G
Ginger2
Guest
I have enjoyed dialogging with some of you and have even learned something from this thread. However, it’s time to say goodbye.
Ginger
Ginger
- Status
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
You have been here for about 4 years and close to 3,000 posts, so maybe sleep on it.
If I drove you off with some of my sharper posts, then I apologize.
J
joe370
Guest
B
benedictus2
Guest
I did not say He is not with us. You know exactly what I mean.Jesus isn’t around any longer!!!
Matthew 28:20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
Mark 13:11 “…do not worry beforehand about what you are going to say–simply say the words you are given when the time comes. For it is not really you who will speak, but the Holy Spirit.”
Can you please point out which one of the currently walking, talking person on this earth is the Second Person of the Trinity?
And if you could kindly ask him what he meant by the things he said in the Bible.
True but the giving of the Holy Spirit to all these others is not related to determining dogma. As a matter of fact, it seems they were given the Holy Spirit so that they can become members of the Catholic Church.
I agree with you. Jesus told us what is essential and here are some of them that you seem to be blind to:
He tells his disciples : Eat my Body and Drink my Blood.
He says to Simon: Thou art Rock and upon this rock I will build my church.
He tells them :Whose sins you forgive they are forgiven.
Now it seems you don’t think some of what Jesus says IS essential. So who are you kidding? Obviously yourself.
B
benedictus2
Guest
Bogus reasoning.
The German did not need the “alone”. Before Luther’s translation there was already a German translation and “alone” was not included.
Secondly, Luther included it because he wanted to make a point.
Thridly, it is not in the English translations becuase after he made the translation, others realized that he had made a humongus error adding to the word of God.
I don’t think the later German translations included it.
The whole argument is not moot because it proves intent and pride.
B
benedictus2
Guest
This is classic Ginger - exit when she has run out of arguments rather than accept that what she believes is most likely false.You have been here for about 4 years and close to 3,000 posts, so maybe sleep on it.
If I drove you off with some of my sharper posts, then I apologize.
She goes only so far and when proven wrong, she exits. This allows her to hold on to her erroneous view and pretend that all is well.
Hi Pablo, my friend,
If I may comment
Jon
If I may comment
We need to be clear that Luther did not translate the Bible until after his excommunication. His opinion of the canon, shared by others as history shows, was also not outside that which the Church permitted of its members. IOW, Luther was allowed to hold his opinions of the disputed books. And, like Jerome, he translated all of the western canon, and added the Prayer of Manassess.
Good point. You don’t have to reference Jerome or Eusebius or others. Luther’s opinion of the canon was permitted by the Church. I usually mention Cardinal Cajetan, a contemporary of Luther, when it is presented that Luther’s view was somehow an isolated aberration in history, a novelty started in the 1520’s by him and him alone.
Jon
In addition, “alone” does not appear in any English translation that I know of, which adds support to Luther’s position.
Jon
Hi lyrikal. Sorry for the late reply.
The confessions say nothing is on a plain with scripture. Scripture is the final norm. Now that said, things not specific to scripture can be authoritative. So for example, the confessions say about the three creeds: *“we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.” * Now that’s sounds pretty binding, and it is. As a Lutheran I am bound to the three creeds, whiich are part of Tradition. Holy Theotokos is doctrine within Lutheranism. I am bound to that teaching (which is also Tradition, coming from the early councils).
I actually believe neither. I believe the deuterocanon to be disputed, and in response to that, they should be included in the Bible, but not used to determine doctrine on its own.
IOW, not rejected, but because of the dispute about them, which is centuries older than Luther, not on the same plain as the protocanon.
And also with you,
Jon
There are countless more, but I think it’ll just get repetitive if I show them all.
Let me then pose a question to you. Since Oral Tradition is not written down (by definition), how do we trace the source to verify it is the teachings of the apostles? How do we know which oral Traditions are apostolic and which are not? Or perhaps I should say, how does the Magisterium know?
Blessings as always, Jon!Do you know if the Catholic/Lutheran dialogues have tackled this issue? I know they’ve tackled the Eucharist issue, but have they tackled this one? Do you believe there are differences between the two sides that need to be tackled as far as this issue goes?
Honestly, I do not know where the dialogues are on the subject of Scripture/Tradition, or it has been approached yet. Oh, to be a fly on the wall for that one.
Thanks and also with you,
Jon
E
Erich
Guest
Can those who do not have God’s approval be saved? Yes or no?
1 Cor 11:18-19 reads as follows: “*In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.” * So, there were divisions among the Corinthian congregation. And, these divisions were such that they helped to reveal who had God’s approval. Which means, on the flip side, that there were those among the Corinthian congregation who did not have God’s approval.
Belief in essential vs. non-essential doctrines is a sort of Rodney King Christianity: “Why can’t we all just get along?” In other words, as long as we believe in the “essentials,” it’s okay to disagree on the “non-essentials.” And, as long as we agree on the “essentials,” then we can have union with one another and we’re all saved. Problem is, who gets to decide what is an essential and what is a non-essential doctrine? And, since doctrines come from the Word of God, which part of the Word of God does one actually dare to call “non-essential?”
The notion that we can be in union with those we have doctrinal disagreements with…that there can be true unity among those with doctrinal differences…those with different versions of what is and is not truth…is a false notion. 1 Cor 11:18-19 shows that divisions among Christians - the Corinthians being written to by Paul were all members of the Church…they were all Christians - cannot simply be ignored by using a contrived theological system which divides doctrines into essential vs. non-essential. Differences among Christians are serious matters that lead to some being approved by God and some not being approved by God.
Those who believe in salvation by faith alone (Sola Fide), would say that as long as one has faith, it doesn’t matter what else they believe, they’re still saved. So, those who believe in different doctrines, as long as they all have faith, all get saved - all have God’s “approval.” Yet, we see here from 1 Cor 11:18-19, that there were Corinthians who had faith, but they obviously believed and did things that caused division in the congregation, and that these beliefs and/or actions resulted in some of them not receiving God’s approval. So, can you be saved if you do not have God’s approval? It doesn’t make any sense to me that God would say of anyone who was saved that they did not have His approval, would He?
If you answer “Yes” to the “Can those who do not have God’s approval be saved?” question at the beginning of this post, then you are basically saying that God’s approval or disapproval doesn’t really mean a thing. I mean, if you can be saved whether God approves of you or not, then why worry about His approval? If you answer “No” to the “Can those who do not have God’s approval be saved?” question, then you are admitting that doctrinal differences, differences that lead to divisions within Christian congregations, can get someone sent to Hell. Which means that differences in the beliefs of the various Christian faith traditons cannot simply be glossed over because they can, and do, have very serious eternal consequences.
E
Erich
Guest
I was hoping Ginger would answer these questions before she left the thread… I suspect she must have realized that she could not do so in a consistent manner.
If she had said “Yes,” then I would have asked why she doesn’t demand conformity from all of the Protestant denominations that teach differing doctrines? If she had said “No,” then I would have pointed out that the Bible says otherwise: Paul to Titus, speaking of those who are bishops, that they should “Give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it,” (Titus 1:9). “Teach what befits sound doctrine,” (Titus 2:1). “Guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit,” (2 Tim 1:14). “That you may charge certain persons not to teach ANY different doctrine,” (1 Tim 1:3) - no mention here that it’s okay to teach different doctrine, as long as it is “non-essential.” Conformity to doctrine is commanded in all of these instances by Paul. And we know that Paul is inspired by the Holy Spirit Who was sent by Jesus, so Jesus, as did the Apostles, does indeed demand conformity to the doctrines He taught.
Which begs the question, why do Protestants think it’s okay to not have doctrinal conformity amongst the various denominations? How can they think that the lack of doctrinal conformity could in any way be of God? When viewed in this light, it is clear that Jesus did not establish an invisible, abstract, spiritual church in which all believers, regardless of denomination, are members and that doctrine does not matter (or conflicting and contradictory doctrines are acceptable)!
J
joe370
Guest
Hey Jon…
Perhaps we can know which oral traditions are apostolic simply by asking the church that has existed since the apostlic age, and has, through the centuries, since that age, safeguarded and transferred apostolic tradition through every generation right up until now? Of course we all have to make our own judgment call as to whether the CC or the EOC has continued, since the 11th century, to safeguard, develop, when needed,* (as was the case with doctrines such as the Trinity, Filioque or the divinity and humanity of Christ, all of which are accepted by Protestants today)* - and transfer apostolic tradition with the aid of the holy spirit, in perpetuity. I understand that you believe that that is no longer attainable, at least until the east and west re-unite.
Perhaps, one day, those 2 lungs of the one church will re-unite and hash out their differences. That would be so awesome.
To get to the source? Regarding tradition, perhaps it is via the catholic church? I don’t know of any other way to verify whether a tradition is apostolic or not, other than believing that the EOC is the church that continues to be guided by God.
Perhaps we can know which oral traditions are apostolic simply by asking the church that has existed since the apostlic age, and has, through the centuries, since that age, safeguarded and transferred apostolic tradition through every generation right up until now? Of course we all have to make our own judgment call as to whether the CC or the EOC has continued, since the 11th century, to safeguard, develop, when needed,* (as was the case with doctrines such as the Trinity, Filioque or the divinity and humanity of Christ, all of which are accepted by Protestants today)* - and transfer apostolic tradition with the aid of the holy spirit, in perpetuity. I understand that you believe that that is no longer attainable, at least until the east and west re-unite.
Perhaps, one day, those 2 lungs of the one church will re-unite and hash out their differences. That would be so awesome. Joe,Hey Jon…
To get to the source? Regarding tradition, perhaps it is via the catholic church? I don’t know of any other way to verify whether a tradition is apostolic or not, other than believing that the EOC is the church that continues to be guided by God.
Perhaps we can know which oral traditions are apostolic simply by asking the church that has existed since the apostlic age, and has, through the centuries, since that age, safeguarded and transferred apostolic tradition through every generation right up until now? Of course we all have to make our own judgment call as to whether the CC or the EOC has continued, since the 11th century, to safeguard, develop, when needed, (as was the case with doctrines such as the Trinity, Filioque or the divinity and humanity of Christ, all of which are accepted by Protestants today) - and transfer apostolic tradition with the aid of the holy spirit, in perpetuity. I understand that you believe that that is no longer attainable, at least until the east and west re-unite.
If it is oral, how does the Church know? How does the Magisterium know?
Jon
J
joe370
Guest
All Christians deferring to the bible as their one and only authority, is private interpretation and will never lead to unity, which is why I am a firm believer that scripture alone, as the Christians only source of authority, is not from God.
God, in my opinion, wanted all Christians to do as His church did in the beginning, which was to defer to His church leadership, forever guided by Him, which is the only reason we can trust that doctrinal truth has been preserved and passed on from generation to generation, since Pentecost, even in spite of the fact that the CCs integrity has been, at times, less than stellar.
Between the 2, the latter is the only plausible way to protect the teachings that have been taught, developed and passed down over a 2000 year period, in my humble opinion. Of course the basis for that church authority is always scripture + tradition via the guidance of God.
R
Radical
Guest
?
Ginger may be long gone, but I might be able to answer your questions once you have clarified a few things for me:
a) At the time of Christ’s ministry on earth, Judaism was divided among the Essenes, Pharisees, Zealots, Sadducees et al. Is it ever recorded in the NT that Jesus ever i) pointed to the doctrinal differences amongst those groups and then ii) selected one of those groups as being the true Children of God (based on their correct doctrine) and then iii) excluded the other groups from being part of the Children of God? Yes or no? …and if yes, then which group was the true one?
b) In my Bible, at Romans 14 Paul tells the believers not to judge those whose faith differs from one’s own faith in regard to holy days and eating certain food. Instead, the believer was to tolerate the fellow believer who possessed different beliefs…b/c both were accepted by God. Did Paul get that right? Yes or no? …and if yes, do you think that Romans 14 provides an exhaustive list of things for which variation is acceptable. If yes, then why? …and if no, then what else is on the list?
c) what was the exact nature of the division at Corinth which was mentioned by Paul in 1 Cor 11?
P
pablope
Guest
Thanks and also with you,
Jon
I find this a good explanation…
mark-shea.com/tradition.html
Sacred Tradition is the living and growing truth of Christ contained, not only in Scripture, but in the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church. That is why the Tradition that does not change can seem to have changed so much. For this common teaching, life and worship is a living thing-a truth which was planted as a mustard seed in first century Jerusalem and which has not ceased growing since-as our Lord prophesied in Mark 4:30-32. The plant doesn’t look like the seed, but it is more mustardy than ever. And this is an entirely biblical pattern, as we discover when we consider the circumcision controversy in Acts 15.
J
joe370
Guest
Perhaps passed down orally from one generation to the next via an unbroken line of transmission? Continuity seems the best way to preserve something, maybe? Logically, like anything, it’s when someone steps outside the bounds of that succession and starts to alter what has been passed down, that doctrinal disparity gains momentum. We start to see new movements competing with existing movements, all of which eventually trace back to the source movement which is the only movement that has maintained the traditions since the very beginning, thanks to that unbroken line of transmission.
It’s possible for something like the assumption of Mary to have been passed down orally (nothing ever committed to writing) - until someone eventually decided to commit that oral tradition to writing for one reason or another.
J
joe370
Guest
N
Nicea325
Guest
I am frequently asked this question by many non-Catholics,especially fundamentalist. Well I usually respond:
Did the Jews always have the Torah or did they preach and teach orally and pass it on thoughout the years? What Bible did Abraham and others read from prior to anything being written down?
- Status