Posted on 06/09/2014 9:26:16 PM PDT by Salvation
God did not give authority to the apostles to determine canon, God determined the canon by inspiring the books which eventually made it into the canon. The church as a whole, not just the apostles, came to recognize the authenticity, the authority, the apostolic origin, and the usefulness of the books that were preserved by the churches.
Again, God determined the canon, the church merely recognized those which were canonical. And that recognition happened slowly over time, as the writings were circulated among the different churches. Some took longer than others, naturally, they were written at different times. Revelation was a late addition because it was written late (95 AD).
If you interchange terms (determine, recognize) it makes the debate pointless.
Yes, Peter accepted Paul's writings because Paul was an apostle Peter was the Apostle to whom the LORD Jesus Christ gave the keys to he kingdom of heaven.
That is the only thing even hinted at in the text.
Peter also pointed out they were difficult to understand.
Yes, and the very next phrase he gives the answer to that problem ... 'which the unlearned/ignorant and unstable/weak torment/twist/distort ... '
What is the solution to understanding those hard things that are in Paul's writings? Don't be unlearned/ignorant ...
What type of learning would be required? Is it not reasonable that one who seeks to understand the hard topics that Paul writes about should at least try to become fluent in the language of the writing? You would certainly go a long way to becoming 'learned' by doing that.
It reminds me of Pauls charge to Timothy that he 'accurately handling the Word of God.' The verb literally means 'interpret correctly' ... Paul told Timothy to work hard at it ...
Good Biblical interpretation of difficult passages doesn't come by assuming a particular theology, it comes by hard work in the Biblical languages, grammar, historical studies, etc. Lucky for us all that there are not very many 'difficult to understand' passages.
Who has the authority to interpret what Paul wrote ? Peter certainly does.
The learned ... that is what Peter said. Peter did not claim authority to interpret what Paul said here ... you are shoe-horning your RC theology into the text.
“It is this division caused by the Reformation that has lead to the loss of faith and secularism that we see today. “
For clarification... in your view:
Is the loss of faith and secularization in the Catholic Church caused by the Reformation, or just in non-roman denominations?
Please explain, if you have time.
“The church” spoken of in the Bible is not the Roman Catholic Church.
And no, much of what Jesus said wasn’t written down. But we can be assured that there is a completeness to what the Holy Spirit chose to be included.
On the interpretation claim, the Catholic Church can tell me that the Genesis Creation and evolution over millions and billions of years go together, but I’m not gooing to believe that.
On “the Eucharist,” it’s made me wonder why call it that? It’s very religious, formal, pretentious, even worse than regularly calling family “my spouse,” or “my offspring,” and the whole Catholic Church and service is like that.
Eucharist means thanksgiving.
So you arrogate to yourself the “authority” to interpret Scripture? Like Rev. Al Sharpton? Interesting, is it not it that the all the great theologians according to lights from St. Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, and Benedict XVI (whom Time magazine called the “theological Einstein of our times”) are all fools? (I assume you haven’t read any of their books) .The great Anglican theological (now Cardinal Newman) converted to Catholicism, as did the Chief Rabbi of Rome, to say nothing of Richard Neuhaus who was America’s preeminent Lutheran theologian.
The curse and evil of Protestantism is best described in Hillaire Belloc’s book “Heresies” where he says that unlike other heretical beliefs, Protestantism spawned a “cluster of heresies.”
“Protestantism spawned a “cluster of heresies.”
Well, better fix that!
“Roman Catholicism spawned Protestantism and a “cluster of heresies.
The heresies spawned were like wild mushrooms that have in time mostly withered and died and divided among themselves from the David Koresh’s and Jim Jones’ to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Billy Graham, Joel Osteens, Rev. Schuller, and Al Sharptons and Rev. Moons.
“The heresies spawned were like wild mushrooms that have in time mostly withered and died and divided among themselves from the David Koresh’s and Jim Jones’ to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Billy Graham, Joel Osteens, Rev. Schuller, and Al Sharptons and Rev. Moons.”
That you do not distinguish between cultist and those that believe the historic Christian creeds speaks volumes.
In any case, my point was simply that problems within Romanism set in motion all you listed.
Somewhere along the way, the Catholic Church became a religion, with all sorts of fancy trappings, and the priests overall apparently followed themselves and adopted reason over committing to total surrender to the Lord. Religion is what reacted with moral outrage to the Satanic black mass. And on the Body and Blood of the Lord, although He was physically at the first Communion, He did not give His disciples from His body, but of bread and wine. Now if it were said about any other person, that they’ve given their body and blood to be consumed by other people, that would actually mean eating of the person’s body and drinking his blood. So since that’s not what happened, then what happened?
The Catholic Church started in 33 AD when Christ breathed on the Apostles and made them Bishops. That’s in Scripture.
How old is your church?
(If you read any of the writings of Justin Martyr, he explains the early worship services held in home churches on Sundays.) What they did is the foundation of our present day Mass — it had a simple beginning and is still very simple. The Greeting, The Liturgy of the Word, The Liturgy of the Eucharist and the Dismissal.
Wrong. He not only said so but when others took Him literally and began to walk away, He did not say they were mistaken. Indeed he doubled down on it. But the Church’s authority goes back to not only Scripture but also TRADITION. The books in the Bibles did not fall from the sky. They authorized by the Church fathers some 30 years after the death of Christ. It was the oral traditions and rituals that were understood and carried out by His disciples. This is large mustard tree, the Catholic Church, the rest are 35,000 varieties of heresies. On flock, one body, one food. The Body and Blood of Christ.
Catholicism, with its reliance on Tradition, was able to resist this subjectivism in thought but was not immune. Liberal Protestant ideas started to enter into Catholic academic thought through Modernism in the late 19th cent. But where Catholicism differs with Protestantism is the existence of an authoritative Magisterium that was able to resist this movement and Modernism was condemned by Pope Pius X. It was, however, able to make a comeback after Vatican II. It could even be said that it became dominant at the academic and popular levels. Again, however, it was never able to change the dogmatic teachings of the Magisterium. The spread of Modernism (i.e. liberal Protestant thought) was more from a neglect of discipline by the Magisterium rather than by its adoption. Today, however, even on the academic and popular levels there is a return to orthodoxy.
As a Catholic I would call this preservation of orthodox teaching at the Magisterial level a result of the protection of the Holy Spirit. A non-Catholic might take a more cynical view and note that if the Catholic Church would ever deny a dogmatic teaching that it had declared in the past that it would deny its very claim of infallibility and thus its very nature. Thus such a cynic would say that the Catholic Church cannot deny a previously defined dogmatic teaching only because of self-preservation. In either case, the Catholic Church has a bulwark against the spread of Modernism/liberalism that Protestantism does not.
Your solution has not worked; only genuine apostles/prophets or more likely The Lord's return is going to sort out the mess the nations made of the holy catholic apostolic church.
Really, we agree on many facts, but not all. We do not agree on your Rome-centered rubric of history.
In Romanism - sola ecclesia - or sola magisterium, you simply outsource belief to Rome. You can refer to that as a protective arrangement and it is one form. What Romans never consider is what they lose by this arrangement. How could they and support the dogma of sola Rome? It must remain perfect to the roman mind, or the story is broken.
Rome resisting liberalism? The evidence in her parishes contradicts this. In Belgium alone, more than 80% of Romans never darken the door of a church. Here in the USA, many studies show Romans do not believe the teachings of Rome.
Protestantism is a broad word the way you wield it. Groups of liberals are cut off like cancer from Bible believing Christian groups - yet it serves the purpose of many Romans to set them up as straw men. It could be reversed easily. We could call all the crazy offshoots of Rome “Catholics”.
Sola Scriptura - the belief that inspired Scripture is sufficient for salvation, maturity and doctrine - has led to deep faith, the evangelization of the earth, ekklesia around the world, etc.
Protestantism doesn’t “seek to place authority in God alone.” It recognizes that His authority is over us. His Word is the last Word in all matters of faith and practice.
Cancerous offshoots are cut off. This seems to please Romans as they get to raise the number of “protestant” denominations. They eventually have to merge to keep their buildings as they die off. They die off because they abandon the One Source of Life.
The Christians who continue to know God, trust His word and follow Him continue on in pursuit of all He desires. Their ekklesia continue to grow. Our one ekklesia baptizes between 120-160 new Christians each quarter. Not born into the faith infants. Individuals who were far from God, tattooed, pierced, etc. - individuals who heard and responded to the Gospel and want to announce to the world that they are now a follower of Christ. They are now lives changed by Christ.
It is always and forever about His Glory, His Gospel of Grace, His Bride and His Body.
It is never about churches, denominations, etc.
I must take exception to this characterization. First, it is not sola ecclesia. The Catholic Church fully recognizes the authority of the Bible. Where Protestants accuse us of departing from the Bible in truth is departing from Protestant interpretations of the Bible. The many debates here on FR about the meaning of various Bible passages highlights this. Secondly, while Protestants like to portray Catholicism as only Rome, in truth it is the entire Catholic Church. This ecumenical or universal nature of the Church is seen in the exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium of church teaching and in the Extraordinary Magisterium of church councils. Yes, the pope does exercise a unique role but it is only as the head of the universal church.
Rome resisting liberalism? The evidence in her parishes contradicts this. In Belgium alone, more than 80% of Romans never darken the door of a church. Here in the USA, many studies show Romans do not believe the teachings of Rome.
Yes, I acknowledge the damage done by Modernism at the academic and popular levels. But this was because of the reluctance of church authorities after Vatican II to discipline dissent. But these errors were never accept by the Magisterium. Catholics could always discover the falsehood of what was being taught locally by referring to official documents of the church. A rejection of a false "Spirit of Vatican II" is now taking place but it will take time for this to spread in the pews. The younger clergy now being ordained are particularly devoted to orthodox teaching. But this appeal to a magisterial authority is lacking within Protestantism where disagreement leads to fragmentation.
Protestantism is a broad word the way you wield it. Groups of liberals are cut off like cancer from Bible believing Christian groups - yet it serves the purpose of many Romans to set them up as straw men.
I do indeed recognize the broad split between Bible-believing (evangelical/fundamentalist) Protestants and their liberal cousins but they are both the heirs of the Reformation. Sola scriptura planted the seed of subjectivism which lead to liberal Protestantism and we find this liberalism residing in historically Protestant denominations such as Anglicans, Presbyterians, Lutheran, etc. Without the Reformation this liberal Protestantism would not exist.
Sola Scriptura - the belief that inspired Scripture is sufficient for salvation, maturity and doctrine - has led to deep faith, the evangelization of the earth, ekklesia around the world, etc.
More nations were brought to Christ through the ages by the Catholic Church than by Protestantism which is why the Catholic Church now has over one billion members world-wide. Indeed, all of the Protestant nations of Europe were first evangelized by the Catholic Church.
Protestantism doesn’t “seek to place authority in God alone.” It recognizes that His authority is over us. His Word is the last Word in all matters of faith and practice.
Actually it is the individual's personal interpretation of the Bible that becomes the last word. Thus the fragmentation of Protestantism.
Cancerous offshoots are cut off.
And which denomination of Protestantism is the true ekklesia which has cut off all the others, and how large is it compared to the full number of those who call themselves Christian?
Lots of points to respond to so I will try to be brief to save you and I time!
“I must take exception to this characterization. First, it is not sola ecclesia.”
... Well, if you include anything in addition to the Bible and set up the non-Biblical magisterium to be the only source of accuracy, it is effectively solo ecclesia.
“The Catholic Church fully recognizes the authority of the Bible.”
...except where they want to add non-Biblical doctrines out of thin air. Except where they want to find support for a preexisting pagan idea by using the see and say method.
“while Protestants like to portray Catholicism as only Rome, in truth it is the entire Catholic Church.
... actually I use rome not as an insult, but to preserve the actual meaning of “universal church” as meaning everyone believer who makes up the body and bride of Christ - instead of just those in a Christian religion ruled from rome.
“This ecumenical or universal nature of the Church is seen in the exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium of church teaching and in the Extraordinary Magisterium of church councils. Yes, the pope does exercise a unique role but it is only as the head of the universal church.”
... well, we can agree the “pope” has a unique role over churches that submit to rome.
“Yes, I acknowledge the damage done by Modernism at the academic and popular levels. But this was because of the reluctance of church authorities after Vatican II to discipline dissent. But these errors were never accept by the Magisterium.”
... any teaching not enforced is a hobby.
“Catholics could always discover the falsehood of what was being taught locally by referring to official documents of the church.”
... discovering without enforcement is simply theory.
“But this appeal to a magisterial authority is lacking within Protestantism where disagreement leads to fragmentation.”
It is cleaner. Agree with Scripture or get packing. Faster too.
“I do indeed recognize the broad split between Bible-believing (evangelical/fundamentalist) Protestants and their liberal cousins but they are both the heirs of the Reformation.”
... here I will disagree gently. While many churches came from the reformation relatives, most churches started today are direct offshoots from Christ. I suppose your theory will fairly call Rome the Mother of the Reformation.
“Sola scriptura planted the seed of subjectivism”
...again, gently disagree. It spawns a conversation about what God revealed and what it means. Both good conversations to have.
“which lead to liberal Protestantism and we find this liberalism residing in historically Protestant denominations such as Anglicans, Presbyterians, Lutheran, etc. Without the Reformation this liberal Protestantism would not exist.”
... then to be fair, you will have to concede that “the authority of the ministerium leads to liberal catholicism and we find this liberalism resididing in historically roman groups such as those who want to make Mary the fourth member of the godhead, those with lesbian priests, etc. Without the magisterium and its ruling on theology, rome would not exist.”
...You sowed the seeds and must reap the fruit.
“More nations were brought to Christ through the ages by the Catholic Church than by Protestantism which is why the Catholic Church now has over one billion members world-wide.”
... Christ didn’t command us to go to “nations”. The specific instructions are to every tribe, people, tongue and nation. Somewhere around 16,000 people groups remain. They are targeted and being reached. By “protestants.”
...When your past is bigger than your future, the end is near.
... Perhaps the real answer about the billion members is that half don’t participate any more. I’m not sure what membership means to you or rome, but I would personally be quite discouraged.
“Indeed, all of the Protestant nations of Europe were first evangelized by the Catholic Church.”
... Sure. You can see the shape they are in now - despite the magisterium. I will also add that evangelicals are planting churches now in Europe to lead those nations back to Christ.
“Actually it is the individual’s personal interpretation of the Bible that becomes the last word. Thus the fragmentation of Protestantism.”
... actually, no. God has gifted the ekklesia with “teachers” and the Holy Spirit in every member.
“And which denomination of Protestantism is the true ekklesia which has cut off all the others, and how large is it compared to the full number of those who call themselves Christian?”
...EVERY single ekklesia that teaches the Gospel of Grace is comprised of actual members of the body and bride of Christ. As such, it is part of the universal church of all time.
... until the final day, we will not know how many shoots of wheat vs. how many tares. God knows now and will reveal it later. We can hear words of testimony. We can see lives changed. We can see good works. All of those can be fake, as we know. Only God knows.
... what we do know is that in the end, God will reveal it. Until then, it is a church on the march, sending our budget to the unreached, sharing the Gospel here and abroad, building up believers and helping them use their gifts.
... never about a “correct” church. Always about Him, His glory, His Gospel of Grace.
“He not only said so...”
Do you recall that He told the rich young ruler to give away all his possessions? Did He and does He require all rich people to do that? According to the rest of the Bible, no. Jesus at times spoke judgment on the crowds, telling His disciples that He spoke in parables that He didn’t explain to them because of their unbelief. And one parable was about the different types of soil, and another about the wheat and chaff. He knew that the crowd He’d fed had come to Him because they wanted Him to be their earthly king and provide bread for Him. And as I imagine you know, so much of what is going on in the Gospels is about the two types of prophecy about the coming Messiah, with some saying He was the Suffering Servant and other the Victorious King. Up to Jesus’ time, some rabbis believed that meant two Messiahs, and there was a conflict between the views that Jesus stepped into, and the Jews (incl. Peter when He tried “correcting” Jesus) at the time wanted the Victorious King. And Cont’d
(cont’d) Jesus had to deal with this embrace of the Victorious King over the Suffering Servant with not only Peter, and His other apostles and disciples. He had to prepare them for His death, and they only understood it afterwards with His Resurrection, even though as He said at different times the sacrificial death He’d die was foretold in Scripture. But I can tell you from reading from Jews that have accepted Christ, the Jews have put the Suffering Servant prophecies just about out mind, and one Jew I talked to on Yahoo Answers religion section, who said no one can die for another’s sins, when I pointed out passages of Isaiah 53 to him, within minutes deleted the whole thread. I pray that knowledge took root in him. But all in all, you cannot say that Jesus gave of His physical body, which was there at the Last Supper and first Communion. He spoke, as He did all along, of the sacrifice He was to make. It was all about Him going to the Cross, and Communion would be something utterly different (Cont’d)
different without Jesus’ death on the Cross. The chief offense of the Cross is that we’re all sinners so no one is right with God, and no one can make themselves right with God, either, but they need Him even to do that, and to pay their penalty for sin. The crowds that came to Jesus, and even many who followed Him (and one of the Twelve, too, Judas), weren’t “seeking first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness,” so after not responding to Jesus’ miracles , but listening to their flesh instead, Jesus judged them.
Okay, consider this passage:
“But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness.” (1 Corinthians 1:23)
The offense of the Gospel to the Jews was and is the Messiah, the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53, dying to make atonement for the sins of mankind. And I’m grateful for the Lord revealing more of this truth through the conversation here. Reading John 6 in this light makes it that much clearer. The crowds were looking for the Victorious King, and Jesus told them what they were doing and warned them, but when they responded with unbelief, He judged them. And some disciples didn’t believe in Him, either, and then Jesus turned to the Twelve, and He knew one of them didn’t believe also.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.