Why All the Divisions Within Christ's Church?

[Mungo]

I didn't say anything about the Catholic church. You are the one who brought it up and out of the blue.

Post #11 "I have stated that I realize many denominations came out of the Reformation, and as you imply, a lot of that is because of the RCC .....The Reformation returned authority to scripture alone, sola scriptura, rather than traditions and edicts of the church."

 

[Mungo]

Why is that weird? Making an actual argument against or for something specific is how debate works. You obviously had specific things in mind when you made your statement

No I didn't.

 

[Arial]

1Cor 11:34 “About the other things I will give instructions when I come.”
Paul gave them addition teaching - orally, not in writing

How do you know that what he taught them orally was not also written in his other epistles. What he says here is not carte blanche for us to fill in the blanks by imagining what he might have said, or to come up with our own sayings as though they had as much authority as what Paul said. No one today is in the same authoritative position as were Jesus and the apostles He appointed and taught. The apostles were put in that position by Jesus Himself and for a particular purpose and mission. To establish the teachings and doctrines and order and discipline of His church, as well as on appropriate behaviors and attitudes the Christian is to reflect as a means of progressive sanctification. We can be sure that nothing that is written to us in either OT (and Jesus verified the truthfuAgainlness of the OT by quoting it frequently) or NT was contradicted by anything that was spoken and wasn't written down, that we have in our Bible. Unless of course one does not believe that the Bible is the very word of God given through men under the power and influence of the Holy Spirit, and that it therefore contains all that we need to learn of Him and to receive salvation through union with Christ. And that there is nothing that needs to be added to it. Or should be added to it. Or if one does not believe this and also that God oversaw even what was included in it.

Yes, Sacred Tradition - given orally not in writing.

To say "Sacred Tradition" tells me nothing of what you mean by that? Can you give me an example of what you mean?

Yes, Timothy is to teach what he has heard from Paul (orally) and to each others. (orally). Nothing about handing out scripture for them to work out their own doctrines.

John also writes writes “Although I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink; instead I hope to come to you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete” (2 John 1:12).
Oral teaching not written.

Again, this does not mean that we can make up what was said orally and add it to what is written, and then consider it to have as much authority as what is written. Not all traditions are bad. They are bad when they add to what is in scripture in a way that contradicts scripture, and then consider that this addition is more valid than what scripture says.

 

[Arial]

No I didn't.

If that were the case, why did you say it? I would think it had to be based on something? Maybe we need to go back to what you said, taking into consideration that I had said nothing about Catholic doctrine.

No Cathiolic doctrine (properly understood) contradicts Scripture (properly interpreted.)

 

[Mungo]

Hi thanks for the reply

Sorry for the rambling length

If Paul gave them addition teaching - orally, not in writing . Are those "missing words" written in the succession of venerable fathers book of the law (CCC) ?

If not what were the missing words?

If you rid one written authority it must be replaced with another. we don't serve a gospel of wondering, wondering never coming to the end of faith the salvation of ones soul . we receive the last from the first as born again.

Oral traditions are not laws of God .but are false laws as philopshical theories of men as private interpretations. or personal commentaries what they believe God is teaching them .

Have you heard of the "three legged stool"? Three elements are needed for stability. Without one of them the stool falls over.
Regarding doctrine the three are:
1. Sacred Scripture
2. Sacred Tradition - the oral teaching from God
3. A Magisterium to correctly interpret the above.

The reformers jettisoned the second and made individuals their own magisterium interpreting scripture themselves. That is why Protestantism is splintering into more and more pieces.

Every believer has a opinion (heresy) in that way. Christ infallible informs us their must be heresies amongst us as long as they do not do despite to the fulness of Grace the "full price of redemption ". The old testament laws of the sinful venerated fathers as oral traditions of men wanted nothing to do with all things written in the law and the prophets (sola scriptura ) At that time period all the Jewish un believing women that were communing with with a legion of gods as workers with familiar spirits. there husbands in full awareness They demanded a quern in heaven to complete their government of venerable lording it over the faith of the non-venerable . They taught that only the Queen of heaven was filled with the fulness of grace and every other human a remnant unknowable and it was required they suffer after they take their last breath to wonder, suffer, wonder for an unknown period of time .
That oral tradition I would think does do despite to the fulness of grace giving glory to corrupted dying aging flesh

I think we can call that oral tradition of the fathers, Kings Queens the unbelieving Jewish woman's lib

Jerimiah 44: 15-17 Then all the men which knew that their wives had burned incense unto other gods, and all the women that stood by, a great multitude, even all the people that dwelt in the land of Egypt, in Pathros, answered Jeremiah, saying, As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil.


No man can serve two teaching masters as one unseen Lord as God . The faith (Christ's working in us by which we can walk or understand by comes from hearing His interpretation or understanding called the Bible . Not to be confused with the Catholic Bible book of their law . The CCC, laws as commandments of men.

You say Sacred Tradition "I heard it through the fathers grapevine"- given orally not in writing. Can you discard the law of the fathers written in the (CCC) Or what you call the apostolic succession' interpretation which is clearly not a biblically interpretation .God interpretation is that which he writes with his unseen finger . When he wrote them after hewing out the tablets .He wrote them on both sides no room for I heard it through the grape vine (oral tradition) . After destroying the first set to show his anger of those who were violating it with their. . "I heard it through the grape vine law of men" . he put an end to there murmuring against (sola scriptura ) This time he moved the apostle Moses to hew out two new ones. And again He wrote the same words . teaches us how he works in us to both will and perform his good pleasure To the law (broken) and the testimony the new law of faith .

His interpretation is revealed in the living abiding word of God. The word apostle simply mean "sent one ". God sent a Ass to do the work of a apostle (beautiful feed shod with the gospel of peace) . An Ass used in ceremonial laws as shadows of the unseen eternal . according to the ceremony a lamb a clean animal to represent the redeemed. Not redeemed the neck is to be broken to signify the spirit of Judgement The Ass signified as a unclean animal to represent the unredeemed. God put his words on its tongue .It moved the false prophet Balaam. Apostle sent one.

Just the opposite of the garden on Eden. There the spirit of error Lucifer before his legs' were cut off and could no longer walk together in agreement with God. Satan or legion (many names) The most beautiful of all creatures in false pride put his word on the tongue of the serpent. In effect saying you surely will not in dying, die and your corrupted earthen body will not return to the dust and the temporal spirt given under the letter of the law (death ) is made to no effect . In effect again sayin who believe in a Holy Father ,Holy See Vicar Christ as not seen not seen . destroying the one true source of faith. . The Balaam parable restoring it destroying the counterfeiters.

God is not served by corrupter dying hands of mankind . In Job 23 we are infallibly informed by the living word of God, that God who is not a man as us is of one mind and always does whatsoever his soul desires .In that way one of his names is Jealous he owns all things and holds all thing together by the power of His will . He will not share the glory of a new creation with earthen vessels of death . As we are infallibly informed below. We have the born again treasure of his mighty power working in us but would never say it was or these earthen bodies of death Then we make God out to be the liar.

2 Corinthians 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

I can't follow you thoughts here.

 

[Mungo]

If that were the case, why did you say it? I would think it had to be based on something? Maybe we need to go back to what you said, taking into consideration that I had said nothing about Catholic doctrine.

It was a reply to your post, particularly the statement:
"Neither Jesus or the apostles taught anything contrary to the scripture they had, and we are not to teach anything contrary to what they taught."

Your post was in response to one of mine and therefore directed to wards me. Therefore your statement implied that the Catholic Church taught doctrine contrary to Scripture and the teaching of Jesus.

 

[Grace Accepted]

They have been let right into our pulpits and authors and theologians in fact. Our itchy ears hear what we want to hear and take up whatever beliefs that appeal to us. And that is because the foundation has been torn asunder. God's sovereignty. Original sin. The starting point from which to get much of what Jesus and the apostles teach. Those two things are the starting point of knowing both our need and our God and Savior. In this I am not saying that a person who believes they are saved because they made the choice are not saved. I must be clear about that. That is something that can be seen in scripture and interpreted that way, and it is the content of our belief about the person and work of Christ, (in our heart and to the degree of an individual's capacity to comprehend the things of salvation,) and that alone saves. Unfortunately when people try to explain this paradox of God's sovereignty and man's choice, they try and explain the paradox with free will. In the explaining of this, what is usually arrived at tears down the sovereignty of God. Leaving either confusion or outright denial of His sovereignty. A "fixing God" approach comes about.

What I am saying in this thread is that whereas it does not change one's salvation, it changes our understanding of many other things we find in scripture and limits to some degree how we view God and how we view ourselves in relation and relationship to Him. And that by changing or not teaching on God's sovereignty and original sin in a scriptural way----the way these two things have been established as church doctrine---- we have gates wide open and walls in shambles that allow every wind of doctrine to become a part of what is meant to be Christ's church. The flocks have shepherds as untaught and ungrounded as they are. Neither the flock nor the shepherd have discernment as to what is true and what is false teaching, because they accept whatever sounds good, or increases the numbers. Not all. And not everywhere. But this exists.

This is why I say lack of Christians. Christians have one spirit one Lord and one baptism. That learn from Christ by the power and inspiration of the spirit and they ever are growing in the singular attribute of God.

 

[God's Truth]

All denominations preach falseness, some more than others. They don't know how to let Jesus be the Teacher. The Bible says that demons teach false doctrines, no doubt by way of men, and in some cases women.

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

1 Timothy 4:16 Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.

2 Timothy 2:26 and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.

 

[Arial]

Post #11 "I have stated that I realize many denominations came out of the Reformation, and as you imply, a lot of that is because of the RCC .....The Reformation returned authority to scripture alone, sola scriptura, rather than traditions and edicts of the church."

I said that because that is one of the reasons the protestant reformation occurred. My statement was about something that truly occurred within Christianity and the church at that time. It is not a discussion on Catholic doctrine. It is a statement of fact. As I have said I have just the bare bones of what is taught now in Catholic doctrine because I have no interest in it. To my knowledge, which is next to none, that was not still a part of Catholic teaching. I am guessing now due to you reaction and angst, that it is. It makes not one iota of difference to me. My thrust in the OP was towards something else entirely.

For example: what is your personal position on the sovereignty of God? What is you personal position on original sin? And P.S. in my study of the reformation (which I was accused by somebody else of knowing nothing about) and the teachings within it, many of the doctrines held in the Catholic church at that time were kept in protestant doctrine.

 

[Mungo]

How do you know that what he taught them orally was not also written in his other epistles. What he says here is not carte blanche for us to fill in the blanks by imagining what he might have said, or to come up with our own sayings as though they had as much authority as what Paul said. No one today is in the same authoritative position as were Jesus and the apostles He appointed and taught. The apostles were put in that position by Jesus Himself and for a particular purpose and mission. To establish the teachings and doctrines and order and discipline of His church, as well as on appropriate behaviors and attitudes the Christian is to reflect as a means of progressive sanctification. We can be sure that nothing that is written to us in either OT (and Jesus verified the truthfuAgainlness of the OT by quoting it frequently) or NT was contradicted by anything that was spoken and wasn't written down, that we have in our Bible. Unless of course one does not believe that the Bible is the very word of God given through men under the power and influence of the Holy Spirit, and that it therefore contains all that we need to learn of Him and to receive salvation through union with Christ. And that there is nothing that needs to be added to it. Or should be added to it. Or if one does not believe this and also that God oversaw even what was included in it.

To say "Sacred Tradition" tells me nothing of what you mean by that? Can you give me an example of what you mean?

Again, this does not mean that we can make up what was said orally and add it to what is written, and then consider it to have as much authority as what is written. Not all traditions are bad. They are bad when they add to what is in scripture in a way that contradicts scripture, and then consider that this addition is more valid than what scripture says.

Sacred Tradition is the teaching of God, given by Jesus or through the apostles that were not written down and canonised - i.e. not Scripture.

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth [Tradition] or by letter [Scripture]. (2Thess 2:15)

When Catholics refer to Tradition (capital “T”), or Sacred Tradition, they do not mean those human customs and practices that arise and may change or disappear over time but to that apostolic teaching which has been passed on orally.

Protestants tend to regard Tradition as some dubious add on to the Bible. But as all teaching was initially oral it is more correct to see the Bible as a product of Tradition.

This Tradition was passed down, first orally of course, but then gradually became written down in the writings of the early fathers, the various creeds, in liturgies and ancient prayers and catechetical writings.

Paul wrote to Timothy. And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well. (2Tim 2:2)
Paul teaches Timothy. Timothy in his turn is to pass on that teaching to faithful people, who in their turn will pass it on to others.

Ireneaeus of Lyon gives us an insight into how Tradition was passed on
"Polycarp was instructed not only by the apostles and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna by the apostles in Asia. I saw him in my early youth, for he tarried a long time and when quite old departed this life in a glorious and most noble martyrdom. He always taught those things which he learned from the apostles and which the Church had handed down and which are true. To these things the churches in Asia bear witness, as do also the successors of Polycarp even to the present time" ((Against Heresies 3:3:1 [inter A.D. 180-199]).).

 

[Arial]

You keep giving opinions with no evidence for me to agree with or disagree with.
There is a maxim "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
It is not up to me to disprove your opinions. It is up to you to provide evidence tom back them up. That is how a discussion progresses.

Presenting an argument means providing evidence to back up your claims, not just stating them.

I have given evidence Mungo. You don't accept what I give as evidence. See the difference?
And I have heard nothing from you other than your opinion that I only give opinions. So far that has been mainly and maybe only when conversing with me, claim you have made. That I am stating opinion without support. Is that the gist of our conversation and is it going to continue to be the gist? If so, I think I have heard you say this same thing, with no support for saying it, enough. There is a saying that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I mean you have already admitted and asserted that you aren't talking about anything specific.

 

[Mungo]

For example: what is your personal position on the sovereignty of God? What is you personal position on original sin? A

I believe in original sin. As to the sovereignty of God - what exactly do you mean by that?