The law, the commandments, and Christians.

[Hentenza]

That's the point, He didn't. So there was never need to cause doctrinal division within the Church. And there's nothing dead-end but only something totally honest about seeing through the fallacy of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Or the fallacy of tradition.

Most everyone understands that and other hermenuetical principles while still managing to interpret the bible quite differently on major points. So, understanding that Scripture sheds light on Scripture, we can say that those who've become a child of God through faith and baptism can also lose that familial status by acting more like a son of the devil, by returning to the world/the flesh after escaping its pollution through the knowledge of Christ (2 Pet 2:20), or who've fallen away after tasting of the heavenly gift (Heb 6:4-6),

We’ve talked about the parable of the soils many times before so I know that you know that there are a few levels of faith. I’m not going to repeat my argument.

As far as Heb.6 these were new believers that were still partaking in milk and fell away. They were actually cultural Jewish converts that could not give up living like a Jew primarily because of pressure from the unconverted Jews. Paul makes this argument in several of his epistles.

We know that a believer must put to death the deeds of the flesh in order to have eternal life by walking in the Spirit, by walking in the light (Rom 8:12-14, 1 John 1). We know that he must "invest" his talents, the grace given, expected to increase that gift by showing a return (Matt 25:14-30), producing much good fruit, contingent on our remaining in Him (John (15:5-8). We must love (John 15:9-11, 1 John 3 & 4). We must make effort to do good, to be holy, to be perfect in order to see God (Rom 2:7, Heb 12:14, 1 Pet 1:16, Matt 5:48). We can forfeit our salvation, our status as God's child; we can end up being poor soil that received the word at first but later ignored it; we can fail to persevere.

Faith plus works. No thanks.

If there's no way to know the truth with confidence since people are prone to error, then God must provide some "mechanism" some means for us to know the truth despite ourselves-or else He's failed His church.

The absolute truth rests in His scriptures not in tradition.

God established one church, with one Lord, one faith, one baptism. So we must look for and identify that church. It's roots should be continously traceable to the beginnings of the faith, to be found in the east or west or both.

And His church is composed of ALL believers from ALL the earthly churches. The church is not your church. Your church is one among many.

As far as the CC is concerned, Trent was ecumencial.

Nope. Not even the Orthodox Church believed that at the time. Certainly none of the Protestant churches did. Trent was a counter reformation council by only the CC.

The point was only that even though the CC holds these people in very high regard (as others may also do), the CC does not believe their teachings to be necessarily infallible or all to be correct. Again, it's the role of the church to decide what ultimately constitutes correct doctrine, the canon of Scripture, the nature of Christ when such controveries arise, etc. To the extent that we do as well, all the better.

The role of which church? Yours? Our doctrinal differences generated by human fallibility exists in every church, including yours. All churches are governed by fallible humans including yours. I will posit that many of the doctrinal differences that your church and my church have are not salvific in nature. You are infatuated with everyone else having the same exact beliefs as your church but you are missing the point. The body of Christ is composed of all believers in Christ not only the ones aligned with your church.

Anyway, that ability is a gift, a charism, to be accepted and acted upon by weak human vessels only with humilty. If some fool at any point in history holds that gift, that power, arrogantly, then he's just unfortunately displaying some common human "falleness", human pride-and such a man would never be used by God to officially define doctrine/dogma, BTW; he's already got his 'reward". At any rate, at one point I came to find myself agreeing with the CC on major points of faith, or found the church agreeing with me, very much to my own surprise.

I don’t hold anything against anyone attending the church that God led them to. God has led you to the CC while God led me away from the CC and into my present church.

Being called by an emperor in itself gives no higher status to a council than being called by the church or whatever. That was done out of convience as he was the only one possessing that kind of power at the time.

That was not the point. The point was that the pronouncements were not initially accepted by all of the independent churches and it took time before they were. That was the case almost 100 years later by Jerome as he was still hesitant to include them in the vulgate and, in fact, separated them from the actual canon.

 

[HIM]

You are infatuated with everyone else having the same exact beliefs as your church but you are missing the point. The body of Christ is composed of all believers in Christ not only the ones aligned with your church.

Is heresy, lying a sin? And will a unrepented sin keep us out of Heaven?

 

[HIM]

Timothy and Silas were left behind to establish the Church in Thessalonica. Paul and Timothy had this to say,
2Tim 3:15 And that 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.
2Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Tim 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The Holy Scripture here is the Old Testament. Ergo said traditions are founded from it.

Yes, Paul was speaking of OT Scripture. And it's true of course, properly understood Scripture gives much wisdom, about the ways of man and, most importantly the ways and will of God even as the OT is incomplete without the fuller revelation brought to the world by Christ. But Jesus explicitly stated that many misunderstand Scripture, and the Bereans, conscientious as they were, could not discern the meaning of Scripture just by the reading of it, but required the input of those who knew. Same for the Ethiopian Eunuch.

That does not negate the fact that the traditions that they been taught were that of the holy Scriptures.

That they be furnished unto all good works through our Lord Jesus Christ who establishes us in every good word and work furnished, taught in the Holy Scriptures. Not the traditions, what was handed down of men, but that of God.

2Tim 3:15 And that 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.
2Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Tim 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


2Thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
2Thess 2:16 Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace,
2Thess 2:17 Comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work.

 

[Hentenza]

Is heresy,

‘Define heresy?

lying a sin?

Yes, but the Spirit convicts us and leads us to repentance which is something that the law could not do.

And will a unrepented sin keep us out of Heaven?

If you walk in the Spirit you will not have unrepentant sin.

 

[fhansen]

I'm only able to post intermittently now. I've had replies that were created over a week ago which will still not post even when tried anew over and over. I may not bother again until CF gets the glitch fixed.

 

[Valletta]

The apocrypha did not officially become full part of the Catholic Church canon until Trent. If you want to discuss Hippo and Carthage I’ll be happy to. Even Jerome had second thoughts about including them in the Vulgate,

Incorrect. Early Catholics eventually incorporated the Gospels and other text as readings at the mass once those books were written. Many texts were in circulation, but there were differences in readings at mass from area to area. At one point the Catholic Church set out to determine a list, a canon, of which texts were deemed Holy Scripture and which were not. The Catholic Church process of choosing the 73 books of the Bible, guided by the Holy Spirit, spanned centuries. Saint Athanasius is credited with the first Biblical canon (NT) containing the same books in the same order we use today. The list is contained in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of 367 A.D. This list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved in the late 300s by the Councils at Hippo (393 A.D.) and Carthage (397 A.D.) . Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list. The list was re-affirmed at Carthage in 419 A.D., by the Council of Florence 1442 A.D., and by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D.

Here is a translation of a document (from Latin to English) that references the Carthage Council in 397 A.D.: “It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two books of Paraleipomena, Job, The Psalter, five books of Solomon, the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . ."

The Third Council of Carthage on the Canon of Scripture

All of the European Bibles contained the 73 books chosen by the Catholic Church, in the same order, until the reformation. Luther was able to get some but not all, of the books he wanted dropped for the Protestant versions of the Bible. For example, Revelation remains. The Protestants even use the same order of books of the NT chosen by the Catholic Church.

 

[Valletta]

i didn’t but it is individual church traditions. Your church has different traditions than other churches have so traditions are not constant and are not inspired.

Don't confuse mere customs with Catholic Sacred Tradition as referred to in the following passage:
2 Thess 2:15 15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. RSVCE

 

[HIM]

‘Define heresy?

Yes, but the Spirit convicts us and leads us to repentance which is something that the law could not do.

If you walk in the Spirit you will not have unrepentant sin.

When you ask for heresy to be defined in respect to the rest of the post you responded to, you show you have missed the point or are trying to sidestep it.

Here is an example. One teaches baptism is essential and one says it is not. One is lying and not speaking from the Holy Spirit. One is speaking heresy, a false teacher. Hence your quote below is not true. Why? Because a Believer shares what they believe. And if they believe a lie and share it, they are a false teacher, a liar spreading heresy.

The role of which church? Yours? Our doctrinal differences generated by human fallibility exists in every church, including yours. All churches are governed by fallible humans including yours. I will posit that many of the doctrinal differences that your church and my church have are not salvific in nature. You are infatuated with everyone else having the same exact beliefs as your church but you are missing the point. The body of Christ is composed of all believers in Christ not only the ones aligned with your church.

 

[HIM]

Don't confuse mere customs with Catholic Sacred Tradition as referred to in the following passage:
2 Thess 2:15 15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. RSVCE

Catholic tradition has not always been sacred. Burning people at the stake for heresy and what not would be an example of a tradition they held for a while that was not sacred. Covering up Child molesting activity amongst their clergy is another tradition they held which was not sacred. God only knows how long that went on. With just that, any tradition they profess outside of what the Hoy Writ shares is subjective at best.

Be that as it may. Timothy, Silas and Paul's traditions were derived from the Holy Scripture by the Holy Spirit through faith.
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


2Tim 3:15 And that 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.
2Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Tim 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[Hentenza]

Incorrect. Early Catholics eventually incorporated the Gospels and other text as readings at the mass once those books were written. Many texts were in circulation, but there were differences in readings at mass from area to area. At one point the Catholic Church set out to determine a list, a canon, of which texts were deemed Holy Scripture and which were not. The Catholic Church process of choosing the 73 books of the Bible, guided by the Holy Spirit, spanned centuries. Saint Athanasius is credited with the first Biblical canon (NT) containing the same books in the same order we use today. The list is contained in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of 367 A.D. This list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved in the late 300s by the Councils at Hippo (393 A.D.) and Carthage (397 A.D.) . Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list. The list was re-affirmed at Carthage in 419 A.D., by the Council of Florence 1442 A.D., and by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D.

Here is a translation of a document (from Latin to English) that references the Carthage Council in 397 A.D.: “It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two books of Paraleipomena, Job, The Psalter, five books of Solomon, the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . ."

The Third Council of Carthage on the Canon of Scripture

All of the European Bibles contained the 73 books chosen by the Catholic Church, in the same order, until the reformation. Luther was able to get some but not all, of the books he wanted dropped for the Protestant versions of the Bible. For example, Revelation remains. The Protestants even use the same order of books of the NT chosen by the Catholic Church.

Nah. There was no universal acceptance of the apocrypha. Some ECFs accepted them while others did not. Here are two examples.

The site won’t let me copy a quote.

Athanasius stated that the “books called apocrypha should not be mixed with inspired scripture (Festal letter 39:4-5).

Jerome stared that the books of the apocrypha were not scripture but profitable to read so he included them in the vulgate but in a separate section.

The anti reformation council of Trent made the apocrypha official for the CC.

Hopefully when they fix the bug in the website we can revisit this topic.

 

[Hentenza]

Don't confuse mere customs with Catholic Sacred Tradition as referred to in the following passage:
2 Thess 2:15 15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. RSVCE

There is no Sacred Tradition. Maybe you can enumerate the traditions that Paul is talking about in 2 Thessalonians.

 

[Hentenza]

When you ask for heresy to be defined in respect to the rest of the post you responded to, you show you have missed the point or are trying to sidestep it.

Heresy is a proclamation by someone or some group. What is heresy for some is not for others. Therefore you need to define what you consider heresy.

Here is an example. One teaches baptism is essential and one says it is not. One is lying and not speaking from the Holy Spirit. One is speaking heresy, a false teacher. Hence your quote below is not true. Why? Because a Believer shares what they believe. And if they believe a lie and share it, they are a false teacher, a liar spreading heresy.

So now you are adding baptism to the salvation formula? Can someone stranded in an island that gleans God from His creation (Rom. 1) has to be baptized to be saved? Or will his faith be sufficient?

 

[fhansen]

Nah. There was no universal acceptance of the apocrypha. Some ECFs accepted them while others did not. Here are two examples.

The site won’t let me copy a quote.

Athanasius stated that the “books called apocrypha should not be mixed with inspired scripture (Festal letter 39:4-5).

Jerome stared that the books of the apocrypha were not scripture but profitable to read so he included them in the vulgate but in a separate section.

The anti reformation council of Trent made the apocrypha official for the CC.

Hopefully when they fix the bug in the website we can revisit this topic.

Geez, the canon of the New Testament was controversial-and much later Luther even nearly booted two of its books out due to his own personal controversy with them! The canon of the Hebrew bible took centuries to determine, with controversy surrounding the books and no clear consensus among scholars of when the canon was finalized. Jerome wasn’t sure about the Apocrypha while Augustine was. What difference does any of that make? The eastern churches accepted it at least since the 5th century if not much before-depending on the church. The primary reason Protestantism rejected it was because of their own erroneous doctrines. Either way, the Vulgate was the de facto official Catholic bible for centuries since C 400 AD, with the Apocrypha included!

 

[Hentenza]

Geez, the canon of the New Testament was controversial-and much later Luther even nearly booted two of its books out due to his own personal controversy with them! The canon of the Hebrew bible took centuries to determine, with controversy surrounding the books and no clear consensus among scholars of when the canon was finalized. Jerome wasn’t sure about the Apocrypha while Augustine was. What difference does any of that make? The eastern churches accepted it at least since the 5th century if not much before-depending on the church. The primary reason Protestantism rejected it was because of their own erroneous doctrines.

Or because of CC’s erroneous doctrines.

Either way, the Vulgate was the de facto official Catholic bible for centuries since C 400 AD, with the Apocrypha included!

But initially Jerome did not include the apocrypha as scripture which is why he placed them separate just like the protestants did at the reformation. Full circle.

 

[fhansen]

But initially Jerome did not include the apocrypha as scripture which is why he placed them separate just like the protestants did at the reformation. Full circle.

Some Protestants rejected the whole thing while some retained it with quailifications. Jerome had his reservations. What does any of that have to do with the validity of its canonicity?? At the end of the day, Jerome's opinion did not prevail!

And why demand acceptance of the present Jewish canon if one is going to reject other teachings, traditions, beliefs, practices? The Jews still pray for the dead, for example.

 

[Hentenza]

Some Protestants rejected the whole thing while some retained it with quailifications. Jerome had his reservations. What does any of that have to do with the validity of its canonicity?? At the end of the day, Jerome's opinion did not prevail!

With the CC. Jerome’s opinion prevailed with the Protestant churches.

And why demand acceptance of the present Jewish canon if one is going to reject other teachings, traditions, beliefs, practices? The Jews still pray for the dead, for example.

The canon is not the same as Jewish practices or traditions. Jesus was clear about that. In fact, Jesus taught from the canon not from traditions or beliefs and the NT does not quote any of the books of the apocrypha.

 

[fhansen]

With the CC. Jerome’s opinion prevailed with the Protestant churches.

And?? So they were both wrong-so what? Catholics are wrong all the time. Infallibilty only exists in the magistertium, and only for the purpose of preventing error. The decision of the church is the only thing that counts IOW.

The canon is not the same as Jewish practices or traditions. Jesus was clear about that. In fact, Jesus taught from the canon not from traditions or beliefs and the NT does not quote any of the books of the apocrypha.

Which canon? Many if not most scholars say the the Hebrew canon wasn't finalized until after Jesus left this planet. And He apparerntly quoted from the Septuagint which includes the aprocrypha.

 

[Valletta]

There is no Sacred Tradition. Maybe you can enumerate the traditions that Paul is talking about in 2 Thessalonians.

An example of Sacred Tradition is our Liturgy. The books of the Bible are liturgical books, God-breathed texts that are used as readings for the mass. Jesus Himself, His Body and Blood, is the "New Covenant" or "New Testament." As the Catholic Church chose the new books of the Bible those books began to be referred to as books of the "New Testament." All that Jesus taught, passed down through the Apostles, is the Word of God. Jesus said many many things, and did many things, all is the Word of God. Do you think that which Jesus taught but is not recorded in the Bible is somehow not God's Word? While certain things in the Bible are spelled out explicitly, others are not. Our understanding of the Holy Trinity comes much from Sacred Tradition. We believe there is one God, Three Persons. We believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. So too part of our Sacred Tradition is that the deposit of the faith ended with the death of the last Apostle.

 

[Valletta]

With the CC. Jerome’s opinion prevailed with the Protestant churches.

The truth is that Jerome accepted the judgment of the Catholic Church as did Catholics of his time. It was not for Jerome to decide, it was for the Catholic Church to decide. As I explained, the process of deciding the books of the Bible spanned centuries, and Jerome lived before and after the 73 books were chosen by the Catholic Church. That means there was still debate and discussion among Catholics, differing opinions, until the Catholic Church decided upon the canon in the late 300s. So too the first bishops, the Apostles, did not always initially agree on a teaching. Because Jerome noted, we might call it a footnote today, that the Jews of his time selected only some of the OT books for their canon, a misunderstanding is the Jerome defied the Church. He did not, he noted the predominant Jewish belief of the time as would any good Biblical historian. At the time of Christ and the Apostles, different Jews accepted different lists of books as Holy Scripture. The Catholic Church was under no obligation to follow Jews who rejected the Gospels, indeed who had rejected Jesus.

 

[Hentenza]

And?? So they were both wrong-so what? Catholics are wrong all the time. Infallibilty only exists in the magistertium, and only for the purpose of preventing error. The decision of the church is the only thing that counts IOW.

The magisterium is composed of fallible humans therefore they cannot, by necessity, be infallible.

Which canon? Many if not most scholars say the the Hebrew canon wasn't finalized until after Jesus left this planet. And He apparerntly quoted from the Septuagint which includes the aprocrypha.

But did not quote from the apocrypha books themselves. Look you can’t deny that the early church was divided about the inspiration of the apocrypha. There is a plethora of evidence. Whatever the CC did they did around the 5th century.