Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Funny Timothy knew what the "sacred writings" were. I suppose he failed to informed the rest of the Church and it took everyone else 300 years to figure it out?
Then couldn't they be Gnostic writings the Church has erroneously declared "inspired"? The Church has made mistakes in the past. Why not now? In the end you undermine your own faith.
Our Lord Jesus had much to say to those who put tradition before God's written word:
Mat 15:6 he is not to honor his father or his mother.' And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
Mar 7:8 "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men."
Mar 7:9 He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
Mar 7:13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that."
We both agree that the Apostles COULD NOT be in error when teaching the faith. Paul in Galatians even mentions that he KNOWS THEY cannot be mistaken! "As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed" (Gal 1:9). There is a big difference between sinning and not teaching error. God doesn't protect men from sinning. Paul mentions in Romans 7 that he HIMSELF continues to war against the flesh. But yet, he KNOWS he cannot err in teaching the faith. Why? Because the Spirit of God is protecting his proclamation.
But if the Bible is inerrant, then it could not have been subject to human error
You seem to be lumping "sin" and "error" in the same definition. Again, we believe that the Apostles and their successors, due to Christ's promise, cannot err when, as a group, teach the faith. This includes putting pen to paper, teaching in public to the Galatians, or deciding what books infallibly belong in Scripture.
Through God's given grace and faith, I am able to see that the Bible is true and accept it.
That is pretty much the same argument that Mormons use. We have discussed the anthropology of man before, and you seem to agree that man is at the very least a wounded specimen, incapable of coming to God alone. Yet, now you "know" that your wounded (or depraved?) intellect is able to point out what Scripture is - alone and without mediation from another? I find this an interesting argument - "I know that Scripture is God's Word - because my (depraved) mind tells me it is". Really, is that it?
I don't see this as changing my faith all the time, the core hasn't changed, I just see it as learning more correctly the nature of the true faith that God already gave me.
Sure. I can agree with that. We all form conceptions in our minds on the faith. I believe God sometimes corrects ideas that we hold that are in error. But we are wounded in intellect and the will. It is difficult to rely on such things for correction-sake, because we can, as humans, convince ourselves of anything being true...
So, even when I teach new Christians something, my attitude is never "trust me", I have been a Christian for a long time, etc. I always say take a look at what I've said, see if it matches scripture and pray about it. The Spirit will then lead as He will
God mediates Himself through your teaching. People see you as trustworthy because of your WITNESS. They see your way of life, how you follow the Lord and your belief in Him. They see you as at peace - different from other people. They want that peace, that assuredness of God's presence in their lives. You are forgetting what moves people to conversion. God works through other people. The Scriptures are not meant to be read alone separate from His Church. The Scriptures merely help to verify the proclamation that needs no Scriptures - JESUS IS LORD! Our witness is stronger, in the eyes of others, than a book. The reason people look to the book in the first place is because they trust your witness and your word that your source for your peace is God and His Word - found in Scriptures.
I'd agree it is debatable whether he was also referring to (what would become) the NT
Debatable?! How about "no doubt"! Paul was refering to a book written before Timothy's youth! Couldn't be the NT... In any case, we don't find a "table of contents" that is inspired and found in Scriptures. The Book of James doesn't list all the other books that belong. We have to rely on the decisions of men to determine WHAT is Scriptures. Perhaps you find that offensive. But that is the unarguable truth of the matter. If you believe that the Bible is infallible and inerrant, how does one explain that fallible men put it together? If one is infallible, so was the other.
Wouldn't you agree that the Bible stands alone in the history of religious literature as the only book, written through many different people, across hundreds of years, with a firmly consistent message without contradiction, etc.?
Of course, because God guided men protected by the Spirit to compile it. Naturally, if they could compile such an infallible book - and Paul could say their teachings were infallible, I have a difficult time understanding why the Spirit of Truth doesn't protect the ordinary special teachings of these same men.
Every single prophecy which subject has come to pass has turned out to be absolutely true.
Be careful on that one, brother. Prophesy is subject to interpretation. We interpret the OT prophesy has having been fulfilled by Jesus - such is what we have been taught. However, the OT never mentions Jesus of Nazareth as being the Messiah. WE as Christians say that. They Jews, the authors of the OT, did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah. What this means is that prophesy is subject to interpretation. Prophesy ITSELF does not prove Jesus was the Messiah, because prophesy is by nature vague.
If you are trying to start a movement, would you highlight stuff like that? Can any other book say 'yes' to all of those things?
Please don't misunderstand me. I agree that the Bible is God's Inspired Word. It is just that I believe that based on the witness of other men - men who were willing to die for their witness. Men who could have just as easily remained under the protection offered their Jewish brothers (an accepted religion in Rome) by not that a man rose from the dead. Their way of life, their teachings, the miracles reported even by hostile witnesses. And this continued for centuries. The truth of the matter is that either Jesus was a lunatic, a liar, or our Lord. Based on what we have, the witness of His followers, based on how so many people have followed this Man, I can't help but think He was the latter. But to accept that the Scripture is God-breathed FIRST is a circular argument that does not stand up to critical argument. We believe the Bible is the Word of God BECAUSE of those men, not the other way around!
men had nothing to do with their organization into what became the Bible.
I would suggest you do some reading on the forming of the Canon of Scripture. You are beginning to sound like you think that the scrolls of James had a stamp on them that said "Inspired Scripture, please hold for 300 years until the Council of Carthage"... Start by reading who Marcion was - and why HIS verison of the Canon was not taken up. THe reason why, of course, is because the men of the Church already KNEW what were the teachings of the Apostles. They HAD the Deposit of Faith. Thus, Marcion didn't ring true - not because of Scripture, but because of Tradition.
I'm just saying that God was the final editor and controlled the entire process. He allowed the personalities of the scribes to come through, but the message was all God's.
Yes, of course. However, again, I ask you to read about the formation of the canon of Scripture. Many Christian commmunities felt that the Spirit was leading them to include the First Letter of Clement to the Corinthians as Scripture. Others thought the Shepherd of Hermes belonged. Many didn't agree that 2nd Peter was Scripture. Some didn't think the Book of Revelation was from God. Isn't it obvious that individual men are not given the ability to infallibly determine what IS the Scriptures and to collate them into one book? This took the Church, infallibly guided by the Spirit, to make such judgments.
Why were these fundamentals left out, or not clearer? Even with a traditional paradigm, aren't there too many things left wide open for the future Protestants to assail later?
Apparently, the writers of the Scriptures didn't foresee the Protestant Reformation and their decision to ignore the Church's authority on such matters. I ask you to consider this....When you write a letter, do you write EVERYTHING you did to someone? No, you focus on something that sticks out in your mind, something you consider important. You don't write a letter and include how to eat a bowl of cereal! Thus, since the vast majority of the NT is letters, why would anyone expect everything taught by the first Christians to be in there? Doesn't Paul make it clear that he taught many things to his communities, some of them found in the written traditions, some not? In the quote from Galatians above, isn't it clear that Paul talked to the Galatians before he WROTE to them?
And why would he rehash EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE that he taught them in a letter? For the Protestants who would leave the Church 1500 years later??? Tne purpose of a letter is to address particulars, not to teach people of 1000 years latter the history of the Christian doctrines and beliefs. We write to people, understanding the nuances of our langauges, the customs of our times, the society that we live in. Historians regret that Paul and other didn't write more, because we have precious little knowledge of the times. But the fact remains that Paul was no different then we would have been. Paul was addressing problems and exhorting his communities, not writing a full exposition of the Catholic faith, all its practices and doctrines, in his letters. He understood that was the point of having an authoritative group of men. Did he not ordain men to continue his work, or did he leave a book to teach future men? And yet, you seem to forget this and place your faith in a book alone which is not self-attesting?
To me that is "a" proof that we are right and Arius is wrong, plus, if that's what the JWs say then enough said. :) And, doesn't the Spirit lead both of us to the same place (as we perceive it) on so many issues? I think that's great.
Unfortunately, as the existence of Protestantism shows, men do not agree on what is "valid" Christian teaching on many issues, some being of eternal importance. Without an heirarchial authority that is accepted by the Church, Arius would have just started another church and dragged away more unwitting catholics to eternal doom. The intent of Christ was to establish an authoritative body who knew HIS teaching and could bind and loosen on such matters.
My argument to Arius would not have been so much "that is not what we have been taught" as much as it would have been "that's not what the totality of scripture teaches".
Scripture alone does not interpret itself. Doesn't thousands of denominations convince you otherwise? These are not just on minor issues, brother. Look at the Arminius vs. Calvin discussions. Is Baptism an ordinance or a sacrament necessary for salvation? The Eucharist? I find this particularly scandalous, because NOWHERE in the Scriptures do we find that Christians had many faiths and beliefs, "as long as they agreed on the main issues". That is the relativistic individualism of Protestantism, not what is taught in Scripture. We are taught one faith, one Baptism, and one Lord. We partake in one loaf. We are one Body, not many. Communion implies a sharing of beliefs. Unfortunately, we don't share in beliefs on key issues.
Your continued reliance on the "Spirit" is purely subjective. What is the difference between what you see as the "Spirit" and what might be your own fancy? How do we identify between the two? One month ago, you thought the "Spirit" was leading you to believe in "the absolute assuredness of salvation" and then today, the "Spirit" leads you to "perseverance of the Saints"? Why is it that last month, the Spirit was leading you to the former belief, and then, today, He has changed His mind, leading you somewhere else? Isn't this proof enough that the Spirit doesn't lead every one of our actions and beliefs and thoughts? Merely identifying your current beliefs with the "Spirit leading me" is another way of justifying yourself and your beliefs. How do you KNOW such thoughts are from the Spirit, and not your own intellect, or even worse, Satan???
If the Spirit doesn't (ultimately or directly) lead me, and I'm just making it up, then I'm not a Christian in the first place.
We must discern WHAT the Spirit is saying. We cannot equate every thought we have as coming from the Spirit. That is why we cannot trust our own intellects and wills to infallibly lead us to God's will and teachings. Our human condition REQUIRES a protected body to lead us, since we cannot infallibly follow Christ alone - we interject too many errors into the process. The Spirit leads us always in line with how He leads the visible Body of Christ. When we read something and take it in contradistinction from how He leads the Body, we can be assured that we are treading dangerous ground. Beware of pride. The Spirit does not lead us astray from the Body.
On the question of who's to say whether my interpretation or that of the JW is correct, I can simply rest in how the Spirit leads me
You won't convince many people on that argument, because they say the same thing. Either the Spirit is lying, or one (or both) are misinterpreting what the Spirit is saying. The question, then, is :" how do you discern infallibly the Spirit"? How do you know the JW is wrong and you are right? BOTH of you 'claim' the Spirit! What an impasse. Just this example should be proof that one treads on dangerous ground when they use private interpretation and claiming that "the Spirit is leading me" - a virtual impossiblity considering the Spirit supposedly leads so many others in different directions. I will call this pride and leave it to you to discern if I am correct or not.
Regards
You mean like the Messiah would rise from the dead? I said "APOSTOLIC TRADITIONS", not Hebrew traditions...
And to say that the scriptures are not necessary flies in the face of many of the early church fathers' writings where they relied upon the scriptural teachings (please is Iraeneus works).
Please. You don't know what you are talking about. The following are all from St. Ireneaus. It is clear that he did not do away with the Apostolic Tradition...
"To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition,(3) believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible." Scripture is not absolutely necessary to follow Christ.
"...they (Gnostics) proceed when they find anything in the multitude of things contained in the Scriptures which they can adopt and accommodate to their baseless speculations." the danger of reading Scripture without Tradition
"I carefully noticed the passages which they garble from the Scriptures, with the view of adapting them to their own fictions." same thing. Private interpretation without tradtion = garbling fictions.
"But if they had known the Scriptures, and been taught by the truth, they would have known" So who IS the truth? The Church is the teacher of truth.
"WE have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles." The Church is the source of Apostolic teaching, which came FIRST.
"But since this man is the only one who has dared openly to mutilate the Scriptures" Again, mutilating Scripture implies there is a particular WAY to read them.
"These things, too, were preached to the Gentiles by word, without [the aid of] the Scriptures: wherefore, also, they who preached among the Gentiles underwent greater labour." Isn't that quite obvious which came first?
"Chapter 26, Book IV...THE TRUE EXPOSITION OF THE SCRIPTURES IS TO BE FOUND IN THE CHURCH ALONE. Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church,--those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, [looking upon them] either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismaries puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory." This is what St. Ireneaus thinks about people who think they can interpret Scriptures outside of the Church
"And then shall every word also seem consistent to him,(6) if he for his part diligently read the Scriptures in company with those who are presbyters in the Church, among whom is the apostolic doctrine, as I have pointed out."
There are many others, but you should get the gist of things. St. Ireneaus clearly believes that the Church is the sole source of authoritatively interpetating Scriptures. It is not to be read outside of Apostolic Teachings. And finally, he realized that oral teachings were sufficient to instruct the faithful, thus, the Bible was not absolutely necessary.
Regards
Isn't it quite obvious that Paul is refering to the Old Testament? Those of Timothy's YOUTH! The New Testament was not even written yet...
Regards
There are four gospels and only four, neither more nor less: four like the points of the compass, four like the chief directions of the wind. The Church, spread all over the world, has in the gospels four pillars and four winds blowing wherever people live.
These four gospels are in actual fact one single Gospel, a fourfold Gospel inspired by the one Spirit, a Gospel which has four aspects representing the work of the Son of God.
These aspects are like the four cherubs described by Ezekiel. In the prophet's words: `The first had the like ness of a lion,' symbolizing the masterly and kingly role of Christ in priesthood; `the second had the appearance of an ox,' the beast of sacrifice, recalling the perfect sacrifice of Christ; `the third had the face of a man,' undoubtedly referring to the coming of the Lord in human nature; `and the fourth had the aspect of a flying eagle,' with a clear allusion to the grace of the Spirit hovering over the Church. [cf. Ezek. 1:10; Rev. 4:7]
The four Gospels correspond to these symbols. Christ is at the center of them.
John actually speaks of his kingly and glorious Sonship to the Father in his opening words: `In the beginning was the Word.' [John 1:1] Luke begins with Zaccharias offering sacrifice. Matthew chooses first of all the Lord's human genealogy. And Mark leads off by calling on the prophetic Spirit which invests humanity from on high.
The reason why the divine power has give us the Scriptures is not solely to present facts according to the literal interpretation of the narrative. If one looks to the letter of the text, some of the facts have not actually happened and would be irrational and illogical.
Granted , the facts that have happened in the literal sense are much more numerous than the facts that have been added and have only a spiritual meaning.
All the same, in the face of certain pages the reader feels embarrassed. Without accurate research it is not possible to discover if a fact that seems historical actually happened according to the literal sense of the words or if it did not happen at all.
By keeping the commandment of the Lord to "search the Scriptures" (John 5:39), one ought to examine with care and attention where the literal meaning is historical and where it is not.
In Scripture not everything is objectively historical in the literal sense. Sometimes it is obvious that the result of taking it literally is impossible. But the divine Scripture, taken as a whole, has a spiritual meaning.
Sorry but it is completely wrong to suggest things were handed down by voice until the 3rd or 4th century. Not only does the Holy Scriptures states this isn’t so, (I would hope the Roman Catholics would admitted the Book of 1 Peter isn't wrong) but as I stated earlier the early church fathers also believed. Granted they believe the interpretation should be held by the councils but that a different matter. They held a very high regards for the scripture and if they for once thought that it could be passed on through word of mouth it was only because they never assumed the text would be so thoroughly abused by those inside the Church.
It is a sad commentary on the Roman Catholic Church and those in this system today that they would attack the only credible source on which the Christian faith is founded. It goes back to the tradition of men.
Again, the Pope is only infallible when he makes official, solemnly declared statements from the Chair of Peter. His opinions as a private theologian are not infallibly protected, only those when operating as the official promulgator and definer of Catholic faith or morals. As I mentioned before, this is an extraordinary charism from the Spirit. It has been exercised only TWICE in 150 years, the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary.
I did not have any idea about this. Thanks very much for the explanation. This will put a whole new light on how I read the news about these Vatican statements. And, I certainly believe that the Pope is no slouch as a private theologian :) I also did not know that the idea of the immaculate conception of Mary is so relatively new? Was it the case that the idea was always "there", but was only made "official" in the last 150 years, or is this truly new?
The Church is not a business, but is more a family (of God). To give an example, would you remove a father from a family because they didn’t discipline their children very well or taught them some disgusting habit, perhaps? It is much the same thing.
It would depend on the habit, and there certainly is a line that, once crossed, would require removal. I do not presume at all to dictate to the Catholic Church what that line should be, however, I know that you agree with me that clergy of any Christian faith should always be held to higher standards than the non-clerical father in your example.
Thank you very much for the compliment on open mindedness. :)
Protestant communities are NOT part of the Church of Christ.
I hope you understand that to mean “the First Southern Baptist Church on Main Street” is not part of the Church of Christ, BUT some of the PEOPLE who attend the “First Southern Baptist Church on Main Street” ARE of the Church of Christ…
That is the way I took it, but I shuttered at the implications, following up on above. I appreciate that lay people like me have a chance through invincible ignorance, but wouldn't you have to say that my pastor is necessarily doomed? How about Billy Graham? By this reasoning, all well trained and very learned leaders of Protestant churches are actively leading people away from the Church of Christ. INCLUDING CHILDREN. They must have special places in hell reserved for them, no? :)
Perhaps it was you that I wrote that I cannot convert anyone, only God can. I merely present the Catholic side. If God wills, the seed planted will grow into faith, either now, or a later time. My “job” is to present the truth of the Catholic Faith, ...
It was you, and I cannot agree more with the sentiment. :)
[On whether there is a need for a hierarchy] Because there can only be ONE truth! I believe you are succumbing to the idea in society that is way over-used and misunderstood: Tolerance. By making truth subjective, by saying “your truth is as good as mine”, you are saying that truth is not really important; it is a matter of opinion.
I don't see truth as a matter of opinion at all, I might be tolerant of a person out of love, but certainly not to her views if I believe them to be in error. I would then work very hard, as you would, to make the case. I do believe there is one and only one truth, whether I know it, or like it, or not. I seek to know it and reckon it, and of course in my biased opinion, on balence, so far so good! :)
In addition, while I think there is only one truth on a given matter, I can sometimes give some leeway on the way to get there. For example, we both believe that the Spirit indwells and guides the saved person. This is the truth. We disagree on how that happens, you believe it comes through the Church, and I believe it happens in a more direct manner. The "core" issue is the existence of the indwelling Spirit. I respectfully and strongly disagree about the mechanics, but I choose to focus on the bigger issue. I think I get this approach from what Jesus said concerning John the Baptist:
Matt. 11:11, 18-19 : "11 I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. ... 18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.' 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." ' But wisdom is proved right by her actions."
They had completely different methods of preaching. John was "fire and brimstone", while Jesus was calmer and more declarative. Both were absolutely correct and arrived at the same place via different means. Both spoke absolute truth. I still remember how much that understanding knocked me over when I first learned it. Jesus was certainly "tolerant" of John's methods even though they were not His own. He sacrificed no truth to hold this view.
Well, I thought I explained that “our” inner goodness comes from God and God alone. We cooperate in salvation merely because God ALLOWS us to. ... Thus, we must not willingly reject Him. But we realize that all that God gives us is gift. We cannot truly begin to understand God until we understand that EVERYTHING we have is a gift from Him. So knowing this, cooperation is merely saying “yes” to God’s gifts.
You certainly did explain that God graces us to be able to cooperate in free will to accept Him. My point, as I understand you, is that the decision remains your own to be saved, this is your free will.
Here's what I don't get: I think that you say that God graces us all with enough to make a decision for or against God. Some say 'yes', some say 'no'. OK, why would anyone say "NO"? Who wouldn't accept such a gift? Does God give more grace to some than others? Are some people born with a larger capacity for cooperation than others? Would that come from God, since God created "all of" all of us? Doesn't God Himself create the free will that we would use? (This goes back to my use of the word "luck".) What separates the 'yes' people from the 'no' people?
What errors does the Catholic Church teach? I am not aware of anything that is taught that is explicitly denied of us in Scriptures. Everything I am aware of that is taught is not in contradistinction to Scripture.
On many matters, there is clearly no contradistinction. On others, it is precisely a matter of interpretation, which is why I put it in the context of what the Spirit reveals to us. I know the Catholic theology is well developed enough not to allow patent error to all readers (e.g. Jesus never lived on earth in human form). So, all of our theologies have critics from other Christians. Among Christian faiths, this does not bother me to a huge extent, because if someone I disagree with is really a Christian, then he will be in heaven and when I see him I can say "NAH, NAH!" :)
You yourself believe that man sins, that man sometimes chooses sin, even after our “salvation”. How do you know you are not choosing something that suits your current fancy?
For whatever current fancy I might have I would first look to scripture to the best of my knowledge. After that, I might look to others of like faith and learn their teachings. As we touched on recently, on this thread I did have a fancy, and it was wrong. I didn't know the scripture well enough to realize it, and I have heard people I respect promote "once saved always saved" so that was my fancy. I am grateful to God that I have been touched and further sanctified and have learned a better teaching.
However, I also believe that I could have gone for the rest of my life without learning this new teaching and still have gone to heaven. I "KNOW" I will never learn a new teaching now that will get me into heaven where I was lost before (now).
How do you know the devil is not leading you to believe something? How do you know you are accurately interpreting what the Spirit says? How do you know the “promptings” within you are actually the Spirit?
I know for sure that the devil tries to lead me away from God each and every day. But, I also know that I am protected and that God keeps His own. God will not allow me to don the Nikes and go chasing after Haley's comet. I have said that I make no claim of a monopoly on perfect interpretation of all scripture. :) My faith says that the Spirit will always point me toward the narrow road, even if I sometimes stray through briers or rocky sidepaths.
If there is one thing I admire regarding Protestants is there desire to learn more about God through the Scriptures. They do it often on their own time (outside the Sunday “obligation”).
I thank you for the very kind words. I am in great admiration of your vast knowledge of scripture. You represent your faith exceedingly well.
God bless.
Say what? When did I say that the letters of Paul weren't around for 300 years?
I believe your position on 1 Peter is that it is inspired by God
You mean 2 Peter. And it was not clear from the Church's teachers that IT was considered Scripture. It was one of those books that was called the NT Deuterocannonicals, along with 2 John, 3 John, and Jude. There was not universal agreement on 2 Peter being written by Peter HIMSELF. Most scholars would agree that Peter didn't write that letter. It is not important to me whether he wrote it or not, as it is NOW part of the Canon. However, IF so many people didn't accept 2 Peter as Scripture for some time, then 2 Peter 3:16 falls on deaf ears on determining the canon....
The letter Timothy was reading is not the same one from his youth. That is what Paul is refering to in 2 Timothy, not a current writing in his hand!
Irenaeus knew about the four gospels as early as the 2nd century and believed them to be inspired. I would submit those who are saying the gospels weren't around until the 3-4 century better look at Irenaeus. He knew where they were and he knew them to be inspired before any creeds of the Church.
I never argued that no one was aware of the Four Gospels! Nor did I ever say anything about the men of the Church having to wait without inspired writings for 300 years! The Councils of the late 300's definitively set the Canon of Scriptures. There would be no more disagreements - 2 Peter WAS Scripture! 1st Clement of Rome to the Corinthians was NOT Scripture! I ask you - what do you think guided these men to know what Scripture was? The teaching of the Apostolic Church, that's what. St. Ireneaus is clear that Apostolic Succession guarantees the contents of Scriptures. Know the chronology and theology of Christianity. What came first? Do you think for a second that the second generation of Christians, having unearthed a writing from "Paul", would have accepted it if it said something about the fourth person of the Trinity (as St. Ireneaus argues against in his writings)? It is the teachings received, protected by the Spirit, that verifies WHAT IS Scriptures.
Sorry but it is completely wrong to suggest things were handed down by voice until the 3rd or 4th century
Who made that statement? It is quite obvious that the Church gradually accepted particular books as representing the teachings they had been given. The later councils merely defined the entire Canon, verifying that there were NONE left out, and ALL were from God. Only an authoritative heirarchy could make that determination. Only THEY could tell what was the totality of Scriptures. However, it is obvious that the Church Fathers, based on what they were TAUGHT, identified some of Scriptures before it was officially sanctioned by the Church.
They held a very high regards for the scripture and if they for once thought that it could be passed on through word of mouth it was only because they never assumed the text would be so thoroughly abused by those inside the Church.
Of course they highly regarded Scriptures. They taught what they had received ALREADY. The Scriptures verified their faith, what was passed down. I would suggest to you that very few of the first Church Fathers even READ the 27 books that we now call Scriptures! I would posit that they only read a few here and there. When they refer to Scriptures, most of them refer to the Old Testament, although as time moves on, they identify this word with the Gospels and some other Epistles. What is important to remember is what came first and what determined the lenses that the Fathers read a particular book - and accepted it or discarded it. The reason why the Gospel of Thomas was discarded was its contents. The Fathers KNEW what the proper contents of faith were. This writing didn't match what was given. Thus, it was out. Thus, Apostolic Tradition was so important to them.
It is a sad commentary on the Roman Catholic Church and those in this system today that they would attack the only credible source on which the Christian faith is founded. It goes back to the tradition of men
It's a sad commentary on yourself to not understand what Cahtholics are writing. We are saying you cannot discard Apostolic Traditions because IT was what determined what WAS Scripture in the first place. By discarding something on your own authority, what would St. Ireneaus say about you? Would you be considered orthodox or a heretic like Marcion, picking and choosing your own version of Scriptures, your own version of beliefs, and your own way of coming to God?
Is Christianity a revealed religion or one made up by men? That's the question you should ask yourself. If you pick and choose, it is no longer revealed, it is from you - it is no longer faith.
Regards
You are right, the criteria for canonicity are different; I simply meant correctness of a particular statement.
baptism is not the promise of salvation
Baptism is a part of the promise, but not the entire promise; this is why I said "through" not "with".
14 But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.What do we see here? First, verse 14 refers to oral teaching. Second, that the scripture thus described is something Timothy knew from infancy, which means the Old Testament. Third, that such scripture that is inspired is useful in teaching, correction, and generally in every good work. Now, what do we not see? We do not see that Timothy knows the New Testament Canon, which as of St. Paul's writing did not exist yet. Generally, in this passage we do not see any way to tell which scripture is inspired.(2 Timothy 3)
Jo kus is not saying that.
Irenaeus knew about the four gospels as early as the 2nd century and believed them to be inspired.
No one argues otherwise.
it is completely wrong to suggest things were handed down by voice until the 3rd or 4th century
Which "things"? Some were, some were not. Once a book is written it is handed down by script, not by voice. The Epistles and the Gospels were all written in the 1 century; I don't think anyone has argued otherwise.
You are very welcome. Thank you for asking and for listening.
Arguing the development of the Bible with Catholics is a futile cause. When I point out that some don't believe the written scriptures came in to existent until the 3-4 century and I'm told I'm wrong that no body states this (please refer to former posts). THEN those same people turn right around and say there wasn't anything written until the 3-4 century.
Paul hands Timothy a letter, a letter which Peter declares to be inspired and one that the Church has deemed to be inspired, and I'm told "St. Paul's writing did not exist yet." and Timothy was only reading from the Old Testament even though Timothy was reading from 1 Timothy. DUH!!! I understand it isn't REALLY inspired writing until the "Church" has said it is inspired writing. Well
Harley, please, get a grammar book. A Protestant grammar book will do. This is my sentence, which you quote:
We do not see that Timothy knows the New Testament Canon, which as of St. Paul's writing did not exist yet.It parses thus:
We do not see XX ::= Timothy knows the New Testament Canon, which Y
Y ::= as of Z did not exist yet
Z ::= St. Paul's writing
1 Timothy did exist. The canon as of the writing of 1 Timothy did not.
The scripture Timothy knew since his youth did not contain the letter St. Paul wrote to him.
The letter to Timothy is not the entire New Testament canon.
But was Timothy reading from the New Testament? It was your claim earlier that he was not.
Timothy was reading the letter written to him by St. Paul that centuries later became a part of the New Testament canon.
Was Timothy reading the New Testament? I take your answer as a "Yes."
Even though "ordinary" statements are not necessarily infallible, we still give proper obedience to his statements! Infallibility applies only to explain the Deposit of Faith. But there are many issues that are not part of this deposit - such as "can a priest be married"? Such ecclesiastical disciplines are not part of the Faith passed down from the Apostles.
I also did not know that the idea of the immaculate conception of Mary is so relatively new? Was it the case that the idea was always "there", but was only made "official" in the last 150 years, or is this truly new?
The former. St. Justin the Martyr around 150 AD wrote about the New Eve, paralleling the New Adam of Romans 5. Him and other writers of the time (St. Ireneaus and Tertullian, for example) note that God works in parallel manners. If Adam and Eve (both sinless, they note) fell, God would "untie the knot of their discord" in the same manner - through TWO sinless people, the New Adam and New Eve. Thus, the idea of the Immaculate Conception is quite old - it is just not DOGMA - infallible teaching - until 1854, I think.
I know that you agree with me that clergy of any Christian faith should always be held to higher standards than the non-clerical father in your example.
Yes, we should just be careful and not jump the gun, remembering that the priest is a spiritual father rather than a middle manager in the Church.
"...wouldn't you have to say that my pastor is necessarily doomed? How about Billy Graham? By this reasoning, all well trained and very learned leaders of Protestant churches are actively leading people away from the Church of Christ. INCLUDING CHILDREN. They must have special places in hell reserved for them, no? :)
Seemed determine to catch me here, huh? ;-) We cannot know how much a person realizes that the Catholic Church is the TRUE Church, that it subsists within it, and that it was formed to bring people into union with Christ. Just because you are visibly not a Roman Catholic doesn't mean you have REJECTED the ACTUAL Roman Catholic Church. We would hope you are rejecting a misperception of it!
I do believe there is one and only one truth, whether I know it, or like it, or not. I seek to know it and reckon it, and of course in my biased opinion, on balence, so far so good! :)
Fair enough
we both believe that the Spirit indwells and guides the saved person. This is the truth. We disagree on how that happens, you believe it comes through the Church, and I believe it happens in a more direct manner.
The Spirit certainly can come in a "more direct manner", but not to the exclusion of the Church, which is what I believe Protestantism teaches. How can a person reject the Church that gave us the Bible, gives us the Apostolic teachings, and then claim to be following the Spirit? Protestantism rejects Catholicism's claim. Catholicism rejects Protestantism's authority to break away - admitting that some Protestants still remain, unknowingly, in the Church.
Jesus was certainly "tolerant" of John's methods even though they were not His own. He sacrificed no truth to hold this view.
I am not arguing over teaching methods, but teaching contents! John and Jesus taught the Kingdom as near. Repent and believe! The Church continues this teaching.
OK, why would anyone say "NO"? Who wouldn't accept such a gift?
Faith is the gift, correct? What is faith? "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Heb 11:1). It is not seen yet! The PROMISE made is just that - a promise of eternal life. Thus, people are free to not accept the promise for whatever reason (we've heard a number of excuses). Again, we base our faith on the word of others - that God speaks to us through the Scripture is based on faith, not on visible reality.
Does God give more grace to some than others? Are some people born with a larger capacity for cooperation than others? Would that come from God, since God created "all of" all of us? Doesn't God Himself create the free will that we would use?
Yes to all.
I also believe that I could have gone for the rest of my life without learning this new teaching and still have gone to heaven. I "KNOW" I will never learn a new teaching now that will get me into heaven where I was lost before (now).
Perhaps. I don't agree that we can infallibly know that we are of the elect. That takes away from God's freedom to choose whether we deserve heaven or not. Or to condemn whom He wills. Perhaps in the future, you will learn of a greater appreciation of the Eucharist, partake in it, and learn to be more virtuous, more humble, etc. Who can say what this "new" devotion will mean on our spiritual lives. God wants us to come to the fullness of the Truth, not to "just barely make it"!
My faith says that the Spirit will always point me toward the narrow road, even if I sometimes stray through briers or rocky sidepaths.
:-) as long as you can identify the "voice of the Spirit", that would work great! Sometimes, that is hard to do. Discernment is a difficult ART (not a science) that takes a lot of work and prayer. My point is that we are given more of God's instruments of graces through the Church's liturgical life, through her devotional life. I am not saying that a person CANNOT attain to heaven without this, but it makes matters easier, for those who are aware of the gift God has given us. If people knew what the Church was, and they desired to enter into Christ, they would RUN to enter the Church, since Christ works most powerfully through His Body, His Bride, the Church
I thank you for the very kind words. I am in great admiration of your vast knowledge of scripture. You represent your faith exceedingly well.
NO!!! You are tempting my primary vice, pride! Careful, Joe...Ooo, head is starting to swell... Danger, danger...Engage "humility manuevers"... "Joe, you don't know what you are talking about. And you got a lot of work before you could even hope to know the Old Testament like your separated brothers..." AH, swelling coming down. Much better...! :-)
Pride puffs up, love builds up.
Brother in Christ
No, according to 1 Timothy, Timothy was not reading the New Testament. He was reading a letter that centuries later became a part of it per infallible determination of the Church.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.