(no subject)
Part 2
3. Find somewhere in scripture which says that tradition cannot be inspired.
Yes, tradition can come from God...if it is in the Bible!!!
Yes, but the proof asked for, especially in context, is proof that there cannot be things which are extra-biblical which are inspired.
Besides, look towards the end of the e-mail from me. SOMETHING MUST BE THE FINAL JUDGE TO COMPARE THINGS TO!!! Are you telling me that something that man (who is fallible) came up with is just as good as what God (who is infallible) has given? Might as well go the whole way and start being a Gnostic believer.
If the Church, whom God has created as bride, is truly pure and virginal by the power of the Holy Spirit, then she is able to speak on His behalf. For, if the Church were to fall into heresy then she would become a harlot like Israel before her. Yet, since she is called, “Pure Bride” in the book of Revelation, I suspect that this is another failure.
Are you tell me that the Church is, in and of herself, the pure bride of Christ? Could it not be that the Church is the pure bride based solely upon the work of Christ?
The Church, according to scripture, as a collective, ON EARTH, is the pure bride of Christ. Yes, Christ has made her pure, but she is ontologically pure (which means that she is permanently and irrevocably pure by her very nature). If she is only to be pure, then the testimony that she is pure is a lie and thus the Bible lies. After all, we know that Christ does not join himself with a harlot.
For goodness sakes, Martin Luther himself argues based on this position (Read Freedom of the Christian)!
I have to address this separately:
You cannot have three things (scripture, tradition, and Church teachings) all be equal.
This makes a couple of mistakes. First, it assumes that Church teachings are something different from Tradition. Church teachings compose dogmatic tradition. Second, tradition contextualizes our reading of scripture and scripture contextualizes our reading of tradition. They serve each other mutually.
While, yes, all Christian faiths have a certain tradition they use to understand the Bible (such as the Reformed Tradition),
it would be incorrect to say that the Tradition is equal to the Bible.
You have yet to demonstrate this point.
Yet, I could make an even more terrifying argument. By your logic, the trinity cannot be equal. For, if only two things cannot be equal and the final authority, then how can there be three persons and one God?
Silly, silly, silly. God is not held to human standards. God is so far above humanity that we cannot even begin to grasp His complete thoughts. We know only what He has revealed of Himself. But, we do know that He is perfect. And we know that humans are not.
Jeff, you made an argument which was, "there cannot be two equal authorities." I said, "The trinity is three equal authorities." You have not refuted my point.
A man cannot have two masters (hopefully you don't disagree with that!). However, God is a community (three persons in One God), which is always in agreement with itself.
But there is one master, God, who works through his Church. Our question is what means he uses to express his commands. I have also already stated that they serve each other equally, building on each other. You have not addressed that point yet have now proceded to make the same argument you made previously.
I never stated that Church hierarchy is NOT a legitimate teaching authority. What I HAVE stated (or, at the very least, inferred) is that human beings are fallible and can be wrong. Therefore, it IS POSSIBLE for a Church to give incorrect teachings.
Not if the Church is to continue. It becomes an adulterer and the Gospels demonstrate that it is not good news but laughable. Hell shall not prevail against the Church (Mat. 16). It is not strong enough to contend with her. Those who preach false doctrines are the servants of the devil (cf. 1 John). How, then, can they prevail in the hierarchy of the Church?
False teachers DO NOT PREVAIL!!! But, they can most certainly exist.
There are many instances in Paul's writings in which the specific local churches are doing HORRENDOUS actions. Yet, Paul does not simply write them off & essentially say "screw 'em...they're sinful, so they must be useless to God". No, Paul attempts to correct the false teachings with correct ones.
Huh? I don't see the relevance.
Which is why the Book of Acts is so great! Which, as far as I can tell, pretty well endorses the Presbyterian system of Church government. You had a group of teachers (the First Council of Rome) who came together to give a ruling on a specific interpretative issue. In Paul's writings you have pastors & elders.
Actually, a lot of people have similar structures. The very principle of a council is that the pastors of the Church come together to make an authoritative decision. However, I note the lack of Episcopai in the Presbyterian system. I also note that the Apostles chose the Deaconai and the Presbyterai, not the congregants.
And how, EXACTLY, does the Holy Spirit give the teachings to the Church?
Through her pastors, through tradition, and Holy Writ.
This is where we disagree. I state that God has revealed Himself to the extent that He knows He needs to, in the pages of His holy book.
Something you cannot prove. Something YOU MIGHT HAVE WELL MADE UP BECAUSE IT IS FOUND NO WHERE!
You believe that further revelations are given through the Pope.
No, the fullness of revelation has been given. The fullness of doctrine is incomplete.
The Pope, by the way, who Catholics refer to as Holy Father. That is a travesty.
This is a side argument. Please stay on topic for brevity.
Yes, there is only one True Church. However, within the Body of Christ, there are people of different denominations. My salvation does NOT depend upon my understanding of my salvation. It depends wholly upon the Work of Christ through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, as ordained by God the Father.
This does not address the point. If there are different doctrines, then it is not one community but two. We have sacraments, you have nothing. Neither of us would agree that there is one body here, would we?
When I die, if God asks me this question: Why should I let you into heaven? If my answer is ANY OTHER than: There is no reason, except for the Work of Christ in coverin my sins (or something along those lines), then I do not belong. I am not permitted access to Heaven through works!!!
Strange, I always thought it would be more like, "Because I love you, Jesus, and I want to love you more." If the Father asks the righteous man's answer will be, "Your Son and Your Spirit have brought me here to love you." But then, I believe that so long as you do your best to love God, He will never turn his back on you.
Our good works are as filthy rags (quite literally, the rags that were used by women during their period...Isaiah, by the way).
Do you even understand what works mean? There is much that you assert which does not incorporate James at all into your understanding. Perhaps it would be best if we actually talked this stuff out in person because correcting this here...
As to Isaiah, well, read the context. Israel and Judah had both flagrantly violated the covenant. They were called harlots earlier (if I am not mistaken). Would not it make sense that such a polluted people become like "menstral cloths?" (KJV) "Using scripture to interpret scripture," we see that good works have become, at best, idols and are so soiled and defiled. Now, does this really judge works or the people who are doing those works?
No, the only way that we can speak of multiple Churches is to say that there is one local manifestation of the Church. To this we can say that there is a community of Christ in that location. Yet, just as the individual is a cell in the Body of Christ, the individual community is a part of the body too. The small community in Smyrna is one with the community in Rome.
NO, NO, NO!!! We are becoming more and more divergent as your diatribe continues. The small community in Smyrna and the community in Rome are one IN CHRIST!!!! Christ alone, my friend, not Rome!!!
My point, and I am sorry for this confusion, is that the two communities are one community in the Church through Christ. They are one body with one head. I pray that you do not disbelieve this.
Yes, God will always provide a correction to the false teachings of any church. Such as, say, Martin Luther!
Yes, Martin Luther was a false teacher. That's why we had a community of pastors of the Church come together to define doctrines called the Council of Trent.
Therefore, we err not when we say that the Church is the pillar and foundation of all truth, for the Church is our bulwark. It is the mighty Zion of which it is said, “Blessed are those who were born there,” where, “God has made his dwelling.” Indeed, salvation comes out of Her (Ps. 20), She is the Tabernacle of God which is with men (Rev. 21 [my favorite title of the Church, by the by])!
You LOVE 1 Timothy 3:15. How about 2 Timothy 2:19? Do you like that one so much? The second reference gives a definition of who the Church actually IS! It is those who "the Lord knows who are His".
Ok, so God knows who are his. I fail to see the relevance. Actually, it doesn't mention anything about who is in the Church except that they are to, "Depart from iniquity," and that God knows them.
The Church is made of His people, and His people are the foundation of truth, for the truth will be in us.
And, as it is the foundation of truth, it is inspired to expound upon scripture in an authoritative way.
See, it's all about CHRIST!!! God DID NOT put Christ upon the cross so that the Church could then be a means of salvation. That's just SILLY!!! Please read the statement again...the statement that YOU are making: Jesus died upon the cross & the Church is the means of salvation. That makes sense!? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
Ok, the Church is the Body of Christ. If this is true, how can a body act apart from a head or a head apart from the body? My head wants a smoke. My body will follow. My stomach wants food, my head goes with it. The powers given to the Church is the power of Christ on earth. She is acting as his body and, just as my fingers are typing only according to my head's commands, so too is the work of salvation carried out through His divine inspiration.
The Church is alive & active because OF Christ!!!! People are saved THROUGH Christ! CHRIST is the way and the light...not the Church!!!!
So you think that Christ cut his body off? He is a disembodied head?
Most importantly, however, there is no darkness in the New Jerusalem (again, Revelation 21) for “There will be no need for lamps of the Sun, for Lord God shall be their light.” And this can bridge no heresy for, “If we say we have fellowship with him and walk in the darkness we are liars” (1 John 1:6) and, “those who deny that Christ came in the flesh are liars and the antichrist,” (1 John 2:22) (the root of all heresy is a denial of one aspect of the incarnation or another).
How does this prove anything against me? I agree with the above statements. Quite true, sir.
Not everything I say is directly against something you say. This one says something profound, but is a little more obscure. If darkness = sin, confusion, iniquity, etc. and especially the lies and deceit of heresy, then if there is no darkness, there can be no heresy. That said, if the Church, as a whole, were to assert something, that would de facto make it true.
How can we say that the Bride is not immaculate? How can we say we say that she prone to error? Her home is Heaven itself. In a sense, She is Heaven itself. For if the Most High, “dwells in the Heavens,” and elsewhere it is said that, “He dwells in his sanctuary,” we can conclude that as the New Jerusalem is, “The tabernacle” (that is to say dwelling) of God, that She, herself, is Heaven itself.
Okay, gotcha so far. But, I don't say that the Bible errs. I say that the Bible is true & infallible. However, I also say that man decided what books to include. B/c God did not come down and tell us what to put in the Bible, it is up to us to use discernment (& prayer to God) to determine what belongs.
Jeff, the Bible is not a community so it cannot be "ekklesia" -- the Greek word for Church. The community of believers, and them alone, make up the Church. Even if the Bible would be stricken from the face of the earth, the Church would still exist.
How then, as the Church is rightly called Heaven, can we say that she may bridge even the smallest of falsities? How can we say that say that a heresy may truly endure? I say that we cannot! I say, rather, that we are forced to admit that, as the Church is our Heavenly homeland; that the gate of Heaven, while even assailed by those whose proper home is within, cannot be shattered, overcome, or even overshadowed by the enemy for in Her bosom is our hope and our life.
Christ has ensured this is so. Again, salvation through Christ, not the Church! How can you so easily discount the sacrifice of God upon the cross? How can you not, in every statement of Christian faith, not have in your mind that it is the work of Christ? I ask these questions truthfully. Why would God sacrifice Christ upon the cross just to have the Church be a means of salvation? Certainly, there could have been an easier way to create a Church.
LOL. Because the Church is Christ's Body which, as I assume you know, participates in his sacrifice. For, if his body did not die on the cross, what hope would we have.
SDA are wrong because they attack traditions established by God - including the very scriptures themselves (they refuse to use anything but the KJV even though there are mistakes in that translation). As the Church has always been immaculate, this means that the traditions which formed out of the first church have precedence over later ones. They contradict dogmas which have been defined for centuries.
You are not all about the KJV? I though that's what Catholics were supposed to use?
KJV was written by a number of Calvinists in the court of James I of England -- the first King of England after Elizabeth I. Very Protestant. Great poetry, but very Protestant.
No, we prefer to use adequate and tested translations. Contrary to popular opinion, the Bible was not kept in Latin to screw with the people, it was because everyone would have equal access to the same understanding. I could be in Germany and read a Bible with the same understanding as I could in England. That way when I say, "right," you know I mean, "Correct" instead of wondering whether I mean direction.
So, you have experience of fighting AGAINST the rogue elements in the PCUSA. GREAT! What experience do you have with the PCA? And, by PCA, I mean that PCA churches that follow church doctrine (which means following scripture).
Not as much. Most of the experience I have is with the dominant denominations. I especially know about the inner workings of ECUSA and PCUSA. Most of my understanding of the PCA was through a couple of friends in college (one went to PTSem another was just a random friend). I learned about some Baptist, Congregationalist, and Methodist organization but nothing particularly held.
Well, I recommend reading anything by Riddlebarger, then. He's an EXCELLENT Reformed theologian. Just be careful, he will make you angry. Riddlebarger has no tolerance for the Catholic Church. He's harder on the Catholics than I am!!!
Eh. I've read Luther. I've read some Calvin and Zwingly. I really don't think it that important.
I suppose that the one I learned best was Luther. After all, Presbyterianism without dogmatic double-predestination (for we all believe in some form of predestination), really becomes a form of generic Protestantism. I rejected consubstantiation and maintained a very literal interpretation of much of the Bible (as much as you do).
Wow, a Catholic going for Predestination. Never thought I'd see the day!
"Those he predestined, he also pre-ordained." I have no problem with God knowing and even choosing the outcome. I have problems with the idea that we are unable to cooperate with God's inspiration.
But, not so much nowadays about Presbyterianism becoming generic Protestantism. In general, PCA members are quite interested in theology. In general, generic Protestantism is NOT.
It depends on the individual. I'm not surprised that the PCA's are more dogmatic about doctrine though.
Well, that's completely different. You said "sermon", and I assumed you meant that you actually gave the Sunday morning sermon for the entire congregation.
LOL. Not quite that good.
Personally, I like believing the old legends. There is a sort of mystery and awe to them. But, I am also the type of person who likes to believe that Arthur will return in England’s hour of greatest need. (I don’t really, but childhood heros die hard [if you think that’s bad, you should see how people have problems with the death of Optimus Prime]).
Speaking of Optimus Prime....WOOOOOW!!!! Did you see it!? As soon as I walked out, FIRST THING I wanted to do was see it again! All of my super-geek friends agreed! (and, I inlcude myself as a super-geek).
That movie proves that there is nothing which can't be readily improved by adding a transformer. You like breakfast? Wouldn't it be better if your bowl were a TRANSFORMER?
Speaking of legends...my absolute favorite is the death of Peter. It's such a contrast from his pre-Pentecost self to how much he endured for God. Peter said he would follow Jesus...be careful what you wish for, I suppose.
Which one? There are a couple. I like the one about how he was crucified upside-down.
Either way, the letter is certainly from the Church in Rome to the Corinthians. Interestingly enough this means that we have three documents regarding the Church in Corinth from the first hundred years of Christianity - even if you take a more modern approach and believe that 2 Cor. was Pseudepigrapha (documents written by a later author under an original author’s name) [1]. I am beginning to start an analysis of how the Church in Corinth evolved, but that will take some time, especially since I don’t own Eusebius’ history of the Pre-Constantine Church .
Anyway, enough talk about the work, here is a link:
- Clement Epistle to the Romans
I would state that it's the Catholic church's refusal to back the authority of scripture that has allowed gnosticism to flourish.
Often I have been told that an opinion cannot be wrong. As with your statement above, I disagree. This opinion is unfounded.
The Catholic church does more to undermine the foundations of the Bible as from God and the only source of knowledge than anyone except modern-day Gnostics themselves. This is a plain fact, based upon the Catholic Church's teachings that they alone can interpret the Bible & that they are always right, no matter what.
Look into history. Stare it in the face. When you read up on the Gnostics, you find that they overwhelmingly supported the idea that God revealed himself to each individual and so each individual was to interpret revelation and the will of God. On the other hand, the orthodox, those who professed that Christ had come in the flesh, taught that there was only one correct understanding of scripture and that there was only one body to interpret - the Church.
If you don't know what books do & don't belong in the Bible (and don't have a way to judge them), then how can you say gnosticism is wrong?
I know exactly what belongs in the Bible. I’ve known the entire time. You are the one who has no authoritative proof.
Your "authoritative proof" is based upon the decisions of man, whom you have chosen to call infallible. Where in the Bible does it state that man is infallible?
Protestanism has condemned Catholicism...not the first generation to the 15th century.
Does it not concern you that your beliefs are 1500 years younger than mine?
My beliefs are based solely upon the Gospels & Pauline doctrine. Does it not conern you that the first "pope" did not appear until the late 2nd century? T/f, mine are older than yours!
Only orthodoxy or gnosticism? That's a bunch of CARP.
www.Earlychristianwritings.org - if you don’t believe me, read for yourself. This cite is run by a man who is decidedly Gnostic, but the documents here are all real. Tell me, do you see anyone who does not support bishops or, if not bishops, Gnosticism and the foulest of heresies?
The link didn't work for me. Are you sure it is correct? Speaking of "bishops"...the term "bishop" (or interpreted as Bishop) from Paul can be interpreted in a number of different ways. Sometimes interpreted "bishop", sometimes "elder". However, both are actually correct! Isn't Greek wonderful? (that's sarcasm, by the way!)
I don't know where you get your facts... Bishop comes from Episcopai (it was a transliteration into ancient Latin and then it was modified through the ages in English), a word which most literally means "administrator" or "superintendent," but more often means, "overseer." It is quite different from a presbyter (which is where the word "priest" comes from) who is (literally) an "ancient one," or an elder.
If people come together, due to the fact that the Catholic church is teaching things which are NOT true to the Bible, and analyze scripture to understand what it actually states that is gnosticism? That's just silly.
In the beginning of the Church there were two groups: Gnostics who opposed bishops or said that all were bishops and orthodoxy. If you did not agree with the orthodox, then you had one other choice… So, in early Christianity, if you did not listen to and follow the bishop, then you were a Gnostic.
Yes, because the early Church did not claim that humans (ANY humans) were infallible. So, there was no need for any other denominations to spring up.
Have you read anything written in the early Church (by either the Gnostics or the orthodox)? At all? If not, how do you know that this isn't true?
When do the apostles appoint successors?
It is very obvious in 1 Tim. and Titus that people are to go around appointing episcopai (Latin = episopos, English = bishop), presbyteros (Latin = presbyteros and English = one definition of the word, 'priest'), and diakoneo (Latin = diacones, English = deacon). Does God remove these orders from the face of the earth? If not, then have right successors until modern times.
If you are speaking of the ONE CASE where Judas must be replaced, then there is another interpretation taken here (I don't particularly agree with it all the way, but follow me).
- Peter, we know, often was a bit "act-before-I-think" in his actions.
Yes, but he was also commissioned as a pastor of the Church.
- We know that Paul is an apostle.
- We know that there are 24 elders in Heaven around the throne. Who could this be for? My belief (and the belief of most) is for the 12 sons of Isreal; and the 12 Apostles.
Yet, Paul calls Apollos an Apostle, and James the "brother of Christ" is an Apostle.
- Obviously, Judas Isacariot is not granted a seat as one of the elders. Therefore, someone must take the seat.
- The seat is taken either by Paul or by Matthias.
Or, numbers in the book of Revelation were not written by an accountant. Remember, the 1,000 years is not a literal 1,000. The 144,000 Jews saved were not literally 144,000 (nor were they from every tribe, if memory serves).
- Here's where it gets tricky. Many believe that Matthias was not God's selection, but Peter's brass personlity showing through. Many believe that Peter should have waited for Paul to "come to town".
Again, that last part I'm not really convinced of (and feel a great deal of disagrement towards it). However, it cannot be denied that there are only 24 thrones in heaven, and only one person can take Judas' place (well, take the place that Judas WOULD HAVE taken...you know what I mean!).
Or we can view the book of Revelation as largely symbolic and that the Apostles were complete in the number 12.
Indeed, at an early age I had MANY problems with the Catholic church. Prior to truly becoming a Christian, I made the statement that "if I'm going to belong to a Church, I at least want to belong to one that uses their own manual." Prior to truly knowing Christ, or having the Spirit work in my life, I knew that the Catholic church did not conform to scripture, and that bothered me relentlessly.
Not to be indecorous (word of the day), but if you didn’t know scripture until now (and it is debatable as to whether you know it well enough yet), then how did you know that the Catholic Church is inconsistent with scripture?
I knew that the "S"aints were not to be prayed to, but only Christ.
Yet you yourself have said 1. That it is appropriate to ask for prayer, 2. That those in heaven can hear us ask for prayer, and that 3. As they are righteous, they will pray for us. As far as anything else goes, you are simply splitting hairs.
I will ask you to never make this reference again as it has been asked and answered. If you do, I will assume that you have no interest in furthering discussion but rather have only interest in the manual examination of the contents of your own posterior.
Likewise, based upon the teachings of Jesus, and the books He Himself endorsed, I can state that the Bible is true and what is included in my Bible is the extent of true teachings.
Jeff, you are saying that you know things and that things are irrefutably wrong without 1. proof, or 2. knowledge of what you've said is wrong. Is this not adding to the Bible?
Additionally, since most people were illiterate prior to very recent times, they were UNABLE to challenge the Catholic church. If that's what the Catholic church said was in the Bible, what were they to do? Read it to prove otherwise!? HARDLY!
Well, I suppose this is a welcome change. At least your conspiracy theory is realistic. Face it, though, your argument is a conspiracy theory at best and the same proof offered against the burning of documents works against your theory as well.
Conspiracy theory!? Not at all! Instead, accurate history, my friend.
- Most people were illiterate.
- The Catholic Church told people what was in the Bible.
You are saying that those people who posed as God's Church, all of those people, conspired together to prevent anyone from understanding the Bible?
- Up until the 20th Century, the Catholic Church did not even endorse the "flock" reading the Bible on their own!?
The most obvious example of your error is here: Proventissimus Dei -- 1893
There are other examples, not the least of which is the call for a change in the formation of "presbyteros" in the Council of Trent which included the requirement of a solid understanding of scripture. There is the fact that the Duay New Testament was published 50 years prior to the King James Version and the Old Testament 10 years prior... Jeff, even a cursory understanding of Church history shows that for at least the past 500 years the official documents (i.e. things like canon law, conciliar decisions, etc.) of the Church show that she has actively sought that people understand scripture (considering the fact that there have not been too many documents preserved from before that, the prior history is hardly surprising). The testimony of the Saints prior to that shows that this is not an innovation.
This does not address the point. You yourself have admitted that your collection of scripture is fallible. Why could I not, then, assert that ANYTHING is scriptural?
Because, your "scripture" must pass certain tests, one of which is no longer passable.
Why? Your tests are not in the Bible, are they?
- 1) It must not disagree with anything else accepted as cannon.
- 2) It must be God's word to man. Since God has finished giving His revelation through the Word...well, anything new is automatically discounted.
Once again, you are adding your own interpretation here.
I will not respond to the rest unless it is in real-time. I believe that I am mis-interpreting you and wish clarity through conversation. My AIM is my email. Scheduling for any meets is best done via computer.