Posted on 06/15/2014 4:12:26 AM PDT by markomalley
There was the man inspired by the written words of Pope Francis. There was the agnostic professor. And there was the widow of a Baptist preacher.
All of them Tennesseans, and all of them recent converts to one of the world's oldest Christian faiths.
In the South, Catholicism is growing. The Diocese of Knoxville was recently ranked among the top 10 in the nation for its rate of adult conversions.
All Southeast Tennessee Catholic parishes, including Chattanooga's, fall under the umbrella of Knoxville's diocese, one of 195 in the United States. A diocese is a geographic collection of parishes grouped together under the governance of a bishop. And many of the dioceses producing the most converts to the church are right here in the South, according to a recent study by Georgetown University's Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate.
Rates of Catholicism have always been strong in the Northeast and Midwest. But not in the protestant-heavy South.
So it's no wonder that Catholicism is growing faster here.
Mark Gray, a senior research associate at the Georgetown Center, said marriage is a common driver of Catholicism, as non-Catholics marry Catholics. And in Tennessee, non-Catholics and Catholics are more likely to marry simply because there are not enough Catholics to marry only other Catholics.
In the Volunteer State, about 8 percent of people are Catholic. That compares with 40 percent in Massachusetts and the national average of 24 percent.
"Tennessee is the third-least Catholic state in the country, which is exactly where we would expect these conversions to occur, because that 8 percent are likely marrying non-Catholics," Gray said.
In the Catholic Church, conversion is a commitment. It's more formal and involved than switching from one protestant church to another. And conversion is a commitment to the faith, not necessarily a particular church.
Before joining the church, converts take part in a college-like class that can last from nine months to a year.
"It is a very long program, and it's not something we take lightly, nor do the people becoming Catholic take it lightly," said Marvin Bushman, the director of religious education at Cleveland's St. Therese of Lisieux. "It is a big commitment."
Knoxville Bishop Richard F. Stika said the church is growing from rising minority populations, mainly Hispanics. Knoxville recently established a Vietnamese parish. And this part of the country is attracting more retirees and families, many of whom are Catholic.
"We're a growing Church, both in people who are choosing to become Catholic as well as people moving in from out of town," Stika told the diocesan newspaper, The East Tennessee Catholic.
At St. Therese, Brenda Blevins oversees the Catholic conversion program, called the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults, or RCIA. The Diocese of Knoxville, which includes 47 parishes, receives about 350 adult converts each year through RCIA.
Some come after marrying or dating a Catholic, but Blevins said many of their recent converts were single. And the RCIA program doesn't want people to just marry into the church.
"We want people to be here because they want to be and because they feel a call," she said.
And each convert has his own story. There are the college-age brothers who just joined together. And the widow of a Baptist minister who married a Catholic. Some come from protestant churches; others have never been baptized into any faith.
"I think part of the reason the Catholic Church is growing so much in Southeast Tennessee is because Southeast Tennessee is part of the Bible Belt," Blevins said. "And there are a lot of faithful Christians here."
The disconnect occurs in that several Catholic FReepers have gone beyond "making observations" and have openly advocated for both, in the name of advancing Catholicism. It's my opinion that anyone (Catholic or otherwise) who advocates for the fall of our nation should be booted from FR as soon as they are discovered, and I have no problem engaging in "baiting" activities to ferret these malcontents out and off of FR.
Which, bringing us back to what I perceive to be the main thrust of most of the argument here, is whether Catholicism is being deemed a threat to the United States by some posters?
IMO that depends on what "Catholicism" is advocating here, at least in the mind of any given individual practitioner of Catholicism here. We've seen threads celebrating monarchy, "the only form of Christian government", or removing the right to vote from non-Catholics, or the destruction of our country (see also here). Do you believe that such statements are contra Catholicism? Do you believe that such statements are intended to be detrimental to this nation's constitutional republic?
IMO Catholicism is "threatening" to our country, only to the extent that a) a majority of Catholics will actually agree with the anarchists/monarchists, or b) a majority of Catholics choose to remain silent in the face of them, out of a felt solidarity against Protestants in general. "Better a Catholic monarchy, than a Protestant republic!"
I myself have found that most Catholics on FR have trouble agreeing with the statement that a functional, constitutional representative republic is the best form of government over any country, at any time. I would go a step further and state that a constitutional representative republic is the most Christian form of government that has ever existed on the planet, post-fall. How many Catholics would agree with me, and would publicly take other Catholics to task for advocating otherwise? The silence has been, and remains deafening.
your exclusion must also include hearing: "For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ." (Acts 18:28)
"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures ," (Acts 17:2)
And substantiation: "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures," (Luke 24:44-45 )
These Scriptures only show my claim to be true, not contradict it. Note in all of them, how it is described how these people came to Christ. Via someone showing them "in" (or "through" or "with") "the Scriptures" Christ.
What you should ask yourself is, "What initially drew those who eventually converted to St. Paul?" (and the other Apostles).
Why did people like the Theselonians reject Paul and his teachings but the Bereans did not? What was the difference between those two peoples there? What does Scripture itself say was the difference?
Did they (the Apostles, or even Jesus) simply stand on a street corner and start reading the OT aloud? Is this what you believe initially drew people to conversion?
I'm going to assume not, and so, what is left, is what I described earlier.
Consider the fact that there were many others who heard (note "heard", not "read") the Gospel, but did not convert. Some even who were Jesus' disciples eventually walked away. Left even Jesus, the God-Man! In person!
Why? Why did some who had the unique privilege of being with Jesus while he walked the earth in his own body leave him? Or reject him initially? Why?
Ask yourself these questions honestly and you may see that what I'm talking about is not "subjectivism" in the least. After all, what truly makes something "objective" anyway? What truly is a "fact"?
These are the questions that not only you but everyone must answer in a search for Truth (which is a search for God really). And I'll help you out somewhat here: "facts", that is, objective realities, are not something made up or decided upon by consensus. They aren't things historians tell us happened, simply because historians said it. They aren't something scientists say happen, just because they say it. And they aren't something about Scripture no matter what theologian says about Scripture.
They are simply things that happen to a person, outside themselves. Given by another. Which is where the term "datum" comes from by the way. It is something given.
If you don't see that, at least, then there is no hope in truly grasping what I'm saying. For I've never said Scripture study isn't important. Just that it's not the *source*, the *reason* one *wants* to convert. The initial, inspiring *thing* that leads one to God is not Scripture, but rather the objective fact of every man's heart, when not encumbered by the things of this world the values of this world.
Rather a heart (in the Biblical sense of the word "heart" mind you which is not mere emotion but the mind and the soul too) a heart who's only desire is that for Truth can and will desire Christ. Every time. Big difference between that, and what you falsely ascribe to me.
Amazing. Truly it does sound like gnosticism as 47 describes it. Never mind that it is the Spirit God that convicts and opens hearts through His own word that he sent to us for that very purpose. His word shall not return to Him empty-handed.
When Apollos in Acts was "shewing by the Scriptures" that Jesus was Christ, not one word of the New Testament had yet been written. Not one word.
Which is irrelevant to the fact that the then-established Scripture was the supreme standard for Truth, by which the Jews were mightily convinced. Additional conflative and complementary writings were added, established as being of God as earlier ones essentially were, in the light of their unique enduring heavenly qualities and attestation. "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." (John 20:31)
yet many of them did not consider his arguments to be dispositive.
Which is irrelevant here.
Apollos himself was incomplete in knowledge, even if he had--- we may posit --- a complete grasp of the OT. So he had to listen to the oral teaching of that Apostolic generation, including Priscilla and Aquila, to get things that he couldn't have puzzled out from Scriptures alone, e.g. Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Here he was learning not from Scriptures, but from Sacred Tradition: that which was handed on to him which was NOT in Scriptures.
A fundamental error. True Sacred Tradition which Apollos would have learned is that of Scriptural truths, thus the abundant references to the OT in the New, not things that were not in Scripture.
"Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God," "(Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)" (Romans 1:1-2) "Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ...now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:" (Romans 16:25-26)
Name one thing Apollos was taught that is not contained in Scripture, even implicitly, which includes right reasoning and interpretation and writings being recognized as being of God, and thus for a canon, and the New Covenant and its realities, provides for the church, etc. While one can be saved without reading Scripture, even in Catholicism of Scripture alone are all the words wholly Divinely inspired of God, not those which express amorphous oral tradition, which is a form which is supremely subject to undetectable corruption, thus its veracity rests upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome.
Baptism with the Holy Spirit is from Joel 2:28,29, the pouring out of the Spirit upon all flesh, thus Peter's referencing of this in Acts 2, and both water and Spirit baptism were prefigured in the cloud and in the sea of Exodus, as per Paul's reference to them. (1Cor. 10:2)
So we're back to the perennial problem: how do we know for sure that this writing but not that, is truly Scripture? The only way you can know, is by seeing who and what has been accepted and received by the Church....the whole formation of the Canon was developed through the infallible Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. That is a claim of infallibility.
This is basically the classic RC argument, which is based upon the premise that an assuredly infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth, such as which writings and men are of God, and that being the historical instruments, discerners and stewards of Divine revelation means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God.
However, this means that no one could even be sure that Genesis was of God, or that Elijah or John or Jesus and thus if the church itself was of God. Under the Roman model for determining and assurance of Truth, the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation must be submitted to, dissent from which renders one invalid, and which thus invalidates the church itself.
For the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; cf. Mt. 23:2 etc.) </p><p>
“..because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3:2) "Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." (Romans 9:4-5)
However, common people recognized what the magisterium did not/would not, that John “was a prophet indeed,” and Jesus was 'him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." (John 1:45) Thus instead of the magisterium they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved from Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
Thus as your basis premise is wrong, so as is your conclusion.
Then 1600 years after Apollos of Alexandria, you have the Reformers chucking out books of the Bible. What incoherence! By what authority?
This is simply error begetting error. Even being the instruments of Scripture, and not only the discerners and stewards of it does not require or translate into being the infallible authorities on it, while the fact it that despite being generally and overall settled, there was no infallible, indisputable complete canon of Scripture for Luther to dissent from. That was not until “The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the OT Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent." (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Catholic University of America , 2003, Vol. 3, pp. 20,26).
For indeed, contrary to the RC canard which has Luther being a maverick dissenter from an “infallible” canon, the fact is that scholarly doubts and disagreements over books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, which settled the matter over 1400 hundred years (April 8th, 1546) after the last book was written. As Catholic Church historian and recognized authority on Trent (2400 page history, and author of over 700 books, etc.), Hubert Jedin (1900-1980) observes, it also put a full stop to the 1000-year-old development of the biblical canon (History of the Council of Trent [London, 1961] 91, quoted by Raymond Edward Brown, American Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar, in The New Jerome biblical commentary, p. 1168) "For the first fifteen centuries of Christianity, no Christian Church put forth a definitive list of biblical books. Most Christians had followed St. Augustine and included the 'Apocrypha' in the canon, but St. Jerome, who excluded them, had always had his defenders." (Joseph Lienhard, S.J., A.B., classics, Fordham University, “The Bible, The Church, And Authority;” [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1995], p. 59) “The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm)
"On the eve of the Reformation, it was not only Luther who had problems with the extent of the New Testament canon. Doubts were being expressed even by some of the loyal sons of the Church. Luther's opponent at Augsburg, Cardinal Cajetan, following Jerome, expressed doubts concerning the canonicity of Hebrews, James, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Of the latter three he states, "They are of less authority than those which are certainly Holy Scripture." http://bible.org/article/evangelicals-and-canon-new-testament#P136_48836
The Catholic Encyclopedia confirms this saying that “he seemed more than three centuries in advance of his day in questioning the authenticity of the last chapter of St. Mark, the authorship of several epistles, viz., Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Jude...”— http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03145c.htm
Meanwhile, the Catholic Encyclopedia (Canon of the Old Testament) affirms, “the protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.” “...the Hebrew Bible, which became the Old Testament of Protestantism.” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)
More.
Moreover, your very question, “By what authority?” is one that which was asked by those of the Jewish magisterium, who like Rome, also presumed a veracity of office “above that which is written,” (1Cor. 4:6) and thus as she would, challenged an itinerant Preacher, "By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?" (Mark 11:28) Yet His response was to invoke the authority of another itinerant preacher, one who lived in the desert on a strange diet. Both of which reproved the magisterium, and were rejected by them, yet common people recognized them as being of God, as they were in accordance with Scripture.
The whole structure collapses because men have chosen to suppose that the Holy Spirit could permit the entirety of Christendom, East and West, to go wrong for 1600 years,
Dissent from some aspects of Roman theology does not equate to the entirety of Christendom going wrong in everything, anymore than NT church dissent from the Jewish magisterium means all they held to was in error. Rome herself allows that there is a possibility of error in some of her noninfallible teachings, if not salvific error, while to presume the Holy Spirit would not allow some error to exist in the body of Christ is more than what is promised. But rather than an infallible magisterium, in Scripture we see that God often provided and preserved Truth and faith by raising up men from without the magisterium to reprove it. Thus the church began and thus it has endured, being manifest by works of faith.
And, assuming that you accept the KJV canon of 66 books as inerrant, you do so only by logically presupposing the magisterial infallibility of 47 Anglicans.
Wrong, as holding something as being infallible Truth, which the canon must be if all the books are Scripture, is not the same as claiming assured infallibility as per Rome, which is promised to no mortals. A pagan can even declare an established, infallible Truth, thus Paul quotes one who did, (Acts 17:28) but which is not the same as claiming assured infallibility. As said, both writings and men were recognized and established as being of God without an assuredly infallible magisterium, as evident in history, and thus Prots can as well.
I am not aware of your self-identification as an Anglican, but you could set me right if that's what you are.
No, like Rome, that is too liberal and aberration, and i am more conservative Baptacostal!
The evidence as determined by daniel1212, what scripture says according to daniel1212.
This is all you've offered; I think it must be all you can offer. Is it?:
The evidence according to daniel1212, what scripture says according to daniel1212 with "the basis for assurance of truth" an internet persona called daniel1212.
No wonder Christ did not teach this: "You are the authority and basis of truth" - or each individual in the unscriptural doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
Contra this is the Church. Our basis for our assurance of truth is Christ, the head of His Church, from Him and through His Church, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
For me, the choice is easy; and I'm sorry, but you lose your own challenge, to choose otherwise would go against both Holy Scripture and reason.
I’ll say the same to you as to Daniel but in condensed form.
If your “faith” is based solely on Scripture,(note the word “solely” there) and not also (note the word “also”) on a real, actual encounter with Christ, then it is a dead faith. Period.
That’s not Gnosticism. It’s something everyone can discover for themselves, in their own experience, if they have a desire for truth. Which is precisely not Gnosticism. Gnosticism is blind faith in one or a group, that claims a “secret” knowledge, a “faith” without reason.
I have met Christ personally. For real. I can say this as a matter of fact. To anyone.
Can you?
Well then i am glad you agree with me that these came to be saved by hearing the Scriptures or Scriptural truth, versus the premise of their own veracity. But which which certainly is contrary to people weren't converted to Christianity by reading/hearing the Scriptures which is what i refuted.
Did they (the Apostles, or even Jesus) simply stand on a street corner and start reading the OT aloud? Is this what you believe initially drew people to conversion?
More straw men. I think you must know my argument was never that assurance of Truth was simply by simply hearing texts being read, but in contrast to the claim of assured ecclesiastical veracity, it as on the basis of Scriptural substantiation, and which includes "And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures," (Acts 17:2)
The more you resort to misrepresentations then the more you will be marginalized.
Why? Why did some who had the unique privilege of being with Jesus while he walked the earth in his own body leave him? Or reject him initially? Why?
Scripture once again provides the answer:
"And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." (John 3:19-21)
And which source is wholly Divinely inspired of God which teaches what is light versus darkness?
"The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple." "The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes." (Psalms 19:7-8)
Ask yourself these questions honestly and you may see that what I'm talking about is not "subjectivism" in the least. After all, what truly makes something "objective" anyway? What truly is a "fact"?...They are simply things that happen to a person, outside themselves. Given by another. Which is where the term "datum" comes from by the way. It is something given.
I see. So essentially this "datum," 'the objective fact of every man's heart," is determinative of what "Fact" and Truth is, and a soul believes something is of God not by judging it in the light of evidence. Thus the appeal to evidence in Scripture is superfluous.
"Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes." (Deuteronomy 12:8)
The initial, inspiring *thing* that leads one to God is not Scripture, but rather the objective fact of every man's heart, when not encumbered by the things of this world the values of this world.
But what defines what is "encumbered by the things of this world the values of this world," and makes such a heart a source of Fact? Even when Gentiles obeyed light it was because the law in essence was written in their heart, and was judged as being so by the written law of God.
I do not even think other RCs would concur with your doctrinally unreferenced esoterically basis for Truth.
Seriously. I have never seen an RC be so disconnected from a standard for Truth. Others would rail on a Prot for saying such things.
You're probably half-right, sadly. Most Catholics probably wouldn't agree with what I've said to you recently. But that hardly makes it any less real or valid, necessarily speaking.
I may not be a theologian, and may have spoken things out of turn or not exactly, theologically correct, according to people on the Internet or elsewhere. But they are words from the heart, spoken (written?) in an attempt of one human being to correspond with another. In an effort to truly help that other human being, not try to "prove" him "wrong" and "win a debate".
I'll let God be my judge on these matters and claims.
The last word is yours.
Addendum/. We are all called to be ready to give a reason for our faith. Not a scripture, but a reason. Which necessitates something real.
"[T]he New Testament had not yet been written. Not one word." [daniel1212] Which is irrelevant."
No, you merely ignored its relevance. When Apollos was preaching about Christ, all that he knew of the life, the preaching, the healings and miracles, the suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus, he knew from Sacred Tradition, which is to say, oral preaching. None of it had yet been written.
He did not come to know Jesus through NT Scripture (which was not written), not by personally knowing Him in the flesh (he never met Him); nor even by supernaturally meeting Him in an extraordinary way (as did Saul of Tarsus), but simply by believing what he had heard from the Apostles and the Apostles' disciples. He had Faith, and Faith comes from hearing, and the instrument for that is the NT Church.
"True Sacred Tradition which Apollos would have learned is that of Scriptural truths, thus the abundant references to the OT in the New, not things that were not in Scripture...Name one thing Apollos was taught that is not contained in Scripture"
Baptism and the Holy Spirit: he learned it from Priscilla and Aquila --- deeper, more completely and and more precisely than he may have gotten an inkling of it from Joel. That's why Priscilla and Aquila had to take him aside and instruct him.(Acts 18:25-26)
"...not those which express amorphous oral tradition,"
This is tendentious language. I did not defend "amorphous oral tradition," I defended the transmission of the Gospel by oral preaching, which is exactly how Apollos learned about the existence of the Holy Spirit, in the precise form by which he learned to from Priscilla and Aquila.
He was preaching the Gospel but had never seen a written Gospel. Even more strikingly, Paul was preaching the Gospel and HE had never seen a written Gospel. The whole corpus of the Pauline Epistles was written, and the Gospel preached and local churches established, with Bishops, on three continents and the islands of the Mediterranean, without the four Gospels being yet written.
Paul tells his disciples dozens to times to "be faithful to the Gospel" and "grow in the Gospel" and "hold fast to the Gospel" and the four Gospels had not yet been written. Isn't that striking? It was, at that time, an entirely person-to-person, orally-transmitted Gospel. This is why Paul says, (2 Corinthians 3:3) "You show that you are a letter of Christ, prepared by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts."
This is tremendous! And Paul’s teaching --- and his sending of his own students out as "letters of Christ" "written not with ink" ---is an example of what the Catholic Church calls "Tradition" --- not "vacuous oral tradition", but Sacred oral Tradition.
Paul, of course, made splendid, extensive use of the OT scriptures, and he wrote Scripture himself (all of his Epistles). But he still maintains the validity of Oral Tradition:
Nothing there about "skip word of mouth, skip Tradition." He specifically tells them to"maintain" and "hold to" tradition: Sacred Tradition, not merely the "traditions of men".
"...being the historical instruments, discerners and stewards of Divine revelation means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God."
True. Substitute "The Church" for "Rome" and it will be clearer. The Church was also in Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Athens, Thessalonica, etc. before a local Church was established in Rome via the preaching and letters of Peter and Paul. So the Church indeed exercised that "assuredly infallible magisterium."
"However, this means that no one could even be sure that Genesis was of God, or that Elijah or John or Jesus and thus if the church itself was of God. Under the Roman model for determining and assurance of Truth, the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation must be submitted to, dissent from which renders one invalid, and which thus invalidates the church itself."
I don't see how this follows. Rabbinic Judaism recognizes as authoritative the Masoretic Text (the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible, 24 books). The first reference to a 24-book Jewish canon is found in 2 Esdras 14:45–46, which wasn't even written until a century or so after Christ's ascension into heaven.
So the Jews themselves didn't draw up an "official," "formal," "canonical list" until about 100 AD. That doesn't mean that they were, previous to 100 AD, bereft of any notion of what constituted Scripture. For them, it depended on which texts were received for liturgical use in the synagogues, just as it depended (for the Church) on what books were received for liturgical use in the local Churches.
Interestingly, when the Jews did draw up their official canon, it excluded ALL the Greek Scriptures: ALL seven Greek books which are called Deuterocanonical, and ALL 27 books of the Greek New Testament. So when the Jews "formalized" their adherence to the Masoretic texts alone ---and no others ---as a closed canon, they did it wrong. (From a Christian point of view.)
"For the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation."
Very true!!
" However, common people recognized what the magisterium did not/would not, that John “was a prophet indeed,” and Jesus was 'him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." (John 1:45) "
And this is the central crisis of the NT: the failure of the Scribes and other authorities to recognize that Jesus was the Christ.
This necessitated the founding of a new Magisterium, which would correctly proclaim the truths of both Old and New Covenant. As Jesus said to the 70 select men he sent out to preach, (John 10:16) "Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the One who sent me.” This is what magisterium means: the men whom God appoints ("He has appointed teachers") to teach with authorization from Christ.
1 Corinthians 12:28
And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers; then deeds of power, then gifts of healing, forms of assistance, forms of leadership, various kinds of tongues.
1 Timothy 2:7
For this I was appointed a herald and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.
2 Timothy 1:11
For this gospel I was appointed a herald and an apostle and a teacher,
God appointed teaching authority = Sacred Magisterium
Glad to know that you consider yourself a "conservative Baptacostal." That still doesn't explain why you accept the Anglican Canon and not the Jewish Canon and not the Catholic or Orthodox Canon. Were the 17th century Anglicans really religious authorities? If so, whay are you not an Anglican? And if not, why do you accept their Canon?
I personally was much influenced as a teenager by conservative Christians affiliated with the Church of God in Christ, a predominantly Black Pentecostal denomination. They had a crucial and positive influence on my religious development. Thank God for them!
Good evening to you, daniel1212.
Yes, I absolutely can say I have met Christ personally. It’s why I always praise His love and grace on these pages. To have been down as far in the slime pit as I was, I’d never have thought it possible. But with God, all things are possible, to the everlasting praise of His glory.
You're probably half-right, sadly. Most Catholics probably wouldn't agree with what I've said to you recently. But that hardly makes it any less real or valid, necessarily speaking.
Well, that would not be a bad statement except that the ultimately subjective esoteric basis for faith that you offer as an alternative to judgment ultimately based on a supreme standard for truth, is both untenable and unscriptural.
Excellent post.
I may bookmark it and use just a link for replies in the future.
:)
More absurdity. The doctrinal reason we see the NT church giving as a reason for their faith, in addition to Scriptural miracles, is those things which is found in Scripture, again "We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write," , shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ, from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
And it is not subjective feelings that determine what is real.
:o)
I concur. Thank you!
This is an over-simplification that results in a falsehood. "Feelings" is a loaded term. We experience reality, as a subject, there is therefore a subjective component to reality, to what is real, to what is true.
When we realize that 2+2=4, we - subjectively - experience the truth of the statement. Otherwise it is just numbers. We can memorize the formula, be told that it is "true," but we do not fully know it is true without direct personal experience: taking two of something, putting it with two more and having four. It is no longer numbers and truth accepted, but reality directly experienced.
If I may assume to know what FourtySeven is expressing: It is one thing to accept another's view of Christ as God and Saviour; it is quite another to experience it directly - subjectively.
The second is the more true, more real, more firmly known.
No, i did not ignore its relevance, as what is relevant is that "the life, the preaching, the healings and miracles, the suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus" was Sacred because it was Scriptural, even when conveyed orally. And which is why the OT was repeatedly referenced, and is why Apollos "For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ." (Acts 18:28)
And which testifies to the supremacy of Scripture and the basis for assurance. And which i already said, and THAT is what you have ignored as other RCs do in their obsession with Tradition, as if that was not based on Scripture.
He did not come to know Jesus through NT Scripture..but simply by believing what he had heard from the Apostles and the Apostles' disciples
And which was based on what? The premise of assured magisterial veracity or Scriptural substantiation? "the gospel of God, "(Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)" (Romans 1:1-2) "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures" (Luke 24:44,45)
He had Faith, and Faith comes from hearing, and the instrument for that is the NT Church.
Which is more myopic focus on the preachers, ignoring the heavy reliance upon Scripture for what they preached.
You are not the first one with this focus. Another RC presented the NT church as if it was established on its own veracity, and minimizing the use of Scripture by it as merely being used in condescension to the Jews (as it is often used by them toward evangelicals, as it is not the basis for the veracity of RC doctrine). Christianity had a basis, its members being grafted into the true OT olive tree and does not bear the root, but the root bore it. (Rm. 11:17,18
As all the words Scripture alone are wholly inspired of God, it is is the assured word of God, thus the writer of Romans who said faith comes by hearing the word of God invoked it so much.
Baptism and the Holy Spirit: he learned it from Priscilla and Aquila --- deeper, more completely and and more precisely than he may have gotten an inkling of it from Joel.
Of course, as it explained what God did in fulfilling Joel 2:28,29, and and which explanation was established upon Scriptural substantiation, not the premise of assured ecclesiastical infallibility, so that a doctrine is assuredly true because Rome has declared it . That was the issue here. Can you see the difference?
And the only examples we have of teaching called "tradition" in the NT was that contemporary preached Scriptural Truths, which could be written, not some ancient legends, which like the Assumption, can even lack any early testimony in history.
Meanwhile, we know that and about the baptism with the Spirit from Scripture, all the words of which are again wholly inspired of God, unlike Rome's tradition, the veracity of which rests upon the premise of her own veracity, regardless of actually warrant from Scripture.
Meanwhile, teaches today can disciple men like Apollos, explaining the word of God, while the fact that Divinely inspired apostles spoke the word of God, and likewise writers added to the established Scripture, does not translate into the bishops of Rome being apostles and or having their power thru historical descent.
For besides historical descent not being the basis for NT authenticity, as John told the Pharisees, (Mt. 3:9) and the Holy Spirit never providing any record of any apostolic successors or preparations (even after James was martyred), except for Judas to maintain the original number of the 12, (Acts 1:15ff; Rv. 21:14) and which was by an OT method Rome has never used, her so-called successors fail of both the requirements (Acts 1:21,22, 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:12) and attestation of Biblical apostles, (2Cor. 6:4-10; 12:12) while calling for an even greater degree of submission.
"...not those which express amorphous oral tradition,"
This is tendentious language. I did not defend "amorphous oral tradition,"
But which you must as an RC, and it is amorphous, and is where this argument for apostolic traditions leads to.
defended the transmission of the Gospel by oral preaching,
Which is fine. We engage in the same, but again it ignores the basis upon which these Truth claims were established, which was not that of Rome.
Nothing there about "skip word of mouth, skip Tradition." He specifically tells them to"maintain" and "hold to" tradition: Sacred Tradition, not merely the "traditions of men".
You are engaging in a false dilemma. We also have traditions, but they have a basis, as did the personal witness and oral teaching in the NT. And which was not that of gurus starting a new faith, but one that was the fulfillment of what was written, and established upon Scriptural substantiation, not the premise of assured ecclesiastical infallibility.
..being the historical instruments, discerners and stewards of Divine revelation means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God."
True. Substitute "The Church" for "Rome" and it will be clearer.
At least you alone actually affirmed this basis premise which is behind so much RC apologetics and doctrine. Even if it is not Scriptural, and this premise nukes the church as it began in dissent from the historical instruments, discerners and stewards of Divine revelation.
The Church was also in Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Athens, Thessalonica, etc. before a local Church was established in Rome via the preaching and letters of Peter and Paul. So the Church indeed exercised that "assuredly infallible magisterium
Again, the church began upon a OT foundation, Christ Himself establishing that, testifying to Scripture being the supreme transcendent standard it is abundantly evidence as being, while the fact that there was a church established upon the gospel, by the scriptures of the prophets and made known to all nations for the obedience of faith, does not render them being "assuredly infallible magisterium."
Being able to speak Truth, which as said, even pagans may do, does not mean they are "assuredly infallible," nor does this fir the criteria of Rome for being assuredly infallible. But it seems you are influenced by EO theology.
"However, this means that no one could even be sure that Genesis was of God, or that Elijah or John or Jesus and thus if the church itself was of God. Under the Roman model for determining and assurance of Truth, the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation must be submitted to, dissent from which renders one invalid, and which thus invalidates the church itself."
I don't see how this follows...o the Jews themselves didn't draw up an "official," "formal," "canonical list" until about 100 AD
Your conclusion is wrong based upon false premises. Whether the Jews held to a complete canon or not, you cannot deny that they were "the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation," ""because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," "to whom pertaineth the adoption.. the service of God, and the promises," having historical descent, and inheritors of the promises, sitting in the seat of Moses .
Thus consistent with Roman reasoning by which she validates herself, these should have been always submitted to, versus the common people following itinerant prophets whom they officially rejected.
As for your canonical claims,
Rabbinic Judaism recognizes as authoritative the Masoretic Text (the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible, 24 books). The first reference to a 24-book Jewish canon is found in 2 Esdras 14:45–46, which wasn't even written until a century or so after Christ's ascension into heaven.
This is misleading as the 24 equates to our 39 due to books being combined.
So the Jews themselves didn't draw up an "official," "formal," "canonical list" until about 100 AD. That doesn't mean that they were, previous to 100 AD, bereft of any notion of what constituted Scripture.
This is misleading as the fact is that they never are shown disputing the many books the Lord and apostles preached from, even as Paul " expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening." (Acts 28:23) And in Scripture the Law can include at least Psalms Proverbs (see here .)
Thus it is evident that at least much of OT writings were established as being of God by them, and the Lord only affirmed the Scribes and Pharisees as being the magisterium, of whom it is understood by many to have held to a 22(=39) book tripartite canon (Josephus, etc.), and inferred in Lk. 24:44 as the Law, Prophets and the Psalms (Writings), and as said, in Scripture the Law can include at least Psalms Proverbs.
So when the Jews "formalized" their adherence to the Masoretic texts alone ---and no others ---as a closed canon, they did it wrong. (From a Christian point of view.)
Obviously they rejected the NT, as this was in conflict with their heritage as they saw it, yet that they rejected the Deuterocanonicals on that basis is a dubious claim, as the Christian faith is hardly dependent on them, versus a book such as Isaiah.
And this is the central crisis of the NT: the failure of the Scribes and other authorities to recognize that Jesus was the Christ.
Despite being the magisterium and other things RCs invoke as mandating submission to her.
This necessitated the founding of a new Magisterium, which would correctly proclaim the truths of both Old and New Covenant.
False.A perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium is never promised or necessary. Even in Hebrews which teaches of the "better" covenant, promises, sacrifices and priesthood (Christ), there is no mention of an infallible magisterium. Instead, as usual, believers are directly addressed, or Scripturally based teachings are otherwise enjoined. And Truth was provided, discerned, established and and preserved, even if among a relative remnant, as usual, all without an infallible magisterium.
Instead what the Scripture teaches is that submission to all authority of men is always conditional, and when men presume a level of veracity "above that which is written," as the Scribes and Pharisees did, teaching for doctrines the commandments and traditions of men, which the Lord reproved by Scripture as supreme, then what is clear in Scripture is to be followed.
The idea that "The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true,” t
hat "Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law,"
that “He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips,” t
hat "the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors,"
and that “All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else,”
thus objectively examining the Scripture in order to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching is a mark of unfaithfulness, forbidding her children...to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question, is a mark of a cult, not the NT church.
And what this means is that the church is forced to continually manifest that it is the church of the living, not institutionalized God, and that claims to apostolic authority and expectations of the manner of limited Biblical unity seen under that must manifest the correspondent degree of attestation that they did.
"But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses...By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left," (2 Corinthians 6:4,7)
"Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds." (2 Corinthians 12:12)
"But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power." "For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power." (1 Corinthians 4:19-20)
As this is lacking, so is the degree of NT unity, and a false means of unity is employed, that of sola ecclesia, which Rome and cults work out of, and thus it is among the latter that the greatest degree of unity is seen - heading to Hell.
As Jesus said to the 70 select men he sent out to preach, (John 10:16) "Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the One who sent me.” This is what magisterium means: the men whom God appoints ("He has appointed teachers") to teach with authorization from Christ.
All the church went everywhere preaching word in Acts 8:4, except the apostles, as all are called to shared Christ, and be "ready to give an answer for the hope. " And thus "Whoever listens to you listens to me..." applies to all believers insofar as they preach a Scriptural message. Yet RCs imagine this does not apply to evangelicals, when in reality they are the ones preaching the gospel which sees souls having their hearts purified by faith, and manifesting it in the world.
God appointed teaching authority = Sacred Magisterium
Which does not translate into the Roman hierarchy or assured infallibility.
Glad to know that you consider yourself a "conservative Baptacostal." That still doesn't explain why you accept the Anglican Canon and not the Jewish Canon and not the Catholic or Orthodox Canon.
On the same basis that the apostles accepted Isaiah as well as Christ as of God, that being i see them both as possessing Divine qualities and attestation. You yourself must appeal to evidences in seeking to bring souls to submit to Rome, but it means that after they do then they are to reject that means of determining Truth, even though that means brought them to submit to her.
But this means requires sufficient Scriptural substantiation , and it is much easier to call for implicit assent of faith and of mind and will based upon the premise of assured ecclesiastical veracity.
Now its time for bed.
Great post.
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.