The CC "got it right" on the NT canon? How do you know?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PRmerger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Starwarsfan2 said:
Oh , yeah forgot about mentioning that:p
Trinity
Deity of Christ
Virgin Birth
Humanity of Christ
Death on the cross and resurrection
Second Coming
Creation
Fall
Heaven
Hell
Justification by grace alone through faith alone not by works
As for the Scriptures, this should suffice, contend for the faith once delivered onto the saints , meaning , change any of the teachings listed and your not a Christian, also first John for the deity and humanity of Christ , and the condemnation of the heretics Hyfenias and Philtus ( the one time you need the autocorrect it doesn’t help ) and other passages.
Click to expand...
So can one be a Christian and not believe that he has to read the Bible?
 
Starwarsfan2 said:
As for the Scriptures, this should suffice, contend for the faith once delivered onto the saints , meaning , change any of the teachings listed and your not a Christian, also first John for the deity and humanity of Christ , and the condemnation of the heretics Hyfenias and Philtus ( the one time you need the autocorrect it doesn’t help ) and other passages.
Click to expand...
I think you have implied, even if you haven’t said it explicitly, that the Bible doesn’t tell us what’s a basic belief, and what’s a secondary belief.

Are we agreed on that?
 
dronald said:
So can you actually answer what I asked?
Click to expand...
Why don’t you tell me exactly what it is you’re looking for, and how it fits into the discussion with Protestor?

Ask me the question again, and how it segued from Protestor’s claim that he could read a text and know it’s theopneustos by special revelation from God.

And could you please answer my questions:

You can see my confusion here. Study? Based on what knowledge?

What information do you have already, that’s NOT in Scripture, that tells you that something is theopneustos?

The only way this could make any sense is if you are tacitly saying that you are NOT Sola Scriptura.

That is, you received Sacred Tradition, and from that you read a text and “study” it to determine whether it is theopneustos.

And, this means that you are okay with folks removing some books from the Bible after their “study” and adding books based on their study?

Yes?
 
Starwarsfan2 said:
Eph says not by works , and James 2:24 literally means shown to be justified , in the sense of evidence of justification , now works being apart of justification, hence faith alone .
Click to expand...
Verse 24 cannot be much clearer, works complete faith, justification comes not from faith alone, but from works (evidence as you say) alongside faith. But just to make it more clear if possible, James says in verse 26, “For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.” Going back to verse 19, “even the demons believe in God.” Does that do them any good?
 
Starwarsfan2 said:
Oh , yeah forgot about mentioning that:p
Trinity
Deity of Christ
Virgin Birth
Humanity of Christ
Death on the cross and resurrection
Second Coming
Creation
Fall
Heaven
Hell
Justification by grace alone through faith alone not by works
As for the Scriptures, this should suffice, contend for the faith once delivered onto the saints , meaning , change any of the teachings listed and your not a Christian, also first John for the deity and humanity of Christ , and the condemnation of the heretics Hyfenias and Philtus ( the one time you need the autocorrect it doesn’t help ) and other passages.
Click to expand...
This sounds like an essential to me, not listed above:

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you

This too:

he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
 
Starwarsfan2 said:
In the context of the chapters it is referring to evidence.
Click to expand...
Only through works was Abraham’s faith made complete.

You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works,

Restated, his faith was incomplete without works. VERY Catholic is this. It’s not either, or, but BOTH.

St. Paul makes the point that faith without works is dead, the result of which one can not be saved.

What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?
He sum’s the whole passage up by saying:

You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Scripture can not be any clearer. And the Church has been clear on this subject for 2,000 years. St. Clement writing below, not yet even in 100 ad:

“Seeing, therefore, that we are the portion of the Holy One, let us do all those things which pertain to holiness, avoiding all evil-speaking, all abominable and impure embraces, together with all drunkenness, seeking after change, all abominable lusts, detestable adultery, and execrable pride. ‘For God,’ saith [the Scripture], ‘resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble.’ Let us cleave, then, to those to whom grace has been given by God. Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words." Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians, 30 (A.D. 98).
 
Porknpie said:
This sounds like an essential to me, not listed above:

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you

This too:

he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
Click to expand...
Also, what about Malachi 1:11?

For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.

Is that an essential? Should we be offering a pure sacrifice from dawn until dusk? The Bible says we should.

But is it an essential?

The Bible doesn’t say.

I guess we have to get our answer from some OTHER source, yes?
 
PRmerger said:
Also, what about Malachi 1:11?

For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.

Is that an essential? Should we be offering a pure sacrifice from dawn until dusk? The Bible says we should.

But is it an essential?

The Bible doesn’t say.

I guess we have to get our answer from some OTHER source, yes?
Click to expand...
I didn’t say you couldn’t use tradition .
 
Forget Protester (in regards to our discussion), let’s start fresh.

How do you know that the CC is the one true church amongst all other Church’s?
 
If you want to read the new testament apocrypha go for it. Most of it is plainly pseudographia. Scholars have classified most books generally aimed at a certain group that early Christians were concerned about. For example, in the acts of Peter, the author is clearly concerned about the followers of Simon Magus, but it is clearly a fake, the author knows nothing about Rome but claims he wrote it in Rome. The infancy gospels are very strange. The apocryphal gospels are interesting. The gospel of Thomas is very philisophical. The gospel of Peter is strange, talking cross and stuff. The only ones that were seriously considered were the shepard of hermas, the didache, and the acts of paul and thecla. All the others are left out for obvious reasons. You can buy the entire apocryphal new testament, it’s not like it is hidden. I own the M.R. James New Testament Apcrypha, which doesn’t have the gospel of Thomas and Mary because those weren’t yet discovered but you can buy those as well. If you have a firm grasp of the NT and faith I think reading the nt apocrypha is a good thing, you do get an understanding of the early church somewhat.
 
dronald said:
Forget Protester (in regards to our discussion), let’s start fresh.

How do you know that the CC is the one true church amongst all other Church’s?
Click to expand...
Sorry to interupt Sir,
If I was asked that question my answer would be:

The Catholic Church started on the day of Pentacost and has lasted to this day.
The Catholic Church produced the canon of 73 books of scripture that all Christian Churches use even though some took 7 books out of the OT. Every Christian Church uses the NT that the Catholic Church produced.
The Real Presence in the Eucharist.
The History, good and bad.
The Sacred Music.

I could keep going, but I hope this sorta helps! 🙂

Peace,
Michael
 
Starwarsfan2 said:
I didn’t say you couldn’t use tradition .
Click to expand...
Yet we know the canon of scripture from…

Tradition.

Should the Church have not applied it to understand what is and is not scripture?

If no, how would the Church have determined God’s inspired Written Word?
 
dronald said:
I think that through study and prayer one can come to learn which books belong in the Bible.
Click to expand...
I think there is something fundamentally wrong with this idea. In Scripture, where Scripture is spoken of, it is already assumed as Scripture. Then it is attributed with the authority to be used for instruction, refuting, and knowing what to believe.

It’s impossible for individual Christian to step outside of Church Communion to question what the Church has established. It’s possible to look back and study some of the reasons the Church calls this Scripture, while this not. But no one can have any right to determine for themselves what is and what is not Scripture.
 
dronald said:
I think that through study and prayer one can come to learn which books belong in the Bible.
Click to expand...
And don’t stop there, one can even reinterpret Scripture to get new meaning to what the 1500 yr. old Church had always taught. Sad to say, this is exactly what Luther and others did.
 
rcwitness said:
I think there is something fundamentally wrong with this idea. In Scripture, where Scripture is spoken of, it is already assumed as Scripture. Then it is attributed with the authority to be used for instruction, refuting, and knowing what to believe.

It’s impossible for individual Christian to step outside of Church Communion to question what the Church has established. It’s possible to look back and study some of the reasons the Church calls this Scripture, while this not. But no one can have any right to determine for themselves what is and what is not Scripture.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

One can’t read a text and say, “Oh, this can’t be Scripture because it commands us to do [fill in the blank]” or “This can’t be Scripture because it says something that is wrong theologically.”

Why?

Because, if it’s Scripture, then we have to obey it.
And if it’s Scripture, then it’s theology.

So it’s absolutely WRONG for any individual to think that he can read a text and declare it to be contrary to Scripture, wrong theologically, or not to be obeyed since it’s not Scripture.

That’s backwards.
 
Starwarsfan2 said:
Oh , yeah forgot about mentioning that:p
Trinity
Deity of Christ
Virgin Birth
Humanity of Christ
Death on the cross and resurrection
Second Coming
Creation
Fall
Heaven
Hell
Justification by grace alone through faith alone not by works
As for the Scriptures, this should suffice, contend for the faith once delivered onto the saints , meaning , change any of the teachings listed and your not a Christian, also first John for the deity and humanity of Christ , and the condemnation of the heretics Hyfenias and Philtus ( the one time you need the autocorrect it doesn’t help ) and other passages.
Click to expand...
Could you cite the Scripture passages where it says those are the essentials of the faith for each of the essentials you list above?

And also, are you suggesting that baptism, eating His flesh, feeding the hungry, taking care of your family, visiting those in prison is not essential? What happens if one refuses to do those things?
 
Technically the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches can both claim to be the original church. Actually if you want to get technical, the church was founded in Jerusalem, the Christian movement that is. The Patriarch of Jerusalem still exists so in some ways you could argue orthodox churches could make the claim. I mean even though there were growing differences, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches were one until 1054.
 
dronald said:
Forget Protester (in regards to our discussion), let’s start fresh.

How do you know that the CC is the one true church amongst all other Church’s?
Click to expand...
From St. Optatus, writing against the Donatists and their schism:

calledtocommunion.com/2011/06/st-optatus-on-schism-and-the-bishop-of-rome/

I will let St. Optatus speak, writing against the Donatist schism…sometime in the AD300s…calledtocommunion.com/201…ishop-of-rome/

St. Optatus’s Against the Donatists is composed of seven books (see the table of contents). After laying out the history of the schism in Book One, he turns in Book Two to the question: “Which is the One True Catholic Church and Where is it to be Found?” In what may be the most important and revealing statement in the whole of his work, he writes:

For it was not Caecilian who went forth from Majorinus, your father’s father,12 but it was Majorinus who deserted Caecilian; nor was it Caecilian who separated himself from the Chair of Peter, or from the Chair of Cyprian — but Majorinus, on whose Chair you sit — a Chair which had no existence before Majorinus himself.13

How does St. Optatus show that the Catholic Church did not go out from the Donatists, but that the Donatists went out from the Catholic Church? He does so by way of the Chair of St. Peter. The bishop that remains in communion with the Chair of St. Peter in Rome is the bishop who has remained with the Catholic Church. In this particular case, the bishop of Carthage who had remained in communion with the bishop of Rome, was Caecilian and his episcopal successors in Carthage. The bishop who has broken communion with the Chair of St. Peter is the bishop who is in schism from the Catholic Church. Therefore the bishop in Carthage who had broken fellowship with the Chair of St. Peter in Rome, was the bishop in schism from the Catholic Church. In this way St. Optatus shows that because Majorinus and his episcopal successors (and all the laypeople who followed them) had broken fellowship with the Chair of St. Peter, therefore they were the ones who had gone out from the Catholic Church, and were presently in schism from the Church.

Later in the work he shows that St. Peter, the Head of the Apostles, was the first to occupy the Episcopal Cathedra in Rome, and that the purpose of this Cathedra was to preserve unity among all Christians, including even the other Apostles. He writes:

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles … that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all [in qua unica Cathedra unitas ab omnibus servaretur], lest the other Apostles might claim each for himself separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.25
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top