The historicity of the Church

[House_Harkonnen]

How so?

No, because that’s a different animal altogether.

Naturally, you’ll have to show how these doctrines contradict Scripture.

How so?

Because Peter doesn’t hint that when he says God he means a lesser god. And in the Greek its clear that The Holy Spirit is God.

No, because that’s a different animal altogether.

Why?

Naturally, you’ll have to show how these doctrines contradict Scripture.

Scripture is completely silent on them, and doesn’t even hint at them. That’s enough to remove them from the doctrine and practice of the church, or at least hold them to be pious opinion.

 

[JamesTheJust]

Because Peter doesn’t hint that when he says God he means a lesser god. And in the Greek its clear that The Holy Spirit is God.

I’m no Greek scholar… Could you demonstrate this using the Greek of the passage?

Why?

Because it’s impossible to ascertain who is interpreting Scripture correctly without a higher authority.

Scripture is completely silent on them, and doesn’t even hint at them. That’s enough to remove them from the doctrine and practice of the church, or at least hold them to be pious opinion.

Wait a minute! Just a few posts ago you said that a Tradition had to “get in the way” of Scripture to be discarded. Now the rule is “either it’s in the Bible or it’s out”? That leaves us no way to determine the truth value of Monothelitism, Miaphysism, Nestorianism, etc.

Also, the Pope kinda is in Scripture. I’m sure you’ve heard this a thousand times, but go check out Matthew 16. And as for indulgences, see here:
socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/09/explicit-biblical-evidence-for.html?m=1

 

[House_Harkonnen]

I’m no Greek scholar… Could you demonstrate this using the Greek of the passage?

Because it’s impossible to ascertain who is interpreting Scripture correctly without a higher authority.

Wait a minute! Just a few posts ago you said that a Tradition had to “get in the way” of Scripture to be discarded. Now the rule is “either it’s in the Bible or it’s out”? That leaves us no way to determine the truth value of Monothelitism, Miaphysism, Nestorianism, etc.

Also, the Pope kinda is in Scripture. I’m sure you’ve heard this a thousand times, but go check out Matthew 16. And as for indulgences, see here:
socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/09/explicit-biblical-evidence-for.html?m=1

I’m no Greek scholar… Could you demonstrate this using the Greek of the passage?

I am not a Greek scholar either. But Peter’s word reflects no different understanding of God then when he refers to the Father or the Son.

Because it’s impossible to ascertain who is interpreting Scripture correctly without a higher authority.

Then how is it possible to ascertain who is following tradition correctly?

Wait a minute! Just a few posts ago you said that a Tradition had to “get in the way” of Scripture to be discarded. Now the rule is “either it’s in the Bible or it’s out”? That leaves us no way to determine the truth value of Monothelitism, Miaphysism, Nestorianism, etc.

I suppose you’re right. Those things are unscriptural as are the papacy being the sole and universal jurisdiction over the whole church and indulgences.

Also, the Pope kinda is in Scripture. I’m sure you’ve heard this a thousand times, but go check out Matthew 16. And as for indulgences, see here:
socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/09/explicit-biblical-evidence-for.html?m=1

I am familiar with all the arguments, I find them unconvincing and lacking.

 

[JamesTheJust]

I am not a Greek scholar either. But Peter’s word reflects no different understanding of God then when he refers to the Father or the Son.

It’s ambiguous at best. Peter says nothing about the quality of the Spirit’s divinity.

Then how is it possible to ascertain who is following tradition correctly?

1. Follow the judgement of the higher authority (the Pope).
2. Read and study the Church Fathers.

I suppose you’re right. Those things are unscriptural as are the papacy being the sole and universal jurisdiction over the whole church and indulgences.

Would you mind disproving them with Scripture?

I am familiar with all the arguments, I find them unconvincing and lacking.

Okay… May I ask why?

 

[joe371]

In the latest Sola Scriptura thread, my friend Per Crucem posted:

This in reply to the unbroken line of the historical Christian Churches: Oriental Orthodox (OO), Eastern Orthodox (EO), and Catholic (CC).

All of us (Me being Catholic) can trace our undisputed origin to the Apostles, and therefore to Christ. We each blame the other for separating but we all owe our existence to Christ and the evangelization of the Apostles themselves.

It is a very common argument that we are not the Church that Jesus founded.

I am not interested in ideas, opinions, or gut feelings. I want dry, cold and hard facts. We can produce dry, cold and hard facts, so we expect nothing less in return.

This brings a very dramatic question in place…
**
When, Where, and How did the Church that Jesus founded disappear?**

These are very important questions. :thumbsup:Every Protestant church was founded by someone who was not Jesus and centuries after Jesus and the apostles walked the earth. These were uch:questions for me as a former non-Catholic…

 

[joe371]

History tells us that the first Christians were called the baptizers from whence came the Baptist

Did Jesus establish the Baptist church circa AD 33 on Pentecost, in Jerusalem?

 

[joe371]

Sure. I’ve actually never heard of an early Christian group that called themselves, “Baptizers.” But you’ll never get a different point of view if you scare all the newbie Protestants away.

:sad_yes:

 

[joe371]

My friend, we have to take it lightly or we’ll go insane…

 

[joe371]

It didn’t, the church is anywhere where the word is preached and the sacraments administered.

That includes my church, yours, most of ours in fact. Last time I checked I was visible.

No sarcasm here: So, if I establish a church tomorrow and call JD ministries, can we add that as one of the churches established by Jesus?

 

[joe371]

I think that the Protestant has to answer for the fact that he simultaneously confesses two contradictory things: that the Church was established by Christ and neither has nor will ever cease to exist (Matthew 16), and the true church was completely absent from the Earth from AD 1000-1500, at least.

Good point . Jesus said I will build my church…not churches…And I mean no disrespect to our brothers and sisters in Christ, outside the CC. For example even Martin Luther would not make the claim that Jesus founded the Lutheran church or the Baptist church, (two churches that disagree with one another).

 

[joe371]

It didn’t, the church is anywhere where the word is preached and the sacraments administered.

That includes my church, yours, most of ours in fact. Last time I checked I was visible.

If this is true then doctrine unity is gone forever. Everyone teaching something different and no way to know who is right.

I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

 

[joe371]

Hmm… I can’t find any Scripture that says that the Holy Spirit is divine, coequal and coeternal with the Father and Son, can you?

 

[dronald]

No sarcasm here: So, if I establish a church tomorrow and call JD ministries, can we add that as one of the churches established by Jesus?

These are very important questions. :thumbsup:Every Protestant church was founded by someone who was not Jesus and centuries after Jesus and the apostles walked the earth. These were uch:questions for me as a former non-Catholic…

Hypothetically if I wanted to go to North Korea and secretly evangelize; risking death so that others could gather and discuss Christ… Would I be wrong?

 

[joe371]

Scripture is completely silent on them, and doesn’t even hint at them. That’s enough to remove them from the doctrine and practice of the church, or at least hold them to be pious opinion.

If it’s so clear then why did many deny it, necessitating the need for the CC council to step up and officially define the Trinity?

Did the CC have the authority to do the following. If so then why doesn’t the CC continue to possess this authority?:

About a century later, in 325, the Council of Nicea set out to officially define the relationship of the Son to the Father, in response to the controversial teachings of Arius. Led by bishop Athanasius, the council affirmed the doctrine of the Trinity as orthodoxy and condemned Arius’ teaching that Christ was the first creation of God. The creed adopted by the council described Christ as “God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousios) with the Father.” 4 (Learn more about Athanasius here and Arius here.)

 

[JamesTheJust]

Hypothetically if I wanted to go to North Korea and secretly evangelize; risking death so that others could gather and discuss Christ… Would I be wrong?

No, of course not: you would be guiding them on the path to truth, which ends at the Catholic Church. Protestantism is better than atheism.

 

[joe371]

Hypothetically if I wanted to go to North Korea and secretly evangelize; risking death so that others could gather and discuss Christ… Would I be wrong?

Great point. However, you would hopefully want to go there armed with the truth which has been preserved in the Catholic Church via Gods ineffable guidance. If this is not true then maybe my sister is right and the Eucharist is nothing more than a symbol. Now, if the CC is right about the Eucharist surely you would want those folks in NK to have access to the life-giving sacrament of the Holy Eucharist?

 

[joe371]

No, of course not; you would be guiding them on the path to truth, which ends at the Catholic Church. Protestantism is better than atheism.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I think the main problem in rejecting the historicity of the general catholic church traditions, that is the general tradition of Catholic churches, those creed reciting, liturgical, sacramental and priestly traditions, is that we have nothing else to go on. Those are the only right believing sources we can go to and unless there is grounds, good grounds for rejecting the historicity of their claims, like that say of the succession of the Bishops of Rome, how can the historicity be denied?

Its either that, or we accept revisionists who envision the Gnostic as the true Christians. The only other recourse for the protestant in terms of early church history would be the montanists but that would require believing Montanus to be a legitimate prophet and the “comforter” Jesus promised to send.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

It’s ambiguous at best. Peter says nothing about the quality of the Spirit’s divinity.

1. Follow the judgement of the higher authority (the Pope).
2. Read and study the Church Fathers.

Would you mind disproving them with Scripture?

Okay… May I ask why?

It’s ambiguous at best. Peter says nothing about the quality of the Spirit’s divinity.

That’s a silly way to interpret the passage. Defining the Spirit by what Peter doesn’t say.

1. Follow the judgement of the higher authority (the Pope).
2. Read and study the Church Fathers.

What if they got it wrong and were mistaken?

Would you mind disproving them with Scripture?

If made such an attempt, would you be interested? That’s going to take me some time, I want to make sure that our discussion can be fruitful.

Okay… May I ask why?

I have read the scriptures and the church fathers, and I find most of the Catholic distinctive dogmas absent from them. In fact the farther back I go, the less Catholic everyone starts to look, at least in my opinion. I am not against them as in false doctrine, etc. I just believe that they are pious opinions that should have never been made binding on all Christians.

 

[JamesTheJust]

That’s a silly way to interpret the passage. Defining the Spirit by what Peter doesn’t say.

Call it nonsensical, but I think we’ve found a heresy that can’t be disproven by Scripture alone (along with Monothelitism, Miaphysism, Nestorianism, etc.)

What if they got it wrong and were mistaken?

You must be joking.

If made such an attempt, would you be interested? That’s going to take me some time, I want to make sure that our discussion can be fruitful.

Yes, I’d be interested.

I have read the scriptures and the church fathers, and I find most of the Catholic distinctive dogmas absent from them. In fact the farther back I go, the less Catholic everyone starts to look, at least in my opinion. I am not against them as in false doctrine, etc. I just believe that they are pious opinions that should have never been made binding on all Christians.

Are you familiar with the concept of “development of doctrine”, as posited by Bl. John Card. Newman, friend?

Also, the further back I go, the less Lutheran the fathers seem. In fact, the earliest I can find someone even remotely close to Lutheranism is ~AD 1500.