P
PRmerger
Guest
Where’s the part about abolishing the priesthood?
- Status
J
joe370
Guest
Hey Shaick…
So, you absolutely refuse to answer my question?
Why answer a question with a question? Even if there are, and there definitely are those who say that they can, this doesn’t answer my question. So far all you have done is convince me that the bible cannot interpret scripture, and just to be fair I have asked a few atheist friends of mine (impartial observers) - and they too are not following your logic.
.
Unity would be so awesome but, I seriously doubt it will happen as long as the bible remains the Christians final authority.
The interpretation is completely opposite, leading to a polar opposite application.
Same thing is said by those claiming the opposite belief. Just saying: we know that our interpretation is correct because we have evidence from Bible verses to back it up, doesn’t resolve the issue once and for all, for your counterpart Christian brothers and sisters are claiming the same thing. We need an outside arbiter to settle the dispute; SS is not interpreting scripture in the same way for everyone, therefore SS is not working. Please answer my questions, unless of course, you don’t want to answer them?
Millions say YES! Do I agree with them - NO, but I was not entrust with the authority to settle the matter, once and for all. That task is left in the capable hands of a collection of infallible books, according to my sola scriptura advocates! It’s your/my interpretation of the bible vs their interpretation of the bible. Again, the bible as the Christians final authority does not settle the dispute. Using Scripture Alone,
Christianity has reached an impasse, and has since the protestant reformation. Sola scriptura is not a valid method for solving this important doctrinal dispute. For example, either John Calvin was right or Martin Luther was right, or both were wrong. In any event, sola scriptura fails to weed out an error in doctrine. One or both were teaching a lie, but whom? Both men spearheaded the reformation claiming that the CC was wrong. What Luther (using Scripture) saw as the Body and Blood of our Lord, John Calvin, an influential French theologian and pastor during the Protestant Reformation (using Scripture) - saw just the opposite.
The bible does not interpret scripture! If it did, you would answer my question. I use to be right where you are and I had no answer.
J
joe370
Guest
Hey Schaick…
Okay…Will you please answer the question? Thanks.
Why did Paul tell people to obey, defer and submit to the authority of their leaders in the church, who were not apostles, but successors of the apostles and successors of the men that succeeded the apostles? Why didn’t Paul simply tell them to obey, submit and defer to their bibles which is the Christians final authority?
The Church Jesus built has morphed into what we have today multiple denomintaions with the Catholic Church being just one more denomination.
Okay…Will you please answer the question? Thanks.
I am not shifting away from Jesus. I am shifting away from the protestant claim and rightfully projecting it back on to them, and I admit that this tactic gets us nowhere fast. He started it. LOL…LOL…
That is interesting! However, man disagrees with you. God allowed the teaching of the Trinity, Theotokos, the real presence in the Eucharist etc etc, and yet man has not allowed it. People rejected the Trinitarian dogma; man rejected the Theotokos and men continue to reject the real presence. Perhaps you could simply answer the question:
Why did Paul tell people to obey, defer and submit to the authority of their leaders in the church, who were not apostles, but successors of the apostles and successors of the men that succeeded the apostles? Why didn’t Paul simply tell them to obey, submit and defer to their bibles which is the Christians final authority?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
You know Joe, I agree with you, and at this point you know what really needs to be done. Seriously study Martin Luther and Calvin.
I believe once you take a good honest look at their behavior. You’ll find the Catholic Church again correct.
And thats not to say that Erasmus didn’t have a few questionable deeds in his life.
But at the end of the day. He upheld the affirnative side of the debate for the Vatican. And concluded correctly that the debates were so complicated and fraught with conflicts that one ought to admitt that human beings could not be sure of any answer.
They should follow the attitude of the ancient skeptics, suspending judgement on the question, while accepting the teaching nondogmatically.
And we have not exceded this point yet. Matter of fact the harder we look at all side, the more I believe the Church is right.
I believe once you take a good honest look at their behavior. You’ll find the Catholic Church again correct.
And thats not to say that Erasmus didn’t have a few questionable deeds in his life.
But at the end of the day. He upheld the affirnative side of the debate for the Vatican. And concluded correctly that the debates were so complicated and fraught with conflicts that one ought to admitt that human beings could not be sure of any answer.
They should follow the attitude of the ancient skeptics, suspending judgement on the question, while accepting the teaching nondogmatically.
And we have not exceded this point yet. Matter of fact the harder we look at all side, the more I believe the Church is right.
G
guanophore
Guest
The writers of these verses used the Septuagint, which has more books than yours.
They also use the term “we”, meaning those who are in communion with them, as Apostles.
When men left the Apostolic Succession, and rejected part of the Scriptures used by them, they also departed from these promises because they stopped being part of “we”.
G
guanophore
Guest
I think this is a very dangerous place to go. If we concede that “spiritual” means the same as “intangible”, we will end up having to reject major principles of the gospel. Jesus glorified body was a spiritual body, yet it had tangible and material aspects. The burning bush was aflame, yet not consumed, The rending of the curtain in the temple at the death of Jesus was a spiritually caused event, yet had tangible results.
The Scripture is incarnational, just as Christ, and the Church. It has a material aspect, and a divine aspect. However, for those who read it from a carnal (wordly or fleshly) perspective, they find no life in it. It can be studied as literature, or archeology, and no Life be discerned in it’s pages.
The HS speaks through Scripture to the hearts of believers because their hearts have been quickened spiritually.
G
guanophore
Guest
Welcome to CAF, BLYTHART. Yes, Jesus paid the eternal price for our sins, purchasing our redemption, so that we can enter heaven.
The idea of “we only need Jesus”, though, is a false one. Jesus chose to work through people, and to found a Church. It is wrong to say that we don’t need those things that He created for us. He made us, and he knows what we need. He does not create things that are unnecessary.
J
joe370
Guest
Hey Gary…
I was dismayed, as a former protestant, to discover that I could not even bring this disagreement to the church as instructed by Jesus in Matthew 18. In His discourse to the disciples, He had outlined a three-step procedure to use if one had something against a brother. Included were the consequences to be incurred if one would not submit to correction. Jesus’ solution was not to take this problem to the scriptures (Remember, that’s how we arrived at this impasse), but instead to take it to “the church.” It suddenly became clear that I couldn’t do this. Why not?
Well, quite frankly, which Protestant church would I have brought it to? The Lutheran church? Or perhaps a neutral protestant denomination like the Baptist church? If the Baptists, then which Baptist church? The regular Baptists? The southern Baptists? The American Baptists? Which one of the hundreds and hundreds Protestant denominations should I bring it to?
Which PC would be given the final authority to cast one or both of these men out as “tax collectors and sinners”? And if they were cast out, what would stop them from simply starting up another church, a church custom tailored to their own particular teachings? The end result could be countless denominations, which is a direct repudiation of Christ’s command that this excommunication would be binding “in heaven and on earth.”
No need to study ML ot JC for the HS was not sent to them on Pentecost to guide them into all truth; the HS was sent to the CC on Pentecost to guide the CC into all truth until the end of time.
Amen brother…
I was dismayed, as a former protestant, to discover that I could not even bring this disagreement to the church as instructed by Jesus in Matthew 18. In His discourse to the disciples, He had outlined a three-step procedure to use if one had something against a brother. Included were the consequences to be incurred if one would not submit to correction. Jesus’ solution was not to take this problem to the scriptures (Remember, that’s how we arrived at this impasse), but instead to take it to “the church.” It suddenly became clear that I couldn’t do this. Why not?Well, quite frankly, which Protestant church would I have brought it to? The Lutheran church? Or perhaps a neutral protestant denomination like the Baptist church? If the Baptists, then which Baptist church? The regular Baptists? The southern Baptists? The American Baptists? Which one of the hundreds and hundreds Protestant denominations should I bring it to?
Which PC would be given the final authority to cast one or both of these men out as “tax collectors and sinners”? And if they were cast out, what would stop them from simply starting up another church, a church custom tailored to their own particular teachings? The end result could be countless denominations, which is a direct repudiation of Christ’s command that this excommunication would be binding “in heaven and on earth.”
P
PRmerger
Guest
Fair enough. I stand corrected.
J
joe370
Guest
Hey Dokimas, can you imagine how utterly shocked Paul would have been if he had been told that his epistles, and the writings of Peter and John and the others would one day be tied up together and elevated to the position of a complete and exhaustive statement of the doctrines of Christianity, and eventually placed in each man’s hand as an easy and infallible guide for each and every fallible Christian to interpret, totally independent of the living and teaching authority of the church, forever guided by the infallible HS? Think about it! He did not say, obey and submit to my letters or Peter’s letters or to sacred scripture alone; he said: “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.”
Obey leaders who were nothing more than successors of the apostles or successors of those men that succeeded the apostles, such as the men that succeeded Timothy, Barnabas and Titus? What a strange thing to say if scripture alone, (the hallmark of protestantism) - in Paul’s mind, was to be the sole rule of faith and final authority, in lieu of the leaders of the church?
No one, according to scripture, would have been more shocked at the idea of his authoritative letters (addressed to certain churches) - usurping the place of the authoritative teacher — the Church, forever guided by the HS, than Paul who said, “'How shall they hear without a preacher? how shall they preach unless they be sent?”
The idea that the twelve apostles sat down together in some room, pens in hand, and wrote off at a sitting, (or got together at a later date to compile and bind their collective works into one volume, which, in their minds, would one day be called the New Testament and the Christians final authority) - with the idea of issuing this volume to each and every Christian, independent of the church founded by Jesus, of which they were the first Pastors/teachers, is just plain silly, not to mention an impossibility due to so many factors, but this is what every sola scriptura advocate must espouse if they want to sell the notion that SS was taught and promulgated by even the apostles themselves, for if it was not taught by the apostles then it is nothing more than a man-made tradition which would violate Sola Scriptura.
Dok, what are your thoughts?
Obey leaders who were nothing more than successors of the apostles or successors of those men that succeeded the apostles, such as the men that succeeded Timothy, Barnabas and Titus? What a strange thing to say if scripture alone, (the hallmark of protestantism) - in Paul’s mind, was to be the sole rule of faith and final authority, in lieu of the leaders of the church?
No one, according to scripture, would have been more shocked at the idea of his authoritative letters (addressed to certain churches) - usurping the place of the authoritative teacher — the Church, forever guided by the HS, than Paul who said, “'How shall they hear without a preacher? how shall they preach unless they be sent?”
The idea that the twelve apostles sat down together in some room, pens in hand, and wrote off at a sitting, (or got together at a later date to compile and bind their collective works into one volume, which, in their minds, would one day be called the New Testament and the Christians final authority) - with the idea of issuing this volume to each and every Christian, independent of the church founded by Jesus, of which they were the first Pastors/teachers, is just plain silly, not to mention an impossibility due to so many factors, but this is what every sola scriptura advocate must espouse if they want to sell the notion that SS was taught and promulgated by even the apostles themselves, for if it was not taught by the apostles then it is nothing more than a man-made tradition which would violate Sola Scriptura.
Dok, what are your thoughts?
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Where’s the part about abolishing the priesthood?
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
**Saint John said … not everything is in the Bible - **
*There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written. *(John 21:25)
Saint Paul speaks of oral tradition -
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
*And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well. *(2 Timothy 2:2)
I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you. (1 Corinthians11:2)
*And for this reason we too give thanks to God unceasingly, that, in receiving the word of God from hearing us, you received not a human word but, as it truly is, the word of God, which is now at work in you who believe. *(1 Thessalonians 2:13)
They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers.(Acts 2:42)
More evidence of oral tradition -
Although I have much to write to you, I do not intend to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and to speak face to face so that our joy may be complete. (2 John 1:12)
I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon, when we can talk face to face. (3 John 1:13-14)
for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God. ( 2 Peter 1:20-21)
The Bible is difficult to understand and help in interpreting Holy Scripture, to determine the true meaning of any verse, is necessary -
speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. Therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, be on your guard not to be led into the error of the unprincipled and to fall from your own stability. ( 2 Pet 3:16,17)
Against Personal Interpretation -
Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” He replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him. (Acts 8:30-31)
We need help -
Although you should be teachers by this time, you need to have someone teach you again the basic elements of the utterances of God. You need milk, (and) not solid food. (Hebrews 5:12)
Your Thoughts?
*There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written. *(John 21:25)
Saint Paul speaks of oral tradition -
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
*And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well. *(2 Timothy 2:2)
I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you. (1 Corinthians11:2)
*And for this reason we too give thanks to God unceasingly, that, in receiving the word of God from hearing us, you received not a human word but, as it truly is, the word of God, which is now at work in you who believe. *(1 Thessalonians 2:13)
They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers.(Acts 2:42)
More evidence of oral tradition -
Although I have much to write to you, I do not intend to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and to speak face to face so that our joy may be complete. (2 John 1:12)
I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon, when we can talk face to face. (3 John 1:13-14)
for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God. ( 2 Peter 1:20-21)
The Bible is difficult to understand and help in interpreting Holy Scripture, to determine the true meaning of any verse, is necessary -
speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. Therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, be on your guard not to be led into the error of the unprincipled and to fall from your own stability. ( 2 Pet 3:16,17)
Against Personal Interpretation -
Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” He replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him. (Acts 8:30-31)
We need help -
Although you should be teachers by this time, you need to have someone teach you again the basic elements of the utterances of God. You need milk, (and) not solid food. (Hebrews 5:12)
Your Thoughts?
S
schaick
Guest
You misunderstand my statement and it is incomplete when separated from the following statement and what tht statement was addressing. An good example of how misintepretation happens- verses taken out of context with surrounding vereses, the Book and the whole Bible. just the way the Bible.This is a man made tradition that comes out of the Reformation. It denies the authority appointed by Christ to shepherd the Church. On the contrary, the Apostles were clear that Jesus had given them the authority to interpret the Scriptures, and they passed this on to their successors, the Bishops. The bishops during the Reformation in Europe were corrupt individuals, and in order to separate themselves from the corruption, the Reformers invented this concept so that they could support altering the Apostolic doctrines.
This is another succinct summary of the man made tradition that nullifies the commandments of God.
On the contrary, the Scripture cannot be a “final authority” since authority is something that is exercised by persons, not books, however Holy. The exercise of final authority requires acts of the will, discernment, and the ability to take responsibility. These characteristics beling to persons, not writings. This is why SS has splintered the Church. The Reformers attempted to squash scripture into a role it was never intented to play, and it the process, inadvertantly made THEMSELVES the final authorities.
Certainly I would stipulate that Scripture sheds light on how other Scripture is to be interepreted. But again, interpretation is an activity that is conducted by persons, not writings.
The Apostles taught that we were all to be of the SAME MIND. That means, interpretations and applications must all be consistent with the ONE FAITH that was held and taught by the Apostles. Obviously, someone has departed from that, since we all hold contradicitory beliefs.
Yes, of course! Those who have justified that Jesus is not God, that there is no Trinity, that slavery and the subjugation of women is from God, etc, etc. Anyone can find and use evidence from “Bible verses to back it up”.
It is difficult to see things when one has blinders on. Anti-Catholic blinders can be amazingly effective in preventing one from seeing the doctrines of Catholicism in scripture.
Yes, as I said, I think Bible verses can be produced that will support just about anything.
Well, if you wish to entertain this fantasy in your world, that is your perogative, of course. The writers of the NT had a meaning in mind when the Scripture was penned. If you wish to depart from the faith they embraced, you are free to do so.
I will continue to pray for you, and commend your soul to God.
My comment was a reply to separate individuals having the authority to interprete. They don’t and yes we do have the one true interpretation available to us.
My Christian Church supports the teachings from the Apostles - the Nicene Creed, the Trinity.
In what way does saying GOD’s Word is final authority does that nullify GOD’s Word? We see the role Scripture takes when Jesus refers to it over a tradition.
You can not interprete Scripture away from what it’s original intention is meant to be.Yes we are all baptized into one faith -one body that has many parts. One interpretation with many applications.
Those people have not followed the simple basic rules of how to interprete a writing. A single verse MIGHT support on of their ideas but does the next verse? the Chapter, Book nd whole Bible, NO!
P
PRmerger
Guest
This is a man-made tradition that you’ve bought because your preacher told you so.
Unless you have a Bible verse that tells you that “Scripture interprets Scripture”?
S
schaick
Guest
I do believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. And yes and when I have made that statement my Catholic friends are very surprised and say that is more then most Catholics believe-not sure why they felt most and not just some or few Catholics don’t believe in the Real presence of the Eucharist.The two are not separated from one another. Jesus commanded them “do this” (make this sacrifice). The HS works through people to accomplish the infallible acts of God.
I could see how it would seem this way to a person who did not really accept the words of Jesus. If it is not really His Body and Blood, and really only bread and wine, then it is, of course, idol worship.
I agree with you here. I think the majority of American Catholics receive the Body and Blood in an unworthy manner, bringing condemnation upon themselves. It hink that is why the Church is so sick today.
This is not what the Apostles believed and taught. They believed it became the Body and Blood. In fact, what you are saying here constitutes one of the earliest heresies in the Church.
But Catholics do know for certain, since we have followed the Apostolic command to preserve the Traditions.
Can you show me concrete evidence that the Disciples worshipped the Eucharist? And that the Bread and fruot of the Vine became Real Presence and is not in under and with?
S
schaick
Guest
But there is flow we can always see that there was GOD’s Word avaiable to man. The gap you believe exists doesn’t because GOD’s Word was there the whole time- first orally, short time later the writings were there separately, not combined together. Then a bit later and then even after that when people were trying to add false Gospels were the first writngs made official.
What all this boils down to for me-
I want to see evidence You misunderstand my statement and it is incomplete when separated from the following statement and what tht statement was addressing. An good example of how misintepretation happens- verses taken out of context with surrounding vereses, the Book and the whole Bible. just the way the Bible.
. There has been a failure of the Catholic denomination to show that chain of transmission where Sacred Tradition is considered in the following areas:
the teachings from the Apostles - the Nicene Creed, the Trinity.
In what way does saying GOD’s Word is final authority does that nullify GOD’s Word? We see the role Scripture takes when Jesus refers to it over a tradition.
You can not interprete Scripture away from what it’s original intention is meant to be.Yes we are all baptized into one faith -one body that has many parts. One interpretation with many applications.
Those people have not followed the simple basic rules of how to interprete a writing. A single verse MIGHT support on of their ideas but does the next verse? the Chapter, Book nd whole Bible, NO!
The Mary dogmas-C
S
schaick
Guest
Don’t you see the difference? There is flow with no gaps. We can always see that there was GOD’s Word available to man. GOD’s Word was there the whole time-Old Testament written, Gospel orally → short time later the writings were there separately → a bit later and then even after that when people were trying to add false gospels were the first writngs made official.
Yes I understand that GOD’s Word orally and written contains the concept that was later called the Trinity.
Show us the chain of transmission and proof that the universal Church that Jesus built had a Pope instead of local Overseers/Bishops, an infallible Pope, worshipped the Eucharist, followed the Mary Dogmas, that we are requird to pay for our way out of pergutory or sins through indulgences,
, etc.
Show us that Paul and the Disciples believed all of those things mentioned and that they were required to be followed for our salvation.
S
schaick
Guest
**Please disregard my post 586.
It is a combination of different posts and thoughts all rolled into one mess!!
My grandson yes he is only 9 months entered it without my realizing.
LOL! I am holding him and he reached out with his foot and hit the submit reply-tricky fellow!!**
It is a combination of different posts and thoughts all rolled into one mess!!
My grandson yes he is only 9 months entered it without my realizing.
LOL! I am holding him and he reached out with his foot and hit the submit reply-tricky fellow!!**
S
schaick
Guest
The morphing occurred by man’s attempt to add tradition/something that was not based on GOD’s Word.No, schaick. The Church of Christ does not “morph into denominations”. Jesus built only ONE CHURCH, and He only has ONE BRIDE. There is only ONE FAITH.
Morphing has definitely happened, but this occurs when people separate themselves from the One Church founded by Christ. A denomination is one that “takes it’s name from” or defines itself against another. This is why Catholicism is not a “denominiation”. The CC does not “denominate” from anyone, but all of our separated brethren have denominated form her. All the denominations are defined by which Apostolic doctrines, and to what extent, they depart from the One Faith that has been handed down (pardosis) from the Apostles.
Yes, of course! And indeed, many individual Catholics have done so, especially those corrupt clerics that preciptated the Reformation in Europe. However, the Church is pure and infallible, and being One with Christ, cannot “shife away” from Him.
Yes, I agree on both counts. In order for this to work, Jesus had to give the gift of infallibility to the Church.
Well, they can allow it, but that does not mean that God has allowed it. I think it is clear from the study of history that men hve allowed, and promoted, many things that God does not allow.
The indulgences- man binding and loosing something Jesus never meant to be considered. The authority figure because of his pride or greed binding and loosing in excommunicating Luther.
Just imagine how different Jesus’ universal Church would look if all the later traditions had not been added.
Yes, I mean as far as an authority figure placed by GOD. They are to bind and loose what GOD has already bound and loosed
P
PRmerger
Guest
LOL!
You know that you have about a 15 minute window after posting in which you can delete posts.
- Status