Christian Forums

Where do we go to discover Christian truth? Is it all in the Bible? Catholics believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. The Second Letter to Timothy declares: "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work" (2 Tm. 3:16-17). Catholics believe that this applies to all Scripture; both Old and New Testaments.

"All scripture is inspired by God..." But does this mean that ONLY Scripture is inspired? We do not find this teaching in the Bible at all. While we believe that the Bible is the foremost and unsurpassed source of God's revelation, we believe that God reveals His truth and guides his people in other ways. For example, the New Testament actually records that the Holy Spirit revealed God's truth through the gift of prophecy (Acts 11:27-30, 21:10-12; 1 Cor. 13:1-4, 31), through councils of church leaders (Acts 15:28) and through direct revelations to individuals, such as to St. Peter (Acts 10:9-17) and St. Paul (Acts 9, 18:9, 20:22-23, 27:24).

Catholics believe that the revelation of God in the Bible is one important way that God reveals Himself and guides His people. But the Holy Spirit has also been sent by Jesus to be the church's continual guide. The Holy Spirit exands and deepens the Church's understanding of God's truth over the course of history. In John's Gospel, Jesus tells his Apostles at the Last Supper, "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth...he will declare to you the things that are to come." (John 15:12-13). There is no indication that the truth that the Holy Spirit would reveal was limited to the Bible alone.

The Second Vatican Council has taught that there is only one Word of God that has been revealed and passed on in written form (the Bible) and also in other forms, such as preaching, spiritual gifts, the Church's worship and other unwritten forms inspired or guided by the Holy Spirit. Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit can speak not only through the Bible alone, but through a burning bush, and even through the words of our saints as well as our brothers and sisters.

In other words, we believe that the Bible is the "book of Christianity," but Christianity is a NOT a "religion of the book." Christianity is not a religion of the written word alone, but of the Holy Spirit.

Quote from: Selene on Mon Dec 28, 2009 - 18:26:30
Where do we go to discover Christian truth? Is it all in the Bible? Catholics believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. The Second Letter to Timothy declares: "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work" (2 Tm. 3:16-17). Catholics believe that this applies to all Scripture; both Old and New Testaments.

"All scripture is inspired by God..." But does this mean that ONLY Scripture is inspired? We do not find this teaching in the Bible at all. While we believe that the Bible is the foremost and unsurpassed source of God's revelation, we believe that God reveals His truth and guides his people in other ways. For example, the New Testament actually records that the Holy Spirit revealed God's truth through the gift of prophecy (Acts 11:27-30, 21:10-12; 1 Cor. 13:1-4, 31), through councils of church leaders (Acts 15:28) and through direct revelations to individuals, such as to St. Peter (Acts 10:9-17) and St. Paul (Acts 9, 18:9, 20:22-23, 27:24).

Catholics believe that the revelation of God in the Bible is one important way that God reveals Himself and guides His people. But the Holy Spirit has also been sent by Jesus to be the church's continual guide. The Holy Spirit exands and deepens the Church's understanding of God's truth over the course of history. In John's Gospel, Jesus tells his Apostles at the Last Supper, "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth...he will declare to you the things that are to come." (John 15:12-13). There is no indication that the truth that the Holy Spirit would reveal was limited to the Bible alone.

The Second Vatican Council has taught that there is only one Word of God that has been revealed and passed on in written form (the Bible) and also in other forms, such as preaching, spiritual gifts, the Church's worship and other unwritten forms inspired or guided by the Holy Spirit. Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit can speak not only through the Bible alone, but through a burning bush, and even through the words of our saints as well as our brothers and sisters.

In other words, we believe that the Bible is the "book of Christianity," but Christianity is a NOT a "religion of the book." Christianity is not a religion of the written word alone, but of the Holy Spirit.

Excuse me Selene but something sounds contradictory here. Yes i believe you to a point. If the Lord can speak through a donkey he can speak through anyone. He can give revelation to anyone. What about the Mormons though they went so far as to write a second Bible. This is tricky business. Popes can say what they say is infallible when it comes to doctrines.

Every time I have ever gotten  a revelation about something it always is backed up by scripture. But how many doctrines of the RCC are not backed up by scripture. We are warned of false teachers and prophets through out he New Testament. Do you believe any Joe who thinks he's a man of God. 

All true revelation that is of the Holy Spirit will glorify Christ

Tell me if you think this to be true. I was troubled about a weakness that made me feel inadequate to even speak about Christ. About Pauls thorn that was a buffet from Satan. the Lord spoke to him and said in your weakness am I made. perfect. 

Now i no that none are perfect except Christ but it was made even more reall to me by a revelation. If we should be perfect then we are not perfect because of pride, but if we be not perfect we are made perfect by Him because of humility 

Therefore it is impossible to be perfect so then Christ is glorified.   Its a catch 22 so to speak.
It might not seem a revelation to you but I sure needed it at that moment.

The point is the one I already made. All revelation that is truly of the Holy Spirit will glorify Christ and will always be backed up by scripture. Put it to the test.

God bless

The Catholic Church never cannonized the Book of Mormon nor the Qu'ran.   Didn't you read my very first post?  This post is about Sola Scriptura.   

Quote from: Selene on Tue Dec 29, 2009 - 11:15:11
The Catholic Church never cannonized the Book of Mormon nor the Qu'ran.   Didn't you read my very first post?  This post is about Sola Scriptura.   

Okay Selene you wrote
Where do we go to discover Christian truth? Is it all in the Bible?

Catholics believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. The Second Letter to Timothy declares: "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work" (2 Tm. 3:16-17). Catholics believe that this applies to all Scripture; both Old and New Testaments.


Mike
What truth would that be that is not in the bible? Can you name one? 

If a man in some far away place found a Bible in his language and he believed it and gave his life to Christ does the Bible contain enough that if he lived by all it taught he would have enough to live a complete life that glorified God with out knowledge of the RCC
or any other denomination.?

Quote from: mclees8 on Tue Dec 29, 2009 - 12:10:05

Quote from: Selene on Tue Dec 29, 2009 - 11:15:11
The Catholic Church never cannonized the Book of Mormon nor the Qu'ran.   Didn't you read my very first post?  This post is about Sola Scriptura.   

Okay Selene you wrote
Where do we go to discover Christian truth? Is it all in the Bible?

Catholics believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. The Second Letter to Timothy declares: "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work" (2 Tm. 3:16-17). Catholics believe that this applies to all Scripture; both Old and New Testaments.


Mike
What truth would that be that is not in the bible? Can you name one? 

If a man in some far away place found a Bible in his language and he believed it and gave his life to Christ does the Bible contain enough that if he lived by all it taught he would have enough to live a complete life that glorified God with out knowledge of the RCC
or any other denomination.?

Though I'm not Roman Catholic, I would ask what a person that could not read at all do?  More than that, how is it that there were Christians for about 3 to 4 hundred years before there was even the NT as we know it today? 

Like the Ethopian who was reading from Isaiah (if I remember correctly).  He said, (paraphrasing), "how is it that I can understand what I'm reading if there is no one to explain it to me?". 

I believe that that was what The Church was there for.  If you ran into St. John, as St. Polycarp, St. Ignatius and then a generation removed, St. Justin Martyr had, would you accept what they were taught as being "authoritative"? 

Again, I'm not talking about the Pope, but of the Apostles and those that they taught.  There's no New Testament.  You can't read.  Where do you turn?  Who do you ask?  The Apostles and the body of believers that were taught by the Apostles is my answer. 

The Holy Spirit instructs and teaches, sure.  However, the Calvinists believe the Holy Spirit leads them to believe what they believe and have given them their interpretation.  The Methodists do likewise.  However, both contradict each other otherwise the Methodists would be Calvinists and vice versa.  Clearly the Holy Spirit does not teach contradictory things and divide the body against itself.

Tradition (according to Eastern Orthodox) is the teaching of the Apostles and it is not in conflict with scripture.  But where in the bible are the books of the bible canonized?  The New Testament does not give us a list of the books that are to be considered the New Testament.  Yet, we accept it.  When the New Testament refers to "scripture" the New Testament wasn't even the New Testament yet.  So the word "scripture" was referring to the Old Testament. 

That's one of the problems with sola scriptura that as a protestant, I really struggled with.

Good questions. 

God bless.

Quote from: Ryan2010 on Tue Dec 29, 2009 - 12:54:34

Quote from: mclees8 on Tue Dec 29, 2009 - 12:10:05

Quote from: Selene on Tue Dec 29, 2009 - 11:15:11
The Catholic Church never cannonized the Book of Mormon nor the Qu'ran.   Didn't you read my very first post?  This post is about Sola Scriptura.   

Okay Selene you wrote
Where do we go to discover Christian truth? Is it all in the Bible?

Catholics believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. The Second Letter to Timothy declares: "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work" (2 Tm. 3:16-17). Catholics believe that this applies to all Scripture; both Old and New Testaments.


Mike
What truth would that be that is not in the bible? Can you name one? 

If a man in some far away place found a Bible in his language and he believed it and gave his life to Christ does the Bible contain enough that if he lived by all it taught he would have enough to live a complete life that glorified God with out knowledge of the RCC
or any other denomination.?

Though I'm not Roman Catholic, I would ask what a person that could not read at all do?  More than that, how is it that there were Christians for about 3 to 4 hundred years before there was even the NT as we know it today? 

Like the Ethopian who was reading from Isaiah (if I remember correctly).  He said, (paraphrasing), "how is it that I can understand what I'm reading if there is no one to explain it to me?". 

I believe that that was what The Church was there for.  If you ran into St. John, as St. Polycarp, St. Ignatius and then a generation removed, St. Justin Martyr had, would you accept what they were taught as being "authoritative"? 

Again, I'm not talking about the Pope, but of the Apostles and those that they taught.  There's no New Testament.  You can't read.  Where do you turn?  Who do you ask?  The Apostles and the body of believers that were taught by the Apostles is my answer. 

The Holy Spirit instructs and teaches, sure.  However, the Calvinists believe the Holy Spirit leads them to believe what they believe and have given them their interpretation.  The Methodists do likewise.  However, both contradict each other otherwise the Methodists would be Calvinists and vice versa.  Clearly the Holy Spirit does not teach contradictory things and divide the body against itself.

Tradition (according to Eastern Orthodox) is the teaching of the Apostles and it is not in conflict with scripture.  But where in the bible are the books of the bible canonized?  The New Testament does not give us a list of the books that are to be considered the New Testament.  Yet, we accept it.  When the New Testament refers to "scripture" the New Testament wasn't even the New Testament yet.  So the word "scripture" was referring to the Old Testament. 

That's one of the problems with sola scriptura that as a protestant, I really struggled with.

Good questions. 

God bless.

Hello Ryan I know that it was not always the written word. but men o who were full of the Holy Spirit and moved by Him. But the apostles also wrote what they taught and thank God they did for our sake. I don't care if the RCC claims that they are the ones who canonized the Bible. It was all there before they canonized.

My scenario is hypothetical. I am assuming one who can read. Is then the bible enough to change his life to one that glorifies the Father ?

Thanks for your thoughts 

[/quote]

Hello Ryan I know that it was not always the written word. but men o who were full of the Holy Spirit and moved by Him. But the apostles also wrote what they taught and thank God they did for our sake. I don't care if the RCC claims that they are the ones who canonized the Bible. It was all there before they canonized.

My scenario is hypothetical. I am assuming one who can read. Is then the bible enough to change his life to one that glorifies the Father ?

Thanks for your thoughts 
[/quote]


My problem is not with the bible.  Let's say I were stranded on an island and came across the bible.  Now, it's not the bible that is not "enough" in regards to who God is.  Scripture is Holy after all.  However, is our interpretation "enough"? 

to illustrate, let me put it like this... 

The Apostles said not to accept any other good news or "Jesus" than the one they personally delivered to the people.  The scripture of course describes who this God is that the Apostles knew personally.  However, when we pick up the bible and read, what happens?  We take our culture and preconceptions of right and wrong and sense of justice and all this other stuff and it colors what we read.  We have the very real possibility that we might read the entire bible and still not know God, only a god that we have fashioned according to our own likeness. 

to illustrate futher...

There is 1 Jesus, the Son of God, who is the Christ.  We all agree on this.  But when our eyes scan over that Holy text we each come up with what that means, who that Christ is. 

Doctrines answer in part what Jesus often asked.  Who do you say that I am? 

Is Jesus the Jesus of the rapture or simply the second coming?  Is Jesus the Jesus present in the Eucharist or the Jesus that established a memorial of symbol, an ordinance of symbolism?  Is Jesus the Jesus whose Mother was ever-virgin or the Jesus who saw here as a simple "vessel"? 

On and on..  The entire bible, Old Testament and New Testament, as Christ himself explained, points toward him.   The problem are not the scriptures but the way in which we approach the scriptures.  The scripture doesn't say that the bible is the pillar and foundation of truth.  This title is given to the Church by the scriptures themselves. 

For me, the problem with scripture alone is that it, though it does not intend to do so, subjects the body of Christ to man's ability to interpret the scriptures.  It makes the Church lower than the bible.  You will find no reference in the bible wherein the Church is founded upon scripture but upon Christ.  We do however see Christ giving authority to the disciples who then ordained overseers.  We do see a community of believers under the overseers and the overseers under the Apostles.  The charge was to preserve what the Apostles handed down. 

Now if you look at Hebrews 5-6 we can see this in context:

11We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. 12In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.


Hebrews 6

1Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death,[d] and of faith in God, 2instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3And God permitting, we will do so.


If you look at those bold words you see that these "teachings" were considered, "elementary"(where did those teachings come from?  the bible?  No!  And these teachings are not nearly as "clear" in the bible as people pretend that they are (if you are brutally honest).   Look at those six "elementary" teachings.  These are things that were not at all controversial or something that was considered "opinion".  They were what they taught they were.  And what they taught was elementary.  So much so that if a person didn't know what these six teachings were, then that person's spiritual maturity is likened to an infant.  What's more is that notice what these teachings are "about".  These teachings are about Christ.  These are all about, no opinion or something that is just "extra" stuff, but all about the Christ. 

But look out your window at all the denominations and all the different churches and ask yourself what it is that divides these churches? 

In most cases, the very elementary teachings about who Christ is, is what divides these churches.  The Baptists believe something about the "elementary" teaching on Christ in regards to Christ's baptism than do the denominations that contradict those "elementary" teachings.  What is the elementary truth about Christ in regards to the laying on of hands?  Ask a Pentecostal and then ask a Lutheran and then ask a non-denominational person and then ask yourself.  Who is right?  Everyone has a different answer.  They all can't be right because they all contradict and conflict.  Is this the work of the Holy Spirit leading the individual reader to understand even "elementary" truths?

Be honest.  Ask yourself. 

Has the Holy Spirit taught the Baptists on this issue and forsaken the Pentecostals? 

I don't think much of this is the working of the Holy Spirit of all.  I think what we have here is what everyone looking out their windows and are honest enough to admit.  Something is missing. 

If you read the passage in Hebrews as stated above, consider this.   If you asked the person who wrote this passage what the elementary truths he was referring to actually are; what the True elementary teachings on these "teachings about Christ" are, would you be more confident what the truth IS by his explanation than by your own private interpretation of what the elementary truth is?  Or would you tell the writer that he is subject to your interpretation?  Would you be able to humble yourself and admit that you are wrong if the writer of that passage corrected you? 

The Apostles taught in person.  They personally taught.  They stood before people as real living human beings, as Saints, but face to face with other people that believed.  They took what they knew "about Christ" and taught the body of people, the body of Christ, The Church.   

The Holy letters they sent were to help correct things that were already in place... 

Sola scriptura shouldn't be a question of, "is it enough?"

As Hebrews points out, it's a matter of spiritual maturity, a fullness.  It's about who Christ IS, not who he "seems" to be, based on our ability to read and comprehend. 

That "truth" belongs to Christ, as scripture points out; belongs to the head of the Church as scripture points out, and the faith of the Apostles was deposited into The Church; it belongs to the Church, God's Church, as scripture points out.   

If you dare to see what men (who knew the Apostles personally and were ordained by them as overseers) taught and believed in regards to who Our Lord Jesus Christ is, read the writings of St. Polycarp and St. Ignatius.  See if you agree with what they were taught and ordained to teach.  If you don't agree and the answer is no, then perhaps the way you understand what you read is not the same as what was meant by the people God inspired to write.


Christ is risen

Quote from: Ryan2010 on Tue Dec 29, 2009 - 15:07:27

Hello Ryan I know that it was not always the written word. but men o who were full of the Holy Spirit and moved by Him. But the apostles also wrote what they taught and thank God they did for our sake. I don't care if the RCC claims that they are the ones who canonized the Bible. It was all there before they canonized.

My scenario is hypothetical. I am assuming one who can read. Is then the bible enough to change his life to one that glorifies the Father ?

Thanks for your thoughts 
[/quote]


My problem is not with the bible.  Let's say I were stranded on an island and came across the bible.  Now, it's not the bible that is not "enough" in regards to who God is.  Scripture is Holy after all.  However, is our interpretation "enough"? 

to illustrate, let me put it like this... 

The Apostles said not to accept any other good news or "Jesus" than the one they personally delivered to the people.  The scripture of course describes who this God is that the Apostles knew personally.  However, when we pick up the bible and read, what happens?  We take our culture and preconceptions of right and wrong and sense of justice and all this other stuff and it colors what we read.  We have the very real possibility that we might read the entire bible and still not know God, only a god that we have fashioned according to our own likeness. 

to illustrate futher...

There is 1 Jesus, the Son of God, who is the Christ.  We all agree on this.  But when our eyes scan over that Holy text we each come up with what that means, who that Christ is. 

Doctrines answer in part what Jesus often asked.  Who do you say that I am? 

Is Jesus the Jesus of the rapture or simply the second coming?  Is Jesus the Jesus present in the Eucharist or the Jesus that established a memorial of symbol, an ordinance of symbolism?  Is Jesus the Jesus whose Mother was ever-virgin or the Jesus who saw here as a simple "vessel"? 

On and on..  The entire bible, Old Testament and New Testament, as Christ himself explained, points toward him.   The problem are not the scriptures but the way in which we approach the scriptures.  The scripture doesn't say that the bible is the pillar and foundation of truth.  This title is given to the Church by the scriptures themselves. 

For me, the problem with scripture alone is that it, though it does not intend to do so, subjects the body of Christ to man's ability to interpret the scriptures.  It makes the Church lower than the bible.  You will find no reference in the bible wherein the Church is founded upon scripture but upon Christ.  We do however see Christ giving authority to the disciples who then ordained overseers.  We do see a community of believers under the overseers and the overseers under the Apostles.  The charge was to preserve what the Apostles handed down. 

Now if you look at Hebrews 5-6 we can see this in context:

11We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. 12In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.


Hebrews 6

1Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death,[d] and of faith in God, 2instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3And God permitting, we will do so.


If you look at those bold words you see that these "teachings" were considered, "elementary"(where did those teachings come from?  the bible?  No!  And these teachings are not nearly as "clear" in the bible as people pretend that they are (if you are brutally honest).   Look at those six "elementary" teachings.  These are things that were not at all controversial or something that was considered "opinion".  They were what they taught they were.  And what they taught was elementary.  So much so that if a person didn't know what these six teachings were, then that person's spiritual maturity is likened to an infant.  What's more is that notice what these teachings are "about".  These teachings are about Christ.  These are all about, no opinion or something that is just "extra" stuff, but all about the Christ. 

But look out your window at all the denominations and all the different churches and ask yourself what it is that divides these churches? 

In most cases, the very elementary teachings about who Christ is, is what divides these churches.  The Baptists believe something about the "elementary" teaching on Christ in regards to Christ's baptism than do the denominations that contradict those "elementary" teachings.  What is the elementary truth about Christ in regards to the laying on of hands?  Ask a Pentecostal and then ask a Lutheran and then ask a non-denominational person and then ask yourself.  Who is right?  Everyone has a different answer.  They all can't be right because they all contradict and conflict.  Is this the work of the Holy Spirit leading the individual reader to understand even "elementary" truths?

Be honest.  Ask yourself. 

Has the Holy Spirit taught the Baptists on this issue and forsaken the Pentecostals? 

I don't think much of this is the working of the Holy Spirit of all.  I think what we have here is what everyone looking out their windows and are honest enough to admit.  Something is missing. 

If you read the passage in Hebrews as stated above, consider this.   If you asked the person who wrote this passage what the elementary truths he was referring to actually are; what the True elementary teachings on these "teachings about Christ" are, would you be more confident what the truth IS by his explanation than by your own private interpretation of what the elementary truth is?  Or would you tell the writer that he is subject to your interpretation?  Would you be able to humble yourself and admit that you are wrong if the writer of that passage corrected you? 

The Apostles taught in person.  They personally taught.  They stood before people as real living human beings, as Saints, but face to face with other people that believed.  They took what they knew "about Christ" and taught the body of people, the body of Christ, The Church.   

The Holy letters they sent were to help correct things that were already in place... 

Sola scriptura shouldn't be a question of, "is it enough?"

As Hebrews points out, it's a matter of spiritual maturity, a fullness.  It's about who Christ IS, not who he "seems" to be, based on our ability to read and comprehend. 

That "truth" belongs to Christ, as scripture points out; belongs to the head of the Church as scripture points out, and the faith of the Apostles was deposited into The Church; it belongs to the Church, God's Church, as scripture points out.   

If you dare to see what men (who knew the Apostles personally and were ordained by them as overseers) taught and believed in regards to who Our Lord Jesus Christ is, read the writings of St. Polycarp and St. Ignatius.  See if you agree with what they were taught and ordained to teach.  If you don't agree and the answer is no, then perhaps the way you understand what you read is not the same as what was meant by the people God inspired to write.


Christ is risen









[/quote]

Okay Ryan I think I know where you are coming form and we may share some same thoughts here. I gather you are upset with denominationalism and all the different doctrines and beliefs. And yes it is an interpretation problem.and its more than that but I am short of time right now but I will share my thoughts with you on this. Let me leave you with one thought. Satan knew the scriptures and use them to tempt Jesus. Jesus was not fooled because he knew the word even better. He resisted him by saying it is also written. I am not of any denomination and cannot be but I am a follower of Christ. No i am not starting a new church or following. that s enough for the moment.
God bless   

god bless

Selene,
You are right in that the Church is older than the New Testament, but the Church Fathers clearly say that all Church teachings must be in accordance with Scripture.
So yes, the Church created Scripture (although I would say that it was divinely arranged), but then at the same time, the Church says that her teachings must be in accordance with it.  So, in a very real sense, the Church created the NT and then placed it in authority over her.

Quote from: extranos on Tue Dec 29, 2009 - 21:12:11
Selene,
You are right in that the Church is older than the New Testament, but the Church Fathers clearly say that all Church teachings must be in accordance with Scripture.
So yes, the Church created Scripture (although I would say that it was divinely arranged), but then at the same time, the Church says that her teachings must be in accordance with it.  So, in a very real sense, the Church created the NT and then placed it in authority over her.

I think that the Church's teachings being in accordance is one thing and being "under" another.   I mean, sola scriptura originally was a rejection of Holy Tradition but as practiced and realized in protestantism, it's taken as a means to justify actions based on something "biblical".  Biblical has become merely a way to justify the thing being done.  A Church can "justify" a totally wrong teaching based on their interpretation or presupposition even if the scriptures "as a whole" (catholic means, according to the whole) don't support that teaching.  

In many churches they will over spiritualize or downplay other verses to support their "position".  Like a sharky lawyer a lot of Churches seem to take scripture as literal when it serves their purpose and "spiritual" or "metaphorical" when the literal doesn't support their teachings.

One very popular verse is the one where Jesus says that unless you are born of the water and the spirit...

Not few Churches take the "water" to mean the water in the womb to downplay the baptismal reference and having no binds to Tradition, they cast the cords asunder...  

The other thing is that all protestants seem to be bound to sola scriptura but I've yet to see one protestant community local or wider that actually follows the scriptures to the T.

1 Corinthians 11:6
If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.

This is one that seems to have no weight of any kind to the vast majority of Protestants save the anabaptist off-shoots and then the JWs (who by no means follow scripture to a "t" but do seem to make an effort to look somewhat like what "seems" quite plain in scripture).  

And even the worship in most protestants is centered around, entirely, not Christ, but the sermon.  Four bare walls and a sermon is hardly the picture we get from the scriptures.  Corporate fasting is difficult to find across the denominations though we read about it in the scriptures.  Neither do we see fasting described as a "spirtualized" thing.  Like, "I overused my cell phone minutes, I will fast from my cell-phone". 

So to charge the Catholics with "changing" the doctrines and being "unbiblical" when you have 25,000 denominations with contradictory stances in regards to what the scripture mean is unfair and seems to an outsider to be insincere and full of lack of awareness.  

To charge the Roman Catholics with "adding" new teachings and creating extra-biblical teachings and holding to the traditions of men is short sited on the part of the protestants.  Calvin, Luther and Zwingli are all men.  They stripped away a lot of Holy Tradition (not all) and they transmitted their (traditions) way of dividing the scriptures to other believers and they in turn taught others.  

And if you're honest and do a survey of those off-shoots when they first formed and where they are now, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Zwingli and a host of others would either attempt to reform the Churches that bear their names or at the very least, break off from them, protest them and start a new Church (maybe using their middle names or something).  

Even the charge against the Pope seems to by hypocritical because in protestantism each individual seems to be their own Pope, deciding what is sound doctrine and dogma even though no two can agree.  Some individuals not only see their personal interpretation as supreme but as infallible.  How is this any different than what they charge against the Roman Catholics?  

To criticize a church for putting the scriptures below them when they are just as in accordance as the church down the street is, in regards to their own interpretation, doesn't add up.  It's not that difficult to debunk.  Either two contradictory teachings are wrong or one is right.  It can not be both.  

Sola scriptura and "bible based" are separate sides of the same coin.  One professes to have no traditions of men while ignoring the traditions they create to gain followers.  The other simply justifies their actions, no matter right or wrong, and hand selects the verses to do so.  

Both seem to elevate an individual's interpretation above the scriptures themselves and as far as I can tell, the only way to determine who is right is to trace the doctrines/dogmas back to those we know have authority - The Apostles and those they ordained, provided they preserved that which the Apostles transmitted.  And scripture helps us to see which community of early Christians did that...

You can't avoid interpretation.  You can't avoid tradition.  You can however be in denial.  From what I'm able to glean, The Church, if it's true, should not hold the Traditions of men over the Traditions of God and unauthorized interpretation over authorized interpretation.  

Quote from: extranos on Tue Dec 29, 2009 - 21:12:11
Selene,
You are right in that the Church is older than the New Testament, but the Church Fathers clearly say that all Church teachings must be in accordance with Scripture.
So yes, the Church created Scripture (although I would say that it was divinely arranged), but then at the same time, the Church says that her teachings must be in accordance with it.  So, in a very real sense, the Church created the NT and then placed it in authority over her.

The teachings of the Church is in accordance with Scripture, but the Catholic Church does not adhere to Scripture alone.  The Church did not place the Bible as having authority over her.  According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Sacred Apostolic Tradition is equally important.  St. Paul not only passed on his letters but also his oral traditions, which can only be found in the Church. 

2 Thessalonians 2:14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

Quote from: Selene on Wed Dec 30, 2009 - 06:14:38

Quote from: extranos on Tue Dec 29, 2009 - 21:12:11
Selene,
You are right in that the Church is older than the New Testament, but the Church Fathers clearly say that all Church teachings must be in accordance with Scripture.
So yes, the Church created Scripture (although I would say that it was divinely arranged), but then at the same time, the Church says that her teachings must be in accordance with it.  So, in a very real sense, the Church created the NT and then placed it in authority over her.

The teachings of the Church is in accordance with Scripture, but the Catholic Church does not adhere to Scripture alone.  The Church did not place the Bible as having authority over her.  According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Sacred Apostolic Tradition is equally important.  St. Paul not only passed on his letters but also his oral traditions, which can only be found in the Church. 

2 Thessalonians 2:14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

Paul was speaking to those Thessalonians of his day by the apostles of that day. I said the apostles. He was not speaking to them about bishops of some future time that made up unbiblical doctrines then use his words to justify them. That is a shamefull exploitation and abuse of authority.
God bless
 

Quote from: mclees8 on Wed Dec 30, 2009 - 07:25:07
Paul was speaking to those Thessalonians of his day by the apostles of that day. I said the apostles. He was not speaking to them about bishops of some future time that made up unbiblical doctrines then use his words to justify them. That is a shamefull exploitation and abuse of authority.
God bless
 

St. Paul was speaking to the converts in Thessalonia, which is the Church.  The biblical verse that I quoted from the Bible DOES show that St. Paul passed down not only his letters but even the oral traditions.  These are the Apostolic traditions that have been handed down to the Church. 

Tomorrow evening is New Year 2010!  We're about a day ahead of the US mainland, so Happy New Year!!!!     Happy New Year everyone!!!   

Quote from: Selene on Wed Dec 30, 2009 - 07:32:14

Quote from: mclees8 on Wed Dec 30, 2009 - 07:25:07
Paul was speaking to those Thessalonians of his day by the apostles of that day. I said the apostles. He was not speaking to them about bishops of some future time that made up unbiblical doctrines then use his words to justify them. That is a shamefull exploitation and abuse of authority.
God bless
 

St. Paul was speaking to the converts in Thessalonia, which is the Church.  The biblical verse that I quoted from the Bible DOES show that St. Paul passed down not only his letters but even the oral traditions.  These are the Apostolic traditions that have been handed down to the Church. 

Tomorrow evening is New Year 2010!  We're about a day ahead of the US mainland, so Happy New Year!!!!     Happy New Year everyone!!!   

Yes Selene but not New invented ones by those who misuse authority It says apostilic traditions Not traditions of the bishops.

Happy New year to you also.

QuoteThe teachings of the Church is in accordance with Scripture, but the Catholic Church does not adhere to Scripture alone.  The Church did not place the Bible as having authority over her.  According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Sacred Apostolic Tradition is equally important.  St. Paul not only passed on his letters but also his oral traditions, which can only be found in the Church.

Selene,
Apostolic Tradition might be considered equal to Scripture by the Roman Church, but there are quite a few examples of Church Fathers who explicitly write that all Tradition must be in accordance with Scripture and must be the standard by which Tradition is understood.

QuoteI mean, sola scriptura originally was a rejection of Holy Tradition but as practiced and realized in protestantism, it's taken as a means to justify actions based on something "biblical".

This is not quite accurate.  As a Lutheran, I can tell you that Sola Scriptura was a principle whereby only Scripture would be used to determine doctrine, but Tradition was acceptable as long as it did not contradict Scripture.
For example, infant baptism is a Tradition.  Scripture does not explicitly call for it, but at the same time, Scripture never prohibits it.  Further, Scripture implicitly calls for infant baptism.  So Lutherans baptize infants. 

I would be happy to provide quotes from Church Fathers who write that the Church must never teach anything that disagrees with Scripture.  As I see that, this doctrine means that Scripture has a higher authority than Tradition because Tradition is what must agree with Scripture, not the reverse.

This is not quite accurate.  As a Lutheran, I can tell you that Sola Scriptura was a principle whereby only Scripture would be used to determine doctrine, but Tradition was acceptable as long as it did not contradict Scripture.
For example, infant baptism is a Tradition.  Scripture does not explicitly call for it, but at the same time, Scripture never prohibits it.  Further, Scripture implicitly calls for infant baptism.  So Lutherans baptize infants. 

I would be happy to provide quotes from Church Fathers who write that the Church must never teach anything that disagrees with Scripture.  As I see that, this doctrine means that Scripture has a higher authority than Tradition because Tradition is what must agree with Scripture, not the reverse.
[/quote]

Well, sola scriptura is credited as a Lutheran docrtine but actually comes a bit later born out of the rhetoric formed during the reformation.  Also, you have to understand that if Tradition is not equally authoritative then this is a rejection of the Authority. 

Luther was an interesting case because of all the protestants he seemed to keep many of his Roman Catholic roots (in comparison to Calvin/Zwingli).  However, by rejecting Apostolic succession and other "biblical" doctrines we wind up making authority the issue.  What authority did Luther have to establish his own "church" and set his interpretations over the scriptures?  What authority did Luther have to set out against the canon of scripture?  Which scriptures gave Luther the authority to reduce the sacraments?  Which verses in the bible explain how Luther had the authority to do so?  Luther even added words into the scriptures.  Had he had the nerve, he would have removed James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation. 

Which Apostle gave him this authority?  How is what Luther did any different than if I started my own church because my fallible interpretation contrasted his fallible one?   The Lutherans didn't even "preach" from the book of Revelation for a hundred years.  How does this line up with "scripture" and not subject them to the traditions of men?   

It seems to me to all boil down not to the authority of the scriptures but to the men that consider their interpretations of the scriptures to be infallible and lift their interpretations and traditions up as "authoritative".  And there's just no bible verse any modern man can make that gives them that authority unless they have been ordained by the Apostles, through those who were ordained by Apostles.  However, even if the person is ordained through that line, they are still subject to right belief and if they fall outside, they are not a part of the self-same Church of the Apostles.

I agree that teachings must be in accordance with scripture.  The issue was if the Church was "under" scripture.  Which makes no sense if The Church is pillar and foundation of Truth.  The Church is only under Christ, as the head, who is the Truth.  Both Tradition and tradition, scripture and interpretation doesn't belong to the individual but to the Church.  Otherwise we wouldn't even have a canon. 

To say the Church is fallible is just bad theology.  How can we in one breath call the body of Christ infallible but the Church fallible? 

I personally think that the fruits of sola scriptura would be more apparent if it were sound.  If only Luther sought to be in communion with the Eastern Church as he seemed interested in for a little while...   

We might then only have two major sects within Christendom instead of the shattered splinters that perpetually rise in the West.

...  oy, I need to learn to say more using less words.   

Again, sorry for the huge block of text. 




God bless

Quote from: Ryan2010 on Wed Dec 30, 2009 - 11:24:32
Well, sola scriptura is credited as a Lutheran docrtine but actually comes a bit later born out of the rhetoric formed during the reformation.  Also, you have to understand that if Tradition is not equally authoritative then this is a rejection of the Authority.  

Luther was an interesting case because of all the protestants he seemed to keep many of his Roman Catholic roots (in comparison to Calvin/Zwingli).  However, by rejecting Apostolic succession and other "biblical" doctrines we wind up making authority the issue.  What authority did Luther have to establish his own "church" and set his interpretations over the scriptures?  What authority did Luther have to set out against the canon of scripture?  Which scriptures gave Luther the authority to reduce the sacraments?  Which verses in the bible explain how Luther had the authority to do so?  Luther even added words into the scriptures.  Had he had the nerve, he would have removed James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation.  

Which Apostle gave him this authority?  How is what Luther did any different than if I started my own church because my fallible interpretation contrasted his fallible one?   The Lutherans didn't even "preach" from the book of Revelation for a hundred years.  How does this line up with "scripture" and not subject them to the traditions of men?  

It seems to me to all boil down not to the authority of the scriptures but to the men that consider their interpretations of the scriptures to be infallible and lift their interpretations and traditions up as "authoritative".  And there's just no bible verse any modern man can make that gives them that authority unless they have been ordained by the Apostles, through those who were ordained by Apostles.  However, even if the person is ordained through that line, they are still subject to right belief and if they fall outside, they are not a part of the self-same Church of the Apostles.

I agree that teachings must be in accordance with scripture.  The issue was if the Church was "under" scripture.  Which makes no sense if The Church is pillar and foundation of Truth.  The Church is only under Christ, as the head, who is the Truth.  Both Tradition and tradition, scripture and interpretation doesn't belong to the individual but to the Church.  Otherwise we wouldn't even have a canon.  

To say the Church is fallible is just bad theology.  How can we in one breath call the body of Christ infallible but the Church fallible?  

I personally think that the fruits of sola scriptura would be more apparent if it were sound.  If only Luther sought to be in communion with the Eastern Church as he seemed interested in for a little while...  

We might then only have two major sects within Christendom instead of the shattered splinters that perpetually rise in the West.

This is excellent, Ryan.   Very astute observations here.  I think you're interested in finding a home in the Orthodox community and it looks like you are on your way from reading this.

QuoteAlso, you have to understand that if Tradition is not equally authoritative then this is a rejection of the Authority. 

Ryan:

Some Fathers on Sola Scriptura (by William Weedon, who authored a page here http://www.issuesetcarchive.org/issues_site/resource/archives/weedon.htm):

"The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth.  St. Athanasius (Against the Heathen, I:3)

"Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast." St. John Chrysostom (Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC)

"Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words."  St. Gregory of Nyssa  (On the Holy Trinity, NPNF, p. 327).

"We are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings."  St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Soul and the Resurrection NPNF II, V:439)

"What is the mark of a faithful soul?  To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions.  For, if 'all that is not of faith is sin' as the Apostle says, and 'faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,' everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin."  Basil the Great (The Morals, p. 204, vol 9 TFOTC).

"We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers.  What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture."  St. Basil the Great (On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 7, par. 16)

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.  St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in NPNF, Volume VII, p. 23.)

Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.  St. Augustine (De unitate ecclesiae, chp. 10)


As you probably know, Luther was an Augustinian monk, so this last quote is particularly compelling.  The Roman Church was teaching justification before God based upon the works done, and acting as the agent for God in assessing penalties for sins (sometimes financial in nature).  Luther did not discover a new truth, but he certainly rediscovered the truth from Saint Paul that we are justified by grace through faith, apart from our works, which had been missing from the central teachings of the Roman Church. 
He turned to the proper authorities within the Church, posting his 95 Theses for theological debate, and requesting a Council to discuss his matters.  However, the Basilica was under construction in Rome at this point in time, and the Catholic Church was very interested in taxing the Germans to help pay for the project, so they weren't in any great mood to discuss theological issues which might dry up the revenue stream, which of course was the problem behind Tetzel and the sale of indulgences.

Even the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14539a.htm) acknowledges the abuses of induglences....It was this deviation from the correct teaching of the Church and the obtrusive and disgraceful injection of the treasury chest, that led to abuses and scandals reprobated by such contemporaries as Cochlæus, Emser, and Duke George (Paulus, op. cit., 117-18). "Grave abuses arose; the attitude of the preachers, the manner of offering and publishing the indulgences aroused many scandals; above all, Tetzel is in no way to be exonerated" (Janssen-Pastor, "Geschichte des deutsch. Volkes", 18th ed., Freiburg, II, 84).

Note that the excuse given is that this is a "deviation from the correct teaching of the [Roman] Church".  Well, the Church is responsible for proper teaching and implementation of doctrine, so it is only her own fault that this happened.  This is not a case of "shame on Luther for making a big deal out of indulgences", this is nothing more than a failure on the part of the Roman Church to teach and preach sound doctrine.
With nobody to turn to in the hierarchy of the Church to get the situation corrected, and with a Pope and Emperor out to kill him, Luther set out to restore the proper balance between Scripture and Tradition.

I wish that the Lutherans could have formed a union with the Orthodox.  I am not pleased with all the schism in the Church, not even within the Lutheran Church.  The failure of the Roman Church to maintain pure doctrine, unleashing the Reformation, has truly had an ill effect upon the Body.

To blame the Catholic church for the 35,000+ sects of Protestantism, indeed to blame it solely to the exclusion of those other factors of politics and the rise of secular humanism and the rejection of God entirely, is quite unfair.  It also is a fundamental misunderstanding of the "Church" and what it really is.  If one believes that the Holy Spirit does not protect the Church from error in doctrine, in the core belief's of faith and morals, then it is not the Catholic Church that caused anything, i.e., that person who believes as such is already Protestant, whether they know it, or admit it or not.  They have already rejected the unity of the Body of Christ and made themselves God's authority to judge as their own individual Church....exactly what Protestantism quickly became and what it clearly is today.  The unassailable truth of that?   Well, what would you say to the thousands of "churches" who reject the core beliefs of Lutheranism, claiming emphatically that Lutheranism clearly has departed from orthodox belief?  One can't hardly turn around and say, "shame on them" in turn, now can we?  I know what I say...one reaps what one sows.

Quote from: extranos on Thu Dec 31, 2009 - 10:53:00

QuoteAlso, you have to understand that if Tradition is not equally authoritative then this is a rejection of the Authority. 

Ryan:

Some Fathers on Sola Scriptura (by William Weedon, who authored a page here http://www.issuesetcarchive.org/issues_site/resource/archives/weedon.htm):

"The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth.  St. Athanasius (Against the Heathen, I:3)

"Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast." St. John Chrysostom (Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC)

"Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words."  St. Gregory of Nyssa  (On the Holy Trinity, NPNF, p. 327).

"We are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings."  St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Soul and the Resurrection NPNF II, V:439)

"What is the mark of a faithful soul?  To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions.  For, if 'all that is not of faith is sin' as the Apostle says, and 'faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,' everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin."  Basil the Great (The Morals, p. 204, vol 9 TFOTC).

"We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers.  What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture."  St. Basil the Great (On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 7, par. 16)

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.  St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in NPNF, Volume VII, p. 23.)

Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.  St. Augustine (De unitate ecclesiae, chp. 10)


As you probably know, Luther was an Augustinian monk, so this last quote is particularly compelling.  The Roman Church was teaching justification before God based upon the works done, and acting as the agent for God in assessing penalties for sins (sometimes financial in nature).  Luther did not discover a new truth, but he certainly rediscovered the truth from Saint Paul that we are justified by grace through faith, apart from our works, which had been missing from the central teachings of the Roman Church. 
He turned to the proper authorities within the Church, posting his 95 Theses for theological debate, and requesting a Council to discuss his matters.  However, the Basilica was under construction in Rome at this point in time, and the Catholic Church was very interested in taxing the Germans to help pay for the project, so they weren't in any great mood to discuss theological issues which might dry up the revenue stream, which of course was the problem behind Tetzel and the sale of indulgences.

Even the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14539a.htm) acknowledges the abuses of induglences....It was this deviation from the correct teaching of the Church and the obtrusive and disgraceful injection of the treasury chest, that led to abuses and scandals reprobated by such contemporaries as Cochlæus, Emser, and Duke George (Paulus, op. cit., 117-18). "Grave abuses arose; the attitude of the preachers, the manner of offering and publishing the indulgences aroused many scandals; above all, Tetzel is in no way to be exonerated" (Janssen-Pastor, "Geschichte des deutsch. Volkes", 18th ed., Freiburg, II, 84).

Note that the excuse given is that this is a "deviation from the correct teaching of the [Roman] Church".  Well, the Church is responsible for proper teaching and implementation of doctrine, so it is only her own fault that this happened.  This is not a case of "shame on Luther for making a big deal out of indulgences", this is nothing more than a failure on the part of the Roman Church to teach and preach sound doctrine.
With nobody to turn to in the hierarchy of the Church to get the situation corrected, and with a Pope and Emperor out to kill him, Luther set out to restore the proper balance between Scripture and Tradition.

I wish that the Lutherans could have formed a union with the Orthodox.  I am not pleased with all the schism in the Church, not even within the Lutheran Church.  The failure of the Roman Church to maintain pure doctrine, unleashing the Reformation, has truly had an ill effect upon the Body.

Again, I am not saying that the issue is accordance WITH the scriptures but the earlier statement that the Church was UNDER the scriptures.  If you notice in the following passage, we can see how the scriptures can come into effect in all three instances.

Matthew 18:

15"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'[c] 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Now, surely the one sinned against would use the scriptures to show him his fault.  But then he may have verses of his own (think of this when I refer to Zwingli later in my reply).  Now when the one that was wronged takes one or two others along with him to correct his brother, again they would probably use scriptures.  See what happens next?  If the matter is still not settled, they are to tell it to the church.  Here's the rub.  With a lot of the ecclessiologies (the way people think of "church") today people believe that the individual believer IS the self same church as mentioned in the bible (and to some degree they may be right in their thinking) but how do they apply that same definition of "church as self" with the above passage?  

I mean, is the one in the wrong to tell it to himself?  No, it's clear that the two in dispute are to take the matter before the entire body wherein, using scripture, the one in the wrong is to be corrected and most likely scripture will be key in that decision.  

However, in Luther's case, and this is truly unfortunate, in many aspects, Luther was right.  Insofar as abuses go.  But then look what happens when he faces Zwingli on the Eucharist.  Where are these two brothers to take their "quarrel"?  The rhetoric of sola scriptura winds up wearing thing and the same thing that is suppose to unite and guide becomes the very thing that divides.  Why?  Because there are competing interpretations and no authority outside of the interpretation.  

I'm familiar with the reformation and again what I had to ask myself while I was surveying which church I should go to, was who had the Authority (I wasn't raised Christian and only had the bible to use to base my beliefs on right practice).    

If you look at Zwingli and the Eucharist in opposition to Luther which one had the authority to interpret either way?  Both used scripture and it boiled down to interpretation.  Luther staunchly defending the Lord's presence in the Eucharist against Zwingli but at the end of the day, according to their new "church structure" either of them were powerless to do anything.  

Luther did in fact write to the East but the problem was that both his and his fellow theologians weren't at all recognizable to them (the East).  Though the dialogue was ended because of all the persecution the East was facing, there were just too many contradictory teachings being set forth by the reformers.  While there were some similarities on things like faith, the East never made the distinctions as the protestants were putting it.  The following statement didn't even compute: faith OR works.  

John 6:

28Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"

29Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

In other words, faith (the greek for this word is more accurately, "faithing" if it were a word) is a kind of "work" if it's at all valid.  It's given to you and you do His will with it.  You bury it like the talent and don't do His will with it - might as well be dead.  Faith is not static.  God in Trinity is a perpetual movement of love, an outpouring of that love and we are called to perpetually extend that love to others in the same way it is extended to us (while we were still sinners, God loved us),  that the world might see Christ. However, it's to no man's credit.  We have free-will.  If God says choose life, it is God that sets life before you as an option to begin with.  If you choose what He set before you doesn't mean you thank yourself for choosing it.  That would be crazy.  Salvation belongs to the Lord.  

Matt 24:12

12Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.

Ok, sort of wandered there...  (weakness of mine)

The Orthodox didn't make the distinctions as the reactionary theology of Luther had.  Much of the theology of the protestants was a reaction against the tradition from which they came from.  They wanted to express, as most protestants do, a pure expression of early Christendom (as we read about it in the bible).  The problem is, they have no structure of authority other than one's ability to convince others of their interpretation.  The presbytery is key and the self-same presbytery that the Apostles ordained serves to preserve that authority.  If that structure of preservation isn't in place then wild mutation occurs and then those mutations mutate and split and so on.  

The modern picture of ecumenism is the way in which the protestants attempt to ford the dam but in so doing embraces pluralism and dualism and furthers the divide, preserving only the promise of the mutations.  It does so in the name of love but quietly embraces Truth as something subjective and each individual is faced with the task of ordering their dogmas and doctrines (which answer the question that Jesus asked, "who do you say I am?") instead of getting to know who he is based on the witness of the Apostles.  

That's why you can have an Anglican Bishop that denies bodily resurrection and dismisses it all as "metaphor" and yet not endanger his standing in the church, let alone as Bishop.  That's why (though you don't see this in the bible) some guy can come out of the woods and ordain himself a Bishop.  To accept authority you have to deny self but to deny self is to strip yourself of being in authority OVER the scriptures and place yourself UNDER the Apostles who deposited The Faith into the body.  

If something doesn't stop the mutations and splitting in the protestant body imagine what that division will look like 100 years from now.  Sola scriptura itself has mutated from something that the reformers may have needed to establish their structure but it's now become the primary means through which these mutations occur and has served to completely remove the Authority of Tradition (which is scriptural) and embrace pluralism.



John 17

20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. 24"Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world. 25"Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. 26I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them."

Watch out for the Solas, because the Solas list for divorce is as long as my arm.



The Five solas:

1 Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone")
2 Sola fide ("by faith alone")
3 Sola gratia ("by grace alone")
4 Solus Christus or Solo Christo ("Christ alone" or "through Christ alone")
5 Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone")


To my understanding, the Germans must add a word when they translate something? Correct me if I'm wrong>

QuoteThe Orthodox didn't make the distinctions as the reactionary theology of Luther had.  Much of the theology of the protestants was a reaction against the tradition from which they came from.  They wanted to express, as most protestants do, a pure expression of early Christendom (as we read about it in the bible).  The problem is, they have no structure of authority other than one's ability to convince others of their interpretation.  The presbytery is key and the self-same presbytery that the Apostles ordained serves to preserve that authority.  If that structure of preservation isn't in place then wild mutation occurs and then those mutations mutate and split and so on.  

Ryan,
This is a good point that you make, but I'm not sure there is a pretty answer to it.  I agree that Scripture cannot be the umpire if there is no authority in place to add to the refereeing between two sides of an argument, and your example of Zwingli and Luther is a good one.  
I say there is not a pretty answer to it because the split between Zwingli and Luther, at its heart, is not much different than the split between East and West.  I am not one who thinks that the Catholic Church is Satan incarnate, but I am not afraid to point out that I think she is off the beaten path.  I think that the Orthodox, while having some warts of their own, have done a pretty good job of maintaining doctrine - a much, much better job than the Roman Church has done.  But they differ on some serious teachings, yet at the same time they both claim the purity of the Holy Spirit and Apostolic Succession.  They both refer to Tradition as the reason for holding their views, and they both claim that the Spirit has kept them pure.
So why the split, then?  Why the differences that have kept them apart, practically speaking, for 1000 years?  They cannot both be right and claim that Scripture and Tradition and the Holy Spirit have guided them, or else they would still be one.
And having said this, I think that both the Roman and the Orthodox churches teach a purity of doctrine that does not exist in the "Evangelical" community.  You are spot on in pointing out that JimBob and his cousin Earl can become bishops in their own church as long as they have enough money to pay the rent at the strip mall for a few weeks.  It is thoroughly shocking and disheartening to see this form of "Christianity", although it seems to be a peculiarly American curse on the Church.

Thus, Ryan, having posited a proper "Authority" as being necessary for the well-being of the Church (and not something I dismiss out of hand), how does it come into play when even the two historic branches of the Church cannot agree?  

QuoteWatch out for the Solas, because the Solas list for divorce is as long as my arm.



The Five solas:

1 Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone")
2 Sola fide ("by faith alone")
3 Sola gratia ("by grace alone")
4 Solus Christus or Solo Christo ("Christ alone" or "through Christ alone")
5 Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone")

Banished, is your argument really with all five?  Or just #1 and #2?  I have a hard time believing that #3 through #5 are controversial.

Quote from: extranos on Fri Jan 01, 2010 - 09:11:40

QuoteThe Orthodox didn't make the distinctions as the reactionary theology of Luther had.  Much of the theology of the protestants was a reaction against the tradition from which they came from.  They wanted to express, as most protestants do, a pure expression of early Christendom (as we read about it in the bible).  The problem is, they have no structure of authority other than one's ability to convince others of their interpretation.  The presbytery is key and the self-same presbytery that the Apostles ordained serves to preserve that authority.  If that structure of preservation isn't in place then wild mutation occurs and then those mutations mutate and split and so on.  

Ryan,
This is a good point that you make, but I'm not sure there is a pretty answer to it.  I agree that Scripture cannot be the umpire if there is no authority in place to add to the refereeing between two sides of an argument, and your example of Zwingli and Luther is a good one.  
I say there is not a pretty answer to it because the split between Zwingli and Luther, at its heart, is not much different than the split between East and West.  I am not one who thinks that the Catholic Church is Satan incarnate, but I am not afraid to point out that I think she is off the beaten path.  I think that the Orthodox, while having some warts of their own, have done a pretty good job of maintaining doctrine - a much, much better job than the Roman Church has done.  But they differ on some serious teachings, yet at the same time they both claim the purity of the Holy Spirit and Apostolic Succession.  They both refer to Tradition as the reason for holding their views, and they both claim that the Spirit has kept them pure.
So why the split, then?  Why the differences that have kept them apart, practically speaking, for 1000 years?  They cannot both be right and claim that Scripture and Tradition and the Holy Spirit have guided them, or else they would still be one.
And having said this, I think that both the Roman and the Orthodox churches teach a purity of doctrine that does not exist in the "Evangelical" community.  You are spot on in pointing out that JimBob and his cousin Earl can become bishops in their own church as long as they have enough money to pay the rent at the strip mall for a few weeks.  It is thoroughly shocking and disheartening to see this form of "Christianity", although it seems to be a peculiarly American curse on the Church.

Thus, Ryan, having posited a proper "Authority" as being necessary for the well-being of the Church (and not something I dismiss out of hand), how does it come into play when even the two historic branches of the Church cannot agree?  

QuoteWatch out for the Solas, because the Solas list for divorce is as long as my arm.




If fully agree  that proper authority is needed.  unfortunately That authority is lost today. We have one authority though that is tried and true. That transends time, And that is Gods word it self. 

You see it is not the bible or the Holy Spirit that has lost sight. it is men who have lost sight. In the beginning a field was planted. It was a good field. it was pure and clean field But with time the field became contaminated with weeds. As k yourself what are these weeds. Worldly ambition first came maybe even before the RCC. We don't have a way to determine a certain time. But after the church was excepted by Constantine the church took a nose dive. It wasn't the  church so much but ambitious men of authority. that changed the church into a political religious power. Men of ambitions that then sowed corruption. Was the word still pewer. while these weeds were growing in the field. yes.   

No its not The apostles who failed, and it isn't their teaching that failed. It isn't the Holy spirit that failed. It isn't the bible that failed. It was men of authority that failed.

You argue about who stayed on track. The reformation was attempt to bring the church back and pull the weeds yet they ended up with more weeds. Now the whole field is contaminated beyond our ability to fix it. Jesus is not suprised by this. He knows the feiled and the wheat that is good. The one thing that has stood is his word that is written. Therefore it is the one tried and true authority. It will be our indictment whether we have done good or evil. 

God bless   

QuoteTo blame the Catholic church for the 35,000+ sects of Protestantism, indeed to blame it solely to the exclusion of those other factors of politics and the rise of secular humanism and the rejection of God entirely, is quite unfair.  It also is a fundamental misunderstanding of the "Church" and what it really is.  If one believes that the Holy Spirit does not protect the Church from error in doctrine, in the core belief's of faith and morals, then it is not the Catholic Church that caused anything, i.e., that person who believes as such is already Protestant, whether they know it, or admit it or not.  They have already rejected the unity of the Body of Christ and made themselves God's authority to judge as their own individual Church....exactly what Protestantism quickly became and what it clearly is today.  The unassailable truth of that?   Well, what would you say to the thousands of "churches" who reject the core beliefs of Lutheranism, claiming emphatically that Lutheranism clearly has departed from orthodox belief?  One can't hardly turn around and say, "shame on them" in turn, now can we?  I know what I say...one reaps what one sows.

DK,
I am not trying to blame the Roman Church, any more than I would blame Luther, for the multiplicity of "denominations" now found in the Christian Church.   I agree that politics and the Enlightenment have contributed to the breakdown.  However, the Roman Church maintained her singular position through the State, in an unhealthy environment for both areas, whereby those who popped up with disagreements were put to death (I would say murdered, especially in the case of someone like Hus) for not following the official line.
And I agree that "one reaps what one sows" is a fair comment....especially if you think of this matter through the eyes of an Orthodox believer, who, if honest, will tell you that the Western Church in her entirety should be considered "Protestant".  The Orthodox will accuse you, the Roman Catholic, of flagrantly introducing doctrines that are not a part of the historic Church. 
So while I think you feel comfort in hoisting me upon my own petard, in the end, there are millions of Orthodox Christians who will make the same accusation against you.  If you are willing to drop the doctrines that separate you from the Orthodox, then maybe I should be willing to consider doing the same thing.  Maybe a new Church Council that is binding upon all would be a good idea.  Interesting how Luther pleaded for that a short 500 years ago without success - not likely to happen today, but it would be great to see it.  Maybe that is the "Authority" for which Ryan and I are looking.

I'm not sure what it is that you may be referring to, ex.  Clearly the role of the Papacy is the issue at hand and will probably keep us Catholics and Orthodox outside of full communion for quite some time.  Other than that, the filioque, is the next most important to them, (but then, you Lutherans agree with us Catholics on that one.).  There is our different interpretation of what we call "purgatory" and which the Orthodox call final theosis.  Additionally, we Catholics express a different view of the sinless nature of our Blessed Mother, but we share very deeply in the doctrines of Marionology of our Orthodox bros.  That there are those Orthodox who may view the Catholic Church as somewhat similar to Protestantism is true...(Those same Orthodox often hold some other branches of Orthodoxy in the same view.), but they are few and it is not a view held by Orthodox in general.  Why?  Because of the very issue that you keep either avoiding or getting wrong.  Authority is not simply a matter of "getting it right", (that is in fact the definition of "Orthodoxy", i.e., right practice, or right thought).  This is, I believe, the issue that Ryan has been explaining to you.  Here is the difference.  Although we Catholics and the Orthodox have a sharp difference over the doctrinal issues mentioned, we share in the actual existence of the authority of the Apostolic Succession to get it right on the core doctrinal issues of faith and morals.   The Catholic Church, as a matter of dogma, fully and completely accepts the validity of all Eastern Orthodox Holy Orders, i.e., their Bishops and clergy, and the complete validity of their Sacraments.  We do so because even though we may differ on defining the sinless nature of the Theotokos, even though we may have a different way of defining the final purging of sin before heaven, as Catholics we know the Orthodox have been defenders of correct doctrine on about everything else.  Orthodox in certain assigned locations when I was in the Air Force for example, received pastoring from Catholic Chaplains and Holy Eucharist from a provision with their military Bishop (due to a shortage of Orthodox chaplains), because of that authority.  Yes, we and the Orthodox share a belief in the historic and biblical view that Christ is really present in Holy Eucharist, for example, but that is directly linked to the belief of where valid authority in the Church lay.  

This is still the key issue that I don't think some here are getting at.  "Authority" is what defines the concept of the "Church" as something more than just a label or group of like minded adherents or a particular viewpoint.  We Catholics and the Orthodox have many years of separation, most of which has been caused by our differing cultural way of looking at things;  they, with an emphasis on the great mysteries of the faith.  We, with the mind of legality inherited from our Roman past and our struggle against paganism and barbarian invasion.  The Church in the west had to assume roles that the Church in the east did not.  I will also admit that the years of bad blood between us Catholics and the Orthodox have been mostly due to Catholic mistakes and unfair treatment that we bear the lion's share of fault for.

I pray that all of Christendom be united in one Body, but it must start with all of Christendom uniting in the core beliefs that the "Church" which is in Heaven as well, is also a very real, visible, body on earth that Christ our Saviour gave great power and authority to, that He wished to speak and act in His name.  We Catholics certainly have our differences with the Orthodox, but we also completely acknowledge their possesing Apostolic Authority and the means of Sacramental grace.  It is so tragic that we no longer share this with any Protestant groups.  There used to be some hope with the Anglican Communion and with many Lutherans, but unfortunately the Lutheran Federation and so much of the Anglican Communion has gone far beyond differences over doctrine and embraced an insane view of modernism in their ordaining woman "priestesses", ordaining gay clergy and blessing gay "marriages", with their acquiescence with abortion and questioning even the divinity of Christ, which both notable Anglican Bishops as well as the Lutheran Bishop of Sweden has.  These differences may prove completely fatal to any hope of unity.  We Catholics for one, will never accept ecumenism if it means pluralism.  

An interesting development...

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0706123.htm

Hear what i say

I fully agree  that proper authority is needed.  unfortunately that authority is lost today. We have one authority though that is tried and true. That transcends time, And that is Gods word it self.

You see it is not the bible or the Holy Spirit that has lost sight. it is men who have lost sight. In the beginning a field was planted. It was a good field. it was pure and clean field But with time the field became contaminated with weeds. Ask yourself what are these weeds. Worldly ambition first came maybe even before the RCC. We don't have a way to determine a certain time. But after the church was excepted by Constantine the church took a nose dive. It wasn't the  church so much but ambitious men of authority. that changed the church into a political religious power. Men of ambitions that then sowed corruption. Was the word still pure. while these weeds were growing in the field. yes!
No its not the apostles who failed, and it isn't their teaching that failed. It isn't the Holy spirit that failed. It isn't the Bible that failed. It was men of authority that failed.

You argue about who stayed on track. The reformation was attempt to bring the church back and pull the weeds yet they ended up with more weeds. Now the whole field is contaminated beyond our ability to fix it. Jesus is not surprised by this. He knows the field and the wheat that is good. The one thing that has stood is his word that is written. Therefore it is the one tried and true authority. It will be our indictment whether we have done good or evil.

Its not whether one is orthodox or Roman catholic or even protestant. There has always been just one field that was planted. the Problem today is Christianity itself has become a bad tree. It is contaminated with pride arrogance worldlly and humanitic ideals and beliefs Corruption exists through out and it cannot be fixed. No not now and not in the future until Jesus comes.

Jesus will not see his church denominationally. he has no pet denominations protestant or catholic. He knows his bride and he will receive them out of all this confussion. Be focused not on the authority as much as how are you walking out your faith for no church affiliation well lend one ounce to your record.

Please Lord let them hear?     

For McLees:

Then let me ask you, Mike, to illustrate my problem with your belief;  Where do you partake of the Body and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ in Holy Eucharist?  This is no small thing for our Lord plainly stated that unless we, "eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.".  Over and over in the NT we are told that we are to partake of the bread of life, of His Body and Blood.  This belief was held by the earliest record we have of the first Christian communities and yet is rejected by today's Protestants.  They have rejected both it's reality under the species of bread and wine, converting it to the same metaphorical belief that their theologians now do regarding the divinity of Christ, Himself, as they reject the very idea that Christ fully intended His Church to ordain ministers to have the authority and power to offer this sacrifice.  So where does a Christian receive this most important means of grace in your opinion?  You keep saying that the field is so full of weeds that no true Church exist because of man's failing, but I know where I go for this means of grace which our Lord commanded.   It is offered at every Mass and every Divine Liturgy in every parish, throughout the world.  To give that up because you think the men who preside over that Sacrament are sinful would be to give up on the Church from the first day after the Ascension as many posts ago it was pointed out how the first choice of our Lord as chief of the Apostles, Peter, was a cantankerous, at times frightened and sinful man....and yet Our Lord, Jesus Christ stood by Peter and told him, "feed my sheep".   Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant church leaders and adherents have done terrible things in history in the name of our Lord.  They have been horrifically corrupt at times, but that only proves how all men are sinful and wish to serve self and turn away from God.  Even the Pope goes to confession to confess his sins, that does not mean the Church he leads is not Christ's Church, it only means that even he is dependent on the grace he receives through Word and Sacrament in order to win salvation, to finish the race as Paul said, just like the rest of us.

If you read the link from my previous post, the Catholic/Orthodox synod gives a very clear understanding of what the Church is in the light of the question that I posed to you...

"Catholics and Orthodox believe the local church must be in communion "with the totality of local churches" of the past, present and future.

"One and the same faith is to be confessed and lived out in all the local churches, the same unique Eucharist is to be celebrated everywhere, and one and the same apostolic ministry is to be at work in all the communities," the document said.

"A local church cannot modify the creed, formulated by the ecumenical councils," it said, nor can it "change a fundamental point regarding the form of ministry by a unilateral decision."

[They both refer to Tradition as the reason for holding their views, and they both claim that the Spirit has kept them pure. So why the split, then?]

I would not say that the "reason" for the views they held was Tradition.  The history shows that individuals on both sides reacted independent of the body.   I think had those individuals quieted their passions, a council would had been formed and like the other doctrines that threatened to divide the body, these issues would have been dealt with by The Church.  

However, unlike the heresies that existed within and that were defeated from within, they no longer had the option of doing so because of the split.  Bizarre attempts at repairing the schism seemed only to backfire, exasperate the attempts and led to a complete separation (other forces were at work too, wars against the Turks etc.).  For instance: Early on, Rome sent someone to Constantinople to help heal the divide but he didn't speak a lick of Greek and there was no interpreter.  

What first appeared to be a political misunderstanding and an unilateral, inappropriate over-reaction to fighting a heresy against the Goths later turned into a battle of justifying themselves on theological grounds and rather than back-peddle, patched up the theology (filioque) and amped up the rhetoric of Rome's primacy (which has never been a problem, only in so far as they began to define it to the East, that the East might "submit").  

That there was a Roman bishop (Pope) that agreed with a council by presence and signature that the creed the schism era Pope added to, should not be added to, sheds light on the way Rome began to view Tradition.  

Though I don't think that the actual split was as theological as we imagine, the problems buried deep within said actions wound up, over time, manifesting themselves for what they were.  Rome and the East prior to schism had already had schism and there were many issues starting to create fissures prior to that earlier schism as well.  The fact that there were varying cultures seemed to work against what I would call a confusing of the line between tradition, Tradition, interpretation and Authority.  

Why the differences that have kept them apart, practically speaking, for 1000 years?  

The differences are much more vast today than they were at the initial schism.   If you look at how Orthodoxy views herself instead of juxtaposing what she believes from whatever tradition you might be looking in at her from, you will see that the protestants are more like the Roman Catholics and vice versa in regards to their theologies than are the Orthodox are like either of them.  

This was very difficult for me at first because it was like learning an entirely knew language made up of the same words I was familiar with as a protestant.  It might not sound like much but they in which the West views Original Sin both in the Roman Catholic and most protestant traditions are quite similar to each other at their "base" which is legal guilt.  Doesn't seem like much but again we can trace this back to Blessed Augustine.

That this departure begins with Augustine is telling because it illustrates a little what I mean when I say though the schism wasn't nearly as "theological" a split as we'd assume, the split did serve to allow certain things buried within to become manifest much later down the road...

Those differences so wide (though not impossible) now that I imagine that communion with Rome and talks about it remains something distant.

[They cannot both be right and claim that Scripture and Tradition and the Holy Spirit have guided them, or else they would still be one.]

Well again, the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics view Tradition itself as something quite different from one another.  I guess the Orthodox would say, look at the fruit but when said to anyone willing to cherry pick either for or against, it's difficult to allow such a statement much weight (unless one's conscience is struck).


[Thus, Ryan, having posited a proper "Authority" as being necessary for the well-being of the Church (and not something I dismiss out of hand), how does it come into play when even the two historic branches of the Church cannot agree?]

It's not always easy to tell.  There are periods in Church history where it seems that everyone was wrong except a very very few and those few suffered greatly at the hands of what we would recognized as the Church.  More often than not it would seem and I think for good reason too.  

However, those few are always victorious in the end, shown, despite the heresies so prevalent amongst them/from within them, shown to be "approved".  The canonization of scripture and the Trinity are excellent illustrations of the Holy Spirit working within the body to reveal the approved.  

But in other cases where right belief believers go into exile and are excommunicated (which wind up being anathematized once it's revealed that they are approved), it's quite a mystery.  How can we say that the self-same Church that is the One True Church has persecuted the right believer?  

We don't and can't.  And that's one of the things that I think would really help people to understand Church instead of trying to "abandon" it.  Just because you learn the doctrines and dogmas and read your bible and you pray etc., doesn't mean that you won't wind up becoming proud, wind up stepping outside of the Church every time you step foot inside of it.  It's entirely possible.  The Church in Heaven, though invisible, is One with the Church on earth that is visible.  However, if we do not have our source in the One in heaven then stepping foot in the visible one on Earth is in all actuality a step outside of her.  

With the split, you have all these Patriarchate jurisdictions.  There's Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, Jerusalem and Constantinople.  Now, to unilaterally add something into the creed and then excommunicate the ENTIRE East is, from an Orthodox perspective, a big ol' leap outside the Church, even if you're a Bishop.  

So the schism issue doesn't have anything to do with Authority so much because both sides feel that the other has stepped outside of it.  





Not sure why I'm thinking about this but the following passage is, in a roundabout way, applicable...  

Everyone likes to throw the word Pharisee around especially when people think you're being "religious" or "legalistic" but Jesus said something about the Pharisees that isn't nearly as popular.  Consider the following passages carefully and ask yourself if we are not sometimes called to suffer and endure the wrong practices under the established Authority that we might be perfected and shown approved.  That in our suffering those evil practices are exposed and restored not by violence or rebellion but from the inside out by our servitude and if need be, the witness of our blood.  Humility is key.  That God sets up the Authorities is undeniable.  

Matthew 23

1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

Philippians 2:5-8

5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature[a] God,
     did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
     taking the very nature of a servant,
     being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
     he humbled himself
     and became obedient to death—
        even death on a cross!

Quote from: RyanIf you look at how Orthodoxy views herself instead of juxtaposing what she believes from whatever tradition you might be looking in at her from, you will see that the protestants are more like the Roman Catholics and vice versa in regards to their theologies than are the Orthodox are like either of them.  

This was very difficult for me at first because it was like learning an entirely knew language made up of the same words I was familiar with as a protestant.  It might not sound like much but they in which the West views Original Sin both in the Roman Catholic and most protestant traditions are quite similar to each other at their "base" which is legal guilt.  Doesn't seem like much but again we can trace this back to Blessed Augustine.

I think you hit it right on the head here, Ryan.  AD 1054 is really a kind of arbitrary date as the problems were more manifest in the way the west developed as opposed to the world view of the east over many years.  Aquinas and Augustine, high in esteem as I and the West hold them, are perfect examples of the intellectual and forensic approach to doctrinal issues that can seem so alien to the eastern viewpoint.  There are real differences but just as often it is as you said, not so much a doctrinal difference as two people who are speaking two different languages and just can't "think" in the language of the other person.  We can still have hope that the common language of faith and charity will triumph.  I pray so.  

I think you hit it right on the head here, Ryan.  AD 1054 is really a kind of arbitrary date as the problems were more manifest in the way the west developed as opposed to the world view of the east over many years.  Aquinas and Augustine, high in esteem as I and the West hold them, are perfect examples of the intellectual and forensic approach to doctrinal issues that can seem so alien to the eastern viewpoint.  There are real differences but just as often it is as you said, not so much a doctrinal difference as two people who are speaking two different languages and just can't "think" in the language of the other person.  We can still have hope that the common language of faith and charity will triumph.  I pray so.  
[/quote]

Well, if you survey the forum you can see that vast majority of posts on this forum by protestants are actually, at their root, based on Roman Catholic doctrine that goes back to pre-schism doctrines that the Orthodox wound up becoming distant from. 

Augustine and Aquinas are at the root of most of them, as far as I am able to tell.  We could say that even Aristotle has had a profound influence but we sort of wander outside with that one. 

The Calvinist interpretations are based on an exaggeration of justification/legal guilt which goes back to Augustine.  The Orthodox would say that the Calvinists just brought the errors of Augustine to their logical conclusions as did Luther in regards to the way in which they view (sort of) baptism.  You have ex cathedra (a very loyal Lutheran it seems) pleading that non-Lutheran protestants baptize their babies that they might not go to "hell". 

The reason why there are denominations (though they would call themselves non-denominational) saying that you don't have to live in repentance or ever again ask for forgiveness because they just take Luther's rhetoric "faith alone" to it's logical conclusion.  The reactionary theology of Luther against an emphasis on works by Rome is just an inverted way to approach legal guilt/justification.  That a person would view faith alone as being that which labels a Christian righteous even if they never live a righteous life is just an exaggeration and takes the logical conclusion to its end. 

This baffled me when I was a protestant.  It was time for me to be baptized and I was being schooled by those in the Methodist church as to what that meant.  I asked questions and rarely got two answers that were in agreement.  The questions about baptism led back to justification and legal status and wound up begging the question about children that is quite common when people are learning to become protestant. 

The person asks, "how do I get saved?".  The protestant says (generically speaking), you must have faith and ask for forgiveness and let Jesus into your heart and now you are saved.  Stamp and mark the time and from here on out you're in like Flynn."  The person follows up and asks, "but why do I need to get saved, I've lived a good life".  The protestant responds, "it doesn't matter if you lived a good life.  Surely you sinned at least once and so you need to repent, ask for forgiveness and ask Jesus into your heart." 

The person asks (and this is quite common.  plenty of people have lost children and they are ever present on their mind when coming into a church), "what about babies that pass from this life? They never repent, sinned or let Jesus into their heart." Now this is where it gets interesting because I've heard various responses to this question from protestants but it all goes back to legal status and they never seem to get beyond that.  The protestant will usually say that the babies are saved because they aren't "aware" and those how most protestants come up with the age of accountability doctrines even though there is no real solid support by scripture for these.  Some denominations even set the age.  Some say 9 others 13, it varies. 

Again this is less "sola scriptura" and more of a theological tradition inherited and modified in order to come up with a reality in which they can approach scripture.  But the age of accountability doctrine exposes their belief about babies.  They don't say that the baby is "without sin".  They say that the baby is, according to legal status, "innocent".  If the person picks up on the legal status thing or stumbles across it they ask why the baby, even if she never makes it out of the fetus, guilty.  They ask how is this so? The answer by protestants is, "what happened was Adam and Eve disobeyed God and got kicked out of paradise as a punishment for their disobedience.  They were guilty of sin.  When they had babies those babies inherited that legal guilt in their DNA."  The picture of this reality and how we are to approach the reality of God's world becomes the lens through which the protestant looks.  And in a strange way, colors everything. 

So some protestants will take that to their logical conclusion saying that unbaptized babies will burn, which if you look at Roman Catholic history was one such phase that Rome went through. 

In other words, protestants believe that if we inherit legal guilt from Adam and Eve, that that legal guilt is in our very DNA then this colors the way in which they view the incarnation, works, faith, "justification", etc.  If you were to remove this "legal guilt" in the way which the West understands it, most of these denominations would have to re-evaluate the major bulk of their theology and look for models that don't rest so heavily upon Augustine. 

When you look at Aquinus who does seem to approach God's reality as one might in the natural world by using methods and science you can see why the protestants would do as their mother Rome had in viewing God.  There is so much cognitive emphasis and protestant circles looking to "prove" God's existence.  The book, the Case for Christ (I think it's called that) is one such illustration.  Here you have people appealing to man's reason more so than faith.  It's as if what Jesus said to Thomas never happened. 

Doubting Thomas, needing to see the very wounds of Jesus to make sure that his witnesses didn't just witness a "twin" imposter, is allowed the opportunity to inspect the evidence and come face to face with the risen Lord but after this Jesus says something rather sharp, "blessed are those that don't see and believe". 

In order to save face in the Western world wherein logic and reason enjoys such an elevated status (you can see this in the way in which people even view relationships where they say, "I want someone who is smart and successful) many protestant circles will even get into debates with scientists about the natural world because if something in the natural world doesn't match the way in which they view scripture then surely the scientist is wrong.  That is to say, the natural world and the scriptures themselves are viewed as less having to do with faith and the relationship between man/creation and their Maker and more to do with "how" things are in the natural world.

Time and culture play a major role in this and the history of this interplay between how Christians view the scripture and the natural world based on Aquinas is sometimes comical (seems comical to us today). 

Remember how horrible it was to some that some scientist would dare counter scripture by theorizing that it was the earth and other planets that rotated around the sun, not the entire cosmos rotating around the earth?

Find one group of Christians today that would refute on a scriptural basis that the Earth doesn't revolve around the sun.

Martin Luther said horrible things about this scientist but the irony was that he was doing much like the scientist was doing in the way in which he was approaching scripture and he inherited that trait not from the scriptures but from the tradition from which he came.  Now thank God! the Catholics seem to have a much friendlier view toward science than do the protestants but the way in which many protestants view scripture and how they approach it is just an exaggerated and misplaced form that they inherited from Aquinas. 

The other great great irony in all this is that the scriptures themselves are so problematic, even for Orthodox and Catholic who speak English.  If you learn anything about the various bible translations and how they come to be, how they vary, why they vary, you soon learn horrible horrible things that are very difficult to accept if you don't accept that the Church is the interpreter of scripture. 

In fact, many evangelicals when they start studying the bible and various cultural movements that influenced modern day Christianity fall away entirely because it is so ingrained in them that the bible pretty much fell from the sky and every word in them is preserved from its original.  To discover that the word, "imputed" isn't in the greek but is added in.  To learn that different denominational agendas massage the texts to read, not what the texts read but what the translators believe them to "mean" is quite difficult.  To discover that Luther wrote in the word, "alone" and worked hard to massage the meaning is hard to accept if you're honest.  I mean, that's what makes the JW bible so hard to accept.  They are blatantly just pushing their doctrinal agenda through the texts.   

Now, to be sola scriptura is one thing but to be sola scriptura and be ignorant of all the textual problems that translators face is another.  In other words, it's no wonder people believe the scriptures read what they believe when what they're reading is just a translated doctrinal bias disguising itself as scripture. 

You get the KJV only crowds and the Geneva bible-is-best crowds because it's not that they read what the scriptures read but that they best explain what they believe the scripture to read. 

The irony is that though Rome might have only authorized Latin at that moment in history but when Luther and those that followed gave the scriptures to the people, they in all actuality gave the people a sermon in disguise as to how to believe what they were reading. 

Even the modern notions of "heaven" and "hell" have been so badly misunderstood because of translation problems (less to do with doctrinal bias in this case I think).   You have Joyce Meyers saying Jesus went to hell.  And that sounds crazy and so you go to your bible and in fact if you read "the bible", yep, says Jesus went to hell (depends on translation).  So suddenly you have "sola scriptura" getting totally blind-sided.   

I remember when I first stumbled across the word "sheol" and looked up sheol in a Jewish encyclopedia.  I felt kind of like that Baptist who realized that he was under a false impression insofar as "Jesus went to hell" goes.  I'm alluding to the guy that founded the JW movement.  What happened was, he discovered that the Baptist teachings he was learning in regards to hell was false.  He didn't attribute it so much to translation error but to "corruption".  He believe that the Baptists got this view from Rome and then went through and tried to clean house.  God rid of everything that even smelled remotely Catholic and presto change-o, we have rejection of Trinity and a whole new "pure expression" of the "true" Church that didn't start in 33 AD but in the year 1867. 

I always loose track of time when I start typing.....  Big ol' post again. 

 


God bless

Night
Then let me ask you, Mike, to illustrate my problem with your belief;  Where do you partake of the Body and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ in Holy Eucharist?  This is no small thing for our Lord plainly stated that unless we, "eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.".  Over and over in the NT we are told that we are to partake of the bread of life, of His Body and Blood.  This belief was held by the earliest record we have of the first Christian communities and yet is rejected by today's Protestants. 

Mike
Then let me ask you one. Where did the apostles partake? Did they partake every day. Did they do it in ritual fashion. Or do you think it might have been in more common ways. I mean you seem so legalistic. Second Chapter 6 Matt  to eat his flesh and drink his blood was spiritual metaphor. The last super was real meal to be done in remembrance of him.
Why do you put Jesus in a box of laws. Protestants think and do it one way and Catholics think and do it another.  Do you not think Jesus knows his sheep?
 
Night
They have rejected both it's reality under the species of bread and wine, converting it to the same metaphorical belief that their theologians now do regarding the divinity of Christ, Himself, as they reject the very idea that Christ fully intended His Church to ordain ministers to have the authority and power to offer this sacrifice.

Mike
I don't think Protestants have rejected any thing. They just don't do it the way you do it

Night
So where does a Christian receive this most important means of grace in your opinion?

You say where ever the bishop is there is the church. I say where ever believers gather to worship Christ in spirit and in truth there the church is. If a leader truly worships the Lord in accordance with all that he taught being truly led of the spirit and a deep abiding love for Christ  then let him minister   
If you went on a journey far from civilization and there were no proper ministers to give you the Eucharist. How would then receive it.? Jesus said do this as often as you eat and drink.
                   

Night
You keep saying that the field is so full of weeds that no true Church exist because of man's failing, but I know where I go for this means of grace which our Lord commanded.   It is offered at every Mass and every Divine Liturgy in every parish, throughout the world.  To give that up because you think the men who preside over that Sacrament are sinful would be to give up on the Church from the first day after the Ascension as many posts ago it was pointed out how the first choice of our Lord as chief of the Apostles, Peter, was a cantankerous, at times frightened and sinful man....and yet Our Lord, Jesus Christ stood by Peter and told him, "feed my sheep".   Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant church leaders and adherents have done terrible things in history in the name of our Lord.  They have been horrifically corrupt at times, but that only proves how all men are sinful and wish to serve self and turn away from God.  Even the Pope goes to confession to confess his sins, that does not mean the Church he leads is not Christ's Church, it only means that even he is dependent on the grace he receives through Word and Sacrament in order to win salvation, to finish the race as Paul said, just like the rest of us.

Mike

Listen I don't ask you to give up anything if you believe in your heart you honor the lord in it. Again I tell you the Lord knows his sheep.

I never said no true church exists. I have said numerous times that he knows his bride and out of the confusion of what Christianity has become he will separate them. Jesus alone knows who it is that truly  loves him even if the institutions have mislead them. This bride consists of  leadership and the lay body. He know who's heart is in the world and those who's heart is in Heaven.  This will have nothing to with denominations Catholic or Protestant .

There is one field planted and Satan has sewed the weeds of corruption and confusion into it. Yet a remnant exists . Look beyond denominational walls and see the church as a whole. There is still good wheat in the field. There is still one tried and true authority that binds us together. In the parable of the net The fishermen cast a net and gathered every kind: Which when it was full they drew it to shore and sat down and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away. Matt 14: 47,48


Night
If you read the link from my previous post, the Catholic/Orthodox synod gives a very clear understanding of what the Church is in the light of the question that I posed to you...

"Catholics and Orthodox believe the local church must be in communion "with the totality of local churches" of the past, present and future.

"One and the same faith is to be confessed and lived out in all the local churches, the same unique Eucharist is to be celebrated everywhere, and one and the same apostolic ministry is to be at work in all the communities," the document said.

"A local church cannot modify the creed, formulated by the ecumenical councils," it said, nor can it "change a fundamental point regarding the form of ministry by a unilateral decision."


Mike

The true unity of the church already exists. We just need to return to the one tried and true authority that has never failed us. When the pope teaches Jesus Christ from this tried and true authority he is grasping then the one truth that never fails. Keep that which is good and cast away that is bad.   
Ecumenism is the attempt to draw all the denominations back under the umbrella of the papacy where is all went bad from the start of it all. Christ did not start a church that sleeps with the world and its governments

God bless

Quote from: mclees8 on Sun Jan 03, 2010 - 05:47:24
Then let me ask you one. Where did the apostles partake? Did they partake every day. Did they do it in ritual fashion. Or do you think it might have been in more common ways. I mean you seem so legalistic. Second Chapter 6 Matt  to eat his flesh and drink his blood was spiritual metaphor. The last super was real meal to be done in remembrance of him.
Why do you put Jesus in a box of laws. Protestants think and do it one way and Catholics think and do it another.  Do you not think Jesus knows his sheep?

1.  They AFAWK, partook every time they gathered.  2. Yes, 1 Corinthians 11 specifically expresses Paul's condemnation that the Lord's Supper is not being taken seriously, that it should be separated from the communal meal that it used to be celebrated with in order to give it more meaning and "ritual" .  This is no small thing as Paul has told them that their disrespect, there lack of understanding or belief regarding this sacrament has caused their downfall and even death.  3.  No, the Lord's Supper was not, "spiritual metaphor".  Holy Scripture is quite clear on this.  In John 6:52 the unbelievers questioned Jesus on that very point, He replied, "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.  For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.  Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.".  Back again in 1 Corinthians, Paul specifically tells the Corinthians that the source of their abuse of the celebration of the Lord's Supper was in not recognising that they consume not bread and wine, but the Body of Christ. (1 Cor. 11:29).
 

Quote from: McLI don't think Protestants have rejected any thing. They just don't do it the way you do it

Not sure why you think that, but no, they do.  Except for Anglican doctrine, maybe to a some degree Lutheran, all other Protestants reject the actual reality of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist.  Protestant groups from Baptist to Pentecostal, from reformed to the non-denominational "churches" reject by their own admission that the Lord's Supper is anything but a symbolic ceremony involving only bread or crackers and grape juice.  That stands in complete contrast to what the Church that Christ founded has believed and taught for 2,000 years...

"For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Saviour was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus." (Justin Martyr's 'First Apology' 66:1-20).  AD 150.  

Quote from: McLYou say where ever the bishop is there is the church. I say where ever believers gather to worship Christ in spirit and in truth there the church is. If a leader truly worships the Lord in accordance with all that he taught being truly led of the spirit and a deep abiding love for Christ  then let him minister   If you went on a journey far from civilization and there were no proper ministers to give you the Eucharist. How would then receive it.? Jesus said do this as often as you eat and drink.

And if you can't you can't, but that is the same if you have no means to celebrate it whether you are Catholic or not if you are "far from civilisation", but you are trying to side-step my original question.  Where do YOU, specifically, partake of the Body and Blood of Christ?   I can daily and often do, and can all around the world, but I fear that those who reject the Church, (and in rejecting the Church's shepherds, her Bishops, you reject Her.), and it is those people who need my prayers as they have cut themselves off from this most important sacrament that our Lord commanded us to partake of.
                 

Quote from: McLI never said no true church exists. I have said numerous times that he knows his bride and out of the confusion of what Christianity has become he will separate them. Jesus alone knows who it is that truly  loves him even if the institutions have mislead them. This bride consists of  leadership and the lay body. He know who's heart is in the world and those who's heart is in Heaven.  This will have nothing to with denominations Catholic or Protestant .

We must disagree.  I believe you truly love Christ, but I think you completely misunderstand that God may have any desire for man to try to dismember the Body of Christ, His Church.  It cannot be.  Christ specifically anointed His Apostles so that they would pass on that earthly authority and preserve the Church in unity.

Quote from: McLThere is one field planted and Satan has sewed the weeds of corruption and confusion into it. Yet a remnant exists . Look beyond denominational walls and see the church as a whole. There is still good wheat in the field. There is still one tried and true authority that binds us together. In the parable of the net The fishermen cast a net and gathered every kind: Which when it was full they drew it to shore and sat down and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away. Matt 14: 47,48

But the Bible teaches us no such thing about authority.  It in fact teaches us that the "authority" on earth that our Lord gave, was given to His Apostles who in turn passed that on to the bishops of His Church.  Holy Scripture is clearly authoritative, but without the inseparable authority of Holy Tradition, as protected by the bishops, that scriptural authority is distorted and misunderstood.  One only has to witness the thousands of Protestant denominations to see that.

QuoteExcept for Anglican doctrine, maybe to a some degree Lutheran, all other Protestants reject the actual reality of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist.  Protestant groups from Baptist to Pentecostal, from reformed to the non-denominational "churches" reject by their own admission that the Lord's Supper is anything but a symbolic ceremony involving only bread or crackers and grape juice.  That stands in complete contrast to what the Church that Christ founded has believed and taught for 2,000 years...

Lutherans are 100% on board with the Real Presences of Christ in the Sacrament.  We do  not teach transubstantiation, rather our beliefs are more closely aligned with the Orthodox when it comes to Communion.
We believe that the Meal is at all times still bread and wine, but at the Words of Institution, it becomes also, in a way in which we cannot comprehend, the real Body and Blood of Jesus.  It does this through the power of His Word.

Thanks for the clarification, Dan.
   I thought it was the Anglicans who were iffy about communion.  As I understand, they believe in "virtual" real presence, but one need not believe in RP too receive it.   

Any Anglican/Episcopals can verify/refute this?

Quote from: extranos on Sun Jan 03, 2010 - 19:19:32

QuoteExcept for Anglican doctrine, maybe to a some degree Lutheran, all other Protestants reject the actual reality of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist.  Protestant groups from Baptist to Pentecostal, from reformed to the non-denominational "churches" reject by their own admission that the Lord's Supper is anything but a symbolic ceremony involving only bread or crackers and grape juice.  That stands in complete contrast to what the Church that Christ founded has believed and taught for 2,000 years...

Lutherans are 100% on board with the Real Presences of Christ in the Sacrament.  We do  not teach transubstantiation, rather our beliefs are more closely aligned with the Orthodox when it comes to Communion.
We believe that the Meal is at all times still bread and wine, but at the Words of Institution, it becomes also, in a way in which we cannot comprehend, the real Body and Blood of Jesus.  It does this through the power of His Word.

Do Lutherans do the individual unleavened crackers thing too?  Wine, not grape-juice, right?  You baptize babies but when are they allowed to partake of communion?  Is there a set age?

(just curious, no grilling follow-ups)

Orthodox don't do the individual crackers thing and the little ones take communion too.  I don't know much about Lutherans in regards to how they practice communion.  

Oh, and do Lutherans practice open or closed communion?  (Did Luther originally practice open or close?)

Thanks