Biblical understanding

donadams

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2022
Messages
144
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Please allow me to take advantage of you’re wisdom and insight in scripture?

why do some verses include the OT reference and other dont?

examples:

Matt 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Acts 1:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

But acts 2:39 says “this promise” without any refer to the OT where God made the promise?


what is implied by the word “behold” in the beginning of a verse ?

also truly truly?

can one verse cancel another?
often the case with Mk 16:16
The second part of the verse is used to wipe away the first oart

Can a verse be re-written to accommodate a pet doctrine?
Often the case with Jn 3:5
Born again of water and the spirit often are said to mean born of water born again of the spirit


thanks much
 

donadams

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2022
Messages
144
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Where is it written?

Matthew 4:4
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by breadalone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
 

Origen

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
817
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Where is it written?

Matthew 4:4
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by breadalone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Deut. 8:3
 

1689Dave

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2022
Messages
1,871
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
The Bible is nothing more than a Roarasach Test for many. They do not learn from it but hunt prooftexts to support what they've been indoctrinated with. The Dispensationalists are the worst offenders. They cut and paste scripture removed from the entire bible, and reassemble it into a different modern-day context to make current headlines fulfill prophecy. I have this admission in writing by a popular Dispensationalist writer.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,194
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The Bible is nothing more than a Roarasach Test for many. They do not learn from it but hunt prooftexts to support what they've been indoctrinated with. The Dispensationalists are the worst offenders. They cut and paste scripture removed from the entire bible, and reassemble it into a different modern-day context to make current headlines fulfill prophecy. I have this admission in writing by a popular Dispensationalist writer.
Reading the bible is both easy and natural as well as difficult and fraught with obscurity.

It is an ancient book and written by people whose culture is quite different from our own in many ways. There is also a lot that we have in common.

But the original post is asking a fairly clear question.
why do some verses include the OT reference and other don't?
I am reading that question as asking Why do New testament writers sometimes give an attribution to Old Testament passages that they quote in their work and sometimes give no attribution to any specific Old Testament passages?

I think that the answer is sometimes the New testament writer remembers which Author wrote a specific passage and sometimes the New Testament writer may recall less detail because the passage he recalls was in the scroll that contained, for example, the twelve minor prophets, and he doesn't exactly recall which of the twelve wrote it. There's also some New Testament passages that quote from the Old Testament without bothering to say where the quote comes from. An example of giving no specific attribution is seen in Hebrews chapters one and two.
For to which of the Angels has he ever said: "You are my Son; today have I begotten you?" Or again: "I will be a Father to him, and he shall be a Son to me?"​
Hebrews 1:5​

But someone, in a certain place, has testified, saying: "What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the Son of man, that you visit him?​
Hebrews 2:6​
In these cases the readers could search the passages out for themselves, and if the readers were Jewish they would be likely to know where the quotes come from.
 

1689Dave

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2022
Messages
1,871
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
“Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,” Luke 24:45 (KJV 1900)

This is tricky. I found that God sometimes places me in situations that open the word to me. Not to be understood otherwise. It was a supernatural revelation of Limited Atonement, under the worst possible circumstances when He wrote it indelibly on my heart. Other times it is a careful study to find answers to knawing questions I have.
 
Last edited:

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
@donadams


IMO,

There are two primary problems:


And these are interrelated and interconnected.

1. Egoism. Individualism. Some are convinced that the Bible is their own personal possession; God wrote it for self and gave it to self. They think Jesus' promise that the Holy Spirit will lead us to all truth is a promise given exclusively to them - individually (the "you" in the text is self). Thus, SELF appoints SELF to read, interpret and apply Scripture. "God told ME" is a favorite expression. "Self" here CAN mean a church or denomination (that happens too) but primarily an individual person. They even can appoint SELF to ask questions of SELF and designate SELF as the one to answer that question, using that answer as the source and norm for theology (submitting the words of God to that). Luther said, "Humility is the foundation of all sound theology." Luther insists that God gives the Bible to US (collectively) and the Holy Spirit leads US (collectively). Thus, he gave a large role to the ecumenical historic faith of the people; "Tradition" in the sense of how all God's people have understood this. But as St. Augustine said, "pride is the foundation of all sin."

2. Non-Submission to the Word. The words of the Bible are objective. Anyone who can read KNOWS what the words are. Now, at times, words can have several meanings (see #1 above) but often, that's not the problem. They just disagree with the words. IF those words are true, then God is wrong - and that's unthinkable. Sinful, fallen humans tend to think they are smarter than God; that God must be submissive to them. They'll read something and immediately react, "That cannot be true!" and so appoint self (see #1 above) to correct God (so that He's not wrong). They may need to add "NOT" to a lot of texts so that the words are now correct. They may need to delete a key (but wrong) word God put there, or ADD a word God that entirely changes the text so that God has been corrected. "This is my body" is wrong, it must be changed to "This is not my body but a mere symbol of that."


Now, I do not claim that Scripture is always easy! God's ways are not our ways. God knows more about God than we do. There are cultural issues; God sometimes uses figures of speech. We can find Scriptures that clearly teach things that don't "fit" (even that seem to contradict each other) - sometimes it's a Law/Gospel distinction, or a Justification/Sanctification issue, and sometimes it's just a mystery - both are fully true, we just don't know how.

BUT, I think it wise to 1) Believe God is not lying with the literal, verbatim words He states. 2) We should look first to the WORDS on the page, subjecting our thoughts to those words - even if we are amazed or don't understand. 3) Look first of all to the historic, ecumenical faith of all God's people, the whole Body of Christ, since God promises leadership and teaching to IT (not me); the whole church CAN be wrong but the "burden of proof" rests squarely with those who insist all Christians have always been wrong about this, CLEAR proof of that. When I read some new opinion, I first ask "Is that what the Bible STATES?" And then, "Is this what Christians have always believed?" I don't assume Scripture is wrong or that the Holy Spirit forgot to teach this before and now selected one person to get this teaching.





.
 
Last edited:

1689Dave

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2022
Messages
1,871
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
IMO,

There are two primary problems:


And these are interrelated and interconnected.

1. Egoism. Individualism. Some are convinced that the Bible is their own personal possession; God wrote it for self and gave it to self. They think Jesus' promise that the Holy Spirit will lead us to all truth is a promise given exclusively to them - individually (the "you" in the text is self). Thus, SELF appoints SELF to read, interpret and apply Scripture. "God told ME" is a favorite expression. "Self" here CAN mean a church or denomination (that happens too) but primarily an individual person. They even can appoint SELF to ask questions of SELF and designate SELF as the one to answer that question, using that answer as the source and norm for theology (submitting the words of God to that). Luther said, "Humility is the foundation of all sound theology." Luther insists that God gives the Bible to US (collectively) and the Holy Spirit leads US (collectively). Thus, he gave a large role to the ecumenical historic faith of the people; "Tradition" in the sense of how all God's people have understood this. But as St. Augustine said, "pride is the foundation of all sin."

2. Non-Submission to the Word. The words of the Bible are objective. Anyone who can read KNOWS what the words are. Now, at times, words can have several meanings (see #1 above) but often, that's not the problem. They just disagree with the words. IF those words are true, then God is wrong - and that's unthinkable. Sinful, fallen humans tend to think they are smarter than God; that God must be submissive to them. They'll read something and immediately react, "That cannot be true!" and so appoint self (see #1 above) to correct God (so that He's not wrong). They may need to add "NOT" to a lot of texts so that the words are now correct. They may need to delete a key (but wrong) word God put there, or ADD a word God that entirely changes the text so that God has been corrected. "This is my body" is wrong, it must be changed to "This is not my body but a mere symbol of that."


Now, I do not claim that Scripture is always easy! God's ways are not our ways. God knows more about God than we do. There are cultural issues; God sometimes uses figures of speech. We can find Scriptures that clearly teach things that don't "fit" (even that seem to contradict each other) - sometimes it's a Law/Gospel distinction, or a Justification/Sanctification issue, and sometimes it's just a mystery - both are fully true, we just don't know how.

BUT, I think it wise to 1) Believe God is not lying with the literal, verbatim words He states. 2) We should look first to the WORDS on the page, subjecting our thoughts to those words - even if we are amazed or don't understand. 3) Look first of all to the historic, ecumenical faith of all God's people, the whole Body of Christ, since God promises leadership and teaching to IT (not me); the whole church CAN be wrong but the "burden of proof" rests squarely with those who insist all Christians have always been wrong about this, CLEAR proof of that. When I read some new opinion, I first ask "Is that what the Bible STATES?" And then, "Is this what Christians have always believed?" I don't assume Scripture is wrong or that the Holy Spirit forgot to teach this before and now selected one person to get this teaching.





.
Is it a matter of reading our faults into others and assuming their motives are the same as ours?
 

donadams

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2022
Messages
144
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
What do we make of those who are
Changing the Bible to fit a doctrine?

“Changing scripture”

Jn 3:5

Born of water born again by the spirit

Jn 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Actually says: born again: by water and the spirit!

“Changing scripture”

Jn 3:22

The immediately went to Jerusalem and preached “accept Christ as your personal Lord and savior” or pray the sinners prayer, or give you’re heart to Christ or what ever is popular these days.

Actually says: Jn 3:22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

“Changing the meaning of scripture”

The second part of the verse erases the first part!

Never says a man can be saved without faith & baptism!

Never says believing saves you!

Actually says: Mk 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

“Adding and subtracting scripture”

Wives submit to you’re husbands

Actually says: Ephesians 5:22
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
What do we make of those who are
Changing the Bible to fit a doctrine?
We don't approve of that.

Not any more than keeping the wording as it stands but altering the meaning to have it fit some doctrine.
 

donadams

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2022
Messages
144
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It is not biblical!

Your side claims it is biblical, but it ain’t biblical!

There are many verses in opposition to it!

So it not biblical!

Does not matter what you argue, it is simply not biblical!
 

donadams

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2022
Messages
144
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
How is a biblical conflict solved?

Two honest and upright Christians reading a verse of scripture and holding opposing views as to its meaning:

Is one more valid and orthodox or authoritative than the other?

How is this conflict resolved so all parties can come to a biblical understanding and have a true and correct faith?

Examples:

Mk 16:16 only faith is required for salvation.
Mk 16:16 faith and baptism are required for salvation.

Jn 3:5 imply’s a spiritual baptism.
Jn 3:5 imply’s water baptism.

Matt 16:18 Peter’s confess is the rock upon which Christ builds His church.
Matt 16:18 Peter’s person is the rock upon which Christ builds His church.

Acts 8:36-38 salvation by faith, then the ordinance and public profession of faith by water baptism.
Acts 8:36-38 faith and baptism.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Why are you so agitated? Most of the controversies arising from Bible verses are mistakes in the reading and others are a matter of interpretation. For them, there is a resolution if the rest of Scripture--not just that one line or verse such as you have presented in your post--is consulted.

On the other hand, your post #11 seems to be saying to me that you will simply choose whichever meaning you like best and then condemn everyone else who doesn't agree with you.
 

donadams

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2022
Messages
144
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Why are you so agitated? Most of the controversies arising from Bible verses are mistakes in the reading and others are a matter of interpretation. For them, there is a resolution if the rest of Scripture--not just that one line or verse such as you have presented in your post--is consulted.

On the other hand, your post #11 seems to be saying to me that you will simply choose whichever meaning you like best and then condemn everyone else who doesn't agree with you.
What is the “it”?

that post was an experiment to see who would assume they know what the “it” is!

like they do with the “it” in
John 19:30
When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

“It” is not the finished work of Christ as some claim!

the “it” of Jn 19:30 is the Passover sacrifice!
  1. Luke 22:15
    And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passoverwith you before I suffer:

  2. John 13:1
    Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.
  3. 1 Corinthians 5:6-8
    Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.


  4. “It is finished” are the words the high priest is to say at the consummation of the Passover sacrifice!
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
@donadams


I find it curious (as a former Catholic) that you seem SO concerned with what is true AND that you insist on Sola Scriptura (which your church repudiates).


Begin by reading post #7. Then this.



I agree with you that error CAN happen (one reason why I left your church). And that DOES raise the issue of how to resolve such. Dispute has been a constant among Christians (we see it all over the NT itself), disputes where at least one "side" is very likely wrong (and maybe both). How should this dispute be resolved?

You haven't shown that you read responses to things you raise (especially if the response is not extremely short/easy or simply affirming the claims of your church for itself). But it IS a very important topic and so I'll spend a little time on it even though I doubt you'll read or consider it.


The issue you raise is a part of epistemology. Did you study this in a philosophy class in college? Many of us here have. Epistemology of course is the study of how we know, including how we know what is true and how we resolve disputes about that.

There are many approaches to this. But I'll summarize two that are common in contemporary Christianity (at least in theory).

The Authoritative Approach. Someone is an infallible Authority. Someone just KNOWS and what they say is true BECAUSE OF WHO SAYS IT. It is correct because the one holding the position is an infallible Authority. This "Someone" can be a person, small group of people (The Apostles, The Council of Twelve) or the leadership of some church (The Pope, the College of Patriarchs, etc.) This was a very common approach in the Western part of the Roman Empire and remained so until the Renaissance in the West. Look for The Authority, accept "with docility" whatever that One says. This is the epistemology of The Catholic Church (see CCC 85, 87, etc.). It is also the episteology of the LDS, JW and pretty much all the cults (not that the RCC is a cult, but it does share the same Authoritative approach here). The Catholic Church insists that there is ONE who is Authoritative and infallible (even essentially equating itself with Christ), and that ONE is uniquely and solely itself. The Catholic Church insists this Authority is simply itself. "Docilicly swallow whatever I say, because I tell you to." IF one accepts the one who claims that as correct, then this approach makes sense. Critics of course will note this is pure circular reasoning and that IF such a ONE exists, it needs to point to that claim entirely OUTSIDE itself (but the RCC simply points to its own claims for its own self; Scripture nowhere mentions it for anything and none of the Seven Ecumenical Councils state that it uniquely is infallible).

The Normative Approach. There is some Authority OUTSIDE of all the parties involved, something objective to which all are subject. This approach, common in the Greek and Eastern part of the Empire, became widespread after the Renaissance. The whole concept of the Rule of Law flows from this. In Christianity, this Norm is Scripture, the words of the Bible, those black-and-white things on the page. Jesus Himself used this; He never said "Docilicly accept whatever I say because I'm saying it" (CCC 85, 87, etc.) He pointed to Scripture (dozens of times) and to other things outside of him (especially His miracles and resurrection); Jesus embracing the epistemology common in the East and among the Jews. In Protestantism, this is called "The Rule of Scripture" (or "Sola Scriptura" as Luther called it). I'll put a link below to the epistemology of the Rule of Scripture.

But the "problem" is not just in what Authority one points to (Self or Scripture in our case). But often in the arbitration. And here we have a problem. In the Early Church, there was an "answer" here (albeit a flawed one): The Ecumenical Councils. This is the same arbitration method used in the Rule of Law, if there is a dispute as to the Law and any violations to it, it goes to Court - a trial will happen, a court will decide - and yes, that arbitration isn't always correct, it's not infallible. The Early Church (dominated by the Greek East) did the same. Arbitration will happen in an Ecumenical Council. All the bishops (East and West) will determine which "side" in the debate is in conformity to the Scriptures. The first 3 or 4 when surprisingly well!! The next 3-4 less so. But the whole approach completely failed and after 800 or so, there was no Ecumenical Council but each church/denomination simply held their OWN individual council for their own self, which means there ceased to be any means to resolve disagreements. Luther repeatedly said he'd submit all his veiws to an Ecumenical Council even while acknowledging that such councils CAN be wrong, he nonetheless insisted he'd totally submit to its conclusion. But there had not been an Ecumenical Council for over 700 years so everyone realized conducting a Council would be very difficult (it never happened.... it still hasn't happened). Yes, the RCC itself held a Council for it itself on these matters (The Council of Trent) but it was the antithesis of Ecumenical; only bishops belonging to the RCC were invited and voted.

SO, in reality, neither of the above approaches actually resolves much in some ecumenical, pan-Christian way. The Normative Approach is FAR better and CAN be very helpful, but without any means for ecumenical arbitration, it ultimately doesn't resolve things across Christianity. The Authoritative Approach just leads to ever-enlarging egos and ever-increasing shouts of "I can't be wrong so I can't be wrong when I say I can't be wrong so I can't be wrong so just swallow whole whatever I say cuz I can't be wrong."


Some resources (although I doubt you'll read or consider them)

Here is an explanation of Sola Scripture (the Normative Rule applied to Christianity):


A more general discussion of Christian epistemology and how this impacted the Reformation:



.
 
Last edited:

donadams

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2022
Messages
144
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
@donadams


I find it curious (as a former Catholic) that you seem SO concerned with what is true AND that you insist on Sola Scriptura (which your church repudiates).
I don’t have a church, only Jesus has authority to found the church!
Paul says to be all things to all people so when doing apologetics I use the KJV and scripture alone for you’re benefit
I agree with you that error CAN happen (one reason why I left your church). And that DOES raise the issue of how to resolve such. Dispute has been a constant among Christians (we see it all over the NT itself), disputes where at least one "side" is very likely wrong (and maybe both). How t resolve that dispute?

You haven't shown that you read responses to things you raise (especially if the response is not extremely short/easy or simply affirming the claims of your church for itself). But it IS a very important topic and so I'll spend a little time on it even though I doubt you'll read or consider it.

The issue you raise is a part of epistemology. Did you study this in a philosophy class in college? Many of us here have. Epistemology of course is the study of how we know, including how we know what is true and how we resolve disputes about that.

There are many approaches to this. But I'll summarize two that are common in contemporary Christianity (at least in theory).

The Authoritative Approach. Someone is an infallible Authority. Someone just KNOWS and what they say is true BECAUSE OF WHO SAYS IT. It is correct because the one holding the position is an infallible Authority. This was a very common approach in the Western part of the Roman Empire and remained so until the Renaissance in the West. Look for the Authority, accept with docility what that person says. This is the epistemology of The Catholic Church (see CCC 85, 87, etc.). It is also the episteology of the LDS, JW and pretty much all the cults (not that the RCC is a cult, but it does share the same Authoritative approach here). The Catholic Church insists that there is ONE who is Authoritative and infallible (even essentially equating itself with Christ), and that ONE is uniquely and solely itself. The Catholic Church insists that Authority is simply itself. "Docilicly swallow whatever I say, because I tell you to." IF one accepts the one who claims that as correct, then this approach makes sense. Critics of course will note this is pure circular reasoning and that IF such a ONE exists, it needs to point to that claim entirely OUTSIDE itself (but the RCC simply points to its own claims for its own self; Scripture nowhere mentions it for anything and none of the Seven Ecumenical Councils state that it uniquely is infallible).

The Normative Approach. There is some Authority OUTSIDE of all the parties involved, something objective to which all are subject. This approach, common in the Greek and Eastern part of the Empire, became widespread after the Renaissance. The whole concept of the Rule of Law flows from this. In Christianity, this Norm is Scripture, the words of the Bible, those black-and-white things on the page. Jesus Himself used this; He never said "Docilicly accept whatever I say because I'm saying it" (CCC 85, 87, etc.) He pointed to Scripture (dozens of times) and to other things outside of him (especially His miracles and resurrection); Jesus embracing the epistemology common in the East and among the Jews. In Protestantism, this is called "The Rule of Scripture" (or "Sola Scriptura" as Luther called it). I'll put a link below to the epistemology of the Rule of Scripture.

But the "problem" is not just in what Authority one points to (Self or Scripture in our case). But often in the arbitration. And here we have a problem. In the Early Church, there was an "answer" here (albeit a flawed one): The Ecumenical Councils. This is the same arbitration method used in the Rule of Law, if there is a dispute as to the Law and any violations to it, it goes to Court - a trial will happen, a court will decide - and yes, that arbitration isn't always correct, it's not infallible. The Early Church (dominated by the Greek East) did the same. Arbitration will happen in an Ecumenical Council. All the bishops (East and West) will determine which "side" in the debate is in conformity to the Scriptures. The first 3 or 4 when surprisingly well!! The next 3-4 less so. But the whole approach completely failed and after 800 or so, there was no Ecumenical Council but each church/denomination simply held their OWN individual council for their own self, which means there ceased to be any means to resolve disagreements. Luther repeatedly said he'd submit all his veiws to an Ecumenical Council even while acknowledging that such councils CAN be wrong, he nonetheless insisted he'd totally submit to its conclusion. But there had not been an Ecumenical Council for over 700 years so everyone realized conducting a Council would be very difficult (it never happened.... it still hasn't happened). Yes, the RCC itself held a Council for it itself on these matters (The Council of Trent) but it was the antithesis of Ecumenical; only bishops belonging to the RCC were invited and voted.

SO, in reality, neither of the above approaches actually resolves much in some ecumenical, pan-Christian way. The Normative Approach is FAR better and CAN be very helpful, but without any means for ecumenical arbitration, it ultimately doesn't resolve things across Christianity.
the church is authorized and authoritative!
Christ is King and the church His kingdom!
The truth is divine, part of God and comes from God Jn 14:6 Jesus Christ embodies the truth, the truth is no something but somebody!

they are true cos God saty what is truth and correct faith & morals


Truth must be revealed by God thru Christ to His church (the apostles Jude 1:3) then must be proposed by the church, (Matt 28:19 gal 3:23) without error by the Holy Spirit! (Jn 16:13)

Christ and His church are one! (Acts 9:4 eph 5:31 Jn 15:1-5)

The evidence of true faith is humble subjection and obedience to Christ & His holy church!

The rule of faith for Christians is Jesus Christ Jn 14:6 and His church! Matt 18:17 acts 2:42 1 Tim 3:15

True Christians cannot listen to the errors of excommunicated heretics, but we listen faithfully to Christ, in the bosom of holy mother church, the only ark of salvation!
1 pet 3:20-21 matt 18:17 matt 16:18-19 matt 28:19-20 Jn 16:13 Jn 20:21-23

2 Thessalonians 1:8
In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:




Truth must be revealed by God thru Christ to His church (the apostles Jude 1:3) then must be proposed by the church, (Matt 28:19 gal 3:23) without error by the Holy Spirit! (Jn 16:13)

Christ and His church are one! (Acts 9:4 eph 5:31 Jn 15:1-5)

Rejection of the one true church or its teaching is rejection of Christ and God!

Christ and His church are one! Acts 9:4 eph 5:32 Jn 8:12 & Matt 5:14

This Apostolic Church never turned from the way of truth nor held any kind of error. It is imperative that nothing of the truths which have been defined be lessened, nothing altered, nothing added, but that they be preserved intact in word and meaning. This is the true rule of faith. Pope Agatho

God does not reveal His truth in a vacuum!

God does not set His true adrift on a sea of spiritual anarchy!

God sets His truth in His church, in the possession of His apostles to safeguard, to ensure it is not added to, or taken away from, or changed in any way!

And to teach the same truth to all nations and all ages!

Verified by scripture:

Matthew 24:35
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Matt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost!

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints!

2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness!
(all scripture not 66 books alone)

Must be instructed in the faith:

Lk 1:4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Matt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations…

Jn 29:21-23 as the father sent me, so I send you. (Same mission, power, and authority to teach all nations)

Lk 10:16 He who hears you, (His apostles) hear me.

Jn 13:20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

Jn 8:32 You (the apostles) shall know the truth; and the truth shall make you free.

Jn 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
(His apostles)


The whole purpose for the church of Jesus Christ is to teach all nations the truths revealed by Christ, with the sanctification and the salvation of souls! Matt 28:19

Just cos I don’t respond to every point does not mean I don’t read them, I appreciate you’re time and effort we all have wisdom and insight to share, that’s the whole point of a forum, free and open exchange of ideas thanks
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
@donadams as you yourself prove....

Scripture never mentions your church.
Scripture never promises anything to your church.
Scripture never authorizes anything to your church.
Scripture never exempts your church from anything.


The Catholic Church makes ENORMOUS claims for ITSELF. And based on that, tells you to "docilicly" accept all of it. And you do. It's what makes you a Catholic. CCC 87, etc. But all these claims come from just itself. I think we all know that. You can choose to submit to all this - and no one here would deprive you of that - but it is what it is, a church CLAIMING much for it itself (with nothing but it itself to point to for this) and you "docilicly" going along. This has little to do with understanding Scripture and obviously is antithetical to resolving conflict and to the whole church.




.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I don’t have a church, only Jesus has authority to found the church!

Are you saying that you ARE, in fact, a Roman Catholic but take exception to the wording ("have a church")?

Truth must be revealed by God thru Christ to His church (the apostles Jude 1:3) then must be proposed by the church, (Matt 28:19 gal 3:23) without error by the Holy Spirit! (Jn 16:13)
In practice, what does this mean...or how does it work?

The evidence of true faith is humble subjection and obedience to Christ & His holy church!

The rule of faith for Christians is Jesus Christ Jn 14:6 and His church! Matt 18:17 acts 2:42 1 Tim 3:15
Meaning what in practice? What does humble subjection [sic] mean in real life; and what exactly are you referring to when you say "His holy church?" If it is a reference to something above the institutional church, I suppose that members of almost every Christian denomination would say that they agree!
This Apostolic Church never turned from the way of truth nor held any kind of error. It is imperative that nothing of the truths which have been defined be lessened, nothing altered, nothing added, but that they be preserved intact in word and meaning. This is the true rule of faith. Pope Agatho
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
@donadams as you yourself prove....

Scripture never mentions your church.
Scripture never promises anything to your church.
Scripture never authorizes anything to your church.
Scripture never exempts your church from anything.


The Catholic Church makes ENORMOUS claims for ITSELF.
Well, that's certainly true, whether or not anybody thinks that the Roman Catholic Church is the one that's truest to the original faith and to Christ's directives. For certain, there was no belief among the early Christians that the bishop of Rome was intended to be the sole ruler of the worldwide church of Christ.

Peter, who is claimed as the first Pope, didn't even arrive in Rome until he'd spent years as the head of the church in Antioch: he consecrated no successor in Rome; the bishops of Rome who followed didn't cite the verse in Matthew as evidence that Christ appointed Peter; and the idea of a Pope figure over the whole church was unknown until centuries later.

If continuity with the first Christian communities is a mark of the true church, the Eastern Orthodox have the best claim.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
@Albion

@donadams


Don, please READ post 7, 15 and all this BEFORE responding to any of it. Thank you!


Some points, if I may....


1. It seems are new Catholic brother @donadams has an agenda (regardless of what the thread CLAIMS to be about), and he quickly turns things (derails) to that: the infallible Authority of his church. This is not an easy subject, and some (perhaps including donadams) simply don't want to engage in it.


2. As a former Catholic (and the several other former Catholics here) I can attest, he is simply being Catholic. And I don't fault him for that. Everything in his church is MADE to rest on ONE point: Its' claim of itself that it itself is The Authority, the infallible Authority, and that all must submit to it itself "with docility" (that's the term it uses). Why? Because it claims that it itself alone IS The Authority (even in some sense the same as Jesus). Read CCC 87 for example. The RCC itself, long ago, made this the fundamental basis of itself. It has caused all - everything - to boil down to this claim of itself for itself. Donadams is just parroting that. We've all heard it MANY times. We former Catholics had it DRILLED into us practically from birth.


3. It is, obviously, PURE circular reasoning. There is, of course, NOTHING outside of itself that remotely affirms this. It is never even mentioned (at all, for anything) in Scripture or (clearly) by the earliest church fathers. Indeed, this claim of itself for itself has been one of the chief dividing points in Christianity (leading to a split in 1054 - still by far the biggest split in Christianity).


4. Critics are quick to show the PURE circular reasoning and baselessness of this. And comparing it to various cults, even the great danger in it. They may even show that this is simply to evade accountability and the issue of truth. IMO, this is too harsh. It simply reveals a common view of the western part of the Roman Empire that continued throughout the Middle Ages in the West. The RCC ran with this as hard and fully as it could, including in its struggle for power over the East. True, this epistemology largely disappeared with the Renaissance but by then, all this was made part of the dogma and "DNA" of that denomination. Few Catholics today buy it, but some do (as does our brother).


5. In all honesty, this is NOT an easy subject. It's one of the (very few) issues over which I left The Catholic Church, but I acknowledge the issue of Authority and that that's not an easy subject. I simply hold that there is a BALANCE to very carefully maintain here between Authority and Accountability. I think The Catholic Church does a poor job at that, but maybe we all do. I began a thread on this very topic here: Christianity, Authority and Individualism



Now, NONE of the above takes anything away from my esteem of the Catholic Church as one of the world's denominations. One of the very best. I think it gets a LOT very much right.


A blessed Christmas Season to all....


- Josiah




.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom