H
Howie01
Guest
How do you know for sure that a group of devious people didn’t start a huge hoax called “The United States of America,” some 233 years ago?
- Status
S
SHW
Guest
H
Howie01
Guest
The answer to all your listed questions is contained in the answer to the following question:***How do you know for sure that a group of devious people didn’t start a huge hoax called “The United States of America,” some 233 years ago?***Answer: Because there exists today, a real place called, the United States of America, just as there exists today, a real religion called, Christianity.
S
Strategery
Guest
This is where I get that you separate faith from works. You: works don’t justify. Me: works are faith. Not a ***result of *** faith. They’re all the same thing.
As a point of clarification, for this discussion “works” = obeying Christ’s commands.
Actually, I got this through meditation on Scripture and years of seeking the Lord and asking him this very question. As we proceed, please try to refrain from this type of speculation about strawmen, apologists, and what I “just buy into.” That doesn’t aid the discussion at all; rather it is an obstruction to a true dialogue.
Not fully. But fair enough. Pot to kettle: “you’re black!”Again, you argue against a position I don’t hold.
Yes, that’s right.
We are back to the definition of “believe” again. What constitutes believing? Who is the man who builds his house upon a rock? The man who hears and obeys.
We agree. It’s all about faith. Both hearing and obeying. Hearing without obeying is not faith. Obedience is an act of will (ie, a work).
I’m curious about something, regarding your perception of Catholocism. Can you give me an example of how you perceive all of this plays out for me (as a Catholic), on a day to day basis? This gets back to your point in post #15
For example - I lead a bible study for about 15 guys. I think we can both agree that this is a “work.” Given your understanding of Catholicism, can you explain why you think I’m doing this, with respect to faith and works?
This isn’t a trick question – I’m truly interested in your answer. The reason why I ask is that so many times these discussions get abstract very quickly. I think it always helps to discuss real situations and how they play out.
S
SHW
Guest
Back to the Original Post (OP):
Jesus did not follow the Law (of Moses) when He touched the Leprous man and healed him. See Leviticus 13 and 14
Luke 5:12-13 “And it happened when He was in a certain city, that behold, a man who was full of leprosy saw Jesus; and he fell on his face and implored Him, saying, “Lord, if You are willing, You can make me clean.” 13 Then He put out His hand and touched him, saying, “I am willing; be cleansed.” Immediately the leprosy left him.”
But, then Jesus tells the Leper to show himself to the priest which is in the Law of Moses.
Luke 5:14 "And He charged him to tell no one, “But go and show yourself to the priest, and make an offering for your cleansing, as a testimony to them, just as Moses commanded.”
Jesus shows us by these two examples that the Old Covenant is still in force but is passing away. Jesus also changes Moses’ law on divorce in His preaching.
Matthew 5:18 “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”
Luke 24:44 "Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.”
Hebrews 10:8-13 " Previously saying, “Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them ” (which are offered according to the law), 9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.” He takes away the first (Old Covenant) that He may establish the second (New Covenant). 10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool."
Hebrews 8:13 “In that He says, “A new covenant, ”He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.”
Jesus fulfills the law and the prophets and the psalms concerning Him. Jesus fulfills every jot and tittle of the Old Covenant Law and it is now obsolete.
The Kingdom of God:
Luke 16:16 “The law and the prophets were until John (the Baptist). Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it.”
Jesus preached the Kingdom of God which was to be in our hearts through baptism after His death on the cross.
John 3:3 "Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Luke 17:21 "nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.”
Luke 22:17-20 “17 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.”
John 19:30 “So when Jesus had received the sour wine (fruit of the vine), He said, “It is finished!” And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.”
Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms concerning Him. The Old Covenant is finished. “It is finished,” He said. The Kingdom of God is here (He drank the fruit of the vine on the cross and that is when His kingdom came into being (at His death on the cross).
After Jesus’ ascension into heaven, the Apostles of Christ’s Church make use of their “binding and loosing” power: they decide upon the new formal worship day; they abolish the rules for circumcision, etc.
SHW
Jesus did not follow the Law (of Moses) when He touched the Leprous man and healed him. See Leviticus 13 and 14
Luke 5:12-13 “And it happened when He was in a certain city, that behold, a man who was full of leprosy saw Jesus; and he fell on his face and implored Him, saying, “Lord, if You are willing, You can make me clean.” 13 Then He put out His hand and touched him, saying, “I am willing; be cleansed.” Immediately the leprosy left him.”
But, then Jesus tells the Leper to show himself to the priest which is in the Law of Moses.
Luke 5:14 "And He charged him to tell no one, “But go and show yourself to the priest, and make an offering for your cleansing, as a testimony to them, just as Moses commanded.”
Jesus shows us by these two examples that the Old Covenant is still in force but is passing away. Jesus also changes Moses’ law on divorce in His preaching.
Matthew 5:18 “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”
Luke 24:44 "Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.”
Hebrews 10:8-13 " Previously saying, “Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them ” (which are offered according to the law), 9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.” He takes away the first (Old Covenant) that He may establish the second (New Covenant). 10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool."
Hebrews 8:13 “In that He says, “A new covenant, ”He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.”
Jesus fulfills the law and the prophets and the psalms concerning Him. Jesus fulfills every jot and tittle of the Old Covenant Law and it is now obsolete.
The Kingdom of God:
Luke 16:16 “The law and the prophets were until John (the Baptist). Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it.”
Jesus preached the Kingdom of God which was to be in our hearts through baptism after His death on the cross.
John 3:3 "Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Luke 17:21 "nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.”
Luke 22:17-20 “17 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.”
John 19:30 “So when Jesus had received the sour wine (fruit of the vine), He said, “It is finished!” And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.”
Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms concerning Him. The Old Covenant is finished. “It is finished,” He said. The Kingdom of God is here (He drank the fruit of the vine on the cross and that is when His kingdom came into being (at His death on the cross).
After Jesus’ ascension into heaven, the Apostles of Christ’s Church make use of their “binding and loosing” power: they decide upon the new formal worship day; they abolish the rules for circumcision, etc.
SHW
S
SHW
Guest
There also exists a real religion called Islam and it claims that it is the Word of God and those who adhere to this Islam faith claim that Christianity is a false religion.
So it comes down to this: why do you believe that Christianity is the true (real) religion and not Islam or Buddhism or Hinduism, etc.? They each claim to be the true (real) religion.
“Thinking” one or another religion to be the true religion is not a good enough answer. You have to believe in the authority which makes the claim that it is the true religion. Personally I believe the Catholic Church is telling me the truth and that is why I believe that there was a religion founded by Jesus 2000 years ago and that He built His Church upon Peter and that only this one religion is the true religion. I believe in the authority of the Catholic Church and that is why I am Catholic. I trust the Catholic Church to tell me the truth because they can trace their hierarchy back to the Apostles themselves. To me this is “true” testimony and “proof” of what they claim. The Catholic Church still exists 2000 years after its founding and it still teaches the same things that were taught by Jesus. **The Church decided on the Canon of Scripture. It did not decide itself. **Authority is the key to Truth.
The Christian Church is built upon Peter according to Jesus in Matthew 16:18. A successor of Peter exists today and has existed for 2000 years. (Of course the Church is also built upon the Apostles and prophets with Jesus as the cornerstone as stated in Ephesians 2:19-21.) But Jesus singled out Peter to be the head of the Apostles and gives Him the “keys of the kingdom.” Matthew 16:15-19
Matthew 28:18-20 “And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.”
My authority is the Catholic Church because Jesus gave His authority to it alone. Where the successor of Peter is: there alone is the true Church. They “keys” are passed down in only one Church. Only this one “Church with the keys” has Jesus’ authority.
Who is your authority? Your authority is “you” alone.
SHW
H
Howie01
Guest
Stratergy:
You believe that “works are faith,” support it. I find no lexical definition, “works are faith.”
Therefore, what I see immediately is, we don’t speak the same theological language.
Startergy:
Stratergy:
Were you meditating on the idea, “Protestants separate faith from works?”
If so, explain to me how your meditation means your conclusion is true?
Strategery:
Strategery:
I’ve given you the Greek word, and its lexical definition: the refusal of the unregenerate to believe the testimony of the Gospel.
The passages you offer are irrelevant to the context of that passage.
Stratergy:
Stratergy:
You desire to do that, I should think, for any number of reasons which may include, a sincere desire to teach others the Catholic faith from the Scripture, rather than from the Catechism, or perhaps you incorporate catechetical teaching as well.
In addition, teaching is a sanctifying experience. For you as a Catholic, that would also mean it’s a justifying experience, in which both the former and the latter increase.
Two different statements meaning two things.
You believe that “works are faith,” support it. I find no lexical definition, “works are faith.”
Therefore, what I see immediately is, we don’t speak the same theological language.
Startergy:
OK.
Stratergy:
From what I posted, ISTM you’re saying that your meditation has revealed to you that Protestants separate faith from works; is that correct?
Were you meditating on the idea, “Protestants separate faith from works?”
If so, explain to me how your meditation means your conclusion is true?
You’re insinuating I’ve erected a straw man of your position; is that correct? If so, please show me where I’ve done that.
We’re back to the definition of believe in the context of the passage under discussion: Jn 3:36.
I’ve given you the Greek word, and its lexical definition: the refusal of the unregenerate to believe the testimony of the Gospel.
The passages you offer are irrelevant to the context of that passage.
Stratergy:
If I understand the question fully, by grace, you merit further grace, not only for yourself, but also for others, to the attainment of eternal life.
Stratergy:
You believe you’re qualified to lead a bible study, or have demonstrated to the satisfaction of your leadership that you have that ability.
You desire to do that, I should think, for any number of reasons which may include, a sincere desire to teach others the Catholic faith from the Scripture, rather than from the Catechism, or perhaps you incorporate catechetical teaching as well.
In addition, teaching is a sanctifying experience. For you as a Catholic, that would also mean it’s a justifying experience, in which both the former and the latter increase.
S
Strategery
Guest
All I have to say about this reply is … “Wow.” You are reaching all over the place.
J
JRKH
Guest
Strategery and Howie,
I see that we are getting into the whole discussion of faith/works and would just like to suggest two things, mainly to Howie.
First thing is to try and provide back-up for your position re: what catholics believe from the Catachism of the Catholic Church. This way you will be discussing Actual Teachings from a common and documented source.
Second, Howie, The Church fully recognizes the roles of Grace and Faith as Primary in the salvic journey, she also recognizes the value and necessity of works. If you look into the Catachism, you will see this.
Now remember that here we are talking about normal circumstances and not such things as someone dying immediately after “Accepting Christ”.
Is it your position that a person can Believe, Be Baptized, have faith and live, say, 15 years without performing good works? Is it your position that a person living a “normal life” can have a “saving faith” but no works or “Acts of Faith”?
In other words are works a thing that, under normal circumstances, be seperated from faith? St. James did not seem to think so. Neither did Jesus from what I can tell. What do you think?
Finally - I wish to convey to each of you that, while conversations of this type are numerous and can be interesting, much of it comes down to things we cannot know on this side of the veil. By that I mean that, we cannot know if we are “Truly Saved”. Thus we can only “Work out our salvation with fear and trembling” as best we can. We must have faith, perform the works we feel called to do, Praise God and try to grow in Holiness. Everything else, the things that smack of “predestination”, sola this or sola that, are little more than acedemic musing on the “mind of God” and cannot provide a real help to anyone on the salvic journey.
Everything begins, for us poor human creatures, with our acceptance of God’s grace and will for us. After that we must try our best to grow more closely to him through prayer, contemplation, study, works of faith, listening for the movement of the spirit within us and preparing ourselves as best as we can to receive and act upon these movements.
May God bless us All in our Journeys
Sorry if the above is dijointed - I’m still trying to put this together in my head.
Peace
James
I see that we are getting into the whole discussion of faith/works and would just like to suggest two things, mainly to Howie.
First thing is to try and provide back-up for your position re: what catholics believe from the Catachism of the Catholic Church. This way you will be discussing Actual Teachings from a common and documented source.
Second, Howie, The Church fully recognizes the roles of Grace and Faith as Primary in the salvic journey, she also recognizes the value and necessity of works. If you look into the Catachism, you will see this.
Now remember that here we are talking about normal circumstances and not such things as someone dying immediately after “Accepting Christ”.
Is it your position that a person can Believe, Be Baptized, have faith and live, say, 15 years without performing good works? Is it your position that a person living a “normal life” can have a “saving faith” but no works or “Acts of Faith”?
In other words are works a thing that, under normal circumstances, be seperated from faith? St. James did not seem to think so. Neither did Jesus from what I can tell. What do you think?
Finally - I wish to convey to each of you that, while conversations of this type are numerous and can be interesting, much of it comes down to things we cannot know on this side of the veil. By that I mean that, we cannot know if we are “Truly Saved”. Thus we can only “Work out our salvation with fear and trembling” as best we can. We must have faith, perform the works we feel called to do, Praise God and try to grow in Holiness. Everything else, the things that smack of “predestination”, sola this or sola that, are little more than acedemic musing on the “mind of God” and cannot provide a real help to anyone on the salvic journey.
Everything begins, for us poor human creatures, with our acceptance of God’s grace and will for us. After that we must try our best to grow more closely to him through prayer, contemplation, study, works of faith, listening for the movement of the spirit within us and preparing ourselves as best as we can to receive and act upon these movements.
May God bless us All in our Journeys
Sorry if the above is dijointed - I’m still trying to put this together in my head.
Peace
James
H
Howie01
Guest
You forgot to say: In my opinion.
In your fervor, I find out more. Now you separate faith and works by speaking of the relationship between them. And that’s not my opinion, but something you’ve done.
What happened to your opening statement, “works are faith???”
Nevertheless, now you’re beginning to speak Scripture’s language—the relationship of faith to works—works are the result of faith.
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!
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.
OK.
Correct, and I notice that you’ve not disagreed with my “perceptions of Catholicism” either.
Another “trendy” catch phrase, IMO.
I’ve answered your question, a question you said was “not a trick question—I’m truly interested in your answer.”
Well, you have it.
Not about justification, I’m justified, according to scripture, once and for all. I do consider my sanctification, especially when I’m dealing with people who haven’t a clue concerning what their talking about, let alone what I’m talking about.
Startegery:
Some men, and women, have endeavored for long periods of their lives to bring to light the meaning of words, in lexicons and dictionaries, so that men and women can have a point of understanding of what other men and women mean when they speak and write.
I suggest you take advantage of all their hard work.
J
JRKH
Guest
J
JRKH
Guest
I am going to interject here some sections from the CCC. Perhaps then the discussion can be based on Official Church teaching.
On Faith the ** CCC, beginning at paragraph 142 **includes this:
Perseverance in faith
162 Faith is an entirely free gift that God makes to man. We can lose this priceless gift, as St. Paul indicated to St. Timothy: “Wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith.” To live, grow and persevere in the faith until the end we must nourish it with the word of God; we must beg the Lord to increase our faith; it must be “working through charity,” abounding in hope, and rooted in the faith of the Church.
On Works the CCC beginning at paragraph 1987 includes this regarding the Church’s postion re: Works:
On Faith the ** CCC, beginning at paragraph 142 **includes this:
Perseverance in faith
162 Faith is an entirely free gift that God makes to man. We can lose this priceless gift, as St. Paul indicated to St. Timothy: “Wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith.” To live, grow and persevere in the faith until the end we must nourish it with the word of God; we must beg the Lord to increase our faith; it must be “working through charity,” abounding in hope, and rooted in the faith of the Church.
On Works the CCC beginning at paragraph 1987 includes this regarding the Church’s postion re: Works:
2005 Since it belongs to the supernatural order, grace escapes our experience and cannot be known except by faith. We cannot therefore rely on our feelings or our works to conclude that we are justified and saved.
I suggest, Howie that you read this entire section and especially take a look at the footnotes - to see the foundations for these points. Yiou’ll note the many references to scriptures as well as writings of the Early Church which you accept as having properly understood what was sacred.
Once you have read these sections, then you can ask any questions re: points that you don’t understand.
I suggest, Howie that you read this entire section and especially take a look at the footnotes - to see the foundations for these points. Yiou’ll note the many references to scriptures as well as writings of the Early Church which you accept as having properly understood what was sacred.
Once you have read these sections, then you can ask any questions re: points that you don’t understand.
J
JRKH
Guest
Howie,
Getting back to this idea of the Early Church knowing which writings were authentically inspired, you said this earlier,
Yet, at the same time, deny or reject the idea that God also, Acting by Grace, made known to the Early Church the proper interpretation of those writings and guided the structure by which those writings and teachings were protected and diseminated.
If God Protected Scripture it follows that God protected those to whom he entrusted that Scripture. That would be The One Holy and Apostolic Church Catholic.
Peace
James
Getting back to this idea of the Early Church knowing which writings were authentically inspired, you said this earlier,
How is it that you accept that God, acting by Grace through the Early church, protected and made known to that Early church which writings were inspired -
Yet, at the same time, deny or reject the idea that God also, Acting by Grace, made known to the Early Church the proper interpretation of those writings and guided the structure by which those writings and teachings were protected and diseminated.
If God Protected Scripture it follows that God protected those to whom he entrusted that Scripture. That would be The One Holy and Apostolic Church Catholic.
Peace
James
S
Strategery
Guest
Howie - I’d love to have a discussion with you, but you’ll need to spare the condescending remarks. I’ve asked you about it once, and you’ve continued. Please, be charitable. We are brothers in Christ. Separated brothers, but brothers nonetheless.
I’ve left other elements out of the discussion because I’m trying my best to stay on point (that’s what the moderators like here). Please feel free to start other threads to go down every tributary you’d like to persue. I’m game.
With respect to your perceptions of catholicism – they’re definitely wrong. You’ve been told that by several in this thread, but you’re choosing not to believe it.
You’re using the term “fervor” with respect to my replies, that misses the mark also.
I’ve left other elements out of the discussion because I’m trying my best to stay on point (that’s what the moderators like here). Please feel free to start other threads to go down every tributary you’d like to persue. I’m game.
With respect to your perceptions of catholicism – they’re definitely wrong. You’ve been told that by several in this thread, but you’re choosing not to believe it.
You’re using the term “fervor” with respect to my replies, that misses the mark also.
H
Howie01
Guest
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.
I’ve said the same thing to others as I’ve said to you, be they Catholic, or Protestant, concerning “God’s revelation” of something to them. Perhaps you should consider your choice of words more carefully.
Even your church, in the CCC, states that revelation is closed:God has said everything in his Word
65 “In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son.” Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:
In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.
Also, if you’d rather define and re-define theological terms for yourself, than to use a lexicon, go ahead; however, I’m not interested.
I disagree.
What?
You asked me a question, and I gave you an answer, here’s what I said:If I understand the question fully, by grace, you merit further grace, not only for yourself, but also for others, to the attainment of eternal life.That’s not merely my perception, but a paraphrase from several different paragraphs in the CCC, and the Sixth Council of Trent, (cf Trent Chapter 16; CCC para, 2010; 2025; 2027; 2783). And I’m aware of the distinction between unmerited “initial” grace, and of the differing terms for merit that the Church has defined.
Here’s the continuation of my response to your question, which you said was not a trick question:You believe you’re qualified to lead a bible study, or have demonstrated to the satisfaction of your leadership that you have that ability.
You desire to do that, I should think, for any number of reasons which may include, a sincere desire to teach others the Catholic faith from the Scripture, rather than from the Catechism, or perhaps you incorporate catechetical teaching as well.
In addition, teaching is a sanctifying experience. For you as a Catholic, that would also mean it’s a justifying experience, in which both the former and the latter increase.You say I’m wrong about that.
OK, I’m wrong in that perception.
S
SHW
Guest
The CCC is speaking of the gospel of Christ, both written and oral when it states “in giving us his Son, his only Word” and “he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word.” Jesus was only on earth a short time. He wrote nothing down. This is not in reference to written Scripture alone. It is reference to Jesus Himself and His gospel which He preached and also to the teachings of the Holy Spirit who came to teach the apostles and disciples after Jesus ascended into heaven.
John 14:26 “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.”
It does not say in Scripture what the Holy Spirit specifically taught them.
The Church was commanded to preach the gospel, not write it down. They did write part of it down. The parts that are not written down are still part of the revelation of Christ. These things (traditions) have been passed down through the Church through apostolic succession.
John 21:25 “And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even** the world itself could not contain the books that would be written**. Amen.”
Thessalonians 2:14-15 "to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.
1 Corinthians 11:2 “Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.”
2 Thessalonians 3:6 “But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.”
God revealed Himself through His Word, Jesus.
SHW
J
JRKH
Guest
Does the above also mean that you are through talking to me?
That is a disappointment.
I was hoping you might provide your perspective on the point I raised in my post number 54 about the early Church.
Peace
James
J
JRKH
Guest
Howie,
I do hope you hang around and answer my questions for I have another.
On THIS THREAD, Post number 89, you had this to say about History in response to my reference to Church history.
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.
So how is it that it is OK for you to use “History” to support your position on the canon of scripture being right, but it is not ok for me to use “History” to support my position that not only did God protect Scripture for 1500 years before Sola Scriptura, but He also protected the interpretation of Scripture for 1500 years before SS?
Peace
James
I do hope you hang around and answer my questions for I have another.
On THIS THREAD, Post number 89, you had this to say about History in response to my reference to Church history.
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.
So how is it that it is OK for you to use “History” to support your position on the canon of scripture being right, but it is not ok for me to use “History” to support my position that not only did God protect Scripture for 1500 years before Sola Scriptura, but He also protected the interpretation of Scripture for 1500 years before SS?
Peace
James
H
Howie01
Guest
You’re comparing apples and oranges in this, James.
It is a fact that the Catholic Church has had possession of the writings, and that they preserved and compiled the writings.
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.
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.
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.
- Status