You can't have it both ways - #2

[Portrait]

F.A.O. ARANINSKI]

Dear Araninski,

Cordial greatings and thankyou kindly for your response to my post above.

The fact that the Jews always accepted the Old Testament as inspired, and that many Christians have also accepted both Old and New Testaments for so many centuries, does indeed argue to the truth of their inspiration. Such a conviction indicates more than mere human infulence. Nevertheless, it is an insufficient proof per se.

Whilst all Christians (Catholic and Protestant) are fully persuaded that our Saviour’s Advent is unmistakeably predicted in the O.T. Scriptures, this fact would not be acknowledged by the Jews as well as many others. Therefore, the argument from messianic prophecy is not a cogent one, at least not for many non-Christians at any rate. Nevertheless, I would concede that it is a valid *secondary *evidence and certainly has its place in the Christian apologetic.

We are of course dependent upon the biblical record for our knowledge that God communicated with Moses through the burning bush and issued to him the Ten Commandments, that Israel was chosen to be the “apple of His eye” and for prophecy relating to the first Advent etc., but, alas, this does not prove the inspiration and authority of Sacred Scripture conclusively.

As most people know there were extra-biblical holy writings of the Jews and the early Christians that were not selected to be included in the canon of Sacred Scripture. Who decided which books went in? Who decided which ones were inspired and which were not? The same people that used the Scriptures, prayed the Scriptures and learned the Scriptures actually selected which writings should go into the bible. By the end of the first century after Christ the Jews made their final decision about which of their writings were to comprise of the O.T. By the year 130 the early Christians were unanimous in accepting the four Gospels and the thirteen Epistles of St. Paul as Scripture. By 170 the Church leaders had put these writings on the same level as the O.T., and within another two hundred years - by the year 369 we have the first list of the same N.T. books that we all agree on. Then in 382 at the Council of Rome (under Pope Damasus) the entire Church agreed on a list of all the Old and New Testament. The same list was recognised by the councils of Hippo (393), Carthage III (397), Carthage IV (419) and in a letter of Pope Innocent I in 405. This list was finally canonised by the Council of Trent. Therefore Catholics are correct when they state that Scripture emerged from and is the product of the Church; it was the Church which fixed the canon of its books. It is self-contradictory therefore to accept these books of the Church as inspired and authoritataive, as Protestants do, and then proceed to reject the very Church which gave these books in the first place and which decided which ones were inspired. Since it is the Church which is the “keeper of Holy Writ”, it alone is able to declare which books are inspired and thus which ones can be included in the canon.

This is my final contribution to the thread now until Monday, so may I wish all my fellow posters an enjoyable and relaxing weekend. Goodbye for now.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

Pax

 

[StTommyMore]

Assuming you are correct, what’s your point to me in context of what I was saying?

The Bible alone is not enough.

 

[Dokimas]

The Bible alone is not enough.

The Bible and the Holy Spirit speaking to my heart isn’t enough?

Isn’t enough for what?

 

[StTommyMore]

The Bible and the Holy Spirit speaking to my heart isn’t enough?

Isn’t enough for what?

To come to know the fullness of truth. The Gospel of John attests to the fact that not everything Jesus said and did was written, but was passed on orally through the liturgy.

 

[schaick]

Dear schaick,

Cordial greetings.

Can I kindly ask that you ponder these words of St. Augustine:

“I would not believe in the gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me to do so”

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

That is a very, very sad statement unless of course he meant the universal Church that Jesus built. Still, he didn’t recognize the prophecies in the Old Testament and their fufillment in Jesus?

Why must we believe what a man says, St. Augustine says over GOD’s Word? I would much rather yield to GOD’s Word, not St. Agustine.

It is the developement of dogmas and doctrines outside the Biblical that has divided Christians. There are no dogmas or doctrines developed that the universal Church agrees on.

** The Gospel is the only thing accepted by all Christians.**

 

[schaick]

To John attests to the fact that not everything Jesus said and did was written, but wascome to know the fullness of truth. The Gospel of passed on orally through the liturgy.

Could you please reference that verse?

Here is what I have:
John 20
30Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

John 21
25Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

 

[Dokimas]

To come to know the fullness of truth. The Gospel of John attests to the fact that not everything Jesus said and did was written, but was passed on orally through the liturgy.

I am aware that John said that not all Jesus said and did is recorded because all the books that then existed would not contain it all but I have not seen where John said it was passed down through oral liturgy. Could you show me where John said that?

 

[schaick]

If “Me my Bible, and Jesus” were enough, then we would not need a Church.

Well that is an odd statement. You could go it alone and some have had to - Muslim coverts to Christianity in Muslim land comes to mind.

Aren’t you a Christian first and then you join the Church? You have to know and hear the message before you become a believer.

Don’t you enjoy the fellowship?

Sunday School as a child?

The singing and praising GOD with fellow Christians?

Gaining insight on ways to apply GOD’s Word in our everyday life?

 

[StTommyMore]

Well that is an odd statement. You could go it alone and some have had to - Muslim coverts to Christianity in Muslim land comes to mind.

Aren’t you a Christian first and then you join the Church? You have to know and hear the message before you become a believer.

Don’t you enjoy the fellowship?

Sunday School as a child?

The singing and praising GOD with fellow Christians?

Gaining insight on ways to apply GOD’s Word in our everyday life?

The Church predates the Bible. The Church was founded at Pentecost. The New Testament Canon was not written at this time.

 

[Dokimas]

The Church predates the Bible. The Church was founded at Pentecost. The New Testament Canon was not written at this time.

Assuming by ‘the church’ you mean the CC, then my response is that your presuppositoins lead you to your understandings.

 

[StTommyMore]

Assuming by ‘the church’ you mean the CC, then my response is that your presuppositoins lead you to your understandings.

If you read the writings of the Early Church, you will come to the conclusion that their theology was Catholic. It is your own presuppositions that ate blinding you to the Truth.

 

[Dokimas]

If you read the writings of the Early Church, you will come to the conclusion that their theology was Catholic. It is your own presuppositions that ate blinding you to the Truth.

Thanks for your opinion.

 

[StTommyMore]

Thanks for your opinion.

In what way are you using the word “opinion.” Do you mean that it is just an emotional response which cannot lead to knowledge? Or do you mean it in the way that an “expert opinion” is held in a court of law, which can lead to knowledge? If the former, then you are not open to ideas counter to your own. If the latter, then I thank you for taking may arguments under consideration…

 

[Dokimas]

In what way are you using the word “opinion.” Do you mean that it is just an emotional response which cannot lead to knowledge? Or do you mean it in the way that an “expert opinion” is held in a court of law, which can lead to knowledge? If the former, then you are not open to ideas counter to your own. If the latter, then I thank you for taking may arguments under consideration…

Not necessarily either. I’m not smart enough to know which of the two apply in your case.

What it means to me is that you have an understanding gleaned from your study which may or may not be true. If it is in accord with the Truth of God, then #2; if not, I can’t say its an emotional response but that you’ve done the best you could do with the info you have and with your pre-suppositions.

 

[StTommyMore]

Not necessarily either. I’m not smart enough to know which of the two apply in your case.

What it means to me is that you have an understanding gleaned from your study which may or may not be true. If it is in accord with the Truth of God, then #2; if not, I can’t say its an emotional response but that you’ve done the best you could do with the info you have and with your pre-suppositions.

It is gleaned form my study, and it is true. The Early Fathers are definitely Catholic. Hve you read them?

 

[Dokimas]

It is gleaned form my study, and it is true. The Early Fathers are definitely Catholic. Hve you read them?

When was ‘Catholic’ used as a noun? As for it’s original use it was used as an adjective - universal church.

All true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Creator, the Savior, the One who died on a Cross, had His Body torn and His Blood shed, the One to be raised from the dead ARE part of the universal church, not necessarily the church whose center is in Rome.

 

[schaick]

The Church predates the Bible. The Church was founded at Pentecost. The New Testament Canon was not written at this time.

The Church does not predate the message of the Gospel contained in the Bible.

No one is arguing against oral tradition of GOD’s Word, whether written or oral it is GOD’s Word.

A neat thing though especially when speaking with non-Christian - scholars are beginnning to realize that the Gospel was being put into writing very shortly after Jesus’ death.

 

[StTommyMore]

The Church does not predate the message of the Gospel contained in the Bible.

No one is arguing against oral tradition of GOD’s Word, whether written or oral it is GOD’s Word.

A neat thing though especially when speaking with non-Christian - scholars are beginnning to realize that the Gospel was being put into writing very shortly after Jesus’ death.

But it does predate the Bible.

 

[guanophore]

You are mistaken. **Our final authority is God **Himself and no other. The Bible is a tool that God has given us to check for truth…a means (ie rule of faith) for testing if you will.

Yes, this was certainly the intention of the Reformers when they jettisoned the authority appointed over the flock by Christ. They saw that there was corruption in the leadership, and wanted a more pure church. They decided to replace the apostolic succession with themselves.

Just as the Bereans tested what Paul told them against the Old Testament books, we test men and spirits and our own thinking against both Old and New Testaments to ensure we are not following false prophets, teachers, spirits, or even our own desires.

What may seem right to a man, can often be revealed as wrong in God’s written Word.

Yes, the Scriptures do function as an authoritative Source to test for Truth. However, each person who reads them interprets them. Each one who reads with a sincere heart and prayer to God believes that the HS has spoken to them through the Holy Scriptures. Still, we end up with as many interpretations as there are belly buttons. This is because the HS must work through the filters of the human mind.

Jesus established the Church to provide the guidance necessary to prevent the faithful from going astray by using their own judgement, however sincere. The Scriptures, in the hands of those appointed by Christ, are profitable for instruction, reproof, and training in righteousness.

The scriptures nowhere proclaim that the are to be the final infallible rule of faith. this is an extrabiblical tradition.

 

[guanophore]

Ok so the Authority of Faith is God, but then comes the Catholic Church right? not the bible?

The two complement one another, and are two strands of the one Divine Deposit of Faith. There is nothing in the Bible that is not Catholic, so there is no "either/or’.

So Catholics can use the Bible to say they alone are the Church of Christ, but others can’t use it to say they (Catholic Church) aren’t?

The Bible is a Catholic book. The NT was written by, for, and about Catholics. The context of the Bible is the Catholic Church, because it is a product of the Church. Once the SCriptures are removed from their context, misinterpretatons quickly follow.

So here are Catholics using the Bible instead of the Catholic Church as authority of faith?

If they are, they are out of order.

Yeah this so makes sense. Like all of the other churches which claim the same thing, the Catholic Church has a big historic record, but at the end it claims the same thing, with the Bible. So the Bible is the one declaring the sole rule of faith?

No. The Bible never says this about itself. This is an extrabiblical doctrine.

I do think someone must first see the bible and then the humans. It is a more trust-able source than a human being. So here Catholics use first the bible and then the “Authority”.

What you are saying is that God is unable or unwilling to preserve His Word where her placed it in the Church.

The Apostles didn’t use the NT to study , they used the OT. And from the OT they thought everything they knew. Everything the Holy Spirit thought them and continues teaching is in the OT. To proof the NT early Christians used the OT.

I think you mean to say that the Apostles taught from the OT. This is true, but it was not the Sole Source of their teachings. Jesus is the Source. He taught them how the OT points to himself.

The rock is Jesus, in what I can read. Even Peter himself said it. We are all spiritual rocks, but Jesus is THE chief cornerstone, precious rock, he that believed on Him, shall not be confounded not the Apostle and Prophets.The Apostles and Prophets made the foundation.

This opinion contradicts what is recorded in the Scriptures. What name did Jesus give to Simon bar Jonah,a nd why?

So if I believe on Jesus, I can’t be confounded,

I wish this were true! But scripture is also clear that it is not.

If believe in what the Prophets said, and what the Apostles taught I am in the foundation. And therefore part of the Church. Which is He's Church.

We are living stones built in, but we are not the foundation.

Catholics say Peter is the stone , because they have the authority given to interpret the scriptures “perfectly” and they use the verse in Matt. 16: 18, which doesn’t mean Peter is the rock but again, they interpret it like that.

No, it is not because of the interpretation of the Scriptures. The Scripture was produced by Catholics, and therefore, it reflects Catholic faith. Jesus is THE Rock, and He grafted Peter into Himself, making Peter a rock also, and He laid the foundation stones of HIs Church with the Apostles and prophets, also making them rocks. Peter has certain responsibilities that are specific to him.

"The bible is not the authority of faith, the Catholic Church its is, because the bible says this… and we have the authority to interpret it correctly, but the bible is not the authority of faith which declare us the authority of faith…

This argument is circular, and has no merit. Jesus founded the Church, and gave her His authority. the Church produced the NT, and canonized it by the authority that comes from Chrsit.

"No one has the authority to deny what the bibles says.

No, but Catholics have no need to do so. What we deny are peoples opinions of what it says, especially when they contradict what Jesus taught.

You want to belief Peter is the rock , and don’t want to accept the real rock, ok,

The two are not mutually exclusive, ARaninski. Peter is only a rock because Jesus made him one. Before that, he was just Simon bar Jonah.

Is there some reason that you think the Catholic Church does NOT teach that Jesus is the Rock?

but don't teach man made commandments as doctrines of God.

I think you have a lot of misunderstandings about the Catholic faith. I hope you can get them cleared up while you are here.

Doctrine is a commandment, you can’t teach for doctrine a commandment of men, primacy of Peter, Marian Doctrines, Purgatory; this are teachings not doctrines or commandments, don’t teach them as doctrines, this aren’t even important/essential.

They are part of the One Faith that was handed down to us from the Apostles. Doctrine includes many things that are not “commandments”, though it includes those also. It is not our place to decide what is important/essential. We were given One Faith by the Apostles, and we are not at liberty to ignore or cut out certain parts of it.