Still waiting for an answer

And what of those that did report it from Tradition? Do those others cancel them out? Did they say that the Assumption did not happen? I don't think so.

 

Let's see. If today there was a plane crash and no one in this century knew if Ben Laden was on that plane or not, and the people who investigated it said "We have no idea if he was on it or not" but a few centuries later some guy said "He certainly was on that plane," who would be more trustworthy?

[ August 16, 2002, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura ]

 

One only need look at the hundreds of competing doctrines in Protestantism, along with the many sects, cults, insane cults, and outright NUT CASES, all of whom use and declare that the Bible is their "sole authority" to understand why Christ gave us the Church. However, since we also have a Scripture which tells us what that purpose is, let us use that Scripture:

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Y'all git that? The "pillar and ground of the truth". No other teacher (Falwell to Spurgeon, Bob Jones to Thomas Cranmer) has that said of them in the Scriptures. No other institution can lay hold on that claim, for no other institution is founded upon St. Peter, who is the foundation of the Church.

Astralis laid out some very good points regarding things which are not only FIRMLY BELIEVED by evangelicals, but which, if one disagrees with them, one is categorized as "not Christian". And rather than acknowledge that YOU TOO have your traditions which are given a greater weight of being proofs of salvation than necessary, you start doing a tap dance around his premise.

T'aint cricket, guys!! If you are going to try to criticize the Catholic and Orthodox Faiths for holding to Apostolic Tradition, then you are going to have to acknowledge that you have many of your own which you hold in very high esteem also.

Of course, what's reall funny is that you guys don't even all agree with each other, sometimes to the point of rather HEATED conversation, but the one thing you do share is a common hatred of the Church!! Very interesting.

Christ also gave us the Church so that we could be NOURISHED, ENCOURAGED, DISCIPLINED, and GUIDED TO HEAVEN BY THE SACRAMENTS. What kind of Father would God be if He didn't leave us with a Mother here on earth to take care of us? The Church is our Mother, and St. Cyprian said of Her:

He who will not have the Church as his mother shall neither have God as his Father

Your basis problem is that if it doesn't make intellectual sense to you (such as the doctrine of the Real Presence) you reject it. The Faith is a mystery. Not everything is understood by all. But we do have the promise of our Lord Jesus that HE would be sure to guide the Church into all truth by His Spirit (John 16:13).

Astralis --

Man, you are doing some kind of good job here explaining these things!!! You are way out of my league!!! It's a shame they aren't even listening, but rather, the minute they read a post of yours, run to the typewritter to spit out some kind of knee jerk reaction.

 

Throughout the centuries, Catholic theologians have taught differing doctrines too.

 

We can help prove it from scripture but the topic of the Assumption was from Apostolic Tradition - you even brought this up. No one claims that it comes from scripture.

Yes, because the Catholic Church says it's true then it must be true but that's not good apologetics and will hardly convince any Protestant. Karl Keating gets carried away sometimes.

[ August 17, 2002, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: Astralis ]

 

Yeah, Keating does that, but he is, of course, correct. The Church IS the "pillar and foundation of the truth" as promised in Scripture.

What this means to me as a convert is that sometimes I can't quite understand certain doctrines, but I DO understand what the Bible says, and therefore, when Jesus promised that the apostles (and those who inherited their offices of bishop) would be led into ALL truth, I choose to believe Him. When the Bible says that the Church is the "pillar and foundation of truth", then I choose to put the understnding and teaching of the Church over my puny little brain. This is something that Protestants simply will not do. In a massive display of egocentricity, Protestants consider their OWN interpretation of the Bible infallible.

Each Protestant thinks that he is infallible, and then he goes out and finds others who think like he does and they start a "church" somewhere.

Of course, IF, in due time, someone comes up with a new interpretation, then that person leaves, takes with him as many as he can persuade to his opinion, and starts yet another "church".

Far be it for a Protestant to believe that God would make SOMEONE OTHER THAN THEM actually infallible!!

Brother Ed

 

How do you know your interpretation is correct?

 

It certainly is. But it is not, and never was the "Catholic Church."

 

Because Jesus said the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. That His Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth. That the teaching is the same since Apostolic times; that the heirarchy is the same as mentioned in scripture...all Catholic bishops can have their lineage of predecessors traced back to the time of the apostles.

The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.

The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.

Irenaeus:

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

[ August 18, 2002, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Astralis ]

 

Because Jesus said the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. That His Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth. That the teaching is the same since Apostolic times; that the heirarchy is the same as mentioned in scripture...all Catholic bishops can have their lineage of predecessors traced back to the time of the apostles.

The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.

The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.

Irenaeus:

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).</font>[/QUOTE]You are basing this on the Catholic church's private interpretation of scripture. This interpretation is false and is especially shown to be false simply be looking at the Catholic church's rejection of evangelizing Jews.

 

Have we? Teaching has always been correct. Human discipline hasn't. Let's look at what Jesus said. Paul and Christ himself warned us that there would be a few ravenous wolves among Church leaders (Acts 20:29; Matt. 7:15).

Acts 20:29: For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

Matt. 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

The Church is not just for the elect.