Seattle Pastor Offers Clarity to 'Church'

danpat1_2000 »

Sun Jun 21, 2009 1:06 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Re: Bishops, priests and deacons in the first centuries of the Church;

As the following quotations illustrate, the early Church Fathers recognized all three offices and regarded them as essential to the Churchâ

danpat1_2000 »

Sun Jun 21, 2009 12:58 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

cont

Deacons (diakonoi) are the assistants of the bishops and are responsible for teaching and administering certain Church tasks, such as the distribution of food (Acts 6:1â

danpat1_2000 »

Sun Jun 21, 2009 12:55 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

"so if there needs to be priests even though priests are no longer needed as the NT clearly states..."

Priests (presbuteroi) are also known as "presbyters" or "elders." In fact, the English term "priest" is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros. They have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14â

danpat1_2000 »

Sun Jun 21, 2009 12:52 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

"so if there needs to be priests even though priests are no longer needed as the NT clearly states..."

"needs to be priests?" There "are" priests and many beginning with St Peter and the twelve Apostles, St Paul, etc.,:

The sacrament of holy orders is conferred in three ranks of clergy: bishops, priests, and deacons.

Bishops (episcopoi) have the care of multiple congregations and appoint, ordain, and discipline priests and deacons. They sometimes appear to be called "evangelists" in the New Testament. Examples of first-century bishops include Timothy and Titus (1 Tim. 5:19â

danpat1_2000 »

Sun Jun 21, 2009 12:44 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

"I have yet to see any scriptural support for some future extra biblical revelation."

Boy, a lot of Logic 101 errors on this site. There is nothing in the OT or NT that says the "only truth" is in the Bible. When one starts with an erroneous premise i.e., "looking for scriptural support for everything" -all premises after that will be erroneous also. Some of it is even "goofy," e.g., Luther looks at Bible, sees what he likes and dislikes, takes out what he does not like, then his "heirs" the Protestants say, "Gee. There is no scriptural support for this." (really-I wonder why?) Example:

"Maccabees is, indeed, the inspired Word of God.

Maccabees, along with the Book of Sirach and the entire Old Testament, were a part of the Scriptures at the time of Christ. When Christ referred to the "Scriptures", it included the entire recognized body of the Old Testament, including Maccabees.

In the second century, the Jews struck Macabees, Sirach, and four other books from their Old Testament, but by that time, Christianity had spread and the Church saw no reason to delete any books from their Old Testament. Indeed, at the Council of Rome in 385 A.D., when the Bible was compiled by the Catholic Church, Macabees was preserved and became a part of what is now known as the Bible.

Macabees is best known as the Book that references Purgatory, without calling it Purgatory. I don't know why Luther deleted it and the other five books of the O.T. I understand that Luther also wanted to delete the Book of Hebrews and James' epistle from the New Testament, but due to pressure from his peers, he changed his mind.

It's curious that so many fundamentalists stress "the Bible only" when the Protestant Bibles are incomplete. Furthermore, Jesus never said to read the Bible, period. He never said that---listening to fundamentalists, you would think that was Jesus' first command--as in "Repent, and read your Bibles!"--but Jesus said nothing about reading the Bible and never wrote anything in His life--for real; (however His mom did.)

Jesus established His Church under St Peter, and commanded his Apostles to preach the Good News to the ends of the earth. Of course, that involves the reading and interpretation of Sacred Scripture, but not "only" the reading and interpretation of Sacred Scripture.

danpat1_2000 »

Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

"I trust Paul and Scripture."

Great since this is an oxymoron since St Paul was one of the first Bishops after the others-the 12 Apostles, who went forward "to teach all nations" and where they found "hardness of heart" they "shook the dust from their feet' and shagged butt.

danpat1_2000 »

Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

"6. For the bulk of Christianity, those that ran the official church didn't allow His people to read and study his word."

This is pure ignorance showing a lack of historical knowledge. Few people in the general population had abilities to read and write like we have today. Also, this puts the boots to Sola Sciriptura since Church History did not finish "approving the NT until the 4th century much of what was done at the Church Councils...(Catholic all the way)

It was the advent of the printing:

" The first mass produced printed book was the Bible, a version based on the Latin edition [St Jerome's] from about 380 AD.. The Bible was printed at Mainz, Germany by Johannes Gutenberg from 1452 -1455...

The Bible, printed at Mainz, probably required several years of work; it began in 1452 and was completed not later than 1455 and printed in an edition of about 180 copies. Wow, so the Church would not people read the Bible?--how many people were in the world by this time--(millions?)when this technological advance came and yet only 180 were printed. Nothing to do with the Church holding it back (just another Protestant prejudice) I heard this when I was seven years old.

danpat1_2000 »

Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

"I have yet to see any scriptural support for some future extra biblical revelation, apostolic succession, that the New Testament Church was/is the papacy, Jesus or the apostles authoritatively quoting tradition . . . however, there is support for the authority/uniqueness of scripture, the priesthood of all believers, that the New Testament Church was/is not the papacy, Jesus nor the apostles ever authoritatively quoting tradition, and there is no indication of some new revelation to come."

As I said, if you think Jesus' 33 years of life is all in the Bible you are whistling Dixie. What is not in the Bible are historical facts, commonly called Holy Tradition:

1st Example:

Tacitus Roman Historian:

"ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos. et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit quos per flagitia invisos vulgus christianos appellabat. Auctor nominis eius christus..."

"Therefore, to put an end to the rumor Nero created a diversion and subjected to the most extra-ordinary tortures those hated for their abominations by the common people called Christians. The originator of this name (was) Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius had been executed by sentence of the procurator Pontinus Pilate. Repressed for the time being, the deadly superstition broke out again not only in Judea, the original source of the evil, but also in the city (Rome), where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and become popular. So an arrest was made of all who confessed; then on the basis of their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of arson as for hatred of the human race." (Tacitus, Annales, 15, 44)

Tacitus continues:

"Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames. These served to illuminate the night when daylight failed. Nero had thrown open the gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or drove about in a chariot. Hence, even for crimnals who deserved extreme and examplary punishment there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but glut one man's cruelty, that they were being punished."

This is akin to reading a US History book and saying WWII did not happen; only things in the Constitution are true.


These are all Logic 101 errors. Because something is "not mentioned" does not mean it is not true.
Like I said, if you put all of Jesus' life in the Bible day-by-day, you would have a Bible unweildy and no one would read it. In fact, there is no Autobiography or biograpy that I have ever heard of that has each day of a person's life e.g., Winston Churchill et al. So you are like "doubting Thomas" asking for the impossible, and we know what Jesus did to him. You have eyes yet you do not see; ears yet you do not hear.

danpat1_2000 »

Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

It takes a long stretch to believe that just because someone is buried somewhere that they were pope there....

No stretch. People have to be buried somewhere...nothing new here. You must have had a very limited education in history, but now that you are on a computer you can easily "google things" and find our historic facts...to round out your education. You can also suscribe to Archeology Today, and follow the Church throughout history so you will not be lagging behind and look smart like your recent posts are doing. For a while I did not take you seriously (as I did Believer)

Online4Him »

Sat Jun 13, 2009 1:56 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 2

I have yet to see any scriptural support for some future extra biblical revelation, apostolic succession, that the New Testament Church was/is the papacy, Jesus or the apostles authoritatively quoting tradition . . . however, there is support for the authority/uniqueness of scripture, the priesthood of all believers, that the New Testament Church was/is not the papacy, Jesus nor the apostles ever authoritatively quoting tradition, and there is no indication of some new revelation to come.

oldstudent »

Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:38 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

5. God never contradicts Himself so if there needs to be priests even though priests are no longer needed as the NT clearly states, then how can we trust anything God says because He changes His mind. That makes God capricious and God is not fickle like mankind is.

6. For the bulk of Christianity, those that ran the official church didn't allow His people to read and study his word. Since Paul commended the Bereans for checking his teachings against Scripture that makes Paul a very poor example and the Bereans sinners because they couldn't figure this out without a non-existant bishop, priest or pope. I trust Paul and Scripture.

7. How was Peter the head of the church when he wasn't even head of the Jerusalem Council? (Acts 15) The RCC teaching on Peter and the papacy is wrong on the language, wrong in evidence from Scripture and wrong on the historical record of an unbroken line (dueling popes who excommunicated each other being just one of many examples of papal confusion).

8. Tradition plays a part in church life for sure but we are not lost without traditions that are obviously incorrect and/or directly contradict Scripture. Just because there is some scattershot interpretation doesn't prove much Cheisa. The opposite is true as well. The historical tradition of the RCC hierarchy is corruption, taking money to "forgive sins", putting priests in the way of the relationship of God and man,, the Crusades, papal declarations of infallibility (which a cursory examination of papal bulls and decrees shows contradictions which isn't possible when they make no mistakes on such matters), a man treated like a king when this man's claimed Master taught that service is the greater way, not having billions in funds and treasures and having people kiss your ring (Jesus never demanded that did He?).

9. There are many saved Catholics just as there are many saved Protestants. But the RCC is not and never has been an organization founded by Christ, just like many Protestant organizations.

Grace and Peace,
jim

oldstudent »

Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:38 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Cheisa,

Actually, my position requires nothing of the sort that you claim.

1. Revelation can be less than canonical and we see this from references to godly prophets in both testaments who's recordings are not available to us. If God thought Iddo or other prophet's writings and utterances were so important for us there would be evidence for them. Maybe those prophecies are not canonical because they were not required for anyone past the immediate hearers.

2. One does not need bishops, priest or apostles to have revelation from God.

3. The burden of proof is on those who claim that the later church structure was God-directed, God-revealed and God-ordained and why the structure within accepted canon (of which the RCC claims 1st canon status of the OT & NT and NOT on any other works and that means any other works are lesser) tells us something different. It is not for me or anyone else that takes Scripture at it's word to have to defend it against non-canonical words.

4. There is no basis for the 3 fold ministry except that there is a long history of it but there is a longer history of mankind not listening to God and deciding to go another way. The proof is on those who claim the 3 fold system is Scriptural when it clearly contradicts what the RCC and the Protestant churches agree is the words of God (the OT & NT).

cont'

Cheisa »

Fri Jun 12, 2009 10:24 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 8

Again, it all boils down to believing that God stopped His revelation with the last Gospel or not. And, whether you believe in Christ when He said that whatever His Church bound or loosed on earth would be bound or loosed in Heaven. Christ gave that authority to the Church.

The concept that the Bible is all you need is a recent one. No one is minimizing it's central place in Christianity, but the belief that no other means of interpretation, other than individual is available to us is wrong. The Bible needs Tradition to be properly interpreted and understood if there is to any consistency of belief. You can see the result of individual, scattershot interpretation on this board.

For the bulk of the history of Christianity, sola scriptura hasn't been the norm. It is a contemporary aberration that runs contrary to history. It began with the Reformation as an anti-Papal concept and it's precepts have been even more greatly exaggerated by these contemporary churches.

Carholics do not need to be saved from themselves or their Church because of Tradition. We follow Christ using the same Canon that was established in 325. We have no fear for our salvation as long as we are members of the Body of Christ in the One, True, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, ordained by Christ through Peter, holding the authority of the Keys to the Kingdom. His Church on earth. No amount of new age fiddle faddle will change that.

oldstudent »

Fri Jun 12, 2009 6:45 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

Well it seems that the plain reading and the plain language of Scripture is now not the earliest and Scriptural witness according to some including Chas. There is no use attempting to use reason with those who can see clearly that the tradition they follow came after the apostolic age and where Scripture clearly says things (like a priesthood of believers and no bishops or priests nor a 3 fold ministry).

Chas, have a great day and hopefully one day you will find yourself admitting to the unalterable truth that the historical record shows the 3 fold ministry came after the apostle Paul had already given the leadership structure of which Scripture is the earliest witness and that by the obvious meaning in the original language that James was the head of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 (which shows Peter was not the head but was obviously esteemed).

I don't require linguistical gymnastics or ignoring the language and written word to come to my conclusions as you do to come to yours my friend. It isn't a matter of interpretation as much as it is a matter of observation and knowledge of the original language of which you spoke of previously but know precious little.

Have a great day and I continue to pray for the Spirit to enlighten your heart and mind to the once and only sacrifice of Jesus, the need for grace and not works, the obviousness of being a cannibal is not what Jesus spoke of during His last Passover celebration and the cessation of the worship of and speaking to spirits outside of the triune godhead who forbids His creatures to talk with the spirit realm (outside of Himself).

Grace and Peace,
Jim

Online4Him »

Fri Jun 12, 2009 1:01 am Agree: 5   Disagree: 2

(Tradition is always in accordance with Scripture)

No, it is not. First, it is clearly evident that Scripture argues for its own authority, Scripture nowhere argues for "authoritative tradition equal with Scripture." In fact, the New Testament has more to say against traditions that it does in favor of tradition.

Secondly, Roman tradition does in fact contradict the scriptures . . . take Mary for example; the Mary of scripture is not surrounded by mystical titles or the attributes of omniscience and omnipresence (if she is to hear and answer the prayers of millions). Also, your theology attempts to draw a line between the worship offered to God and the adoration given to Mary, however, in practice these frequently become indistinguishable. Scripture says absolutely nothing of Mary being immaculately conceived, nothing of her assumption, nothing of her perpetual virginity, and nothing of her being co-mediatrix or co-redemptrix with Christ. It is obvious that your traditions do in fact contradict Scripture.

tpique1 »

Thu Jun 11, 2009 10:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"It dawned on me," said Mark Driscoll, a well-known and controversial pastor, during a conference on the local church Thursday. "We live in an age when in some ways ecclesiology is being redefined."

HA! HA! HA! Do you think?!

DING! DING! DING! Give that man a clue Bob!

believer »

Thu Jun 11, 2009 8:12 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

ihs, pure roman catholic hogwash, Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters and Mary did not remain a virgin all her life, another excellent example of roman catholic extra-biblical teaching which has absolutely no biblical support which is what differentiates sacred traditions from all other forms of tradition. Sacred tradition has valid biblical support and other forms of tradition do not. Matthew 1:24-25, "And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus." Please note "a virgin until she gave birth".

Wilderness1 »

Thu Jun 11, 2009 7:23 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

St. Anselm said: Our relief is sometimes more immediate when the name of Mary is invoked than when we invoke the name of Jesus.

That definitely is something not in harmony with scripture. That same seducing spirit is still working. Take heed.

Cheisa »

Thu Jun 11, 2009 5:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Thanks, IHS. If Catholic Tradition were better understood it would be seen as an enhancement of Scripture that lets us better understand Christ and His Word as opposed to something that, somehow, is unbiblical, which it is not.

Maybe others don't understand the centuries of theological study and research that have gone into Tradition, giving insight to those murkier areas of Scripture and enlightening us, increasing our understanding and providing context that selective quotes of verses and some of Scripture alone cannot.

IHS »

Thu Jun 11, 2009 5:12 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

"Sacred Tradition is the lense from which we more clearly see Scripture in the context and time it was said and written." Archbishop Fulton Sheen.

With Sacred Tradition you have a beautiful Mosaic that shows the full picture of Christ and His Gospel message. Without Sacred Tradition you have missing pieces in the Mosaic barely recognizing who Jesus is.

IHS »

Thu Jun 11, 2009 5:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

Online and Believer,

There is Sacred Tradition and there is tradition. Sacred Tradition is the Mass, Sacred Tradition is also the understading of all the doctrines and how they were passed down from generation to generation.

I think you both have a hard time understanding the difference, as I did early on.

Also, Mary was a virgin throughout her life. It is the Tradition of the Church that she remained a virgin. Luther, Calvin and Zwingli all defended this. The scriptures desribed in many verses Jesus having brothers. The problem is brothers is also used as for cousin or friend. Simon Peter was clearly not Jesus' brother and nor was James the son of Zebedee. Mary Magdeline was not His sister either. In those passages we have to understand them in the context in that BROTHERS AND SISTERS means friends. It could also mean relatives or cousins. James could be Jesus' half brother from Joseph, but not Mary. Maybe Joseph had children before he married Mary and his spouce died, or maybe James is a close relative like John the Baptist was. We may never know.

What we do know from scripture is that in no place does it every describe any of these brothers and sisters as being Mary's child. No where in scripture does it say Mary had other children and no where does it say or even infer other children the whole time Jesus grew up. Moreover, none of his brothers or sisters were at Calvary. His mother Mary was there with John and Mary Magdalene. Jesus gave his mother to John to take care of. If Jesus had other siblings or even half siblings then it would have been against Hebrew tradition and custom to give your mother to anyone else but a brother or a sister. This would have been a slap in the face to any half sister or brother, and Jesus was perfect and would never do this.

The most logical and most reasonable assumption we can make based on scripture and other writings of the time that were not inspired but were still documented books by reliable people describe Mary never having other children and John taking care of her. Jemes was not probably his half brother, but a cousin. Again, if he was a half brother then he must be older than Jesus and he was Joseph's son.

The Catholic and Orthodox undestanding is superior to today's newer interpretations that discount language, context and tradition.

Cheisa »

Thu Jun 11, 2009 4:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Believer, but does the Bible say on who's side Mary of Joseph's?

Online, Tradition is always in accordance with Scripture. It may go beyond what Scripture tells us, but it doesn't contadict Scripture.

Online4Him »

Thu Jun 11, 2009 4:34 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

Cheisa said, (Catholic Holy Tradition must be in accordance with Holy Scripture)

Here lies the problem . . . its tradition is not in harmony with Scripture.

believer »

Thu Jun 11, 2009 4:11 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

cheisa, the location of the tomb isn't near as important as the fact that Christ is no longer there, He is risen!

believer »

Thu Jun 11, 2009 4:07 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

cheisa, but that's not true, for instance the roman catholic church teaches that Mary was always a virgin and yet the Word of God clearly records that Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters.

Cheisa »

Thu Jun 11, 2009 3:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Well, some things we can't know for certain, like in your experience at the tombs. It's nice to think that one of them was the real deal, though, isn't it? Sometimes we might just have let our faith decide what we're seeing.

Cheisa »

Thu Jun 11, 2009 3:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

Catholic Holy Tradition must be in accordance with Holy Scripture. That's a doctrine of the Church. It does not contradict Scripture or try to supercede it in importance or Truth. It is a compliment to Scripture as the second spiritual leg of Christ's Church.

believer »

Thu Jun 11, 2009 3:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

cheisa, yes, I visited two places that were both claimed to be the place where Christ was laid in the tomb. Wherein lies the problem with being tradition driven as opposed to being driven by God's inerrant Word.

believer »

Thu Jun 11, 2009 3:35 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

cheisa, please cite where you got your definition of tradition? Tradition is the collective wisdom of any given culture, the notions of its worldview and the insights of its institutions.

Cheisa »

Thu Jun 11, 2009 3:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

Believer, so you do know the feeling. And some of what you heard in Rome and the Holy Land was no doubt part of Tradition. A lot of what we know or is supposed about ancient places comes from Tradition, even some historical accounts that were really written versions of the oral history. But it is an awesome experience to touch the ancient past of Christianity that way, isn't it?

We do have to watch that Tradition isn't passing on things that aren't true, but a lot of Tradition will make it a point to present something as probable or believed, not always as a stone cold fact. A perfect example is the Vatican statement on the excavation of the tomb of Peter under the altar at St Peter's Basilica. Tradition told them where Peter was buried and they found a tomb that matched ancient accounts. They also found bones of an older man, 60-70, about Peter's height. The Vatican does not refer to the bones as those of St Peter, though they believe they are. They refer to them as possibly being the remains of Peter.

Cheisa »

Thu Jun 11, 2009 3:16 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

Actually, Tradition is God breathed as well from the time Christ gave the Church and Peter the Keys to the Kingdom and said what is bound on earth is bound in heaven and what is loosed on earth is loosed in heaven. Tradition is not promoted by men, but maintained by Christ's ordained Church.

believer »

Thu Jun 11, 2009 3:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

cheisa, I've been to Rome and the Vatican as well as the Holy Land and I tremendously enjoyed my time there, but I also had some sad experiences like people selling dirt from Calvary and others selling pieces of the cross of Christ. And the saddest thing was watching tourists fall for those lies. What I especially enjoyed in the Holy Land was knowing I was walking within inches of where Jesus walked and the opportunity to speak with Holocaust survivors and spending a night with an Israeli family. As for lasting effects, now when I read the Word of God I can picture exactly where some biblical events actually took place.

believer »

Thu Jun 11, 2009 3:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

cheisa, tradition says that Paul was beheaded and Peter was crucified upside down, but historically there is no solid proof how they were martyred, but historically it can be pretty well proven they both died in Rome. I to have no real problem with traditions as long as they do not contradict, violate, or supersede the Word of God and as long as we realize that some traditions can't be historically validated and in some cases aren't true.

Online4Him »

Thu Jun 11, 2009 2:48 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 2

cheisa & chas,

The core issue is reliability; the scriptures are "God-breathed" . . . while tradition is not. Why rely upon traditions and the men who promoted them if they contradict God's Word?

Cheisa »

Thu Jun 11, 2009 2:35 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

Believer, there is nothing wrong with the tradition. That was my mistake in posting. Tradition does record Paul's beheading and Peter's crucifixion even if the Bible does not. Tradition is correct, I was mistaken.

Tradition is what tells us how all of the Apostles met their ends. The bones of at 9 Apostles rest in Rome. Tradition tells us how they met their ends, that the Christian community buried them and erected Churches to mark the sites once Christianity was legalized. The catacombs provide more knowledge through Tradition that reveal facts that are not in Scripture. Tradition is valuable that way.

Once you've stood before the grave of one of the Twelve, you'd grasp that concept. I've done that and connection you feel with the ancient origins of the Church is overpowering. You feel truly one with all of those that have come before you in an unbroken line, a brotherhood with ancient people who believed as we do. There is great power in that, great inspiration. You feel the Spirit in a way you can't explain even if you felt the Spirit before.
I have no doubt that Tradition is the work of God, another means besides Scripture to bring people to Him and strengthen Faith. And it works.

Cheisa »

Thu Jun 11, 2009 2:26 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

Chas, these new age churches befuddle me, too. How they have no central authority to give consistency to the interpretation of Scripture, their ignorance or disregard of any one who came after the Apostles, great Christian historians and thinkers who shaped the Christianity we know today, who have no regard for the sacraments Christ handed down to us and who think the Bible can answer questions it doesn't even address.

As you said, if any religion is man made, it's these. Starting with the heretic editing of Luther who coined the infamous "sola scriptura" as a disgruntled Catholic monk as his personla swipe at the Mother Church to today's total distortion of salvation and the Scriptures, it's a man made mess.

The Catholic Church is such a threat to them, I assume because it has been the One Church since Christ gave his commandment to Peter. That must rattle them that a 20 centuries old Church with a direct lineage going back to Christ and the Apostles stands in stark contrast to their new slant on Christianity. They'll even deny that Catholics are Christians, a ridiculous theory on any level because they think that would put us all in the same boat. Well, it wouldn't. Their inability to fathom any of Christianity's history that wasn't included in the Bible means they'll always be lacking the basic facts of the matter. As such, they'll never be able to comprehend that the Catholic Church was truly ordained by Christ and that it's beliefs are bound on heaven as they are on earth.

believer »

Thu Jun 11, 2009 2:24 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

cheisa, now you do realize that traditions are not always historically accurate or provable?

Chas »

Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:23 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 5

Oldstudent,

It is not that I take the traditions of man over the Word, and to imply that is less than equitable.

The thing you and I disagree on is not that the Word is inspired and inerrant, but rather our interpretations.

Your interpretations are new and unfounded historically, my interpretations are from the beginning and historically proven to match the earliest record of belief.

The Word of God in Scripture is Holy, and the Word of God in Scripture came out of the Oral Tradition of the Church.

It is your interpretation or rather YOUR TRADITION OF MEN, than I reject. It all boils down to authority, not tradition. The Catholic Church has it, as given by God proved in the New Testament. You have no authority to speak on behalf of the church, nor do you have any authority from the bible since you were not there when it was written. You did not hear it, you did not know it if it wasn't for the Catholic Church from whence all Protestants come from.

Cheisa »

Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 5

And Tradition does not replace Scripture, but works with it to bring people to Christ. It is not an either/or situation, but a one and the other situation. They compliment each other an neither is complete without the other.

Cheisa »

Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:19 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 4

Chas is not following fallible men, but Christ's ordaineed Church. Though men make up all churches, it is not men, but the Church of Christ that Catholics follow, just as they originally followed the Apostles after the crucifixion. Today they follow the successors of the Apostles in the One, True, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

oldstudent »

Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:18 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

Cheisa,

There is no one who has removed the church from havin a hand in the process of codifying the canon of Scripture. You did say that the church decided which books were inspired and that is false. The church recognized the inspired books and codified them as such and there is a huge difference between the two statements.

And since Scripture tells us that the apostles and prophets were the foundation of the church that Jesus said He would build, there is no need to continue to build a foundation after it has been laid. The church isn't leaderless as you think it would be without apostles, He left the elders to shepherd His flock.

Grace and Peace,
Jim

Chas »

Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

This is the Catholic Churches OFFICIAL POSITION>
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm


IV. THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE

120 It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books.90 This complete list is called the canon of Scripture. It includes 46 books for the Old Testament (45 if we count Jeremiah and Lamentations as one) and 27 for the New.91

The Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zachariah and Malachi.

The New Testament: the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the Acts of the Apostles, the Letters of St. Paul to the Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, the Letter to the Hebrews, the Letters of James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2 and 3 John, and Jude, and Revelation (the Apocalypse).

oldstudent »

Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:13 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

Chas,

Feel free to take the traditions of man over the written word from God to us. Since the earliest tradition is the written word and men changed the structures to be out of line with what God decided was the correct way to go, your tradition arument is faulty and weak.

I will stick with His decisions, you are free to follow fallible men for yours.

Grace and Peace,
Jim

Chas »

Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:09 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

Oldstudent,

In terms of Church Hierarchy, the Tradition of the Church has always been Bishop, Priest and Deacon. History affirms this as recorded by non-catholics.

Basically, you offer your own interpretation that is new. It is not grounded in scripture, but rather your interpretation of it. That is the whole problem of new Christians, sola scriptura.

Also, Marcion was a heretic that We Catholics threw out. Yes, he lasted to about the 5th century but his movement died out.

Also, in terms of the New Testament. These scriptures came to the Church and through the Church. It was by Sacred Tradition and the Holy Spirit that we could know which were Sacred and Which were not. These scriptures were in inspired and the church guarded them. The false scriptures had to be discerned by the Church which is the foundation and bulwark of Truth(1tim 3:15).

Cheisa »

Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

My mistake, Believer. You're quite right. I meant to mention that Paul was beheaded when I brought up Peter's crucifixion. My bad. In fact, the Apostle's remains are interred at the Basilica of St Paul's Outside the Walls, in Rome. It's really a beautiful church, built in his honor in the 4th century and rebuilt twice afterwards. Paul's tomb is visible in the original lower level of the 4th century church. It was very impressive and humbling to see.

In the end, though, Timothy's mention of Paul in prison and hostory and tradition's accountings are what's needed to provide the complete picture.

believer »

Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:08 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

cheisa, that's odd but according to the Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible under Paul it reads, "And since II Timothy speaks of him as in prison, it is further suggested that he was rearrested about A.D. 67, and, according to tradition beheaded at Rome by Nero.

Cheisa »

Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:44 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

I didn't exclude Christ or the Holy Spirit from codification of the Canon. As Constantine and the Church struggled to determine which texts were sacred and to be included, they were guilded by the Holy Spirit. They were inspired, themselves, to see the Truth through Christ. My point is that the Council of Nicea was a Church affair and it was the men of the Church through whom Christ actred, so one cannot remove the Church from the process. And the Nicean Creed, formulated at the Council to bring consistency, to provide a universal expression of Christian belief is still the coundation of most of Christiandom today.

Cheisa »

Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:35 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Again, asking for santification of certain Ttraditions, like the Magisterium from only Scripture provides a limited view of the early Church from a single source. To complete the historical picture, the Church uses Tradition to fill in the gaps. Oral histories show that much more went on in the formative years of the Church than you'll find recorded in the New Testament.

How do we know Peter and Paul were crucified? Not from Scripture, but from the work of early Christian writers and oral Tradition. Does that mean these men weren't martyrs because we use a source outside of Scripture? Of course not. We know they were both crucified and died in Rome. We know they were imprisoned there in the Mammartine prison at the Roman Forum. History, not Scripture fills in the blanks. Scripture alone is inadequate to answer to how Christianity developed as it did.

And despite what Scripture says, there is historical evidence that the Apostles did have a hierarchical plan for the Church. They were at the head of that hierarchy, themselves, even if they had yet to place names on those they gave authority as Christ gave authority to them. And remember, Christ gave authority to Peter to bind and loose on earth and in heaven, the Keys to the Kingdom. Peter passed this authority to his successors, so as Peter acted from Christ, so his successors did as well. What they bound then and to this day is valid for the Church of Christ.

oldstudent »

Wed Jun 10, 2009 8:43 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Cheisa,

It is quite debatable if revelation stopped with the apostolic age but when revelation is contrary to previous revelation, it is not from God. When a structure claims that a member speaks for God in matters of faith and that man is wrong (as all popes have been incorrect in these matters), they are called false prophets or workers of iniquity. That comes from God's word, not man's interpretation. Deuteronomy is quite clear on the matter.

Your extremes only statements are unfortunately normal for us humans but these statements (and the attitude behind them) show a lack of discernment and sober judgment. No one has said all the great thinkers of the church shouldn't be listened to, they should be listened to. But we are told to test the spirits of teachers and compare it with the Authority for faith and practice, Scripture. When the two are in opposition, Scripture wins every time.

Marcion (the great heretic who was thrown out of the church in 144 AD) taught that he and his priestesses had revelation (as the RCC and countless millions of people) from God but their 'revelations' were in opposition to Scripture. Should the church have accepted these 'revelations' as from God even though they were not Scriptural? The answer is no and wise but imperfect leaders made the line of demarcation and threw Marcion and his followers out. And by the way, Marcion's church lasted until about the 6th century and rivaled (and may have surpassed) the size of the body of Christ.

Just because someone or some organization has traditions (and the RCC has many wonderful traditions) that doesn't mean they should be continued or adopted.

Finally, the RCC does not agree with your erroneous claim of the men of the RCC deciding what was Scripture and what was not Scripture. If you claim to be a RCC member (of which I am not sure if you do so or not) then you are not following the authority of your church which claims to have the authority of Christ on this matter.

Grace and Peace,
Jim

oldstudent »

Wed Jun 10, 2009 8:10 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Chas,

1. Peter was not the head of the Jerusalem Council, that was James. Acts 15.19 makes that clear that although Peter's words had huge authority, James made the ultimate decision.

2. The apostles had oversight and authority of course but when the churches were set up (as Scripture clearly states) elders were appointed. The 3-fold ministry model came after the apostles and the historical records shows that. The worldly system of 3 fold ministry with priest (Peter spoke clearly that all believers make up a royal priesthood, not some ecclesiastical structure), bishop and deacon came after the apostolic age and it is not from Scripture but from men who think they know better than God.

3. It matters none whether 100% of the churches adopted or were forced (as is the case in a few short centuries from the apostolic age) to conform to the 3 fold model, it is not Scriptural and it clearly goes against the witness of Scripture. I stick with Scripture, not men (or women) who only some had a connection with the apostles and decided to alter the Scriptural model.

4. Peter declared all believers a royal priesthood which means the RCC which claims apostolic authority from Peter is and always has been in defiance of His words through Peter himself.

5. The Scriptural record is what matters and unfortunately for the catholic churches (and among most Christian denominations) the Scriptural record ALWAYS trumps the history of man deviating from His word.

Grace and Peace,
jim