The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 160

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[Pelayo]

You don't understand the question. Where does it say Christ was tempted like us? where does it say Christ had original sin?

[OLD REGGIE]

Reggie, could you re-post that quotation from Augustine? I can't find it. Sorry.
------------------------------------------------------------

I have posted several St. Augustine quotes. If you can give me a clue I'd be glad to.

[OLD REGGIE]

Maybe this:

This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.

St. Augustine, quoted from his City of God, book XI, Chapter 3.
============================================================

[OLD REGGIE]

The story is that the two men did not LIKE one another.

Come on. I'm sure there is a mutual disdain (dislike) between Pope Paul II and several of the Cardinals who have visited Rome. Do you suppose they totally ignored the Pope in any of their correspondence to the Churches "back home"?

Don't be silly.

[JHavard]

You don't understand the question. Where does it say Christ was tempted like us? where does it say Christ had original sin?

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

[malakhi]

You are ticked off because of what I posted. Too bad, that's the price you pay for rejecting Christ I guess.

You think my getting "ticked off" is the price I pay for "rejecting Christ"? Not at all. YOU think I am "rejecting Christ". Because you think that Jesus is the messiah and God. And you think that anyone who does not believe this "rejects Christ". I look at it quite differently. Jesus was a man, not God. He did not meet the requirements to be the messiah. "Christ", of course, means "messiah". I believe that the messiah will come. So I do not "reject Christ"; rather, I do not believe that Jesus was Christ. You think this is a bad thing because you disagree. Would you like me to turn it around, and suggest that your insistance that Jesus is the messiah is proof of your rejection of the true messiah? Didn't think so.

I still think you are intelligent and an all around nice guy, but this is obviously a very big difference of opinion. Since you are so well read and you say you understand all of Paul's writings (as I already knew - that's why I asked you), please tell me what you think Paul meant by "all Israel will be saved".

I find it difficult to answer this question at all, because, as I said, Paul's views on this are meaningless to me. I reject his premises. I reject his interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures. I reject his soteriology. The concept of "being saved" as understood by Christianity simply does not exist in Judaism. "Salvation" in Judaism does not mean salvation from sin; rather, it means salvation from the evil that we face in this life--the redemption from slavery in Egypt, for example. Salvation from sin is unnecessary in Judaism, because Judaism does not believe that mankind is inherently evil or sinful or in need of divine intervention in order to escape eternal damnation. Judaism for all practical purposes does not even believe in eternal damnation.

Paul is not guaranteeing the eternal salvation of all the Jews. The context of the chapter makes it clear that when he refers to "all Israel", he is not referring to all born Jews, but rather those who respond to the call of the gospel and have faith in Jesus.

[OLD REGGIE]

I don't think you understand what "fully developed" means. I know you said that oral tradition can be written down, but you discount that as well. The belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary was early oral tradition, that quickly became written tradition, that developed into dogma. We would not expect a fully developed theory of the papacy in the first century. Only the notion of the leadership of Peter and the primacy of his See.
------------------------------------------------------------

Would you care to provide just when this "early oral tradition" of the perpetual virginity began?

===========================================================

Eusebius (263 - 339 CE), Historia Ecclesia ii,23.4: ".....turned their attention to James, the Lord's brother, who had been elected by the apostles to the episcopal throne at Jerusalem."

Hegesippus (c. 100 - 160 CE), Bk 5: "Control of the Church passed to the Apostles, together with the Lord's brother James...."

Not all early oral tradition.

[SoothingDave]

Where did the apostles at Jerusalem jump on Paul's back for teaching from his private studies with Christ. They knew and understood that this was the way the Holy Spirit was going to work from now on, and they didn't fight against it like the RCC'c do today.

That's funny cause I recall a passage about Paul going to meet with the other apostles after his conversion. In fact he sought them out, didn't he? You don't suppose they maybe talked about the Gospel and how it should be preached when they met, do you?

SD

[Invincibly Ignorant]

We don't need a bunch of misguided men who shout "obey us" to know the Lord. Jesus says obey HIM.

Well said Havoc.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Steven readies The Last Reply.

I ask you again Angelo. If I'm the last man in here, who's gonna read my reply?

[SoothingDave]

You simply do not know anything about the members of the Church. Nothing.

Try the most rudimentary "lives of the saints" book before speaking on the subject again.

OK fellas, I'll be gone for a while, I have to find a book about the Catholic named saints, and read it before I can make any more comments on these threads.

It would be helpful before commenting on the subject again. The subject of whether there is a place in the Catholic Church for folks with gifts from the Holy Spirit, like healing and wisdom, and teaching, etc.

Hey, if we just tell each other to read a book, we don't have to answer any questions, OK, why don't you RCC's read, gulp, "the Bible" before you tell us what God wants?

I was merely suggesting you might want to become informed of the subject beore you spoke. I can certainly dig up some examples if you like.

And there's a difference between telling us to read "the Bible" and me suggesting you learn about the saints. We have read the Bible and are familiar with the characters and events portrayed within. We argue about the meaning of the characters and events portrayed within, but we don't doubt that the characters exist.

You doubt that there are or were, nay even would be possible, for a person gifted with the Holy Spirit to find a place in the Church.

This is tremendously ignorant.

SD

[malakhi]

If I'm the last man in here, who's gonna read my reply?

God.

(So make it good!)

[OLD REGGIE]

The one, same, and only Sola Scriptura. I accept that folks (well, some folks) will use philosophy, history, tradition, their God-given minds, etc., to develop their Christian thoughts. However, if they submit these thoughts to examination by the light of Scripture as their "primary" authority, then they are engaging in "Scritpure Alone," or Sola Scriptura. It doesn't matter where one gets their ideas from, or how many sub-authorities one deigns to submit to. When push comes to shove there is only one authority which is, ahem, authoritative. This authority stands alone, no other claim is given the least bit of creedence if it contradicts the one authority. This authority is solitary. There may be secondary and tertiary sources which are plural; but singular, one, is the final (or primary) authority. There is thus only one authority. It is single. It stands alone, on its own plane, at the summit of judgeship. It is solitary, the only authority to which final judgment is rendered. In other words it is Alone. Scripture is this authority. Hence it can safely be said that any Christian who holds Scripture as his "primary" authority holds it as his only authority. Ultimately. What other source of authority are you suggesting they hold as a "co-primary" authority?

------------------------------------------------------------

Augustine ("De unitate ecclesiae", [on the Unity of the Church 3):

"Let us not hear, this I say, this you say; but thus says the Lord. Surely it is the books of the Lord on whose authority we both agree and which we both believe. There let us seek the Church, there let us discuss our case." He goes on: "Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, with the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God."
-----------------------------------------------------------

Augustine "Contra litteras Petiliana", (Against the Letters of Petiliana) Bk.3, ch.6:

"If anyone preaches either concerning Christ or concerning His church or concerning any other matter which pertains to our faith and life; I will not say, if we, but what Paul adds, if an angel from heaven should preach to you anything besides what you have received in the Scriptures of the Law and the Gospels, let him be anathema."
-----------------------------------------------------------

The heretic!

[Invincibly Ignorant]

The invincibly ignorant “clause” is how the Church deals with the prospect of salvation for those unable to fully comprehend Christ’s ministry. You see there is salvation out side the Church, as long as you understand the definition of “church”. But I may be stretching the definition of “Invincibly ignorant” a bit;-)

And we're the proud ones? Man, you just flat out ignorant. Forget the "invincible".

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

(Which I admit has implications to those who think like me normally. A class of people which does not include Havoc.)

Maybe this is your problem with seeing it the way "Prostestants" see it. You think too much. Where is fatih when questions like this need to be answered. God did not ask us to take him on "blind" faith. He gave us numerous examples that he can be trusted always to do or not do what whatever he says. We should not have to pick apart, or surmise what was the "hidden" or "deeper" meaning in what he said. Take it at face value. These "if" questions are Satan weasling in our minds, and it will give him a foot hold.

The other night my husband and I were discussing the topic on the threads of that day, and I told him what I tried to say here that day. That some of the questions being asked here were not good. God never intended to have to prove himself or his word to the degree the questions implyed. He doesn't need to! After reading the thread that day, a door swung open in my mind and I finally got a good look at the world from the view of a person who doesn't believe or who has doubts about God, and it wasn't pretty. I slammed that door shut and I won't go there again. I don't believe any one should.

How would you feel when you daughter grows up and she starts questioning you about the athenticity of you being her father? Of course now a days we have DNA, but would it not hurt to have to go to those exteremes to prove to her that you are truly her father. Don't you believe she should just trust your word, because of the years you spent never lying to her, always doing exactly what you said you would for her, and so on. Do you see what I am driving at. These questions are taking us down roads that beleivers should not go down.

Becky

[OLD REGGIE]

OLD REGGIE certainly didn't mean to send this to himself.
------------------------------------------------------------

The one, same, and only Sola Scriptura. I accept that folks (well, some folks) will use philosophy, history, tradition, their God-given minds, etc., to develop their Christian thoughts. However, if they submit these thoughts to examination by the light of Scripture as their "primary" authority, then they are engaging in "Scritpure Alone," or Sola Scriptura. It doesn't matter where one gets their ideas from, or how many sub-authorities one deigns to submit to. When push comes to shove there is only one authority which is, ahem, authoritative. This authority stands alone, no other claim is given the least bit of creedence if it contradicts the one authority. This authority is solitary. There may be secondary and tertiary sources which are plural; but singular, one, is the final (or primary) authority. There is thus only one authority. It is single. It stands alone, on its own plane, at the summit of judgeship. It is solitary, the only authority to which final judgment is rendered. In other words it is Alone. Scripture is this authority. Hence it can safely be said that any Christian who holds Scripture as his "primary" authority holds it as his only authority. Ultimately. What other source of authority are you suggesting they hold as a "co-primary" authority?
------------------------------------------------------------

Augustine ("De unitate ecclesiae", [on the Unity of the Church 3):

"Let us not hear, this I say, this you say; but thus says the Lord. Surely it is the books of the Lord on whose authority we both agree and which we both believe. There let us seek the Church, there let us discuss our case." He goes on: "Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, with the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God."
-----------------------------------------------------------

Augustine "Contra litteras Petiliana", (Against the Letters of Petiliana) Bk.3, ch.6:

"If anyone preaches either concerning Christ or concerning His church or concerning any other matter which pertains to our faith and life; I will not say, if we, but what Paul adds, if an angel from heaven should preach to you anything besides what you have received in the Scriptures of the Law and the Gospels, let him be anathema."
-----------------------------------------------------------

The heretic!

[JHavard]

Yes, Paul and the other Apostles received direct revelation from the Holy Spirit. That is why we Catholics believe what they say. Unlike some Protestants, however, we do not claim to be still receiving such revelations ourselves. We follow the ancient teachings, whereas the Protestants get into exotic new doctrines, e.g., once saved always saved, the Father and the Son are two separate gods, etc.

Since Paul was the first apostle chosen by Christ personally after his resurrection, and he was also the first given as an example of how the Holy Spirit was now going to work, by teaching through each mans Spirit those things that please God.

The original apostles seemed to know this, and they never questioned it, why do you?

Where does it say that this was given only to Paul? He was the first fruit of the newe way the Holy Spirit would teach us, an example for all to see, and there will be no more guilt trips put on me for my beliefs that the Holy Spirit guides me in my search for the truth.

We follow the ancient teachings, whereas the Protestants get into exotic new doctrines, e.g., once saved always saved, the Father and the Son are two separate gods, etc.

You go ahead and follow ancient teachings, I choose to follow Christ and the examples he gave us.

Once saved always saved, yes, I can see where this would be a threat to the Catholic Church, when you use fear and guilt to keep them coming back.

the Father and the Son are two separate gods,
I certainly hope that knowing the true answer to that question isn't part of the salvation plan, because if it is, it's going to be mighty quiet up there come resurrection day.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Dave ... is the sky blue ... yes or no? ;o)

Only when its not cloudy. :-)

[OLD REGGIE]

I hope I'm not beating a dead horse, but this appears a lot like "Sola Scriptura" to me:

This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.

St. Augustine, quoted from his City of God, book XI, Chapter 3.
============================================================

Perhaps you can better interpret what St. Augustine means by paramount authority.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Heb. 4:15 Foe we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as wer are, yet without sin.