cybershark5886 said:
This is probably the one place where we would differ. I believe that only the Spirit can hold that office. Now the Spirit can speak through any man, even your local Pastor as to the proper interpretation of Scripture if God has revealed something to him. Of course now whether it comes from the Pope or your local Pastor we should always still be like the Bereans and double check the Scriptures with the proposed interpretation and not just "take their word for it" (because they are not infallible - they are men) and often if you are close in your walk with God the Spirit will confirm the word to you personally if it is true. But I object to the idea that the Pope and bishops have a monopoly on exposing proper "faith articles".
Josh,
OK, I found your long post!
The Spirit, "holds the office" as you say, but He shares Himself and this office with men whom He has appointed. Thus, the laying of hands is the visible means in the Bible and the ancient Church to pass on the Spirit and the office of authority. Sure, we are to "check" the Scriptures. But we have confidence that the Spirit will not lead us astray - Apostolic Tradition and Scritpures cannot disagree. The Bishops do NOT have a monopoly on the articles of faith, just DEFINING them. We believe in something called the "sense of the faithful", the entire Church's belief in a proposition based on its daily worship, devotion, and practice. The Bishops determine what their flocks are doing and believing and more clearly define what the flock is already doing and believing.
cybershark5886 said:
They most certainly may have some authority since they are Church government but they are men, and just like ordinary Pastors they are subject to being wrong. The Catholic Church has also through many, many councils revised doctrines over and over again (perhaps for the better, but it goes to show that it is not a perfected process), and such is the situation with all Churches. You can never reach the "level playing field" with absolute revelation of the Bible, its a constantly advancing understanding as the Holy Spirit himself (not the Pope) reveals the Word of God to the believer who reads with a ready heart (good soil for the word to grow in).
Yes, God is constantly advancing man's understanding of His once-given revelation to the Apostles - thus, Councils more clearly define articles of the faith. The Councils do not "revise" or "contradict" themselves. They are merely attempts to more clearly define what we believe already. Certainly, the result of private interpretation has left open the door of not knowing what God's revelation IS.
cybershark5886 said:
Actually I have a suggestion. Since it seems Catholicism is the hot-button topic among the natives of late, why don't we put this into a practical test and truely evaluate what we have been generalizing on. If my memory serves me right (correct me if I'm wrong), you say that transsubstantiation is such a doctrine passed down orally but not in the Scripture, thus (obviously) why you would defend such a tradition as you do now. Why don't you make a thread on it, so that you can inject some reasonableness into the topic by spearheading it and molding/presenting it in the manner you wish, and do so with support with actual quotes of such an early doctrine that mentions it being part of the Apostolic tradition. Then we can discuss and evalute the truthfulness and/or meaning of such texts/quotes. I honestly would enjoy such a straight-shot approach in comparison to all this "Catholic hubub" nonsense that's been going on recently.
If only more people who disagree with Catholicism were like you! Unfortunately, if I were to start a thread, it would just draw out more of the attacks anew. Then, I'd have to defend on yet another front!
As to transubstantiation, for your benefit, not to start another post, I can give you a few examples of what early Christians thought about the Eucharistic bread and wine. Then, make the logical conclusion that this is transubstantiation. The accidents (appearance) doesn't change, nor did it for them. Yet, the substance (essence) does, as it did for them. Thus, the Aristotilian word is appropriately descrbing what happens and is considered Apostolic. Here are a few quotes just from the 100-200 AD period...
Ignatius of Antioch 110 AD
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1).
. . .
and are now ready to obey your bishop and clergy with undivided minds and to share in the one common breaking of bread – the medicine of immortality, and the sovereign remedy by which we escape death and live in Jesus Christ for evermore (Letter to the Ephesians 20).
Justin Martyr 150 AD
We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these, but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus (First Apology 66)
Irenaeus 189 AD
He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life  flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord and is in fact a member of him? (Against Heresies 5:2).
Clement of Alexandria 191 AD
"
Eat my flesh" [Jesus] says, "and drink my blood." The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3).
Clearly, the Eucharistic bread didn't change appearance, but it took on a new meaning for the first Christians - thus, the term is appropriate. The term, defined 1000 years later, can be called Apostolic because its meaning was believed by the earliest Church teachings.
cybershark5886 said:
Once again I lay emphasis on the personal teaching of the Holy Spirit. Continual studying will yield spiritual understanding, and that comes of the Spirit alone.
But what happens, Josh, when you have two Protestants who are "equally in the Spirit"? Say you and Solo disagree on an article of the faith. WHO is the Spirit leading? Clearly, this is not God's intent to keep us unaware of His truth.
God never promised to protect the individual from error, but the COMMUNITY, the Church. IT is the foundation and pillar of the truth. It is the ENTIRE COMMUNITY, in its own way, that is infallibly protected, not the individual. Even the Pope is not protected UNLESS he is speaking in capacity of his position as speaking for the entire Christian Church when defining an article of faith. Consider the Pastorals. Paul charges the LEADERS to maintain the truth of the articles of faith, not the individual.
cybershark5886 said:
And I honestly hope you take me up on my proposition above for making a straight-forward thread so that all this hubub can quit beating around the "generalization bush," so that we can actually get to the heart of some specific issues.
I am not a fan of "hub-bub"!
I wish I was as optimistic as you on such matters, but I am fairly certain that I would only be stoking the fire that has been kindled of late.
Regards
