I
icamhif
Guest
Not to mention the Oriental Orthodox Church and the Assyrian Church of the East.
- Status
A
Abu
Guest
That is precisely why Christ’s Church has never approved anything whatsoever which has been condemned in dogma or doctrine, unlike those who now are subservient to divorce, contraception, abortion, euthanasia, and a multitude of grave errors.
Totally false. This denies the Christ who made crystal it clear: “I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15)
“All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations….teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you…” (Mt 28:18-20).
Thus does the Christ authorize His chosen Chief Vicar with His Apostles – what a travesty of truth to assume that the Christ lied!
Often a dogma or doctrine is infallibly defined after the need is identified through a dispute over what should be believed (faith – the Trinity) or how we should act (morals – contraception).
In Mysterium Ecclesiae, (CDF, 1973, #5): “For this reason also it often happens that ancient dogmatic formulas and others closely connected with them remain living and fruitful in the habitual usage of the Church, but with suitable expository and explanatory additions that maintain and clarify their original meaning. In addition, it has sometimes happened that in this habitual usage of the Church certain of these formulas gave way to new expressions which, proposed and approved by the Sacred Magisterium, presented more clearly or more completely the same meaning.” This was seen in John XXIII”s opening address of Vatican II, using the words of St Vincent of Lerins, and Vatican I – “with the same meaning and the same sense.”
“ ‘Doctrinal development’ is just the name for the process by which the Church reaches certitude that a given proposition, p, states exactly what God has said and hence may be proposed to the faithful as obligatory for belief.” William H Marshner, Reasons For Hope, Christendom College Press 1982, p 177).
The meaning of dogmas is succinctly stated by the great Romano Guardini: “And heresy consists in precisely this – the arbitrary selection of certain aspects of sacred truth. Dogma opposes this tendency, and safeguards the fullness of revelation.” (The Faith And Modern Man, Burns Oates, 1952, p 146).
John Henry Newman writes that the revealed Word of God (or deposit of faith), considered precisely “in itself or objectively” is “in the form of dogma”….the whole Church’s grasp of Christianity is “objective” insofar as it has passed “into dogmas”. (Reasons For Hope, Christendom Press 1982, Ed Jeff Mirus, p 172).
C
Contarini
Guest
Actually I think the Resurrection is one of the more solidly documented parts of the NT. Not conclusively enough to make it irrational to disbelieve in it–it does require faith, and there is some truth to the atheist mantra “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” But I think there is a fairly broad consensus that the earliest followers of Jesus came to believe that he had risen bodily from the dead. Which is about as close as we can get. Part of my problem with the Spiral Argument is that it rests on something extremely hard to establish and thus actually obscures the excellent case that can be made for the basic reliability of the NT and specifically of the resurrection accounts.
To put it briefly: if the Resurrection were not a supernatural event, I don’t think anyone would dispute it.
No, if anything, there’s a consensus the other way, at least on whether he claimed explicitly, in so many words, to be God. After all, even the Gospels are relatively cryptic about it, and they were written by believers some decades later.
I am persuaded by N. T. Wright’s argument, that historically the most plausible view is that Jesus believed that God’s kingdom had come in his own person, and that in him YHWH was returning to Zion. Wright would say that this does constitute Jesus “claiming to be God,” but perhaps in a somewhat less direct way than Christians often think of it.
That is to say: Wright believes that Jesus made unique claims about his person and mission for which later Trinitarian language is the proper explanation.
But there are a lot of scholars who wouldn’t agree.
Another important work that I need to read sometime is Larry Hurtado’s Lord Jesus Christ, which makes the case for the earliest Christians worshiping Jesus. Not quite the same but highly relevant.
By and large, I think that the picture “Jesus was just a teacher but the silly early Christians elevated him to divinity” is on the decline, but you can certainly find many scholars who still defend it.
Edwin
B
benhur
Guest
Understand. Not sure when a generic adjective, “universal”, became a proper noun, or as some say, little c became a capital C. It is also a stretch to say Ignatius overlapped Peter or Paul in this verbiage.
Anyways, apostolic is as apostolic does, and its been quite a while since the church has been universal in name and deed and governance, yet most say they are “catholic” as in universal . Depending on how one defines “ecclesia” may determine how close they are to being truly “catholic”.
But yes, there is the Catholic Church, and the Orthodox, and Protestants and each with their own variations within and shared history. That is OK, wisely pragmatic, for now, so long as there is still that Antiochan term “Christian”. Perfection is a promised goal, and if we were there now, His return would not be so longed for or as expedient etc…
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Cardinal Newman left Protestantism for which form of “non-Protestant Christianity”?
So you say. But his post completely fails to convey the power and passion of Newman’s words. This was a gauntlet being thrown down in the heart of Protestant England. So, when I read his “paraphrase”, I thought, “Wow. He’s missing it.”
But I suppose every Protestant would have to read it that way…if they want to remain Protestant.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I waited until I had read Dr. Tait’s response before posting the answer you need.
The Divinity of Jesus Christ Proved from Scripture
I. Did Jesus claim to be God?
- Jesus claimed the Divine Name (‘I AM’)
13 Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” 14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” 15 God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you’: this is my name for ever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.
John 8:58
53 Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you claim to be?” 54 Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say that he is your God. 55 But you have not known him; I know him. If I said, I do not know him, I should be a liar like you; but I do know him and I keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad.” 57 The Jews then said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” 59 So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.
Why did the Jews want to stone Jesus if they did not believe that He was claiming to be God?
- Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and equal to God.
16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” 18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
- Jesus claimed to be the First and the Last – a Title Reserved for God Alone
Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me.”
Revelation 1:17-18
“Do not be afraid; I [Jesus] am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.”
Would a mere prophet claim to be the “First and the Last”? Now, Revelation is a “vision” but that does not mean that it was not an accurate vision of the risen Jesus.
- Jesus claimed to be Truth – not just to proclaim the truth.
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.
- Jesus claimed to share in Divine Glory
Isaiah 42:8
“I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another.” (Cf. Isaiah 48:11—“My glory I will not give to another.”)
Yet Jesus claimed, not only that he would be glorified with the Father, but that he had glory with the Father before the world was created!
John 17:5
“Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.”
How can anyone see this as anything other than a claim to deity?
- Jesus claimed to be the Messiah and the Son of God Before the Sanhedrin
13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
Daniel prophesied that the Son of Man would be worshiped as God.
Mark 14:61-65
61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” They all condemned him as worthy of death.
Replying to the High Priest at His trial before the Sanhedrin, Jesus quoted the Daniel and applied this prophecy to Himself.
B
benhur
Guest
Randy, maybe we are prejudice but maybe you also. Maybe you want to see passion for CC, but maybe Newman’s passion, at that stage, was HIStory. Maybe that was his focus in that dialogue, letting the chips fall where they may. I guess P’s are not, were not, static on gleaning or not gleaning from history or tradition (just as C’s have not been static on the balancing of powers of councils, popes and scripture etc).
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
A fair question…answered by this Protestant Scholar:
Protestant Scholar on the use of the Proper Name “Catholic”
One Protestant author who is honest about this history is the renowned Church historian, J. N. D. Kelly. Kelly dates the usage of the name “Catholic” after the death of the Apostle John, but he acknowledges that the original Church founded by Jesus called itself the “Catholic Church”.
“As regards ‘Catholic,’ its original meaning was ‘universal’ or ‘general’ … As applied to the Church, its primary significance was to underline its universality as opposed to the local character of the individual congregations. Very quickly, however, in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations. . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church” (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 5th ed. [San Francisco: Harper, 1978], 190f).
I would disagree. The Catholic Church has the entire earth divided into dioceses and there are Catholics and Catholic parishes in just about every corner of the globe where people actually live.
There are, of course, also non-Catholic Christians who do not recognize the Pope’s authority over them, but that is not the fault of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church disagrees. From Dominus Iesus:
- Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60
“**The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”.**64 In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65 “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66
The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”.67
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
You did not nor was that my point.
If Matthew is not the product of these anonymous community traditions, what was it the product of?
B
benhur
Guest
Yes, but that is universal only to yourself. JW’s have as much unity, even in liturgy and readings worldwide and weekly.
Does not change fact that it is a weaker definition than earliest church. It is not everyone, not “fully” as in earliest church.
C
Contarini
Guest
Randy, you’re being silly. You’re manufacturing a controversy over nothing. I wasn’t trying to convey the power and passion of Newman’s words. I am not Newman. He’s one of the greatest non-fictional prose writers of the 19th century. People can go read him for the power and passion. I was making a comment on the context of his argument and the way Catholic apologists misread it to be saying simply “if you study history long enough, you will become Catholic,” which is obviously untrue. He’s saying something much more interesting and penetrating than that. He’s taking what was a classic, standard anti-Catholic argument (Chillingworth’s) and turning it around: “if you are as cynical about history as that, you are really confessing that your religion is utterly ungrounded in history, and furthermore you are causing profoundly historical minds like Gibbon’s to be estranged from Christianity altogether.”
Absolutely he’s throwing down a gauntlet to the heart of Protestant England. That’s an excellent way of putting it.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Bauckham says he’s not sure.
Presumably a Jewish Christian of the late first century, editing and rearranging earlier material and adding some of his own.
Edwin
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Jump subjects much? lol
Here’s what you colored red in your own post:
**
**
- Read it.
- Walk away from your keyboard.
- Walk around
- Drink water
- Type your response.
- Delete your first response
- Read the quote again.
- -]Change the subject./-] I mean, post now.
Read the passage again. Cardinal Newman presented the following 2 options:
- Leave Christianity.
- Leave Protestantism.
Read the passage again. Respond logically and not polemically please.
A
Abu
Guest
Since it was established by God the Son, thus: “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations….teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you…” (Mt 28:18-20), your theory is totally false like all the others you concoct.
The name Catholic is from very early as you now know; Her teaching and governance extends to the whole world of nations and every sect calling itself in anyway “Christian” has adopted some of Her teaching while rejecting much.
But your fallacies always follow from the fact that you’ve rejected His clearly established Catholic Church as we see from these early cases of rejection – ‘breakaways have occurred right through history, beginning in Apostolic times. Simon Magus, mentioned in the New Testament, was really the forerunner of independent men who set up religions of their own. Christ Himself predicted that men would do this, saying, “There will arise false Christs and false prophets to seduce if possible even the elect.” Mk. XIII., 22. But in spite of this, He promised to His true Church, “I will be with you all days even to the end of the world.” In the first centuries there were heretical founders of rival Churches – men whose names are found only in textbooks of history – Montanus, Manichaeus, Arius, Donatus, etc. In later centuries we find the founders of the Greek Church, Photius and Michael Cerularius. And later still the founders of the various Protestant Churches–Luther, Henry VIII., John Knox, and a host of others. As the years go on, others will arise, linger for a time, and disappear. But the Catholic and Apostolic Church will go on with continued vitality till the end of time. Ever there will be in the world a Church able to trace itself back in an unbroken line to the Apostles; and that Church is the Catholic Church which is subject to the Pope as the successor of St. Peter, the chief of the Apostles.’
radioreplies.info/site-search.php?q=Magus&db=2
I
icamhif
Guest
We can proof-text what the Bible teaches about the Divinity of Christ all day long, but the fact remains that if one wants to claim to approach the Bible through a purely objective and historical lens, he would have to weigh the arguments of the scholars from all of the conservative-moderate-liberal spectrum.
Don’t get me wrong, though, I believe in the Trinity.
I
icamhif
Guest
Very fair and reasonable. I like it.
Thanks for the answer. This is something I will have to look into more.
C
Contarini
Guest
Or even possibly “stay Protestant but find a way to bracket yourself off from history by saying that it’s just a jumble of contradictions.”
Again, the point Newman is making is that if you really want to derive your faith from the historic witness of Christianity, particularly in the early centuries, you won’t get anything like the Protestantism of early-19th-century Britain.
And I think he was clearly right about that.
Whether all forms of Protestantism are affected by this critique is another matter.
Edwin
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
We’ve disagreed on other matters, but we can agree here.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Thank you.
However, I was interested in learning YOUR opinion…is that contained in the second sentence?
C
Contarini
Guest
Sorry. The second sentence was my opinion–tentative, though.
Perhaps someone can persuade me that Matthew really did write it in the form we have it. I’m always happy to be persuaded that traditional opinions are correct.
But do bear in mind the difference between what I may be personally persuaded of and what I think we can argue confidently for apologetics purposes. Again, Habermas’ concept of “minimal facts” is helpful here.
Edwin
- Status