The historicity of the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Isaiah45_9
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Stated scripture may not be explicit on this matter and neither were ECF’S. Pretty straightforward.
Stated scripture alone can resolve nothing. TH ECFs alone can resolve nothing. It’s Jesus’ CC via the Petrine office and an Ecumenical Council, that God uses to definitively resolve disputes when they arise, as can be clearly seen in the past. SS was not taught by Jesus; SS was not taught by the apostles, so why would anyone want to embrace the practice of SS?:confused:
 
I do not wish to embrace all or nothing judgement of the matter. It would be like saying that because the Orthodox are not in agreement with Petrine doctrine (of his chair) that they are wrong and unguided on everything.

It is the right, or gift, or nature of us to have freedom of conscience, of conviction on a matter. We are to be fully convinced, and why else would the Lord say ,"choose ye this day ". Yes we are to obey Paul’s words for instance, and he said to, but he also knew the Spirit’s unction to illumine us to the properness of his words. The individual must be given proper discernment on whom to obey.

What makes our conversation interesting and valid and important is that each of us has become convinced individually, decided individually as to the properness of all things, whether which church is right, or what bible is right, or what historian said it right, or theologian, or council, etc…We certainly are not born with any correctness, it must be put on as He so graces us.
Should it have been the right of the individual Christian, during those past CC councils to determine if said councils were teaching correctly? That makes each Christian the final arbiter, as opposed to the council - you must agree with this logic - yes?

I agee that the individual must be given proper discernment on whom to obey.
 
What makes our conversation interesting and valid and important is that each of us has become convinced individually, decided individually as to the properness of all things, whether which church is right, or what bible is right, or what historian said it right, or theologian, or council, etc…We certainly are not born with any correctness, it must be put on as He so graces us.
Free will is a great thing. I cannot prove that God infallibly guides His church, nor can I prove that Jesus really existed. It’s all about faith, and I have faith that truth about things like the Eucharist, for example, is knowable by God via God’s church. I know why I selected the CC. Why did you choose the Lutheran Church. Yes, all people are fallible and only God can infallibly guide fallible people into all truth. I seem to believe that God did, regarding doctrinal truth; you do not…Of course fallible people can teach infallibly about some things: 2 + 2 = 4.
 
Nope! The only reason why we have deep complex theological understandings and explanations of doctrines is because of the ECF’s. I really do not know where you believe we got such complex explanations from?
Nicea, you went around my point (“on this matter”-papacy succession) I think. Talking about all other doctrines is another thing.
 
Never really sure why people always bring up the Orthodox Church…I do not believe that any church is all wrong.
Picked Orthodox cause it was easy analogy though as you state could have picked many others.
If God did not guide these fallible leaders then yes, there would be no reason to embrace the CC, or to identify the Bible as the infallible word of God - agreed?
OK
It’s not an all-or-nothing judgement of the matter,
because no one is judging anyone; just pointing out the idea that truth, regardless of the particular doctrine, is knowable, or it’s not. I say it is.Judging, knowing, discerning same thing but as you state in another post, by faith.
For example, the truth about the Eucharist is knowable in spite of the fact that there are at least 3 different and opposing beliefs about it.
Yes and no .I think CS Lewis wrote a paper on the strength of the similarities, and the unity, believe it or not, it still represents to the world.
How can I know for sure? Not because I say it is so, but because I take the dispute to the church founded by God, and God resolves the matter via His church. If God is not ineffably guiding His church then sola scriptura would be the next best thing, although truth regarding doctrines that divide would continue to be unknowable. 🤷
Again, not because you say so but because of your faith, just like the other two possibilities and their adherents. So I would not say it is knowable or not knowable ( more like possible to be in alignment with God’s view) , but divisive yes for the truth does separate and only one can be the most accurate, irregardless of methodology or source (Church, council, scriptura etc.).
 
Stated scripture alone can resolve nothing. TH ECFs alone can resolve nothing. It’s Jesus’ CC via the Petrine office and an Ecumenical Council, that God uses to definitively resolve disputes when they arise, as can be clearly seen in the past. SS was not taught by Jesus; SS was not taught by the apostles, so why would anyone want to embrace the practice of SS?:confused:
Well only Jesus can save. Scripture, councils, Pope, Bishop, preacher, parents or anything without divine inspiration/illumination can not save. Yet God can use all of the above to illuminate, that is with those, thru those and sometimes inspite of those things I listed. I would embrace Luther’s view of SS, if it helps see the truth of certain matters that were blurred by the papacy or council etc. on those certain matters. Today, with scripture already written and mostly decided(canon), the church must be scriptural. All reasoning (if that is authoritative) should first and foremost be biblically founded,today. Surely we can cite Father’s, councils etc as they do the same…SS does not rule out all the sources, declarers of truth the Lord has given us. Even nature declares His truth’s to the inner man.
 
That makes each Christian the final arbiter, as opposed to the council
Wrong framing I think, as in either or . Would you deny that God is ready to give faith to the individual to believe all truths, whether declared by the preacher, the pope, or a council, or a parent, or from Scripture ?
I agee that the individual must be given proper discernment on whom to obey
Cool. Amen.
 
Free will is a great thing. I cannot prove that God infallibly guides His church, nor can I prove that Jesus really existed. It’s all about faith, and I have faith that truth about things like the Eucharist, for example, is knowable by God via God’s church. I know why I selected the CC.
Amen . .
Yes, all people are fallible and only God can infallibly guide fallible people into all truth.
Amen.
I seem to believe that God did, regarding doctrinal truth; you do not.
I couldn’t have put my amen to things above if I didn’t believe God can and God does reveal His truth to us…
Of course fallible people can teach infallibly about some things: 2 + 2 = 4.
Yes, I have heard it said even a broken clock is right twice a day. But you bring in important thought of just how is God operating infallibly in His Body.
 
Nicea, you went around my point (“on this matter”-papacy succession) I think. Talking about all other doctrines is another thing.
Actually it is not going around it because you seem to believe,if it is not written in the Bible it is false or an innovation. As I said, the Bible was never written to be explicit on every single matter within the church. Where does the Bible say one must marry inside a church? Wedding rings? Wear a white dress? Have a best man? Etc,etc,etc.

More important, the succession of bishops was written down very early by the church. If you believe it is false,then the church fathers are guilty of inventing a false practice. Likewise, no where does the Bible mention about formulating a canon; and yet, not one Protestant has an issue with it? And who gave us the canon? The church and its bishops-not the Bible. Therefore, Apostolic Succession from Peter does not to be explictly said in the Bible because no where did Jesus teach: It must be in the Bible.

Peace
 
Benhur:
Well only Jesus can save.
Amen! The CC/Orthodox church have always taught the same belief.
Scripture, councils, Pope, Bishop, preacher, parents or anything without divine inspiration/illumination can not save.
Precisely why Jesus founded His church here on earth to help us and guide us.
Yet God can use all of the above to illuminate, that is with those, thru those and sometimes inspite of those things I listed.
Yes God uses humans as His instruments to pass on the Gospel.
I would embrace Luther’s view of SS, if it helps see the truth of certain matters that were blurred by the papacy or council etc. on those certain matters.
But how can you embrace SS, if it was never mentioned and let talone aught by Jesus or the 12? What doctrinal matters were blurred by the papacy or any council? Give us a factual account of such an incident?
Today, with scripture already written and mostly decided(canon), the church must be scriptural.
Here is where you have been duped into believing a man-made practice called SS. SS advocates seem to believe the church came after the Bible and therefore is a captive of Scripture or subordinate to it. That is not what Jesus, Scripture and early church taught and believed.
All reasoning (if that is authoritative) should first and foremost be biblically founded,today.
Your argument is in error. Again, where did Jesus teach: It must be Biblically founded? Did Jesus write a Bible as “the” authority or did He found His church with His authority granted to her? My Bible says something contrary to what you are proclaiming.
Surely we can cite Father’s, councils etc as they do the same…SS does not rule out all the sources, declarers of truth the Lord has given us. Even nature declares His truth’s to the inner man.
Again…when did Jesus declare: Scripture is the FINAL authority and must be in the Bible? Where is SS ever mentioned or taught by anyone in the NT church?
 
Picked Orthodox cause it was easy analogy though as you state could have picked many others. OK Judging, knowing, discerning same thing but as you state in another post, by faith.Yes and no .I think CS Lewis wrote a paper on the strength of the similarities, and the unity, believe it or not, it still represents to the world. Again, not because you say so but because of your faith, just like the other two possibilities and their adherents. So I would not say it is knowable or not knowable ( more like possible to be in alignment with God’s view) , but divisive yes for the truth does separate and only one can be the most accurate, irregardless of methodology or source (Church, council, scriptura etc.).
So you are saying:

Yes, the truth about the Eucharist is knowable in spite of the fact that there are at least 3 different and opposing beliefs about it?

No, the truth about the Eucharist is not knowable?

The Eucharist is either a symbolic meal or it truly becomes Jesus’ body and blood. It cannot be both - agreed?

Is it definitively knowable? If so then how?
 
Picked Orthodox cause it was easy analogy though as you state could have picked many others. OK Judging, knowing, discerning same thing but as you state in another post, by faith.Yes and no .I think CS Lewis wrote a paper on the strength of the similarities, and the unity, believe it or not, it still represents to the world. Again, not because you say so but because of your faith, just like the other two possibilities and their adherents. So I would not say it is knowable or not knowable ( more like possible to be in alignment with God’s view) , but divisive yes for the truth does separate and only one can be the most accurate, irregardless of methodology or source (Church, council, scriptura etc.).
The most accurate? Water for baptism is required or it is not. Bread and wine remain bread and wine, or they transform completely into Jesus’ body and blood. One notion is completely wrong while the other is completely right, just as 2 + 2 = 4 is not a more accurate answer than 2 + 2 = 5. However, if you are more comfortable with the relative notion of revealed truth, that’s cool. 👍🙂
 
benhur;11905816]Well only Jesus can save. Scripture, councils, Pope, Bishop, preacher, parents or anything without divine inspiration/illumination can not save.
Yes, Jesus is our only Savior. This I just assumed was a given.
Yet God can use all of the above to illuminate, that is with those, thru those and sometimes inspite of those things I listed.
Agreed. However, when it comes to resolving doctrinal disputes, God is not guiding my sister, me, you, the Baptist church, the Lutheran church and the Catholic church, for we, and they, all teach something different when it comes to certain doctrines. I think what it comes down to is: you do not believe that the Holy Spirit was sent to guide just one church into all truth, so that truth could be properly preserved when other folks decide to start their own churches and teach something different? 🤷
I would embrace Luther’s view of SS,
Why, considering the fact that Jesus and the apostles never taught SS and never passed it on to their successors, something JonNC agrees with?
if it helps see the truth of certain matters that were blurred by the papacy or council etc. on those certain matters.
SS did not help Christians discern matters that were supposedly blurred by the CC. SS sadly fractured Jesus’ Mystical Body, and resulted in hundreds and hundreds of churches started by mere men as opposed to Jesus. I am not trying to be insensitive; just honest. When it comes to SS I would have no idea what to believe when it comes to doctrines that divide.
Today, with scripture already written and mostly decided(canon), the church must be scriptural.
How do you know that the CC properly preserved only the inspired books of God in the Holy Canon, if they got it wrong about other things?

My sister would agree with you as do I. I say it is the CC; she says it’s an Evangelical church started in the 20th century; you say it is the church started by Martin Luther in the 16th century. Scripture alone vi individual interpretation, has allowed many more people to do the same thing that Martin Luther did, and the same thing her Pastors have done, that is use scripture alone to teach what they believe is truth.

What if I start a church tomorrow and teach something that Martin Luther, her church Pastors, and the Catholic church leaders, would have disagreed with, and claim that my church is in fact scriptural and that the CC, your church and her church, is not? It just does not work.
All reasoning (if that is authoritative)
:nope: in my humble opinion.
should first and foremost be biblically founded,today.
Again, :)if you are right then each and every Christian must defer to scripture, interpret scripture and find a church that corresponds to their understanding of scripture alone, and that is why we see so many churches. My sister shopped around (7 different churches) until she found one that agreed with her. :eek:

Surely we can cite Father’s, councils etc as they do the same…

To be steeped in history is to become catholic - was so true in my conversion. However, the ECFs, isolated from the Petrine office and Ecumenical Council, do not possess the final authority. Do we at least agree that scripture alone is not the Christians final authority?
 
Benhur:

Amen! The CC/Orthodox church have always taught the same belief.

Precisely why Jesus founded His church here on earth to help us and guide us.

Yes God uses humans as His instruments to pass on the Gospel.

But how can you embrace SS, if it was never mentioned and let talone aught by Jesus or the 12? What doctrinal matters were blurred by the papacy or any council? Give us a factual account of such an incident?

Here is where you have been duped into believing a man-made practice called SS. SS advocates seem to believe the church came after the Bible and therefore is a captive of Scripture or subordinate to it. That is not what Jesus, Scripture and early church taught and believed.

Your argument is in error. Again, where did Jesus teach: It must be Biblically founded? Did Jesus write a Bible as “the” authority or did He found His church with His authority granted to her? My Bible says something contrary to what you are proclaiming.

Again…when did Jesus declare: Scripture is the FINAL authority and must be in the Bible? Where is SS ever mentioned or taught by anyone in the NT church?
All questions I could not answer as a former SS advocate.
 
Apostolic Succession from Peter does not to be explictly said in the Bible because no where did Jesus teach: It must be in the Bible.

Peace
👍

The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.
 
BENHUR, I believe if you read St. Vincent of Lerins “For the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith Against the Profane Novelties of All Heresies”, it will help you understand what Nicea and Joe 371 are trying to tell you.

A General Rule for distinguishing the Truth of the Catholic Faith from the Falsehood of Heretical Pravity.[4.]

I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

[5.] But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

[6.] Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.

What is to be done if one or more dissent from the rest.

[7.] What then will a Catholic Christian do, if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member? What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty.

[8.] But what, if in antiquity itself there be found error on the part of two or three men, or at any rate of a city or even of a province? Then it will be his care by all means, to prefer the decrees, if such there be, of an ancient General Council to the rashness and ignorance of a few. But what, if some error should spring up on which no such decree is found to bear? Then he must collate and consult and interrogate the opinions of the ancients, of those, namely, who, though living in various times and places, yet continuing in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, stand forth acknowledged and approved authorities: and whatsoever he shall ascertain to have been held, written, taught, not by one or two of these only, but by all, equally, with one consent, openly, frequently, persistently, that he must understand that he himself also is to believe without any doubt or hesitation.

newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm
 
Picked Orthodox cause it was easy analogy though as you state could have picked many others. .
Is the Bible alone the sole rule of faith? Or does the Bible actually direct us elsewhere for answers about disputed questions of faith?
 
I just have to say, great thread.

I’m still only on page 15, but save for a few flare ups, which can be quite expected from behind the wall of tiny light bulbs.

People are doing great.

A special thanks to the Non-Catholics for sticking to it. It’s the dialogue which brings us closer.

This thread is why this site is great.
 
I just have to say, great thread.

I’m still only on page 15, but save for a few flare ups, which can be quite expected from behind the wall of tiny light bulbs.

People are doing great.

A special thanks to the Non-Catholics for sticking to it. It’s the dialogue which brings us closer.

This thread is why this site is great.
👍🙂
 
BENHUR, I believe if you read St. Vincent of Lerins “For the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith Against the Profane Novelties of All Heresies”, it will help you understand what Nicea and Joe 371 are trying to tell you.

trimmed

newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm
Great post Josie!!! I was about to say: “Not another book… lol” And then I saw your link… and then I said: “Not another PDF for my dropbox…” 😃

God Bless you!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top