Protestant view on christ's sacrifice.

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

easily. Why was lincoln president, for example? You will find a fair many views on that.. It's the 'why' that matters a great deal of the time.

Best regards

Lincs.

Okay. I can see your point here. There can be different interpretations of history.

But in the end, the facts are laid out for all to see. Either President Lincoln was president or he wasn't. We can discuss why he got elected over (whom?? Johnson? Stonewall Jackson? I have no idea.)

And as we apply it to the Catholic analogy, we are certainly permitted to discuss and dialogue on All Things Catholic (hence, the existence of this very medium you and I have become buddies on , the wonderful Catholic Answers Forum), but in the end, the facts (here, read dogma/doctrines) are laid out for all to see.

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

I think this demonstrates enough that producing this list does not prove at all a papacy resembling the modern one

Now, Lincs, this is a bit different from your original argument, which was, "I don't see a papacy" in history.

Clearly, it's there for all to see. And it's another brick in the fortress of "Why the Catholic Church is the One True Church".

Now, the fact that it doesn't resemble the modern one (arguable, but I'll concede here)...that is an indictment on Catholicism, how exactly?

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

No it does not, but I base my views on the evidence I see, which is pretty clear in many places..

No, it's not.

The JWs love to pointedly ask, "If a bible were dropped into the middle of a desert and someone picked it up and read it, would they conclude that God was a Trinity?"

I think they're correct--nope, you can't glean the dogma of the Trinity from the passages of the Bible.

Now, to a Catholic this question about dropping the Bible into a desert and having someone glean a doctrine from it is quite absurd. Why would someone be expected to use only the Bible to come up with some really difficult concepts such as the Trinity, the hypostatic union, the 2 natures of Christ, etc etc etc. We don't claim that this is the way Scripture should be read. Or doctrine extracted. We have the kerygma, and from it the Scriptures developed.

But to a Bible-only Christian, the JW's question is a pointed one, and one that cannot be refuted. They are right: if a bible were dropped into the middle of a desert and someone picked it up and read it, there's NO WAY he would conclude that God was a Trinity.

[pablope]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

It's addressed to the 72 . I'm wary of reading back the current notion of apostolic succession into this.. As I've already said, I view being in accord with apostolic teaching more important than a physical line..

Aside from them, he also sent the Apostles. Don't you think this passage applies today? Is the word of God limited only to that time and place?

But keeping the apostolic line is important to keep the apostolic teaching...and was believed and practiced by the Apostles and their successors.


From paul.....St. Paul told St. 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)

And Clement of Rome......
44:2 and on this account, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the above-mentioned as bishops and deacons: and then gave a rule of succession, in order that, when they had fallen asleep, other men, who had been approved, might succeed to their ministry.
.
And....St. Irenaeus (d. AD 200) writes:

But, again, when we refer [the heretics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters,


Looks to me, your disregard for the apostolic line is out of sync with the the original Christianity.

Tell me...when did this disregard for apostolic succession start and come about?

In 1:18 Paul goes up to meet with Peter and James yes. On the name 'Cephas', I'm happy to admit Peter has a special role, but one of honour only, not of authority over the others.

Well....here you are again substituting your 21st century understanding in the passage....put your shoes to those times...what did they understand?

Paul also presents the message again in Chapter 2 to between Gentile and Jew does not divide the church. After all he was Apostle to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews..

The esteemed leaders...who do you think were in Jerusalem at this time, the esteemed leaders? Peter, James and John.

And what is the purpose? I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.



Humility, Lincoln...submission to apostolic authority....1john4.....6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us.

Paul actually told no one of the Gospel he received immidiatley according to vs 16. He states in 17 he did not go to the Apostles before him. He returns 14 years later to ensure what he preaches will not divide the church. This context of Gentile and Jewish relations is everything here

This is quite a timeline...so to be brief, Paul, after his conversion, stays in the desert for an unknown amoung to time (maybe 2 yrs), then another 3 yrs in Damascus before his first visit to Jerusalem to confer with Peter....then he goes on to Tarsus for another 3 yrs or so...then barnabas invites him to Antioch. This is, give or take 8 yrs or so before his the Acts 13 laying of hands in Antioch.


Again, Gal 2 states the purpose of his second visit....I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

He was making sure his gospel was in line with the Apostles, Lincs.

But you also omitted this part of v2[COLOR="blue"]..... I went in response to a revelation and.[/color]
The revelation to Paul did not say start your own church...but submit your gospel to the Apostles....Peter, James and John.

Have you asked yourself...why did the revelation to Paul said go to the Apostles?

May I repeat......Humility, Lincoln...submission to apostolic authority....1john4.....6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us.

May I ask again...those leaders of protestantism that you follow...have they followed the example of Paul? Or did they take authority on their own?

, Paul is not so much ensuring he submits to a supreme Peter, for he does not view him this way, hence his rebuke of Peter in chapter 2. Instead he goes to ensure church unity.

Ah....the famous rebuke of Peter in Gal 2. Again....tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation


Remember the account of the tension between the Gentiles and the Jews. Paul could not ease the tension...but recognizes somebody with the right stature who could...Peter. And he sees Peter's moral failing. As a leader, Peter is the one who could ease the tension between the two groups. It is precisely because of Peter's stature as leader...that could bring this about.

What this also shows in that a leader should not be beyond reproach. This is a fraternal correction of Paul to Peter......this shows that having authority does not mean one is above reproof....he acknowledges Peter’s authority as we have seen but also respects Peter enough as a man to speak with him directly and clearly, to his face, and not behind his back.

Does Peter lash out at Paul after this incident? Paul is silent...most obviously is that Peter sees his failing and corrects his behaviour.

Humility of a leader, Linc...to accept correction.

Your tradition is to deny the leadership of Peter...that is why you saw it differently. Remember.....tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation

Best regards

Lincs

Best regards too...I will deal with the rest of your post later....

[CopticChristian]

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

I've been asked for a source the 'thousands of denominations' number. Can you provide your source for this?
Yet the Orthodox would state that Rome has in several rather important ways departed from the Tradition, with Rome also claiming the same of them..

Linc,

Consider that the Orthodox consider Rome the first among equals. How does that fit with your understanding. Does Schaff take into account the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and then Rome first among equals?

What about the Nestorians that are now the Chaldean Catholics?

[pablope]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

Part two.....

In context the chapter is on testing the spirits, John tells his hearers to submit to apostolic teaching. The letter is written against gnosticism and clearly John is telling his hearers to test preachers by whether or not they confess Jesus as having come in the flesh..

Yes...and how would they know which is which...which is apostolic teaching or not?

Those that came from and were appointed by the Apostles.

I do not think these are gnostics...which did not came to be till AD200 or so.

In his battle with the gnostics...St. Irenaeus explains

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about..

On loyalty to the bishop on matters such as this, did not Augustine famously say: "Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God." (De unitate ecclesiae, chp. 10)..

He also said...."In the Catholic Church I adhere to the Chair of Peter. Whoever does not wish to stray from the true fold, must follow this voice of Peter." (Apostolic Digest pg 251, [A.D. 411])
-Augustine

"Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail" (Psalm against the Party of Donatus, 18 [A.D. 393])
-Augustine

In context Ignatius is a beloved figure trying to maintain unity under persecution, no wonder he would tell people to stay loyal to their bishops and elders!

And this is how we continue to maintain unity in the CC....through the bishops...to the seat of Peter.

Can you say the same for the endless splitting of Protentatism?

[pablope]

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

Part three.....

Read the letter, it does not say its from Clement, but that it's from the church at Rome. Which has a plurality of elders leading it at this time. It's identified as coming from clement because of Hermas' comment on a role in the Roman church of being involved in correspondence..

Yeah...and who was the head of the Church at Rome? Who was its head bishop at that time?

Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3)

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm


3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace,


Let me ask you...so you think your sources of information know better than Ireneus?

My church ordains men to eldership, it also sends both them and others out for mission with the laying on of hands and prayer..

And who sent them? Who gave them authority to ordain? And who sent those who sent them?

How would they know what they are preaching is the right gospel? Where did your church originate from? Who gave authority to establish your church? Can you trace it to any apostle?



May I add also....Paul's further instructions to Timothry...2Tim3....14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it




Remember the example of Paul in Acts 13.....as I asked...if you do not know...the founder of the Church at Antioch....to the holy spirit moving Simeon, Lucius and Manaen...to ordain Paul and Barnabas.

Elders and leaders in a christian community were appointed by the Apostles by the laying of hands.

I'd say it shows the church praying for Barnabas and Saul as they go out to do the Lords will.. Paul is already in command of disciples by this point and thus already recognised as an Apostle..

Actually, Paul does not become an apostle prior to Acts 13. He spends about 10 yrs forming his self and his gospel...conferring with Peter and submitting himself...he was not a self appointed missionary and his conversion required completion before the Church sent him forth. This going-forth he undertook only after being sent.

It is only after his ordination does he undergo on his famous missionary journey...his first one of three.

May I reiterate...prior to being sent...obedience and humility...demonstrated by Paul in his account of submission to Peter.

Well, how did the Holy Scripture tell Calvin he is correct? Did Calvin decide for himself that he is correct? Who did Calvin submit his gospel too, same as St. Paul?

No he let scripture speak for itself, I don't know who he first submitted his teachings too, he was 23 when he first published the institutes, I will try and find out for you who was over him at the time

Well, how did the Scripture speak? Does it have a voice?
Well....this might help you........http://www.calledtocommunion.com/201...me-a-catholic/

While he rejected Rome’s claim to authority, he made striking claims for his own authority......Calvin took very seriously the obligation of the laity to submit and obey. “Contradicting the ministers” was one of the most common reasons to be called before the Consistory and penalties could be severe.......Church history taught me that this attitude was a recent development. John Calvin had high expectations for the unity and catholicity of the faith, and for the centrality of Church and sacrament. But Calvinism couldn’t deliver it. Outside of Geneva, without the force of the state to impose one version, Calvinism itself splintered into factions. In her book Orthodoxies in Massachusetts: Rereading American Puritanism, historian Janice Knight details how the process unfolded very early in American Calvinism. 8

Well...indeed without the proper Apostolic line, without a bishop sent via the Apostles...there you can see the start of splitting.

I reiterate again...to belabor the point....1John 4.....6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Thomas Aquinas...or Ratzinger, they are theologians too...what makes Calvin greater than them? Why do you believe Calvin more than others?

Indeed both vastly intelligent men. But in certain areas they are not in accord with scripture.. It's the rule to which things are tested.

And how would you know that Aquinas and Ratzinger which areas they are not in accord with Scripture? What would be your basis?


It is ..........tradition does not authoritatively guide his Lincoln7's interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation

Isn't it akin to shooting an arrow into a wall...and then you build your target around it...is it not?

Best regards

Lincs.

And to you too.....

[Lincoln7]

Hi all,

I'm travelling today, so won't be able to put my responses up until later this afternoon.

Also: You're lucky it's a long journey! I just added up the 2000 or so words I've got to reply to

Regards

Lincs.

[pablope]

My apologies to everyone...I think my post/s took this thread in another direction.

Pls. carry on with the original discussion....the protestant view of Christ sacrifice.

Again, my apologies.

Pablo

[Lincoln7]

Originally Posted by pablope

My apologies to everyone...I think my post/s took this thread in another direction.

Pls. carry on with the original discussion....the protestant view of Christ sacrifice.

Again, my apologies.

Pablo

I think we all kinda took this thread a tad off course.. I've composed my replies now though.. We could start a new thread on 'authority for Catholics and Protestants' or something?

Regards

Lincs

[GaryTaylor]

Originally Posted by PRmerger

Okay. I can see your point here. There can be different interpretations of history.

But in the end, the facts are laid out for all to see.

What she said

So we ask, is it a contingent, it "might" have been otherwise? But the whole of christianity is composed of contingent facts. In the abstract, everything "might" have been otherwise. Alas it was not and is not. If "if" was a fifth we could have a toast and thank God He is, and has been in control.

From the Burning Bush to Sinia, a virgin conceiving, water to wine, the cross, and His-appearence and Blessing and Breaking Bread, to Peter and Paul in Rome, Constantine an a empire won and lost, to Irenaeus the Gregories and Augustine, Catherine and Theresa to Bl John Paul II. All provide a narative stating and re-stating what it all means.

It could have been otherwise, but it wasn't, and it isn't. It is all contingent, which is to say it is all history, and the history of distinct people.

We take a Deep Breath and state.............

I believe everything in the Word of God. be it written or handed down in Tradition, which the church either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magesterium. sets forth to be believed as Divinely Revealed.

I have no idea what we are talking about here. I haven't re-read.

[Lincoln7]

I have no idea what we are talking about here. I haven't re-read

We all went off topic, I was considering starting a new thread on 'authority for Catholics and Protestants' or something like that, as that's what we're talking about now?

Lincs.

[GaryTaylor]

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

We all went off topic, I was considering starting a new thread on 'authority for Catholics and Protestants' or something like that, as that's what we're talking about now?

Lincs.

Sounds good, I suppose if someone wants to re-visit this and the OP they could re-kindle it.

Peace GT

[stewstew03]

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

We all went off topic, I was considering starting a new thread on 'authority for Catholics and Protestants' or something like that, as that's what we're talking about now?

Lincs.

Good idea - post a link to the thread once you've created one.

[Lincoln7]

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=666400

The new thread on authority.

Regards

Lincs