Examples of Sacred Tradition

narnia59

Regular Member
Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,746
1,261
✟323,846.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Considering that you are invoking Scripture as authoritative in a polemic against invoking Scripture as authoritative in a polemic it seems we have a conflict.

And considering that Matthew 18:17 refers to personal disputes then your argumentation comes short of the needed substantiation. But if you looked to the OT basis for this you would find that there is a basis for taking unresolved conflict to progressive higher levels, Exodus 18:21,22; Deuteronomy 16:18; 17:8-13) but that this office never possessed or required ensured infallibility, which Rome has infallibly decreed she has.

And that this office was not above reproof by Scripture, and valid dissent on the basis of their disobedience to Scripture.

But perhaps you want to disagree.
I am responding to invalid interpretation by someone who views that Scripture is the sole authority for a Christian but has no Scriptural basis for that claim.

Matthew 18:17 refers to “the church” as an identifiable entity that is separate and apart from a group of believers. That concept doesn’t exist in your world in any context.

There are indeed OT types of authority that begin with the succession from Moses to Joshua and we find the Scribes and Pharisees sitting in the chair of Moses in the NT. These are ‘shadows’ or ‘types’. The prefigures we see in the OT are not the perfected realities of the fulfillment of the NT. For example, King Solomon (son of David) is a type of Christ. Moses is a type of Christ.

In the NT those typologies are fulfilled perfectly in Christ. And it is Christ himself who gives to Peter the authority to bind and loose, and the keys to his kingdom (Matthew 16:15-19). Did Christ so err in that?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Eloy Craft
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,746
1,261
✟323,846.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
This is an example of those who "wrest the Scripture," imposing a meaning that is not in the text, and is actually contrary to it. The apostle John is not telling the laity to simply "trust the magisterium to try the spirits to see whether they are of God," but tells them that they are to test the spirits.
To test with what? Scripture? Are we not aware that the literacy rate at that time was about 3-5%? Where were they to find this copy of Scripture to pour over to read? Are we not aware that any copies had to be laboriously hand copied? Monks spent their whole lives on this task so that each congregation could have a copy to read. None of this really changes for hundreds of years. Are we really to believe that John was telling people they should test the spirits by reading Scripture when they neither possessed a copy or could read it? Do you understand how out of touch that sounds with the historical reality of the believing people of God?


If John meant that they needed to bring every case to the magisterium then it is reasonable to assume he would have expressed that, but seeing as the church began with the common people ascertaining that John the baptist was "a prophet indeed," versus the magisterial leadership, (Mark 11:27-33) and hearing the Lord gladly (Mark 12:37) while the leadership judged Him to be of the devil, then it would be strange indeed for John to teach that one is to simply rely on the magisterium.
The OT leadership, and everything in the OT points to Christ. The OT types are flawed and imperfect. The NT is fulfilled with the perfection of Christ. The NT leadership, while flawed and imperfect men literally have the Holy Spirit breathed into them by Christ (John 20:22). You accept without reservation that under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit they could be used to pen Scripture. You reject wholeheartedy that the Holy Spirit could also inspire them to ensure that Scripture is interpreted without error. That is contradictory. If the Holy Spirit is capable of inspiring men to write without error He is certainly capable of inspiring them to teach without error, and why would He not?

Likewise the "we" of "We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us" is not simply referring to the apostles, but to John's audience, whom he just told, "Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world." (1 John 4:4)
In determining the ‘we’, ‘us’, ‘you’ etc in any of the epistles it is absolutely essential to go back to the beginning to see who the epistle is from. Yes this epistle has John’s name on it. But read the beginning where he is absolutely clear who the ‘we’ is who is writing.

“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— 2 the life was made manifest, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was made manifest to us3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4 And we are writing this that our joy may be complete.” The WE are the apostles.

If your interpretation is true then we listen to the nearest congregation of believers who may be teaching something quite different from the next one, even in the Evangelical community. I find it quite puzzling that you even reject the authority claimed by the apostles themselves to be the authentic teachers of the Gospel and want to pass that role to the community even while they are living.

John even goes so far as to state, "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." (1 John 2:27) And which some abuse to support the opposite extreme, that one need no teachers, etc., versus referring contextually, "concerning them that seduce you," (1 John 2:26) and which is understood to be that of a claim to esoteric secret knowledge. Which is essentially what Catholicism claims.

The Catholic Church rejects all forms of esoteric secret knowledge; that is gnostic teaching and false. To include that which those claim to have been revealed by God from their private reading of Scripture (2 Peter 1:20-21).

That verse standing alone does say you need no teachers, and you at least recognize that referring contextually to all of Scripture it is clear that is not the case because some are given the role of teacher, and that role is to be passed on, and on (2 Tim 2:2). It comes back to what John tells them – they don’t need any of the false teachers because they have the apostles to teach them.


For just what is the basis of the Catholic's assurance that such a thing as the Assumption is true?
Because when Christ gave the apostles the great commission to teach, preach and baptize based on the fact that all authority on heaven and earth had been given to him, he told them that he would be with them until the end of time. (Matthew 28:18-20), and he promised them that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth (John 16:13) and be with them even as they go to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8)

Are you familiar at all with the history of that teaching being declared officially dogma? Historically the Church had celebrated the feast of the Assumption since the early centuries (or the feast of the Dormition in the Eastern Church). But the formal declaration of that dogma was determined by a grass roots efforts of the faithful, not a ‘push down’ from the Pope. The Pope finally accepted that God was speaking to him through the people and dogmatized what the Church had always taught and believed.


As Keating affirms, “Still, fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.

"It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors ." - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.

*..having discovered the authority established by God, you must submit to it at once. There is no need of further search for the doctrines contained in the Christian Gospel, for the Church brings them all with her and will teach you them all....”

“All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.” “Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914
I’m not sure what all those quotes are for in particular, but the one I’ve italicized is the only one that is an official Catholic teaching document as it is a papal encyclical. You disagree that the Church has pastors and the flock, the one with the duty to lead and the other to be led? That seems quite Biblical to me, but in the world where the flock can fire their pastor, it is indeed quite upside down so may not look familiar. Hebrews 13:17 does say to “Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you” so I am curious what in particular you find problematic with that statement.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Eloy Craft
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,746
1,261
✟323,846.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
There is no transference, but a continuance, that of the veracity of what authority teaches being subject to conflationary Scriptural substantial and warrant, versus the premise of ensured magisterial veracity.

The magisterial office and its authority (even to dissent being a capital offense: Dt. 17:8-13) is affirmed under SS, but not as assuredly infallible, so that dissent based on a higher authority was necessarily disallowed as invalid:
It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word.[4] (Westminster Confession, Chapter XXXI)
That interpretation means the apostles could have erred when at the Council of Jerusalem they determined that the Gentiles could enter the Church without circumcision. After all, Scripture said that the covenant made with Abraham regarding circumcision was "everlasting". (Gen 17:13). Yet they did not err, because the Holy Spirit had been promised to them to guide them into all truth (John 14:26).

There is no continuance if the apostles are an infallible teaching authority that ceases to exist on their death. Their authority is indeed affirmed under Scripture. That authority is God-breathed, as is Scripture (John 20:22) That authority is given the keys to the kingdom and the authority to bind and loose (Matt 16:16-19) That authority is given to lead and discipline the Church, something Scripture cannot do. And something a Pastor cannot in reality do if the flock can fire him.



The question then is whether in dispersion and in a type of divided kingdom all must be subject to a one magisterial authority, based upon its claim to be the one true supreme infallible but non-inspired (as Scripture is) magisterial authority, and what to do when its claim and teachings are not what is manifest
in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), especially Acts thru Revelation.
The simple reality is when people determine that their particular revelation is accurate as opposed to another, they are claiming for themselves the authority they say the Church cannot have.

Do you believe you have been gifted by the Holy Spirit to interpret universal truths of faith as you understand Scripture?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Eloy Craft
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,746
1,261
✟323,846.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Just a good thing? The Lord invokes it as authoritative in defeating the devil (who likewise appealed to it as authoritative), and likewise invokes it as authoritative in reproving the magisterial powers, and for doctrine, and in establishing His fulfillment of its prophecies, and opens the understanding of it to His disciples (not only the apostles), and learning Scripture is always just a good thing?
I didn’t say “just” a good thing. But it is not necessary to be a Scripture scholar to know Christ and be saved by him. Salvation in Scripture does not come to those who ‘read the word of God’ and believe but to those who hear it (Romans 10:14, Luke 8:12-13, John 4:42, John 5:24, Acts 4:4, Acts 13:48, Acts 18:8, Acts 21:20, Romans 10:16, Galatians 3:2, Galatians 3:5, Ephesians 1:13, 1 Thessalonians 2:13). It is amazing when we make an assumption of modern life (everyone has a Bible, everyone can read) upon the lives of millions of Christians in past centuries who received the Gospel orally and that was not only all they had, it was sufficient for their salvation.

Even today, the Bible hasn’t been translated into about a third of the existing languages. That doesn’t mean they can’t hear and respond to the Gospel. This is one of the major failings of sola-Scriptura – it’s a system that is not even feasible for the great majority of peoples of the world since the time of Christ. Where are those who have no Bible in their language today supposed to turn to “test the spirits” in your view? Are they denied the Gospel because they have no Scripture they can read?


How (i know why) can you come up with this rationalization? Parroting Catholic Answers? Instead of accepting the oral proclamation of the church as de facto authoritative as Catholics are to do, whose proclamation needs not Scriptural substantiation for all it teaches, but is to be accepted based upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial veracity, they did not, but subjected the claims of the apostles to testing by Scripture, as being the established authoritative word of God.
Catholic Answers has had little impact on my view of why the authority of the Church is both Biblical and necessary. Studying Protestant theology did.

I said “But if they had relied on Scripture alone and rejected the oral teaching of the Church, when Paul told them that the historical person of Jesus Christ had died, risen from the dead, and fulfilled those Scriptures they would have asked him where that information could be found in Scripture, and it would not have been there for them to see. They accepted the oral proclamation of the church, the teaching authority that Christ had established to believe that Christ was the Messiah they had been waiting for.”

What in that do you see as rationalization? Read what Paul said to the Thessanonians. “ 2 And Paul went in, as was his custom, and for three weeks he argued with them from the scriptures, 3 explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.”

He used the Scriptures to try to prove to them that it was necessary for “the” Christ to suffer and rise from the dead. He proclaimed to them orally that Jesus is “the Christ”. He didn’t try to show them that from Scripture because he knew it wasn’t there. He was asking them to both accept his teaching authority in interpreting Scripture and the oral witness of the Church to the resurrection. They refused. The Bereans were more noble because they did both. But if they had been Scripture alone, they would not have accepted what Paul SAID that couldn’t have been seen in Scripture.

Only on that basis did they believe and assent to what the apostles taught, contrary to Catholic theology. In which believers are not able to discover the contents of the Bible apart from faith in her, and thus appeal is to be made to Scripture merely as a reliable historical document, whereby the soul may find warrant to believe in and submit to The Church®. Which logic has its own problems.
The logical problem here is thinking that believers could read both the Scripture and obtain a copy, which has not been the practical reality until the last 150 years or so. It took both the invention of the printing press and the industrial revolution to change that reality.

In many ways some Protestant and Mormon theology are very similar. Mormons profess the Church actually was removed from the earth when the apostles died and was restored by Joseph Smith. Some Protestants seem to believe it was actually removed from the earth when the apostles died and was restored by the printing press.


But like as with "Bible churches," truth is orally proclaimed, including as interpreting prophecy, which is what the apostles were doing, that Christ and what occurred was a fulfillment of prophecy, but the veracity of this preaching must be based upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation (which is how the church began, in word and in power). Thus in addition to Scriptural miracles, the Lord beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:27) And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, (Luke 24:44-45)

However, another fundamental difference is that men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also proclaim new public revelation thereby, neither of which your popes and prelates nor your typical SS preacher claims to do. Thus, while they may proclaim Scriptural Truth - which the whole church did in Acts 8:4 - what they say is not not equal with Scripture.

If you want to dispute any part of this then show me where I am wrong.
The Church began on Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles and they spoke the word of God.

If “Bible churches” proclaimed the same oral ‘truth’ in unanimity, that thought would hold more weight. But my rather serious investigations into that have proven sufficient that they do not. If I need to expand on that further and provide examples, let me know.

Do you believe that Paul entrusted Timothy with the authority he had been given?
 
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,746
1,261
✟323,846.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
No, that is not John's answer, as explained.
And answered. If you read the beginning of John's epistle, it is clear the 'we' and 'us' are the apostles who are writing to "the little children". But if John means to listen to the whole Church (not the apostles), where is that church to be found today? And if he means to test with Scripture, exactly how were people going to go about doing that the first 1500 years of the Church?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,746
1,261
✟323,846.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Of course God is the supreme authority, as a person, and which means that His express revelation of Himself, of who and what He is and loves and hates, and of will, are authoritative, and to which are must submit. (Matthew 4:4) How can one even submit to God unless He reveals Himself and His will?

In so doing as a person Christ is called the "word of God," being in person "the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person," (Hebrews 1:3) and who invoked Scripture as the authoritative word of God, to which everyone from the devil to His disciples were to believe and act according to, and corrected them when they believed or acted contrary to this authority. And it is one thing to be God and another thing to persuade souls that you are, and thus the Lord invoked Scripture as the authoritative standard on His Messiahship.
(Mt. 22:23-45; Mark 7:1-19; Lk. 4:1-12; 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39)
I’m glad you recognize that Scripture has not authority over Christ.

Christ generally invokes Scripture because it is being ignored or misinterpreted, not to add any authority to his Messiahship. He who commanded the seas and cast out demons did not require Scripture to affirm that.

In the situation where the women caught in adultery is brought to him, if he had turned to Scripture as the final authority, she would have been stoned. (Leviticus 20:10,Deuteronomy 22:22). But he did not.

Every word that proceeds from the mouth of God includes the authority he gives to his apostles to govern the flock, teach with his authority, forgive sins, preach.

Which is utterly contrary your denial, which would have Christ requiring faith Himself just based upon who He was and perhaps His own self-attestation.
I am not making any sense out of that.

Wrong. Even your popes are wholly inspired of God when speaking infallibly as writers of Scripture were. If you deny that you are ignorant of your own theology.
I said “Christ himself is who gives his authority to the apostles and they are the foundation the valid NT church is built upon. They too become God-breathed.” This was your response. I’m not making any sense out of that either.

Which is another falsehoods in addition to your others. Scripture is the word of God, and it is abundantly referenced as authoritative. Show me the over 80 Bible references to "authority" and I will show you references to the word of God as being authoritative As is abundantly evidenced, as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isaiah 8:20)
In response to when I said this == Side note -- do you know the Bible references "authority" more than 80 times and not once does it call itself an authority?

I don’t think you’ll even find 80 references to Scripture. What you will do is pull out a lot of references to the ‘logos’ -- the “word of God” and try to equate the two, as you did with Hebrews 4:12 above. A passage that continually gets quote as referencing Scripture, but so clearly continues with “And before HIM no creature is hidden, but all are open and laid bare to the eyes of HIM with whom we have to do” so is a clear reference to Christ. 2 Timothy 3:16 is a reference to Scripture. It is the Greek word “graphe” and is translated as Scripture. The verses that explicitly refer to Scripture are these. Verses that refer to the ‘logos’ are referring to something much more than Scripture alone.

Even in your passage from Isaiah about the law and the testimony – you do realize that the Jewish authorities, whose authority you accept to tell you what books actually make up the Old Testament, did not view the law and the testimony as being Scripture alone, correct? At the same time they were canonizing your Scripture after the fall of Jerusalem (which you accept their authority to do over the Church), they were codifying their oral tradition and they have held from the beginning the two go hand in hand and cannot be separated.

A false dichotomy. You are confusing the person of God with His expression, and there is no conflict in that understanding. It is God who treats His word as authoritative, while you only make God the authority, and not His inspired word by which men will be judged. (John 12:48)

The Lord was speaking His word by the Spirit, in accordance with His word, and the two cannot be separated, not made unequal except as God providing and sending His word, which He cannot contradict, any more than God can sin.
John 12:48 that you cite “He who rejects me and does not receive my sayings has a judge; the word that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day.”

You’ve done it again – tried to utilize a verse that references the logos (Christ) as a reference to Scripture. There is a word that Scripture uses when referring to itself -- “graphē” which is translated as Scripture.

Scripture is very clear that it will be Christ himself who judges us. It is also very clear that he sends the apostles in his name, and rejecting them is the same as rejecting him (Matthew 10:40).

I have no confusion between God and his God-breathed Scripture or his God-breathed Church. None can be in conflict.
 
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,746
1,261
✟323,846.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
And as said, Paul was the manner of man who preached Scriptural Truths, reasoning from the Scriptures, to which he appealed, and did not presume ensured personal veracity, thus he could validly exhort, "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ" (1 Corinthians 11:1) who also taught Scripture as being the authoritative word of God.

And Paul points to Scripture as the instrumentally enabling the man of God to be "perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works"
Paul also taught that it was the apostles who had been approved by God to be entrusted with the Gospel (1 Thess 2:3-4, 5:21, 1 Tim 1:11, Titus 1:1-3) and that it was God who had established and commissioned them, giving them the Holy Spirit as a guarantee (2 Cor 1:21-22), that in the sight of God they speak in Christ (2 Cor 2:14-17), that the church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:14-15) and that the manifold wisdom of God is made known through the Church (Eph 3:10)

“Man of God” is the Old Testament term for the prophets and those who led God’s people. It is only used twice in the New Testament; both times Paul referring to Timothy. This is not referring to any believer but to one who has been prepared to take over the apostleship of Paul. Scripture indeed is necessary for Timothy to be “perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works”. If you can provide any text that indicates that Scripture alone is needed that would be helpful, or that is “sufficient” as opposed to “profitable”.


And thus when Paul also tells Timonthy that For bodily exercise profiteth little: but Godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come, (1 Timothy 4:8) then you would say Godliness is simply useful?
2 Timothy 3:16 “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness”. 1 Timothy 4:8 says that “ for while bodily training is of some value, Godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come.

Scripture itself seems to answer your question – Godliness is of value in every way – Scripture is of value specifically for teaching, reproof, correction, training for a pastor.

Certainly even non-inspired words can be useful for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, yet not necessarily so, and such cannot be the standard for what is doctrine and righteousness. But you are ignoring is that the only substantive class of Divine revelation that is said to be wholly inspired of God is Scripture, which thus is the sure standard as the assured word of God.

The inspired oral words such as the Lord and apostles preached also was also the word of God, but the validity of the claim to be so required conformity to the established word of God, the Scriptures, to which oral preaching appealed.

In addition, no other source of Divine revelation is given the manner of affirmation as the written word, even as the Law (broadly speaking) being perfect, converting the soul; sure, making wise the simple; right, rejoicing the heart; pure, enlightening the eyes; clean, enduring for ever; true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. (Psalms 19:7-10)

And not other source of Divine revelation is instrumentally affirmed as enabling the man of God to be "perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:17)
And writing is God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31) Psalm 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; Acts 17:11)
I have provided a multitude of verses that establish and affirm Christ gave his authority to the apostles to preach, to teach, to govern, to forgive sins, but here are those plus more (Matt 10:1, Matt 10:40, Matt 18:18, John 13:20, John 16:14-15, Mark 6:7-13, Luke 9:1-2, Acts 28-30, Romans 1:5-6, 2 Cor 7:14-15, 2 Thess 3:4-6, 10-15, 2 Peter 3:1-2, Hebrews 13:17, 1 Peter 5:1-4, 2 Cor 13:2, 2 Cor 13:9-10, Titus 3:10-11, 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, 2 Corinthians 10:5-7, 3 John 1:9, 1 Thess 2:4, John 4:6, 1 Cor 2:10-16, Matt 28:19-20, Mark 3:4, 1 Thess 2:3-4, 2 Cor 1:21-22, 2 Cor 2:14-17, Titus 1:1-3, Romans 16:17-18, Titus 1:7-9, Eph 3:10-11, John 20:20-23, Matt 16:13-19, John 21:15-19, Acts 10, Eph 4:10-14, Acts 1:8, 1 Tim 1:3-7, 1:18-19, 4:1, 4:11-16, 5:7, 5:20-22, 6:2-4, 6:11, 6:17, 6:20-21, 2 Tim 1:6-7, 1:13-14, 2:2-7, 2:14-15, 3:10-17, 4:1-5). You reject all of these as being trivial it seems.

Paul is even so bold as to state to the Corinthians that what he has forgiven, he has forgiven in the person of Christ (2 Cor 2:10).

Which is sound, except under the premise that the church cannot err, that its own basis for veracity rests upon this premise, versus Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. There is judicial authority, such as SCOTUS has, and to which souls are bound to obey or else suffer the consequences, but which authority does not mean they will always be right. When they are wrong, then dissent is valid, even though they suffer consequences.

But perhaps you disagree, under the premise that the historical magisterial stewards of Scripture must be infallible.
I disagree with the premise that the only infallible authority Christ gave us is the Scriptures given that the greatest majority of Christian people over the centuries could neither afford to have a copy hand written for them or read it if they did, and given that Scripture itself attests to the authority that Christ gave his Church, which Scripture calls the pillar and bulwark of the truth and the means by which God’s manifold wisdom is to be spread. Do you deny that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth?

When God wanted to allow the Gentiles into the Church, he doesn’t direct the apostles to Scripture where they would have found circumcision to be an everlasting covenant made with his father Abraham(Gen 17:13). He explicitly guides Peter beyond Scripture (Acts 10) by extraordinary revelation to make the decision to allow the Gentiles into the Church without being circumcised.

I simply believe that if the Holy Spirit is capable of inspiring sinful and fallible men to pen Scripture that is inspired and inerrant, He is equally capable of inspiring sinful and fallible men to maintain in truth what Scripture refers to as the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

So based upon the few Greek words in the text, tell me how this means that Scripture is subject to the church, rather than the church being grounded upon its Truth and supporting it, which is the only understanding supported by the rest of Scripture.

That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: (Ephesians 3:6) To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, (Ephesians 3:9-10)
Meaning contextually not by progressive church teaching, but by the very existence and nature of the church as being the one new man, the revelation of which - not speaking of comprehensive doctrine but this new man mystery - was "revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit." (Ephesians 3:5)

Then tell me how many Bible verses your church has infallibly defined? And I will show you examples of variant interpretations of even church teaching by RCs, which abound!

Which is why he prostituted his mind to support Rome even with absurd arguments.
I have never said that Scripture is subject to the Church. The Catholic Church views that Scripture and Sacred Tradition are related and harmonious, and the teaching office established by Christ as the servant.

Scripture is however subjected to a wide variety of interpretations by those who believe they speak in the place of the apostles. This is why the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth – for many will develop beliefs and doctrines based upon Scripture but only within the Church will you find the development of these things guaranteed by the Holy Spirit (John 14:26,John 20:22, Acts 1:1-8, Acts 2:32-33, Acts 10, 2 Tim 1:14)

The Catholic Church has actually defined very few particular verses of Scripture infallibly. It has defined dogmas that reflect what both Scripture and Sacred Tradition reveal – the Trinity for example.

I have no doubt you can find me a variety of ‘interpretations’ by people claiming to be Catholic. I don’t listen to opinion polls. If you want to know that the Catholic CHURCH teaches, you go to the catechism, not the internet. Unless of course you go to the catechism on the internet....
 
Upvote 0

Eloy Craft

Myth only points, Truth happened!
Supporter
Jan 9, 2018
3,132
871
Chandler
✟386,808.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The issue was implicitly that of the subject being the Catholic church, which you denied, but as explained, Catholic sacred tradition (which the OP asked examples of), "presupposes an authoritative definition of what that consists of, which Catholics assert their magisterium provides, as souls cannot even discover the contents of sacred revelation otherwise..."
The above is typical. A clanking combination of words constructed to immediately divert the conversation. A discussion about something subtle and complex, by necessity requires subtopics in order to communicate the finer points. But acknowledging that doesn't seem to serve the purpose of your post. Your persistent diversion of the conversation to what you need to express simply doesn't allow them. No sincere exchange of ideas can happen. I don't remember one response of yours to actually engage the content of my posts. Your belief that the Catholic Church is the reincarnation of the Sanhedrin of Jesus time or the Pagan nations the Hebrews drove out, obstructs you and I from a sincere exchange of ideas. Try to consider the possibility that the other person may have a good point to make. I am inclined to believe you are trolling this website for Catholics.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I had a major browser crash, losing hours of work the devil did not want posted, and the 5 replies are from backup data which may not be complete or may contain parts from another post and odd (’) formatting. Plus the preview function is not working nor can i tell if the posts are being posted, while CF complains about too many characters so some will not post, and so i will try to split some into two parts.

I am not going to repeat hours of work with my stiff fingers here or spend even more time with this now. Sorry for the mess and for missing anything. CF apparently does not save drafts past restarts.
Acts 1:21-22 are the qualifications to be counted among the 12 whose names will be on the twelves foundations (Rev 21:14), not a limitation to be an apostle. Paul does not meet these qualifications, but Scripture is quite clear that he is an apostle (Acts 14:14, Romans 1:1, 11:13).

1 Cor 9:1 – Paul did not witness the resurrection but he did have an \nencounter with the risen Lord after His ascension. But he does not \nmeet the criteria outlined in Acts 1:21-22 because to be counted among \nthe twelve not only was it necessary to be a witness to the resurrection, it was also necessary to be “ one of the men who have \naccompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out \namong us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was \ntaken up from us” and Paul does not meet this criteria. .
Your latest response is a series of error after error, as will be shown, by the grace of God. Paul certainly did meet the qualification of an apostles, which that of personal discipleship by the risen Christ, seeing the resurrected Lord in person, which Paul also had and did, if privately, yet whose actual rising from the dead none of them actually saw, but all had encounters with the risen Lord after His ascension, as did Paul.
Gal 1:12 “12 For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”.
Which testifies to Paul's personal discipleship/teaching by the Lord.
This is why Paul tells Timothy in 2 Tim 3:14 -- “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it”. Timothy knew he had been taught by a true apostle which is why he can be assured he is passing on authentic apostolic teaching to others, which he is instructed to do (2 Tim 2:2).
The claim of the Lord to be the Messiah, and thus apostle's veracity was based upon the Lord being the fulfillment of Scripture and its promises of what the Messiah would be and do, which the Lord schooled the apostles and other disciples in, and enabled them to preach, (Luke 24:44,45) and which is what the apostles and NT church did preach, as Apollos: [COLOR=\"#000066\"]\"For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.\" (Acts 18:28; cf. Acts 9:22) [/COLOR]

Is was upon this Scriptural that the claim to be an apostle had weight, and who, and the writers of the NT, appealed to Scripture as the supreme established authoritative word of God, and which their complementary preaching could not truly be contrary to. Thus in ruling on the case of Gentile conversions and responsibilities, he invoked Scripture as foretelling this expansion, while the restrictions on them were also right from Scripture.

And thus the Lord calls the Truth-seeking Bereans \"noble\" who subjected the \nveracity of the oral preaching of the apostles to Scripture, not vice \nversa, and not on the premise of ensured infallibility of office, as per\n Catholicism.

Therefore pastor Timothy \"knowing from whom you learned it” refers to the manner of man Paul was, one who, as with His Lord, [COLOR=\"#000066\"] \"as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,\" (Acts 17:2)[/COLOR] as well as manifesting Scriptural supernatural attestation.
That you do not see the kind of men described in 2 Cor 6 testifies more to the reality that you receive your news of such men from secular news sources than a true knowledge of them.
Please! Are you serious? If you think today's leaders, much less your pope and those of Rome, are like those in 2 Cor 6, in all things approving themselves as the ministers of God, in purity, power and probity, then you are fantasizing, and not even reading news from secular news sources, which would be telling of and targeting such.
Paul also doesn’t describe Peter with such kind words in Galatians 2:11-14.
For fear, and thus being a respecter of persons, as a exception to the apostolic and Peter's norm, and is the only apostle to be publicly rebuked.
Yes they may have human failings. That doesn’t prevent God from working through them because it is the Holy Spirit that guarantees their work, not their own personhood, just as the Holy Spirit enabled fallible and sinful men to pen Sacred Scripture.
It was holy men who penned Scripture, (2 Peter 1:21) if not sinless, and while God can use even wicked men, there is a correlation btwn character and how much God can use a person, (2 Peter 1:20, 21), and the apostles were not merely some Caiaphas-types, but supremely manifest men of God, as Moses was, whom as group we do not see today.
But I can assure you that the great majority of our Catholic bishops and priests go about quietly and faithfully serving the people of God and that isn’t altered by the fact that a few stinkers make the news.
We are not talking about stinkers, but leadership that can say of themselves what 2 Corinthians 6:4-10 says. In addition, in the NT church there was no ordained separate sacerdotal class of believers for whom the distinctive word for this sacerdotal class was used. Nor did presbuteros and episkopos refer to two different offices.
The only verse really worthy of consideration you provide is 2 Cor 12:12 “the signs of a true apostle were performed among you in all patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works”. That passage does indeed pose a question, and if it stood alone could be significant. But it doesn’t stand alone. When we get to Paul’s letters to Timothy where he outlines all the authority that has been entrusted to Paul will now be Timothy’s by virtue of the laying on of hands (governing the church, maintaining purity of the doctrine he has received, preaching, teaching, passing his authority to others), he never once mentions he is to perform signs as proof of his apostleship. Yet he charges him to maintain the truth of the Gospel and to pass that truth on to others who will succeed him (1 Tim 1:3-7, 1:18-19, 4:1, 4:11-16, 5:7, 5:20-22, 6:2-4, 6:11, 6:17, 6:20-21, 2 Tim 1:6-7, 1:13-14, 2:2-7, 2:14-15, 3:10-17, 4:1-5).
As your premise is specious, so is your definite conclusion. Nowhere does Scripture say Timothy is being ordained as an apostle, which reading into Scripture that which at best you may see as an inference, supposing that [COLOR=\"#000066\"]\"Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery,\" (1 Timothy 4:14) [/COLOR]which included Paul, (2 Timothy 1:6) somehow means Timothy was ordained an apostle, but which is presumption, and also wrongly presumes that the Holy Spirit would not state this important status.

But whatever gift was conveyed to Timothy was something he needed to \"stir up,\" (2 Timothy 1:6) and \"keep\" (2 Timothy 1:14) and while Paul refers to himself as an apostle, he nowhere refers to Timothy as one, but instructs him as a pastor, one for whom prophecies were made, (1 Timothy 1:18) and told that [COLOR=\"#000066\"]\"if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.\" [/COLOR](1 Timothy 3:1) and who as regards a gift besides that office is to [COLOR=\"#000066\"]\"do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.\"[/COLOR] (2 Timothy 4:5)

Thus what is clear is that Timothy is ordained as a pastor, albeit a lead pastor who would ordain others, as Titus also was to do, (Titus 1:5-7) though there is no distinction in titles.

In addition, you simply cannot invoke the teaching on the pastoral duties and character given to Timothy, who is never called an apostle, as interpretive of the clear statement on the credentials of apostles, including [COLOR=\"#000066\"]\"Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.\" (2 Corinthians 12:12)[/COLOR] The apostles were in a class by themselves as regards an office, and had distinct qualifications that disqualify men who fail of these from claiming they are apostles.
We also know that Christ is not really impressed with those who were constantly seeking after signs (Matt 12:38), and that those who believe without them are even more blessed (John 20:29). Given that Paul indicates these signs in reality were necessary for the Jews, not the Gentiles (1 Cor 1:22) and since they refuse to hear the Gospel is it then delivered to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46, 28:28) it seems the Church receives the opportunity to take leave of that generation which demanded signs to believe to become even more blessed and to actually grow more deeply in faith as it turns its focus to the Gentile world. To truly “walk by faith and not by sight” (2 Cor 5:7).
Which is overall a load of sophistry. From the top, if the Lord was disparaging the use of supernatural attestation in Matthew12:38,39 then He would be inconsistent with Himself in working thereby and calling souls to faith in the light of them, (John 14:10,11) and stating that \"the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me,\" (John 5:36) and doing the same with his disciples, (Mark 16:20) of whom He said would do greater works, (John 14:12) which were a special mark of the office of apostles.

While souls should believe based upon the wisdom and holiness of men of God, yet instead of generally disparaging any use of supernatural attestation in Matthew 12:38.39 provided in God's condescending grace to man, Christ is responding to [COLOR=\"#000066\"]\"certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees,\"[/COLOR] who were not sincere, \"And others, tempting him, sought of him a sign from heaven,\" (Luke 11:16) and who were already given signs whereby they should have believed, and therefore this [COLOR=\"#000066\"]\"evil and adulterous generation\" [/COLOR]who were basically as mere ambulance chasers, the sign that would be given to such was the sign of the prophet Jonas, (Matthew 12:39) condemning them as being impenitent despite the greater grace given them, in contrast to the men of Nineveh.

Thus the gracious signs which the Lord did which provided warrant for humble contrite seekers to believe, were to the judgment of those who remained impenitent. [COLOR=\"#000066\"]\"Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not.\" (Matthew 11:20)[/COLOR]

In addition, while in general, [COLOR=\"#000066\"]\"the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom,\" (1 Corinthians 1:22)[/COLOR] the appeal to the Jews was largely on the basis of appeal to Scripture as to Christ being the promises Messiah, though this included the supernatural, while to those ignorant of Scripture then it was the power of God in Scriptural supernatural attestation,[COLOR=\"#000066\"] For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. (Romans 15:18-19)[/COLOR]

Thus, rather than supernatural attestation becoming less prevalent as Paul turned to the Gentiles, it continued.
  • [COLOR=\"#000066\"]Acts 14:3 – “Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands.”[/COLOR]
  • [COLOR=\"#000066\"]Acts 16:16-18 – Spirit of Divination cast out: 18 “And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.”[/COLOR]
  • [COLOR=\"#000066\"]Acts 19:11 – “And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul:”[/COLOR]
  • [COLOR=\"#000066\"]Acts 28:8,9 “And it came to pass, that the father of Publius lay sick of a fever and of a bloody flux: to whom Paul entered in, and prayed, and laid his hands on him, and healed him. So when this was done, others also, which had diseases in the island, came, and were healed:”[/COLOR]
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
We also know that Eph 4:11-13 states that “And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers” for the equipment of the saints and the building up of the body of Christ. You easily dismiss this, but Scripture says that the gifts of God are irrevocable (Romans 11:29).
Romans 11:29 is actually speaking of predestination, but while i believe in the perpetuity of spiritual gifts, this does not mean God will always continue to provide those who occupy an office, as seen by the 400 year absence of a prophet, out of which \"dry ground\" (Isaiah 53:2) the Lord sprung. And the only ordained successor to an apostle was that of Judas, which was in order to maintain the foundational number of apostles, (Rv. 21:14) and which was by the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots, (cf. Prov. 16:33)) which Rome has never used to select popes.

After the martyrdom of the apostle James, (Acts 12:1,2) no successor is named, and there is no record of Paul or Barnabas being ordained as successors by an apostle, and who had to fulfill the qualifications of an apostles as to being personally discipled by Christ, seeing the resurrected Lord in person, together with the manner of supernatural attestation provided to that office.

And thus while I do not disallow apostles from one day appearing on the earth, yet know not of any now, though some may function as sent ones as insofar founding churches. But certainly all those who claim to be successors to the apostles in Catholicism are not apostles, while presbyters are the only ones we see charged by apostles with being overseers of the church, and charged with caring for it. (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:1,2)
Pastors cannot take the place of apostles, for who is to appoint the pastors? That is the role of the apostles in Scripture (Acts 14:23, Titus 1:5), and the congregational model is nowhere to be seen. No pastor who has been hired and can be fired by his congregation holds any true authority over them. The Biblical model for receiving the role of pastor is to be appointed by someone with a larger position of authority than anyone in the community, including the pastor -- an apostle. Have you ever noticed that Paul NEVER sends the instructions for church leadership roles to a community of believers but only to Timothy and Titus?
Which is another conclusion based upon a specious premise, that not only was Timothy an apostles since he ordained pastors, but Titus also, yet nowhere are they referred to as apostles, and which status is mentioned for men as Paul, Peter, Barnabas, but instead they are instructed as pastors who ordain others.

Note also that they are to also ordain deacons, yet it is the people who nominate them. (Acts 6:4)

As for apostles being ordained, as said, the only one shown being ordained was for Judas, and only one, with the cause being to maintain the original number of the foundational (Eph. 2:20) apostles.

And if you think apostles must be ordained by an apostle, then the you must also make \"a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias,\" (Acts 9:10) \"a devout man according to the law\" (Acts 22:12) out to be an apostle, since that is the only one who is recorded laying hands on Paul in endowment of power, and in commissioning him to service, (Acts 9:17) and who thus straightway preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God, (Acts 9:20) \"And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him.\" (Acts 9:29)

His 15 day visit with Peter only occurred latter, and of which nothing notable is said. But of course, Catholic insist on reading btwn the lines that which they want to see, as if the Holy Spirit would not record such.

And later, \"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\" (Acts 13:1) laid their hands on Barnabas and Saul and sent them away to minister.

What all this indicates is that laying on of hands in conveying power and in commissioning to service need not be done by an apostle, and the proposition that there was ordination of apostles going on without the Holy Spirit stating this and or calling Timothy, Titus or or Ananias apostles is simply preposterous in the light of the Catholic importance placed upon it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Christ is the head of the Church, not Scripture.
It is you who asserted that we believe Scripture took their place, which i reproved with the fact that it was a continuation of Scripture being the supreme authority over leadership, which is what the NT church invoked as the established authoritative word of God, versus the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome.
Pastors who can be hired/fired by the flock are not Biblical and have no real authority over the flock. It’s flipped on top of itself, much like professing that Scripture has authority over Christ. This is truly is what Scripture calls a ‘tradition of man’.
This is true, since pastors are accountable to leadership which normally ordains them, as its true with the \"powers that be\" of God in the civil realms, (Romans 13:1-7) yet leadership is not above Scripture, and if you believe that even the authoritative historical magisterium is, as possessing ensured veracity, and thus as necessarily disallowing the validity of any dissent to its formal judgments, then you have a bigger problem then those who make the flock itself the authority over pastors. That is what is flipped on top of itself, and is truly is what Scripture calls a ‘tradition of man’. Yet if you deny that your leadership is effectively above Scripture, and as the authoritative historical magisterium possesses ensured veracity then all your ecclesiology cannot rescue it.

Also true is that souls can ascertain what is of God without an infallible magisterium.
The foundation of leadership he put into place has his authority, literally Holy-Spirit breathed by him (John 20:22) – the authority to govern, preach, teach, forgive sins, and shepherd the flock ((Matt 10:1, Matt 10:40, Matt 18:18, John 13:20, John 16:14-15, Mark 6:7-13, Luke 9:1-2, Acts 28-30, Romans 1:5-6, 2 Cor 7:14-15, 2 Thess 3:4-6, 10-15, 2 Peter 3:1-2, Hebrews 13:17, 1 Peter 5:1-4, 2 Cor 13:2, 2 Cor 13:9-10, Titus 3:10-11, 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, 2 Corinthians 10:5-7, 3 John 1:9, 1 Thess 2:4, John 4:6, 1 Cor 2:10-16, Matt 28:19-20, Mark 3:4, 1 Thess 2:3-4, 2 Cor 1:21-22, 2 Cor 2:14-17, Titus 1:1-3, Romans 16:17-18, Titus 1:7-9, Eph 3:10-11, John 20:20-23, Matt 16:13-19, John 21:15-19, Acts 10, Eph 4:10-14, Acts 1:8, 1 Tim 1:3-7, 1:18-19, 4:1, 4:11-16, 5:7, 5:20-22, 6:2-4, 6:11, 6:17, 6:20-21, 2 Tim 1:6-7, 1:13-14, 2:2-7, 2:14-15, 3:10-17, 4:1-5).
Which only confirms what I said, that \"we see pastors - presbuteros/episkopos (one office) - taking the place of the foundational (Eph. 2:20; cf. Rv. 21:14) apostles, looking after \"all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.\" (Acts 20:28)

For again, there is simply no manifest ordination of apostolic successors after that for Judas to restore the original number, and none mentioned for James after his death, while the only manifest ordination was that of pastors and deacons. And who are charged with looking after \"all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God.\"
Appealing to Scripture is not the same as viewing it as the sole authority. An authority, yes. But it cannot be the sole authority due to the authority Christ gives the apostles to govern, preach, teach, forgive sins, and shepherd the flock.
Who said anything about Scripture being the sole authority? Why use a strawman of SS, under which it is affirmed, \"It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word.\" (Westminster, XXXI)

That Scripture is the sole supreme authority is true, which even the veracity of apostolic preaching was subject to testing by, (Acts 17:11) not vice versa, and to which they appealed to for substantiation.
In Acts 17:2 – read what actually happens : “ 2 And Paul went in, as was his custom, and for three weeks he argued with them from the scriptures, 3 explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and SAYING, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.” He is trying to convince them to recognize a truth that is in Scripture (that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead), and he’s asking them to accept a truth that is not found in Scripture but rather proclaimed as the oral tradition of the Church (SAYING that Jesus was the Christ), hoping they will believe.
What is this? You mean preaching what Scripture attest to is Catholic oral tradition such as the Assumption, versus doing the same thing SS preacher do, even by pointing to Israel becoming a state in 1948 as fulfilling Scripture? You should return that spurious polemic back to its owner.

However, men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God, and thereby also provide new public revelation, yet even Rome does not claim to do her popes and councils, yet effectively makes the church magisterium to perpetually be the supreme transcendent \"infallible\" authority on Truth.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others

Your ”meaning” is not to be found in the text. Timothy has spent years at the side of Paul. He has learned nothing from him beyond Scripture? Paul refers to what Timothy has learned from Paul himself. The instructions that Paul gives Timothy regarding Scripture is that “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”
Since when were you bound by what is in the actual text since you read into Scripture thart which is not stated in any text, as charged? What is meant by \"continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them\" (2 Timothy 3:14) must be defined by what Paul taught, which was that of Scriptural Truths, such as that of the prophesied Christ, and Biblical morality, precepts and principals, and persons, and complementary conflative new public revelation (such as prophecy and the theological depth of the one new man) spoken or written as wholly inspired of God, versus the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.

Roman popes and councils do not presume to be speaking as wholly inspired of God, however they infallibly declare they are infallible when speaking in accordance with their infallibly defined scope and subject-based criteria, thereby rendering their self-declaration infallible, and whatever else they will promulgate accordingly. Which the Catholic basis for assurance of Catholic teaching.

[COLOR=\"#663300\"]Inspiration signifies a special positive Divine influence and assistance by reason of which the human agent is not merely preserved from liability to error but is so guided and controlled that what he says or writes is truly the word of God, that God Himself is the principal author of the inspired utterance; but infallibility merely implies exemption from liability to error. God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of an inspired, utterance; the former remains a merely human document. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Infallibility

The approbation given by the Church to a merely human writing cannot, by itself, make it inspired Scripture. The contrary opinion hazarded by Sixtus of Siena (1566), renewed by Movers and Haneberg, in the nineteenth century, was condemned by the Vatican Council. (See Denz., 1787). - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08045a.htm[/COLOR]

[COLOR=\"#663300\"] It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275. [/COLOR]
“Profitable” means “useful”. Of course Scripture is useful for a pastor for teaching, reproof, correction, training. Of course a pastor cannot be fully equipped without knowing Scripture.
Thus as said, to be consistent, \"Godliness\" is simply useful \"unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.\" (1 Timothy 4:8) In both cases it is the instrumental nature of each that is being described.
But ‘useful” is a far cry from “sufficient”, and the passage doesn’t say that this is all Timothy needs to be fully equipped. To get to your meaning you have to add words like “all”, “sufficient” and “only” that aren’t there.
And to get sufficiency in SS to be denied then it must be restricted to what it formally provides, such as the Truth of how to be saved and walk in obedience, but not what it also materially provides for, from reason to writing to the teaching office, to the light of nature, to the guidance of the Spirit in living the word of God out.
And yes, Scripture is God-breathed. But so is the Church(John 20:22). Yet you profess that ‘breath of God’ is both insignificant with the apostles and died with them, as though it could.
Which is more slight of hand. Nowhere is the church itself said to be God-breathed as Scripture is, and as shown, even your own theology denies your popes are speaking as such even in claiming to speak infallibly. And the word of God, which Scripture most assuredly is, is not merely without error, but is as Hebrews 4:12 declares.

And John 20:22 refers to the Lord breathing on the apostles to receive \nthe Spirit, though the fullness had not come till Pentecost, which is \nthe formal beginning of the church in power.

PeaceByJesus said:\n↑ Yet men such as \nthe apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new \npublic revelation thereby, neither of which the words of \"infallible\" \npopes or councils claim to do, and which the writings of so-called \nchurch fathers are not. Thus their words cannot be equal with Scripture,\n which is not merely True, but as the word of God it is \"quick, and \npowerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the \ndividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and \nis a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.\" (Hebrews 4:12)
\n
You believe the promise to guide the Church into the fullness of truth (John 16:13) died with the apostles too?
Nowhere did i express this, nor does my argumentation require this. The Lord's progressive revelation did not begin with the church and it will not end until He returns. (1 John 3:2; cf. 1 Corinthians 13:9-13) Which does not require the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome.
Based upon your understanding, Christ could have simply used the 30 years he had on earth to pen the Scriptures. Why the middle-man? .
Wrong again, for as your premise is false so also is you conclusion. The fact that \"men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby\" simply does not mean that they could just write Scripture, for what they wrote was that of Christ fulfilling Scripture and what followed from that. This if the Lord and His own just wrote Scripture they would not be able to write of such as being fulfilled. And yet Scriptural norm is much that if oral preaching being provided first, followed by the recording of it in Scripture. For God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31) Psalm 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; Acts 17:11)

And thus as abundantly evidenced , as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of oral preaching subject to testing by Scripture, and not vice versa.
Why apostles who could speak the word of God at all but that gift to the Church would then die?
Ask your own church that, since she denies that even her popes speak as wholly inspired of God as the writers of Scripture did. In addition, an infallible magisterium is not essential for knowing what is of God, though councils are to rule in disputes, even if not infallible. Which status was never a requirement for magisterial authority, nor for the preservation of Truth and faith. If you doubt this go ahead and dispute it.
In Acts 1:8 that promise of the Holy Spirit is to guide the apostles to the end of the earth. That goes way beyond the time of the 12
More wresting of Scripture. That promise of the Lord's presence was not simply given to the apostles, nor was it a promise of speaking as wholly inspired of God.
And Hebrews 4:12 is speaking of Christ, not Scripture. Verse 13 makes this clear “12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 And before him no creature is hidden, but all are open and laid bare to the eyes of him with whom we have to do.” The “logos” – the “word of God” is Christ, not Scripture. It is quite astounding when people don’t seem to know the difference.
Which provides more testimony to why Catholics should not engage in what they wrongly invoke 2 Peter 1:20 as forbidding (and i challenge you to show me where this verse is infallibly interpreted as you render it).

For contextually the subject has been and is that of heeding the word of God that was spoken, in which to hear the word is to hear God:
  • God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; (Hebrews 1:1-2)
  • Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; (Hebrews 1:3)
  • Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward; How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; (Hebrews 2:1-3)
  • Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice, Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness: (Hebrews 3:7-8)
  • While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation. (Hebrews 3:15)
  • For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. (Hebrews 4:2)
  • Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. (Hebrews 4:7)
  • Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief: Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. (Hebrews 4:6-7)
Thus the exhortation is to hear, not see, the word of God, which is His voice, and thus continue in the faith, and not have an \"an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.\" (Hebrews 3:12)

Thus the references to the word of God has not been on Christ as the word of God but on His voice, His word, which word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)

But as the word of Christ is His revelation, thus His word does in revelation is what Christ is doing by it, and thus as His word is discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart, so "neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do." (Hebrews 4:13)

It is quite astounding when people don't seem to see this, but understand it out of context, as if all the focus on the voice/word of God and keeping faith thereby is not speaking of the revelation of Christ thereby but just Christ as a person. Meanwhile Scripture most assuredly is the word of God
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
<p>
Unlike you, I would never
Unlike you, I would never profess that I could talk to someone and “find” salvation or not. That is Christ’s domain and His alone..
Which evidences more misapprehension. To hear the gospel from a messenger and believe it is to find salvation, though of course Christ is the ultimate cause and object.

[COLOR=\"#000066\"]But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. (Acts 8:12)[/COLOR]
As both the Church(John 20:22) and Scripture are God-breathed, it seems odd to profess that one is infallible on that basis and the other is not.
Which is a fallacy refuted in my last post to you. Even your popes do not speak as wholly inspired of God according to RC own theology, while if the the Church and Scripture are both God-breathed then every thing the church said would be God-breathed as Scripture is, but it is not. And John 20:22 refers to the Lord breathing on the apostles to receive the Spirit, though the fullness had not come till Pentecost, which is the formal beginning of the church in power.
It is equally puzzling to believe that God can use men to write infallibly, but that He would never use men to also ensure that writing is correctly interpreted.
It may be puzzling to you, but God never did by providing ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, yet faith was preserved (among a remnant as usual), and the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, \"because that unto them were committed the oracles of God,\" (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth\" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises\" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
Catholicism is not a religion based upon opinion polls as the link you provide seems to indicate,
Which is more misrepresentation. I nowhere indicated or inferred that Catholicism is a religion based upon opinion polls, but such attest to what Rome much effectually implicitly teaches and fosters, that an unholy amalgam of even proabortion prohomosexual public figures to cultic traditionalists, both of which and those in btwn she overall counts and treats as members in life and in death. They does are your brethren, and you must own them, contrary to conservative evangelicals fellowship which reject both.
but it is not surprising in absence of any real belief in the authority given by God to the Church one would think opinion polls are meaningful.
Which is much your fruit. And do you want to point souls to Francis, whom your traditionist brethren publicly denigrate? Do you believe in implicit submission to all to all things your church teaches that touch upon faith or morals, to all matters the episcopal power embraces?
Even in the times of the apostles there were those who rejected their authority (3 John 1:9) and I’m sure an ‘opinion poll’ would have reflected that.
The church as well as the USA began in principle dissent, which is all i can thus sanction, not antipathy towards authority in general.
But it wouldn’t have made any difference, and neither does the fact that many Catholics (US based in particular) profess to be Catholic while rejecting the teaching authority of the Church.
You simply cannot excommunicated those whom Rome manifestly considers and treats as members, even Ted Kennedy RCs. Rome interprets canon law by her actions, or lack thereof, and in Scripture this is the evidence of what one really believes. (James 2:18)
My experience with Evangelical and Protestant groups who contend that they have great unity in ‘core beliefs’ is they’ve undergone an exercise in shooting an arrow at the wall and painting a target around it. The starting premise is “what do I believe” and then where is my \ncircle. I’ve run into many such circles, which each professing to be \nthe “circle” holding to the “essential core beliefs” that are derived \nfrom Scripture. Yet the most basic of questions fail to be answered,
Your experience is meaningless versus what the evidence shows. It is not the evangelical vote that liberals can much count on, but fear, while wherever Catholicism predominates so does liberalism. While as regards basic questions, see . http://www.peacebyjesus.com/RC-Stats_vs._Evang.html#TOC
and when asked why others who also profess to be “Bible believing” disagree, the answer in general professes things like the others aren't really born again, haven't had proper training, do not apply good hermenuetics, ignore the whole of Scripture, possess selfishness or pride, have failed to mature, or place an undue emphasis on tradition. My circle, of course, is different...
Actually surveys class people according to self-identification or answers to some basic questions, and while some those reasons you give can be valid, those are the kind of excuses Catholics make for their liberal brethren, such as being \"poorly catechized\" (which means Rome is a poor teacher, or its members are dense), while the covert converts from evangelical churches to enliven their pews.

And as for the vaunted magisterium creating unity, traditional RC are charged with being Protestants but their mainstream brethren, since they also ascertain the validity of church teaching by examination of ancient church teaching (except for them it is not mainly Scripture, but medieval RC teaching).

And then you have the honest appraisal of a poster,

[FONT=\"Arial\"]The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on \"areas of legitimate disagreement,\" the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” Nathan, Against The Grain

So much for RC unity, besides their irreconcilable differences with the EO s over tradition.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I am responding to invalid interpretation by someone who views that Scripture is the sole authority for a Christian but has no Scriptural basis for that claim.

Matthew 18:17 refers to “the church” as an identifiable entity that is separate and apart from a group of believers. That concept doesn’t exist in your world in any context.
Which manifests more ignorance. The church is a a group of believers. From the very text you wrest to support the church being as an identifiable entity that is separate and apart from a group of believers which does not exist in your world in any context, the Lord says (and relates to binding and loosing),

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. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:19-20)

It seems that it is in your world that such group of two or three are gathered together in the name of the Lord cannot be a church unless presided over by one your distinctive sacerdotal priests. But as I previously affirmed, the visible church that exists in my world does have government, and is to ordain pastors, exercise discipline etc., yet the only one true church is that of the spiritual body of Christ, (Colossians 1:18) to which He is married, (Ephesians 5:25) the \"household of faith,\" (Galatians 6:10) since it uniquely only and always consists 100% of true believers, and which spiritual body of Christ is what the Spirit baptizes ever believer into, (1Co. 12:13) while organic fellowships in which they express their faith inevitably become admixtures of wheat and tares, with Catholicism and liberal Protestantism being mostly the latter.

In addition, Matthew 18:17 actually refers to resolving personal disputes, and while in principle this extends to doctrinal disputes, it is nothing new but flows from the OT (Deuteronomy 17:8-13) which court could bind or loose a person in or from their guilt. Which authority neither inferred nor required the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.

Moreover, the power of binding and loosing is also provided to fathers over daughters, and husbands over wives (Num. 30) and even civil powers are ordained to do so (Rm. 13:1-7)

However, the formal judicial binding and loosing belongs to the body corporate under its leadership, as seen in action in 1\n Corinthians 5:3-5. Likewise is the corporate nature of forgiveness by \nthe body that was harmed by public sin. (2 Corinthians 2:10-11)

Yet while the judicial aspect of power of binding or loosing belongs to the corporate court, the spiritual power of binding and loosing is provided for all believers, which Matthew 18:19-20 supports.

Meanwhile, spiritual binding power, which includes intercession for deliverance of chastened souls, (Mk. 2:1-11; Ja. 5:14,15) is provided for all holy souls of fervent prayer like Elijah, who bound and loosed the heavens. And one who was casting out demon in the name of Christ was affirmed by the Lord as operating in His name, and as on His side, even though not as part of the apostle's assembly. (Mark 9:38-40)

Note also that nowhere are NT believers shown regularly confessing sins to their pastors. Instead, the only exhortation or command to confess sins is to each other in general.

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. (James 5:16)

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 5:17-20)

Here we see an example of spiritual binding and loosing, in which the heavens were bound from providing rain, and then loosed to do so, whereby believers of like fervent holy faith are encouraged as able to obtain such binding and loosing in prayer.

However, in the case of an infirm man the intercession of NT pastors (presbuteros) can obtain deliverance of chastisement, as indicated by James 5:14,15, as can the intercession of believers of fervent holy faith, but pastors as particularly expected to be so.
There are indeed OT types of authority that begin with the succession from Moses to Joshua and we find the Scribes and Pharisees sitting in the chair of Moses in the NT. These are ‘shadows’ or ‘types’. The prefigures we see in the OT are not the perfected realities of the fulfillment of the NT. For example, King Solomon (son of David) is a type of Christ. Moses is a type of Christ.

In the NT \nthose typologies are fulfilled perfectly in Christ.
But nowhere in the inspired record of what the NT church believed (Acts -Rv.) do we see a \"perfected\" reality of ensured perpetual infallibility of magisterial office, under which the veracity of a doctrine was assured under the premise that it could not err, much less with a pope calling a council to decree such

In Acts 15 the Scripturally substantiated judgment of James, confirmatory of the exhortation of Peter and testimony of him and Paul and Barnabas was that \"it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; (Acts 15:28)\" not \"we declare, pronounce, define\" this to be true since we cannot err.

And they were certainly not declaring that belief in a specific event is required, over 1700 years after it allegedly occurred, and which was so lacking in early testimony the Rome's chief scholars opposed it as being apostolic doctrine .
And it is Christ himself who gives to Peter the authority to bind and loose, and the keys to his kingdom (Matthew 16:15-19). Did Christ so err in that?
A false dilemma. Peter was not given any power that was not given to the rest, and Christ certainly did not err by so doing, but Rome by presuming 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.

[FONT=\"Arial\"]As for Peter, the Peter of Rome is\none of the many Catholic distinctives that are not what is manifest\nin the only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed,\nand again, even Catholic researchers, and others, provide\ntestimony against RC propaganda on this. Rather than the Holy\nSpirit revealing Peter to be the rock upon which the church is built,\nin contrast, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”)\nor \"stone\" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large\nrock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most\nabundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33;\n1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42;\nMk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt.\n32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's\ncurrent catechism affirms both, thus stating, “On the rock of\nthis faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,”\n(pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some\nof the ancients concur with.[/FONT]
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I am responding to invalid interpretation by someone who views that Scripture is the sole authority for a Christian but has no Scriptural basis for that claim.

Matthew 18:17 refers to “the church” as an identifiable entity that is separate and apart from a group of believers. That concept doesn’t exist in your world in any context.
Which manifests more ignorance. The church is a a group of believers. From the very text you wrest to support the church being as an identifiable entity that is separate and apart from a group of believers which does not exist in your world in any context, the Lord says (and relates to binding and loosing),

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. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:19-20)

It seems that it is in your world that such group of two or three are gathered together in the name of the Lord cannot be a church unless presided over by one your distinctive sacerdotal priests. But as I previously affirmed, the visible church that exists in my world does have government, and is to ordain pastors, exercise discipline etc., yet the only one true church is that of the spiritual body of Christ, (Colossians 1:18) to which He is married, (Ephesians 5:25) the \"household of faith,\" (Galatians 6:10) since it uniquely only and always consists 100% of true believers, and which spiritual body of Christ is what the Spirit baptizes ever believer into, (1Co. 12:13) while organic fellowships in which they express their faith inevitably become admixtures of wheat and tares, with Catholicism and liberal Protestantism being mostly the latter.

In addition, Matthew 18:17 actually refers to resolving personal disputes, and while in principle this extends to doctrinal disputes, it is nothing new but flows from the OT (Deuteronomy 17:8-13) which court could bind or loose a person in or from their guilt. Which authority neither inferred nor required the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.

Moreover, the power of binding and loosing is also provided to fathers over daughters, and husbands over wives (Num. 30) and even civil powers are ordained to do so (Rm. 13:1-7)

However, the formal judicial binding and loosing belongs to the body corporate under its leadership, as seen in action in 1\n Corinthians 5:3-5. Likewise is the corporate nature of forgiveness by \nthe body that was harmed by public sin. (2 Corinthians 2:10-11)

Yet while the judicial aspect of power of binding or loosing belongs to the corporate court, the spiritual power of binding and loosing is provided for all believers, which Matthew 18:19-20 supports.

Meanwhile, spiritual binding power, which includes intercession for deliverance of chastened souls, (Mk. 2:1-11; Ja. 5:14,15) is provided for all holy souls of fervent prayer like Elijah, who bound and loosed the heavens. And one who was casting out demon in the name of Christ was affirmed by the Lord as operating in His name, and as on His side, even though not as part of the apostle's assembly. (Mark 9:38-40)

Note also that nowhere are NT believers shown regularly confessing sins to their pastors. Instead, the only exhortation or command to confess sins is to each other in general.

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. (James 5:16)

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 5:17-20)

Here we see an example of spiritual binding and loosing, in which the heavens were bound from providing rain, and then loosed to do so, whereby believers of like fervent holy faith are encouraged as able to obtain such binding and loosing in prayer.

However, in the case of an infirm man the intercession of NT pastors (presbuteros) can obtain deliverance of chastisement, as indicated by James 5:14,15, as can the intercession of believers of fervent holy faith, but pastors as particularly expected to be so.
There are indeed OT types of authority that begin with the succession from Moses to Joshua and we find the Scribes and Pharisees sitting in the chair of Moses in the NT. These are ‘shadows’ or ‘types’. The prefigures we see in the OT are not the perfected realities of the fulfillment of the NT. For example, King Solomon (son of David) is a type of Christ. Moses is a type of Christ.

In the NT \nthose typologies are fulfilled perfectly in Christ.
But nowhere in the inspired record of what the NT church believed (Acts -Rv.) do we see a \"perfected\" reality of ensured perpetual infallibility of magisterial office, under which the veracity of a doctrine was assured under the premise that it could not err, much less with a pope calling a council to decree such

In Acts 15 the Scripturally substantiated judgment of James, confirmatory of the exhortation of Peter and testimony of him and Paul and Barnabas was that \"it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; (Acts 15:28)\" not \"we declare, pronounce, define\" this to be true since we cannot err.

And they were certainly not declaring that belief in a specific event is required, over 1700 years after it allegedly occurred, and which was so lacking in early testimony the Rome's chief scholars opposed it as being apostolic doctrine .
And it is Christ himself who gives to Peter the authority to bind and loose, and the keys to his kingdom (Matthew 16:15-19). Did Christ so err in that?
A false dilemma. Peter was not given any power that was not given to the rest, and Christ certainly did not err by so doing, but Rome by presuming 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.

[FONT=\"Arial\"]As for Peter, the Peter of Rome is\none of the many Catholic distinctives that are not what is manifest\nin the only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed,\nand again, even Catholic researchers, and others, provide\ntestimony against RC propaganda on this. Rather than the Holy\nSpirit revealing Peter to be the rock upon which the church is built,\nin contrast, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”)\nor \"stone\" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large\nrock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most\nabundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33;\n1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42;\nMk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt.\n32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's\ncurrent catechism affirms both, thus stating, “On the rock of\nthis faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,”\n(pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some\nof the ancients concur with.[/FONT]
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
To test with what? Scripture? Are we not aware that the literacy rate at that time was about 3-5%? Where were they to find this copy of Scripture to pour over to read? Are we not aware that any copies had to be laboriously hand copied? Monks spent their whole lives on this task so that each congregation could have a copy to read. None of this really changes for hundreds of years. Are we really to believe that John was telling people they should test the spirits by reading Scripture when they neither possessed a copy or could read it? Do you understand how out of touch that sounds with the historical reality of the believing people of God?
Certainly it did not mean most everyone had their own copy of Scripture, and it is also certain that the alternative was not implicit trust in leadership, which they knew to be wary of in the light of history, and leads to such a scenario as obedience to the pope requiring Catholic rulers to exterminate the heretics, or even a situation in which leadership when so far South that people did not know who the true pope was.

But they did hear the Scriptures, as Acts 15 expresses comfort in, \"For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.\" (Acts 15:21) And which tells them how to discern false prophets, and that \"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.\" (Isaiah 8:20)

and as is abundantly evidenced, </a> as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

And the Lord and His apostles treated it as such. Thus is it based upon this light, as provided by hearing it, that Christians were to judge whether souls were walking in the light.
The OT leadership, and everything in the OT points to Christ. The OT types are flawed and imperfect. The NT is fulfilled with the perfection of Christ. The NT leadership, while flawed and imperfect men literally have the Holy Spirit breathed into them by Christ You accept without reservation that under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit they could be used to pen Scripture. You reject wholeheartedy that the Holy Spirit could also inspire them to ensure that Scripture is interpreted without error. That is contradictory. If the Holy Spirit is capable of inspiring men to write without error He is certainly capable of inspiring them to teach without error, and why would He not? (John 20:22).
You really try to milk John 20:22 for all you think it is worth! Do you have an infallible interpretation of this, or is this just one more example of your own specious private interpretations? Just what do you see in this verse that renders the church or just those who occupy the office of an apostles to be wholly inspired of God in all their judgements? Or as supporting the Catholic imagination of the laity regularly coming to the apostles to obtained forgiveness? Which is simply NOT what is manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels) Acts thru Revelation.

And is it even your own church which denies that your popes speak as wholly inspired of God, and although i do not deny that the Holy Spirit could also inspire them to ensure that Scripture is\n interpreted without error, what God could do cannot be the basis for saying He did, and that is simply not promised nor what the the Holy Spirit teaches in His word as regards how the Truth and faith was preserved.

Which was often by God raising up men from without the magisterium to correct those in it, and to preserve faith and provide new revelation. Thus the church did not begin upon the foundation of formal descent of office, but upon dissidents to it, apostles and prophets. (Eph. 2:20)
“In determining the ‘we’, ‘us’, ‘you’ etc in any of the epistles it is absolutely essential to go back to the beginning to see who the epistle is from. Yes this epistle has John’s name on it. But read the beginning where he is absolutely clear who the ‘we’ is who is writing.

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— 2 the life was made manifest, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— 3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4 And we are writing this that our joy may be complete.” The WE are the apostles.
That verse is speaking of apostles, yet which proves too much if this means \"we\" is always restricted to the apostles, for it means the subject is on how to know a true apostle, versus how to know you have eternal life, and that rather than being the standard for what is light, then the apostles are to judged by the recipients of this letter, as to whether they are walking in the light:

If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: (1 John 1:6)

And moving along, if \"we\" is restricted to the apostles, then they must be counseling themselves in saying such things as,

And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. (1 John 2:3)

And again, if \"we\" must be restricted to the apostles, then they only are referred to as sons of God who will be changed:

Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. (1 John 3:1)

Likewise it is just the apostles of whom it is said,

We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. (1 John 3:14)

Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. (1 John 3:16)

Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God. (1 John 3:21)

And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. (1 John 3:23)

Obviously \"we\" cannot be restricted to the apostles, and it the recipients that are being likewise addressed in the next chapter:

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: (1 John 4:1-2)

Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. (1 John 4:4-5)

Here the contrast is btwn believers and false prophets and the world, and that latter hears false prophets. And thus what follows continues that defining contrast:

We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. (1 John 4:6-7)

Therefore it is manifest that the \"we\" refers to the same persons who \"know ye the Spirit of God\" based upon confession of the Christ of Scripture, and who overcome those who \"are of the world,\" who hear false prophets, which are overcomers are believers, whom the world does not hear.
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,129
7,245
Dallas
✟874,301.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Early church traditions can be helpful in concluding certain positions of the early church doctrines. St Iranaeus wrote that the scriptures are not ambiguous and the understanding of tradition is not necessary to understand the teachings of the Bible. Things like eternal salvation and faith without fruits or works are proven to be false teachings both by the scriptures and the early church father’s writings. Yet some people cannot correctly interpret the Bible because they don’t take all of the scriptures into account and often base their beliefs on bits and pieces of scripture instead of all the teachings as a whole. Personally I tend to accept the writings within the first 500 years because I’m not sure exactly when the Roman church began to slip away from the truth. If I’m not mistaken they began to slip away in the 8th-9th century but don’t quote me on that.
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,129
7,245
Dallas
✟874,301.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Many protestants believe that Catholicism made stuff up.

That began to happen around the 8th-9th century if I’m not mistaken and it was only the Roman church that began to slip away from the original apostolic teachings with the exception of the Nestorians. But they were excommunicated from the Catholic Church. You can be pretty sure that the first 500 years of the Catholic teachings are 100% sound.
 
Upvote 0

Philip_B

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured
Supporter
Jul 12, 2016
5,382
5,501
72
Swansea, NSW, Australia
Visit site
✟602,342.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
That began to happen around the 8th-9th century if I’m not mistaken and it was only the Roman church that began to slip away from the original apostolic teachings with the exception of the Nestorians. But they were excommunicated from the Catholic Church. You can be pretty sure that the first 500 years of the Catholic teachings are 100% sound.

Saeculum obscurum - Wikipedia

I think that the period you are referring to is Saeculum Obscurum - This Hiding of Holiness or the dark age of the papacy, is quite legendary.

There were in fact numbers of splits prior to this, The Nestorians, being one of the most prominent, and of course the Oriental Orthodox (which I suspect was a confusion about Monophysitism and Monothelitism). There were also numbers of disputes, most notably Arianism, but also the Pneumatomachi, the Pelagians, the Adoptionists, the Spanish Adoptionists, the Gnostics, and it was the resolute determination of the whole church through the Councils (especially Nicaea 1, Constantinople 1, Ephesus and Chalcedon) which held the line based on scripture.

Listening to some you might be forgiven for thinking that the Roman Catholic Church is the enemy. To my mind this is a silly position, and it is silly to try and fix everything to the 16th Century, and ignore the significant changes including things like liturgy in the vernacular and a renewed emphasis on Scripture which we see in the current age.

I certainly am with you about the main line in the first 500 years was reliable.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,129
7,245
Dallas
✟874,301.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Saeculum obscurum - Wikipedia

I think that the period you are referring to is Saeculum Obscurum - This Hiding of Holiness or the dark age of the papacy, is quite legendary.

There were in fact numbers of splits prior to this, The Nestorians, being one of the most prominent, and of course the Oriental Orthodox (which I suspect was a confusion about Monophysitism and Monothelitism). There were also numbers of disputes, most notably Arianism, but also the Pneumatomachi, the Pelagians, the Adoptionists, the Spanish Adoptionists, the Gnostics, and it was the resolute determination of the whole church through the Councils (especially Nicaea 1, Constantinople 1, Ephesus and Chalcedon) which held the line based on scripture.

Listening to some you might be forgiven for thinking that the Roman Catholic Church is the enemy. To my mind this is a silly position, and it is silly to try and fix everything to the 16th Century, and ignore the significant changes including things like liturgy in the vernacular and a renewed emphasis on Scripture which we see in the current age.

I certainly am with you about the main line in the first 500 years was reliable.

Thanks for sharing that. I have studied a little on the early church but still have loads to learn. I knew about the Gnostics but I wouldn’t even consider that Christianity at all. Their whole idea way way too far off from the scriptures. I also knew about Nestorians which I do prefer the term Christotokos over Theostokos just because I think it is more descriptive. The term itself doesn’t divide Jesus’ divinity and human nature just Nestorius’ view of the term was incorrect. I think it’s less confusing to many people and less controversial. Have a blessed day.
 
Upvote 0