What is the standard against which you measure your understanding of Scripture?

[Lisa4Catholics]

michaelp:

Eat and drink of Christ body and blood is sybolic for belief. When we take the bread and wine, we are sybolically making Christ a part of us. He becomes who we are. This only happens to the degree that we believe in Him. Belief is the primary theme of John, not the Lord’s supper. In fact, John does not even record the Lord’s supper. The only Gospel that does not. Therefore, the emphasis, even in this chapter, is belief.

John 6:35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.

This is a parallel construct which shows coming to Christ = not hungering, and believing in Christ = not thirsting. It is in this context that He talks about eating His flesh and drining His blood. This is the context of the passage and therefore, it shows that Christ was referring to belief using a vivid illustration which shows the life and substance changing nature that true belief involves.

The reason why I said that I think the eucharist may be more than JUST symbolic is because of 1 Cor 11:30, not John 6. John six seems to have only a vivid illustation of belief in mind.

Michael

Well I believe in my heart and soul in His Real presence.God Bless You Michael,Lisa

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

michaelp:

I am sorry, but I do not see in any way 2000 years of unchanged teaching. I find the essence of the truth throughout church history, but many things do and did change. All I have to do is to look at the churches change with regard to the atonement. For the first 1100 years virtually the entire church suscribed to a Ransom to Satan threory of the Atonement. It was not until 1100 that most people changed and said that the ransom was not paid to satan, but to God. This heretical (by todays standards) theory is found from Irenaeus to Augustine in explicit form.

Hi Michael!

Never once, in 2000 years, has the Church contradicted her teaching. This is only possible by divine guidance. Irenaeus and Augustine are not the teaching authority of the Church but rather individuals within the Church. They can, and have, erred. The standard against which their understandings must be measured for accuracy IS the teaching authority of the Church.

Do you believe that no one in the world today speaks authoritatively for God… fulfills Luke 10:16??

This is fulfilled everytime that someone stands up for the truth of the Resurrection of Christ and His lordship. People speak authoritatively for God to the degree that they are teaching the truths expressed by God.

Are you referring to a particular truth or just any truth that the individual happens to believe?

This is the point of this thread. What is the standard against which one measures the accuracy of his understanding of the truths expressed by God?

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[dcdurel]

michaelp:

I am sorry, but I do not see in any way 2000 years of unchanged teaching. I find the essence of the truth throughout church history, but many things do and did change. All I have to do is to look at the churches change with regard to the atonement. For the first 1100 years virtually the entire church suscribed to a Ransom to Satan threory of the Atonement. It was not until 1100 that most people changed and said that the ransom was not paid to satan, but to God. This heretical (by todays standards) theory is found from Irenaeus to Augustine in explicit form.

This is not correct.
As Dave Armstrong writes:

1. Various Fathers (such as Origen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Ambrose) were wrong in their explication of the “ransom to the devil” theory (the Catholic Church does not assert that individual Fathers are infallible). However, this state of affairs was not as unanimous as some Protestant polemicists would have us believe. As clearly stated by the non-Catholic historians above, many Fathers either rejected the “ransom theory” or held implicit or explicit elements of the later more fully-developed “satisfaction” theology of St. Anselm (e.g., St. Clement, St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenæus, St. Athanasius, St. Gregory Nazianzus, St. Hilary of Poitiers, St. John Chrysostom, Ambrosiaster, and St. Augustine).
2. This matter of theology was not defined dogmatically by the Catholic Church until the Middle Ages, so this cannot be a matter of official Church teaching changing, or a disproof of conciliar or papal infallibility. The early Church was much more concerned with trinitarian and incarnational Christology, because that is where the attacks of the heretics were concentrated.

For a lot more on this subject in which he quotes non-Catholic theologians, see his web site:

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ348.HTM

For a believe of the Church fathers to be held as apostolic, therefore Church teaching, we must find out the following
Did they say that this teaching had come down from the apostles? Did they say this teaching was one that “we have always held”? Did they say this teaching was apostolic Tradition? Did they say this teaching was what the Church has always taught? In other words, in some way did they imply that this teaching was from the apostles, or the Church, or was part of Sacred Tradition, apostolic Tradition, etc. Or, did All Church fathers hold to a theory. In that case it must be apostolic Tradition.

Remember, apostolic Tradition is not necessarily what the Fathers believed, but what they held as coming from the apostles. Since none of them held this theory was apostolic, or part of Church teaching, then it cannot be held as Church teaching. The Church did not define on this until later in the middle ages.

So again, Church teaching has never changed, it only develops and becomes more extensive, never contradicting the original message.

 

[dcdurel]

Jesus clearly required that we believe what the Church teaches under penalty of condemnation.

------------- Mark 16:15 -------------
15 And he said to them, “Go into
all the world and preach the gospel
to the whole creation.
16 He who believes and is baptized
will be saved; but he who does not
believe will be condemned.
17 And these signs will accompany
those who believe: in my name they
will cast out demons; they will speak
in new tongues;
18 they will pick up serpents, and
if they drink any deadly thing, it
will not hurt them; they will lay
their hands on the sick, and they
will recover.”

Notice verses 17 and 18 don’t refer to those who “preach” the Gospel, “but those who believe” the preachers of the Gospel
In other words, they don’t refer to the leaders of the Church, but the followers of the Church. They are not a sign of authority, but a sign of those who believe.

Thus, they are a sign of those who believe, for only believers will pray and ask God for these miracles. Unbelievers don’t pray, thus don’t ask God for miracles, thus they can’t do these signs.

And since even Protestants believe in God, God will work miracles for them also, even if they have been misled and don’t know the true Gospel. For Jesus works with what people already believe. He would never refuse to work a miracle for those who don’t hold the true faith, simply because they were never taught the truth or had been misled through no fault of their own.

 

[kepha1]

The reason the Church Fathers proved the inspiration of the Holy Books apart from the loads of uninspired books was this: so they could know for sure what would be legitimately read during Mass. Non-Catholic Christians have lost the original perspective on how and why we have a Bible in the first place.

Second, the Bible comes to us from Tradition. They are complimentary and inseparable. They are both expressions of Divine Revelation, and just because one mode of transmission is different from the other does not make one inferior over the other. When you take the Bible out of the Catholic Church from whence it came, it’s no longer an inspired book. History has proven this to be so. Oh, anyone can be inspired reading it, but that is not a license to give definitive interpretations of it.

The Gospel message was entrusted to the Apostles (and their ordained successors) to teach, and only to them. THAT IS IN THE BIBLE. Nowhere in the Bible is the Gospel message entrusted to each individual believer. And nowhere in the Bible is the Gospel message confined to the Written Word.

Nowhere in the Bible are their instructions that it would be read by Christians 2000 years later. Nowhere in the Bible does it make any claim to carry all that the Apostles taught. Nowhere in the Bible are their instructions as to how to deal with Arianism, Nestorianism, Monosyphitism, Monothelitism, Donatists, and a legion of heresies that would attack the Church. Yet oddly enough, it isn’t hard to prove these very heresies threaded in the doctrines of many “evangelical-bible only” churches or groups, each claiming to have the right interpretation.
Another irony is St. Anasthasius, whose name appears in most Protestant confessions of faith, tells us the Arians were the first to practice sola scriptura.

I maintain that the Bible was hijacked from the Church by so called reformers, as their followers are unable to give a date when they closed their canon of their bible, and have disassociated the Bible from the Church that they took it from.

Betty Crocker tries and proves recipes to make a cook book. If I follow recipes according to her instructions, chances are I can make a pretty good dish. Lets say I don’t care to follow the glossary, terms long held by cooks and explained apart from the recipe itself, and tear it out of the book. Suppose I bake instead of boil, blanche instead of fry, or mince instead of cube. Or maybe I am inspired to cook all the ingredients separately and then put them together. I am not likely to arrive at the desired results.

This is what sola scriptura has done. It has thrown out the glossary, declared Betty Crocker to be a lousy cook, has isolated the ingredients, and says the cook book belongs everywhere but the kitchen.

Then they say you can live on symbols.

kepha1

 

[Benadam]

Holy Scripture is written by, and documents the one Church that has always offered the world the light of the Gospel. In whatever form the People of God existed and whatever the means that was theirs to offer the world the revelation of God’s Salvation they did. From Adam to the present the Church was and is the People of God and the People of God are the Church.
Holy Scripture documents their story and it’s meaning can only be purely understood by them.
The Church made the Word of God visible in part untill the Word of God Himself became visible and in Himself made the Church visible. " Now has the Son of Man been glorified, and in him God has been glorified. If God has been glorified in him, God will in turn glorify him in himself"

 

[Benadam]

michaelp:

Eat and drink of Christ body and blood is sybolic for belief. When we take the bread and wine, we are sybolically making Christ a part of us. He becomes who we are. This only happens to the degree that we believe in Him.
Michael

It’s a mistake to attach the power to impart likeness to a persons ascent to believe. Satan stands on that summit. Would Christ become a part of him too just because he believes ?

I know it sounds unfathonable to you, but there is an evil that can believe the Son of God and still hate Him.

 

[michaelp]

Benadam:

It’s a mistake to attach the power to impart likeness to a persons ascent to believe. Satan stands on that summit. Would Christ become a part of him too just because he believes ?

I know it sounds unfathonable to you, but there is an evil that can believe the Son of God and still hate Him.

There is a major difference between the salvation offered to man by the second Adam Christ through our belief and the belief of Satan and the demons who do not have a redeemer. Man not only believes intellectually, but also trusts in Christ. Sure the demons believe intellectually and this does not save them. If humans were to believe intellectually, this would not save them either. Demons don’t have the option to place their faith in Christ for it wouldn’t do them any good since Christ did not come in the form of demons to represent demons.

Therefore, there is a difference in both the type of belief and the nature of Christ that makes demons unable to be saved by Christ.

In other words, your parallel between demons and Christ is theologically misplaced.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

dcdurel:

This is not correct.
As Dave Armstrong writes:

1. Various Fathers (such as Origen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Ambrose) were wrong in their explication of the “ransom to the devil” theory (the Catholic Church does not assert that individual Fathers are infallible). However, this state of affairs was not as unanimous as some Protestant polemicists would have us believe. As clearly stated by the non-Catholic historians above, many Fathers either rejected the “ransom theory” or held implicit or explicit elements of the later more fully-developed “satisfaction” theology of St. Anselm (e.g., St. Clement, St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenæus, St. Athanasius, St. Gregory Nazianzus, St. Hilary of Poitiers, St. John Chrysostom, Ambrosiaster, and St. Augustine).
2. This matter of theology was not defined dogmatically by the Catholic Church until the Middle Ages, so this cannot be a matter of official Church teaching changing, or a disproof of conciliar or papal infallibility. The early Church was much more concerned with trinitarian and incarnational Christology, because that is where the attacks of the heretics were concentrated.

For a lot more on this subject in which he quotes non-Catholic theologians, see his web site:

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ348.HTM

For a believe of the Church fathers to be held as apostolic, therefore Church teaching, we must find out the following
Did they say that this teaching had come down from the apostles? Did they say this teaching was one that “we have always held”? Did they say this teaching was apostolic Tradition? Did they say this teaching was what the Church has always taught? In other words, in some way did they imply that this teaching was from the apostles, or the Church, or was part of Sacred Tradition, apostolic Tradition, etc. Or, did All Church fathers hold to a theory. In that case it must be apostolic Tradition.

Remember, apostolic Tradition is not necessarily what the Fathers believed, but what they held as coming from the apostles. Since none of them held this theory was apostolic, or part of Church teaching, then it cannot be held as Church teaching. The Church did not define on this until later in the middle ages.

So again, Church teaching has never changed, it only develops and becomes more extensive, never contradicting the original message.

I am not coming at this as a Protestant Polemicist as if I am doing this to make a case for Protestantism. The fact of the case is that most all of Church history prior to Anselm held to some form of the Ransom to Satan theory. I do agree that there were seeds of the satisfation and substitution theories, but there are seed of all true doctine throughout the Church.

My basic point is still the same if you back up and look at it. Church history has not been as united as you seem to require an some MAJOR issues.

There are many more.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Never once, in 2000 years, has the Church contradicted her teaching. This is only possible by divine guidance. Irenaeus and Augustine are not the teaching authority of the Church but rather individuals within the Church. They can, and have, erred. The standard against which their understandings must be measured for accuracy IS the teaching authority of the Church.

This would be easy to say if you just pick and choose after the fact what is part of Catholic history. I am sorry, there is no way for me to believe this and retain intellectual honest. Some Baptist do the same with their trail of blood. I don’t buy it.

 

[michaelp]

dcdurel:

Jesus clearly required that we believe what the Church teaches under penalty of condemnation.

------------- Mark 16:15 -------------
15 And he said to them, “Go into
all the world and preach the gospel
to the whole creation.
16 He who believes and is baptized
will be saved; but he who does not
believe will be condemned.
17 And these signs will accompany
those who believe: in my name they
will cast out demons; they will speak
in new tongues;
18 they will pick up serpents, and
if they drink any deadly thing, it
will not hurt them; they will lay
their hands on the sick, and they
will recover.”

Notice verses 17 and 18 don’t refer to those who “preach” the Gospel, “but those who believe” the preachers of the Gospel
In other words, they don’t refer to the leaders of the Church, but the followers of the Church. They are not a sign of authority, but a sign of those who believe.

Thus, they are a sign of those who believe, for only believers will pray and ask God for these miracles. Unbelievers don’t pray, thus don’t ask God for miracles, thus they can’t do these signs.

And since even Protestants believe in God, God will work miracles for them also, even if they have been misled and don’t know the true Gospel. For Jesus works with what people already believe. He would never refuse to work a miracle for those who don’t hold the true faith, simply because they were never taught the truth or had been misled through no fault of their own.

My friend, no one believes this passage to be original except KJV only advocates. There are alot more problems with this passage than just its theology. It is not in any major manuscript before the 4th century.

 

[michaelp]

The reason the Church Fathers proved the inspiration of the Holy Books apart from the loads of uninspired books was this: so they could know for sure what would be legitimately read during Mass.

Non-Catholic Christians have lost the original perspective on how and why we have a Bible in the first place.
Second, the Bible comes to us from Tradition. They are complimentary and inseparable. They are both expressions of Divine Revelation, and just because one mode of transmission is different from the other does not make one inferior over the other. When you take the Bible out of the Catholic Church from whence it came, it’s no longer an inspired book. History has proven this to be so. Oh, anyone can be inspired reading it, but that is not a license to give definitive interpretations of it.

The Gospel message was entrusted to the Apostles (and their ordained successors) to teach, and only to them. THAT IS IN THE BIBLE. Nowhere in the Bible is the Gospel message entrusted to each individual believer. And nowhere in the Bible is the Gospel message confined to the Written Word.

Nowhere in the Bible are their instructions that it would be read by Christians 2000 years later. Nowhere in the Bible does it make any claim to carry all that the Apostles taught. Nowhere in the Bible are their instructions as to how to deal with Arianism, Nestorianism, Monosyphitism, Monothelitism, Donatists, and a legion of heresies that would attack the Church. Yet oddly enough, it isn’t hard to prove these very heresies threaded in the doctrines of many “evangelical-bible only” churches or groups, each claiming to have the right interpretation.
Another irony is St. Anasthasius, whose name appears in most Protestant confessions of faith, tells us the Arians were the first to practice sola scriptura.

I maintain that the Bible was hijacked from the Church by so called reformers, as their followers are unable to give a date when they closed their canon of their bible, and have disassociated the Bible from the Church that they took it from.

I respect you right to believe this. But I already know that you think this way. The question is not can you make statements of belief, but can you substantiate them in any way. This has not been done thus far to my satisfaction. I have seen no reason to believe that the apostles passed on their authority nor that anyone can or has spoken infallibly for God since the apostles.

All the issues that divide us come down to the weight of evidence and faith. I don’t see much weight of evidence for this issues, so I am not willing to take a leap of faith as you have done.

This is what sola scriptura has done. It has thrown out the glossary, declared Betty Crocker to be a lousy cook, has isolated the ingredients, and says the cook book belongs everywhere but the kitchen.

According to your paradigm and the way you see things, yes. But not from mine. I see no reason to say that the Bible came from the Catholic Church as an institution and I see no necessity for an infallibly pronounced canon.

Thanks again,

Michael

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

michaelp:

My basic point is still the same if you back up and look at it. Church history has not been as united as you seem to require an some MAJOR issues.

There are many more.

Michael

Hi Michael!

No Catholic here has claimed that Church history is united. You alone keep returning there. What has been claimed is that what has been definitively proposed for belief has never changed. You keep mistakenly understanding that to mean a unanymous consent by each and every individual believer throughout history. You also point to beliefs held by individuals on matters that had not yet been definitively defined by the Church.

If you believe that the Church has contradicted herself what you’ll need to do is point out contradictions in official doctrine, not contradictions in opinions of individual believers.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Dismas2004]

michaelp:

Who translated them? The Magisterium or common scholars. Check and see. If it was common scholars, what gives them the right to translate it, since you know, having taking Greek, that all translation requires interpretation.

Michael;

On vacation still, but Thoguht I would finally respond. I’m going to start another thread on this very topic so as to not interupt this current discussion. Hope you’ll join me there. And anyone else who wishes to as well.

I want to discuss this before we cover some of the other issues you and I were discussing, if that’s OK with you. See new thread titled Biblical Translation. How do they do it? See you there.

 

[kepha1]

I respect you right to believe this. But I already know that you think this way.

What I think or believe is irrelevant. Hard facts, Micheal. That’s relevant.

The question is not can you make statements of belief, but can you substantiate them in any way. This has not been done thus far to my satisfaction. I have seen no reason to believe that the apostles passed on their authority nor that anyone can or has spoken infallibly for God since the apostles.

I can substantiate everything I said in my post with the hard facts of history, including Protestant sources, encyclopedias, Church Fathers, councils, all of which you choose to deny, so what is the point of any discussion with you?

The Apostle passed on their authority starting with Matthias. Then:

Paul, Silvanus [Silas], and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians… we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel." (1 Thess. 1:1, 2:4)

“O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you.” (1 Tim. 6:20)

“…guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.” (2 Tim. 1:14)

Then you will argue that Timothy was not an apostle:

“Paul, Silvanus [Silas], and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians… nor did we seek glory from men, whether from you or from others, though we might have made demands as apostles of Christ.” (1 Thess. 1:1, 2:6)

I have seen no reason to believe that the apostles passed on their authority.

Now, Michael, what “substantiative claim” can you make to support this statement?

I have seen no reason to believe that the apostles passed on their authority nor that anyone can or has spoken infallibly for God since the apostles.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses say the same thing. What evidence will you accept? How do you explain away the hard historical evidence that Clement, was universally recognized and accepted as the 4rth Pope while the Apostle John was still alive? If you want the references, just ask. But reformists/evangelicals don’t like Church Fathers, they dismiss them as “uninspired” because none of the CF were reformists/evangelicals, and are threatened by the hard facts of historical Christianity that the CF portray. They were Catholics, not reformist/evangelicals. BTW, the names Linus, and Clement, later to take the Chair of Peter are found in the Book of Acts. Yet you will say there is no evidence of succession of the Chair of Peter.

 

[kepha1]

Protestants will point to the fact that some of the Church Fathers were not in total agreement, therefore the Church cannot be right. His is both a red herring and non-sequitur argument. It amounts to a projection of the Protestant paradigm onto Catholicism, for in Protestantism, whenever there is disagreement, there is division. This is not the case with Catholicism. It is by theological disagreement, within rather broad parameters, that the Church continues to develop. Some dissenting Church Fathers were even canonized as saints, because they had not rebelled against non-existing proclamations. Protestants cannot accept this because they do not understand it.

The Catholic Church does not “pick and choose” who sounds good and who doesn’t. She is superintended by the Holy Spirit to find the truth. To say otherwise is to give credit to man for the fact that she still exists. Protestants like to give us this compliment we wouldn’t dare give ourselves.

The Catholic Church is modeled after the Old Davidic Kingdom, not General Motors or AT&T.

Furthermore, an office has successors, or it’s not an office. Even the King James calls the office of bishop an office. There are reasons why each and every detail of Church events are not recorded in history. For one, it was 2000 years ago, and many documents did not survive the ravages of time. For another, the Apostles and Primary Apostle (the term “Pope” had not yet been used, but the office was well in place) were under constant threat for their lives, so written names are scarce. Yet Michael, you demand evidence like it happened yesterday. Use your common sense. The first 30 Popes were martyred. Think about it.

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry…For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).
“For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ off God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as…Anencletus and Clement to Peter?” Ignatius, To the Trallians, 7 (A.D. 110).
More at scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html

All the issues that divide us come down to the weight of evidence and faith. I don’t see much weight of evidence for this issues, so I am not willing to take a leap of faith as you have done.

Like I said. What evidence will you accept, other than the sand of reformist polemics and rhetoric? Don’t confuse blind faith with reason and common sense. Catholic faith appeals to reason, not conjecture, emotionalism or subjectivity. That sir, I am prepared to elaborate further. Just ask.

kepha1

 

[Benadam]

michaelp:

There is a major difference between the salvation offered to man by the second Adam Christ through our belief and the belief of Satan and the demons who do not have a redeemer. Man not only believes intellectually, but also trusts in Christ. Sure the demons believe intellectually and this does not save them. If humans were to believe intellectually, this would not save them either. Demons don’t have the option to place their faith in Christ for it wouldn’t do them any good since Christ did not come in the form of demons to represent demons.

Therefore, there is a difference in both the type of belief and the nature of Christ that makes demons unable to be saved by Christ.

In other words, your parallel between demons and Christ is theologically misplaced.

I agree that since demons are pure intellect their experience of believing is different than humans.They of course wouldn’t require faith since they possess the full revelation of God. This distinction changes culpability of the act but not the act it’self. Believing is the act of belief, or to believe.

** The distinctions you mentioned are due to the differing states of consciousness humans and spirits experience. The act of believing is the same, the process leading to it and the consequences that follow are what is different.**

** I can see how that could make one think that the act of believing is different. If it were different it would be an act with a different term attached to it.**

I’m thinking after reading your view on spirits that you see them as not being able to experience trust, do you believe that is an experience exclusive to humans? What is the difference in the acts of believing that fallen angels experience compared to the HolyAngels?
Michael

 

[Benadam]

michaelp:

I respect you right to believe this. But I already know that you think this way. The question is not can you make statements of belief, but can you substantiate them in any way. This has not been done thus far to my satisfaction. I have seen no reason to believe that the apostles passed on their authority nor that anyone can or has spoken infallibly for God since the apostles.

All the issues that divide us come down to the weight of evidence and faith. I don’t see much weight of evidence for this issues, so I am not willing to take a leap of faith as you have done.

According to your paradigm and the way you see things, yes. But not from mine. I see no reason to say that the Bible came from the Catholic Church as an institution and I see no necessity for an infallibly pronounced canon.

Thanks again,

Michael

I was going to post a question to michael, but he’s kinda surrounded here… so I think I’ll start a new thread too. The question will concern revelation and be a comparison between revelation with infallibility vs revelation that’s fallible.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif

 

[michaelp]

Like I said. What evidence will you accept, other than the sand of reformist polemics and rhetoric? Don’t confuse blind faith with reason and common sense. Catholic faith appeals to reason, not conjecture, emotionalism or subjectivity.

That sir, I am prepared to elaborate further. Just ask.

I think that in response to your last post here and the last question will sum it all up.

What evidence will I accept? 1. Some clear biblical evidence. Or 2. the Pope show the signs that accompany one who speaks for God (Deut 13, 18 and 2 Cor 2:12). As this thread has shown, there is neither. This is God’s requirement, not mine. I use the same arguement to Charismatics who claim to be spokesmen for God.

The evidence that you have presented is very weak.

You ask me to produce evidence to the contrary, besides that presented above, but the burden of proof is not on me, it is on the one who claims that apostolic succession is true. It is not true until proven guilty.

You have to understand. You are asking me to believe that God wants me to submit to an institution because that institution has people who speak for God through apostolic succession. There are SO MANY people who have claimed to speak for God throughout history. God set up guidlines for anyone who claimed to speak on His behalf. Violting these guidlines in breaking the commandment not to take the Lord’s name in vain.

All the biblical evidence shown so far must be read into the text. No one who did not already believe the system would read what you read into the text that you offer as “proof text.”

All the historical evidence boils down to a picking and choosing of what the RC church says is dogma or docrine after the fact. I could do this myself, but it does not substantiate anything. Even if there was complete unity throughout all of Church history on every doctrine does not say anything about apostolic succession to me. It just shows that God was working with his people.

All I am arguing here is very reasonable. It is not if I dropped in from Mars. That is the good thing about not being Catholic. I don’t have to start with assumptions and read back into history and Scripture. I don’t have to identify with any traditions. I just identify with the invisible body of Christ and the local chuch. Therefore, I can approach this much more unbiasedly than others. I know that others have come to different conclusions when they have started at the same place as I. But there are alot of smart people who just don’t agree and think that all of your arguments for apostolic succession are question begging.

Anyway, I hope you see that it is not as easy as you think. Most of the evidence goes against what you claim from my perspective.

Thanks for you kindness though,

Michael

 

[michaelp]

\

Furthermore, an office has successors, or it’s not an office. Even the King James calls the office of bishop an office. There are reasons why each and every detail of Church events are not recorded in history. For one, it was 2000 years ago, and many documents did not survive the ravages of time. For another, the Apostles and Primary Apostle (the term “Pope” had not yet been used, but the office was well in place) were under constant threat for their lives, so written names are scarce. Yet Michael, you demand evidence like it happened yesterday. Use your common sense. The first 30 Popes were martyred. Think about it.

You need to ask yourself this question. Why doesn’t the Bible have one explicit teaching about the succession of the apostles and apostolic infalliblity either by way of illustration (that goes beyond the general laying of of hands) or exposition? If it were that important you would think it would find its way in somewhere. But you will of course respond with “The Bible doesn’t have to, Tradition does.” But of course I will respond with “that is begging the question. Tradition does not have any inherent authority and it is not justified to believe that it is infallible.” And we go on and on. . . .

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.

…For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).

But you see, this quote proves my point. He says nothing about the passing on of infalliblity. I don’t see how this quote relates to infalliblity. And the very fact that he does not mentions such an important concept, shows that he did not have any concept of it here.

**

“For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ off God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as…Anencletus and Clement to Peter?”

Ignatius, To the Trallians, 7 (A.D. 110).

In context, I have no problem with this. This does not say that the apostles passed on infallibility. Such an important concept should be explicitly dealt with in Scripture. But as you are showing, it is not even dealt with concerning the church fathers.

Michael