jlay wrote:Geisler brings up some good points.
I have several issues with the institutional Catholic church, but I also have many with protestants. And I'm not particularly interested in just taking shots at the RCC. In fact, I'd say that better than 50% of protestants (based on their beliefs) would be better served by reconnecting to the RCC.
-Boasting on the approval of the canon. This one just never made sense too me. We already know that God inspired scripture even while Israel was in captivity in Babylon. God used an apostate Israel for a thousand years, and yet we don't seek out Jews today or praise them for the OT canon. The fact that the catholic institution played a role in 'authenticating' the canon, doesn't carry much weight with me. Certainly the Catholic church played a critical part, but what does that mean? Israel was used, and look at its history. Sticking that in my face as a proof, actually has the opposite effect. It shows pride and trust in institutions much like the Pharisees that Jesus rebuked.
Papal lineage- Geneologies were important for the Old Covenant. We know that as they reference them often. After the cross, this kind of thinking is discouraged and not held in authority. (Titus 3:9)
What is even more of a problem is that the NT clearly shows a shift from the Jewish ministry of Peter to the Gentile ministry of Paul. Paul, by office, and by writing is by far the Apostle who was called by Christ to instruct the believer for today. This is even endorsed by Peter himself.
Finally, the early church fathers obviously got a lot of things right. But we also know they got a lot of things wrong. Even prior, the majority of Paul's letters were written to correct error. In fact Paul corrects Peter. But even that said, I don't see Ignatius quotes as supporting the bread and wine as actually physically becoming real skin and blood. What I do see is that hundreds of years later some started reading into thes words of the early church fathers the presuppositions they already held. Presuppositions ingrained through the shift of encorporating pagan traditions into the church over a long period of time.
bippy123 wrote:All Christian appologetics have used the apostolic fathers to show that the early Christians believed in the divinity of Christ, but some evangelical apologists suddenly become allergic to their teachings when it came to things like the eucharist, the hierchial structure of the church among other things.
Yes, but there is a difference. The scripture itself speaks to this truth. So, we see the early church confirming what is also evident in the scripture. Is this so with the eucharist? Not even close. The quote from Augustine, which really wasn't early, paints a picture that I doesn't seem to hold to transbustantiation. I hope you understand that he is often sited by Protestants when it comes to arguing against this.
Jesus meant this literally and not figuratively, and this is also why in the bible many of Christs followers left him because they couldn't understand how someone could eat the flesh of another , but his 12 stayed with him for as they said, his are the only words of eternal life.
They couldn't understand his teaching. They THOUGHT He was being literal, when He was speaking figuratively. That doesn't even hold to the context of the actual supper. Much like when He spoke to Nicodemus about being born again. We know that Nic took it to mean a literal, physical birth, which it wasn't. Next, Jesus was not yet dead. He offered the bread and wine as evidence of the new covenant, which He would soon ratify at His crucifixion. "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you." Even the way Jesus had already referred to "cup" symbolically totally blows that argument out of the water.
I am amazed that people think physically injesting actual blood and flesh has anything to do with what Christ's was teaching and illustrating. But it does show the power of religious tradition.
Jlay I cited augustine as an additional source. You did not answer my quotes on ignatius who clearly is speaking of the eucharist being the flesh of our lord and savior Jesus Christ, and Justin Martyr. I provided these 2 because they were very early on. I understand that Augustine spoke in metaphors also when he spoke about the eucharist, but I can also speak of it that way. It doesn't negate the physical meaning of it. When Augustine said Jesus held himself in his own hands he literally meant this as it is plain to see when reading the whole verse.
Again ignatius of Antioch spoke of the eucharist being the flesh of Christ only when the eucharist is performed under the bishop or someone under the bishop. Protestants can't escape this because ignatius was taught at the feet of John the post ls. Now the challenge for you jlay is to find me just one apostlic father who disagree with ignatius and called this belief a heresy. If you can't then it is pretty clear from the earliest Christian believes that the Eucharist was the flesh and blood of our lord. Ignatius didn't call it the bread of immortality for the heck of it.
Instead of being condemned it is actually being confirmed by Justin Marty and others down the line.
Of course if you wanna interprete things personally you can deny almost anything in the bible ad make it sound to your own personal beliefs. Don't Mormons and jehovas witnesses have their own interpretations also.
The power to bind and loose wasnt given to every Tom and Harry , Jesus gave that authority to Peter and the apostles, and contrary to what Protestants believe, Jesus commissioned the apostles to preach the good news, not wrote a book.the bible even says that if all that Jesus had done were to be written down we won't have enough books to hold them.
The early Christians believed in sacrad tradition and sacrad scripture , not sola scriptura alone.
The original bible wasnt put together until the early 5 century Jlay, what did the early Christians do in the meantime ?
They developed doctrine . There was also many disagreements over what belonged in the bible and what didnt belong in the bible. Who finally decided what belonged in the bible?
It was no other Church then the Catholic Church , the original Church of Christ.
Christ understood that personal interpretation of Scripture would lead to chaos, and that is why he left us one holy and apostolic church and gave her the power to bind and loose .
Never had the church didnt have this authority until the reformation set the stage for chaos and as a results we have 1000's of different denominations and churches , each with their own personal doctrines and beliefs.
How so you get unity from personal interpretation ?
You don't
What did augustine say when it came to authority?
Sure he had many personal opinions but when it came to authority
"Rome has spoken , the matter is settled"
The classical case of division caused by personal interpretation of scripture is Arminianism and Calvinism .
Both know the bible inside and out , yet they disagree on some extremely I portent issues. Who is right?
According to personal interpretation no one will ever know.
Do you seriously think that Jesus would leave us without an authority to bind and loose (interpret and settle doctrinal matters) on these issues ? He plainly gave the authority to bind and loose to Peter and the apostles.
The authority was then passed down by Peter and the apostles to the one holy and catholic apostolic church which can trace its lineage in Christian history all the way to Peter and the apostles.
Paul even spoke against sola scriptura
http://scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html
Scripture Alone Disproves "Scripture Alone"
1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone.
Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. There is nothing ever about obeying Scripture alone.
Col. 4:16 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul once again appeals to a source outside of the Bible to teach about the Word of God.
1 Thess. 2:13 – Paul says, “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us..” How can the Bible be teaching first century Christians that only the Bible is their infallible source of teaching if, at the same time, oral revelation was being given to them as well? Protestants can’t claim that there is one authority (Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (Bible and oral revelation).
1 Thess. 3:10 - Paul wants to see the Thessalonians face to face and supply what is lacking. His letter is not enough.
Sola scriptura or bible alone is a modern invention in the 16th century which wasnt even practiced by the apostles.
This is clearly in the bible.
2 Thess. 2:15 - the fullness of the Gospel is the apostolic tradition which includes either teaching by word of mouth or by letter. Scripture does not say "letter alone." The Catholic Church has the fullness of the Christian faith through its rich traditions of Scripture, oral tradition and teaching authority (or Magisterium).
2 Thess 3:6 - Paul instructs us to obey apostolic tradition. There is no instruction in the Scriptures about obeying the Bible alone (the word "Bible" is not even in the Bible).
1 Tim. 3:14-15 - Paul prefers to speak and not write, and is writing only in the event that he is delayed and cannot be with Timothy.
2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations, but he says nothing about all apostolic traditions being eventually committed to the Bible.
2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it. Again, this refers to tradition which is found outside of the Bible.
James 4:5 - James even appeals to Scripture outside of the Old Testament canon ("He yearns jealously over the spirit which He has made...")
2 Peter 1:20 - interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one's own private interpretation. Therefore, it must be a matter of "public" interpretation of the Church. The Divine Word needs a Divine Interpreter. Private judgment leads to divisions, and this is why there are 30,000 different Protestant denominations.
.