Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[Paul Yohannan]

Factcheck--this is true. The Reformation began with a protest against the teaching of Purgatory (which was at the time less than a hundred years old) and the sale of Indulgences.



Factcheck--largely true. Ecumenical councils are considered to be infallible, rightly or wrongly. However, the councils that canonized the Scriptures were not Ecumenical councils. Still, church councils have occasionally been rejected because the people would not accept them. That these two councils which canonized the Bible aren't in that category owes mainly to the fact that there wasn't much to oppose, considering that all the books that were put into the canon were already in use in the churches.

And this in turn amounts to Holy Tradition, and was inserted by St. Athanasius.

I believe the ecumenical answer here is simply to concede to the Anglican trifecta of Scripture, Tradition and Reason. A through analysis of Orthodox tradition suggests to me that it is prima scriptura, because the Fathers continually quote Scripture and use it to express theological concepts. What tradition and reason do is provide us with the means with which to define what is Scripture and how that Scripture is received by the entire Church.

For example, the entire Church for many centuries celebrated Pascha on Easter Sunday because this formed a component of the First Council of Nicea, and it was not until the Radical Reformation that people began experimenting with removing these aspects.

But really, as Trinitarian Christians, we are all ultimately followers of St. Athanasius as much as we are followers of St. Paul, St. James, St. John, St. Peter, St. Jude, and the other three Evangelists, and whoever wrote Hebrew, because it was St. Athanasius who compiled the current canon of the New Testament, and this canon, which became official in the Church of Alexandria immediately, rapidly spread to other churches.

In that era the Roman church tended to be very slow moving, the most conservative of the five ancient Patriarchates, liturgically and in other respects (which is why it was able to avoid several heresies that engulfed Constantinople and Antioch, for instance), but by 493, Patriarch Gelasius I of Rome issued the famed Decretum Gelasianum which made the Athanasian Canon definitive in the West, and anathematized all of the Gnostic psuedepigraphical works like Gospel of Mary, the Acts of Thomas, and so on.

This one singular action by Pope Gelasius, which made the Athanasian Canon definitive in the west, enabled Sola Scriptura-type discussions to occur. But we cannot lose sight of how Scripture was defined or what the beliefs were of those who defined it.

Now Pope Gelasius, who was merely restating what St. Athanasius had earlier proposed, is less relevant, but a complete and exhaustive study of St. Athanasius must be a prerequisite to any attempt to use his New Testament canon: one must read his two classics, On the Incarnation and The Life of St. Anthony, in order to understand his Theology, Christology, Triadology, Mystagogy and Daimonology, and one must understand also in detail the doctrines of Arius, who he was fighting against, the verses of scripture they agreed and disagreed on, and related details.

Now, one interesting aspect of the Athanasian canon is that it is not partisan to the Nicene-Arian debate; St. Athanasius did not presume to delete the Epistle of St. Paul which calls our Lord "The Firstborn of all creation" in order to get a tactical advantage against the Arians by denying them one of their proof texts.

As Sola Scriptura reformers go, I greatly prefer Luther to Calvin, but alas, Luther did actually do that, both by modifying Romans and attempting to discard utterly St. James and other books; Calvin, rather than ignoring or rejecting Luther's antilegomenna, created a logical theory using reason whereby someone whose faith does not exhibit the good works mentioned by St. James does indeed have a dead faith and is foreordained to damnation (and Luther for his part was closer to Calvin than to Arminius in terms of Soteriology; both of them frankly spent too much time reading St. Augustine and not enough at the source - St. Athanasius, for which there is no excuse; their neglect of the Greek fathers and their failure to incorporate their teaching more extensively into Protestant theology is the main reason why the Protestant churches did not reconnect with the Orthodox who had been excommunicated by Rome in the tenth century, and it is also gross negligence, because Luther, Calvin, Bucer, Melancthon, Cranmer et al had knowledge of Greek letters, could translate proficiently from Greek, and had access to all of the most important works of the Greek church from the first six centuries, and could have, through correspondance with the persecuted Greek church in the Ottoman Empire, obtained substantial information about, and access to, the rest).

So thus we have a needless schism that self-perpetuates over nothing, because all of these people love the Bible but don't understand where it actually came from or what the people who compiled it believed. So as a result there is this endless proliferation of novel and divergent theologies, which started with the Radical Reformation, and continued with the Restorationist, Pentecostal and other movements, most recently, the unpleasant Subordinationism / Federal Vision theology in Calvinism, which seemed to take us frightfully close to Arianism.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Not so. The faithful submitted to the various council' decision. They decided; we obey. It wasn't left up to a popular majority to decide which scriptures God inspired and which he didn't.

Understand that a council is made of multiple people. This plurality of people researched, discussed and came to consensus on what the canon was. It was a democratic process in the domain of the council. It was not the edict of the one glorified apostle that succeeded Peter; trusted to know all truth and speak what the canon would be. Further it was not a tradition passed down through the bishops, for if it was a tradition it would not require a council to determine.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Understand that a council is made of multiple people.

They're made up of Church authorities. It's not like the matter is being put to an open vote to the entire Catholic world.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Golly, there's so much confusion there it's difficult to know where to start.

First, Purgatory is scriptural. 1 Corinthians 3 refers to the purpose of Purgatory (eg, testing one's works and burning the useless things).

Not another vain attempt to invoke 1Cor. 3 as supporting purgatory, which it nor any other texts teach. This has already been refuted on this thread, and to save me more typing see here and here and here and interact with these.

" there are writings from the 2nd century which speak to an intermediate state after death before Heaven and of offering prayers for the dead as though that affects their disposition:...Those beliefs came from somewhere.

Indeed, paganism. Jacques Le Goff (historian and prolific author specializing in the Middle Ages) finds regarding as with prayer for the dead by Christians:

This was an innovation, as Salomon Reinach nicely observes: "Pagans prayed to the dead, Christians prayed for the dead." Now, it is of course true that beliefs and mentalities do not change overnight, so it should come as no surprise that we do find instances, particularly in the domain of popular belief, in which non-Christians prayed for the suffering dead in the other world....

These practices developed around the beginning of the Christian era. They were a phenomenon of the times, particularly noticeable in Egypt, the great meeting ground for peoples and religions. Traveling in Egypt around 50 s.c., Diodorus of Sicily was struck by the funerary customs: "As soon as the casket containing the corpse is placed on the bark, the survivors call upon the infernal gods and beseech them to admit the soul to the place received for pious men. The crowd adds its own cheers, together with pleas that the deceased be allowed to enjoy eternal life in Hades, in the society of the good."

"The passage cited earlier from the Second Book of Maccabees, which was composed by an Alexandrian Jew during the half-century preceding Diodorus's journey, should no doubt be seen against this background." It then becomes clear that at the time of Judas Maccabeus--around 170 s.c., a surprisingly innovative period—prayer for the dead was not practiced, but that a century later it was practiced by certain Jews. No doubt it is in relation to beliefs of this type that we should think of the strange custom described by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:29-30: "Else what should they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?" This baptism for the dead was not the Christian baptism but rather the baptism received by Greek proselytes who converted to Judaism.

The abundant epigraphic and liturgical evidence available for the first few centuries of the Christian era has often been used to prove that belief in Purgatory is very ancient indeed." But it seems to me that the interpretation goes beyond the evidence. The favors that God is urged to grant the dead essentially involve the pleasures of Paradise, or at any rate a state defined by pax et lux, peace and light. Not until the end of the fifth century (or the beginning of the sixth) do we find an inscription that speaks of the "redemption of the soul" of one who is deceased.

The soul in question is that of a Gallo-Roman woman from Briord, whose epitaph includes the phrase pro redemptionem animae suae.s. Furthermore, the inscriptions and prayers make no mention of a specific place of redemption or waiting other than the one traditional since the time of the Gospels, the "bosom of Abraham." But in order for the idea of Purgatory to develop, it was essential that the living be concerned about the fate of their dead, that the living maintain contacts with the dead, not in order to call on them for protection, but rather in order to improve their condition through prayer. - The Birth of Purgatory By Jacques Le Goff. pp. 45,46 , transcribed using http://www.onlineocr.net.

"And considering the allergy the Church Fathers had to any form of heresy, "

So called "Church Fathers" (not of the NT church) had an allergy any form of heresy as do certain aberrant groups today, if not as severe, but meaning pious men could contend for manifest Scriptural Truths as well as believe something like marital relations being unclean (like Jerome argued), and adopt other erroneous traditions of men.

" If this doctrine is an error, it sure swooped in pretty quickly, wouldn't you say?"

Indeed since there are approx 200 prayers in Scripture, but none to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord, except by pagans, and none for the dead in the NT or Hebrew Scriptures, while 2Mac teaches making offering for those who died due to mortal sin, which Rome says leaves them damned, and it was not for them as being in purgatory.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Bishops are equals with the people and should not regard themselves as judges, so no one individuals or group of individuals can change or omit from the scriptures.

The latter is true but it does not flow from the former. The magisterial office is valid, (Dt. 17;8-13; Mt. 18:15-18; Acts 15) as are civil magistrates, even though these judges are also people. But it does not mean that what the ecclesiastical magisterial office perpetually judges is ensured against error, nor are civil courts, though both have authority and general obedience to both are enjoined, subject to lack of real contradiction to Scripture, which is the supreme standard as the only wholly infallible substantive transcendent body of express Divine Truth. Glory to God.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

So now rather than being a matter of objective fact, the divine inspiration of a writing is a matter of democratic consensus???

Rather, both men and writings of God are what they regardless of the affirmation of men, but the establishment of such as being of God rests upon the weight of evidential warrant, the qualities and attestation of such as being of God, as does faith in God.

Thus on the basis of evidential warrant, "the woman said to Elijah, Now by this I know that thou art a man of God, and that the word of the Lord in thy mouth is truth." (1 Kings 17:24)

Likewise, "all [the common people] counted John, that he was a prophet indeed" (Mark 11:32) even though those who sat in the seat of Moses did not recognize his authority (nor would Rome).

Yet a consensus on such is to be affirmed by the magisterial office locally and broadly, and disputes ruled on consistent with Acts 15, but the veracity of its decision does not rest upon the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which not seen in Scripture, but upon said warrant, as was the case in Acts 15.

But which means that the magisterial office may be wrong and successfully challenged, as was the case with those who sat in the seat of Moses.

Catholicism seeks to disallow this problem by assigning to itself ensured veracity, but does not simply mean she can require assent of faith to manifest Scriptural Truths, but to contrived ones as well, including the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility itself.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Then correct your own bishops (among others) who call them books, or admit that insisting on Paul's words being called "letters" is irrelevant attempted minimization of the reality that Paul wrote 13 <strike>books </strike> (14 according to Trent) letters of Scripture, versus 2 by Peter despite as you purport, being the supreme father carefully watching over the flock who looked to him above all else on earth.

How can you ask "Why not?" Are you so intent on seeing what you want that you cannot see what i have told you time and again, and thus continue to argue that the Biblical leadership of Peter, which i affirmed, translates into perpetuated infallible Roman Petrine papacy, of the church looking to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning from Rome?

Which is wanton egregious extrapolation.

It was logical that, when Peter died, someone would step up to take his place. This is what we call, today, the Pope.

How? By autocratically channeling purported Divine Truth out of an amorphous "body" of claimed oral "revelation." The validity of which rests upon the premise of Rome's infallibility. Which she in turn invokes Tradition to defend.

...the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true," Karl Keating, founder of Catholic Answers; Catholicism and Fundamentalism San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988, p. 275),

Which recourse to vain ad hominem is just that.

Yikes! What kind of argument by admission is that? What you admit to is that your denial of adding to the word of God is based upon adding to the word of God. The Mormons do the like. For as said, Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

Where ha ve we ADDED TO the Word of God. PROVE it.

What?! Do you even read what the Holy Spirit as well as i wrote? There simply is NO laying on of hands in Gal. 2! Unlike in Acts 9:17; 13:3 where the Spirit distinctly says believers laid hands on Paul, and in the 2nd case in commissioning him, thus showing the Spirit knows how to express such, yet Gal. 2:9 says (in the KJV; DRB, they gave to Paul and Barnabas the right hands of [cf. Mt. 6:3; 20:21; 22:24; 26:64; 27:29; Acts 3:7) fellowship that they should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision" (NAB: "right hands in partnership").

Refer to verse 9.

And as shown, both were called apostles before they met with those who "seemed to be somewhat" in Jerusalem.

Your reading what you want and need out of Scripture which does not teach it is typical of RCs who reduce Scripture to being an abused servant, compelled to serve Rome.

You can recite your fantasy to your own comfort all you want, but the plainly evident fact here is that you are the one exposed reading what you want and need out of Scripture, which simply is not there!

There is no conferring with James in Gal. 1:18, but certainly it would be normal for Paul to finally inquire of Peter and his own experiences and for the latter to get to know this notable and manifestly Spirit-filled and anointed, persecuted preacher, who had to escape from Damascus due to his bold and powerful preaching.

Verse 19.

But rather than remaining or being sent by Peter, Paul was directly told by the Lord to escape from Jerusalem, for He was sending Paul to the Gentiles (Act_22:17, Act_22:18) which is the very ministry the 3 leaders in Gal. 2 affirmed.

And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance; And saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me.
And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.
(Act 22:17-18,21)

And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
(Gal 2:9)

Where do you see this "Paul knew who Peter was" in the text as meaning your pope? Paul says he went to see James, Cephas and John, "who were reputed to be pillars" (NAB), with no inference a supreme papacy, let alone a uniquely infallible Peter.

Meanwhile if Paul had any or significant doubts then he could hardly stress so much that he did not receive his gospel from man, and how the Lord directly spoke to Him, commissioned and sent him on his mission. Pau's theme is not that of assurance by man, but directly from God, though not as wholly independent from man.

But he had doubts as to whether leadership was wholly with him, and was open to correction in certain things, for if leadership opposed him then that could make his labor void by overthrowing the faith of some, which is what the letter to the Galatians is about. Paul prefaces his rebuke by establishing the foundation of his manifest Divine call, and which was confirmed by those who seemed to be something.

That is certainly true, and thus from football to marriage there needs to be corporate agreement, and there is also magisterial recourse, but none of which infers or requires ensured infallibility of office. That itself would be teaching differently.

And which (Kēphas) is not what the Lord said He would build His church on (petra). Thus as the argument says, RCs must resort to using something that we don't have the Aramaic text, but the Spirit chose to record the Lord's words in Greek in Mt. 16:18 and in rare other instances.

To add to the never-ending debate, a study by C.C. Caragounis, in “Peter and the Rock” (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter)
carefully argues, however, that the rock refers to something other than Peter. The demonstrative pronoun “this” [in the phrase “on this rock”] logically should refer to something other than the speaker or the one spoken to and would be appropriate only if Jesus were speaking about Peter in the third person and not speaking to him. If Jesus were referring to Peter, it would have been clearer to have, “You are Rock, and upon you I will build my church” (Caragounis 89). Petros usually meant a free-standing “stone” that could be picked up; and petrausually was used to mean “rock,” “cliff,” or “bedrock.” But the two terms could reverse their meaning and no clear-cut distinction can be made between the two (Caragounis, 12, 15). If the two words were intended to refer to the same thing, petros could have been used in both places since it could be used to mean both stone and rock. The use of two different terms in the saying, petros and petra, implies that the two were to be distinguished from each other. More

But in any case, it is incontrovertible that, as said, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible.

/quoteWrong again! Just where do you get this wanton eisegesis?, which is not even official RC teaching, but your own personal interpretation. The only persons who are ever recorded as laying hands on Saul/Paul were a certain devout disciple (Acts 9:10; 22:12) and "at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. (Acts 13:1-3).

And Paul was called an apostle (Acts 14:6,14) and ministering as such long before he even went to see Peter at Jerusalem, and brought Titus with him, whom he had likely met in Lystra during Paul's first missionary journey (Acts 13:4-52, 14:1-25) , having chosen of his own accord to "go to the Gentiles" after being rejected by the Jews. (Acts 13:46)

Which ministry was the cause of the conflict that necessitated the Gal. 2 meeting, which some make as the same as Acts 15, but in any case it was after Paul and Barnabas were already called apostles. And which apostolic ministry Paul never cites ordination by men for, with only the unknown Ananias having conveyed power to him, but testifies to God calling him to preach. (Acts 22:1-21; 26:9-23; Gal. 1:11-23)

After his baptism Paul "spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him. Which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Cæsarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus." (Acts 9:29-30)

In Acts 11:25-26 Barnabas finds Paul at Tarsus and brought him unto Antioch.In Acts 11:29-30 the disciples at Antioch determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judæa: Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul. (Acts 11:29-30)

In Acts 12:25 Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem after they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark. (Acts 12:25)

In Acts 13 Paul (and Barnabas) is sent forth by the Holy Ghost thru certain prophets and teachers, and departs unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus where they preach word of God in the synagogues of the Jews, and during the ministry Paul binds a man to blindness.

After passing to to Antioch, the Jews there reject a powerful gospel message by Paul, they shook off the dust of their feet against them, and pronounce judgment on them as a whole, and declare they will go to the Gentiles, and go unto Iconium, where in Acts 14 they go both together into the synagogue of the Jews. "But the multitude of the city was divided: and part held with the Jews, and part with the apostles." (Acts 14:4)

Then they fled unto the region of Lystra where they must fend off attempts at worship, "Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,... (Acts 14:14)

Which all was done without any mention of Peter except for the initial 15 days Paul mentions in minimizing the influence of man in Gal. 1, but who before Acts 15 was as yet unenlightened as to the inclusion of the Gentiles. Thus your polemical labor here in is in vain.

More specious extrapolation, as in reality were no manifest apostolic successors voted for after Matthias was chosen for Judas (even though James was martyred: Acts 12:1,2), which was in order to maintain the foundational number of apostles (cf. Rv. 21:14) and which was by the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots. (cf. Prov. 16:33) Nor is there any manifest preparation for a papal successor in the light of Peter's impending death.

They had no authority to do what God did not, and which you essentially charge the Holy Spirit with leaving out of Scripture.

Which is more private interpretation which RCs reject as a form when it contradicts them.

However, this prophecy of Eliakim's ascendancy was apparently fulfilled in the OT - as 2Ki. 19:1 2Ki. 18:18, 2Ki. 18:37 and Is. 36;22, 37:2 all refer to Eliakim being over the house, (bayith, same in Is. 22:15,22) which Shebna the treasurer was, (Is. 22:15) and evidently had much prestige and power, though the details of his actual fall are not mentioned [and who may not be the same as "Shebna the scribe" (sâkan) mentioned later].

In addition, the text actually foretells that,

"In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall; and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off: for the LORD hath spoken it." (Isa 22:25)

Who this refers to is irrelevant, forit means that being a nail that is fastened in the sure place does not necessarily denote permanency, as it did not here.

However, if we are looking for a future fulfillment with permanency, both the language concept of a key and being a father to the house of David corresponds more fully to Christ, and who alone is promised a continued reign (though when He has put all His enemies under His feet, He will deliver the kingdom to His Father: 1Cor. 15:24-28).

For it is Christ, not Peter, who alone is said to be clothed "with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle," (Rv. 1:13; cf. Is. 22:21) and who came to be an everlasting father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. (Is. 22:21; cf. Heb. 7:14; 8:8; 9:6)

And who specifically is said to be given "the key of the house of David," "so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open," (Is. 22:22) as He now “hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.” (Rev. 3:7) and is a nail in a sure place who sits in a glorious throne in His father's house, (Is. 22:23; cf. Rv. 3:7)

But only Christ is said to have the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth,” (Rev. 3:7) and who befits the other typology, while the key to the kingdom of heaven is manifestly the gospel, and which peter was the first to use, but which the whole church also preached, and the Lord even affirmed those without the apostolic company who manifestly did ministry in his name.

Why would Christ need a key? He can walk through walls. He gave Peter the key and told him what he shuts no one will open.

Wrong: if this prophecy extends beyond Eliakim, which it is never invoked as doing, then it goes along with the government being committed into his hand and being be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah, inferring a universality of particular kingly devotion, which does not describe Peter as having or otherwise being looked to as their father above the rest of the apostles, despite his initial use.

The early church continued in the apostles (plural) doctrine and Peter is soon eclipsed by Paul in Acts, who is the only apostles who calls himself a a father, and as one who has personally begotten children, (1Co. 4:15; 2Co. 12:14;; Ga 4:19; Titus 1:4; Phm 1:10-12) and never points them to Peter as their supreme "papa" over the house of spiritual Israel, or acknowledges him as being so, even to the Romans (resulting in more special pleading by RC apologists)

Meanwhile it is Christ who is given "the throne of his father David" and "shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end." (Lk. 1:32) You can try to make Peter a vice regent, but none is mentioned for Eliakim.

Christ is the King, Peter is the prime minister. Just as in the Church today.

But if you use the concept of the keys as describing the power to bind and loose, then Peter is not uniquely described as having it, since,

Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 18:19)

And also applying to believers in general is this example of binding and loosing;

Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit. Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins. (James 5:16-20)

And as said if this prophecy has a future fulfillment in the NT era after Eliakim, then it is Christ who fulfills not simply shared aspects but the glory of this prophecy as a whole, including "And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah...they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, the offspring and the issue, all vessels of small quantity, from the vessels of cups, even to all the vessels of flagons." (v. 24)

RCs can only dream that Peter realized this, but that the holy Spirit neglected to record it, and instead has Peter living in the house of a tanner (by the sea for a reason) and having no money, and spiritually is never pointed to in instruction to the churches as their supreme head, or reminded to look to, or commended for doing, in contrast to Rome.

Furthermore, RCs invoke this even though Rome has not infallibly interpreted this verse, and the weight of Scripture itself is not the basis for RC assurance of doctrine. Thus they can only condescend to appeal to evangelicals with Scripture, with goal of converting them to implicit trust in Rome. But when we reject their fallible arguments for Rome fail, they insist we need to submit to Rome to know what the Bible means, even if their own arguments are not binding interpretations.

"Which is simply absurd extrapolation. You take a church in Scripture (Acts-Rev.) that did not:
1. teach perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unnecessary in the life of the church"

Rather, it is your assertion that remain wrong, being contrary to what Scripture substantiates.

2. practice praying to created beings in Heaven

What? That is the offering up of prayer in memorial before the judgments of the end times, not a postal service, and does not even show or teach that the church or any believer in Scripture ever prayed to created beings in Heaven, which is what the charge was, nor that they even heard these prayers!

Do you not know that we are currently before the judgements of the end times? But the point is that they aren't dead, they're alive, and bring our prayers to Christ.[/quote]
3. had a separate class of believers distinctively called "saints" who went to Heaven while the rest of believers endured postmortem purifying torments in order to atone for sins and become good enough to enter Heaven.
4. offered rote prayers to obtain early release from Purgatory

Wrong again. Rote-Memorization by repetition (WordWeb)
[/quote]Where is there a Biblical ordinace against memorization or repetition? (Vain repetition is not what we do. We pray while meditating on the important events in Christ's life.

Recitation of the Marian rosary. "a plenary indulgence is granted [under certain other conditions], if the rosary is recited in a church or public oratory or in a family group, a religious community or pious association; a partial indulgence is granted in other circumstances. "now the rosary is a certain formula of prayer, which is made up of fifteen decades of 'hail marys' with an 'our father' before each decade.. -
The Enchiridion of Indulgences, Issued by the Sacred Apostolic Penitentiary, 1968

So what?

5. required clerical celibacy as the norm,

Irrelevant. It is a law that must be obeyed, and which is contrary to the NT, as stated.

It is not contrary to the NT. In fact, Paul said it was better to remain celebate.

ordained men distinctively titled "priests," offering up "real" flesh and blood as a sacrifice for sin, which was to be literally consumed in order to obtain spiritual life;

Wrong again. "Real" is in italics for a reason, meaning,
“true Body of Christ and his true Blood,” (CCC 1381) having been “substantially changed into the true and proper and lifegiving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord,” being corporeally present whole and entire in His physical "reality.” (Mysterium Fidei, Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, 1965)

Thus the statement, “Consequently, eating and drinking are to be understood of the actual partaking of Christ in person, hence literally.” (Catholic Encyclopedia>The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist)

Even though "If you took the consecrated host to a laboratory it would be chemically shown to be bread, not human flesh." (Dwight Longenecker: "Explaining Transubstantiation")

but in the Last supper the incarnated Lord refers to His body which was to be crucified ("my body which is given for you") and the blood that was to be poured out ("this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for man"). And which was not like that of a Christ who was not manifestly incarnated, but who looked and sounded like and would taste and scientifically taste as real flesh and blood.

And as Jn. 6:53 is taken literally, then it is imagined by Catholics that by this consumption of “lifegiving flesh and blood” believers thereby obtain life in themselves.

...when the minister says, "The Body of Christ" or "The Blood of Christ," the communicant's "Amen" is a profession in the presence of the saving Christ, body and blood, soul and divinity, who now gives life to the believer. ...The bread and wine of the Lord's Supper his Body and Blood as broken and poured out constitute the irreplaceable food for the journey of the "pilgrim church on earth." (USCCP: "Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion," paragraphs. 4,14)

however, only the metaphorical explanation easily corresponds to the totality of Scripture, both with its use of metaphorical language as well as the means of obtaining spiritual life.

7. manifested the Lord's Supper in the life of the church as being the central focus and sacrament around which all else revolves, and the "source and summit of the Christian faith," "in which our redemption is accomplished."

And which simply remains in contrast to what is revealed in the life of the NT church.

8. looked to Peter as the first of a line of exalted infallible popes reigning over the church from Rome.

Thinking of men far above that which is written is your problem.

meaning that neither Scripture nor history supports the pre-Constatian papacy, nor what came after it, but the latter defines the former, and enjoines docile submission to it. At least on paper.

You know, I'm about done with you. When you point fingers at people, remember that you have several pointed back at yourself.

 

[Root of Jesse]

If you could only learn what the RCC teaches, that the Church is the collection of all baptized believers, then you would be correct. Instead you repeatedly twist the meaning of the Church to be your particular religious institution. This is not what scripture or your church teaches. But keep on repeating it as if it proves something.

I KNOW what the Catholic Church teaches. Don't know any "RCC". I believe, as my church teaches, that the Church is the collection of all (Trinitarian) baptized believers. I believe the Catholic Church is the only Church which has the full teachings of Christ, that all Protestant denominations have a subset of the full teachings of Christ, or a skewed understanding of said teachings.

CCC "I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH"
Paragraph 2. The Church - People of God, Body of Christ, Temple of the Holy Spirit​

782 - One becomes a member of this people not by a physical birth, but by being "born anew," a birth "of water and the Spirit,"203 that is, by faith in Christ, and Baptism.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Factcheck--this is true. The Reformation began with a protest against the teaching of Purgatory (which was at the time less than a hundred years old) and the sale of Indulgences.

Of course, then, the Reformation was against some agents of the Catholic Church who were acting against or outside of the authority they were given.

Factcheck--largely true. Ecumenical councils are considered to be infallible, rightly or wrongly. However, the councils that canonized the Scriptures were not Ecumenical councils. Still, church councils have occasionally been rejected because the people would not accept them. That these two councils which canonized the Bible aren't in that category owes mainly to the fact that there wasn't much to oppose, considering that all the books that were put into the canon were already in use in the churches.

So, then, it stands to reason that the denominations that leave out the Deuterocanon do not have the complete Bible.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The one Church is the one that Christ heads, which from scripture is all believers, not any specific religious institution.

I disagree. Satan believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and he is not part of the Church.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I don't need you to interpret Scripture for me. Thanks, though.

I agree Peter was important in the new church, but understand what Jesus said. Don't read anything more than what is actually stated. Peter is the rock that Jesus builds "HIS" church on. It does not say Peter is the head of the RCC. Jesus did give Peter authority to judge people in the church and forgive or punish their sins. This was not unique to Peter.

Jesus did not create a new "priesthood" that perpetuated through apostolic succession. The example of the apostle Judas being replaced with Matthias certainly does not teach what you hold. First Matthias did not succeed Judas. Judas did not lay his hands on Matthias before dying to succeed him. Matthias replaced Judas according to what was written in Psalm 109. Is there an OT scripture that says Peter is the start of a new perpetual priesthood that should be succeeded? No.

Next learn what the analogy means, that Peter is a rock that is built on. Understand this to be likened to a foundation. Understand foundations are not built on foundations. Buildings are built on foundations. Understand that the early church grew out of the strength of Peter and the message he preached. He enlarged the church as Acts clearly states. Acts 2:41. Understand the church built on his message was of believers, not a bureaucratic religious organization. Peter was a rock for believers, not a source of perpetual apostles with his same authority.

Further Matthew 19:28-30 clearly distinguishes the apostles to be 12 in number. Your proof of apostolic succession is lacking. And, your proof of apostolic inerrancy is proven wrong with scripture clearly pointing out Peter's false teaching on circumcision.


If you are going to quote Ezekiel 34 you should learn what it teaches. Firstly you should learn that the "seat of Moses" that you lay claim to some special authority with you apostolic succession from Peter was not inerrant. God came through the Holy Spirit to Ezekiel and many other prophets that were mostly from outside the tribe of Levi, the "official" line that preached God's truth. The "church" and shepherds of it were so thoroughly corrupted that it took an outsider to condemn it and teach them the error of their ways. Did they recognize the message as from God, repent and turn to God? No. I am sure they said stuff like; "We have authority from God to truth, how dare you tell us what is true."

Further look to Ezekiel 34:23 to learn that Jesus is the one shepherd of his church. We all share in our part to be in the body that he heads.

23 I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will tend them; he will tend them and be their shepherd. 24 I the Lord will be their God, and my servant David will be prince among them. I the Lord have spoken.​

Learn from scripture, OT and NT that while God will always have those that follow the truth, not all the shepherds of his church will always throughout time be followers of the truth. There is no promise of never ending truth in the religious leaders in any church. Please head the warning of apostasy in the church in the end-times.

 

[Root of Jesse]

That is how your church determined the canon in their councils.

Actually,not. The Holy Spirit inspired the Church in the councils to adhere to the Truth.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I truly like what you have written.

Especially is......

There is no promise of never ending truth in the religious leaders in any church. Please head the warning of apostasy in the church in the end-times.

There has been apostasy in the Church from the beginning, and it has always been rooted out of the Church.

Jesus didn't only establish his church on himself as the rock the one and only cornerstone, but he separated himself from the church that was modelled after the dying priesthood.

He did?
You see the priesthood had been changed where Jesus became our high priest interceding on our behalves in the Holy of Holies, but with it the religious institutional hierarchy has also been changed. Jesus would say the greatest amongst you is your servant.
[/quote] This is why one of the Pope's titles is "Servant of the servants of God".

We see that Jesus didn't come to re-establish the same pharisical religious institution with its hierarchy, for he came and fired it. Jesus left them and said look now, your house is left onto you desolate.

So I agree Peter wasn't going to be a religious head of any sort let alone boss around John. When Peter asked about John where he stood, Jesus told him to mind his own business and to follow him.

So from an instructional point of view Peter was the small rock who would follow the instruction of his chief priest Christ Jesus and by so doing his work would be instrumental in passing the teaching that is all.

Is that why Jesus made this change in Peter in front of the huge rock formation at Paneus?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Understand that a council is made of multiple people. This plurality of people researched, discussed and came to consensus on what the canon was. It was a democratic process in the domain of the council. It was not the edict of the one glorified apostle that succeeded Peter; trusted to know all truth and speak what the canon would be. Further it was not a tradition passed down through the bishops, for if it was a tradition it would not require a council to determine.

It was the Holy Spirit which guided the council to a consensus, just as the Holy Spirit guided the apostles to chose Mattias to succeed Judas.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Not another vain attempt to invoke 1Cor. 3 as supporting purgatory, which it nor any other texts teach. This has already been refuted on this thread, and to save me more typing see here and here and here and interact with these.

If you wanted to save typing, should have stopped typing...

Indeed, paganism. Jacques Le Goff (historian and prolific author specializing in the Middle Ages) finds regarding as with prayer for the dead by Christians:

How can you ever say that the people who died because they protected the true faith would ever allow paganism in the Church??? And I don't care who you say Le Goff is. He's not authoritative.

This was an innovation, as Salomon Reinach nicely observes: "Pagans prayed to the dead, Christians prayed for the dead." Now, it is of course true that beliefs and mentalities do not change overnight, so it should come as no surprise that we do find instances, particularly in the domain of popular belief, in which non-Christians prayed for the suffering dead in the other world....

These practices developed around the beginning of the Christian era. They were a phenomenon of the times, particularly noticeable in Egypt, the great meeting ground for peoples and religions. Traveling in Egypt around 50 s.c., Diodorus of Sicily was struck by the funerary customs: "As soon as the casket containing the corpse is placed on the bark, the survivors call upon the infernal gods and beseech them to admit the soul to the place received for pious men. The crowd adds its own cheers, together with pleas that the deceased be allowed to enjoy eternal life in Hades, in the society of the good."

"The passage cited earlier from the Second Book of Maccabees, which was composed by an Alexandrian Jew during the half-century preceding Diodorus's journey, should no doubt be seen against this background." It then becomes clear that at the time of Judas Maccabeus--around 170 s.c., a surprisingly innovative period—prayer for the dead was not practiced, but that a century later it was practiced by certain Jews. No doubt it is in relation to beliefs of this type that we should think of the strange custom described by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:29-30: "Else what should they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?" This baptism for the dead was not the Christian baptism but rather the baptism received by Greek proselytes who converted to Judaism.

The abundant epigraphic and liturgical evidence available for the first few centuries of the Christian era has often been used to prove that belief in Purgatory is very ancient indeed." But it seems to me that the interpretation goes beyond the evidence. The favors that God is urged to grant the dead essentially involve the pleasures of Paradise, or at any rate a state defined by pax et lux, peace and light. Not until the end of the fifth century (or the beginning of the sixth) do we find an inscription that speaks of the "redemption of the soul" of one who is deceased.

The soul in question is that of a Gallo-Roman woman from Briord, whose epitaph includes the phrase pro redemptionem animae suae.s. Furthermore, the inscriptions and prayers make no mention of a specific place of redemption or waiting other than the one traditional since the time of the Gospels, the "bosom of Abraham." But in order for the idea of Purgatory to develop, it was essential that the living be concerned about the fate of their dead, that the living maintain contacts with the dead, not in order to call on them for protection, but rather in order to improve their condition through prayer. - The Birth of Purgatory By Jacques Le Goff. pp. 45,46 , transcribed using http://www.onlineocr.net.

So called "Church Fathers" (not of the NT church) had an allergy any form of heresy as do certain aberrant groups today, if not as severe, but meaning pious men could contend for manifest Scriptural Truths as well as believe something like marital relations being unclean (like Jerome argued), and adopt other erroneous traditions of men.

Indeed since there are approx 200 prayers in Scripture, but none to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord, except by pagans, and none for the dead in the NT or Hebrew Scriptures, while 2Mac teaches making offering for those who died due to mortal sin, which Rome says leaves them damned, and it was not for them as being in purgatory.

 

[Berean777]

Factcheck--this is true. The Reformation began with a protest against the teaching of Purgatory (which was at the time less than a hundred years old) and the sale of Indulgences.



Factcheck--largely true. Ecumenical councils are considered to be infallible, rightly or wrongly. However, the councils that canonized the Scriptures were not Ecumenical councils. Still, church councils have occasionally been rejected because the people would not accept them. That these two councils which canonized the Bible aren't in that category owes mainly to the fact that there wasn't much to oppose, considering that all the books that were put into the canon were already in use in the churches.

Thank you for being the second witness to testify in regards to how the body of Christ has not been treated equally, but that only a privileged few are able to dictate to the masses what they should or should not believe.

I for one don't need to be forced to believe in purgatory and my defence is that it is unconstitutional, when citing in defence the first witness, the Holy Bible. If purgatory was such an important doctrine concerning where people go to be purged by fires, then at the very least Jesus would have taught it to his disciples and that at least one disciple would have recorded Jesus teaching this doctrine.

I find no merit what so ever in the doctrine of purgatory and in this regard we must hold onto Sola Scripture as the authoritative document, which is the foundation Christian constitution, that constitutes our original and uncorrupted faith.

It is disheartening to see why so many want to do away with our constitutional rights and to hand power back to a few selected men who think that they have the right to judge us in matters concerning our sanctification and our salvation. In this regard the church is the body of Christ and it is not a relgious enterprise having a hierarchy that dictates what we should and should not believe in order to be saved. For it is written in both old and New Testament that no man will tell his neighbour to believe in the Lord for all will believe in the Lord from the greatest to the least.

We are now at the crossroads where this pharisaical like enterprise is on its last breath and the power is being handed over to the people, the body of Christ, that will be directed by our one and only Patrairch/Pope Christ Jesus. We look forward to the day that our brothers and sisters can be free from a religion of dictates and come and embrace their God given constitution and to enjoy their rights to worship God according to the gifts that God has poured out from Pentecost and onwards. This day will be heralded by a call of distress amongst all and throughout the world, because those privileged few are not yet ready to throw in the towel and to quite from their unauthorised positions.

Where does it say that it is legitimate to have an earthly Chief Priest like a Patrairch or a Pope who can intercede in the Holy of Holies. Is the temple on earth the Holy of Holies, or is it Christ Jesus in us, who is the temple and he is interceding on our behaves as our one and only Patrairch/Pope in heaven and on earth, for all power and authority is given into his hands.

I remain optimistic that this is the last hour and the Pope according to Malachy's prophesy is the last Pope and all patriarchs that hold these position will eventually realise their errors of illegitimacy of ever proclaiming to hold a Chief Priest office in place of the Chief Priest office of Melchizedek, who is Christ Jesus. Notice that when they swear each other into these offices, they say that we are after the order of Melchizedek and this is to say that they have been sworn in by an oath, by God the Father and that their office is a non transferable office that is indestructible life, which is false, because these earthly chief priests do die and are replaced by another. When Jesus Christ ascended up on high he would replace the old patriarchal/pope chief priest office with his office, when he sat in the patriarchal/pope office and has to date never left it, because he has indestructible life and it was only him that God the Father had sworn in with an oath......

15And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17For it is declared:

“You are a priest forever,

in the order of Melchizedek.”

18The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

20And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, 21but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:

“The Lord has sworn

and will not change his mind:

‘You are a priest forever.’ ”

22Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant. (Hebrews 7:15-22)

 

[Berean777]

The latter is true but it does not flow from the former. The magisterial office is valid, (Dt. 17;8-13; Mt. 18:15-18; Acts 15) as are civil magistrates, even though these judges are also people. But it does not mean that what the ecclesiastical magisterial office perpetually judges is ensured against error, nor are civil courts, though both have authority and general obedience to both are enjoined, subject to lack of real contradiction to Scripture, which is the supreme standard as the only wholly infallible substantive transcendent body of express Divine Truth. Glory to God.

Jesus didn't come to establish the same of the old pharisaical based legislative model called a magisterial office. Civil magistrates that is those that judge the people go against the motto of the church Jesus established, for he said the greatest amongst you is your servant and not your judge. Ecclesiastical magisterial office that was born from relgious councils is what John in Revelation prophesied to be the two horned Christ/like second man/beast relgious system, that would encompass the globe and bring the world into servitude. This lamb/Christ like relgious system was modelled after the first beast Babylon (Pharisical relgious system) that went down in fire in 70AD, as John states that it gave life to the first beast that was slain by fire.

Now we have a world wide religious enterprise that is what John prophesied would come and to encompass the globe and here is the description of the Christ like relgious system in the image of the Pharisical model based ecclesiastical magisterial model......

Sola scripture tells us who this relgious system is.....

And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spoke like a dragon.

“And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them who dwell on it to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.”

Notice the first man beast religious system came up from the sea, the seas represents Babylon the craddle of civilisation and hence it was called Babylon where our Lord was crucified.

The second man beast religious system has two horns, that is it is relgious on one hand and also magisterial, meaning a court to judge the masses. This relgious system is modelled upon the Pharisical relgious system and exercises all the power of the mother Pharisical relgious system. Notice it causes people to give honour and revere this ecclesiatcial magisterial office and by doing so it gives life to the destroyed relgious system of 70AD. The wound was healed by establishing another relgious enterprise like the one that Jesus disposed of as our one and only Patrairch/Pope.

What is a tell tell sign of this Christ like man beast relgious system is that it comprises of many daughters of the original mother religion of the first beast and the number ten denotes ten denominations that exist.

Look at history and count how many daughters branch off from the council of Ephesus 431 AD to date?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schism

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/ChristianityBranches.svg

Is it 10?

Yes, because the Assyrian church has divided into two and is recognised as the old and the new, that is the ancient church of the east as compared to the one that changed its Christmas to 25th December and the ancient church stayed on the 7th January.

Well the 11th hasn't yet come, but when it comes it will be part of the universal church that all ten will push for the final hour before the dreadful judge comes to judge his people.

Who are these ten that will give their power over to the final hour man beast universal religious system?

The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast. (Rev 17:12)

These kings are actually the patriarchal ecclesiatcial magisterial offices that have no earthly military kingdom, yet they recieve authority like the kings of the world for the last hour when the ecumenical movement establishes a universal global church, that has one little horn elected as the head.

It seems plausible that sola scripture is the constitutional document that we should hold onto to dear life, because when these events unfold, our only defence is sola scripture.

 

[Berean777]

There has been apostasy in the Church from the beginning, and it has always been rooted out of the Church.

Really it has always been routed out?

Paul says that the apostasy is in the church.....

I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. 31So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears. (Acts 20:29:31)

This is why one of the Pope's titles is "Servant of the servants of God

what does servant of servants of God mean?

First who dictates who is a servant?

According to them they may only define their fellow bishops as servants of God and exclude the least of the body of Christ.

Show me one instant how a pope or a Patrairch is not a judge, then the servant of the servants would hold true, but name on its own is meaningless unless it has no power attached to the office that would counteract the name servant. Jesus said the greatest amongst you is your servant. He didn't say the greatest amongst you is both judge and servant. There appears to be an unreconcilable contradiction in that very title.

 

[Berean777]

Is that why Jesus made this change in Peter in front of the huge rock formation at Paneus?

We see that cornerstone that the church is built upon in Old Testament with the shouts of grace grace onto it is Christ himself. Now Peter was not that cornerstone, sorry!

The fact is that Peter when asking Jesus about John's submission to him, Jesus would reply to lay off him and to mind his own business. That would pretty much end Peter's aspiration to be John's boss. In fact Jesus told Peter to follow him.

If Jesus is Peter's Patrairch then how can Peter claim to be a Patrairch?

It simply doesn't add up. Your relgious institution's one verse Patrairch or pope succession is untenable and is in opposition to the patriarchal office that Jesus holds forever.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

I disagree. Satan believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and he is not part of the Church.

Lame, as if you don't know the difference between the saved that have a faith that believes in Jesus to be their Savior vs. Satan knowing that Jesus is God, but still rebels against him. How about an honest rebuttal to my statement.

The one Church is the one that Christ heads, which from scripture is all believers, not any specific religious institution.