S
schaick
Guest
In interpretation, but not necessarily in application.
- Status
S
schaick
Guest
Could you point me to where it say that?
S
schaick
Guest
As long as they are scripture based there is no problem.
Because there was no bases for them in Scripture.Martin Luther wrote diatribes and rants about teachings of the Church that he didn’t happen to like, and he influenced the government of Germany to establish its own church apart from the Pope. He didn’t “reform” anything - he made himself to be God and founded his own Church.
Luther helped reign in man-made traditions that the Church was claiming you needed to fulfill for your salvation.
Remember all -
False prophet are those that teach salvation by means other then what we have in the Gospel.
P
Palaeologos
Guest
Actually, there are some High Church Reformed types that do believe their tiny denomination is the Remnant of Zion. Hard to believe, but if you can conceive of a belief, there is probably someone who holds it.
I’m a “branch theory” Christian myself; the true Church is composed of all the churches which have retained the apostolic ministry. RCs and most Orthodox will probably disagree with that, but I have no less an authority than (pre-convert) John Newman to cite for that.
But a distinction needs to be made between the idea of a True Church (an institution) and the reality of the Christian Church, which is “the blessed company of all faithful people”–whether institutionally affiliated with a particular organization or not. I happen to believe that the catholic tradition contains the fullness of Christian truth, but possession of that fullness isn’t necessary for salvation. If that makes any sense!
P
Palaeologos
Guest
And where does this criterion come from? Is there a basis for this attitude prior to the Reformation?
I’m not looking for a Scriptural citation; when Paul refers, for example, to “a Gospel other than that which we taught you,” it’s unlikely he’s referring to the four canonical Gospels (which don’t seem to have been written down until after the Epistles were written). I’m looking for evidence that the pre-Reformation Church believed that a Scriptural warrant needs to be found for every practice.
T
tweetymom
Guest
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
I do believe that all Christians possess some of the Truth (which is Jesus Christ).
However, the Catholic Church possesses the fullness.
If I’m hungry, a burger will take care of the hunger and keep me ‘going’. . .and indeed, if I’m not accustomed to eating good, nutritious food I might even ‘prefer’ the chain burgers to a well-balanced, well-cooked sit-down meal which contains not just the ‘basics’ but all the nutritional needs I could have. But just because my own physical state or emotional or cultural or societal or whatever ‘preferences’ have me chowing down the burger as ‘best’, doesn’t mean that the well-balanced meal above isn’t ‘better’ and an absolute indication of the full nutrition that I SHOULD be taking, right?
Not to hijack but I hate it when people do a bunch of throw aways like "the popes added in a bunch of salvation requirements’. Yeah? Exactly what were they? If you complain this happened, then you ought to be able to state when, where, why, how etc and not just throw it in as though this is an ACCEPTED fact which it most certainly is NOT.
However, the Catholic Church possesses the fullness.
If I’m hungry, a burger will take care of the hunger and keep me ‘going’. . .and indeed, if I’m not accustomed to eating good, nutritious food I might even ‘prefer’ the chain burgers to a well-balanced, well-cooked sit-down meal which contains not just the ‘basics’ but all the nutritional needs I could have. But just because my own physical state or emotional or cultural or societal or whatever ‘preferences’ have me chowing down the burger as ‘best’, doesn’t mean that the well-balanced meal above isn’t ‘better’ and an absolute indication of the full nutrition that I SHOULD be taking, right?
Not to hijack but I hate it when people do a bunch of throw aways like "the popes added in a bunch of salvation requirements’. Yeah? Exactly what were they? If you complain this happened, then you ought to be able to state when, where, why, how etc and not just throw it in as though this is an ACCEPTED fact which it most certainly is NOT.
R
romesweethome
Guest
please show me where in the first 10 centuries a.d. that there was not one church that everyone went to for the answers. I am not asking for scripture, I am asking for historical evidence of other churches that had the authority to forgive sin, the authority to excommunicate and the like in the forst 1000 years a.d. please give your sources.
peace rsh
peace rsh
J
jmcrae
Guest
Jesus said to the first Pope and his Council (Peter and the Apostles) “Whatever you bind on earth is bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is loosed in Heaven.”
There is nothing there about “unless you can’t find it in the Bible.”
And without the Catholic Church, you have no one who can give you the assurance of absolution for your sins when you confess them, and you have no way to receive Jesus in the Eucharist, since the Protestants have done away with these things, calling them “man-made traditions.”
Thus making it impossible to find, and utterly without authority - which is not what Jesus had ever intended.
He said, “if your brother sins against you, speak to him privately, and if he won’t listen, then take it to two or three witnesses, and if he doesn’t listen to the witnesses, then take it to the Church” but if there is no identifiable Church beyond the two or three witnesses, then where are you supposed to take your dispute to? And if the Baptists would say one thing (Yes, go ahead and use birth control) but the Reformed would say another thing (Birth control goes against the will of God) then where is the voice of the Church?
S
schaick
Guest
Paul is saying from Scripture here he doesn’t say **Gospel or the message **but Scripture.
1 Corinthians 15
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
1 Timothy 5:18For the Scripture says, “Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,”[a] and “The worker deserves his wages.”**
Footnotes:
1 Timothy 5:18 Deut. 25:4
1 Timothy 5:18 Luke 10:7
Scholars seem to think that Luke was written in the 60AD. See what is being recorded:
Luke 1
1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
Acts 1
1In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.**
P
Palaeologos
Guest
But that doesn’t signify. When Paul refers to “Scripture” he’s referring to the Old Testament–not to the Gospels, which didn’t have the status of Scripture until later.
S
schaick
Guest
Well look at the whole thing:
1 Corinthians 15
1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
Does it say in the Old Testament that he appeared to Peter and the Twelve?
1 Corinthians 15
1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
Does it say in the Old Testament that he appeared to Peter and the Twelve?
S
schaick
Guest
Scripture-writting is the only concrete thing we have from GOD, it is GOD’s TRUTH.
Wouldn’t you want something you had from GOD as your bases for saying some action is needed for your salvation?
And not some secret tradition that only one group knows about?
P
Palaeologos
Guest
What’s secret about it?
Can you prove somehow that catholic tradition doesn’t come from God? And if you discount tradition, then how do you know that the Scriptures are inspired?
Hint : “Because the Bible says so” is question-begging.
P
Palaeologos
Guest
“According to the Scriptures” refers to his dying for our sins and to his raising on the third day, not to his appearances to Peter & the Twelve. Jesus’ death and resurrection are prophesied in the OT.
S
schaick
Guest
I know the Bible is inspired because of prophecies fulfilled- really the only way to know it might be from GOD. The other proof is the testamonies of eyewitnesses to historical events.
Well since we all know what GOD says in HIS Word the need for proof lies with the Catholics.
What’s secret about it ? I have been asking this over and over and have not received an answer.
**What tradition about Jesus do I not have that only the Catholic Church has?
What secrets does the Catholic Church have that are needed for my salvation and GOD didn’t put them in HIS Word, the only cocrete thing we can put our hands on in the matter?**
S
schaick
Guest
Are you saying also that Paul did not quote Luke? That you know Luke was not written in 60AD?
J
jmcrae
Guest
The Mass, which was instituted by Christ at the Last Supper, and finished on the Cross.
The most relevant example here would be the Tradition, given to us by Pope Innocent I in 405 AD, that the Scriptures are reliable - indeed, he decreed that they are inerrant. Without this Tradition of the Church, given by a Catholic Pope for us to believe in, you would have no Bible.
J
jmcrae
Guest
He could not have been quoting Luke as Scripture, because the book of Luke was not declared to be Scripture until more than 300 years later. He could have quoted it as “this book I’m reading,” or “something written by one of my friends,” but none of the New Testament became “enscripturated” (to borrow a term from the Fundamentalists) until 405 AD.
S
schaick
Guest
Good I have attention on the subject.
In the past indulgences, purgatory-although I think that was ressurected.
Papal infallibility? Do I have to believe Mary was assumed?, conceived immaculate?
This is where people start defending these ideas but what I want to know:
Exactly what does your church teach about Jesus that come strictly from tradition that is required for me to believe for my salvation?
- Status