Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Quite the opposite. I am saying that it is through the work of the Spirit that the early Church recognised God's true word.
No one has ever suggested otherwise. The Scriptures were once 'hand me downs' and the only warrant we had was the 'hearsay' that this was 'from St. John. That is how the early Church worked. It had no agreed body of NT for centuries, and yet the Church knew which works were God's word. It was inspired; did it suddenly lose that inspiration when it also practiced intercessory prayer? Hardly.
But you do just that. You have no autograph copy of any Gospel. The written account is much later than what it records, and yet you believe it, even though you have not a piece of contemporary evidence that the book of Revelation, for example, is by St. John.
Do the dates matter? If so, why?
The Apostles had a whole lot of books in which to tell us which books were Scripture, and in which to use the word 'Trinity'; unaccountably they seem to have neglected so to do; not everything is in the Bible when it is read apart from the tradition which recognised it; but that point has been repeatedly ignored.
We see as through a glass darkly, and that is how we see the Glory of the Trinity. Not important? Well Christ seemed to think it mattered that we believed in Him. And if He is part of the Trinity and we don't believe in it, then how do we believe in Him?
Scripture teaches Gods People what truth is through the power of the HS who is our teacher to what has been breathed by God.
I am saying that to say 'We have gone back to the Scriptures' is to do something novel. We see St. Paul and the Apostles teaching by writing and word; if you use only writing you do not do as the Apostles. We only know what the writings are because of the Inspired Church. Christ's Church recognises God's True word in the ways it always has.
The Church which recognised the genuine Apostolic deposit did so. Those Churches tracing their lineage to it do so still. Those who do not do so do not do as the early Church did.
to which you helpfully responded not by answering the question but thus:
Indeed, but where does Peter talk about John's Gospel, or Mark's, or Luke's. And where, pray, does St. Luke, the companion of Paul, so much as mention his epistles, or Paul's epistles mention a single Gospel? If you follow only those two references you'd have a very short NT. And that is what is inadequate in the methodology you employ: you'd have two books in Scripture.
That's easy to say. But the Bible you read was not the product of the HS working on you. You read a book which you did not put together. You read a book the Church put together.
That would be why there are so many different Churches then? Is the HS telling us all different things? If your version of things is right, it does not explain why you fail to practice what the early Church practised and I do.
We are to test the spirits to see if indeed they are from God..Dear MamaZ,
You ask:
I am saying that to say 'We have gone back to the Scriptures' is to do something novel. We see St. Paul and the Apostles teaching by writing and word; if you use only writing you do not do as the Apostles.
Well we do not have the Apostles here with us. Therefore we do not have their word other than what they have written. So therefore we adhere to the teaching of the scriptures.
We only know what the writings are because of the Inspired Church. Christ's Church recognises God's True word in the ways it always has.
I don't see where only one certain group are inspired in the scriptures and allowed to go beyond what is written and proclaim things absent from what the scriptures teach. I see where the scriptures are inspired by God and I see that the annointing in us teaches us and leads us into all truth.
You add:
The Church which recognised the genuine Apostolic deposit did so. Those Churches tracing their lineage to it do so still. Those who do not do so do not do as the early Church did.
You keep writing about the early church. How far back are you going for this? For I see from the earliest of the church that Mary was not mentioned and crowned as some do now.
I wrote
to which you helpfully responded not by answering the question but thus:
Indeed, but where does Peter talk about John's Gospel, or Mark's, or Luke's. And where, pray, does St. Luke, the companion of Paul, so much as mention his epistles, or Paul's epistles mention a single Gospel? If you follow only those two references you'd have a very short NT. And that is what is inadequate in the methodology you employ: you'd have two books in Scripture.
LOL in the first of the Gospels we see that Matthew Mark Luke and John are writing of their witness to Christ.. THen we see in Acts where the promise of the Holy Spirit fell.. Then we have Paul who was Saul being transformed by the Power of God and sent to the Gentiles. We also see in scripture where Paul had to correct Peter. The story is all there for us to read and adhere to as truth and correction and reproof just as the scripture declares.
Just how do you know that St. John's Gospel was written by St. John? You do know that we have no copy of the original and that we know this only because the Church has always taught it is so. Your method can provide no answer to this question; when it can, it will have some claim to validity.
Do you believe that the Spirit of God would not lead us into all His truth individually? Putting my trust in men and having fear of men or shall I say reverance to men brings a snare. I put my trust in Christ and His teaching me and opening my eyes to understand the scripture. This is where we differ so much. You always say the church has always taught. I don't see that the church has taught what some say they have always taught..Such as Mary being exalted above other men and women. I have the teachings of the earliest of the Church all written for me. God is capable and Faithful to make sure His word was gathered for His people. I give all honor and Glory to Him.
When you say
That's easy to say. But the Bible you read was not the product of the HS working on you. You read a book which you did not put together. You read a book the Church put together.
I read a book that is inspired and breathed by God and can put my full trust into these words that have been written because the Spirit in me bears witness with what has been written..I do not honor and worship those to who put the book together..Because this early church as you say put the book together does not allow them to add other doctrines such as the marian doctrines . Then call it truth and say that this practice has been going on from the beginning when there is no proof of any of the Apostles teaching this.
That would be why there are so many different Churches then? Is the HS telling us all different things? If your version of things is right, it does not explain why you fail to practice what the early Church practised and I do.
peace,
Anglian
Except this ignores the question of how we know what is written is their word. There is only the evidence offered by the tradition of the Church. Believe that for the Bible and there is then no reason not to believe the Church on all the rest of tradition.
Read St. John's epistles and see what he thought of those who claimed to be able to interpret the Gospel according to their own light.
As far back as when the Church gives us the Bible - if we didn't, you would have nothing at all. That Church practised intercessory prayer and Marian veneration and saw no contradiction - it it you and the man maede late tradition which sees a problem where no one else ever has.
Which ignores the point - which was how do you know these are the Gospels - St. Paul never mentions them in his letters. You know because the early Church tells you; it also tells you that Marian veneration is fine; you selectively choose which bits of tradition you use.
