Where is the spoken word?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MariaG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
SPOKENWORD:
Its very possible that those who think they are hearing from the Holy Spirit are in error…Satan shows up as an angel of light and sometimes its his spirit.Thats why we need to test it to see if its from God. 👍
How is that done?

Justin
 
40.png
1962Missal:
How is that done?

Justin
Your are asking how the great deciever shows up as angel of light. Just look all around in this world and see his evil works. :confused:
 
rod of iron:
Surely an event like Peter passing on authority to a successor would have been written down by someone who witnessed the event.
That is, as you would say, speculation.
You claim that Timothy was not an apostle. But yet you want me to believe that Paul passed on his apostleship to Timothy, and that Timothy became a bishop, not an apostle. A bishop succeeding an apostle is the same as an orange tree growing from the seed of an apple. The offices of apostle and bishop are as different as apples and oranges, yet both offices are part of the priesthood just like apples and oranges are types of fruit.
The nature of the Episcopacy in the early Church is worth a thread in its own right. Why don’t you start one?
Jesus never instituted the office of bishop, as far as I can see in the Bible.
Many distinctively Christian beliefs are to be found, not in the Gospels, but in the Epistles. Does that invalidate them? Do you claim that those things which the Apostles taught are not to be derived, ultimately, from Christ?
If Paul passed authority on to Timothy, yet Timothy did not become an apostle, no apostolic succession exists through Paul.
That would be true if the Apostolic office could only be passed on in its totality. The Catholic position is that the Apostle’s authority to pass on and teach Sacred Tradition was passed on to their successors, but not the fullness of the Apostolic office, especially the charism to deliver new general revelation. The Catholic position, BTW, is the position to be found in the writings of the early Church.
I still say that if this “spoken word” was important enough to be remembered, it was important enough to be written down somewhere so that it would never be forgotten.
That is entirely consistent with the modern prejudice that everything be “put in writing”. However, that is scarcely a universal human attitude. Remember that the Abrahamic covenant made it from Abraham to Moses before being written down. How many centuries was that?

And remember, too, that the bulk of the oral Tradition was written down, just not immediately.

Justin
 
40.png
SPOKENWORD:
Your are asking how the great deciever shows up as angel of light. Just look all around in this world and see his evil works. :confused:
No, I am asking how one tests a message to see if it is from God.

Justin
 
40.png
1962Missal:
No. I cannot. But I will not admit it as given that only eyewitness testimony is acceptable evidence. In fact, I ask you why you seem to take it as axiomatic that such evidence is absolutely necessary. To me, the writers quoted above, while not eyewitnesses, are trustworthy witnesses, nonetheless.
How can they be trustworthy witnesses when their testimonies are based on hearsay? They are only stating what they have been told by men before them. That does not make them trustworthy witnesses. Just try to win a court case with witnesses that testify based on hearsay. They will all be disregarded.
 
40.png
1962Missal:
No, I am asking how one tests a message to see if it is from God.

Justin
What does scripture say about testing the spirit? You answer me. :confused:
 
40.png
SPOKENWORD:
What does scripture say about testing the spirit? You answer me. :confused:
1 John 4:1-3"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."

Have you ever asked the spirit you listen to, if Jesus is come in the flesh? If so, what answer did that spirit give you?
 
rod of iron said:
1 John 4:1-3"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."

Have you ever asked the spirit you listen to, if Jesus is come in the flesh? If so, what answer did that spirit give you?

Rod of Iron, Thank you for my confirmation. I was testing the spirit. :thumbsup:p/s I do believe Justin would have said the same. I know he was testing me. 😃
 
rod of iron:
How can they be trustworthy witnesses when their testimonies are based on hearsay? They are only stating what they have been told by men before them. That does not make them trustworthy witnesses. Just try to win a court case with witnesses that testify based on hearsay. They will all be disregarded.
In that case Mark cannot be a trustworty witness to the life of Jesus, because he was not an eyewitness. His writing is hearsay that he got from Peter.

Justin
 
We’ll have to throw out the Gopsel according to St. Luke. He got his hearsay from St. Paul. Who, come to think of it, got it from St. Peter, too.

We’ll have to throw out Genesis. Moses didn’t wasn’t an eyewitness to any of that stuff.

You know, if I follow your logic all the way, I might just wind up with out any faith, at all.

Justin
 
rod of iron said:
1 John 4:1-3"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."

Have you ever asked the spirit you listen to, if Jesus is come in the flesh? If so, what answer did that spirit give you?

So lets imagine two hypothetical, God-fearing, Bible-believing, faith-filled men. One discerns the Spirit as teaching that Jesus is the second Person of the Blessed Trinity. The other discerns that Jesus is a secondary, inferior God, begotten of the Heavenly father but not consubstantial with Him. How do you explain that they both have “tested the Spirit” and arrived at two irreconcilable “truths”?

Now, if the first is right, then they are both bound by the First Commandment to offer Jesus the supreme worship of adoration that is due to God alone.

If the second is right, then they are both forbidden by the First Commandment from offering Jesus the supreme worship of adoration that is due to God alone.

Quite a dilemma. How is it resolved?

Justin
 
40.png
1962Missal:
So lets imagine two hypothetical, God-fearing, Bible-believing, faith-filled men. One discerns the Spirit as teaching that Jesus is the second Person of the Blessed Trinity. The other discerns that Jesus is a secondary, inferior God, begotten of the Heavenly father but not consubstantial with Him. How do you explain that they both have “tested the Spirit” and arrived at two irreconcilable “truths”?

Now, if the first is right, then they are both bound by the First Commandment to offer Jesus the supreme worship of adoration that is due to God alone.

If the second is right, then they are both forbidden by the First Commandment from offering Jesus the supreme worship of adoration that is due to God alone.

Quite a dilemma. How is it resolved?

Justin
So you want to play what If? Obviously one is right and one is wrong. In certain cases maybe both are right? Oh well :confused:
 
40.png
SPOKENWORD:
So you want to play what If? Obviously one is right and one is wrong. In certain cases maybe both are right? Oh well :confused:
If the truth is objective, then in this case only one can be right. The two beliefs are irreconcilable. And this isn’t playing “what if”.
  1. This controversy almost ripped the Church (and the civilized world) apart in the fourth century.
  2. This is precisely the disagreement that separates an Evangelical (or Catholic) Christian and, say, a LDS.
This isn’t about playing. Although I constructed the scenario as hypothetical, this is a very real question with very real consequences.

Both go by the Bible. Both love God. Both believe they have prayerfully discerned the Spirit. How can this be resolved?

Justin
 
40.png
1962Missal:
If the truth is objective, then in this case only one can be right. The two beliefs are irreconcilable. And this isn’t playing “what if”.
  1. This controversy almost ripped the Church (and the civilized world) apart in the fourth century.
  2. This is precisely the disagreement that separates an Evangelical (or Catholic) Christian and, say, a LDS.
This isn’t about playing. Although I constructed the scenario as hypothetical, this is a very real question with very real consequences.

Both go by the Bible. Both love God. Both believe they have prayerfully discerned the Spirit. How can this be resolved?

Justin
Like I said obviously one is not tuned into the Spirit. ok Ill play. If this situation came up and we could not come into an understanding or be in agreement I personally would bring this situation to the body of christ other mature christians] and ask for prayer that the Holy Spirit will reveal the Truth. Now if this doesnt work Ill call you Justin 😃 . I do have faith and trust in the Holy Spirit.
 
40.png
SPOKENWORD:
Like I said obviously one is not tuned into the Spirit. ok Ill play. If this situation came up and we could not come into an understanding or be in agreement I personally would bring this situation to the body of christ other mature christians] and ask for prayer that the Holy Spirit will reveal the Truth. Now if this doesnt work Ill call you Justin 😃 . I do have faith and trust in the Holy Spirit.
So from where would you select those mature Christians? Say twenty from the first person’s church and twenty from the second? Or would you choose just from those who already agree, one way or the other?

My guess is that if you gathered twenty members of the LDS and twenty Evangelicals together and asked them to pray over it then put it to a vote, you’d get the same disagreement. Or would you disqualify the LDS based on your prior opinion of their suitability?

Lets change it to a disagreement over Baptism. You’ve got twenty free-church Evangelicals and twenty Presbyterians together. What happens when they prayerfully discern the guidance of the Spirit and put it to a vote? My guess: twenty for believers Baptism and twenty for infant Baptism.

Now, in addition to the above, lets us imagine that these men are pastors of their respective churches. They are faith-filled men. They all love God and live prayerful lives. They know the Bible in Hebrew and Greek better than you or I ever will in English. Yet they cannot come to a conclusion using the Bible alone and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Although this scenario is hypothetical, it is quite representative of real life. Apparently discerning the Spirit does not lead to unity of belief or certainty that your belief is free from error. The response seems to be that when two or more are divided on anything, then that thing is written off as non-essential. How far does that go? There are those who will not even affirm the Trinity as a necessary belief because there is disagreement over it. There are those who take the phrase “personal Lord and Savior” and turn it into “personal Savior” because they cannot agree on whether having Jesus as “Lord” of one’s life contradicts their doctine of justification by faith alone.

The end result of it all is doctrinal relativism and minimalism. I am sorry, but Scripture alone and prayerful discernment doesn’t lead to truth or even agreement–unless you write off as “not really Christian” everyone who doesn’t agree with you on the grounds that if they really were Christian they’d see things the way you do.

As I said much earlier, this is why the Apostles left the spoken Word (sacred apostolic Tradition). So that the fullness of the truth can be known.

Justin
 
40.png
1962Missal:
So from where would you select those mature Christians? Say twenty from the first person’s church and twenty from the second? Or would you choose just from those who already agree, one way or the other?

My guess is that if you gathered twenty members of the LDS and twenty Evangelicals together and asked them to pray over it then put it to a vote, you’d get the same disagreement. Or would you disqualify the LDS based on your prior opinion of their suitability?

Lets change it to a disagreement over Baptism. You’ve got twenty free-church Evangelicals and twenty Presbyterians together. What happens when they prayerfully discern the guidance of the Spirit and put it to a vote? My guess: twenty for believers Baptism and twenty for infant Baptism.

Now, in addition to the above, lets us imagine that these men are pastors of their respective churches. They are faith-filled men. They all love God and live prayerful lives. They know the Bible in Hebrew and Greek better than you or I ever will in English. Yet they cannot come to a conclusion using the Bible alone and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Although this scenario is hypothetical, it is quite representative of real life. Apparently discerning the Spirit does not lead to unity of belief or certainty that your belief is free from error. The response seems to be that when two or more are divided on anything, then that thing is written off as non-essential. How far does that go? There are those who will not even affirm the Trinity as a necessary belief because there is disagreement over it. There are those who take the phrase “personal Lord and Savior” and turn it into “personal Savior” because they cannot agree on whether having Jesus as “Lord” of one’s life contradicts their doctine of justification by faith alone.

The end result of it all is doctrinal relativism and minimalism. I am sorry, but Scripture alone and prayerful discernment doesn’t lead to truth or even agreement–unless you write off as “not really Christian” everyone who doesn’t agree with you on the grounds that if they really were Christian they’d see things the way you do.

As I said much earlier, this is why the Apostles left the spoken Word (sacred apostolic Tradition). So that the fullness of the truth can be known.

Justin
Like I said Justin if that didnt work I would call you. We then could proceed over to you church and find 40 mature christians. 😃 P/s Where two or more are gathered in prayer I am there in their midst.I guess two or three would work?
 
40.png
SPOKENWORD:
Like I said Justin if that didnt work I would call you. We then could proceed over to you church and find 40 mature christians. 😃 P/s Where two or more are gathered in prayer I am there in their midst.I guess two or three would work?
Let say that we haven’t been able to come to a conclusion by using Scripture and prayerful discernment and you’ve now come to me for my advice. I’d say that we can look at it rather like the problem faced by a judge when two interpretations of law are presented to him by two lawyers. When a judge needs to decide which of two conflicting interpretations of a law (the Bible, in this metaphor) is correct, he goes to the case books (the writings of the early Church fathers, to continue our metaphor) to see what the earliest recorded decisions involving that law say. The earliest rulings decide which way the judge judges. So when you come to me for my help, we’d turn to the writings of the ECF’s.

Justin
 
40.png
1962Missal:
Let say that we haven’t been able to come to a conclusion by using Scripture and prayerful discernment and you’ve now come to me for my advice. I’d say that we can look at it rather like the problem faced by a judge when two interpretations of law are presented to him by two lawyers. When a judge needs to decide which of two conflicting interpretations of a law (the Bible, in this metaphor) is correct, he goes to the case books (the writings of the early Church fathers, to continue our metaphor) to see what the earliest recorded decisions involving that law say. The earliest rulings decide which way the judge judges. So when you come to me for my help, we’d turn to the writings of the ECF’s.

Justin
So you would turn to the early christian fathers, like they didnt have there own problems. No early church had it all together. The same applies today no church has it all together. What early church do you want to look at ?Galatians,Ephesians,Thessalonians,Philipians.Colossians. :confused:
 
40.png
SPOKENWORD:
So you would turn to the early christian fathers, like they didnt have there own problems. No early church had it all together. The same applies today no church has it all together. What early church do you want to look at ?Galatians,Ephesians,Thessalonians,Philipians.Colossians. :confused:
Whatever ones provide us with sub-Apostolic Chistian writers whose writings survive. I’m more interested in the list of writers than from where they come. Examples:

Clement of Rome, Mathetes, Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hermas, Tatian, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Hippolytus; Cyprian; Caius; Novatian, Gregory Thaumaturgus; Dinysius the Great; Julius Africanus; Anatolius, Methodius; Arnobius, Lactantius, Venantius, Asterius, Victorinus, Dionysius.

All Christians of the age of the Martyrs. All with extant writings.

We are dealing with the case books (post-Apotolic writings) not the law, itelf (the Bible), remember?

Justin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top