Roman Catholic and The Bible.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.

Post by steve » Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:20 am

Tom,

You wrote:
By the way, you haven't answered my question about all being guided by the Holy Spirit.
Could you locate, or restate, that question for me? I don't remember a specific question on that subject that I did not immediately answer. Did you use a question mark? If not, I might not have known you were asking me a question.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.

Post by darinhouston » Tue Mar 03, 2009 10:17 am

tom wrote: In your post you've asked many questions and made many statements that should be responded to. Can you please list the questions but list them only one at a time? Let's try to get that question answered before we start on another barrage

Thanks,
Tom
darinhouston wrote: Here's our question....

Can you confirm that the RCC has had consistent teachings in the areas Steve and I have pointed out? I can list them for you if you need me to.
Let’s try again. Let’s take them one by one. Start with this one. To progress things, a simple yes or no will suffice, though I’m happy to entertain further commentary if you prefer (as long as you answer).

Do you believe that the Roman Catholic Church has had a consistent teaching throughout the years on the eternal state of a professed believer who is outside the Roman Catholic Church and is thus not participating in Holy Communion within the Church?

tom
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:52 am

Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.

Post by tom » Tue Mar 03, 2009 10:45 pm

Steve,

You wanted me to restate my question. Here's most of the quotes. I'm sure you'll get the jest of it if you skim through it. It started with the question of clarification of sound doctrine. I don't see that it has been sufficiantly answered. Maybe it has no answer?
steve wrote:Tom,

You wrote:
I need some clarification. Is sound doctrine, teaching or is it character? You seem to be saying both. Please clarify.
Let me put it very simply: "Doctrine" is equivalent to the word "teaching." We have every reason to suspect that what Paul regarded as sound doctrine (literally, healthy teaching) was nothing else but what the apostles taught the churches. The people continued daily in the apostles' "teaching" (Acts 2:42).

Now the question is, "What was the content of the teaching of the apostles?" or, to put it another way, "What did the apostles teach the people?" Since they were the "teaching authority" of the church, I imagine that you picture them teaching doctrines about the meaning of the Eucharist, about the role of Mary as mediatrix and co-redemptrix, the doctrine of purgatory, etc.

Certainly the better answer must be that the apostles (unlike most modern preachers and priests) taught exactly what Jesus appointed that they should teach.

And what did Jesus tell them to teach? He said, "Make disciples...teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you." (Matt.28:19-20)

Thus, we can be quite certain that the apostles' teaching (or "doctrine") consisted, primarily, of telling people what Jesus commanded His disciples to do. This agrees with the general points I made above, namely, that "doctrine" is not concerned with esoteric theology, but it is practical teaching about how to live as a disciple.
As long as we are all following Jesus that's all that matters!?
What do you think the disciples in the gospels were doing, besides following Jesus? What else could possibly matter? He alone has the words of eternal life.
tom wrote:
steve wrote:
Certainly the better answer must be that the apostles (unlike most modern preachers and priests) taught exactly what Jesus appointed that they should teach.

And what did Jesus tell them to teach? He said, "Make disciples...teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you." (Matt.28:19-20)

What do you think the disciples in the gospels were doing, besides following Jesus? What else could possibly matter? He alone has the words of eternal life.
The problem is what Jesus appointed them to teach isn't all that clear. If it was, there would be no divisions among us. So the best we can say, according to you, is, "if it isn't spelled out absolutely clear by the writers of the NT every one is to do what is right in their own eyes"?

Tom
steve wrote:Tom,

What do you mean, "what Jesus appointed them to teach isn't all that clear"? He said to teach people to observe the things He commanded. He wasn't making it mysterious. You say, "If it was, there would be no divisions among us." Actually, I don't believe there are divisions among those who follow Christ. Immature Christians divide because, in their imaginations, they perceive divisions that God does not recognize. When we "grow up into Him," and "are no longer children," we will recognize that "Christ is not divided" (Eph.4:14-15/1 Cor.1:13).
So the best we can say, according to you, is, "if it isn't spelled out absolutely clear by the writers of the NT every one is to do what is right in their own eyes"?
No, that definitely is not the best we can say. There is such a thing as walking in the Spirit (Rom.8:4/ Gal.5:16), which includes being led by the Spirit (Rom.8:14). This is what we must do at times when things are not spelled out in detail in scripture, as well as when they are. The role of the Spirit in the Christian life seems to be the primary omission in your understanding of Christianity. This is why, whenever I have shown you 1 John 2:27, which says that the Holy Spirit teaches us and makes it unnecessary for us to have any other teaching authority doing our thinking for us, you always ignore it completely. Have you, perhaps, missed the one dimension of the Christian life that actually defines Christian life? Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty (2 Cor.3:17). Where the Spirit is not, there is institutional religion.
tom wrote:
steve wrote:Tom,

You wrote:
I need some clarification. Is sound doctrine, teaching or is it character? You seem to be saying both. Please clarify.
Let me put it very simply: "Doctrine" is equivalent to the word "teaching." We have every reason to suspect that what Paul regarded as sound doctrine (literally, healthy teaching) was nothing else but what the apostles taught the churches. The people continued daily in the apostles' "teaching" (Acts 2:42).

Now the question is, "What was the content of the teaching of the apostles?" or, to put it another way, "What did the apostles teach the people?" Since they were the "teaching authority" of the church, I imagine that you picture them teaching doctrines about the meaning of the Eucharist, about the role of Mary as mediatrix and co-redemptrix, the doctrine of purgatory, etc.

Certainly the better answer must be that the apostles (unlike most modern preachers and priests) taught exactly what Jesus appointed that they should teach.

And what did Jesus tell them to teach? He said, "Make disciples...teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you." (Matt.28:19-20)

Thus, we can be quite certain that the apostles' teaching (or "doctrine") consisted, primarily, of telling people what Jesus commanded His disciples to do. This agrees with the general points I made above, namely, that "doctrine" is not concerned with esoteric theology, but it is practical teaching about how to live as a disciple.
As long as we are all following Jesus that's all that matters!?
What do you think the disciples in the gospels were doing, besides following Jesus? What else could possibly matter? He alone has the words of eternal life.
Steve, you seem, to me anyway, to be going around in circles. You say that "Doctrine" is equivalent to the word "teaching.". And "The people continued daily in the apostles' "teaching" (Acts 2:42).". "What did the apostles teach the people?", " the better answer must be that the apostles taught exactly what Jesus appointed that they should teach.". "And what did Jesus tell them to teach? He said, "Make disciples...teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you." (Matt.28:19-20)".

So the way I see your statement is; Doctrine is the teaching of the Apostles that were appointed by Jesus to teach all the things that He has commanded which is the doctrine He taught them. Maybe your doctrine and mine are something different. I see doctrine as what you have explained and also that of Acts 15.

Tom
steve wrote:Hi Tom,

We missed you Saturday night, in Salinas! See you next time?

You wrote:
Can you imagine if every U.S. citizen were to read and interpret the U.S. Constitution for themselves?
This would not be a problem, if every citizen had the Constitution's author living in his or her head. As I have said before, you and popeman do not understand what we are saying because we are taking for granted the biblical teaching about the role of the Holy Spirit in the believers.
tom wrote:
steve wrote:Hi Tom,

We missed you Saturday night, in Salinas! See you next time?

You wrote:
Can you imagine if every U.S. citizen were to read and interpret the U.S. Constitution for themselves?
This would not be a problem, if every citizen had the Constitution's author living in his or her head. As I have said before, you and popeman do not understand what we are saying because we are taking for granted the biblical teaching about the role of the Holy Spirit in the believers.

This is where popeman and I get lost. If the Holy Spirit is in the head of all true Christians then the Holy Spirit must be schizophrenic. How come you and Martin Luther don't agree on many of the doctrines of Christianity? We are all lead by the same Holy Spirit right?


Tom
steve wrote:Hi Tom,

You wrote:
If the Holy Spirit is in the head of all true Christians then the Holy Spirit must be schizophrenic. How come you and Martin Luther don't agree on many of the doctrines of Christianity? We are all lead by the same Holy Spirit right?
Is it your intention to cast doubt on what Jesus and the apostles promised about the Holy Spirit's teaching the believers? I am interested in knowing what you believe the passages I have quoted about this actually mean (e.g. Matt.23:8/ John 16:13/ Eph.1:17-18/ 1 John 2:27).

In answer to your question: not all students under the same teacher learn the same amount or at the same speed. There is one teacher of all Christians, but not all Christians are equally teachable or conscientious in their studies.
tom wrote:
steve wrote:Hi Tom,

You wrote:
If the Holy Spirit is in the head of all true Christians then the Holy Spirit must be schizophrenic. How come you and Martin Luther don't agree on many of the doctrines of Christianity? We are all lead by the same Holy Spirit right?
Is it your intention to cast doubt on what Jesus and the apostles promised about the Holy Spirit's teaching the believers? I am interested in knowing what you believe the passages I have quoted about this actually mean (e.g. Matt.23:8/ John 16:13/ Eph.1:17-18/ 1 John 2:27).

In answer to your question: not all students under the same teacher learn the same amount or at the same speed. There is one teacher of all Christians, but not all Christians are equally teachable or conscientious in their studies.
Steve,

Luther and Gregg have the "spirit of wisdom and revelation" it's just a matter of the Holy Spirit giving only so much wisdom and revelation to only certain Christians? If you're saying that Luther didn't come to the Truth because he didn't learn as well as you, (because you must think you're right and have come to the Truth), or didn't meditate long enough on doctrine that you and he disagree. I would have to say maybe you haven't meditated long enough on doctrine as the Catholic Church has for 2000 years. As far as I know the RCC has never changed a Doctrine in all that time.

As I have said on "The Narrow Path" you will never know if you have the Truth. And even if you do come to the Truth you may not even know it! Everyone did what was right in their own eyes and you will never know if you have the Truth.

Tom

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.

Post by steve » Tue Mar 03, 2009 11:19 pm

Tom,

In the posts above, you included your questions, followed by my answers—thus demonstrating that I answered all of your questions.

After quoting my answers, you closed with two paragraphs that were statements, not questions (the first of these two paragraphs began with a sentence that had a question mark affixed, but the sentence was not a question, but as a rhetorical statement. It was not the kind of sentence that seeks an answer). I still don't know what you think remains to be answered. It seems that you simply want me to make more statements contradicting your statements. Is that it? But that's not what I do. I cannot spend my life contradicting everything I hear, but do not agree with. If you have a specific inquiry, I will always try to answer it to the best of my ability. I cannot possibly just do what some do here: negate everything with which they disagree. You have not yet grasped what it means to engage in debate. It means presenting arguments and answering challenging questions.

I have done this, as you have shown by the material you pasted into your last post. You don't agree with my answers. I don't know why you do not agree. Either you have arguments against my position (which you are reluctant to present, so that we must keep guessing what they are), or else you have no arguments—you simply object to my points because they don't agree with your church, and you can only contradict. How can any benefit be derived from a conversation of this sort?

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.

Post by darinhouston » Wed Mar 04, 2009 12:26 am

And, tom, you asked for a simple question -- I provided it to you and you have still not answered it. It is a simple question, which requires no research and requires nothing more than for you to tell me what you "think" about the subject. That will permit the discussion to continue based on my understanding of your position. Should I take from your silence that you either agree that the RCC has changed its official teachings in this regard over the years or that you just don't know? Either answer should cause you to seriously question the assertions you've made as to the supremacy of the RCC as an unchanging and infallible "authority." If, on the other hand, you believe the RCC position has been consistent over the years, then perhaps I need to do more research myself.

Can you answer? (and I did use a question mark to denote the sentence as one requesting an answer).

tom
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:52 am

Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.

Post by tom » Wed Mar 04, 2009 12:34 am

Darin,

To answer your question; "Do you believe that the Roman Catholic Church has had a consistent teaching throughout the years on the eternal state of a professed believer who is outside the Roman Catholic Church and is thus not participating in Holy Communion within the Church?"

In short, yes. But you have to understand the person outside the Church has to reject what he believes is the true Church.

"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

In Vatican II, Lumen Gentium; "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience--those too may achieve eternal salvation.

"...(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe."

Ignatius of Antioch

"Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism [i.e., is a schismatic], he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine [i.e., is a heretic], he has no part in the passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons" (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3–4:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus

"In the Church God has placed apostles, prophets, teachers, and every other working of the Spirit, of whom none of those are sharers who do not conform to the Church, but who defraud themselves of life by an evil mind and even worse way of acting. Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace" (Against Heresies 3:24:1 [A.D. 189]).

"[The spiritual man] shall also judge those who give rise to schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and so far as in them lies, destroy it—men who prate of peace while they give rise to war, and do in truth strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel. For they can bring about no ‘reformation’ of enough importance to compensate for the evil arising from their schism. . . . True knowledge is that which consists in the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place [i.e., the Catholic Church]" (ibid., 4:33:7–8).

Origen

"[T]here was never a time when God did not want men to be just; he was always concerned about that. Indeed, he always provided beings endowed with reason with occasions for practicing virtue and doing what is right. In every generation the wisdom of God descended into those souls which he found holy and made them to be prophets and friends of God" (Against Celsus 4:7 [A.D. 248]).

"If someone from this people wants to be saved, let him come into this house so that he may be able to attain his salvation. . . . Let no one, then, be persuaded otherwise, nor let anyone deceive himself: Outside of this house, that is, outside of the Church, no one is saved; for, if anyone should go out of it, he is guilty of his own death" (Homilies on Joshua 3:5 [A.D. 250]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress [a schismatic church] is separated from the promises of the Church, nor will he that forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is an alien, a worldling, and an enemy. He cannot have God for his Father who has not the Church for his mother" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 6, 1st ed. [A.D. 251]).

"Let them not think that the way of life or salvation exists for them, if they have refused to obey the bishops and priests, since the Lord says in the book of Deuteronomy: ‘And any man who has the insolence to refuse to listen to the priest or judge, whoever he may be in those days, that man shall die’ [Deut. 17:12]. And then, indeed, they were killed with the sword . . . but now the proud and insolent are killed with the sword of the Spirit, when they are cast out from the Church. For they cannot live outside, since there is only one house of God, and there can be no salvation for anyone except in the Church" (Letters 61[4]:4 [A.D. 253]).

"When we say, ‘Do you believe in eternal life and the remission of sins through the holy Church?’ we mean that remission of sins is not granted except in the Church" (ibid., 69[70]:2 [A.D. 253]).

"Peter himself, showing and vindicating the unity, has commanded and warned us that we cannot be saved except by the one only baptism of the one Church. He says, ‘In the ark of Noah a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. Similarly, baptism will in like manner save you" [1 Peter 3:20-21]. In how short and spiritual a summary has he set forth the sacrament of unity! In that baptism of the world in which its ancient wickedness was washed away, he who was not in the ark of Noah could not be saved by water. Likewise, neither can he be saved by baptism who has not been baptized in the Church which is established in the unity of the Lord according to the sacrament of the one ark" (ibid., 73[71]:11).

"[O]utside the Church there is no Holy Spirit, sound faith moreover cannot exist, not alone among heretics, but even among those who are established in schism" (Treatise on Rebaptism 10 [A.D. 256]).


Tom

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.

Post by steve » Wed Mar 04, 2009 12:46 am

So it sounds like the church fathers you quoted do contradict the words of Vatican II (which you also quoted). Yet you say the church has not changed its doctrine. How can a later statement contradicting an earlier one avoid being a "changed" position?

tom
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:52 am

Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.

Post by tom » Wed Mar 04, 2009 12:49 am

Luther and Gregg have the "spirit of wisdom and revelation" it's just a matter of the Holy Spirit giving only so much wisdom and revelation to only certain Christians? If you're saying that Luther didn't come to the Truth because he didn't learn as well as you, (because you must think you're right and have come to the Truth), or didn't meditate long enough on doctrine that you and he disagree.
Okay, the whole reason for bringing this topic up, 'I don't need the Church, the Holy Spirit guides me', is to show it's a bad choice. It makes no sense! Let me try to make it as simple as I can. You have said you don't agree on certain doctrine with other Christians. If the Holy Spirit is guide to all truth and you say that we all have to study and meditate to get to that truth. How will we know when we have the truth?

Tom

tom
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:52 am

Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.

Post by tom » Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:17 am

Steve,

To respond to your question from way back;
steve wrote:Tom,
So now that we have Homer's question answered, let's get back to Acts 15 and no one being excommunicated in the example of discipline of Matt 18. Can you see that Acts 15 is carried out from two to more and finally taking it to the Jerusalem Church? I hope you can. After all you expect me to see your view I would hope this forum is not a one way street!

2. The claim that, in Acts 15, the first two steps of Matthew 18 had been taken prior to the Jerusalem Council;

On point #2: I have not read in Acts 15, or elsewhere, that the Jerusalem Council convened as the third step of Matthew 18. I know of no place or time in which steps one and two were taken. First, who sinned, and who confronted him privately about it (step one)? Second, when were the two or three witnesses brought in to confront that same man (step two)? Finally, when was that same man brought before the church (step three)? As I read Acts 15, I can not find the slightest hint that the Council met in order to bring any person under church discipline (as would be the case if they were engaged in a Matthew 18 procedure). If I am wrong, can you identify which person that was, and when the prior two steps had been taken?

Acts 15:1"And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.""

First part (brother sins against another); men teaching false doctrine to other Christian brothers.

Acts 15:2, "Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them..."

Second part (bring one or two others); the word 'therefore', brings the prior statement into play. Paul and Barnabas confront these men.

Acts 15:2, "they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question."

Third part (take it to the Church); Paul and Barnabas are sent by the Christian community up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question to Church.

Tom

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.

Post by steve » Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:08 am

Tom,
How will we know when we have the truth?
When we have Jesus (John 14:6).

If you mean, rather, "truths"—"How will we know when our individual beliefs about things are truths, rather than errors, the answer would be that we will know this to the precise degree that we are saying the same things Jesus and the apostles said. That is the same way the early Christians knew the truths of the faith.

As for your treatment of Acts 15, I still don't see any party that was sinned against by another party confronting that person one-on-one, and then taking one or more with him. There is no suggestion that the false teachers had committed a sin against Paul, nor that Paul talked to them privately before bringing Barnabas into the dispute. Furthermore, there is no evidence that these teachers were brought up for discipline at the Jerusalem Council. Was anyone excommunicated (which is what step three would have resulted in)? Tom, your parallels are desperate.

Post Reply

Return to “Roman Catholicism”