What are "The Essentials"?

[PRmerger]

Personally, I wish the document didn’t exist - it marked the end of undivided Catholicism in the west, and for us non-Catholics is casts significant doubt on if there even could be something as a perfect church.

Do you also wish that the hard sayings of the OT didn’t exist? For I think it gives atheists significant doubt on whether there could be something as a loving God.

 

[benjohnson]

Do you also wish that the hard sayings of the OT didn’t exist? For I think it gives atheists significant doubt on whether there could be something as a loving God.

If you’ll allow me to take off my Lutheran hat, and speak only for merge myself - and If you could make some allowance that I’ve only been a Christian for a few years and that I know I’m probably wrong:

The very difficult passages in the OT seem to me to be for an different age - for we creatures seemed so unruly that we needed to be reached with the rod. The NT speaks to an age when God speaks to us with a love so profound that he would give his only child.

I imagine it like how I raise my children, at first, they need sharp discipline to keep them from running out into the street. Then as they get older, I show them how to love their sick great grandmother by example.

Those OT passages still have great corrective value - just as the Law leads us to the Gospel, the OT leads us to the NT.

Again, please treat the proceeding as mere speculation on my part.

 

[PRmerger]

The very difficult passages in the OT seem to me to be for an different age -

Perhaps, then, you could apply this same paradigm to* Ex Surge?* The very difficult passages of this document seem to me to be for a different age? Yes?

Again, please treat the proceeding as mere speculation on my part.

Done!

 

[Sixpence]

Ok. Then could you please list these essentials that you have “universal agreement” upon upon by Evangelicals. Not just the 4–for you have acknowledged that there are more. And the Bible verses that support your claim that they are Essentials.

I’d rather go through one or two at a time and explore Your rather curious sets of beliefs- on the one hand, that any Catholic teaching no matter how dense divisive and inaccessible, is readily understood by all who read it- even those who “feign ignorance”- all the while claiming that the very Word of God can not be understood in the slightest, certainly not even to the point where the most important teachings of Christianity can be identified from the text.

Let us go about it in this way. You have been around here far too long to really need any Scripture quoted at you. You know full well which passages of Scripture explicitly declare that Yahweh is the only God that exists, and there have never been nor will there ever be anyone else like him. Tell me. Why is it that when you see this information, you are unable to discern whether it is essential or not. Do you seriously believe Jews ever had a problem in making this distinction? (Remember, they never had a Magisterium). Have you noticed that no SS-type Christian has ever failed to discern this, also with no Magisterial help? But more importantly, and of most interest to me, what is your personal deficiency that prevents you from seeing this for what it is without the help of the CC teaching authority?

Or are you feigning hypothetical ignorance? Do you really believe you would be this lost without the Magisterium? (That would make me think you’re for real). Or would you most likely be able to see the relative importance of this “only one God” concept without that special guidance? (This would make me think you’re feigning a little bit).

 

[PRmerger]

Iall the while claiming that the very Word of God can not be understood in the slightest,

Oh, just to be clear, Sixpence. I have never stated the above.

certainly not even to the point where the most important teachings of Christianity can be identified from the text.

As a Catholic, I have no problem stating that the important teachings of Christianity can be identified–but, of course, I use both Scripture and Tradition (as well as the guidance of the Magisterium) to discern these teachings.

I want to know how a SS advocate can claim to know–from Scripture alone–what these Essentials are.

What verses tell you that something is Essential?

For example, Is Malachi 1:11 an Essential? Or is it secondary? And how do you know? What verse gives you the direction on whether Malachi 1:11 is Essential or not?

What about 1 Peter 3:21? Essential? Or secondary?

 

[benjohnson]

Perhaps, then, you could apply this same paradigm to* Ex Surge?* The very difficult passages of this document seem to me to be for a different age? Yes?

The analogy breaks down in that vast portions of the OT Law are overshadowed by the Son. We joyously look at the OT through the lens of our redemption. I can find no grace of God that allows us to color Exsurge in the same joyous way.

In addition, Exsurge is not my document, nor do I see it as one of God’s documents, nor do I see it describing exclusively God’s teaching. I see Exsurge as a mostly a political document of man. Thus it should be plainly read and plainly digested.

If the Catholic church were to officially qualify this past Catholic teaching, then the argument of Papal Infallibly would be strengthened in my mind - in that error is eventually corrected given time.

 

[PRmerger]

The analogy breaks down in that vast portions of the OT Law are overshadowed by the Son. We joyously look at the OT through the lens of our redemption. I can find no grace of God that allows us to color Exsurge in the same joyous way.

What you are proclaiming is, I think, a heresy, ben, that was rejected by the Early Church Fathers. It does appear as if you are saying that there are 2 Gods–the God of the OT, and then the God of the NT who kind of dismissed this vengeful OT God.

The God of the OT is the same as the God of the NT. The Son, while he does fulfill the OT Law, does not overshadow the OT God, no matter how vengeful this God is. He is the same.

 

[Sixpence]

Oh, just to be clear, Sixpence. I have never stated the above.

So you are capable of discerning which portions of Scripture contain or yield essential teaching. Hypothetically, just by reading it and seeing it instead of consulting the Catechism’s authoritative list which delineates essential doctrine from secondary teachings. At least some of the time- I’m sure you could find at least a couple of examples where you could pull it off.

Is that correct?

 

[JonNC]

So then if you are proclaiming that you believe in the authority of your communion, and that you have a disagreement with your communion in this particular area, you have the paradigm that the problem is with yourself, and your theological understanding of the communion of saints, and not with the Lutheran teaching–is that a fair assessment?

I don’t know if it has ever been that black and white in my mind, or even in the confessions. But for the sake of discussion, I would say yes.

Jon

 

[GaryTaylor]

I would say yes.

Me too my Brother! 6-1/2 years in the wallet I’d say has meaning to it Jon.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t know if it has ever been that black and white in my mind, or even in the confessions. But for the sake of discussion, I would say yes.

Jon

Then I exclude the Lutheran communion from my comment made in post #39.

 

[PRmerger]

So you are capable of discerning which portions of Scripture contain or yield essential teaching.

Not from Scripture alone, Sixpence. :nope:

And, I think, you realize this, too, now. Otherwise by now (after multiple requests for this) you would have been able to provide me with the Scripture verses that tell us that is Essential and is secondary.

You are going by a man-made tradition to discern what verses are Essential and what are secondary.

For you never read, in a single page of the Bible alone, anything that declares something to be an Essential doctrine.

 

[JonNC]

So you are capable of discerning which portions of Scripture contain or yield essential teaching. Hypothetically, just by reading it and seeing it instead of consulting the Catechism’s authoritative list which delineates essential doctrine from secondary teachings. At least some of the time- I’m sure you could find at least a couple of examples where you could pull it off.

Is that correct?

But why does she need to do that? Would it be better if she relied on her own reading?

Martin Chemnitz:
*This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages… **We also gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture. And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture. Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church. *

Just a thought,
Jon

 

[PRmerger]

IDo you really believe you would be this lost without the Magisterium? (That would make me think you’re for real). Or would you most likely be able to see the relative importance of this “only one God” concept without that special guidance? (This would make me think you’re feigning a little bit).

Six, we need not speculate here. All we need to do is look at this obscenity: there are now tens of thousands of Christian denominations, each claiming that they have read the Bible and that the Bible clearly says . No! The Bible clearly says !

This is what happens when one believes that* I don’t need no stinkin’ Magisterium. I got the Bible and that’s all I need, thank you very much!*

Now, thanks to that paradigm, we have the chaos and confusion of millions of Christians who don’t know whether:

-baptism is an ordinance or a sacrament
-Sunday is the day of worship or Saturday is
-women can be ordained or they can’t be
-the Eucharist is a symbol or the Real Presence
-there are 2 sacraments or 3 or 4 or none
-we are OSAS or we can lose our salvation
-divorce and re-marriage is adultery or just another life choice
-abortion is an abomination or a sacrament
-we’re going to get Raptured or wait for the Second Coming

 

[PRmerger]

But why does she need to do that? Would it be better if she relied on her own reading?

Martin Chemnitz:
This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages… *We also gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture. And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture. Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church. *

Just a thought,
Jon

Yeah. What he ^^ said.

 

[benjohnson]

What you are proclaiming is, I think, a heresy, ben, that was rejected by the Early Church Fathers. It does appear as if you are saying that there are 2 Gods–the God of the OT, and then the God of the NT who kind of dismissed this vengeful OT God.

The God of the OT is the same as the God of the NT. The Son, while he does fulfill the OT Law, does not overshadow the OT God, no matter how vengeful this God is. He is the same.

Overshadow was a horrid choice of words on my part! Thank you for correcting me! Personally, I’m a truculent man so I’m glad those difficult passages are there - if the bible was too ‘easy’ I would think it a fraud.

On a personal level, I’m having to explain to my oldest child that God has rules for us, and that he loves us - but frankly, some of the OT is difficult for him and me. I have to remind him and myself that in the OT, God shows his love for us by his very creation and generosity - over and over again and even gives us his words.

I’m not sure what to do with some of very difficult passages in the OT sometimes. But perhaps that’s part of the point - to make us uneasy and to make us think. If you have any guidance, I’d be obliged.

 

[GaryTaylor]

So you are capable of discerning which portions of Scripture contain or yield essential teaching

Sixpence, I can’t speak for my sister PR shes very good at that herself. That said, following the CC or in this case the Apostolic Church since there was but one church till 5-AD. There are clear defined understandings of Biblical Context. For example the Gospels and the Sacrifice thus the Sacraments. Or for that matter even St Paul on this issue. The Church sees this as essential because it is in OT/NT history, Christ offered a new and everlasting covenant not only with man but with himself to forever abolish inferior sacrifice. And we see the very real history from early OT foward till the Church itself established this sacrament and then it become NT documentation. And within ten years of Christ/Cross in all the established apostolic church’s. Which further increased to over 40 by 100-AD.

Perhaps I’m wrong here but lets think about this. How would the Church in this early period discern what was in fact inspired? It had to coincide with their Tradition as a initial focus and also Orthodox Judaism. When one doesn’t acknowledge this history than in fact you then discern what you “think” is inspired.

Now without doubt some of the Canons we know came from specific individuals, however, some now for example 2-Peter are a stretch with St Peter. Yet this wasn’t the issue with the Early Church Fathers, the issue became how this fit into their paradigm of how they in fact worshipped, taught, lived and loved in accordance to the Lords will thus Grace. What is the outlined paradigm which discerns what is inspired? First Grace, then it can only be the documented facts as given to us by early Christians and in how they understood Tradition/History, then documented this. The Church then discerned all the early writtings to uphold those which in fact coincided as I stated.

Or the other extreme is when man takes upon as his responsibility to discern understanding from the Bible, look what occurs? That cannot be an inspired view of God which concludes heresy as divine. Thus the point being someone has to be responsible and thus appointed by the Lord to teach Doctrine, to define Doctrine and to teach the Word of God as Gods Word. Look at all the heresy through the ages. That came from the existing teaching and twisting and misderstanding of the Apostles to ones own concept, be it the Arians or gnostics etc.

This issue you bring up is the “exact” issue when Christians stray from mainline. This becomes contrary to even the early reformers. Six, generations of this and those following will have no idea of their own history. And to a very large degree we see this already. Look at the Mormans, SDA, JWs etc. This came from Bible only extremes and a lack of understanding God from OT/NT thus how both Judasim and then the Apostolic Church loved, lived, taught, worshipped, and understood. I don’t blame anyone, its not about placing blame its about understanding how we arrived at this point. Its about the preservation of Christianity not only in the West but the middle east and far east where the Apostolic Churchs are constantly persecuted. Its about Christian unity which will stop this persecution because it brings Communion which brings Grace from God. Thats how Bibilcally the Supernatural worked. Communion. Its about further advancement of US and Western Christian unity which will help on a worldwide level.

While one may prefer this or that congregation becomes contrary also. For we now evolve into something that doesn’t even remotely resemble the Early Christian community and how they in fact worshipped. And this issue in contingent on the misunderstanding of the relationship between the Church and Tradition.

The Bible didn’t fall out of the sky. It was written by souls who first worshipped God then chose to provide a documented account of how. By preservation of the Tradition we continue to have a greater understanding of illusive Biblical verse. or even those which seem cut and dry like “All have sinned”. This is the error that Bible only brings to the table. It disregards the Mysteries of the Lord which over time is revealed to us slowly but surely which leads to greater understanding of the closed Revelation, or public Revelation. The Immaculate Conception or Assumption are perfect examples. Or very early the Trinity, Communion of Saints, etc etc. Basically the Apostles or Nicene Creed.

The next issue becomes Bible only then why a church? When we acknoledge as the OP states “essentials” and begin to compile a list, then in fact we acknowledge “Tradition” and we acknowledge “authority”. This illusive vague, sublime idea that Tradition/Authority is a contradiction when one first attends a Church, then they are immediately understanding thus acknowledge someone other than themselves is of more Bible authority than themselves. next it also immediately contradicts Bible Only for it appeals to Tradition for understanding and direction. Yet it compromises Tradition and Holy Scripture for its alone discerns what is relevant to that particular congregation. Then for example when you have an individual like Jimmy Swaggart, not only does all this occur, it then in arrogance condemns the Apostolic Churchs as Sun Worshippers, Idol Worship etc etc. Or Calvin with predestination and the Elect.

Mainline protestants are not the issue, for to a Very large degree they acknowledge tradition, its the further disregard for even mainline protestants or Anglicans and Lutherans which then brings some really far fetched teachings to Christianity. To what avail, and how does this help unite Christianity but to further divide it. Abortion, Gay Marriage, to ordain women, Jesus was not God, the Trinity is 3-seperate deitys. These are the type of issues we are now confronted with, and are major. This path of Bible only and condemning the Apostolic Churchs will created further divsion and heresy, if any more is possible. And its if fact always becomes Tradition and Authority.

I see no good reason for this. Its “impossible” to believe all will fall under this heretical teaching. So what is the goal and motivation, personal gain and half-truths which is in fact how evil prevails in an area, be it under the cloak of God inspired, pride and arrogance, ignorance or a combination. And some really truly believe they are the Path to God and the Real Truth.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Oops my bad, already responed to, sorry I’m doing a few things here.

I like the Purple Rosary photo PR.

Peace

 

[PRmerger]

Overshadow was a horrid choice of words on my part! Thank you for correcting me!

Oh, p-shaw! shaw:

Personally, I’m a truculent man so I’m glad those difficult passages are there - if the bible was too ‘easy’ I would think it a fraud.

On a personal level, I’m having to explain to my oldest child that God has rules for us, and that he loves us - but frankly, some of the OT is difficult for him and me. I have to remind him and myself that in the OT, God shows his love for us by his very creation and generosity - over and over again and even gives us his words.

I’m not sure what to do with some of very difficult passages in the OT sometimes. But perhaps that’s part of the point - to make us uneasy and to make us think. If you have any guidance, I’d be obliged.

Best explanation is this: jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2007/02/hard_sayings_of.html

(scroll to the bottom–I was confused when I saw the advertisement at the top of the page, but the article is below).

 

[PRmerger]

I like the Purple Rosary photo PR.

Peace

:tiphat: