with the sheparding of a worldwide flock, make a decision to recommend to the Holy Father.

these “new” churches are simply new communities of believers who have a different experience with God. do they disagree with you and me on certain issues… oh yeah! but do i not count them as my brothers and sisters in Christ… oh no! as long as they can agree to the statements in the creed… i count them as fellow Christians all attempting to do the will of God here on earth.

i think we need these different perspectives and expressions and they cannot all be found within “one” church. but they are all found in the One Church (the church universal made up of all believers).

But we must also pray that these other christians can find their way into the full communion of Christ in His Church whom He has preserved for 2000 years.

Peace
James

 

[bengal_fan]

Well, by this argument, you better make sure you check everything with the OT.

only if you believe that the written down version of the apostles’ teachings aren’t scripture. the bereans used what they had. we can now use what we have. and i do. the NT is completely consistent with the OT when speaking of the nature of God and the plan He had with the messiah. that is how the books of the NT got in the canon in the first place. they were each associated with an apostle and contained no errors in regards to OT consistency.

So, again, what would you have believed had you lived in the first 300 or so years of Christianity?

the basic beliefs. it would all depend on where i was living. maybe my community only had a copy of the book of mark and some of paul’s letters. the only way i would have known about what Jesus did after the resurrection, or if anyone actually saw Him (because mark 16:9-20 is not in the earliest manuscripts that we have) if it were not for paul’s letters. i would have believed what i was taught as long as it did not contradict the OT or the letters and writings and teachings (if and when one came to town) of the apostles. i would believe that Jesus came to establish His kingdom and that we, as a community, were trying to live that out by sharing everything, meeting each others’ needs, helping the poor and the widows and the orphans, and trying to draw others into our community. i would not have all of the doctrines and dogmas that the church espouses today. would i hear about the controversies… sure i suppose. would i know of the gnostics? yeah, two of them live down the street, but what they say doesn’t go along with the promises of God in the OT or what the apostles taught. i would believe what i could believe based on what we had.

Again, it’s free will, so everyone does make a choice.

that is right. so it’s not really that catholics don’t interpret for themselves, their interpretation just stops at the one that the church IS THE church Christ established and that she is incapable of error. my interpretation goes further and i question any and all teachings to see if they are correct. but we all interpret on our own.

I also count them as brothers and sisters in Christ. I just wish they weren’t missing out on so much.

i guess we don’t feel like we are missing anything. we would probably say the same about you. we count you as brothers and sisters in Christ but wish you could experience all that we experience.

But if you go to Scripture, there weren’t different perspectives, and it wasn’t okay that there was, we are in fact instructed again and again to hold fast to all that was taught to us by the Apostles, why would they even have taught it if it wasn’t necessary?

there were disagreements, and many of them were okay. some people were permitted to drink wine and others were not. in some churches, women couldn’t speak and in others they had positions of leadership (not priests… i’ll give you that). the church would come together if an issue was really one that could tear the church apart, but if it wasn’t, they practiced augustine’s axiom: “in essentials, unity. in non-essentials, charity.” the problem is when we make non-essentials, essential. and we all try to hold fast to what the apostles taught. those teachings are contained in scripture (for that was the point of defining the NT canon was to determine which writings were the teachings of the apostles and which ones weren’t). there were many letters and gospels and many contradicted each other. the point was to figure out which ones were actually the apostles’ teachings. this was done by: the letter or book having a legitimate tie to an apostle (like mark and luke… they weren’t apostles but travelled with peter and paul a lot and wrote down what they said), the letter or book not contradicting the OT, and how long the letter or book had been considered as the teaching of an apostle. the apostles taught so that we might be able to have their truth. do you really think they didn’t know people were writing down what they said? paul knew his letters would be read in the churches.

 

[bookgirl32]

only if you believe that the written down version of the apostles’ teachings aren’t scripture. the bereans used what they had. we can now use what we have. and i do. the NT is completely consistent with the OT when speaking of the nature of God and the plan He had with the messiah. that is how the books of the NT got in the canon in the first place. they were each associated with an apostle and contained no errors in regards to OT consistency.

I believe that they were not yet written down when that was said. This is not an argument AGAINST scripture. This is an argument that neither sola or prima scriptura were intended. The Bereans only used scripture? I think they had someone TEACHING them at the same time. I realize they checked it to the scriptures they had, but if the scriptures they had already had everything Paul was teaching them, what was the purpose of Paul at all?

the basic beliefs. it would all depend on where i was living. maybe my community only had a copy of the book of mark and some of paul’s letters. the only way i would have known about what Jesus did after the resurrection, or if anyone actually saw Him (because mark 16:9-20 is not in the earliest manuscripts that we have) if it were not for paul’s letters. i would have believed what i was taught as long as it did not contradict the OT or the letters and writings and teachings (if and when one came to town) of the apostles. i would believe that Jesus came to establish His kingdom and that we, as a community, were trying to live that out by sharing everything, meeting each others’ needs, helping the poor and the widows and the orphans, and trying to draw others into our community. i would not have all of the doctrines and dogmas that the church espouses today. would i hear about the controversies… sure i suppose. would i know of the gnostics? yeah, two of them live down the street, but what they say doesn’t go along with the promises of God in the OT or what the apostles taught. i would believe what i could believe based on what we had.

If you speak with some Jewish people who have what they believe to be very strong claims that what Paul and everyone else were preaching was untrue, and you saw some of their scriptural evidence, would you believe them? They “checked” it to scriptures and remained Jewish, and did not believe in Jesus. It was almost this same type of argument, and it was in their refusal to listen to the teachings of the apostles and disciples that they erred. They did not agree with what the apostles were saying about the fulfillment of the OT. Looks like there were some interpretation issues then as well. Good thing the scriptures were not the only, or the primary, source of validation for Christianity.

Also, do you believe God would intend for us to have only some of the Bible now, and only have that to work from? That’s equal to saying that not all of it was needed for salvation for everyone within your argument, so do you believe in prima scriptura of some of it, or all of it?

that is right. so it’s not really that catholics don’t interpret for themselves, their interpretation just stops at the one that the church IS THE church Christ established and that she is incapable of error. my interpretation goes further and i question any and all teachings to see if they are correct. but we all interpret on our own.

We all interpret that initial decision on our own, just as we all interpret the decision to have faith on or own. But we do not all interpret the Bible on our own. It’s not the same thing. Who tells you if the teachings are correct when you are questioning?

i guess we don’t feel like we are missing anything. we would probably say the same about you. we count you as brothers and sisters in Christ but wish you could experience all that we experience.

What are you experiencing that I’m not? I’m seriously openly curious here, I don’t see you as trying to preach to me.

there were disagreements, and many of them were okay. some people were permitted to drink wine and others were not. in some churches, women couldn’t speak and in others they had positions of leadership (not priests… i’ll give you that). the church would come together if an issue was really one that could tear the church apart, but if it wasn’t, they practiced augustine’s axiom: “in essentials, unity. in non-essentials, charity.”

These are “non-essentials” in the Church today as you would describe them. No Catholic has to agree with disciplinary matters to be saved. Augustine is exactly correct.

the problem is when we make non-essentials, essential. and we all try to hold fast to what the apostles taught. those teachings are contained in scripture (for that was the point of defining the NT canon was to determine which writings were the teachings of the apostles and which ones weren’t).

Yes, that was the point. It was not, however, to define all divinely inspired revelation on faith and morals.

there were many letters and gospels and many contradicted each other. the point was to figure out which ones were actually the apostles’ teachings. this was done by: the letter or book having a legitimate tie to an apostle (like mark and luke… they weren’t apostles but travelled with peter and paul a lot and wrote down what they said), the letter or book not contradicting the OT, and how long the letter or book had been considered as the teaching of an apostle.

Same answer as above.

 

[bookgirl32]

the apostles taught so that we might be able to have their truth. do you really think they didn’t know people were writing down what they said? paul knew his letters would be read in the churches.

Of course he knew they would be read. However, do you still see him in the Bible traveling and speaking to the people? If all they needed was his letters, why didn’t he just write letters?

 

[JRKH]

If you speak with some Jewish people who have what they believe to be very strong claims that what Paul and everyone else were preaching was untrue, and you saw some of their scriptural evidence, would you believe them? They “checked” it to scriptures and remained Jewish, and did not believe in Jesus. It was almost this same type of argument, and it was in their refusal to listen to the teachings of the apostles and disciples that they erred. They did not agree with what the apostles were saying about the fulfillment of the OT. Looks like there were some interpretation issues then as well. Good thing the scriptures were not the only, or the primary, source of validation for Christianity.

I like this. It truly speaks to the “interpretation” issue. Without the testimony of the actual witnesses, and the authoritative oral “be there - Do that” teaching there is too much chance for error and heresy to take hold. Look at the number of heretical issues that had to be addressed before the NT canon was finalized.

Peace
James

 

[bookgirl32]

I like this. It truly speaks to the “interpretation” issue. Without the testimony of the actual witnesses, and the authoritative oral “be there - Do that” teaching there is too much chance for error and heresy to take hold. Look at the number of heretical issues that had to be addressed before the NT canon was finalized.

Peace
James

Thanks. I wouldn’t have even have known to write this a few weeks ago, but I spent some time over on the non-Catholic boards and was surprised to see the different interpretations of the Old Testament between Jews and Christians. It was really enlightening!

 

[bookgirl32]

So I guess this thread is on it’s way out? (In other words, bump).

 

[bengal_fan]

I like this. It truly speaks to the “interpretation” issue. Without the testimony of the actual witnesses, and the authoritative oral “be there - Do that” teaching there is too much chance for error and heresy to take hold. Look at the number of heretical issues that had to be addressed before the NT canon was finalized.

Peace
James

actually, i don’t see it as speaking to the interpretation issue but a Holy Spirit issue. Jesus Himself says that no one can come to Him unless He draws them. the church teaches that we can only have faith because of grace (which is imparted by God). obviously people are going to read the same scriptures (as Jesus said, “the scriptures that speak about Me”) and not believe in Him. but the ones who He calls will see Him in the scriptures.

and the ones who wrote against the heresies quoted the writings of the apostles to defend their positions. they then showed how the church upheld the teachings in those writings. it still goes back to the apostles’ teachings as being the primary rule of faith. those teachings were written down. the church had them from the moment they were written. there was no need to have them while the apostles were still alive, but the apostles knew they wouldn’t be around forever so they wrote stuff down (or had others such as luke and mark write it down).

scripture is the teachings of the apostles. their teachings (according to acts 2) is what we are to devote ourselves to. as long as something doesn’t contradict those teachings, it is fine, but unless it is specifically said, it should not be required for salvation.

 

[bengal_fan]

I believe that they were not yet written down when that was said. This is not an argument AGAINST scripture. This is an argument that neither sola or prima scriptura were intended. The Bereans only used scripture? I think they had someone TEACHING them at the same time. I realize they checked it to the scriptures they had, but if the scriptures they had already had everything Paul was teaching them, what was the purpose of Paul at all?

i never said they only used scripture. they simply checked paul’s teaching and testimony with scripture. his teaching was subject to it being validated by the OT. and paul commended them for doing it.

if the truth is written in the hearts of men so that they are without excuse (as paul writes in romans) why do we evangelize? because Christ commands us to. the purpose of paul was ultimately paul. the person who benefits the most from you doing ministry is you. because you get to experience God using you to reach others and change the world. you are forced to rely on Him more and more. sure, others get to experience God through you and they benefit, but you get the most out of it.

it is a proven fact that people retain more if something is read to them than if they read it themselves. there is a unique quality to hearing some one’s story that can lead to change faster than simply reading (i’m sure this has to do with the fact we were created to be in community).

If you speak with some Jewish people who have what they believe to be very strong claims that what Paul and everyone else were preaching was untrue, and you saw some of their scriptural evidence, would you believe them? They “checked” it to scriptures and remained Jewish, and did not believe in Jesus. It was almost this same type of argument, and it was in their refusal to listen to the teachings of the apostles and disciples that they erred. They did not agree with what the apostles were saying about the fulfillment of the OT. Looks like there were some interpretation issues then as well. Good thing the scriptures were not the only, or the primary, source of validation for Christianity.

i address this in another response

Also, do you believe God would intend for us to have only some of the Bible now, and only have that to work from? That’s equal to saying that not all of it was needed for salvation for everyone within your argument, so do you believe in prima scriptura of some of it, or all of it?

well, that is what the church had for a while. different communities had different writings. many lived and died not knowing all that is said in the OT or NT. but these writings were available immediately to the churches and were used immediately to defend against heresies that began to spring up from the beginning. one of the reasons for creating the canon was to have an even stronger defense against heretics. if the church had the same authority as scripture, they would not have needed to define what was written down, apostolic teaching and what wasn’t, but they needed to because the teachings of the apostles carry the most weight.

We all interpret that initial decision on our own, just as we all interpret the decision to have faith on or own. But we do not all interpret the Bible on our own. It’s not the same thing. Who tells you if the teachings are correct when you are questioning?

who tells you if the church is the one, true church? both sides eventually end up in a circular argument. and that is my point. you do the same thing i do, you just cut out a few steps.

What are you experiencing that I’m not? I’m seriously openly curious here, I don’t see you as trying to preach to me.

i would ask you the same thing. you are the one who brought it up.
i can’t judge your congregation as i’ve never been there but i will speak of the one i grew up in and that my mother is part of.

i experience community is ways she does not (and not because she doesn’t make herself available, but because the opportunities are not there because it is not a priority). i experience excitement in worship. we have reverent, meditative times as well. she does not see people excited. she, herself can meditate and commune with God, but she is missing the community and passion that the church i belong to has.

and i know you’ll say you are experiencing Christ through the eucharist, but i would say so am i. i can’t think of one thing you experience that i don’t… you just don’t think i do because of the interpretation you choose to believe.

These are “non-essentials” in the Church today as you would describe them. No Catholic has to agree with disciplinary matters to be saved. Augustine is exactly correct.

and augustine would argue (and did) against making anything that is not essential… essential. and i see the catholic church as having done that in a few situations. i don’t really see anything wrong (per se) with the things they have defined and i think they could even be beneficial, but there is no reason to add things as required when people still have trouble with the basics. it places too heavy a yoke and Jesus promised us His yoke was “easy and His burden light.”

Yes, that was the point. It was not, however, to define all divinely inspired revelation on faith and morals.

but it was to give the list of the books which were to be the FIRST place to look. hence prima (not sola).

by the way, you do know that some catholic apologists hold to prima scriptura right?

 

[bengal_fan]

Of course he knew they would be read. However, do you still see him in the Bible traveling and speaking to the people? If all they needed was his letters, why didn’t he just write letters?

because he wanted to travel to them. if all we need is for the pope to sit and speak ex cathedra, why does he travel? better yet, why do popes write if we only need their voice?

 

[bookgirl32]

actually, i don’t see it as speaking to the interpretation issue but a Holy Spirit issue.

How is it not an interpretation issue when we have two groups of people reading the same thing and getting something different out of it. You can say that the HS is leading the interpretation, but you can’t say they’re NOT being interpreted, even if it is correctly. My point is exactly that. Two different groups of people (back then, when the apostles were alive! and teaching) reading the same scripture and getting diferent things.

Jesus Himself says that no one can come to Him unless He draws them. the church teaches that we can only have faith because of grace (which is imparted by God). obviously people are going to read the same scriptures (as Jesus said, “the scriptures that speak about Me”) and not believe in Him. but the ones who He calls will see Him in the scriptures.

Wait a minute, are you a Calvanist now? You yourself said that what everyone believes is ultimately their choice, so now it’s not? Doesn’t he call everyone?

and the ones who wrote against the heresies quoted the writings of the apostles to defend their positions.

No problem there, again, we Catholics agree with the “writings of the apostles”, in which there is no evidence for sola or prima scriptura.

they then showed how the church upheld the teachings in those writings.

No, it shows the Church upheld JESUS’ teachings, some of which happen to be in the writings.

it still goes back to the apostles’ teachings as being the primary rule of faith.

Exactly!

those teachings were written down.

Every single one of them though? Show me where it says that.

the church had them from the moment they were written.

But there had to be a Church first in order for the Church to have had them from the moment they were written.

there was no need to have them while the apostles were still alive, but the apostles knew they wouldn’t be around forever so they wrote stuff down (or had others such as luke and mark write it down).

I thought they were writing stuff down as a form of communication, not a negation of other ways of communication. The apostles had Luke and Mark write it down? I thought God did that.

scripture is the teachings of the apostles.

No problem there.

their teachings (according to acts 2) is what we are to devote ourselves to.

Non there either.

as long as something doesn’t contradict those teachings
it is fine, but unless it is specifically said, it should not be required for salvation.

Said, or written?

I really like debating with you, by the way.

 

[bookgirl32]

because he wanted to travel to them. if all we need is for the pope to sit and speak ex cathedra, why does he travel? better yet, why do popes write if we only need their voice?

If we were in a world without immediate media, he would need to travel, either that or send messengers for him (kind of like the apostles?)
But he also does not need to write it down for it to be considered speaking ex cathedra.

 

[bookgirl32]

i never said they only used scripture. they simply checked paul’s teaching and testimony with scripture. his teaching was subject to it being validated by the OT. and paul commended them for doing it.

He commended them for checking, b/c his teachings validate the OT, and he wanted them to see this. He commended them for doing this, he did not say, “If you think what you find here does not agree with me, I’m wrong.” The Church would also commend people for reading scripture, no problem there.

if the truth is written in the hearts of men so that they are without excuse (as paul writes in romans) why do we evangelize? because Christ commands us to. the purpose of paul was ultimately paul. the person who benefits the most from you doing ministry is you. because you get to experience God using you to reach others and change the world. you are forced to rely on Him more and more. sure, others get to experience God through you and they benefit, but you get the most out of it.

You’re right and wrong here. I believe that evangelization is for both the the ones being evangelized and the evangelizer. I however do not think that one purpose is above the other. Actually, the evangelizer already knows the truth, so it probably is a LITTLE more for the evangelized here. I guess to sum it up I’d say the purpose of Paul was ultimately God.

it is a proven fact that people retain more if something is read to them than if they read it themselves.

Whoa whoa whoa, prove that one to me. I sure never learned that in all my education classes in college, as neither did my teacher husband. I retain MUCH more when I read it myself. I’m so secure in my assertion here that I’m telling you this so you don’t use this argument again, it won’t do anything for you.

there is a unique quality to hearing some one’s story that can lead to change faster than simply reading (i’m sure this has to do with the fact we were created to be in community).

Wait a minute, so you DO think that people should listen to what they’re told above reading something? This is opposite to what you’ve been saying all along!

well, that is what the church had for a while. different communities had different writings.

The Church had the whole Church from the moment of Pentecost.

many lived and died not knowing all that is said in the OT or NT.

And many still do, are they not saved?

but these writings were available immediately to the churches and were used immediately to defend against heresies that began to spring up from the beginning.

Show me that they were available immediately, especially since none of them weren’t written for at the VERY least 50 years or so.

one of the reasons for creating the canon was to have an even stronger defense against heretics. if the church had the same authority as scripture, they would not have needed to define what was written down, apostolic teaching and what wasn’t, but they needed to because the teachings of the apostles carry the most weight.

They needed to define what was apostolic teaching b/c the heretics were claiming that some OTHER books WERE apostolic teaching. The Church WAS defining what apostolic teaching was, period, BY defining the canon! The Church was defining it, NOT the scriptures.

who tells you if the church is the one, true church? both sides eventually end up in a circular argument

Not when you had a Church first, and then scriptures. The Church does not conflict with the scriptures, they, as we established above, defined the scriptures. What other church can claim that?

and that is my point. you do the same thing i do, you just cut out a few steps.

I do the same thing you do at the start, which is to decide to have faith, we all need to do that. I am in control of my free will. I don’t, however, believe any other interpretation of scripture except the Church’s (even my own).

 

[bookgirl32]

i can’t judge your congregation as i’ve never been there but i will speak of the one i grew up in and that my mother is part of.

i experience community is ways she does not (and not because she doesn’t make herself available, but because the opportunities are not there because it is not a priority). i experience excitement in worship. we have reverent, meditative times as well. she does not see people excited. she, herself can meditate and commune with God, but she is missing the community and passion that the church i belong to has.

I would say here that this is all something that YOU are experiencing, something that your emotions are telling you is or isn’t truth. I believe that there is truth outside of what I feel. So can I go to Mass and not feel a thing, not feel even somewhat “spiritually fed”, and still believe that I am fed? Of course! My feelings are not always truth.

This is not to downplay any need that any of us have for fellowship, or emotional fulfillment. I’m just saying that it is not a surefire indicator of truth.

and i know you’ll say you are experiencing Christ through the eucharist, but i would say so am i.

I would definitely say you’re experience Christ, I’m not arguing with you there at all.

i can’t think of one thing you experience that i don’t… you just don’t think i do because of the interpretation you choose to believe.

I wasn’t trying to downplay any of your experiences, in any way shape or form, so please don’t take it that way. I believe that Christ is in your life and you are firmly a Christian. The things that I see non-Christians missing out on are things like the Communion of Saints, Mary, etc. I do think that, if you gave it a chance, you’d see that the Eucharist can bring you closer to Christ than you’d ever imagined possible. By saying that I am NOT saying that you are not close to Christ, at all!!! It’s an “addition” I’m talking about here, not necessarily a deficiency.

and augustine would argue (and did) against making anything that is not essential… essential. and i see the catholic church as having done that in a few situations. i don’t really see anything wrong (per se) with the things they have defined and i think they could even be beneficial, but there is no reason to add things as required when people still have trouble with the basics. it places too heavy a yoke and Jesus promised us His yoke was “easy and His burden light.”

You’re getting confused here with the Church making them essential to you in your beliefs right now. The Church would not tell you, right now, that b/c you don’t believe that Mary was sinless you cannot be saved. The Church is saying that if you freely choose to believe that, and accept that it is true because you accept the Church as the Church Christ started, therefore the things that it claims as the word of God are the word of God, then you’re denying God, not the Church. Does that make sense? I have a friend who is Catholic. She believes in it 100%. She thinks birth control is wrong, she thinks she should be going to Mass every Sunday, etc. She believes these things to be true, openly and freely. And yet she doesn’t b/c she’s married to a non-Catholic, and doesn’t want to make him mad. This is the kind of denial the Church is talking about, does that make sense?

but it was to give the list of the books which were to be the FIRST place to look.

Now, show me where any of the decisions of any of the councils ever said that. It was to determine which, out of all possible, books were the dinely inspired written (not only) word of God. The never added a “so that there will be no other equal authority” to any of that!

by the way, you do know that some catholic apologists hold to prima scriptura right?

Not any who truly understand the Catholic faith, no.