Was Christ's Preaching under the "Old Covenant"?

[JRKH]

First of all thank you for responding. Now to the Points here

Originally Posted by JRKH
Yet in this thread, in Post number 15 you credit the Early Church with knowing and preserving the Scriptures under God’s Guidance – A nod to Historical fact determining, or at least preserving Truth, and then later in Post number 51 you even confirm that it is “History” that you are referring to.

I don’t know how I am comparing apples and oranges. You DID deny my use of Chrch history as a support for my argument in the other thread saying that:
“History does not Determine Truth”
Yet in this thread you use the same argument to support your view that Scriptures are the True word of God as opposed to the Koran.
Sounds like using History to support "Truth to me.

It’s a fact that the RCC has a lineage that goes back to the apostles. It’s also a fact that the church to which I belong has a lineage that goes back to the apostles. Just because there’s been a split, does not kill the lineage.

I’m glad you recognize the Church’s Lineage. So many do not.
I’m also interested in your statement about YOUR lineage. Would you please provide details on this? Since you have not stated a denomination in your profile, I don’t know what faith tradition you come from. I would be interested in the list of Church Leaders you have that traces back to the Apostles.

What you referenced was a specific passage of scripture, Mt 18:17, for which, you claim, the church has had an official interpretation for 1500 years.

That’s not true. In almost 2,000 years, your church has offered an official interpretation of a very few verses. I think the number of verses so defined can be counted on the fingers of two hands.

Therefore, you can’t refer me to an official “magisterial” commentary on the verse, but you’re reduced to claiming that what determines the true interpretation of Mt 18:17, is the length of time the church has been in existence.

First of All allow me to make a small correction here. I don’t believe I ever said there was an “Official” intepretation of the verse so I don’t think you can hold me to that. The fact that there is not an “Official” or documented interpretation does not mean that the Church has not known and held the CORRECT interpretation of the verse. If anything the structure and teachings of The Church should be sufficient to demonstrate this. Structure that has developed from the time of the Apostles. Again I refer you to the Council of Jerusalem as the example.
Trouble in Antioch - Doctrinal disputes
Discussions there could not resolve the issues
Paul and Others went to “The Church” leadership in Jerusalem to get a ruling.
How much more clear can it be?

That doesn’t make much sense.

The length of time the church has been around does is not the canon, or criterion, or standard of judgment as to what is true, but the Scripture.

Now here is where you lose the logic.
You agree that it was the Catholic Church which, by the Grace of God, understood and assembled the canon of the Bible.
You also agree that it was The Catholic Church which protected, defended, copied, translated and diseminated, the Bible for 1500 years before the Reformation.

I assume that you also agree that it was the Catholic Church that, by the same Grace, taught and built the Christian community for some 350 years BEFORE the canon was officially set.

Now, before the canon was set, was the Church teaching the correct Gospel?

Was the Church, functioning by the Grace of God, and being Guided by the Holy Spirit in Her Interpretations of Scripture?

If the Church was not being guided by the Holy Spirit in it’s interpretations, then How do you accept that they were correct in the Books selected for the Canon.

Did Christ Promise the Holy Spirit to lead the faithful into SOME Truth or ALL Truth?

I agree that the length of time a church has been around is no guarentee of correctness.
However when, the further back in time we go, that is the closer we get to the Apostles, we see The Church excersizing the same authority as she does today, we can deduce that this is the way that the Holy Spirit Set it up.

In a nutshell it comes to this.
Either the Holy Spirit Guided the Church or it didn’t.
If you accept that The Holy Spirit Guided the Church in the selction of the Bible Canon then you must accept that the Holy Spirit guided the Church in all things, including it’s understandings of those Books.
If you reject that the Holy Spirit guided the Church in understanding the Books, then the Holy Spirit was obviously not with this group of men and the entire canon becomes suspect.
The Holy Spirit does not guide halfway.

As a final point, let me ask this.
Does it make sense that the Catholic Church would include in the Bible anything that is contrary to Church teaching?

Peace
James

 

[Strategery]

This will be the end of the discussion for me because, ISTM, you’re more interested in critiquing my “demeanor” than you are in dealing with the points I’ve made in my last post.

That’s your choice. In the post you are responding to, I said I’d like to discuss it with you, but I ask you to be more civil in your responses. Those are the rules of this forum, and it’s not an unreasonable request.

I’m sorry that keeps you from continuing the discussion. Best wishes!

 

[Strategery]

Amen, and who is the rock upon whom that house is built, and why would one build a house upon Him? Because one has put His faith in Him, that’s why; and that’s because one trusts Him (that’s faith), one trusts Him because He’s trustworthy!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strategery
No. You’re reaching far afield from the point again. I have prayed deeply on the question of the Protestant - Catholic split, specifically on faith vs. works, and I have asked God to reveal the answer to me.

That would make you a prophet, and what God told you is Scripture, as soon as you write it down!

Lots of people claim God revealed this and that to me.

A few come to mind: Paul and Jan Crouch, Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, and certainly, Charles Taze Russell, the Father of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

A tree is known by its fruits, and a man by the company he keeps.

I do need to address this particular element of your post Howie.

The fact that I’ve taken a question to God and he’s given me an answer does not make me a prophet. It makes me someone who took a concern to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, through his son Jesus, and asked him to straighten it out for me. Your prophet/scripture conclusion and the ensuing “company that I keep” statement don’t make sense.

Is your position that I’m not Christian? I’m basing that on your statement that we are not brothers in Christ. If not, please help me understand what you meant. If so … is that just me, or is that a statement about Catholics in general?

Recall that the only reason I even mentioned this was to correct a perception that you stated, which was that I’m basing my opinions on what “my apologists” say, and that I “just buy into it.” All I did is tell you what is influencing my statements. I didn’t and don’t ask you to believe it.

 

[Howie01]

JRKH:

I don’t know how I am comparing apples and oranges. You DID deny my use of Chrch history as a support for my argument in the other thread saying that:

James, my statement was in direct reference to the interpretation of Scripture. Longevity of a belief doesn’t determine the veracity of the belief. Further in your post, you agree with that:

JRKH:

I agree that the length of time a church has been around is no guarentee of correctness.

With this caveat:

JRKH:

However when, the further back in time we go, that is the closer we get to the Apostles, we see The Church excersizing the same authority as she does today, we can deduce that this is the way that the Holy Spirit Set it up.

In your caveat, you include longevity as proving the veracity of the Church’s authority. I would disagree with that statement as well.

The authority, IMO, is the scripture. Therein is contained the Truth, of which truth, the Scripture is “the pillar and support.” In the next verse, Paul states the truth which the church is to uphold:**”By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness:
He who was revealed in the flesh,
Was vindicated in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Proclaimed among the nations,
Believed on in the world,
Taken up in glory.**That is the truth to be upheld by the church.

JRKH:

If you reject that the Holy Spirit guided the Church in understanding the Books, then the Holy Spirit was obviously not with this group of men and the entire canon becomes suspect.

I’ve clearly given to God the glory for the church’s recognition of the canon.

JRKH:

Does it make sense that the Catholic Church would include in the Bible anything that is contrary to Church teaching?

Forgive me, James, but that is a most foreign sounding statement to me. What is included in the bible is included therein by the will of God.

JRKH:

I’m also interested in your statement about YOUR lineage. Would you please provide details on this? Since you have not stated a denomination in your profile, I don’t know what faith tradition you come from.

Reformed, and Calvinist with respect to the doctrines of grace.

JRKH:

First of All allow me to make a small correction here. I don’t believe I ever said there was an “Official” intepretation of the verse so I don’t think you can hold me to that.

You never did say that. However, I did ask for that.

JRKH:

Did Christ Promise the Holy Spirit to lead the faithful into SOME Truth or ALL Truth?

To what verse are you referring?

 

[JRKH]

Howie,
I wanted to touch base with you on the issue of “pre-destination” once again.
I haven’t gone back and looked up our previous conversation, but you recall we discussed the Matthew quote about the Apostles sitting on the 12 thrones and judging the twelve tribes. Jesus was talking to the twelve, so Judas was obviously there when Jesus said this.
Now let me say that I appreciate your position regarding salvation and Judas not actually being saved, so don’t think that I am trying to trap you in this. Rather, what I am about to propose relates to the practicallity of the whole pre-destination agrument for us in our salvic journey.

If you had been present when Jesus made this statement:
So Jesus said to them, "Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Would you have assumed that Judas was included?
If you had polled the 12 Apostles the very next hour would they have assumed that Judas was included?
I think you will agree that the answer to both of these questions is “yes”.

The reason I bring this up is simply this.
While at least some form of Predestination is a forgone conclusion from the viewpoint of God, it simply cannot be from our purely human viewpoint. The simple reason is that we cannot know for sure if we are part of the elect or not - We do not know the future.
Please note that I am not agruing for or against Pre-destination here, I am merely pointing out that we, at the present moment, cannot KNOW whether we are truly saved or not. All we can do is to live out our lives as well as we can, trying our best to follow Christ and hope that we do not fall away like Judas did.

So what I am trying to say is that, while God may KNOW who is going to be saved and who isn’t, you and I don’t. Therefore, while “pre-destination” may be an interesting acedemic discussion, it has no real bearing on an individual’s salvic journey. That is where we Christians lose each other sometimes in these discussions. ONe side is arguing the theoretical-acedemic aspect while another is looking at the practical-“how does it effect me” viewpoint.

I do hope that you are truly saved - I do honestly hope that there is nothing hidden in the mists of your future that destroys your faith and “proves you were never really saved”. Of course I hope the same for myself.
I don’t say this as a challenge to your faith, nor do I mean it in any derogatory way. It is simply a nod to the reality that we, as humans who have not crossed the finish line, cannot know what the future holds for us, or what trials and challenges we are to face - or how strong our faith will be in the face of those challenges.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

James, my statement was in direct reference to the interpretation of Scripture. Longevity of a belief doesn’t determine the veracity of the belief. Further in your post, you agree with that:With this caveat:In your caveat, you include longevity as proving the veracity of the Church’s authority. I would disagree with that statement as well.

Actually I am not using the “Longevity” of the belief, but rather how close to the beginning we can trace the belief. There is a difference.

The authority, IMO, is the scripture. Therein is contained the Truth, of which truth, the Scripture is “the pillar and support.” In the next verse, Paul states the truth which the church is to uphold:**”By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness:
He who was revealed in the flesh,
Was vindicated in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Proclaimed among the nations,
Believed on in the world,
Taken up in glory.**That is the truth to be upheld by the church.

I’m glad that you said, “IMO” (In my opinion) since that is exactly what it is for it is decidedly NOT what Paul says in 2 Tim 3:15. The two verses you mention are these:

1 Tim 3:15-16

but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.

Correct me if I am wrong but I don’t see the word “Scripture” here, nor “Bible”. What I do see is the Word “Church”.

I’ve clearly given to God the glory for the church’s recognition of the canon.

As do we all. We Give the Glory to God for everything.

Originally Posted by JRKH
Does it make sense that the Catholic Church would include in the Bible anything that is contrary to Church teaching?

Forgive me, James, but that is a most foreign sounding statement to me. What is included in the bible is included therein by the will of God.

I’m not sure that I can explain it any better.
You wish to accept the Bible, but reject the Church. You want to give God credit for protecting written text, but then deny God’s protection of the Church that 1) recorded those written words, and 2) taught the God given doctrines upon which these written words were founded.
Note here that I am not denying the inspiration of God in the NT books.

And while we are on the subject of, “What is included in the bible is included therein by the will of God,” (your statement), GOD also included the these words in 2 Timothy:
which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

As well as these words in Matthew 18:
“Tell it to The Church”
So, if Scripture is Authority and EVERYTHING is in scripture (The Bible) because God Willed It to be there, then obviously God has given authority to The Church and wills us to obey “The Church”

Reformed, and Calvinist with respect to the doctrines of grace.

OK.
Now can you provide a listing of Church leadership and doctrinal development dating from today all the way back to the Apostles?

To what verse are you referring?

John 16:1-15. The particular verse is number 13.
"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.

Hope this helps.

Peace
James

 

[Howie01]

Howie,
I wanted to touch base with you on the issue of “pre-destination” once again.
I haven’t gone back and looked up our previous conversation, but you recall we discussed the Matthew quote about the Apostles sitting on the 12 thrones and judging the twelve tribes. Jesus was talking to the twelve, so Judas was obviously there when Jesus said this.
Now let me say that I appreciate your position regarding salvation and Judas not actually being saved, so don’t think that I am trying to trap you in this. Rather, what I am about to propose relates to the practicallity of the whole pre-destination agrument for us in our salvic journey.

If you had been present when Jesus made this statement:
So Jesus said to them, "Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Would you have assumed that Judas was included?
If you had polled the 12 Apostles the very next hour would they have assumed that Judas was included?
I think you will agree that the answer to both of these questions is “yes”.

The reason I bring this up is simply this.
While at least some form of Predestination is a forgone conclusion from the viewpoint of God, it simply cannot be from our purely human viewpoint. **The simple reason is that we cannot know for sure if we are part of the elect or not **- We do not know the future.
Please note that I am not agruing for or against Pre-destination here, I am merely pointing out that we, at the present moment, cannot KNOW whether we are truly saved or not. All we can do is to live out our lives as well as we can, trying our best to follow Christ and hope that we do not fall away like Judas did.

So what I am trying to say is that, while God may KNOW who is going to be saved and who isn’t, you and I don’t. Therefore, while “pre-destination” may be an interesting acedemic discussion, it has no real bearing on an individual’s salvic journey. That is where we Christians lose each other sometimes in these discussions. ONe side is arguing the theoretical-acedemic aspect while another is looking at the practical-“how does it effect me” viewpoint.

I do hope that you are truly saved - I do honestly hope that there is nothing hidden in the mists of your future that destroys your faith and “proves you were never really saved”. Of course I hope the same for myself.
I don’t say this as a challenge to your faith, nor do I mean it in any derogatory way. It is simply a nod to the reality that we, as humans who have not crossed the finish line, cannot know what the future holds for us, or what trials and challenges we are to face - or how strong our faith will be in the face of those challenges.

Peace
James

In his Gospel, and first epistle, John says the Christian can know that he’s saved.

John is an apostle; therefore, John’s teaching on that is apostolic teaching. The truly apostolic church teaches that one can know. The truly un-apostolic church teaches that it’s presumptuous to say one can know; however, the true presumption is contradiction of the apostle’s teaching.

 

[JRKH]

In his Gospel, and first epistle, John says the Christian can know that he’s saved.

John is an apostle; therefore, John’s teaching on that is apostolic teaching. The truly apostolic church teaches that one can know. The truly un-apostolic church teaches that it’s presumptuous to say one can know; however, the true presumption is contradiction of the apostle’s teaching.

So this is all you got out of my posting? How sad. You seem to have missed the whole point. Please re-read the entire post and try to understand what I am saying.

Yes - Certainly one can say that, at this present moment, “I am sure of my salvation.” However since one cannot know of the future, or what may befall them, or how they might react, one cannot know if, at the time of death, they will be saved.

If you know a person who has accepted Christ, been baptized and walked in the way for several years you assume they are saved. And indeed they would be if they were to die during this time. Yet if this same person, after say five years, is subjected to trials such that cause him to denounce God and Curse and Blaspheme the Holy Spirit, would you say he is still saved?
Or would you rather say that He was not truly saved in the first place?

This is what I mean by my post. Yes we can have assurance of our Salvation in the present moment - IF we abide in Jesus and obey the Commandments. Look at 1 John and note the number of times he tells the faithful what to do and NOT do. Keep the commandments - don’t hate your brother, live in the light, abide in Christ etc.

1 John 2:3
By this we know that we have come to know Him, **if **we keep His commandments.

Note in 1 John, the number of times he uses the workd “IF”. So yes, one MAY know they have salvation, but that is a whole lot different than knowing that one will be able to HOLD ON TO that salvation.

IF we do these things as stated in John and elswhere, then we can know, that is have assurance, that we have eternal life - in the present moment.
IF we do not do these things, or if we STOP doing these things, we place ourselves outside of the Body of Christ, which then places our salvation in jeapordy.
And whether one says - “he lost his salvation” - or one says - “he was never saved in the first place” is irrelevent. Damned is Damned.

Peace
James