The incomplete Gospel

[paul_c]

Hi Poetess Kera,

As you probably realize, lots of Protestants have also studied the writings of the early church fathers and have come to exactly the opposite conclusion. I have always wondered (and perhaps you could explain to me) what good is it, to be told that there is an infallible teaching authority when we have no way of knowing if such an authority really exists, or where it might be found. You seem so sure that the infallible teaching authority is your church leadership, and it alone. Yet you have come to that conclusion by fallible means because you’ve used your own imperfect reasoning to discern that the CC is the correct church with infallible teaching authority. The whole thing is circular, if you know what I mean.

I’m not Kera, but let me add my views as well.

The Catholic church teaches nothing on Faith and morales that contradicts what the Apostles said. If you judge that the Apostle’s teachings are infallible, then the Churches have to be as well. Now to understand what the Apostles really taught, you can go to scripture but we all know that people’s opinion of what scripture actually teaches is varied to say the least. So to understand how the Apostles actually interpreted their own words, you need to go back to the ECFs who actually heard the apostles or at least were close followers in time. Once you do this, you will find continuity in understanding and context from generation to generation. You will not hear things like sola Scriptura until the 1500s, in comparison. These ideas are innovations and are not true.

And by the way, we correlate the infallible source with our own reason. That’s a lot better situation to be in than to have no source and to have to figure it out on our own with only a fraction of the data available to the church.

 

[Della]

Hi Poetess Kera,

As you probably realize, lots of Protestants have also studied the writings of the early church fathers and have come to exactly the opposite conclusion. I have always wondered (and perhaps you could explain to me) what good is it, to be told that there is an infallible teaching authority when we have no way of knowing if such an authority really exists, or where it might be found. You seem so sure that the infallible teaching authority is your church leadership, and it alone. Yet you have come to that conclusion by fallible means because you’ve used your own imperfect reasoning to discern that the CC is the correct church with infallible teaching authority. The whole thing is circular, if you know what I mean.

Who do the writings of the Church Fathers belong to? They don’t belong to those who cherry pick at them trying to prove this or that. They were kept for the world by the Catholic Church of which they were all members, they were saints of the Catholic Church.

The CFs and the NT were products of the Catholic Church. They belong to the Catholic Church. They’re our writings from our Sacred Tradition. No one has the right to co-opt them and pick at them or interpret them or even use them apart from the Church they came out of. The Reformers had no business fiddling with them and neither does anyone else.

It’s not circular reasoning to claim what belongs to you. Our leadership didn’t take what didn’t belong to them to start new ecclesial bodies–they WERE and ARE the ecclesial body Christ established. You need to read some real history in order to understand these things.

 

[lna419]

The bible doesn’t tell us that it is a teaching tool of the CC, so how did you come to know that the church established by Jesus is the Catholic Church? Did you accept it by your own reason, from the thorough study of history, or was there something else that led you to know which church is the correct one? Is it possible that parts of the bible pre-date the church?

Hi Mick,

I understand what paul was trying to say. The way that it should be stated is that the bible didn’t create the church, the church created the bible.

Here is a question for you: what is the pillar and foundation of truth? If you answer this question correctly, and you believe that the bible is the word of God, then you would have to believe my original statement to be the TRUTH.

 

[lna419]

The bible doesn’t tell us that it is a teaching tool of the CC, so how did you come to know that the church established by Jesus is the Catholic Church? Did you accept it by your own reason, from the thorough study of history, or was there something else that led you to know which church is the correct one? Is it possible that parts of the bible pre-date the church?

Hi Mick

Its all about asking the right questions and getting the TRUTH.

1. Where did the bible come from?
   2.How do you know the bible is inspired?
2. Did everyone agreed on the bible in jesus day or in the first 3 centuries?
3. Did the bible fall out of the sky?
   5.What is the bible?
4. What is scripture?

Lots of questions to ask. Are you willing to put your heart in Gods hand and open your mind to learn the truth?

 

[Mick_Taylor]

The Catholic church teaches nothing on Faith and morales that contradicts what the Apostles said. If you judge that the Apostle’s teachings are infallible, then the Churches have to be as well.

Which churches? Couldn’t millions of Protestants say exactly the same thing? I’m a member of a non-denomination local church that teaches nothing that contradicts (and equally important, adds nothing to) what the apostles said. We believe that small local churches like ours have existed since the time of the apostles.

Now to understand what the Apostles really taught, you can go to scripture but we all know that people’s opinion of what scripture actually teaches is varied to say the least.

This is true, but why is it relevant to the current discussion?

So to understand how the Apostles actually interpreted their own words, you need to go back to the ECFs who actually heard the apostles or at least were close followers in time.

Are you one of those who believe that all of the ECF were in complete agreement on everything having to do with faith and morals? I have seen no reason to believe any such thing. The fact that the apostle Paul directly opposed the apostle Peter over a very important teaching is sufficient proof that perfectly unamimous agreement is not the norm even in the very early church.

Once you do this, you will find continuity in understanding and context from generation to generation. You will not hear things like sola Scriptura until the 1500s, in comparison. These ideas are innovations and are not true.

Have you ever heard of Cardinal Newmann (who was an Anglican convert to the CC, if I’m not mistaken) and his theory of “doctrinal development”?

And by the way, we correlate the infallible source with our own reason. That’s a lot better situation to be in than to have no source and to have to figure it out on our own with only a fraction of the data available to the church.

Well, in order to correlate an infallible source with your reason, you must first know which source is infallible. Is there some non-circular way of establishing that the CC magisterium is the infallible source?

 

[Mick_Taylor]

Hi Mick,

I understand what paul was trying to say. The way that it should be stated is that the bible didn’t create the church, the church created the bible.

I disagree. All Scripture is God-breathed, and that means it came from the same God who originally breathed it. The church recognized the books of Scripture as Scripture but that was because of God’s sovereign guidance and protection over both the church and His Holy word, and not because the church is infallible.

Here is a question for you: what is the pillar and foundation of truth?

I believe that the church is the pillar and buttress of the truth, as the bible declares.

If you answer this question correctly, and you believe that the bible is the word of God, then you would have to believe my original statement to be the TRUTH.

I still believe that all Scripture has its origen in God Himself and not His church. Without Scripture, the church would not know what to teach, or if it ought to teach anything.

 

[lna419]

I disagree. All Scripture is God-breathed, and that means it came from the same God who originally breathed it. The church recognized the books of Scripture as Scripture but that was because of God’s sovereign guidance and protection over both the church and His Holy word, and not because the church is infallible.

I believe that the church is the pillar and buttress of the truth, as the bible declares.

I still believe that all Scripture has its origen in God Himself and not His church. Without Scripture, the church would not know what to teach, or if it ought to teach anything.

Wrong!!! The apostles did not need scripture to teach. Paul did not need scripture to teach. Moses and Abraham did not need scripture to teach. When these people were doing the work of God, they didnt wait for the JC publishing company to print out a letter to teach. They just taught by word of mouth. Like Paul said, hold fast to your traditions you learned as a child by letter or by mouth. There are traditions we ought to hold and perpetuate. Paul wrote to the Thessalonians and said, “Stand fast and hold the traditions,” (2 Thess. 2:15). Here, traditions are those ordinances, precepts and teachings transmitted through the apostles of Christ, and intended for all future generations.

Remember what Jesus said to His men when He sent them out after His resurrection? “… teach them to observe all things that I have commanded you,” (Matt. 28:20). As an apostle of Christ, Paul taught what Christ commanded, and this body of instruction transmitted through the apostles is now preserved in the New Testament. Our obligation is to learn these instructions, then “stand fast” and “hold” them against all threats and temptations.

There was no bible in Jesus day.

 

[lna419]

I disagree. All Scripture is God-breathed, and that means it came from the same God who originally breathed it. The church recognized the books of Scripture as Scripture but that was because of God’s sovereign guidance and protection over both the church and His Holy word, and not because the church is infallible.

I believe that the church is the pillar and buttress of the truth, as the bible declares.

I still believe that all Scripture has its origen in God Himself and not His church. Without Scripture, the church would not know what to teach, or if it ought to teach anything.

OK
Where does it say all scripture is inspired? You better read the verses before you answer. Who is the author talking too? What scripture is he speaking of. Remember, at the moment the author is penning the letter and verses you speak of there are still books that havn’t been written. So the author couldn’t have been speaking of those books, they didn’t exist. So how do you know what books belong in the bible.

 

[lna419]

I disagree. All Scripture is God-breathed, and that means it came from the same God who originally breathed it. The church recognized the books of Scripture as Scripture but that was because of God’s sovereign guidance and protection over both the church and His Holy word, and not because the church is infallible.

I believe that the church is the pillar and buttress of the truth, as the bible declares.

I still believe that all Scripture has its origen in God Himself and not His church. Without Scripture, the church would not know what to teach, or if it ought to teach anything.

The bible didn’t declare what the pillar and foundation of truth is, Paul did. There was no bible in those days. Paul made a big statement about the pillar and foundation. If you say the church came out of scripture (bible), then it should have said the pillar and foundation of truth is the bible. It was important to Paul to let the early christians know that it was the CHURCH and not the bible. That is an extremely strong statement.

 

[paul_c]

Which churches? Couldn’t millions of Protestants say exactly the same thing? I’m a member of a non-denomination local church that teaches nothing that contradicts (and equally important, adds nothing to) what the apostles said. We believe that small local churches like ours have existed since the time of the apostles.

Actually, you most likely teach a fraction of what the Apostles actually handed down, hence the title of this thread: the incomplete gospel. For instance, you don’t recognize the sacraments that were handed down from the Apostles. You don’t recognize that we must persevere in good works to the end to gain eternal life. And while you believe that small local churches since the time of the Apostles, you can demonstrate no linkage to what you actually teach, can you?

Are you one of those who believe that all of the ECF were in complete agreement on everything having to do with faith and morals? I have seen no reason to believe any such thing. The fact that the apostle Paul directly opposed the apostle Peter over a very important teaching is sufficient proof that perfectly unamimous agreement is not the norm even in the very early church.

Paul didn’t oppose Peter about the doctrine that Christians didn’t need to follow the Jewish law, he criticized Peter’s personal conduct in this regard, because he felt that Peter was demonstrating sympathy to the Jewish faction that was harming Paul’s work with the Gentiles. Of course, a little while later, Paul did the same thing, when he had Timothy circumcized. There is obvious continuity of doctrine with the ECFs. If you have an instance on non-continuity, lets discuss it specifically. Some of the early writers, were in fact identified as heretics at the time of their writings, so its important to discuss only the one’s recognized as members of the actual church.

Have you ever heard of Cardinal Newmann (who was an Anglican convert to the CC, if I’m not mistaken) and his theory of “doctrinal development”?

You mean the Cardinal Newman who famously stated that to know the ECFs is to become Catholic? Yes, I do indeed know of him. Doctrinal development means we understand the truths more thoroughly over time. The doctines don’t change, they are just better understood and articulated. Truths are eternal.

Well, in order to correlate an infallible source with your reason, you must first know which source is infallible. Is there some non-circular way of establishing that the CC magisterium is the infallible source?

Well, if you don’t believe that they are infallible, you have no one you can trust, do you. Christ says in Matthew 28 that he will be with the Church until the end of the Age, what more do you need?

 

[Mick_Taylor]

Wrong!!! The apostles did not need scripture to teach. Paul did not need scripture to teach. Moses and Abraham did not need scripture to teach. When these people were doing the work of God, they didnt wait for the JC publishing company to print out a letter to teach. They just taught by word of mouth. Like Paul said, hold fast to your traditions you learned as a child by letter or by mouth.

Do you believe in miracles? Whatever is God-breathed has its origin in God and not man. This is the point I was making. After having received the Holy Spirit, the apostles were teaching what was God-breathed even though it hadn’t yet been written down on paper.

There are traditions we ought to hold and perpetuate. Paul wrote to the Thessalonians and said, “Stand fast and hold the traditions,” (2 Thess. 2:15). Here, traditions are those ordinances, precepts and teachings transmitted through the apostles of Christ, and intended for all future generations. Remember what Jesus said to His men when He sent them out after His resurrection? “… teach them to observe all things that I have commanded you,” (Matt. 28:20). As an apostle of Christ, Paul taught what Christ commanded, and this body of instruction transmitted through the apostles is now preserved in the New Testament. Our obligation is to learn these instructions, then “stand fast” and “hold” them against all threats and temptations.

There was no bible in Jesus day.

True.

 

[Mick_Taylor]

OK
Where does it say all scripture is inspired? You better read the verses before you answer. Who is the author talking too? What scripture is he speaking of. Remember, at the moment the author is penning the letter and verses you speak of there are still books that havn’t been written. So the author couldn’t have been speaking of those books, they didn’t exist. So how do you know what books belong in the bible.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

If you think this passage has to be limited to the OT books, you are severely mistaken. There is absolutely no biblical reason to interpret this passage to exclude the NT. Do you think that the apostles would have rejected any (soon to be called) NT letters AS SCRIPTURE merely because the bible hadn’t yet been compliled as a complete set?

 

[Mick_Taylor]

It’s not circular reasoning to claim what belongs to you. Our leadership didn’t take what didn’t belong to them to start new ecclesial bodies–they WERE and ARE the ecclesial body Christ established. You need to read some real history in order to understand these things.

This is circular:

1. The Catholic church is the same church as the early church founded by Jesus.
2. The writings of the ECF are Catholic because they don’t contradict the teachings of the early church.

If I’ve mischaracterized your argument, feel free to correct me!

 

[Della]

This is circular:

No, it isn’t.

1. The Catholic church is the same church as the early church founded by Jesus.

A simple statement of historical fact. How is it circular? Can you prove it isn’t by appealing to history? Real history? I thought you were open to learning. You said you were.

1. The writings of the ECF are Catholic because they don’t contradict the teachings of the early church.

No. I never wrote that. You are seriously mischaracterizing my words here, Mick. The writings of the ECF are Catholic because the ECF were Catholic. If they’d been Baptist, their writings would have been Baptist, but they were Catholics, each and every one of them.

If I’ve mischaracterized your argument, feel free to correct me!

You did, and I did.

 

[lna419]

Do you believe in miracles? Whatever is God-breathed has its origin in God and not man. This is the point I was making. After having received the Holy Spirit, the apostles were teaching what was God-breathed even though it hadn’t yet been written down on paper.

True.

Ok then by that logic, lets stop this conversation because God created everything, he knows all before it happens. I guess your trying to say that as long as God is involved there is no need to find out how he uses the tools he commands.

The apostles were teaching what jesus taught them. Jesus didn’t breath on any of them. Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Luke 10:1-24 The Seventy Sent Out.

The holyspirit doesn’t come till pentacost so nothing is breathed yet.

 

[paul_c]

Do you believe in miracles? Whatever is God-breathed has its origin in God and not man. This is the point I was making. After having received the Holy Spirit, the apostles were teaching what was God-breathed even though it hadn’t yet been written down on paper.

This is all pretty irrelevant. The real question at hand is whether the New Testament was created by the Catholic Church as a teaching tool, right? Sure, the insight that is available through the New Testament came from God, but you need to recognize that he used Catholic men as his instrument to bring that insight to the people. And he gave them the insight to first, write the letters , Gospels, revelations and acts. and then a few centuries later, to compile them into the Bible we know today.

You should also recognize that God gave insight to these same people (the ChurchO to understand the implications of what they wrote and compiled. When your personnal interpretation of what they wrote differs from what the Church says these scripture means, you should defer to the Church. After all, what sense does it make for a reader to insist he knows more about what the Author means than the author himself?

 

[Mick_Taylor]

This is all pretty irrelevant. The real question at hand is whether the New Testament was created by the Catholic Church as a teaching tool, right? Sure, the insight that is available through the New Testament came from God, but you need to recognize that he used Catholic men as his instrument to bring that insight to the people. And he gave them the insight to first, write the letters , Gospels, revelations and acts. and then a few centuries later, to compile them into the Bible we know today.

You should also recognize that God gave insight to these same people (the ChurchO to understand the implications of what they wrote and compiled. When your personnal interpretation of what they wrote differs from what the Church says these scripture means, you should defer to the Church. After all, what sense does it make for a reader to insist he knows more about what the Author means than the author himself?

Hi Paul,

You are making the error of believing that your own personal reason is sufficient to safely conclude that the Catholic church is the one founded by Jesus. Is your own personal reasoning infallible? Of course not. So how do you benefit from some alleged “infallible authority” if the whole thing is dependent upon your own fallible reasoning? It would be surprising enough if you could prove that some sort of church has an infallible teaching authority (other than the bible and the apostles) but you seem to be sure that such an authority doesn’t just exist, but it is in YOUR CHURCH! This is amazing faith in your own personal reasoning abilities!

 

[Mick_Taylor]

Ok then by that logic, lets stop this conversation because God created everything, he knows all before it happens. I guess your trying to say that as long as God is involved there is no need to find out how he uses the tools he commands.

The apostles were teaching what jesus taught them. Jesus didn’t breath on any of them. Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Luke 10:1-24 The Seventy Sent Out.

The holyspirit doesn’t come till pentacost so nothing is breathed yet.

I haven’t got a clue what you are talking about here, Ina.

 

[Mick_Taylor]

No, it isn’t.

A simple statement of historical fact. How is it circular? Can you prove it isn’t by appealing to history? Real history? I thought you were open to learning. You said you were.

No. I never wrote that. You are seriously mischaracterizing my words here, Mick. The writings of the ECF are Catholic because the ECF were Catholic. If they’d been Baptist, their writings would have been Baptist, but they were Catholics, each and every one of them.

You did, and I did.

Hi Della,

OK, let me see if I’ve got your circular argument right this time:

1. The Catholic church is the same church that was founded by Jesus.
2. We know that the CC is the one founded by Jesus because the ECF were Catholic.
3. We know that the ECF were Catholic because the writings of the ECF were Catholic.

Again, if I’ve mischaracterized your argument, please feel free to correct me!

 

[paul_c]

Hi Paul,

You are making the error of believing that your own personal reason is sufficient to safely conclude that the Catholic church is the one founded by Jesus. Is your own personal reasoning infallible? Of course not. So how do you benefit from some alleged “infallible authority” if the whole thing is dependent upon your own fallible reasoning? It would be surprising enough if you could prove that some sort of church has an infallible teaching authority (other than the bible and the apostles) but you seem to be sure that such an authority doesn’t just exist, but it is in YOUR CHURCH! This is amazing faith in your own personal reasoning abilities!

Mick,

Let’s ask a few questions to highlight the problem you pose

1. Are the Apostles infallible on issues of faith and morals?
2. Is the bible infallible on issues of faith and morals?
3. How do you know? Are you using Faith or Judgement?
4. Now if the question becomes, is the Catholic Church the legitimate successor to the Apostles? Would you use Faith or Judgement to answer this question?

My answers to this:

1. yes, the Apostles were infallible on Faith and Morals. They were taught the Faith by Jesus and inspired and protected by the Holy Spirit
2. The bible is also infallible on Faith and Morals, being the teaching of the Apostles, protected by the Holy spirit.
3. This truth of 1 and 2 are understood first by Faith. You can see their truth through reason, but it starts with faith. And you can understand that it is the truth because nothing from reason eliminates it from being the truth
4. The truth is 4 is understood in the same way as 1 and 2. The advantage of the Catholic Church over any other church in this regard is that reason will discard any other church from being the Apostolic Church. For instance, Lutherans know their church started with Martin Luther.