Post by I.M.Apologetics on Apr 1, 2008 15:05:33 GMT -5
This is my response to Menno at the other website's poll/thread "Pillar and Foundation of the Truth".
------------
Here is his post:
I voted 'bible' but I missed 'Jesus Christ' as an option.
This is my answer:
You all know that Jesus sayd in Matthew 23:8 'You shall not become a rabbi because that is the Father. But anyway you will become a brother (or sister). 9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father who is in heaven.
So the truth comes from God our Father in heaven and for us He put a fundament, His son Jesus. And Jesus does do the will of our Father, so his word is also the truth.
When speaking about the church, it is still Jesus Christ who is the head and we are the bodyparts, doing his will.
So I only could vote for the bible as the devine word of God. But God and Jesus are more than the bible is for us.
When the church fathers added teachings more than Jesus did, they made themselves rabbies. And that was against the word of Jesus Christ. That is why they fall of for me.
The church as a catholic brotherhood of followers of Jesus Christ must do the word of Jesus, not speak for themselves they think the word of Jesus should be.
May Jesus Christ our lord be a lamp for your feet and a light on your path.
Menno van Barneveld
----[[[[[[]]]]]]]-----
here is my response to him, which shall be our initial post and direct the course of this particular thread:
Hello Menno,
I am a martyr at Church USA (banned for defending the Catholic Church, which I held to be the true Church established by Christ, the true Apostolic Church that still holds the true Apostolic Succession and Apostolic Tradition), so I cannot reply to your comments at the Forums.
I noticed your response in the thread about the pillar and foundation of the Truth.
"I voted 'bible' but I missed 'Jesus Christ' as an option"
-> The poll said "according to the Bible", and the first response cites 1 Timothy 3:15, which clearly states that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth. This is not to say that there is no Truth in the Bible, nor that Jesus Christ is not the author and Source of all Truth, for you see, the Bible is the Word of God, which is also Jesus (see John 1:1), and the Church and Christ are one, as St. Paul says (see Ephesians 5:32).
Yet notice that the Bible never claims to be the foundation and pillar of the Truth. The Bible actually points to "the church of the living God", so the question is not "is the Bible our only source of Truth and our only authority?" but rather "which is the Church that St. Paul was speaking about?"
To answer this question we must go to the very first Christians, starting with the Church of Acts, and seeing its development through the letters of St. Paul, and seeing the further development in Revelation, which is a very liturgical book, suggesting that the early Church was developing its liturgy. We then can jump about 6 years after John wrote Revelation and see the long and authoritative first letter of Saint Clement (c. 96 AD, some date it earlier, others later), and see further evidence of the Church of Acts being the same in essence but indeed growing and developing. We can jump ahead 11 years and read St. Ignatius' espistles, then 43 years to read Justin Martyr's addresses and apologies to the emperor, which clearly reflect the primitive Church of Acts, though in a much more developed way. 39 years later we encounter Irenaeus' writings, Irenaeus being a disciple of Polycarp, and Polycarp having been trained by the Apostle John (as did St. Ignatius of Antioch). Ireneaus, alleges a Protestant scholar whose name escapes me right now, may have developed in the Apostles' teachings as passed down through word of mouth (cf. 2 Thess 2:15, see also 1 John 1:3), but he would have never contradict them - else see what happened to Arius or Nestor or any other heretic who questioned the teachings of the Apostles and made their own teachings (the heresies that they brought upon were quickly refuted and even condamned in Councils).
We can jump further from Irenaeus to Tertullian, Origen, Augustine, Jerome, Leo I, and we see the same thing that we saw with the Church of Acts. The same Church, but since the Church is the living Body of Christ (Who is the living God), the Church must grow and develop, never erring in doctrine, never changing in substance, always having the same essence, but growing and developing.
Now, the question then would be whether the Roman Catholic Church is indeed this Church, or maybe the Anglican Church, or Presbyterian or Calvinist or Lutheran... Somebody may even claim that it is the non-denominational "church", or some modern denomination. This is why it is important to look at the Church Fathers (remember that St. Paul called himself the spiritual father of Timothy and Titus [1 Tim 1:18; 2 Tim 2:1; Titus 1:4; also see Phm 1:10], so calling them "fathers" by no means contradicts Jesus' words, since also remember that Jesus said to call no one "fool", yet we see St. Paul calling the Galatians "fools" [Gal 3:1,3]).
This is why we must look at the early Church.
The New Testament is not a Church manual, is not a complete guide holding every doctrine already developed (else we wouldn't have to go to Tertullian or the Council of Nicaea for a broader understanding of the Trinity, in fact, we have to go to Tertullian and other Fathers in order to use the word "Trinity"; we owe this and much, much more to them: the Spirit through them).
The Bible never tells us not to look at the writings of the Church Fathers, it in facts tells us to hold fast to Apostolic Tradition (2 Thess 2:15; cf. 1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 3:6).
The Bible never claims to be all-sufficient, to be our only source of authority, to be our only truth. It points to the Church. We look to the first Christians, those taught directly by the Apostles and their successors. Then we see which church today is this Church.
I affirm that this is the Catholic Church (namely the Roman or Latin rite), but I admire and long to see the reasons behind why some Evangelicals claim that their church (either Lutheran or Anglican or Calvinist or any other orthodox Protestant church) is the Church of Christ, the same one of Acts and of the Church Fathers.
"So the truth comes from God our Father in heaven"
-> I cannot agree more, except that somehow you seem to limit God's whole Truth to a book (or many books, as is the Bible), especially when the Bible, the infallible and inerrant Word of God, never claims this. It certainly is a source of the Truth, a truth uncorrupted, but note that the Catholic Church follows both Scriptures and Tradition, not Tradition alone, and note that Tradition does not mean anything that any Church Father says, since Jesus gave us the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth (John 16:13), which is what the Magisterium does.
"When the church fathers added teachings more than Jesus did, they made themselves rabbies"
-> Note that the Church Fathers never added to Jesus' teachings, since the Apostles themselves taught many of the Church Fathers. The Scriptures tell us that not everything that Jesus did is written (John 21:25), so how do you know that the Church Fathers "added" to what He taught? With this philosophy that you pose, what logically follows is that St. Paul and St. James and St. John and St. Jude and St. Peter added to what Jesus taught, since we never see Jesus saying that "you have been justified by faith" but rather "if you wish to enter the Kingdom of Heaven you must follow the Commandments", neither did He say "unless you call Me Lord you will not have life in you" nor "if you call Me Lord from your heart you will be saved", He rather said "unless you eat My flesh and drink My blood you have no life in you" and "not everyone who calls me 'Lord, Lord' will inherit eternal life". Yet all those quotes are taught in the Bible, but not all of them taught through Jesus' mouth (in fact, the Apostles and diciples wrote the New Testament, Jesus only wrote in the ground when Mary was being condamned; that is the only evidence we have of Jesus writing).
So it is in fact you who are being a "rabbi" because your accusation upon the Church Fathers not only is not in Scriptures, but also would apply to St. Paul and St. James and the others... which is something I'm sure you wouldn't like to do.
"The church as a catholic brotherhood of followers of Jesus Christ must do the word of Jesus, not speak for themselves they think the word of Jesus should be."
-> St. James warns us against this. He tells us, "be doers of the word, and not only heares" (James 1:22). Yet you say, "not speak for themselves they think the word of Jesus shoudl be"... yet isn't this exactly what you're doing?
You are saying that the Church Fathers are wrong, and that therefore we should listen to your interpretation of the Bible, which is "do not speak for yourself what you think the word of Jesus should be"... but again, please see that this is exactly what you are doing, you yourself are speaking for yourself what you think the word of Jesus says.
May God's holy Name be praised now and forever. Amen.
Pax Christi, God bless,
Juan J.
PS: Sorry this turned out so long. I hope you read it all and you think about it in your prayer. May the Lord continue to guide us deeper into the fullness of His truth. Amen.
------------
Here is his post:
I voted 'bible' but I missed 'Jesus Christ' as an option.
This is my answer:
You all know that Jesus sayd in Matthew 23:8 'You shall not become a rabbi because that is the Father. But anyway you will become a brother (or sister). 9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father who is in heaven.
So the truth comes from God our Father in heaven and for us He put a fundament, His son Jesus. And Jesus does do the will of our Father, so his word is also the truth.
When speaking about the church, it is still Jesus Christ who is the head and we are the bodyparts, doing his will.
So I only could vote for the bible as the devine word of God. But God and Jesus are more than the bible is for us.
When the church fathers added teachings more than Jesus did, they made themselves rabbies. And that was against the word of Jesus Christ. That is why they fall of for me.
The church as a catholic brotherhood of followers of Jesus Christ must do the word of Jesus, not speak for themselves they think the word of Jesus should be.
May Jesus Christ our lord be a lamp for your feet and a light on your path.
Menno van Barneveld
----[[[[[[]]]]]]]-----
here is my response to him, which shall be our initial post and direct the course of this particular thread:
Hello Menno,
I am a martyr at Church USA (banned for defending the Catholic Church, which I held to be the true Church established by Christ, the true Apostolic Church that still holds the true Apostolic Succession and Apostolic Tradition), so I cannot reply to your comments at the Forums.
I noticed your response in the thread about the pillar and foundation of the Truth.
"I voted 'bible' but I missed 'Jesus Christ' as an option"
-> The poll said "according to the Bible", and the first response cites 1 Timothy 3:15, which clearly states that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth. This is not to say that there is no Truth in the Bible, nor that Jesus Christ is not the author and Source of all Truth, for you see, the Bible is the Word of God, which is also Jesus (see John 1:1), and the Church and Christ are one, as St. Paul says (see Ephesians 5:32).
Yet notice that the Bible never claims to be the foundation and pillar of the Truth. The Bible actually points to "the church of the living God", so the question is not "is the Bible our only source of Truth and our only authority?" but rather "which is the Church that St. Paul was speaking about?"
To answer this question we must go to the very first Christians, starting with the Church of Acts, and seeing its development through the letters of St. Paul, and seeing the further development in Revelation, which is a very liturgical book, suggesting that the early Church was developing its liturgy. We then can jump about 6 years after John wrote Revelation and see the long and authoritative first letter of Saint Clement (c. 96 AD, some date it earlier, others later), and see further evidence of the Church of Acts being the same in essence but indeed growing and developing. We can jump ahead 11 years and read St. Ignatius' espistles, then 43 years to read Justin Martyr's addresses and apologies to the emperor, which clearly reflect the primitive Church of Acts, though in a much more developed way. 39 years later we encounter Irenaeus' writings, Irenaeus being a disciple of Polycarp, and Polycarp having been trained by the Apostle John (as did St. Ignatius of Antioch). Ireneaus, alleges a Protestant scholar whose name escapes me right now, may have developed in the Apostles' teachings as passed down through word of mouth (cf. 2 Thess 2:15, see also 1 John 1:3), but he would have never contradict them - else see what happened to Arius or Nestor or any other heretic who questioned the teachings of the Apostles and made their own teachings (the heresies that they brought upon were quickly refuted and even condamned in Councils).
We can jump further from Irenaeus to Tertullian, Origen, Augustine, Jerome, Leo I, and we see the same thing that we saw with the Church of Acts. The same Church, but since the Church is the living Body of Christ (Who is the living God), the Church must grow and develop, never erring in doctrine, never changing in substance, always having the same essence, but growing and developing.
Now, the question then would be whether the Roman Catholic Church is indeed this Church, or maybe the Anglican Church, or Presbyterian or Calvinist or Lutheran... Somebody may even claim that it is the non-denominational "church", or some modern denomination. This is why it is important to look at the Church Fathers (remember that St. Paul called himself the spiritual father of Timothy and Titus [1 Tim 1:18; 2 Tim 2:1; Titus 1:4; also see Phm 1:10], so calling them "fathers" by no means contradicts Jesus' words, since also remember that Jesus said to call no one "fool", yet we see St. Paul calling the Galatians "fools" [Gal 3:1,3]).
This is why we must look at the early Church.
The New Testament is not a Church manual, is not a complete guide holding every doctrine already developed (else we wouldn't have to go to Tertullian or the Council of Nicaea for a broader understanding of the Trinity, in fact, we have to go to Tertullian and other Fathers in order to use the word "Trinity"; we owe this and much, much more to them: the Spirit through them).
The Bible never tells us not to look at the writings of the Church Fathers, it in facts tells us to hold fast to Apostolic Tradition (2 Thess 2:15; cf. 1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 3:6).
The Bible never claims to be all-sufficient, to be our only source of authority, to be our only truth. It points to the Church. We look to the first Christians, those taught directly by the Apostles and their successors. Then we see which church today is this Church.
I affirm that this is the Catholic Church (namely the Roman or Latin rite), but I admire and long to see the reasons behind why some Evangelicals claim that their church (either Lutheran or Anglican or Calvinist or any other orthodox Protestant church) is the Church of Christ, the same one of Acts and of the Church Fathers.
"So the truth comes from God our Father in heaven"
-> I cannot agree more, except that somehow you seem to limit God's whole Truth to a book (or many books, as is the Bible), especially when the Bible, the infallible and inerrant Word of God, never claims this. It certainly is a source of the Truth, a truth uncorrupted, but note that the Catholic Church follows both Scriptures and Tradition, not Tradition alone, and note that Tradition does not mean anything that any Church Father says, since Jesus gave us the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth (John 16:13), which is what the Magisterium does.
"When the church fathers added teachings more than Jesus did, they made themselves rabbies"
-> Note that the Church Fathers never added to Jesus' teachings, since the Apostles themselves taught many of the Church Fathers. The Scriptures tell us that not everything that Jesus did is written (John 21:25), so how do you know that the Church Fathers "added" to what He taught? With this philosophy that you pose, what logically follows is that St. Paul and St. James and St. John and St. Jude and St. Peter added to what Jesus taught, since we never see Jesus saying that "you have been justified by faith" but rather "if you wish to enter the Kingdom of Heaven you must follow the Commandments", neither did He say "unless you call Me Lord you will not have life in you" nor "if you call Me Lord from your heart you will be saved", He rather said "unless you eat My flesh and drink My blood you have no life in you" and "not everyone who calls me 'Lord, Lord' will inherit eternal life". Yet all those quotes are taught in the Bible, but not all of them taught through Jesus' mouth (in fact, the Apostles and diciples wrote the New Testament, Jesus only wrote in the ground when Mary was being condamned; that is the only evidence we have of Jesus writing).
So it is in fact you who are being a "rabbi" because your accusation upon the Church Fathers not only is not in Scriptures, but also would apply to St. Paul and St. James and the others... which is something I'm sure you wouldn't like to do.
"The church as a catholic brotherhood of followers of Jesus Christ must do the word of Jesus, not speak for themselves they think the word of Jesus should be."
-> St. James warns us against this. He tells us, "be doers of the word, and not only heares" (James 1:22). Yet you say, "not speak for themselves they think the word of Jesus shoudl be"... yet isn't this exactly what you're doing?
You are saying that the Church Fathers are wrong, and that therefore we should listen to your interpretation of the Bible, which is "do not speak for yourself what you think the word of Jesus should be"... but again, please see that this is exactly what you are doing, you yourself are speaking for yourself what you think the word of Jesus says.
May God's holy Name be praised now and forever. Amen.
Pax Christi, God bless,
Juan J.
PS: Sorry this turned out so long. I hope you read it all and you think about it in your prayer. May the Lord continue to guide us deeper into the fullness of His truth. Amen.
