R
Rbt_Southwell
Guest
\
Gotta love that zerinus arrogance !!!
Too bad it doesn’t make sense when Zerinus quotes mormon ‘scripture.’!!!
Well, I shouldn’t be too harsh, after all he is a ‘god’ to be in his religion.
Robert
- Status
Gotta love that zerinus arrogance !!!
Too bad it doesn’t make sense when Zerinus quotes mormon ‘scripture.’!!!
Well, I shouldn’t be too harsh, after all he is a ‘god’ to be in his religion.
Robert
M
mercygate
Guest
I use it in the same way. I consider Christian scripture to be the source of all Christian doctrine. Nothing else is equal to it—not even Catholic “tradition”. If there is a conflict between the two, scripture always wins. Your argument that I cannot quote scripture to correct Catholic doctrine is based on a false and twisted logic. It is as absurd as it was for the Jews to tell Jesus that He could not use scripture to correct their erroneous beliefs and teachings on the grounds that they were the true church that God had established, the scriptural canon was written by and belonged exclusively to them, and they were the only ones who had the right to interpret it! That argument is as absurd when applied to the Catholic Church as it was when applied to the ancient Jewish church or religion. The break point is that Jesus is the Son of the living God; it is His spirit that gives life to the Church, and He has promised to send to “guide you into all the truth.” “He who rejects you, rejects me.” Nothing the Catholic Church believes in any violates Scripture. Nothing in Sacred Tradition violates Scripture or “makes void the word of God.”I use scripture is my theological discussions in the same way that Jesus used it to answer the Jewish priests, Rabbis, and religious leaders. When they challenged Him on various doctrinal and theological grounds, He always responded by quoting scripture at them. Now they could have answered Him in the same way as you do—and in fact in a sense they did. The Jewish religion or “church,” if I may call it that (it is an accurate term, considering the etymology of the word “church”), was an ancient and well established religion, with a regularly established ecclesiastical hierarchy which went back to the days of Moses. It was as ancient and well-established as the Catholic Church is today. But Jesus often quoted their own scriptures against them, as the following examples demonstrate:
Matthew 15:
2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition
Matthew 22:
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
Matthew 12:
7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
We know these scriptures very well.
It is inconsistent for someone who believes the church went off the rails at least two hundred years before the closing of the canon BY THAT CHURCH to hold Scripture as the “source” of Christian doctrine.
History demonstrates that the canon was ratified partly on the grounds that the books contained in it did not contradict Christian doctrine.
You are pitting Scripture AGAINST Tradition. They are not enemies. Scripture IS one of the Traditions of the Church. The Catholic position on doctrinal authority is profoundly scriptural and, in fact, dominical: The Lord said to His Apostles (Lk 10:16): "He who rejects you rejects me; he who rejects me, rejects the one who sent me."
The fact that no Catholic has ever convinced you that the Church has the authority to determine the canon of Scripture by no means compromises the Catholic position.
M
mercygate
Guest
Many people believe that the Catholic Church is in the position of the Pharisees. It’s how they get around Our Lord’s statement: “He who rejects you rejects me.” They MUST pit the Church AGAINST Scripture, as if they were in conflict, in order to support their own version of the truth.\
Gotta love that zerinus arrogance !!!
Too bad it doesn’t make sense when Zerinus quotes mormon ‘scripture.’!!!
Well, I shouldn’t be too harsh, after all he is a ‘god’ to be in his religion.
Robert
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
A small addition also ~ Jesus didn’t come into the world to see to it that a book was written, He came to call us to Him, He came save sinners.
Many people seem to get hung up on scripture, and sometimes it appears that some do so to the exclusion of all else. Scripture is important, but it is not the be-all end-all.
I agree that the Church is not in conflict with scripture. Indeed, as the repository of 2000 years of history and tradition, the Church is in the unique position to clarify the meaning of scripture to those of us in today’s world who are unfamiliar with the culture and time period in which scripture was originally set down in writing. All too often misunderstanding of scripture is a direct result of a lack of understanding of context.
R
ryanoneil
Guest
I think you have alot of good things in your blog, but think your missing some as well. (I’ll only mention one aspect) I think it is important to include verse 53-58 in your John 6 section.
**Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” **
AND
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins. (Mat 26:26-28)
In point #1 you said “The disciples were those who followed Him and obeyed His instructions.” Communion is one way we can still identify His disciples. Then leading up to point #2 you mention John 15:10. After talking so much about bearing fruit, I’m surprised you didn’t include John 15:1-8
"I am the true vine, and my Father is the vine grower. He takes away every branch in me that does not bear fruit, and everyone that does he prunes so that it bears more fruit. You are already pruned because of the word that I spoke to you. Remain in me, as I remain in you. Just as a branch cannot bear fruit on its own unless it remains on the vine, so neither can you unless you remain in me. I am the vine, you are the branches. Whoever remains in me and I in him will bear much fruit, because without me you can do nothing. Anyone who does not remain in me will be thrown out like a branch and wither; people will gather them and throw them into a fire and they will be burned. If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask for whatever you want and it will be done for you. By this is my Father glorified, that you bear much fruit and become my disciples. (John 15:1-8)
I see a direct connection in the underlined part, to the points you make about discipleship and bearing fruit. It might be worth exploring.
Peace
Z
zerinus
Guest
That is a matter for discussion. I am not saying that it does, I am not saying that it doesn’t.We know these scriptures very well.
The break point is that Jesus is the Son of the living God; it is His spirit that gives life to the Church, and He has promised to send to “guide you into all the truth.” “He who rejects you, rejects me.” Nothing the Catholic Church believes in any violates Scripture. Nothing in Sacred Tradition violates Scripture or “makes void the word of God.”
The scriptural canon was well recognized by the Christians long before such time, as I have shown in another one of my Blog articles, to which I had referred you before.
And Christian doctrine was determined by the scriptural “canon,” long before it was “canonized”!
I am doing no such thing. I am sure Catholic Tradition is a respectable and honorable thing. But it takes second place to scripture as a source of Christian theology and doctrine.
This is not a debate about the scriptural canon. It is a debate about finding an accurate theological definition of what constitutes a “Christian”. I had given you my understanding of the subject. Other people have given theirs. But none of them had even attempted to explain to me why their definitions are superior to mine. In what ways is my definition lacking, and why, that another definition is preferable to it? My definition was not hostile to the Catholic Church, nor was it particularly favorable to Mormonism. Do you have a problem that I should make my definition scripture based? If so, why? What alternative source do you propose that I should use? I am still scratching my head about that.
zerinus
Z
zerinus
Guest
Thank you. Those are good points. I see all of those as part of the “fruits”. I did not want to mention all the “fruits” individually, because they are too many—even potentially infinite! They include all Sermon on the Mount, all the commandments that Jesus gave everyone He preached to, and lots more that He didn’t mention!—summed up in, “love thy neighbor as thyself”. But I make a distinction between “fruits,” and a set of theological beliefs. One can err in doctrine, but still be a good man, and genuinely believe in Jesus Christ, and bring forth the fruits as he understand them to be, and eventually be saved. For example, someone who is raised in the Protestant tradition from childhood, and thinks that the Sacraments are not necessary for salvation because he doesn’t know any better, but still believes in and loves Jesus Christ, and strives with all his heart to live by His commandments; I would call him a true Christian, and a candidate for salvation. Erring in doctrine does not damn anyone. But disobedience to the commandments of God does. That is the difference.
zerinus
R
Rbt_Southwell
Guest
Well put, Mercygate.
Forgive me but I cannot remember the original French, but the English translation goes something like this:
“Every stink that fights the ventilator thinks it is Don Quixote!”
Thus we have tens of thousands of sects with their own ‘charismatic’ ‘prophet.’
Robert
E
Erich
Guest
I have no problem with your making your definition scripture based… but you should know that your definition would be more credible with Christians if you don’t quote as scripture anything written more recently than the Book of Revelation or thereabouts. Otherwise it’s no different from (say) quoting the New Testament in a definition of what it means to be Jewish.
You’ll also have to spend some time considering what it meant (and what it means) to belong to the Way of Acts 9:2, Acts 18:26, Acts 19:9, Acts 19:23, Acts 22:4, Acts 24:14, and Acts 24:22). Already by this time, it was clear that this creedal, sacerdotal, hierarchical, and inescapably visible Church was indeed the Church that Jesus founded upon the apostles!
BTW, I take it you haven’t yet read By What Authority?
M
mercygate
Guest
Perhaps I misunderstood. You put scriptural quotes up that many anti-Catholics use to “prove” that the Catholic Church has taken the place of the Pharisees and that her traditions are “against” Scripture.
The New Testament canon was not fully recognized before the end of the 4th century. And doctrine did NOT arise from Scripture. Paul was preaching the gospel before he wrote it down. For at *least 50-60 *years, the churches were functioning without a New Testament in anything like a complete form. In 325 A.D. there was still dispute about seven books of the canon.
Doctrine was not determined “by the canon.” As challenges to the gospel arose, teachings were weighed according to “what we believe” and in light of agreed-upon writings to discern their viability but there is no division between the thinking of the Church and the authority of Scripture. And there is absolutely no getting round the fact that the the New Testament is a product of the Apostolic Church, written in the heart of the Church, for the Church and to the Church under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit at the hand of human authors – all of whom were in the Church.
I submit that no rationale that claims Scripture as authoritative for determining doctrine can do so without a rationale for accepting the authority of Scripture, hence my unwillingness to let go of the subject of how we got the Bible in the first place. It did not canonize itself. And despite wide agreement on much of the New Testament, many books were being used as Scripture that did not make the cut and, as mentioned above, seven books that made the list were in dispute as late as the mid fourth century.
I do not consider this a debate. I reject the idea of debate because it sets up an adversarial relationship, which can only have a bad outcome.
As Catholics, we use of the full deposit of faith: Scripture, tradition, history, and reason. We believe that this in itself constitutes a “superior” method of articulating doctrine. Your definition of a Christian is fine – as far as it goes. But it leaves out the larger issue of the essential teaching office of the Apostolic Church, as laid down at the Great Commission. You are the one insisting on Scripture as the “source” of your definition. So take the whole package from the lips of Our Lord to the Apostles: “He who rejects you, rejects me.”
Z
zerinus
Guest
Well, I didn’t introduce the adversarial tone. I simply posted a topic for discussion. Other people want turn it into a contest.
I noticed that you keep mentioning that. Jesus said that to His Apostles. Those Apostles died long time ago, and were never replaced. That is why we believe that the Christian church became Apostate. The institution of the Twelve Apostles was not meant to be done away with. That is why when one Apostle died, another was chosen to replace him. The Twelve were always meant to be Twelve. The fact that they no longer existed after the first century, and the church could no longer be led by revelation as it used to be before by the Twelve Apostles, to us is a clear indication of the Apostasy of the early Christian Church.
zerinus
M
mercygate
Guest
As you are doubtless aware, the Orthodox and Catholic Churches trace their apostolic lineage historically back to the Upper Room. We, too, believe that the Church must have apostles. “Apostle” means “one who is sent.” Jesus breathed on the Apostles in on Easter night, and said to them: “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."
The number of 12 was acknowleged by Peter at Pentecost when Matthias was elected to take Judas place. Yet for the Church to grow, the number of men with Apostolic authority had to exceed 12. Even the New Testament names 3 or 4 people as “Apostles,” who were not among the 12.
Although the apostles “no longer existed” because they all died, that does not mean that the Apostolic charism left the Church. They were definitely replaced.
We do not generally refer to the successors of the Apostles as “Apostles” out of a kind of courtesy to the generation of the original 12 and those other eyewitnesses named as Apostles in the New Testament. Yet, we believe that those who succeed the Apostles receive the Holy Spirit “So I send you.”] for the apostolic work. We use a very New Testament form for passing this on through our Apostolic lines from bishop to bishop: the laying on of hands directly from one to the next. The form is that three bishops are required for the consecration of a new bishop – just to be sure that the continuity is authentic and that it cannot be challenged.
The apostolic gifts MUST perdure for the Lord’s promise to prevail. They are one of the four marks of the Church: One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic.
This is one point on which Catholics and Mormons have a certain affinity. Our views are not identical, but at we both recognize that the essential points of the apostolic charism are indispensable.
Z
zerinus
Guest
We agree on the last point, but not on the rest! We believe that the Apostles were always meant to be Twelve. There was never any suggestion that they should be more than Twelve. And the body of the Twelve was to be the governing body of the whole church. A bishop is not the same as an Apostle. Bishops had local jurisdiction over a limited geographical area. The bishops never ordained Apostles, the Apostles ordained bishops! A bishop did not have ecclesiastical authority over the whole church. Only the Apostles did. There have been no genuine Apostles in the Christian church since the original ones died. The LDS Church is the only church presently that has Twelve Apostles at its head which constitutes its governing authority. It is the only Church that is organized and governed in the same way that the early Christian church used to be.
zerinus
M
mercygate
Guest
How do Mormons account for Barnabas and James, the brother of the Lord, who are called apostles in the New Testament but were not among the twelve and yet served during the lifetime of the twelve (including Matthias among the twelve)?
Z
zerinus
Guest
Paul also should be included. We know that Apostle James, the brother of John, was put to death by Herod. So that creates a vacancy for at least one of them. We also know that all the Apostles (except John) were martyred at some point; and we know very little else about them or their ministry. It is conceivable that others were martyred so that these could be ordained. Another possibility is that either Barnabas or James (or both) were not real Apostles. The word apostle also means “sent”. They were all sent by the Lord to preach the gospel, so in that sense they were all apostles, without necessarily being ordained as one of the Twelve Apostles. There is in fact some uncertainty whether James and Barnabas were true Apostles or not.
zerinus
M
mercygate
Guest
You’re right about Paul, of course! And in my list I did not include some of the “iffy” references in the New Testament to “apostles” – including the ones Paul calls “false” apostles. The New Testament Church was clearly a face-to-face operation.
3 John is all about “Where are you coming from?” Paul exhorts people not to believe “another gospel” even if preached by an angel of light. That is partly why we retain the layng on of hands: one person to the next throughout the history of the Church as the means of ordaining bishops for the Apostolic office.
How does Momonism account for the restoration of the apostolic office? this actually goes to your title question: technically, there could be very few “real” Christians at all in the era before the printing press when average people could not read and a Bible cost more than the lifetime wages of a peasant.
And why does Mormonism believe that God abandoned His Church for 1700 years only to restore it in the 19th century? Maybe that goes to another thread. But it does go to the topic of ecclesial authority.
Z
zerinus
Guest
The restoration took place by the ministration of angels to Joseph Smith and his associate, Oliver Cowdery.
I don’t see that. Bibles were read in churches. The culture existed for people to be able to know what the will of God was for them.
I have answered all of that in my Blog post on the Apostasy, which you can read here.
zerinus
Stephen168
New member
Apostle (Greek: apostolos, “someone sent out”, e.g. with a message or as a delegate). There are three groups of apostles; The Twelve, The Seventy, and Paul.
Jesus sent out the twelve in pairs (Mark 6:7-13, cf. Matthew 10:5-42,Luke 9:1-6), to towns in Galilee.
The Seventy or Seventy-two were also sent out (Luke 10:1-24). Paul was also sent out by the risen Lord (Acts 9:1-22). Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History © 324 records Barnabas, Sosthenes, Joseph Barsabbas, and Matthias as members of the 70. The New Testament records Barnabas (Acts 14:14) and Sosthenes (1 Corinthians 1:1, 2:6) as Apostles. Jesus Christ sent out a total 83 men to spread the Gospel. These 83 men were apostles (sent out). James and Peter were Apostles as well as Bishops.
Only men sent by Christ were Apostles. Only Apostles who had 1) walked the earth with Christ, 2) been in the company of the original twelve, and 3) witnessed the resurrection could be a member of The Twelve. By these requirements described in Acts (2:21-22), we know The Twelve were never to be an on going position in the Church. Paul was never made one of the Twelve because he did not qualify. He was an Apostle but never one of The Twelve.
The Apostle Peter went to Antioch where he started a church. Seven years later he ordained Evodius as Bishop of Antioch and went to Rome. After Evodius died, Ignatius (a student of the Apostle John), was made Bishop of Antioch. The Apostle James of Alphaeus stayed in Jerusalem as the Bishop. When James died, Simeon became Bishop. As those whom Christ sent out died, they were replaced by the Bishops.
Jesus sent out the twelve in pairs (Mark 6:7-13, cf. Matthew 10:5-42,Luke 9:1-6), to towns in Galilee.
The Seventy or Seventy-two were also sent out (Luke 10:1-24). Paul was also sent out by the risen Lord (Acts 9:1-22). Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History © 324 records Barnabas, Sosthenes, Joseph Barsabbas, and Matthias as members of the 70. The New Testament records Barnabas (Acts 14:14) and Sosthenes (1 Corinthians 1:1, 2:6) as Apostles. Jesus Christ sent out a total 83 men to spread the Gospel. These 83 men were apostles (sent out). James and Peter were Apostles as well as Bishops.
Only men sent by Christ were Apostles. Only Apostles who had 1) walked the earth with Christ, 2) been in the company of the original twelve, and 3) witnessed the resurrection could be a member of The Twelve. By these requirements described in Acts (2:21-22), we know The Twelve were never to be an on going position in the Church. Paul was never made one of the Twelve because he did not qualify. He was an Apostle but never one of The Twelve.
The Apostle Peter went to Antioch where he started a church. Seven years later he ordained Evodius as Bishop of Antioch and went to Rome. After Evodius died, Ignatius (a student of the Apostle John), was made Bishop of Antioch. The Apostle James of Alphaeus stayed in Jerusalem as the Bishop. When James died, Simeon became Bishop. As those whom Christ sent out died, they were replaced by the Bishops.
E
Erich
Guest
R
ryanoneil
Guest
First, let me say I generally agree with what you are saying. God is merciful! Ultimately I can’t judge who is acceptable in the eyes of God, and I hesitate to say anything more. But if you will bear with me, let me try and explain the parallels I was making with your criterion. Take it for what it is worth in the spirit of your blog.
You identified (John 6:64-67) as an example what Jesus said that would drive away the insincere or uncommitted disciples. They did not believe because they rejected what he said about eating his flesh and drinking his blood (John 6:53-58), and they stopped being His disciples.
Then you stated
One of the clues you identified was **If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and remain in his love.
** (John 15:10), but an equally important clue, is Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me (John 6:56-57). Both are ways to remain in Jesus and are identifiable after His death.
They are directly related and both are in the context of Jesus’ New Covenant command at the last supper (Mat 26:26-28).
There are obvious parallels (I won’t mention) showing (John 6’s) realization at the last supper and number of parallels placing (John 15) in the same time frame as the last supper. Here are just two:Behold, the hour is coming and has arrived when each of you will be scattered to his own home and you will leave me alone. But I am not alone, because the Father is with me. (John 16:32) AND Then Jesus said to them, "This night all of you will have your faith in me shaken, for it is written: ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be dispersed’ (Mat 26:31)
[And after the extended three chapter monologue]** Jesus went out with his disciples across the Kidron valley to where there was a garden, into which he and his disciples entered.** (John 18:1) This is the garden of Gethsemane scene right after the last supper. (Mat 26:36)
I apologize if I’m not being to clear with all this and you’re not making the connection (and narrowly focusing on a Catholic area of interest). But the whole point I’m trying to make is: sometimes the fruits, the theological beliefs, and the commandments blend together and they are not easily distinguishable. This is a big reason why it is hard to identify “what constitutes a Christian.”
I’m not saying any of this to tear anyone or any denomination down. Like your blog, many people have a lot of good things to share. We all have criterion we go by. Obviously Catholics see the communion with Christ, through the Eucharist, as one identifier of discipleship. (which is why I see strong hints of it in your blog)
So, take this for what it’s worth. God is merciful and He is the ultimate judge.
Peace
- Status