Calvin's Allure

[Sojourner]

Icthus,
Did you read the link I posted? The one on the justification debate? What do you think of it?

[Crusader_4]

Ichtus first of all i would like to quote John Paul II "Do Not Be Afraid". Now saying thta i can relate. Although, I do not have the same background I have suffered the same feelings. I come from a very protestant background in some sense attended a Mennonite school for 9 years of my early life which had a huge impact on my faith life. I have no regrets over that at all as i came to know and believe in God and this time and my faith soared. However as i studied Christianity and such i relazied it simply didnt add up and eventually converted to Catholicism. Now along the way and to this day i still have doubts about the Church's teaching but at the same time one must remembered when the Apostles were even in the midst of Jesus they didnt always recognize who he was for example i am sure you can remember the incident when the Blind man relizes that Jesus was the son of David yet the disciples are blind ironic eh? Now how does this relate? Or what about doubting Thomas who had to actually feel the wounds to believe? Now as a Catholic i still feel worried that my former views could be right seeing as i grew up most of my life with it in my opinnon. Think about the Early Church though with the gnostic heresy...hey it made sense. Jesus actually didnt die...wasnt actually man he was really a God like a man...it made perfect sense and it had the easy solution to the problems at the time... no trinity to worry about...no dying of Jesus to consider...none of those problems. So then what was the only thing standing against this VERY attractive heresy was a Church and the apostles who knew Jesus who said it was simply not true. Now its easy to make heresy thats simple and seems right...but that doesnt justify it as right. Also i think its difficult for Cradle Catholics to understand the very large transition Protestants go through on the route to conversion. For example, its easy for someone to justify slaverly from the Bible..or this or that...its all in interpertation. That is why in Catholicsm they hold Traditon on equal level because without the proper Tradition in understanding the text it cannot be understood properly. Anyone can make the bible what they want it to say...so as mentioned it comes down as before who has the Authority to interpert the Bible...remember as scripture says "The Church is the Pillar of Truth" a good prayer that i used in particular towards the Eucharist was "Lord I believe...but Help My Unbelief"

Pax Christi and God Bless,

-William

[ICTHUS]

The difficulty, william, is that now we have the Scriptures, a sure foundation on which to stand against heresies. The Apostolic Church did not - not the complete Scriptures, anyway.

[Sojourner]

Scripture alone doesn't cut it. I've sat in a Metropolitan Community Church where Scripture was used to defend living an active homosexual lifestyle. I've heard Scripture used to defend the practice of abortion.

Along with Scripture, there must be an infallible interpreter of Scripture to guard against heresy. Without authority, it's simply one person's interpretation against another's.

[Crusader_4]

Thats exactly true...like i mentioned scritpure can honestly say anything you want it to say it really can for the most part. So the question is how do you know you have the right interpertation that is just as important as the scripture they go hand in hand. That is the job of the apostles...and it has been passed on through the Church.

[ICTHUS]

Guys, I'd like you to read through a debate I had with John Roberson on Sola Scriptura (well, it was on a lot of things, sola scriptura being one of the many things we discussed)

[url="http://www.christianguitar.org/forums/showthread.php?t=62028&page=2&pp=15&highlight=interpretive+hope"]http://www.christianguitar.org/forums/show...terpretive+hope[/url]

[Sojourner]

I'll read this when I get a chance (I'm headed out the door at the moment).

[Crusader_4]

I looked over your debate and read his arguments they dont seem to be that strong...they are based on private interpertation with no precedent of thought. In other words he is saying what the Bible is saying with no proof that it was intended to say that. I am not going to go through each thing argument by argument...but here is one. If the apostolic succession is not passed on as he claims why does every single early Church document we have affirm that it is. A good argument for that is Clement of Rome who was ordained by Peter became the Principle Apostle in the medditerrenean directing Church's and such and yet the apostle John who knew Jesus was still living at this time yet we dont see him doing this it is only the successor of Peter who is taking on this role. as well one must remember what they said about Leo at one of the councils "Peter has spoken through Leo". Relax dont worry get your hands on some apologetics. Another thing is too remember the heart of the faith is not apologetics but is Jesus. People can argue all you want but you can never argue someone into heaven. Also arguing does nothing to help your faith because it only casts doubts on each other making both debaters doubting Thomases. To respond to the post u mentioned before about us having scriputre...we only have scritpure because there was an infallabe holy Tradition guided by the holy spirit...otherwise we would not have the holy scirputres. God nowhere says that once we have the Bible to disregard his holy tradition or your own your own now i will stop guiding the apostolic successors he is still with us living today its a living Tradition that is why sometimes its hard to comprhend is its still with us alive in our midst Jesus still has an impact and is guding the Church he started he didnt say "Here;s the Bible have fun divid urself!" He stayed with his Church to keep us connected and to properly interpert this Bible he gave us so we wouldnt screw up about him. Those are just my thoughts relax take it easy pray and just pray "I Believe but help my Unbelief"

Hope that helps.

[crusader1234]

William basically just posted the entire grade 10 religion curriculum. But hes right.

Good job budddddy.

[Crusader_4]

i will take that as a compliment

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Crusader_4' date='Jun 1 2004, 07:09 PM'] If the apostolic succession is not passed on as he claims why does every single early Church document we have affirm that it is. A good argument for that is Clement of Rome who was ordained by Peter became the Principle Apostle in the medditerrenean directing Church's and such and yet the apostle John who knew Jesus was still living at this time yet we dont see him doing this it is only the successor of Peter who is taking on this role. [/quote]
Which documents are you referring to? The ones John blasted to pieces in the debate???

[Crusader_4]

Irenaeus-Against Heresies 3:3:2-3
[The] tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops....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.


Prescription Against Heretics 32
For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers...as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter.


ST. IRENAEUS OF LYON (c. 180-199 AD)

"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 throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times: men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about. For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries which they taught to the elite secretly and apart from the rest, they would have handed them down especially to those very ones to whom they were committing the self-same Churches. For surely they wished all those and their successors to be perfect and without reproach, to whom they handed on their authority.

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized AT ROME by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. FOR WITH THIS CHURCH, BECAUSE OF ITS SUPERIOR ORIGIN [or "preeminent authority"] ALL CHURCHES MUST AGREE, THAT IS, ALL THE FAITHFUL IN THE WHOLE WORLD; AND IT IS IN HER THAT THE FAITHFUL EVERYWHERE HAVE MAINTAINED THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION." [then follows a list of successors to Peter as bishops of Rome] (Against Heresies 3:3:1-3)

St. Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: 'I say to you,' he says, 'that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church' . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e. apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [AD 251]).