The Reformation...reforming to What?

[tqualey]

Hi, Ahs,

It is not original … I am glad you liked it…

Actually, I have a hypothesis on this matter… Catholic doctirne did develop over time, and while Protestants (e.g., Radical) like to claim that this is ‘proof’ that whatever is not explicitly in Scripture is really ‘human traditions’ - that argument cuts both ways because it is quite obvious that Protestantism has ‘developed’ over the years. May I point out that about 100 years ago - no Protestant group approved of: contraception, abortion and same sex marriage. Just look at the ‘developments’ that have taken place in just these three areas!!

What the Protestant ‘development’ arguments evades is that there is nothing in any of today’s Catholic teachings that contradicts Christ and His Church. There is no clear teaching about the Trinity ( a term not used in the NT) - but, we read about the Three Distinct Persons (e.g., Christ’s Baptism, Transfiguration, etc). Developing a doctrine on what we believe about One God in Three Divine Persons does not mean that suddenly one day this concept ‘fell from heaven’.

We need to look at Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the teachings of the Catholic Church as the source for all doctrine. And, we see that the Catholic Church did not go about defining and proclaiming all these truths at once. Rather, and just like the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) we find that we have Sacred Tradition being attacked by the Judiazers - prior to this there was no ‘official document’ on circumcision being necessary to follow Christ. The Council produced such a document to resolve the issue. Most Protestants, to my knowledge, do not have circumcision as a requirement to be a Christian. Those Protestants that do not have such a requirement must honestly look to the Council of Jerusalem as the source for this belief.

It seems to me that for roughly 1,500 years the teachings of the Catholic Church were the accepted view of Christians. But, what is noteworthy, is that for this same period of time there have been abuses in the Church… and we do not have to look any futher then Peter’s denial, Judas’ betrayal, and the flight of the Apostles from the Jews prior to Pentecost. Human nature is weak - and that is the one consistent element in throughout history. About 200 before Luther’s revolt, St. Catherine of Siena was confronted with various abuses in the Church. (Luther only had one Pope to work with!) Here is a link:newadvent.org/cathen/03447a.htm

Luther could have humbly followed the example set by St. Catherine, and worked for change within the system by the Grace of God - but, chose his own way… and we have those results still with us today. The whole concept of ‘reform’ is to keep the same vehicle and make modifications on it. The whole concept of ‘revolt’ is to change vehicles. For example, the 13 Colonies REVOLTED from England, the 27 Amendments to the US Consitituion REFORMED the document - and the 18th Am. was furhter REFORMED by the 21st Am. - but, we still have the Constitution.

What we are looking at is truly a mystery…at least to me. Why have the errors of Protestantism continued for a long time (in 5 years the Lutherans (and all of Protestantism no doubt) will celebrate the 500th anniversary of the 95 Thesis being nailed to the Chruch door). and maybe this is a reminder that the Catholic Church fell short of the mark when it came to closely following Christ. I think it is our on-going responsibility to pray for the Chruch - and those who have left the True Church of Jesus Christ - that there be unity under the Vicar of Christ.

God bless

Yes, this! Not just the bolded, but the whole post. The bolded is what really drew me into this post though.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Radical,

You certainly pack a lot into your posts… Let me just take a couple of items and get a clarification. Thanks.

I have no idea what this means….as to what one could go “back to”, one might strive to return to the original rule of faith as specified by Irenaeus or Tertullian and as supported by the very earliest writings.

A couple of posts back, I used the example of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) as an even EARLIER record of the orginal rule of Faith. Maybe you would like to comment on that?

There is no disputing that Irenaeus and Tertullian made tremendous contributions to the Catholic Faith - but neither of these men, nor all of the Early Chruch Fathers were infallible. So, why would you want to take a selected writing for a selected ECF and claim this is right, when the Catholic Chruch has already defined a dogma?

Oh, and by the way, can you provide a link to Tertullian’s statement where he denies the Immaculate Conception and claims that Christ denied Mary? I really does help when you reference your statements.

yep, the author of 1 Tim said that** the church of his day** was the pillar and foundation of truth. That is far from saying that the Catholic Church of the 5th or 16th or 21th century is the pillar and foundation of truth. That author envisioned a church that appointed overseers in accordance with the requirements that he penned. Saying that the church that he knew was the pillar and foundation of truth is far from saying that a church (that has often utterly ignored the requirements that he penned) is the pillar and foundation of truth.

Are you now re-writing Scripture to fit your argument - rather then just merely giving the Written Word your own personal interpretation? My NT does not have 1Tim claiming to speak for, “…the church of his day…” Where do you come up with this stuff?

The truth of the matter, Radical, do you really think you can have it both ways? You accept the Canon of Scripture - but, agree that 7 books need to be thrown out, You agree with Catholic doctrine on not needing circumcision to follow Christ, but align yourself with a disorganized group that is confused about the necessity for Baptism, who can receive it and how it is to be accomplished.

Note: Paul is telling Timothy that Scripture alone falls short - and that it the Church of Christ (and, that would be the Catholic Church) that has been given the authority to lead me to Christ via the Sacraments and its teachings. Trying to change the Word of God by adding qualifers that were not there is a serious matter. Tell me, how do you justify this action?

mmm….ironically that sounds a lot like declaring that what started out as bread and what can still be seen to be bread is actually a body of flesh and blood.

Why do you think that the Jews complained (John 6:52) “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” if Christ was not talking about actually eating His Flesh? The previous day, the Jews had just witnessed the miracle of the feeding of the 5,000 - but, walked away from Christ because they refused to believe what He had jus said. Christ presents His Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity to the Apostles (as recorded in Matthew, Mark and Luke) at the Last Supper - and the Apostles did not walk out claiming, “He can’t do that!” Seriously, if you have an argument with the words of Scripture, faithfully recorded and put in context and then reinforced and repeated in other Books - your argument is with Christ and with no One else.

God bless

 

[Porknpie]

No, that matter is objective. It isn’t something that a man decided or thought he recognized or perceived…in fact it remains a great mystery because so few (if any) perceive it. It’s a Truth taught be Christ, who cannot lie. It’s also taught by Paul in 1 Cor 11:23-34. We may not understand how it happens, but we know that it is a Doctrine that Christ instituted and we trust that He can do all things. You are free to debate that all of course…in a separate thread. But for the purposes of this thread it suffices to say that in the eyes of a Catholic, Christ’s Presence under the appearance of bread and wine is an objective Truth and it was with all the Church until the 1500’s. (And again for another thread, if you want to debate Augustine or the other writers who emphasized the spiritual aspect of it…that still does not contradict the reality.)

Its simply beautiful how the old testament prefigures the new testament. God gave Israel bread from heaven in the desert in the form of manna but Christ in the new testament gave us his flesh and blood and even said that in receiving this bread one shall never die. No where does he ever say it is symbolic, in fact he repeats over and over that it is his body, and his disciples never asked him to clarify. The new testament fulfillment is never less than the old testament prefigurement. If God gave Israel real bread from heaven, he would not give us only “symbolic” food in wine and bread. The early Christians understood this, with both the Eucharist and baptism being the new covenant signs. :compcoff:

 

[Radical]

Hello again Tom,

Hi, Radical,

I think you have a thoughtful issue and one that deserves careful attention.

thanks…that is probably the nicest thing you have said to me.

The Church - and not Scripture - is, “…the pillar and bulwark of truth…” (1Tim 3:15)…

right, the church in existence at the time that 1 Tim was written…a church that appointed its overseers in accordance with the requirements set out in 1 Tim…let’s look for a church that has always done that and we may just find the church that is the pillar and bulwark of truth

…If the matter was viewed as doctrinal issues can only be resolve using Scripture…

how about viewing it on the basis that doctrinal issues can best be decided by resorting to teachings that can be confidently attributed to Christ or the apostles? The ability to consistently perform signs and wonders validated the claims of both Christ and the apostles…how about looking to where we see that validation throughout history?..hmmm, seems to have ended with the apostles, so perhaps we should limit our doctrine to what we can confidently say that they taught….that would work for me.

There have been many issues identified by the Catholic Church from Acts 15 forward - and the Church has resolved them all.

all too often that resolution has been by way of force or intimidation…and that is not a good thing

God bless

and to you

 

[Porknpie]

Hello again Tom, thanks…that is probably the nicest thing you have said to me.
right, the church in existence at the time that 1 Tim was written…a church that appointed its overseers in accordance with the requirements set out in 1 Tim…let’s look for a church that has always done that and we may just find the church that is the pillar and bulwark of truth

Radical, how do you reconcile scripture in saying the church is the pillar and bulwark of truth? If I was atheist and looking to convert to Christianity, what church out of 1000’s would fulfill these words?

 

[Radical]

Yes, a logical fallacy. My assertion holds up because God chose sinners and simple men to lead and proclaim His Message. Amos was a simple shepherd, David was a simple shepherd…who sinned greatly against God, etc…, Peter, the one and ONLY man to whom the Keys of the Kingdom were given, denied Christ 3 times. Paul hunted down Christians before his conversion and suffered from a sin that he had to battle against and which he begged God to remove form him. All sinners…not one of their transgressions affected the Gospel or God’s Message. So, yes, to make a connection between the sins of man and Doctrine of the Church is a logical fallacy.

well, I’ll give it one more shot. Here is what I said on another thread (regarding bad Popes) with a few amendments:

1. Infallibility wrt doctrine would absolutely require God’s presence
2. scriptures clearly teach that righteousness in a person is a sign that the Holy Spirit is with that person and that unrighteousness in a person is a sign that the Holy Spirit is not with that person
3. a number of Popes, were very unrighteous
4. given 1-3, one would not expect the Holy Spirit to be with those corrupt Popes,
5. since the Holy Spirit was not with the bad Popes during their time in office (so as to ensure that they were impeccable) it is unlikely that the Holy Spirit was with the bad Popes during their time in office (so as to ensure that they were infallible)
6. since the Holy Spirit was not attached to the office to ensure infallibility (during the time of the bad Popes) it is unlikely that the Holy Spirit was ever attached to the office of the Pope so as to ensure the occupants’ infallibility

yes, impeccability and infallibility are two different things, but they absolutely require the same source: the Holy Spirit. IMHO it is point #5 that you should be engaging by doing more than claiming that the connection between doctrine and righteousness is a logical fallacy. You make a somewhat relevant point by pointing out that David and Paul (both sinful) were used by God to write infallibly. The problems with that line of reasoning include:

1. there is no reason to believe that either was used in that way during a period of unrighteousness (so they are not evidence that the HS was present to ensure infallibility w/o ensuring righteousness at the exact same time)
2. neither were vested with an office of infallible teacher such that one could hope to use them as an example of the gift of infallibility remaining with an office notwithstanding the unrighteousness of a string of officers.

According to whom? Which Scripture verse or teaching of the ECF’s led the “reformers” to believe this? Whose interpretation is that, and where’s they get authority to interpret Scripture if Scripture says that Scripture is no one man’s personal interpretation? That’s what I’m getting at. In the 1500’s, a group of guys decided to change Doctrine by subjecting Doctrine to THEIR interpretation. Where’d they get the aurthority?

what you seem to be missing is that, before 1500 it was merely a different group of guys that decided to change doctrine by subjecting the existing doctrine to their innovations and re-interpretations. I know Edwin (aka Contarini) and I differ at this point. He is inclined to give the ECFs the “benefit of the doubt”. I note that our society has developed, over the centuries, an approach to deciding on the validity of competing claims….that approach is found in our courtrooms. It isn’t perfect, but it is about as good as we got. In the courtroom self-serving, self-aggrandizing claims are treated with a good deal of scepticism for obvious reasons. Historians, when they try and determine what really happened, do the same thing….and again for obvious reasons. When I look at the history of Christianity and the claims of the ECFs (including claims to be the successors of the apostles, the successor to Peter etc.) I again approach those self-serving, self-aggrandizing claims with a good deal of scepticism for obvious reasons. When you look at the works of the ECFs, there is nothing to suggest that the ECFs were the sort of fellows that would not fudge the facts to enhance their positions…. there is nothing to suggest that the ECFs were the sort of fellows that would not add ever grander/ ever more elaborate claims to the exiting body of beliefs. In fact, it is the opposite that shows itself. Given that, caution and scepticism are warranted.

It isn’t as if self-serving claims are necessarily wrong, but they need some sort of validation. If you want to assert that the ECFs before 1500 had some sort of authority that the reformers did not also possess, then come up with something other than self-serving, self-aggrandizing claims and interpretations……here again is where something observable would sure be handy for you….say the ability to consistently work miracles or the fruits of the Holy Spirit consistently and extraordinarily present. Oh, and yes, I know that the claims about Christ himself could be categorized as self-serving, self-aggrandizing claims….I think that this greatly bothers those who need a certain level of certainty. It is seen that if one questions this group of claims(aka the Catholic claims), then one must question all these other claims (and the resurrection itself would be included in this other set of claims). The fellow who requires a greater level of certainty decides not to question the Catholic claims b/c then he must follow through and do that very uncomfortable thing (namely question that other set of claims). That is not an approach that is designed to get to the truth….it is an approach designed to make the fellow comfortable.

Further, the question of what authority the reformers possessed really only matters if one has already presumed that the Catholic Church of that day possessed an authority that was above question. Since I don’t make that presumption, I need not worry about the authority of the reformers. It seems more than a little inappropriate to question the authority of the reformers from a perspective that grants the CC authority on the basis of faith…some would say on the basis of giving the benefit of the doubt to self-serving claims and interpretations.

Utterly ignored what (et cetera)? Your assertion is based on your opinion.

no, not on my opinion…on well known history

Yes, I’ve read Romans. Maybe I’m missing your point. Are you suggesting that Catholics believe we must be circumcised?

yep, you are missing my point altogether

No, that matter is objective…. But for the purposes of this thread it suffices to say that in the eyes of a Catholic, Christ’s Presence under the appearance of bread and wine is an objective Truth…

it is so obviously subjective that I can only imagine what you think “objective” means. The best objectivity is found in science and we both know what the results would be if science sought to answer the question as to whether a body was present.

….and it was with all the Church until the 1500’s

not according to the scholars that I read….Contarini mentioned Gary Macy. I wonder if Macy thought “it was with all the Church until the 1500’s”

 

[mackbrislawn]

Radical;9494282

right, the church in existence at the time that 1 Tim was written…a church that appointed its overseers in accordance with the requirements set out in 1 Tim…let’s look for a church that has always done that and we may just find the church that is the pillar and bulwark of truth

Or, we may just not find that church. Meaning it has gone out of existence.

“…the church that was in existence at the time…” Using this logic we can do away with a lot of things in the bible–“why, that applied at the time, but no more.” Especially to the book of Revelation; in my own view much of the imagry applied only to that time, and not to subsequent times. Which means too bad for all those folks who love prophecy seminars and are always looking to contemporary events as fulfillment of Revelation prophecies!

how about viewing it on the basis that doctrinal issues can best be decided by resorting to teachings that can be confidently attributed to Christ or the apostles?

I am skeptical that we can confidently attribute teachings to Christ and the apostles without going through the Church. I just don’t see how we can access Christ and the apostles apart from the teachings and writings safeguarded by the Church.

Plus, what Christ and the apostles actually taught is the very thing in question. How can we appeal to scripture for an answer when what scripture means is the very battleground? That is why Church councils are called–as a way of breaking out of the circle.

But if a valid Church no longer exists, we are always left in doubt, relying only on our fallible human opinions.

The ability to consistently perform signs and wonders validated the claims of both Christ and the apostles…

If we don’t see signs and wonders today, perhaps those signs and wonders only applied to that time. One would think that in order to cause modern day skeptics to believe, God would work signs for them now.

how about looking to where we see that validation throughout history?

Of course, there have been claims of signs and miracles throughout history. But if we don’t accept those claims, why should we accept scriptural claims?

…hmmm, seems to have ended with the apostles

Have they ended with the apostles?

, so perhaps we should limit our doctrine to what we can confidently say that they taught….that would work for me.

Not for me, since their writings are too sketchy for me to be confident of what they really mean. I also don’t view their writings as being meant to be self-interpreting. Because I believe they were written within a context, and must be understood within that context. But, if that context is now lost, as you seem to say, then it is impossible to know how to get the real meaning out of the writings. This is evident by the wide variety of current interpretations among the various groups–opposite beliefs from the same scriptures.

all too often that resolution has been by way of force or intimidation…and that is not a good thing

This is true, and is true for both sides of the debate. Which is why a source (church) that all accept would avoid force and intimidation.

 

[mackbrislawn]

it is so obviously subjective that I can only imagine what you think “objective” means. The best objectivity is found in science and we both know what the results would be if science sought to answer the question as to whether a body was present.

Well…yes, it is obviously subjective. True, I don’t see anything but bread and wine, however, faith is the evidence of things unseen. Christians go by faith rather than by sight. A fleshly man sees only bread and wine, but a spiritual man sees more, an objective Truth.

But, a question. Is God an objective Truth? Would science call God an objective truth? Would science call God present? What would the results be of that question?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Radical,

Thank you. You see, I’m trying …but,let’s not get all mushy…

Now, let’s get down to some serious business…

Hello again Tom, thanks…that is probably the nicest thing you have said to me.

right, the church in existence at the time that 1 Tim was written…a church that appointed its overseers in accordance with the requirements set out in 1 Tim…let’s look for a church that has always done that and we may just find the church that is the pillar and bulwark of truth

There are several problems with your approach. Let me explain:

Ultimately we must disregard other Scriptures if your interpretation is to be valid. Here are just three examples:

Matt 16 - Christ gives Peter (not Paul) the power to bind and lose and hands Peter the Keys as a sign of his authority over the other Apostles. You would bind Peter to all that was available in the 1st Century - and we do not have any defined dogmas on the Trinity and the Nature of Christ, until 325AD beginning with the Council of Nicea

Matt 28 - Christ promises He will be with us until the end of time and His Holy Spirit would be guiding the Chruch. Now, either this has been happening for 2,000 years or Christ is an incredible liar Who has deceive millions and millions of people. There really isn’t any middle ground here - you either believe what He said, or you don’t.

Acts 6 - Peter determines that another group of consecrated men is needed to further the mission of spreading the Word - and the office of Deacon is established. Note: Christ did not call for Deacons while He was on earth, did not have them as far as we know (the 72 in Luke 10 are not really in this group) and we see this as an early example of the Holy Spirit’s guidance. Here is a link with commentary: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Acts_of_the_Apostles_6

The take home message is that the leaders of the Catholic Church are to be followers of the Holy Spirit and to provide instruction, defend the Faith from heresy and move forward presenting Christ in every Age. In many areas we have moved beyond the 1st Century - but look, this same Catholic Church teaches the Real Presence, the Seven Sacraments, the Primacy of Peter and the Power of God over sin. No changes in these areas.

Now, tell me, Radical - what are the results of this search you are conducting looking for a church that, “…has always done that and we may find the church that is the pillar and bulwark of truth”? Let me give you a relatively current example to aid in this search. 100 years ago, the Catholic Church and virtually every Protestant denomination spoke out against contraception, abortion, sterilization, homosexual behavior and euthansia. Look around and, besides the Catholic Church that still condemns these abominations - where are the Protestant groups on this issue?

how about viewing it on the basis that doctrinal issues can best be decided by resorting to teachings that can be confidently attributed to Christ or the apostles? The ability to consistently perform signs and wonders validated the claims of both Christ and the apostles…how about looking to where we see that validation throughout history?..hmmm, seems to have ended with the apostles, so perhaps we should limit our doctrine to what we can confidently say that they taught….that would work for me.

“Consistently perform signs and wonders …” is now the criteria? You know, this sounds strangely like what the Jews wanted Christ to do - and He rebuffed them over and over again - Matt 12:39 is a good example of how Christ responded to this criteria. Now, if you are interested in miracles from beyond the Apostolic Age, here is link that will be helpful: catholic.com/tracts/do-miracles-still-occur

all too often that resolution has been by way of force or intimidation…and that is not a good thing

Sounds like you are judging others in ancient times by today’s standards. Maybe there is a place for ‘…being nice…’ or ‘…politically correct…’ but, I am not so sure. Have you every read the ‘nice’ or ‘correct’ way that Peter responded to Ananias and Sapphira? Acts 5 has the story and truly it is well worth reading, if for no other reason then as a refresher.

But, I don’t want you to think that ‘force or intimidation’ is a Catholic monopoly - check out how Luther responded to the Peasants Revolt of 1524-25 - here is link to give you a jump start in looking at a multi-faceted reality: scrollpublishing.com/store/Luther-Peasants.html Basically, many people are simply products of their times - and really do not rise above them. Personally, I would have liked for things to have been different - but, they weren’t and it is up to us to recognize them for what they were, learn from them and then move those lessons forward in our own lives.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mackbrislawn,

Sorry I missed your post before responding to Radical - yours is really not only much better but briefer!

Great job!

God bless

Or, we may just not find that church. Meaning it has gone out of existence.

“…the church that was in existence at the time…” Using this logic we can do away with a lot of things in the bible–“why, that applied at the time, but no more.” Especially to the book of Revelation; in my own view much of the imagry applied only to that time, and not to subsequent times. Which means too bad for all those folks who love prophecy seminars and are always looking to contemporary events as fulfillment of Revelation prophecies!

I am skeptical that we can confidently attribute teachings to Christ and the apostles without going through the Church. I just don’t see how we can access Christ and the apostles apart from the teachings and writings safeguarded by the Church.

Plus, what Christ and the apostles actually taught is the very thing in question. How can we appeal to scripture for an answer when what scripture means is the very battleground? That is why Church councils are called–as a way of breaking out of the circle.

But if a valid Church no longer exists, we are always left in doubt, relying only on our fallible human opinions.

If we don’t see signs and wonders today, perhaps those signs and wonders only applied to that time. One would think that in order to cause modern day skeptics to believe, God would work signs for them now.

Of course, there have been claims of signs and miracles throughout history. But if we don’t accept those claims, why should we accept scriptural claims?

Have they ended with the apostles?

Not for me, since their writings are too sketchy for me to be confident of what they really mean. I also don’t view their writings as being meant to be self-interpreting. Because I believe they were written within a context, and must be understood within that context. But, if that context is now lost, as you seem to say, then it is impossible to know how to get the real meaning out of the writings. This is evident by the wide variety of current interpretations among the various groups–opposite beliefs from the same scriptures.
This is true, and is true for both sides of the debate. Which is why a source (church) that all accept would avoid force and intimidation.

 

[studychristian]

When I look back it now…The Church was doing shady things, they did have too much political power, that doesn’t mean it is wrong, it needed changed from within. Why abandon when one can attempt to fix it instead?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Studychristian,

And that is the heart of the disconnect between the claim of ‘reform’ but the reality is ‘revolt’ - and the effects from the main failing are obvious:

new human docltrines abound: Sola Scriptura, private interpretation, and the promotion of self over all things.

One of the most telling things with Protestantism is the overt effot to seek unity with other Protestants - and the on-going splintering of dissenting groups. There is no ‘agreement’ on the ‘important things’ (some can’t agree on the necessity of Baptism, some can’t agree on their being a Hell, some can’t agree that Christ is God, and some can’t believe one is a Christian unless they are speaking in tongues! and this is only scratching the surface) becasue there is NO AUTHORITY to actually determine which ‘things’ are important.

Of course, it begs the question that some would divide Christ’s teacings into what is and what isn’t important!

I think CAF will be very helpful in your studying - but don’t forget your prayer life.

God bless

When I look back it now…The Church was doing shady things, they did have too much political power, that doesn’t mean it is wrong, it needed changed from within. Why abandon when one can attempt to fix it instead?

 

[adrift]

well, I’ll give it one more shot. Here is what I said on another thread (regarding bad Popes) with a few amendments:

1. Infallibility wrt doctrine would absolutely require God’s presence
2. scriptures clearly teach that righteousness in a person is a sign that the Holy Spirit is with that person and that unrighteousness in a person is a sign that the Holy Spirit is not with that person
3. a number of Popes, were very unrighteous
4. given 1-3, one would not expect the Holy Spirit to be with those corrupt Popes,
5. since the Holy Spirit was not with the bad Popes during their time in office (so as to ensure that they were impeccable) it is unlikely that the Holy Spirit was with the bad Popes during their time in office (so as to ensure that they were infallible)
6. since the Holy Spirit was not attached to the office to ensure infallibility (during the time of the bad Popes) it is unlikely that the Holy Spirit was ever attached to the office of the Pope so as to ensure the occupants’ infallibility

Interesting logic but try this
The Holy Spirit is with the righteous and therefore ensures that they are impeccable. If they are not impeccable than they cannot be righteous.
Since no one can be impeccable they cannot have the Holy Spirit.

 

[Radical]

Or, we may just not find that church. Meaning it has gone out of existence.

that would be a possibility…especially if one restricted the search to a visible hierarchy, but that isn’t how I’d look for that church

“…the church that was in existence at the time…” Using this logic we can do away with a lot of things in the bible–“why, that applied at the time, but no more.”

not do away….simply don’t apply for all time w/o good reason.

Especially to the book of Revelation; in my own view much of the imagry applied only to that time, and not to subsequent times. Which means too bad for all those folks who love prophecy seminars and are always looking to contemporary events as fulfillment of Revelation prophecies!

yep…that is an unfortunate thing

I am skeptical that we can confidently attribute teachings to Christ and the apostles without going through the Church.

you could limit it to: I am skeptical that we can confidently attribute teachings to Christ and the apostles without going through the Church of the first and second centuries….for the most part, the Church of the third century (and later) could be circumvented….and if we wanted, we could also revisit a good number of their decisions wrt the books that were seen as scripture and those that weren’t….none of the ECFs were infallible and so none of their decisions should be regarded as such

Plus, what Christ and the apostles actually taught is the very thing in question. How can we appeal to scripture for an answer when what scripture means is the very battleground? That is why Church councils are called–as a way of breaking out of the circle.

legislatures and parliaments are also called…and serve to break out of a log jam and make important decisions…doesn’t make any of those decisions infallible.

But if a valid Church no longer exists, we are always left in doubt, relying only on our fallible human opinions.

fallible humans must rely on fallible human opinions, there is no way around it…even if the opinion of the fallible human is that an infallible magisterium exists

If we don’t see signs and wonders today, perhaps those signs and wonders only applied to that time.

and if so, that would be another thing about the church (from the day of 1 Tim) that no longer applies

One would think that in order to cause modern day skeptics to believe, God would work signs for them now.

it would be nice

Of course, there have been claims of signs and miracles throughout history. But if we don’t accept those claims, why should we accept scriptural claims?

consistent undeniable miracles…not sporadic dodgy miracles

But, if that context is now lost, as you seem to say, then it is impossible to know how to get the real meaning out of the writings. This is evident by the wide variety of current interpretations among the various groups–opposite beliefs from the same scriptures.

yes, this seems to be the mindset that I was describing…if one is uncomfortable with uncertainty, one may very well conclude that a mechanism for certainty must have been established.

This is true, and is true for both sides of the debate. Which is why a source (church) that all accept would avoid force and intimidation.

the end justifies the means? If all accepted my opinion…or if absolutely all accepted any one human’s opinion, then force and intimidation could be avoided…but that wouldn’t make it a good thing.

Well…yes, it is obviously subjective… A fleshly man sees only bread and wine, but a spiritual man sees more, an objective Truth.

ohh, so it is one of those subjective, objective truths…thanks for that clarification

True, I don’t see anything but bread and wine, however, faith is the evidence of things unseen. Christians go by faith rather than by sight.

right, but then you should call it what it is. It is faith…and not an objective truth.

But, a question. Is God an objective Truth? Would science call God an objective truth? Would science call God present? What would the results be of that question?

well, it is claimed that Christ was made flesh and dwelt in Palestine in the first century. Could science, if available back then, confirm those claims? Yep. It is claimed that Christ changed water into wine. Could science, if available back then, confirm that claim?..could it verify that, first water was really present and then wine was really present? Yep.

 

[Radical]

Interesting logic but try this
The Holy Spirit is with the righteous and therefore ensures that they are impeccable. If they are not impeccable than they cannot be righteous.
Since no one can be impeccable they cannot have the Holy Spirit.

I only use “impeccable” b/c it is used in the slogan that some around here like: God promised infallibility and not impeccability. No human has ever been absolutely sinless…so think of a sign of the HS’s presence as being righteousness…as scripture indicates. One can be righteous w/o being absolutely sinless…so if my use of “impeccable” troubles you, then change it to “righteous” at #5.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Radical,

You insist on mixing whatever you can get your hands on with infallible. Honest, infallible was promised by Christ through the Holy Spirit and really does stand by itself.

So, let me show you how this works from Scripture, and we will begin with Matthew 16. Here is the link:veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Matthew_16

Now just to make sure we are clear on this:

1.) Christ asks the Apostles who men say He is (Matt 16:15)
2.) Peter gives Christ the correct answer (Matt 16:16)
3.) Christ congratulates Peter for getting the right answer - and alerts all to the fact that this correct answer came from God the Father (Matt 16:17)
4.) Christ then proclaims He will build His Chruch on Peter, give him the authority to bind and lose and then gives Peter the Keys as a sign of his new position of responsibility.

Now up to this point, things are looking pretty good for Peter … but the story does not end there!

5.) Christ tells the Apostles to keep this informaiton to themselves and that Christ will soon be put to death. Peter then rebukes Christ for saying this (Matt 16:18-22)
6.) And Christ says, “Get behind me Satan” (Matt 16:23)

Notice Christ did not call Peter an idiot or dummy or loud-mouth or any thing else that would indicate that Peter did not understand what was going on - Christ called him Satan - a devil who is in direct opposition to the Will of God. The message here is that Christ is God and knows all things - he appoints Peter as the Leader of the Apostles (First Pope) and then in the virtually the very next breath - calls this newly appointed leader, Satan! Now, this may at least hint of reduction in righteousness… if not its loss… but, let’ not stop there!

Peter is warned in advance that Satan wants to sift Peter like wheat and that he will betray Christ 3x (Luke 22:31-34 - here is the link: veritasbible.com/drb/read/Luke_22) and this is exactly what happens as recorded in this same chapter (v 57-63). There is no doubt that Peter has had a major fall from righteousness - he has denied the Son of God in front of men! So, if there ever was any doubt that Popes are human and therefore weak and sinful - Peter gives the bad example from the very beginning!

Ah - but we can not stop there… Just look at what the Holy Spirit enables Peter to do on that First Pentecost, and then baptizing Gentiles, and then deciding that circumcision is not necessary to follow Christ… it looks like your view of righteousness bening necessary as a predcondition for the Pople to be infallible does not apply.

No one doubts that Peter was a sinful man - in fact - Peter personally recognizes his failures (Luke 5:8) so there is no question about Peter NOT being impeccable. But, when Peter speaks for the Chruch - and when his successors speak for the Chruch - the Holy Spirit insures that their statements are infallible. And that is the take home message.

By the way, were you aware that God can even speak through animals? Check out Numbers 22:28 and Balaam’s donkey. And of course, the donkey spoke truthfully! This is a solid foundation for saying that God will get his message through - even through Popes!

God bless

I only use “impeccable” b/c it is used in the slogan that some around here like: God promised infallibility and not impeccability. No human has ever been absolutely sinless…so think of a sign of the HS’s presence as being righteousness…as scripture indicates. One can be righteous w/o being absolutely sinless…so if my use of “impeccable” troubles you, then change it to “righteous” at #5.

 

[Porknpie]

I only use “impeccable” b/c it is used in the slogan that some around here like: God promised infallibility and not impeccability. No human has ever been absolutely sinless…so think of a sign of the HS’s presence as being righteousness…as scripture indicates. One can be righteous w/o being absolutely sinless…so if my use of “impeccable” troubles you, then change it to “righteous” at #5.

Radical,

to correct you above, Mary the Mother of God was sinless and fully human. Also, I’d appreciate your response to post #105. Thank you.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Porknpie,



Maybe Radical is checking on the references…

God bless

To correct you above, Mary the Mother of God was sinless and fully human.

 

[mackbrislawn]

that would be a possibility…especially if one restricted the search to a visible hierarchy, but that isn’t how I’d look for that church

 

[Radical]

There are several problems with your approach. Let me explain:

Ultimately we must disregard other Scriptures if your interpretation is to be valid. Here are just three examples:

Matt 16 - Christ gives Peter (not Paul) the power to bind and lose and hands Peter the Keys as a sign of his authority over the other Apostles. You would bind Peter to all that was available in the 1st Century - and we do not have any defined dogmas on the Trinity and the Nature of Christ, until 325AD beginning with the Council of Nicea

and? First, I don’t accept your interpretation of the passage…second, I see the dogmas as man’s efforts to explain God’s nature using logic and Greek philosophy with reference to scripture….and not revelation from God.

Matt 28 - Christ promises He will be with us until the end of time and His Holy Spirit would be guiding the Chruch. Now, either this has been happening for 2,000 years or Christ is an incredible liar Who has deceive millions and millions of people. There really isn’t any middle ground here - you either believe what He said, or you don’t.

in Gen 17:8 God promised to give land to Abram and his descendants as an everlasting possession…but it hasn’t been an everlasting possession. As such, by your logic, God is a liar who has deceived millions and millions of people. There really isn’t any middle ground here - you either believe what He said, or you don’t……either that or your understanding of scripture is just bad. Further, I suspect that you are also identifying the hierarchy of an institution as the Church and that is also wrong.

Acts 6 - Peter determines that another group of consecrated men is needed to further the mission of spreading the Word - and the office of Deacon is established. Note: Christ did not call for Deacons while He was on earth, did not have them as far as we know (the 72 in Luke 10 are not really in this group) and we see this as an early example of the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

the deacons job wasn’t one of spreading the word…though they, like all Christians could do that. Also, the apostles were directly involved which is what I seek.

The take home message is that the leaders of the Catholic Church are to be followers of the Holy Spirit and to provide instruction, defend the Faith from heresy and move forward presenting Christ in every Age. In many areas we have moved beyond the 1st Century - but look, this same Catholic Church teaches the Real Presence, the Seven Sacraments, the Primacy of Peter and the Power of God over sin. No changes in these areas.

saying it just doesn’t make it so

Consistently perform signs and wonders …" is now the criteria? You know, this sounds strangely like what the Jews wanted Christ to do - and He rebuffed them over and over again - Matt 12:39 is a good example of how Christ responded to this criteria.

2 Cor 12: 11-13 (NIV):
I have made a fool of myself, but you drove me to it. I ought to have been commended by you, for I am not in the least inferior to the “super-apostles,”[a] even though I am nothing. I persevered in demonstrating among you the marks of a true apostle, including signs, wonders and miracles. How were you inferior to the other churches, except that I was never a burden to you? Forgive me this wrong!

Hebrews 2:3-4(NIV):
This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.
Did you really not know that God had provided miracles validating the message and the messenger?

Now, if you are interested in miracles from beyond the Apostolic Age, here is link that will be helpful:

I would be interested in someone who can consistently perform miracles of the sort performed by Christ…not sporadic dodgy miracles.

Sounds like you are judging others in ancient times by today’s standards.

sounds like I am not suggesting cultural relativism

Have you every read the ‘nice’ or ‘correct’ way that Peter responded to Ananias and Sapphira? Acts 5 has the story and truly it is well worth reading, if for no other reason then as a refresher.

striking someone down with the power of God requires God’s involvement…burning someone that you have declared as a heretic does not require God’s involvement…surely you can see the difference.

Basically, many people are simply products of their times - and really do not rise above them. Personally, I would have liked for things to have been different - but, they weren’t and it is up to us to recognize them for what they were, learn from them and then move those lessons forward in our own lives.

and don’t sweep them under the carpet either

Notice Christ did not call Peter an idiot or dummy or loud-mouth or any thing else that would indicate that Peter did not understand what was going on - Christ called him Satan - a devil who is in direct opposition to the Will of God. The message here is that Christ is God and knows all things - he appoints Peter as the Leader of the Apostles (First Pope)…So, if there ever was any doubt that Popes are human and therefore weak and sinful - Peter gives the bad example from the very beginning!

First Pope? You do know that the passages make no such claim? Further, I take it that you are capable of distinguishing between a Pope that had a life’s goal of pursuing power, wealth and women and Peter who tried to follow Christ and briefly failed

Ah - but we can not stop there… Just look at what the Holy Spirit enables Peter to do on that First Pentecost, and then baptizing Gentiles, and then deciding that circumcision is not necessary to follow Christ… it looks like your view of righteousness bening necessary as a predcondition for the Pople to be infallible does not apply.

again…the challenge for you is to provide examples to show where God granted his HS to the unrighteous (and maintained that presence for a very long duration)so that the unrighteous were still infallible……I can easily show where God granted his HS to the righteous (and maintained that presence for a very long duration) so that they could reveal his Word.

No one doubts that Peter was a sinful man - in fact - Peter personally recognizes his failures (Luke 5:8) so there is no question about Peter NOT being impeccable. But, when Peter speaks for the Chruch - and when his successors speak for the Chruch - the Holy Spirit insures that their statements are infallible. And that is the take home message.

yet again…the challenge for you is to provide examples to show where God granted his HS to the unrighteous (and maintained that presence for a very long duration)so that the unrighteous were still infallible…and not just an brief exception or two, but a standard practice so as to carry you over all those less than righteous Popes.

By the way, were you aware that God can even speak through animals? Check out Numbers 22:28 and Balaam’s donkey. And of course, the donkey spoke truthfully!

yep, that is the type of brief exception that I am speaking about…though the donkey was neither righteous or unrighteous