D
Dokimas
Guest
If The Bible is God’s Word and one of the responsibilities of the Holy Spirit is to help us to understand, the Bible contains God’s opinion and the Holy Spirit helps us understand it.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
and how is this understanding so different from one another in your religion? if they claim the same as you?If The Bible is God’s Word and one of the responsibilities of the Holy Spirit is to help us to understand, the Bible contains God’s opinion and the Holy Spirit helps us understand it.
I
ignatius777
Guest
You are absolutely correct on all counts. Why wouldnt the church kick out a heretic? Wouldnt any protestant church do the same thing if the individual refused to recant a statement? If a protestant pastor said works must accompany faith for salvation would he be asked to leave? The answer is “Yes”. Luther didnt want to start a new church but that was the effect of his refusal to recant wasnt it?Correct me if I’m wrong but Luther did not want to start an new church nor did he. In my reading I never saw that Luther wanted to leave the CC. In fact wasn’t the CC that kicked him out?
He disagreed with some of the practices which, if i’m not mistaken, the CC have changed some of the practices he was against.
Yes the church has changed practices and rightly so. But reinterpreting scripture as he did is much more then a “change of practice”.
D
Dokimas
Guest
You claim the CC has the correct understandings from the Holy Spirit, correct?and how is this understanding so different from one another in your religion? if they claim the same as you?
There are protestant groups that like the CC think they are 100% accurate. I would disagree with them as I do the CC’s teaching of infallibity.
IMO, Jesus will lead as He does and we will follow. His leading is perfect; our following falls short. Jesus is far bigger than our failures for which I, for one, am thankful.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
So, you dissagree that there is but One Truth?You claim the CC has the correct understandings from the Holy Spirit, correct?
There are protestant groups that like the CC think they are 100% accurate. I would disagree with them as I do the CC’s teaching of infallibity.
IMO, Jesus will lead as He does and we will follow. His leading is perfect; our following falls short. Jesus is far bigger than our failures for which I, for one, am thankful.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Was Luther partly correct if the CC changed some practices he protested against?You are absolutely correct on all counts. Why wouldnt the church kick out a heretic? Wouldnt any protestant church do the same thing if the individual refused to recant a statement? If a protestant pastor said works must accompany faith for salvation would he be asked to leave? The answer is “Yes”. Luther didnt want to start a new church but that was the effect of his refusal to recant wasnt it?
Yes the church has changed practices and rightly so. But reinterpreting scripture as he did is much more then a “change of practice”.
You must be speaking about Luther’s understanding of justification by faith that is heretical. Have you ever looked at the ‘works’ that Luther was against for justification? I’m sure Luther understood that faith in Jesus results in correct living and obedience to Him. I’m also sure that Luther saw correct living and obedience to Jesus as works. Maybe Luther disagrees with the CC as to what those resulting works are? I would tend to agree with Luther.
D
Dokimas
Guest
No. I agree that only One understands the One Truth perfectly here on earth and that is God. NO church has the corner on that Truth, IMO, not my church, not me, not you not your church.So, you dissagree that there is but One Truth?
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
So, you dont know the Truth?No. I agree that only One understands the One Truth perfectly here on earth and that is God. NO church has the corner on that Truth, IMO, not my church, not me, not you not your church.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Culliton
(In this case the “manipulation” was orchestrated by removing key words that by there absence strengthened his position.)
Yeah look at how he left the entire thread when I asked him to prove to me Catholic apologists have tampered with primary sources? He did the same when I asked him numerous times why he accepts the doctrine for the canon of scripture,since not one Apostle mentions it? His rebuttal? A weak website which failed to answer my question to him.Faithful to what? Answer that and you could make a new agruement.At time of this writing just what did the faithful believe? Did not the author of this letter in question beleive the same as modern day Catholics?
Now his empirical evidence Catholics tamper with primary sources? His rebuttal? His dialogue with Steve B? LOL! Brian is nothing but an anti-Catholic who has the slighest clue about primary sources or if they have been truly tampered with. He makes absurd charges which he cannot back up with empirical evidence. Brian is all talk and nothing more.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
well, he is just doing what they all believe, each person is his own authority. so, since he thinks he is an authority in Scriptures, he expect us to take his word for it.Yeah look at how he left the entire thread when I asked him to prove to me Catholic apologists have tampered with primary sources? He did the same when I asked him numerous times why he accepts the doctrine for the canon of scripture,since not one Apostle mentions it? His rebuttal? A weak website which failed to answer my question to him.
Now his empirical evidence Catholics tamper with primary sources? His rebuttal? His dialogue with Steve B? LOL! Brian is nothing but an anti-Catholic who has the slighest clue about primary sources or if they have been truly tampered with. He makes absurd charges which he cannot back up with empirical evidence. Brian is all talk and nothing more.
J
joe370
Guest
OK…private interpretation is a no - no. Got it.SS, to my understanding, does not give individuals the right to privately interpret the Bible,
Obediently following what the Bible teaches via whose interpretation??? It is not private interpretation by your own admission. When those who don’t follow Jesus, but wants to follow Jesus, are presented with 2 conflicting truths, doctrinally speaking, from you and me for example, to whom does he or she defer for guidance???but the responsibility to be obedient thus filled with the Spirit, then to study with the desire to rightly divide the Word of Truth, resulting in obediently following what the Bible teaches, which includes sharing it’s Truths with those who don’t follow Jesus.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Yeah look at how he left the entire thread when I asked him to prove to me Catholic apologists have tampered with primary sources? He did the same when I asked him numerous times why he accepts the doctrine for the canon of scripture,since not one Apostle mentions it? His rebuttal? A weak website which failed to answer my question to him.
Now his empirical evidence Catholics tamper with primary sources? His rebuttal? His dialogue with Steve B? LOL! Brian is nothing but an anti-Catholic who has the slighest clue about primary sources or if they have been truly tampered with. He makes absurd charges which he cannot back up with empirical evidence. Brian is all talk and nothing more.
Well unfortunately what he believes about primary sources is off by a mile. He refuses to listen to anyone else but himself. To accuse Catholic apologists of **tampering **with primary sources and state it is **common practice **is a very big accusation;hence I challenged him to show me the vast evidence? He provided squat other than his so-called ‘empirical’ evidence against Brian? Weak! All talk and nothing more.well, he is just doing what they all believe, each person is his own authority. so, since he thinks he is an authority in Scriptures, he expect us to take his word for it.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Ask Jesus. He’s the only One who truly knows my heart. He’s the only One who knows if I know Him or only believe I know Him.So, you dont know the Truth?
S
steve_b
Guest
Here’s Irenaeus quote AGAIN (ALL emphasis & comments are mine)Empirical evidence per your request.
Post 81:
“…every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority everywhere…” (SB)
**Post 91: **
"‘every Church should agree with this Church on account of its pre- eminent authority everywhere’
who is this Church specifically, and why does it have pre-eminent authority everywhere?" (SB)
And here is what he said later…"
Post #100:
“Here is the text I used. What Shaff had problems with SHOULD give him problems. It shows how obvious and clear Irenaeus was.
‘For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its **pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful **everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.’” (SB)
I accused Steve of removing the key words from the quote in post #105 and he responded in post #108 with, “Me thinks you protest too much.” I think that is an admittal.
So I ask you, did he or did he not manipulate the text?
(In this case the “manipulation” was orchestrated by removing key words that by there absence strengthened his position.)
"2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions ofall the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating thattradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; "
Are we agreed that of ALL the Churches, Irenaeus is making a distinction between THEM and the Church of Rome? And that what he is going to say next is regarding Rome and those united to her?
"as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. "
Is Irenaeus making another distinction between faithful men EVERYWHERE and unfaithful men everywhere? Yes. How does HE seperate them? Faithful men EVERYWHERE follow apostolic tradition Irenaeus laid out.(i.e. they agree with Rome) Unfaithful men EVERYWHERE, don’t. Bottomline, the Church of Rome has pre-eminent authority EVERYWHERE, because there are faithful men everywhere. But we already knew that because Peter had no restrictions put on him when Jesus gave him the keys and the commission to bind and loose, feed and rule Our Lord’s Church. Regarding the unfaithful men EVERYWHERE, they are the ones Irenaeus is writing against in “Against Heresies”
- The blessed apostles,
then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes
The traditions mentioned here by Irenaeus aren’t spelled out in scripture. Which makes this an example of apostolic teaching not specifically found in the bible. This happened 200+ years before the canon of scripture was established.
D
Dokimas
Guest
OK…private interpretation is a no - no. Got it.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
I am asking you.Ask Jesus. He’s the only One who truly knows my heart. He’s the only One who knows if I know Him or only believe I know Him.
I know that Jesus was here 2000 years ago and commanded His Church to go out into the world and teach men all Truth. His Church has the Truth. to her is His promise that the the Truth will be tought.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Why do you take the simple statement I made and conclude what you concluded?So, you dont know the Truth?
Did you miss the word, ‘perfectly’?
D
Dokimas
Guest
I don’t perfectly understand and know my heart. I don’t want to mis lead you. I’ll defer to Jesus.I am asking you.
I know that Jesus was here 2000 years ago and commanded His Church to go out into the world and teach men all Truth. His Church has the Truth. to her is His promise that the the Truth will be tought.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Steve,Here’s Irenaeus quote AGAIN (ALL emphasis & comments are mine)
"2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions ofall the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating thattradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; "
Are we agreed that of ALL the Churches, Irenaeus is making a distinction between THEM and the Church of Rome? And that what he is going to say next is regarding Rome and those united to her?
"as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. "
Is Irenaeus making another distinction between faithful men EVERYWHERE and unfaithful men everywhere? Yes. How does HE seperate them? Faithful men EVERYWHERE follow apostolic tradition Irenaeus laid out.(i.e. they agree with Rome) Unfaithful men EVERYWHERE, don’t. Bottomline, the Church of Rome has pre-eminent authority EVERYWHERE, because there are faithful men everywhere. But we already knew that because Peter had no restrictions put on him when Jesus gave him the keys and the commission to bind and loose, feed and rule Our Lord’s Church. Regarding the unfaithful men EVERYWHERE, they are the ones Irenaeus is writing against in “Against Heresies”
By naming 3 popes of Rome in succession, he makes sure everyone is clear on what Church he meant by “THIS CHURCH” that has pre-eminent authority…everywhere
- The blessed apostles,
then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes
The traditions mentioned here by Irenaeus aren’t spelled out in scripture. Which makes this an example of apostolic teaching not specifically found in the bible. This happened 200+ years before the canon of scripture was established.
Evidently Brian ignored everything you posted and your reference showing how the Protestant source had some flaws. I guess it was to much for him to accept. Look at how he bolted out of here when I asked him to show me his vast proof how Catholic apologists tamper with primary sources? He said it is common practice among Catholic apologits? Therefore, I challenged him on it and he provided nothing but a so-called empirical evidence against you? Weak!
S
steve_b
Guest
for non Catholics, Irenaeus gives them big problems.Steve,
Evidently Brian ignored everything you posted and your reference showing how the Protestant source had some flaws. I guess it was to much for him to accept. Look at how he bolted out of here when I asked him to show me his vast proof how Catholic apologists tamper with primary sources? He said it is common practice among Catholic apologits? Therefore, I challenged him on it and he provided nothing but a so-called empirical evidence against you? Weak!
"2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions ofall the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating thattradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul;as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. "
- Status
- Not open for further replies.