what is the gospel?

[kenod]

Originally Posted by Thomas

It's interesting to note that it is the Church's tradition that the Old Testament, the Jewish Scriptures, forms part of the canon of the Christian bible - nowhere does Jesus say they are sacred or inspired texts - yet sola scripture overlooks this point when considering the Old Testament as scripture.

A Protestant point of view:

I believe the Gospels show that Jesus validated the OT.

Matthew 22:29
Jesus answered and said unto them,
Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures,
nor the power of God.

Luke 24:47
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets,
he expounded unto them in all the scriptures
the things concerning himself.

John 5:39
Search the scriptures;
for in them ye think ye have eternal life:
and they are they which testify of me.

Likewise, the Canon of the New Testament was no ratified until the sixteenth century (Council of Trent, 1545) - until then the books were considered 'according to tradition'.

The Bible was first translated into English by John Wycliffe (1382) and William Tyndale (1525). Both men were persecuted by the church, and Tyndale was burnt at the stake. Luther's Bible also predates The Council of Trent. 1545 may be significant in the history of the RC Church, but it is not significant in the establishment of the NT canon. As far back as Irenaeus and Polycarp all the books of the NT were well accepted. Formal ratification by the political church, which did so much to keep the Scriptures from the people, had very little to do with the spiritual recognition of what is the Word of God.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

It's interesting to note that it is the Church's tradition that the Old Testament, the Jewish Scriptures, forms part of the canon of the Christian bible - nowhere does Jesus say they are sacred or inspired texts

Seems he does say he came to fulfill the prophecies, seems when he was asked what was the most importantant commandment he named the two that were the highest in Judaic tradition from the old testament, seems he quoted often, including 'ye are G-ds'...He may not have said, but he implied, repeatedly.

[Thomas]

1545 may be significant in the history of the RC Church, but it is not significant in the establishment of the NT canon.

My point was that the church saw no need to make a statement on the canon of either Old or New until this time. It was accepted by all until the Reformation, when the Church was obliged to state its affirmation of the traditional Canon, rather than the revisions instituted by the Reformers, that's all. So it was the Reformers who broke with Irenaeus and Polycarp, not the other way round.

Thomas

[Thomas]

He may not have said, but he implied, repeatedly.

Absolutely - but then that thinking is orthodox - the reformers would say 'implied' is insufficient - hence their rebuttal of the 'full implication' of Trinity, Eucharist, etc.,

It is an interesting debate, though. Is the OT necessary? I think generally 'yes', and the Fathers were in agreement on that point, but the point has to be considered ... it was not a given from the word go ... one could interpret Paul (literally, but erroneously), for example, to mean that the Jewish scriptures were made redundant by Christ, when he spoke of a 'new and better way'.

Thomas

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by kenod

I believe the Gospels show that Jesus validated the OT.

I'm under the impression, though, that what we call the OT wasn't canonised by the Jews until at least 90AD, and that there was a wider set of Jewish apocrypha and pseudopigrapha doing the rounds.

[Thomas]

The 'Council' at Jamnia around 90AD declared only those texts in Hebrew were authoritative.

This discounted the existings texts that only survived in the Greek - mostlty centred on the Jews in Alexandria. It was from these texts - in Hebrew and Greek - that the Christians took the Old Testament.

Thomas

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Jeannot

So is this a point in the RC's favor? That is, there was a church and tradition before there were written gospels?

So what's RC? Reformed Church?

Church and tradition existing before the written text? Not exactly what I had in mind . . . As the idea of tradition and liturgy driving the faith is a very common idea, I was thinking more of a kind of Christianity (as another possibility) that was spread orally. It could have been a Christianity where, instead of some charismatic or intellectual leader speaking on the pulpit, it was people sharing with each other their thoughts on the faith. People would explain to each other what Jesus meant to them. In other words, it was not charisma and intellectual rambling from the pulpit, but the sharing of thoughts, feelings and ideas on Christ that kept the faith going. An oral gospel rather than a written gospel.

Not a hierarchical faith, but a participatory faith. Not an ideological faith requiring conformity to tradition or liturgy, but a faith that could allow for diversity. A faith where everybody was free to discover their own unique purpose in the community.

An Early Church driven by conformity to tradition and liturgy is one possibility, but an Early Church maintained by people from a diverse range of backgrounds, views and beliefs is yet another. Both were possible. We tend to affirm the former, but overlook the possibility of the latter.

Originally Posted by Thomas

So it was the Reformers who broke with Irenaeus and Polycarp, not the other way round.

The Reformers broke with Irenaeus and Polycarp? In what ways? What did they teach? I've recently read a book on the history of Christianity, but I can't remember exactly where in history Irenaeus and Polycarp appeared. I thought what we had now was pretty much what Irenaeus and Polycarp taught. It didn't ring an alarm bell while I was reading the history of Christianity, so I can't exactly remember what they taught. If the alarm bell had rung, I probably would have remembered.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

The Reformers broke with Irenaeus and Polycarp? In what ways? What did they teach? I've recently read a book on the history of Christianity, but I can't remember exactly where in history Irenaeus and Polycarp appeared. I thought what we had now was pretty much what Irenaeus and Polycarp taught. It didn't ring an alarm bell while I was reading the history of Christianity, so I can't exactly remember what they taught. If the alarm bell had rung, I probably would have remembered.

Polycarp and Irenaeus were around in the Second Century (Irenaeus's surviving works date mainly from the 180s CE). The idea that the leaders of the Reformation were breaking with Ireneaus and Polycarp is rather fantastical. One need only read Irenaeus and see how many of Martin Luther's 95 Theses contradict their writings. I'm pretty sure neither Ireneaus nor Polycarp were advocates of Papal indulgences (Lutherans). Though Polycarp wrote, "the love of money is the beginning of all troubles," so I don't think he'd disagree with Luther. I don't recall either of them writing about the need for Papal annulment of marriage (Anglicans). And predestination (Calvinists) was a common theme in Irenaeus's writings:

"God predetermining all things for the perfection of man, and for the bringing about and manifestation of his dispositions, that goodness may be shown, and righteousness perfected, and the church be conformed to the image of his Son, and at length become a perfect man, and by such things be made ripe to see God, and enjoy him."

"being predestinated indeed according to the knowledge of the Father; ut essemus qui nondum eramus,that we might be, who as yet were not, made, or were the beginning of his creation."

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

So what's RC? Reformed Church?

"Roman Catholic"

[Thomas]

Hi Saltmeister -

Church and tradition existing before the written text? Not exactly what I had in mind . . .
Nevertheless, that's the case.

And what did 'tradition' mean? The 'handing on' of what had been made known to the Apostles:
"We announce to you the eternal life which dwelt with the Father and was made visible to us. What we have seen and heard we announce to you, so that you may have fellowship with us and our common fellowship be with the Father and His Son Jesus Christ" (1 John 1:2-3) - the 'church' is that body of people in common fellowship.

As the idea of tradition and liturgy driving the faith is a very common idea, I was thinking more of a kind of Christianity (as another possibility) that was spread orally.
It was - but the central focus of the faith was the participation in the Mystery of Sonship.

It could have been a Christianity where, instead of some charismatic or intellectual leader speaking on the pulpit, it was people sharing with each other their thoughts on the faith.
But how would they know about the faith unless they were told about it? What is the content of faith if one subtracts what was 'handed down' (tradition) and the participation in the Mysterium Crucis? The sharing of faith is after the fact - faith itself comes first, the sharing after.

People would explain to each other what Jesus meant to them.
I'm sure they did, as they do today - but that's not what faith is - that is how they respond to it.

Also, they were not close witrness as the Apostles were, and they did not understand much of what He said, so confusion would abound if this alone was the case. That's why Jesus chose the twelve, and of that twelve picked three to whom he would reveal more - Peter, James and John.

In other words, it was not charisma and intellectual rambling from the pulpit, but the sharing of thoughts, feelings and ideas on Christ that kept the faith going.
Why could not 'the pulpit' be a place of leadership, example, enlightenment, of inspiration? of spiritual sustenance? of uplifting?

But surely 'the sharing of 'thoughts, feelings and ideas' is an intellectual exercise? I would say it was faith that kept the faith going, faith in the 'good news' imparted to them through the Apostles, and their successors - and that's what they spoke of.

The Early Church was not an intellectual church - Celcus and the like were highly critical of it for precisely this reason. What little we do know of numbers and social groupings is that the 'first wave' were primarily poor, with a large proportion of women. It is the women who took Christianity into the upper echelons of society.

An oral gospel rather than a written gospel.
The written gospel is simply the record of the oral gospel.

Not a hierarchical faith, but a participatory faith.
It was a participatory faith, but it has a hierarchy. Hierarchy belongs to the natural order of things - even the Supernatural Order is subject to hierarchy.

Not an ideological faith requiring conformity to tradition or liturgy, but a faith that could allow for diversity.
It depends on direction - the Church as a body celebrates what it holds in common as a body - one-ness in the Son and with the Father, through the Holy Spirit - "I am the Way" as Christ said, not 'everyone is the way' nor 'go your own way' - in fact Christ's message was that humanity is going the wrong way.

The focus of the church is upward/inward into Unity first, then outward/downward into diversity. The diversity of charism within the faith is then limitless - but the faith itself is one - it is the Word of God to which man conforms his entire being, and not, as volative man would have it, the Word conformed to suit his individual weakness and circumstance. There is Unity in Diversity, but the Unity comes first - all diversity is subject to it, otherwise diversity becomes anarchy.

As said above, what was 'handed down' (tradition) and participation in it (liturgy) is all there was.

A faith where everybody was free to discover their own unique purpose in the community.
They are part of 'the Mystical Body of Christ' - the fact that this has no material or quantitative measure was immaterial - their faith was mystical, not sociological.

An Early Church driven by conformity to tradition and liturgy is one possibility, but an Early Church maintained by people from a diverse range of backgrounds, views and beliefs is yet another. Both were possible. We tend to affirm the former, but overlook the possibility of the latter.
But the Church was diverse - Jew and gentile, statesman and slave, all were on an equal footing, and in fact was the only social institution where a general, a statesman, a merchant, a farmer, a woman and a slave would meet on equal terms. The two existed together, but the fact is that all differences were set aside in the Mystery of the Liturgy. The Mystery transcends all, and all the rest is subject to it. Christ prayed that all become 'one in him' - that the lesser become one in the higher.

Originally Posted by Thomas
So it was the Reformers who broke with Irenaeus and Polycarp, not the other way round.

The Reformers broke with Irenaeus and Polycarp? In what ways?

Principally on the issue of tradition, and of the transmission of Revelation by the Apostles, and their successors - and thus the authority of the Church to speak 'in his name'. Polycarp was a disciple of St John. Irenaeus argued - as did they all - that the transmission of the Fides Quae, the Deposit of Faith, was entrusted to the Apostles by Christ, and by them to their successors, and logically then, they would ;have the truth of it'.

Thomas

[kenod]

Originally Posted by Thomas

The Reformers broke with Irenaeus and Polycarp? In what ways?

Principally on the issue of tradition, and of the transmission of Revelation by the Apostles, and their successors - and thus the authority of the Church to speak 'in his name'. Polycarp was a disciple of St John. Irenaeus argued - as did they all - that the transmission of the Fides Quae, the Deposit of Faith, was entrusted to the Apostles by Christ, and by them to their successors, and logically then, they would ;have the truth of it'.

Thomas

But who are the "successors"?

Not, in my opinion, those who were a part of the political church, but rather, those who preserved the doctrine of the Apostles. God constantly raised up men of His own choosing (Patrick, Martin, Columba, Francis, Wycliffe, Savonarola, Luther, Wesley, Moody, etc) to challenge the church’s teaching and conduct. The church did not treat any of them kindly, though later embraced some after their teachings were sanitized.

The kingdom of heaven is a spiritual kingdom, not a temporal one. Organisations, denominations, and political succession engineered by ambitious men, do not represent the Faith passed down from the Apostles.

The true Church of Christ is the universal body of believers, not any specific label we may choose to wear.

[Thomas]

Hi Kenod -

Not, in my opinion...

OK. Everyone's entitled to an opinion. I tend to side with J.H. Newman, who began his journey as an Anglican and ended up a Catholic on the grounds that, were the Apostles to turn up today, he was convinced that the only church they would recognise was the Roman Catholic Church.

There is a prayer:
"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change... the courage to change the things I can...and the wisdom to know the difference."

The wisdom is that change happens organically from within - not from without - and is brought about by love, not violence.

The true Church of Christ is the universal body of believers, not any specific label we may choose to wear.

It is ever those impatient reformers who fracture the 'universal body' into many bodies, and gave rise to a prliferation of labels.

I would say the true Church of Christ are those who can love their neighbour, despite their faults, knowing that they themselves are not faultless, and pray that God may guide his Church towards its fullness.

I honestly believe that those reformers who broke with the church lack both love and wisdom. I admire and follow those who labour, without recognition or reward, to change from within, by changing themselves.

Thomas

[lunamoth]

Hi Thomas,

Originally Posted by Thomas

.. were the Apostles to turn up today, he was convinced that the only church they would recognise was the Roman Catholic Church.

But, perhaps if Christ showed up He would recognize us all.

There is a prayer:
"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change... the courage to change the things I can...and the wisdom to know the difference."

And my favorite, attributed to St. Francis:
"Lord, make me an instrument of your peace.
Where there is hatred . . . let me sow love
Where there is injury . . . pardon
Where there is doubt . . . faith
Where there is despair . . .hope
Where there is darkness . . . light
Where there is sadness . . .joy
Divine Master,
grant that i may not so much seek
To be consoled . . .as to console
To be understood . . .as to understand,
To be loved . . . as to love
For it is in giving . . .that we receive,
It is in pardoning, that we are pardoned,
It is in dying . . .that we are born to eternal life

The wisdom is that change happens organically from within - not from without - and is brought about by love, not violence.

Amen.

The true Church of Christ is the universal body of believers, not any specific label we may choose to wear.

It is ever those impatient reformers who fracture the 'universal body' into many bodies, and gave rise to a prliferation of labels.

I don't think these are so much fractures of the body, but differentiation of the organs. Although I know not many would agree with that.

I would say the true Church of Christ are those who can love their neighbour, despite their faults, knowing that they themselves are not faultless, and pray that God may guide his Church towards its fullness.

This is nice; I agree.

I honestly believe that those reformers who broke with the church lack both love and wisdom. I admire and follow those who labour, without recognition or reward, to change from within, by changing themselves.

Thomas

I also admire those who labour to change from within, using the ladder built by the church to ascend toward Truth. But I can't agree that the reformers lacked love and wisdom. It seems to me that it's a human trait to try new perspectives; as well as a human trait to keep making the same errors. We do the right things for the wrong reasons, and the wrong things for the right reasons. I believe the Spirit is with us through it all, taking the 'mess' and making it a work of art. Sorry if this is a bit off-point. I take a somewhat 'evolutionary' view on the growth of the church throughout history.

What is the Gospel? 'Love one another' and 'Do not fear. I am with you.'

luna

[kenod]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I tend to side with J.H. Newman, who began his journey as an Anglican and ended up a Catholic on the grounds that, were the Apostles to turn up today, he was convinced that the only church they would recognise was the Roman Catholic Church.

I wonder what they would recognize - certainly not the gilded monuments I saw in Rome; certainly not the flamboyant dress and ceremonies; certainly not the political power; certainly not the liturgical rigidity; certainly not the traditions that have “enhanced” Scriptural doctrine; certainly not the lack of supernatural manifestation.


However, I do believe that they would recognize the personal faith in Jesus Christ that those such as you and Q display.

It is ever those impatient reformers who fracture the 'universal body' into many bodies, and gave rise to a proliferation of labels.

The Church of Christ cannot be fractured - as the universal body of believers, the Church was never meant to be hemmed in by denominational boundaries. The RC church, or the Lutheran church, or the Baptist church is irrelevant to the Kingdom of God, which embraces, but transcends all these man-made groupings. Our oneness with Christ does not depend upon where we worship, but Who we worship.


Ken

[BlaznFattyz]

based on many years of experience, i would not base on name that baptist, evangelical, and non-denominational, in particular, are fracturing christianity. the teachings of christ, and the continuation of his work thru the church are nearly identical in all three with no major difference other than name.