Posted on 11/21/2014 9:09:43 AM PST by Maudeen
Based on the numbers of denominations, sects and cults professing adherence to Christianity, it is not really surprising that there are wide margins of difference in how these different groups understand and interpret the Bible. Within Protestantism, there is still much theological debate and confusion around doctrines and principles – especially those not considered central or cardinal to the Christian faith. And even within mainstream church affiliations that hold fast to the central doctrines of Christianity, there is still considerable confusion and disagreement within church laity with regards to the understanding and interpretation of Biblical doctrine.
(Excerpt) Read more at whttp: ...
Matthew 28:19-20
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
The idea that "you have no need for anyone to teach you" expressed by St. John does not mean that, across the board, nobody needs to teach or be taught. Nor does it mean that everyone is a teacher: that is a particular gift which not everybody has. The office of teaching is clearly very important in the NT Church. And this means more than reciting an appropriate chapter and verse: it means also applying the faith and doctrine of the Apostles to new questions, new controversies, new challenged, in contact with new cultures, which required deeper, wider, or more detailed explanations, and which are arrived at by the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
All this is par of what we mean when we speak of the "development of doctrine."
The ongoing influence of the Holy Spirit in bringing out new aspects of the truth is clear from the record of the early Church:
Luke 12:12The had the authorization both to rule and to instruct: command and teach:
"...for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say.”John 14:26
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.John 15:20
If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.Acts 2:42
They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.Acts 13:1
Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and SaulRomans 12:6-8
We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with the faith; if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead, do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully.1 Corinthians 12:28-29
And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues.Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?
Ephesians 4:11
So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers.
1 Timothy 4:11
Command and teach these things
Teachers were needed:
Acts 8:29-31
The Spirit told Philip, “Go to that chariot and stay near it.”
Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
“How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
Not only Isaiah and the Prophets, but even Apostles like Paul were hard to understand, and needed to be explained correctly:
2 Peter 3:16
[Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
So one can't conclude that nobody needs to teach, that nobody needs to learn from another human being, or that ll are teachers. Neither can one conclude that there will be no development of doctrine, since hte Holy Spirit will (future) "Teach you all things" --- and this means all things, not just what was written down before 100 AD. John said, you remember that if everything Jesus said and did were recorded, the earth itself would not be big enough to hold all the books.
That is NOT to say that there will be new Scriptures or new public revelation. That ceased with the death of the last Apostle. The Canon o Scripture is closed. But the Holy Spirit is teaching His Church the ever wider, deeper ramifications of the Truth that has been handed down to us from the Apostles.
1 Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
All the "teaching" you speak of is contained in the writings of scripture. The man in the chariot had not yet received the Holy Spirit so could not have been taught by Him.
>>Neither can one conclude that there will be no development of doctrine<<
Nonsense, the Catholic Church making up things not found in scripture is contradictory to scripture. Paul said that if anyone taught anything they didn't teach that teacher was to be considered accursed.
Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Catholics are no different in that regard than Muslims or Mormons. Adding to what scripture teaches is proclaiming another gospel and the teachers of any of those three are to be considered accursed.
>>But the Holy Spirit is teaching His Church the ever wider, deeper ramifications of the Truth that has been handed down to us from the Apostles.<<
A myth perpetuated by the Catholic Church and every other false religion.
Sure it's biblical...I posted relevant scripture...The Holy Spirit has led us into all truth in the scriptures...All truth that is necessary for our salvation...
1Jn_5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
What else is there to know??? What doctrine has your religion added that negates that scripture???
The development of doctrine cannot be something that negates or contradicts Scripture, since the Holy Spirit is both the Author of Scripture and the Author of the development of doctrine in the Church:
But your 'development of doctrine' does negate scripture...A lot of it...
Right off the top: the veil of the temple has been ripped in half, eliminated...When once it was required that a priest only could pass thru that veil, now the holy of holies is open to everyone...The mercy seat is available to all without the aid of a priest...
And the list just goes on and on...
The idea that "you have no need for anyone to teach you" expressed by St. John does not mean that, across the board, nobody needs to teach or be taught. Nor does it mean that everyone is a teacher: that is a particular gift which not everybody has. The office of teaching is clearly very important in the NT Church. And this means more than reciting an appropriate chapter and verse: it means also applying the faith and doctrine of the Apostles to new questions, new controversies, new challenged, in contact with new cultures, which required deeper, wider, or more detailed explanations, and which are arrived at by the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
That can not be your Church that is referenced since your Church has created it's own doctrine that negates much doctrine (and ultimately the word of God) already written into the scriptures...
I find that the more we delve into the word of God and the more it sinks into our hearts, the LESS worldly we become and our lives bring glory and honor to Almighty God.
Disagreement over various issues and doctrines seems to be common and the Apostles were not even immune to it. But we have been give the Scripture as our rule of faith and the indwelling Holy Spirit who will lead us into all truth. My pastor said, The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. The main thing is Jesus and the gift of God which is eternal life through faith in Christ.
A Meditation on the Utter Absurdity of the Cross to a Hedonistic World
How Modern Heresies Isolate Us and Leave Us Unfulfilled
On Punching Heretics
Catholic Word of the Day: HERESY, 09-21-13
They Just Won't Go Away: Ancient Heresies in Post-Modern Dress (Ecumenical)
Radio Replies Second Volume - Eutychianism
Radio Replies Second Volume - Nestorianism
Radio Replies Second Volume - Arianism
Radio Replies Second Volume - Manichaeism
Radio Replies Second Volume - Defections From the Catholic Church
Radio Replies Second Volume - Gnosticism
Marcionites
Nestorius on Mary as the Mother of God (Ecumenical)
The Day Nestorius Rocked the Church and an Empire
How Quickly Catholic Heresy Took Over the Church (Immediately)
Hilaire Belloc’s “The Great Heresies” now available in EPUB format
Chapter 6: The Modern Phase [The Great Heresies]
Chapter 5: What Was The Reformation? [The Great Heresies]
Chapter 4: The Albigensian Attack [The Great Heresies]
Chapter 3: The Great and Enduring Heresy of Mohammed [The Great Heresies]
Chapter 2: The Arian Heresy [The Great Heresies
Chapter 1: Scheme Of This Book [The Great Heresies]
Introduction: Heresy [The Great Heresies]
The Great Heresies
John Calvin’s Worst Heresy: That Christ Suffered in Hell
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Succumbs to Heresy
The Bishop Discovers Heresy?
From Orthodox to Heresy: The Secularizing of Catholic Universities
Progressivism/Liberalism is Heresy [Excellent read & reference]
Is heresy better than schism? [Ecumenical]
Modernism: The Modernist Heresy
THE GREAT HERESIES-THE MODERN PHASE
The Protestant Heresy
The Gospel According to Mary Magdalene
Americanism, Then and Now: Our Pet Heresy (encyclical of Pope Leo XIII)
Heresies then and now: ancient Christian heresies practiced in modern times
The Plain Truth About The Baptist Bride Heresy
Balthasar, Hell, and Heresy: An Exchange (is it compatable with the Catholic faith?)
Know Your Heresies
The Rev. John Piper: an interesting look at "heresy vs. schism"
Pietism as an Ecclesiological Heresy
Heresy
Arian Heresy Still Tempts, Says Cardinal Bertone (Mentions Pelagianism As Well)
Catholic Discussion] Church group stays faithful (to heresy!)
An overview of modern anti-Trinitarian heresies
Where heresy and dissent abound [Minnesota]
Gnostic Gospels - the heresy entitled "Gnosticism."
Christian mavericks find affirmation in ancient heresies
The So-Called ‘Gospel’ of Judas: Unmasking an Ancient Heresy
Benedict XVI Heresies and Errors
Donatism (Know your heresies)
The Heresy of Mohammed (Chapter 4, The Great Heresies)
Father & Son Catholic Writers Tag-Team Old & New Heresies
Galatians 1:8 New International Version (NIV)
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!
Mark 7:7-9 New International Version (NIV)
7 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’
8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”
9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!
2 Timothy 3:16 New International Version (NIV)
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness
Sorry, but there is only one Holy Bible and Scripture. You can claim that the Catechism falls into this category, but the Bible disagrees.
1 Corinthians 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.
Catholics and Muslims constantly put what man teaches over what the apostles wrote. That's Scriptural heresy.
Indeed
A quick question: who do you think wrote the first five books of the OT? Would you say, "Moses"? I imagine you would. And yet none of those five books is signed. You are believing this not because of the ipsissima verba of the Scriptures, but because of the Sacred Tradition --- OralTradition---of the Jews.
Likewise: who do you think wrote the four Gospels? Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Good: but actually, those Gospels are anonymous: unsigned and internally unattributed. Why do we say "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John"? Because of Oral Tradition.
You think The Gospel of John is a part of Scripture? Very good.How about the Gospel of Thomas? Or the Didache? Once again, the canon of the New Testament was settled by Sacred Tradition. The very making of the New Testament Canon was a development of doctrine.
None of the books of the OT was included on a First Century AD index --- or 2nd or 3rd century, for that matter --- indicating which books are Sacred Scripture and which are not. The first "New Testaments" were scattered manuscripts. There was no Table of Contents. Over a period of time--- and gradually -- in a process that spanned centuries --- the Churches settled on a Church-wide agreed list of New Testament Scriptures, determined liturgically ("What were they using for public prayers?") and confirmed hierarchically ("What list was approved in synods and councils?)
So without Tradition there would be no Canon of Scripture.
Nor even does the existence of the full Canon of Scripture necessary for salvation. Was not the Thief on the Cross next to Jesus saved? And not one jot or one tittle of NT Scripture had been written at that ppoint. Didn't St. Stephen the deacon, the first holy martyr, go to Heaven? Of course he did. But at that time there was not one written Gospel, no NT whatsoever. What he knew about Christ, he got from the Apostolic preaching. Oral Tradition.
It was Tradition that came first, and gave rise to Scripture. Tradition is not just some unnatural "growth" or tumor that got attached to the Church in the ages after the Gospels were written.
Tradition --- not the "empty traditions of men, but Sacred Tradition and its authority--- preceded Gospel.
And if the Holy Spirit were not teaching reliably through Oral Tradition and through such structures as Church synods and councils, the 27-book New Testament would never have existed, or would have passed out of circulation just as innumerable ancient books passed out of circulation and were forgotten forever. Thanks be to God.
Not so.
"Sorry, but there is only one Holy Bible and Scripture. You can claim that the Catechism falls into this category, but the Bible disagrees."
You have evidently misunderstood how the Catholic Church regards the Catechism. It does not fall in the same category as Bible or Sacred Scripture. The Catholic Church believes in a "closed canon." No other Books could possibly be added to the Bible after the death of the last Apostle.
Now there is a perfect example of going above what is written. First of all, it's been shown over and over in these threads that what was considered scripture was established long before there was a Catholic Church. Peter already considered Paul's writings scripture.
Second, it was God who preserved His word to us as He promised He would. For Catholics to try to take credit IS putting men over what is written. Catholics should keep in mind that God used Judas, Balaam's donkey, and many evil people to bring forth His will. He will also use the anti Christ during the tribulation. If He used the Catholic Church to bring His word forward it is no reflection on the correctness of the Catholic Church.
>>What he knew about Christ, he got from the Apostolic preaching. Oral Tradition.<<
Now please prove from an infallible source that everything the Catholic Church teaches today is what the apostles taught that you call "tradition".
>>Tradition is not just some unnatural "growth" or tumor that got attached to the Church in the ages after the Gospels were written.<<
It most certainly is if what the Catholic Church teaches wasn't taught by the apostles. Paul wrote that if someone teaches something they didn't that person was to be considered accursed. Not one Catholic to date has shown proof that the apostles taught the assumption of Mary.
>>Thanks be to God.<<
You type that it seems as an afterthought. After giving credit to the Catholic Church. Let me remind you that God will use the anti Christ in order for Christ to return. Like I said, if God used the Catholic Church to bring His gospel forward it is no indication that the Catholic Church is true to that word today because it most certainly is not.
The concept of today's "tradition" in the Catholic Church is nothing but a power grab to keep the followers in line and subjected to them. Their concept of "tradition" does NOT go back to the apostles but is only a ruse to adjust their teaching as time goes on.
John 14:26
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
Is it’s God’s intent that we should learn from the Church?-——————————————————————————
Jesus was speaking to his apostles, since his apostles are the ones who started the Church, what did they add to what Jesus said in the Gospels?
It was quite a few years before the Gospels were even wrote and was through the power of the holy spirit.
If there were any thing else needed then why don`t we have a record on it?
John 14:26
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
That is exactly what happened other wise we would not have the word of Gods son through the Gospels.
If you are suggesting that I accept the bible as the word of God because of Jewish or any other tradition, you are absolutely incorrect...
You think The Gospel of John is a part of Scripture? Very good.How about the Gospel of Thomas? Or the Didache? Once again, the canon of the New Testament was settled by Sacred Tradition. The very making of the New Testament Canon was a development of doctrine.
Certainly not in my case nor millions of others...
The bible I believe is the word of God did not come thru Africa as the Catholic bibles do...The bible I read and trust comes from manuscripts that agree with the earliest translated bibles which were the Old Latin Bibles which came from the Greek and Hebrew of the Jews of the bible...
The letters that Paul and the others were distributing to the churches are what my bible comes from and the book of Thomas certainly is not in there...
The O.T. canon mentioned in the N.T. was established long before Jesus showed up...The N.T. canon was established by those who passed out the books and letters during the lifetime of the apostles...
The early church fathers write of the books of the bible...The only canon of a bible that came from your religion is a re-write of the original canon...
So without Tradition there would be no Canon of Scripture.
I think you mean Catholic tradition...And as CynicalBear pointed out, that's unbiblical...So there's absolutely no reason to believe it...
It was Tradition that came first, and gave rise to Scripture. Tradition is not just some unnatural "growth" or tumor that got attached to the Church in the ages after the Gospels were written.
The bible tells us exactly how it worked out...And no, it was not a 'growth or tumor'...It was GOD...
Joh_14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
And if the Holy Spirit were not teaching reliably through Oral Tradition and through such structures as Church synods and councils, the 27-book New Testament would never have existed, or would have passed out of circulation just as innumerable ancient books passed out of circulation and were forgotten forever. Thanks be to God.
Oh brother (sister)...I guess God should thank you for saving the day for him...
Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Thank you but I'll takes God's word over any from your or another's religion, any day...
"Peter already considered Paul's writings scripture."
Yes he did. Such a determination would have to be made by somebody with the authority to do so and Peter certainly did. This is precisely the authority he had from Christ when he gave him the power of the keys" and gave him the Petrine ministry of "confirming the brethren." It's the strongest Catholic point you could have made.
Nevetheless, St. Peter died in the mid-60's, before the whole New Testament was even written, and somebody (some individual or some group) would have to assume that authority to determine what was Holy Scripture. He had to have had a successor in this, because the canon was not yet closed.
So we can see how that happened historically: through the practices of the churches (liturgical) and the confirming declarations of councils and synods (hierarchical). Because obviously you can't have an infallible canon of Scripture unless you have somebody (or somebodies) who can make an infallible determination. And this would necessarily be after the death of the last Apostle (John, d. 100 AD), because as lng as there was a living Apostle, you didn't know if he was going to write something else which would be added to the Canon.
"Second, it was God who preserved His word to us as He promised He would."
Yes, He did. Historically, He did this through the Catholic Church.
" For Catholics to try to take credit IS putting men over what is written. Catholics should keep in mind that God used Judas, Balaam's donkey, and many evil people to bring forth His will."
LOL! Absolutely! It's not at all anomalous to put the Catholic Church in the same category as Balaam's ass. God could do this any way He chose. And the way He chose must be the best way to do it. He chose to do it through His Church.
Despite their (and your and my) various asinine tendencies. It's still His Church.
Very glad to see your defense of the Holy Spirit working in history through Christ’s Church.
Thank you for taking the Bible from the Catholic Church!
Very glad to see your defense of the Holy Spirit working in history through Christ’s Church.
Every tradition your Church has is a contradiction of God's scripture...
2Co 12:11 I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.
Paul knew there was no singular chief apostle...He knew there were chiefest apostles and HE WAS ONE OF THEM...
1Co_4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.
There is nothing written that puts Peter above the rest...And that is confirmed by Paul in the previously posted verse...
1Co 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
This verse clearly points out that no one is to follow Peter, or Paul, or anyone...
1Co 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
By claiming Peter is your first pope, God says you are carnal...
Nevetheless, St. Peter died in the mid-60's, before the whole New Testament was even written, and somebody (some individual or some group) would have to assume that authority to determine what was Holy Scripture. He had to have had a successor in this, because the canon was not yet closed.
That comes from carnal thinking...Philosophical, humanist thinking...
Joh_16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
This was not written to your religion to develop doctrine in the future...This was the promise of Jesus to the apostles to have a source of revealed truth to be put into the written scriptures...
We know the Spirit of God revealed to John the apostle the mysteries of the book of Revelation...When that Revelation to John was finished, God's revelation to mankind was finished...
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.