[De Maria]

Two things. With all due respect (and this is not aimed at you personally), but claiming the Holy Spirit is not the same as having it, and secondly just having the Holy Spirit is not the same thing as allowing the Holy Spirit to speak to us through His word without adding man's interpretation to it.

My points exactly.

So here's the dilemma. Two Christians, apparently in good faith, with contradicting understanding of the Scriptures each claiming to have the Holy Spirit and each claiming the Holy Spirit is speaking to them and through them without addition of man's interpretation. How do we determine who is right? Neither has more authority than the other. So, who resolves the difference?

[Tj3]

My points exactly.

So here's the dilemma. Two Christians, apparently in good faith, with contradicting understanding of the Scriptures each claiming to have the Holy Spirit and each claiming the Holy Spirit is speaking to them and through them without addition of man's interpretation. How do we determine who is right? Neither has more authority than the other. So, who resolves the difference?

We discussed that in one thread already, but I think that we are getting off topic on this one, so I would suggest starting a new one.

Let me just say, though, that since this is the approach that God gave us in His word, do you really think God made a mistake?

[De Maria]

We discussed that in one thread already, but I think that we are getting off topic on this one, so I would suggest starting a new one.

Let me just say, though, that since this is the approach that God gave us in His word, do you really think God made a mistake?

We also believe that the approach God gave us is His Word, in Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium. Do you think God made a mistake?

[Tj3]

We also believe that the approach God gave us is His Word, in Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium. Do you think God made a mistake?

Except we do not find support for the tradition and denominational magisterium in scripture.

[Akoue]

Except we do not find support for the tradition and denominational magisterium in scripture.

This is a conversation well worth having. As I've said on the Scripture & Tradition thread, reasonable people can approach it in different ways.

The Catholic and Orthodox teaching--along with that of some others--looks at Mt.16 & 18, Jn.20.22 (where Christ breathes on the Apostles and tells them to "receive the Holy Spirit"), Acts, Titus and Timothy (where the authority of the bishop appears to be confirmed, and we are instructed to avoid teaching that comes from other sources), and understands Scripture to instruct faithful obedience to the teachings of the Apostolic Church. Add to this that the early disciples of the Apostles re-affirm this understanding (Ignatius of Antioch and the Didache discusse it at great length). My point here is just that, whatever else may be the case, it doesn't look like Catholics just invented this out of whole cloth. And the fact that they do point to Scripture as the basis for this teaching suggests no bad-faith on their part: They are diligently undertaking to serve the Lord by adhering to their best understanding of what the Scriptures teach.

[Tj3]

The Catholic and Orthodox teaching--along with that of some others--looks at Mt.16 & 18, Jn.20.22 (where Christ breathes on the Apostles and tells them to "receive the Holy Spirit"), Acts, Titus and Timothy (where the authority of the bishop appears to be confirmed, and we are instructed to avoid teaching that comes from other sources), and understands Scripture to instruct faithful obedience to the teachings of the Apostolic Church.

Ah yes, but that is where issues arise because some people feel that means their denomination and there were no denominations prior to 325AD.

[Akoue]

Ah yes, but that is where issues arise because some people feel that means their denomination and there were no denominations prior to 325AD.

A lot depends here on what one means by the word "denomination". In one sense of the word there were no denominations until well after 325. In another sense of the word, though, there were lots of denominations before 325: There were Marcionites, Valentinians, Basilideans, Montanists, Arians, Donatists, etc. Groups, in other words, that for various reasons broke off from the main body of Apostolic Churches (each of the groups I mention were around before 325) which recognized themselves as a single body until well after the Council of Nicaea.

[De Maria]

Except we do not find support for the tradition and denominational magisterium in scripture.

Denominational? No, Jesus established one Church.

As for Tradition. Jesus wrote not a word of Scripture and established many Traditions.

As for Magisterium. That means, Teacher, and is the mission which the Church has obediently accepted by command of Jesus Christ:

Matthew 28:20
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

[Tj3]

Denominational? No, Jesus established one Church.

The body of Christ - no denomination.

As for Tradition. Jesus wrote not a word of Scripture and established many Traditions.

There is only one truth.

As for Magisterium. That means, Teacher, and is the mission which the Church has obediently accepted by command of Jesus Christ:

The question is - what is "The Church". Again, there were no denominations until the 4th century, and in scripture the true church is referred to as the body of Christ not a manmade organization.

[De Maria]

Originally Posted by De Maria View Post
Denominational? No, Jesus established one Church.

The body of Christ - no denomination.

I believe that is what I said. Jesus formed on Church, the Body of Christ. No denominations.

Quote:
As for Tradition. Jesus wrote not a word of Scripture and established many Traditions.

There is only one truth.

All of Jesus' Traditions are truth.

The question is - what is "The Church". Again, there were no denominations until the 4th century,

See Akoue's previous response on the same topic.

and in scripture the true church is referred to as the body of Christ not a manmade organization.

That is correct. Christ established the Church. Therefore, if you want to belong to Christ's Church, find the one you believe He established.

[Tj3]

I believe that is what I said. Jesus formed on Church, the Body of Christ. No denominations.

Good. Then the interpretation of scripture would not come from men who lead your church organization.

That is correct. Christ established the Church. Therefore, if you want to belong to Christ's Church, find the one you believe He established.

According to scripture, the moment hat we receive Christ as Saviour, we are a member of His church. I don't need to find anything to be a member of His church.

[De Maria]

Good. Then the interpretation of scripture would not come from men who lead your church organization.

Huh? How does that even follow my statement?

I said:
Originally Posted by De Maria View Post
I believe that is what I said. Jesus formed on Church, the Body of Christ. No denominations.

And you respond:

Good. Then the interpretation of scripture would not come from men who lead your church organization

Are you saying that Jesus did not give His Church the authority to interpret His Word?

According to scripture, the moment hat we receive Christ as Saviour, we are a member of His church. I don't need to find anything to be a member of His church.

You'll have to show me where that is written. Because Scripture is clear that the Church makes disciples by teaching them and baptizing those who believe.

Matthew 28: 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

[Tj3]

Huh? How does that even follow my statement?

It follows logically.

Are you saying that Jesus did not give His Church the authority to interpret His Word?

Yes, He does. But the question is "what is His church?"

You'll have to show me where that is written. Because Scripture is clear that the Church makes disciples by teaching them and baptizing those who believe.

Do you know the difference between making a disciple and being saved?

[De Maria]

It follows logically.

I don't think so.

Yes, He does. But the question is "what is His church?"

Not really. You have a definition for that term, which is different than mine. The question is, who is right?

As you so astutely said to me before, just because you believe it, doesn't make it true.

So, I'll start another thread with that question. You provide your definition of "what is His Church" and I'll provide mine. Then we will each support our definition with Scripture and the Early Church Fathers.

Sound fair?

Do you know the difference between making a disciple and being saved?

I know my understanding of the difference. That understanding differs from yours. I think my understanding is right. Who do you think is right?

[Tj3]

I don't think so.

I was not expecting you to agree.

Not really. You have a definition for that term, which is different than mine. The question is, who is right?

I'll stick with the definition from scripture.

So, I'll start another thread with that question. You provide your definition of "what is His Church" and I'll provide mine. Then we will each support our definition with Scripture and the Early Church Fathers.

I'll stick with scripture.

I know my understanding of the difference. That understanding differs from yours. I think my understanding is right. Who do you think is right?

I'll stick with scripture.

[De Maria]

A lot depends here on what one means by the word "denomination". In one sense of the word there were no denominations until well after 325. In another sense of the word, though, there were lots of denominations before 325: There were Marcionites, Valentinians, Basilideans, Montanists, Arians, Donatists, etc. Groups, in other words, that for various reasons broke off from the main body of Apostolic Churches (each of the groups I mention were around before 325) which recognized themselves as a single body until well after the Council of Nicaea.

Good point Akoue. Perhaps we could discuss this further in the new thread entitled, "What is His Church?"

[arcura]

I agree with akoue on that.
There were NO denominations as we understand them till the reformation took place.
Peace and kindness,
Fred