Can the Church set aside any teachings of the bible?

[HTacianas]

I know of three, perhaps four depending on we count, times in history that the Church has set aside some teachings of the bible.

1. The Council of Jerusalem set aside the requirement for circumcision for gentiles entering the Church.

2. Pope Calixtus claimed for the Church the authority to forgive the sin of adultery. That authority was later extended to other mortal sins, contrary to 1 John 5:16 and Hebrews 10:26-30

3. The Council of Nicea allowed apostates to return to the Church, contrary to Hebrews 6:4-6

Do you agree that the Church has that authority or not?

 

[thecolorsblend]

I know of three, perhaps four depending on we count, times in history that the Church has set aside some teachings of the bible.

1. The Council of Jerusalem set aside the requirement for circumcision for gentiles entering the Church.

2. Pope Calixtus claimed for the Church the authority to forgive the sin of adultery. That authority was later extended to other mortal sins, contrary to 1 John 5:16 and Hebrews 10:26-30

3. The Council of Nicea allowed apostates to return to the Church, contrary to Hebrews 6:4-6

Do you agree that the Church has that authority or not?

I don't think I agree with any of this, tbh.

Baptism is the circumcision of Christ. Also, Christ gave authority to bind and to loose, which presumably includes sins like adultery. Finally, if the writer of Hebrews is to be taken 100% literally, he'll find himself in conflict with St. Peter, who disowned Christ three times before being welcomed back into the fold.

 

[TuxAme]

1. Baptism is the circumcision made without hands. It's how we are brought into the New Covenant as the circumcision made with hands would have brought us into the Old Covenant.

2. Maybe it's because we're centuries separated from that Pope's time, but I can't quite grasp why adultery would have been considered an "unpardonable sin" (which it would be if the Church couldn't have it forgiven for us) when Jesus Himself protected the woman caught in adultery and told us what the one unpardonable sin is.

3. This kind of just sounds like another "version" of question 2. Could someone be forgiven of apostasy but not be welcomed back into the Church?

 

[HTacianas]

I don't think I agree with any of this, tbh.

Baptism is the circumcision of Christ. Also, Christ gave authority to bind and to loose, which presumably includes sins like adultery. Finally, if the writer of Hebrews is to be taken 100% literally, he'll find himself in conflict with St. Peter, who disowned Christ three times before being welcomed back into the fold.

Baptism and cicumcision are two different things. The Jerusalem Council did in fact set aside the requirement for circumcision among gentiles.

Prior to around 200 AD or so, if someone com

Peter had not "met the requirements" of Hebrews at the time he denied Christ. He had not been baptized by the Holy Spirit.

 

[truefiction1]

I know of three, perhaps four depending on we count, times in history that the Church has set aside some teachings of the bible.

1. The Council of Jerusalem set aside the requirement for circumcision for gentiles entering the Church.

2. Pope Calixtus claimed for the Church the authority to forgive the sin of adultery. That authority was later extended to other mortal sins, contrary to 1 John 5:16 and Hebrews 10:26-30

3. The Council of Nicea allowed apostates to return to the Church, contrary to Hebrews 6:4-6

Do you agree that the Church has that authority or not?

The only sin that is "the sin unto death", which is the same thing as the "falling away" (apostasy), is the sin and falling away that is, and will never be, repented of. If we were to interpret those Scriptural passages that you reference above as meaning that if we sin at all, or commit grave sins after our initial calling and reception of the Holy Spirit then we are doomed, no matter what, then probably nobody would be saved. Scriptures aren't being set aside by the Church. The Church is simply not falling into error in the interpretation of their meaning. As far as circumcision goes, it's in the Scripture that gentile Christians don't have to be circumcised, so there's no setting aside of Scripture in this case either.

 

[HTacianas]

Look to the scriptural references in my post. Each of the examples I gave above are actual controversies that came up in the early Church. For an example of the treatment of apostates se Novationism.

Novatianism - Wikipedia

 

[Hazelelponi]

Nevermind.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Baptism and cicumcision are two different things.

Just stop before this gets out of hand.

You're wrong.

 

[HTacianas]

Just stop before this gets out of hand.

You're wrong.

We are not getting out of hand.

 

[ewq1938]

I know of three, perhaps four depending on we count, times in history that the Church has set aside some teachings of the bible.

1. The Council of Jerusalem set aside the requirement for circumcision for gentiles entering the Church.

Physical circumcision was never required for anyone to be Christian and thus was not taught by the bible.


Rom_2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Rom_2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

 

[HTacianas]

Physical circumcision was never required for anyone to be Christian and thus was not taught by the bible.


Rom_2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Rom_2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

See Acts 15:5-25

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

1. The Council of Jerusalem set aside the requirement for circumcision for gentiles entering the Church.

The Bible never required circumcision to be a Christian.

2. Pope Calixtus claimed for the Church the authority to forgive the sin of adultery. That authority was later extended to other mortal sins, contrary to 1 John 5:16 and Hebrews 10:26-30

None of those sins were ever unpardonable, according to the Bible. The Pope never had the authority to withhold forgiveness for those things in the first place.

3. The Council of Nicea allowed apostates to return to the Church, contrary to Hebrews 6:4-6

If they were truly apostate, then the declaration of no human entity can undo what was done. The apostate would not have returned. If any did return, then it reflects more on human inability to know a person's heart, one's ability to identify an apostate.

Do you agree that the Church has that authority or not?

I don't even agree on your definition of "the Church," which you define as the governing authorities, the Church's own political morass. The church is the entirety of believers, the body of Christ. In as much as the Spirit moves them, they have the power over such things, but in the same degree that they are lead by the Spirit are they also in unity with each other, and that includes unity with those who wrote the Bible.

 

[ewq1938]

See Acts 15:5-25

No requirement to be circumcised there and the scripture I posted also denies the requirement.

 

[HTacianas]

No requirement to be circumcised there and the scripture I posted also denies the requirement.

I don't think you read that did you?

 

[HTacianas]

The Bible never required circumcision to be a Christian.



None of those sins were ever unpardonable, according to the Bible. The Pope never had the authority to withhold forgiveness for those things in the first place.



If they were truly apostate, then the declaration of no human entity can undo what was done. The apostate would not have returned. If any did return, then it reflects more on human inability to know a person's heart, one's ability to identify an apostate.



I don't even agree on your definition of "the Church," which you define as the governing authorities, the Church's own political morass. The church is the entirety of believers, the body of Christ. In as much as the Spirit moves them, they have the power over such things, but in the same degree that they are lead by the Spirit are they also in unity with each other, and that includes unity with those who wrote the Bible.

So what was the controversy at the Council of Jerusalem?

 

[ewq1938]

I don't think you read that did you?

Did you read it?

 

[HTacianas]

Did you read it?

Yes, I've read it.

 

[ewq1938]

Yes, I've read it.

Then you should know it does not support gentiles being circumcised.

 

[HTacianas]

Then you should know it does not support gentiles being circumcised.

It was decided at the Council that gentiles were not required to be circumcised.

 

[Hazelelponi]

It was decided at the Council that gentiles were not required to be circumcised.

How was it decided?