J
Jon_S_1
Guest
I am do confused!
How could there have been any Christians before the New Testament was completed!
How could there have been any Christians before the New Testament was completed!
- Status
C
Contarini
Guest
Because Tradition came first. That isn’t open to debate. Martin Chemnitz, the great Protestant apologist of the generation after the Reformation, says this in his response to the Council of Trent. The New Testament (Chemnitz says that this contrasts with the Old, but in light of historical criticism I think he was wrong about that) was oral proclamation first. This oral proclamation was the Word of God.
The question under dispute between Catholics and Protestants is: what trustworthy access do we now have to that original proclamation?
Edwin
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
So there is a dispute between two Christians on what is doctrine and what is sinful heresy?
Why don’t they just employ Matt18? They take it to the church…
Even if they reject the Catholic Church wouldn’t a “majority of believers” suffice. The majority of the Baptized claim tradition and scripture hand in hand.
S
SteveVH
Guest
The Catholic Church is not a “Bible Church”, it is an Apostolic Church. It possessed the fullness of truth before a word of the New Testament was ever written and for nearly 400 years before it was canonized.
Our faith is not based upon the Bible. The Bible is based upon our faith.
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
Where is the “first teaching to the Corinthians” ?
New International Version (NIV)
1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes,
2 To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours:
3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Thanksgiving
4 I always thank my God for you because of his grace given you in Christ Jesus. 5 For in him you have been enriched in every way—with all kinds of speech and with all knowledge— 6 God thus confirming our testimony about Christ among you. 7 Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed. 8 He will also keep you firm to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 God is faithful, who has called you into fellowship with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.
This is obviously a follow up letter to what they were already taught.
Where are the writings of the foundational practice of Christianity they already had?
Oh wait…it was taught to them without the New Testament?
Why is this denied by Protestants?
New International Version (NIV)
1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes,
2 To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours:
3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Thanksgiving
4 I always thank my God for you because of his grace given you in Christ Jesus. 5 For in him you have been enriched in every way—with all kinds of speech and with all knowledge— 6 God thus confirming our testimony about Christ among you. 7 Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed. 8 He will also keep you firm to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 God is faithful, who has called you into fellowship with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.
This is obviously a follow up letter to what they were already taught.
Where are the writings of the foundational practice of Christianity they already had?
Oh wait…it was taught to them without the New Testament?
Why is this denied by Protestants?
F
farallon
Guest
As a protestant attending Catholic church with my wife, I can say that there are two major stumbling blocks for me that prevent me from becoming a member.
1st - the emphasis that is placed on the saints and particularly Mary. I see nothing wrong with honoring individuals that have led a pious and virtuous life. Just as in secular life, we celebrate the lives of important individuals, I believe that it is important to celebrate the lives of Christian saints. I do find it troubling, however, how this is done in practice. Many of the traditions surrounding the veneration of the saints comes dangerously close to idol worship. I have read and understand the veneration of saints as written in the Catechism, but when I see it in practice, I just find it disturbing. For example, at a recent wedding, the bride and groom presented gifts to a statue of Mary and prayed before it. I know that they were praying for Mary’s guidance concerning how to be good spouses and parents, which I find odd in and of itself, but why place gifts before a statue. These sorts of practices could lead to confusion and potentially give people the wrong idea.
2nd - I do not see the need to go through a priest, on anyone else, to obtain forgiveness from God. I know that I sin. I know that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross atoned for my sin. I believe that Jesus is the only mediator between us and the Father. When I need forgiveness, I ask God directly through his son. I do not believe that I need to ask a priest to ask for me.
The 2nd stumbling block is, however, minor when compared to the way in which veneration of saints is practiced.
1st - the emphasis that is placed on the saints and particularly Mary. I see nothing wrong with honoring individuals that have led a pious and virtuous life. Just as in secular life, we celebrate the lives of important individuals, I believe that it is important to celebrate the lives of Christian saints. I do find it troubling, however, how this is done in practice. Many of the traditions surrounding the veneration of the saints comes dangerously close to idol worship. I have read and understand the veneration of saints as written in the Catechism, but when I see it in practice, I just find it disturbing. For example, at a recent wedding, the bride and groom presented gifts to a statue of Mary and prayed before it. I know that they were praying for Mary’s guidance concerning how to be good spouses and parents, which I find odd in and of itself, but why place gifts before a statue. These sorts of practices could lead to confusion and potentially give people the wrong idea.
2nd - I do not see the need to go through a priest, on anyone else, to obtain forgiveness from God. I know that I sin. I know that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross atoned for my sin. I believe that Jesus is the only mediator between us and the Father. When I need forgiveness, I ask God directly through his son. I do not believe that I need to ask a priest to ask for me.
The 2nd stumbling block is, however, minor when compared to the way in which veneration of saints is practiced.
P
pablope
Guest
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
If the second is minor, then I think you should be well on your way to RCIA. Why?
Well, you have already acknowledged that the Church’s teaching on veneration of saints causes you no alarm. Consequently, you are merely troubled by how some other people practice this veneration.
Is their excess or error sufficient reason for you to remain separated from the Church that Jesus Himself established?
Will you say, “I’m very sorry, Lord, but you see…I just couldn’t consent to being a part of Your Body, the Catholic Church, because I observed that it included sinners who mistakenly loved your mother more than I felt was proper”?
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
I appreciate your concerns and really love the question regarding # 2 that pablobe asked.
In regard to number 1,
I think you understand and even appreciate the communion of Saints doctrine based on what you wrote.
I believe we would err to say this is not a legitimate issue. That among some Catholics in particular cultures especially, idol worship and superstition has crept in. In recent years the church has done much to combat this.
So, we shouldn’t judge the church teachings on the erroneous practices of some.
M
Mlon
Guest
Hi M1,
By the way I like your post handle, great rifle. In fact, it’s on my list of future purchases. Sorry I digress. As a Protestant I do not believe the RC Church is any of the things you mention above. Even though I may disagree with some things I am a supporter of a strong RC Church. I believe the RC Church is a symbol of our faith around the world. I also consider RC’s as my brothers and sisters in Christ. Trust me as you can see by my posts I like to give them a hard time, but I do so with love and admiration.
P
Porknpie
Guest
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
P
pocohombre
Guest
Paul refers to his letter as "tradition’. I think I accurately portrayed that first came the oral Word/gospel/tradition. Then came the writing. Barnabus wrote after the first(oral) and after the second(written) were a decades old(except perhaps the book of revelations). He was not ignorant of either the oral or written word when he penned, “keep as many as are written.”
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
Why do you give any authority to the gospel of Barnabus which is not in the Bible?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Excellent. So you are not a Sola Scriptura advocate.
Of course, I already knew that. Anyone who accepts the 27 book canon of the NT can’t be a SS advocate.
But it’s nice to see you acknowledge that Sacred Tradition is part of the Faith.
P
pocohombre
Guest
Partly, especially if you think it happened at councils, that had authority to determine the 27 books ( though the 27 were widely accepted way before any council to that end ). But it is deeper catholic in that they were written by catholics(known as “christians” or people of the Way)) and written to catholics. They were received by the church. It is not like the church “found” them somewhere and had to figure it out. What was needed was for a church/area that received them to convince distant churches they were valid,real(authorship id) for them also. The catholicity of the church and the gospel gave a nice runway for writings to be accepted, though slowly by our modern standards.
No yes. That is what I said. The oral (tradition) gospel came first. Who said otherwise, where is he, let me at em. And I followed with tradition (oral) gospel giving way to written gospel .As Paul mentions in Thess, both are “tradition” to hold on to.’
Yes, even the catholic faith of all brethren.
P
pocohombre
Guest
Who said there was ?
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
You mean to tell me there were no Christians before the New Testament was written?
Who was Paul writing to then?
P
pocohombre
Guest
Ouch! That doesn’t sound good (though I get your point, but taken out of context. how soul bearing of a statement is it ?) It sounds cold, as cold as some of the extreme protestant detractions of the CC.
Yes,as per revelations (212:12) ,our foundation is Christ as the corner stone and the twelve apostles with the foundation. As far as what we have built on them, apostolic is as apostolic does (a Forest Gumper).
Amen, there is your context.
Well…,we have the Word now so there is no excuse. It certainly seems to me the catholic church revered scripture, once it was written ,and used it at there first councils, there first creeds, even father writings as divine parameters. In fact every single doctrine and practice the CC has is explained, propagated, even defended by Scripture, though not soley and if even only by a thread sometimes, I think
Like your first statement or phrase, not a bible church, this did not need to be said, though again I think I get it. Certainly the faith of the first church, was based on the oral transmission of the Word of God. Shortly thereafter God so graced us ( them) with it being put in writing ( as I said earlier, God the Father of all lawyers). As PR I think said nicely earlier, both are from Jesus. I would also add that as the Godhead enabled the proclamation and understanding of the oral, He also enabled the acceptance and understanding of the written. So the bible is based upon His Word is a better fit technically speaking.and thank you.
- Status