Why All the Divisions Within Christ's Church?

[Arial]

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)

Who decides who and what is tradition and why if it is outside of Scripture? That scripture says to hold fast to what they were taught by word of mouth or letter. And it refers to the teachings, doctrines they were taught---by the apostles. If they were taught orally anything that is not contained in our scriptures, it did not contradict anything we do have, or contain anything that is necessary for our salvation that is not contained within scripture. Whether my saying this is to you unsupported opinion depends on whether or not you think scripture is trustworthy and sufficient. I can do nothing about your opinions on that.

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.

Can I have an example? That is difficult to parse through a protestant lens.

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.

I am sure some do, but within protestant Christianity, traditions are considered those things that are contained in scripture, that are represented in today's church through representative ceremony. The last supper through communion and baptism as two examples. It is my understanding that the Catholic church as many such things, and that their basis, according to a protestant understanding and interpretation, some are not found in scripture.

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.

Examples?

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]).).

Paul is telling Timothy to teach what he has learned from an Apostle, to keep it faithful to the teaching and in doing so, pass it on, intact, is one way of putting it. There is nothing unusual about that. It is how one generation holds on to truth into future generations. We have all of it now in writing. In the NT. That does not mean that it should not be expounded on, put in our own words, written about in an expository way---that is in part how we get an understanding of scripture and God told the Israelites to do the same. Daily. To have it ever before their eyes. But what is said and what is taught must be consistent with what is in the Bible, not outside of it.

"Things which he learned from the apostles." We are to do the same. What we learn from the apostles. We have that in writing now.

 

[Arial]

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

What is your definition of original sin?
Sovereignty of God means He rules and reigns and governs over all of His creation. He does as He pleases. And He doesn't come to us for permission.

 

[Mr G Lee]

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.

The evidence of the unseen Holy Father is as it is written .(sola scriptura) The word It in that metptphor "as it is written " is used over 50 times in various parables represent the labor of God's it as the love is a work of his faith . the power of the gospel

Three times the father of lies brought a vision into the weakened fleshly mind of Jesus who had not eaten 40 days . The father strengthening the Son Jesus the apostle gave Jesus words to rebuke the spirit of error .Three times with three denoting the end of a matter. Jesus the Son of man said again and again as it is written The spirit of false apostles a hierarchy of venerable men left . There is no defense against all things written in the law and the prophets (sola scriptura)

Mathew4:7-11 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.

 

[Mungo]

Who decides who and what is tradition and why if it is outside of Scripture? That scripture says to hold fast to what they were taught by word of mouth or letter. And it refers to the teachings, doctrines they were taught---by the apostles. If they were taught orally anything that is not contained in our scriptures, it did not contradict anything we do have, or contain anything that is necessary for our salvation that is not contained within scripture. Whether my saying this is to you unsupported opinion depends on whether or not you think scripture is trustworthy and sufficient. I can do nothing about your opinions on that.

Can I have an example? That is difficult to parse through a protestant lens.

I am sure some do, but within protestant Christianity, traditions are considered those things that are contained in scripture, that are represented in today's church through representative ceremony. The last supper through communion and baptism as two examples. It is my understanding that the Catholic church as many such things, and that their basis, according to a protestant understanding and interpretation, some are not found in scripture.

Examples?

Paul is telling Timothy to teach what he has learned from an Apostle, to keep it faithful to the teaching and in doing so, pass it on, intact, is one way of putting it. There is nothing unusual about that. It is how one generation holds on to truth into future generations. We have all of it now in writing. In the NT. That does not mean that it should not be expounded on, put in our own words, written about in an expository way---that is in part how we get an understanding of scripture and God told the Israelites to do the same. Daily. To have it ever before their eyes. But what is said and what is taught must be consistent with what is in the Bible, not outside of it.

"Things which he learned from the apostles." We are to do the same. What we learn from the apostles. We have that in writing now.

We have things in writing but not all those writings are scripture.
You ask for examples. Here are four.

1. A common dispute is whether we should baptised "in Jesus name" only or "in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". Another argument that goes on and on is whether baptism should be by immersion only or whether pouring water over the head is acceptable.
According to the Didache (probably dated about 70 AD) , also know as "The Teaching of The Twelve Apostles"
“And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. But if you have no living [running] water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.” (chap 7)

2. Another argument about baptism is, does it regenerate us?
Justin Martyr wrote extensively in the 2nd century
"Whoever are convinced and believe that what they are taught and told by us is the truth, and professes to be able to live accordingly, is instructed to pray and to beseech God in fasting for the remission of their former sins, while we pray and fast with them. Then they are led by us to a place where there is water, and they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: In the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they receive the washing of water. For Christ said, 'Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.'...The reason for doing this, we have learned from the Apostles" (The First Apology 61:14-17 [inter A.D. 148-155]).

3. Another long running argument is was Peter ever in Rome.
Irenaeus of Lyon was a disciple if Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John. He writes
"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1)

4, What did Jesus mean by “Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. (John 3:5)?
Was the water physical water or the word of God (ref Eph 5:26)?

John didn't say but it is clarified by Irenaeus of Lyon
" 'And dipped himself,' says [the Scripture], 'seven times in Jordan.' It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'" Irenaeus, Fragment, 34 (A.D. 190).

Note that, as Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John, he is equivalent to the faithful people of 2Tim 2:2.

 

[Mungo]

What is your definition of original sin?

ORIGINAL SIN

Either the sin committed by Adam as the head of the human race, or the sin he passed onto his posterity with which every human being, with the certain exception of Christ and his Mother, is conceived and born. The sin of Adam is called originating original sin (originale originans); that of his descendants is originated original sin (originale originatum). Adam's sin was personal and grave, and it affected human nature. It was personal because he freely committed it; it was grave because God imposed a serious obligation; and it affected the whole human race by depriving his progeny of the supernatural life and preternatural gifts they would have possessed on entering the world had Adam not sinned. Original sin in his descendants is personal only in the sense that the children of Adam are each personally affected, but not personal as though they had voluntarily chosen to commit the sin; it is grave in the sense that it debars a person from the beatific vision, but not grave in condemning one to hell; and it is natural only in that all human nature, except for divine intervention, has it and can have it removed only by supernatural means.
(Catholic Dictionary)

Sovereignty of God means He rules and reigns and governs over all of His creation. He does as He pleases. And He doesn't come to us for permission.

In general I agree with that. However it's application depends on what we each understand about the nature of God.

 

[Grace Accepted]

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.

All humans espouse error to some degree or other, yes, even you. We see through a glass darkly. The idea isn't to be the perfect theologian speaking the language of men and angels, and having the gift of prophecy, and fathoming all mysteries and knowledge.

The true measure of God is how we treat those who disagree with us. It is how we reflect God's attributes. If we are of one baptism, one Lord, and one faith, then our disagreements can easily be tolerated since people are more important to God than our notions. The clanging gongs and crashing cymbals often drown out the still small voice calling us home.

 

[Mr E]

All humans espouse error to some degree or other, yes, even you. We see through a glass darkly. The idea isn't to be the perfect theologian speaking the language of men and angels, and having the gift of prophecy, and fathoming all mysteries and knowledge.

The true measure of God is how we treat those who disagree with us. It is how we reflect God's attributes. If we are of one baptism, one Lord, and one faith, then our disagreements can easily be tolerated since people are more important to God than our notions. The clanging gongs and crashing cymbals often drown out the still small voice calling us home.

Haunted by PM's?

I actually agree with you.

 

[God's Truth]

All humans espouse error to some degree or other, yes, even you.

God's Truth can be known, by anyone.

We see through a glass darkly.

That is about before the perfect came. The perfect came, and there are no more shifting shadows and dimness.

The idea isn't to be the perfect theologian speaking the language of men and angels, and having the gift of prophecy, and fathoming all mysteries and knowledge.

The true measure of God is how we treat those who disagree with us. It is how we reflect God's attributes. If we are of one baptism, one Lord, and one faith, then our disagreements can easily be tolerated since people are more important to God than our notions. The clanging gongs and crashing cymbals often drown out the still small voice calling us home.

Maybe you have an issue with Paul then, for he noticed he became people's enemy by telling them the truth. He said if he was a friend to the world then he wouldn't be a servant of God's.

Galatians 1:10 Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.

 

[Arial]

What about "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me." Didn't Paul also tell us that?

Yes. Through Christ. And we can win that battle between or spirit and our flesh, but we don't always. I believe Paul is making it clear that even he goes through this too. Though I realize there are a number of ways of viewing it. I arrive where I do because it is a common experience and because after getting to the place where he sees himself as wretched (also a common experience for the Christian) he says, "Praise God through Jesus ." And what he is delivered from is his body of death. We are saved from that penalty for sin in Christ, pointed out by vere 1 of the next chapter, "There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ."

First Paul states he's talking to those who knew the law. In fact what he's doing in chapter 7 is telling the problems with the law and how he was a miserable wretch when under the law. How he had no power to keep from doing what he didn't want to do. No way does that apply to Paul in his present state. The Law has no dominion over him (as he states in Chapter 6). He goes on in chapter 8 to speak of life and no longer under the law.

There were both Jews and Gentiles in the Roman church. Paul addresses the issues of the law to those who know the law, but he is stressing them both being of one body. There is historical evidence that suggests in that church and in Rome, they were keeping their gatherings segregated. That is why Paul took a great deal of time to explain these things if that is the case.

Romans 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. Paul was clearly speaking of when he was under the Law. That's what being under the law does...it kills.

Speaking to those who were under the law as Jews before they came to Christ and explaining the purpose of the law.

Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his 10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

Yes. Christ's righteousness.

I submit our nature is HUMAN. Humans are in the flesh. Scripture says we're fearfully and wonderfully made. Created with a conscience, I might add.

Isaiah 7:15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

Everything is what it is, but it has a nature, Thus the expression "human nature." The inherent features of something. Characteristic of. The psychological characteristics, feelings, and behavioral traits of humankind that are regarded as shared by all humans. Paul describes that as sin in us when it comes to sin. Same when scriptures speak of all falling short of the glory of God. Or being born in sin. The probability of all people sinning (falling short of the glory of God) is 100%.

David has just been found out about Bathsheba and he is whimpering about what a sinner he is. Going so far as to blame his mother for sinning while conceiving him. In Ephesians the children of wrath is based upon sins committed. He even lists out what's been done.

That verse in Psalm 51 is clearly using poetic license. First it is speaking of the wicked.....going astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.

David: It may be that he was blaming his mother for sinning to conceive him but there is no evidence to support that. He was speaking of original sin.
The conditions described in Eph apply to all people. Paul was speaking to believers and reminding them of the wretched state they were in before union with Christ. We all come out of that same place.
We are all wicked and can only be redeemed by Christ.

IMO

 

[Grace Accepted]

God's Truth can be known, by anyone.

For now, we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 1 Corinthians 13:12

We can know what God reveals and He reveals what is essential to us.

That is about before the perfect came. The perfect came, and there is no more shifting shadows and dimness.

There is no evidence for that. Take the Bible as it reads unless it clarifies itself.

Maybe you have an issue with Paul then, for he noticed he became people's enemy by telling them the truth. He said if he was a friend to the world then he wouldn't be a servant of God's.

It was Paul I was paraphrasing.

 

[God's Truth]

For now, we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 1 Corinthians 13:12

I know where it is from
Light has come into the world and we don't see dimly anymore.

We can know what God reveals and He reveals what is essential to us.


There is no evidence for that. Take the Bible as it reads unless it clarifies itself.


It was Paul I was paraphrasing.

This is Paul: Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.

 

[Grace Accepted]

I know where it is from
Light has come into the world and we don't see dimly anymore.

This text was written decades after Christ had completed His earthly mission. Paul's reference of seeing Him face to face definitely indicates that this will take place at Christ's 2nd coming. We are not yet faced to face with God.

This is Paul: Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.

Love is not winning the approval of people. If we loved our children that way, they would end up spoiled brats.