On whose authority ? What if we found one of Paul's letters , which he claimed he wrote , but is not included in the final Cannon which include the deuterocanonical books ( which was removed from the King James version ) . Who was the authority to compiled the final Cannon .
I like many others have been reading your back and forth with PBJ and others and we see exactly what the difference is.
It is NOT that he is or anyone else is a better debater or a better speaker.
It is that what he is telling you is the TRUTH FROM GOD'S WORD and no one can debate that!!!!!!!!
NO ONE you chose can not respond correctly to the Bible facts PBJ has placed before you because the TRUTH can not debated. YOU can reject it.
The truth of God's Word convicts the sinner and always points him to the Lord Jesus Christ and that act alone make one feel his inadequacies and inability for respond correctly because the Bible, God's Word IS CORRECT.
I don't think he has the better argument just a better debater . I still believe we have the better argument . Again God's word is interpreted differently among denominations and BYS is also a minimalist who denies there are different interpretations/doctrines/traditions amongst your churches. Truth is not divided, nor is it simplified to say ( all protestants ) believe they are saved by Grace through Faith through Jesus Christ and to heck with everything else . There are multiple variants of doctrine (interpretation of scripture ) among protestant churches and tradition ( interpretation of scripture in written form held over time ) . It all depends on who defines Truth . Truth demands one right answer . This is the achilles heal of all Protestant churches . This is were divisions come in . If someone doesn't like ones interpretation they start another Church or become their own authority/church of one, like BYS , who denies the christianity of other churches . This is not TRUTH . Pilate asked what is " truth " we all know Christ is " the way and the truth and the life . It doesn't end there nor does it mean truth is divided .Scripture is not self interpreting . It requires shepherds/teachers and one interpretation not multiple interpretations. Each church claims to be guided by the Holy Spirit . The Catholic Church claims this distinction and so do the Orthodox ( historically true ) and on it goes . But other churches either claim they have the truth or that no one has the full truth . Each Church must defend its interpretation of scripture . I believe the Catholic Church can do this through Holy Tradition ,scripture and the early Church Fathers. You must believe otherwise , claim there is no ultimate Church authority or claim the Holy Spirit has lead your church to ultimate truth ( which the RC Church also claims ) . But what you must also do is claim any scriptural/historical evidence that smells of Catholicism is not to be found anywhere or is false . And on it goes . To deny this reality is to deny the truth of reality .
By the way the Catholic Church recognizes your right be called Christian ( but outside the Church) , I am sure we will never get that the same respect as we give to you . The Orthodox believe you and RC's are heretics . Some evangelicals believe we Catholics /Orthodox are either Christians or not . And on it goes . I what I have written is the Truth . But on it goes .
Not a problem there since you spoke of using Scripture. Yes, that is the standard. Other guesswork is not equal to the word of God. So if we're agreed on that...
Each church interprets scripture and defines it . Scripture requires an interpreter . Each church has a tradition of interpretation in written form .( Scripture is not self interpreting ).
Again, we are agreed. The Bible is God's word and some of it requires interpretation. That applies to every church body without exception. This doesn't mean that it cannot be interpreted correctly, it should be noted.
On whose authority ? What if we found one of Paul's letters , which he claimed he wrote , but is not included in the final Cannon which include the deuterocanonical books ( which was removed from the King James version ) . Who was the authority to compiled the final Cannon .
That was the church in the 4th century before it broke into Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and, later, Protestant. This is why all these branches agree generally on which books are included.
It is a book of the Bible, divine revelation. You want to say that Holy Tradition put it there in some impersonal way, but it was actually the decision of a church council.
which is itself the movement of the Holy Spirit in the Lives of the Body of Christ.
That is charming to think, but it still took the council to decide which books were to be included and which were to be excluded and the reasons for each decision.
Even if the Canon of Scripture is closed, the Ekklesia of God is open...
And this House of God KNOWS God...
You may recall the healing of Saul's blindedness...
And his baptism into Christ...
And his being given the Holy Spirit...
Do you remember these events?
Do you remember who it was who did these three things for Saul?
It was a Servant of the Lord in Damascus...
His name was Ananias, remember?
Here is that event:
Act 9:10 And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision,"Ananias." And he said, "Behold, I am here, Lord."
This is God working in His Holy Body, the Ekklesia, Whose Head He is, through one of the Members of His Body, the Church, having converse in a vision with the Disciple at Damascus named Ananias...
God is still having converse with and is still directing His Body...
Act 9:11-12 And the Lord said unto him, "Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he is praying, And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight."
The Lord clearly instructs His Servant what He wants him to do...
And Ananias objects to this instruction...
Act 9:13-14 Then Ananias answered,
"Lord, I have heard by many of this man,
how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.
Act 9:15-16 But the Lord said unto him, "Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me,
to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great (are the) things he must suffer for My Name's sake."
And the Lord answers Ananias' concerns commanding him: "Go thy way..."
And that is exactly what Ananias did and he found Saul:
Act 9:17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, "Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Spirit."
And this is the result:
Act 9:18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.
These last two, receiving his sight, and being filled with the Holy Spirit in Baptism, are all that are recorded here of this event...
This is how God works with His servants in His Body, the Ekklesia of God, Whose Head He IS...
And now comes Bible Only folks who want to say that this is over and done...
That God no longer has converse with His Servants in His Body, the Church...
Perhaps for them, that is true, I have no way of knowing...
But if I were to say such a false thing, I would be a liar and blashpheme God...
But that is what we are here to do:
To each of us present the Truth as best we can,
to give witness to what we know first hand...
We are not here to lie...
We are not here to ask each other to lie...
Nor are we here to attack each other's understanding...
But instead we are here to give witness to our own...
To stand in that Truth which God has given us to stand...
So God Bless You One and All...
May God's Grace continue in us all...
May we post in Peace and Joy and Love...
And may we forgive all...
It is a book of the Bible, divine revelation. You want to say that Holy Tradition put it there in some impersonal way, but it was actually the decision of a church council.
The Councils give direction where disagreements on what Holy Tradition is occurs...
Such as the first Council in Jerusalem in the first years of the Faith revarding circumcision etc...
That is charming to think, but it still took the council to decide which books were to be included and which were to be excluded and the reasons for each decision.
Of course - That is how the Church canonized the Written, including and excluding... Prior to that, it had not been spelled out... Problems were arising... Revelation was very controversial... So that the Canon was established by the Ekklesia of God, the Church, the Body of Christ, the Ground and the Pillar of the Truth, against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail, Whose Head is Christ... That is a very appropriate thing for the Ekklesia to do, dealing with all matters Ekklesiastic...
Holy Tradition is very specific and personally implemented by the Apostles, and was the same in all the early Churches, and Satan hated it all and caused all manner of persecutions against God's Church... Historical fact... Christians are easy to kill... Lambs among wolves... The Lambs win... Especially when they lose...
The Mystery of the Faith of Jesus Christ...
Held by a pure conscience...
In a life of ongoing repentance...
In purity of heart...
In a life of suffering and love...
In turning from the world...
And calling on the Name of the Lord...
"That your Joy may be full..."
It is a book of the Bible, divine revelation. You want to say that Holy Tradition put it there in some impersonal way, but it was actually the decision of a church council.
That is charming to think, but it still took the council to decide which books were to be included and which were to be excluded and the reasons for each decision.
But as in the body of inspired OT writings which had been established as being so - without any authoritative conciliar decree - and thus the Lord and His own appealed to them as authoritative (and which was never made a issue by those who sat in the seat of Moses);
Then the real basis for the establishment of writings (and men) of God is not actually due to of what a council said, as helpful or hurtful as that could be.
Instead, both men and writings of God were established as being so essentially due to their unique Heavenly enduring qualities and attestation.
In contrast, under the Catholic model for assurance of Truth, the historical magisterial powers are necessarily correct in the discernment of this, and in RC teaching, are actually essential for the laity to know what is of God. Which is contrary to how the church began.
Finally, while their are those whose thinking portrays or concludes that holding the Scripture alone as being the supreme standard necessarily excludes the Lord's guiding and communicating and even speaking (in private revelation) to His servants today, this is not true, and the two are not mutually exclusive.
For even if God spoke public revelation today, it would be subject to testing by Scripture as being the established assured word of God as was the preaching of the very apostles in Acts 17:11 by sincere lovers of Truth, and how much more the Lord's communication to His own today, whether by impression upon their spirit, or through conscience, or by others or even what they hold to be His voice in private revelation.
And i dare say that even the cessationist pastors hope the Lord will "speak" to the hearts of the people - during the offering
Then both Catholicism and Protestantism could accept it on the same basis as writings such as that of Jeremiah became established as Scripture, long before there was a church which presumed it was essential for assurance of what was of God.
Meaning if a body of inspired OT writings had been established as being so without any authoritative conciliar decree - and thus the Lord and His own appealed to them as authoritative - then what is the real basis for their establishment, and why would an infallible decree be necessary in case another letter from Paul was found? Do you think the well-settled 66 book Prot. canon is due to recognition of the authority of Trent which settled it for RCs, or is it essentially due to the same basis on which Christ became established as Lord and Savior, which is due to His unique enduring Divine qualities and attestation?
but is not included in the final Cannon which include the deuterocanonical books ( which was removed from the King James version ) .
They actually were never included as being Scripture proper, but as with Luther's translation and an ancient practice, they were included separately. Publishers later dropped their inclusion to save money and as justified due to overall lack of interest in them.
Who was the authority to compiled the final Cannon
You mean over 1400 years after the last book was penned? Previous councils lacked the authority to provide a binding definition, though most affirmed the larger canon.
Meanwhile, your argument here would only be valid if the well-settled 66 book Protestant canon is due to recognition of the authority of Trent, which it surely is not.
Thankyou . I am out classed as a debater I have to admit that , I would be nice to see A Catholic apologist who could match your level it would be fun to watch . I will keep trying though . I sincerely ask your forgiveness for calling you arrogant .
We all must begin somewhere, and i began years ago debating Muslims, some of whom blasphemed the God of the Bible, and I was initially more protesting by asserting what I believed than actually countering them. But the error my most Catholics seems to be that of obtaining their knowledge of "Bible Christians" (AKA "fundamentalists" as they call them) and how to counter them from the likes of Catholic Answers. Whose moderators is not going to tolerate much that counters them, and thus the Catholics are not prepared for actual refutation.
And after thousands of posts doing so by the grace of God and prayer, i have yet to personally debate a Catholic apologist online that prevailed as Scripturally justifying Rome as the one true church as she uniquely claims to be, and all that comes with it.
All Churches interpret scripture, which in fact is doctrine (Websters Dictionary -:teaching.instruction.:a principal or position or the body of principals in a branch of knowledge or system of belief .) Each church interprets scripture and defines it . Scripture requires an interpreter . Each church has a tradition of interpretation in written form .( Scripture is not self interpreting ).
And each Catholic can, to varying degrees, interpret his church differently.
A primary example would be how would you interpret the following in the age in which they were declared, and now:
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam:
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce[ex cathedra formula] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
"If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committedtoPeter and to hissuccessors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists thisauthority, resists the command of God Himself." — Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Promulgated November 18, 1302) http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html
Fifth Lateran Council: Moreover, since subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful, as we are taught by the testimony of both sacred scripture and the holy fathers, and as is declared by the constitution of pope Boniface VIII of happy memory, also our predecessor, which begins Unam sanctam, we therefore...renew and give our approval to that constitution... Fifth Lateran CouncilSessio
Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence: "The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismaticscannot become participants in eternal life but will depart into everlasting fire...unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that..no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” — Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (Seventeenth Ecumenical Council), Cantate Domino, Bull promulgated on February 4, 1441 (Florentine style), [considered infallible by some]
Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence: "The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismaticscannot become participants in eternal life but will depart into everlasting fire...unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that..no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” — Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (Seventeenth Ecumenical Council), Cantate Domino, Bull promulgated on February 4, 1441 (Florentine style), [considered infallible by some]
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos: Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does notaccept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimatesuccessors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius [the eastern “Orthodox “schismatics] and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls?...Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned...” - Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, PTC:873) The Promotion of True Religious Unity), 11, Encyclical promulgated on January 6, 1928, #11; Mortalium Animos (January 6, 1928) | PIUS XI
Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Encyclical Singulari Quidem, March 17, 1856): “There is only one true, holy, Catholic Church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded on Peter by the word of the Lord, outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church. (On the Unity of the Catholic Church) Singulari Quidem - Papal Encyclicals
Pius XII, Humani Generis (27,28):
"Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[6] Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation...These and like errors, it is clear, have crept in among certain of Our sons." - Humani Generis (August 12, 1950) | PIUS XII
And each Catholic can, to varying degrees, interpret his church differently.
A primary example would be how would you interpret the following in the age in which they were declared, and now:
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam:
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce[ex cathedra formula] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
"If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committedtoPeter and to hissuccessors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists thisauthority, resists the command of God Himself." — Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Promulgated November 18, 1302) http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html
Fifth Lateran Council: Moreover, since subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful, as we are taught by the testimony of both sacred scripture and the holy fathers, and as is declared by the constitution of pope Boniface VIII of happy memory, also our predecessor, which begins Unam sanctam, we therefore...renew and give our approval to that constitution... Fifth Lateran CouncilSessio
Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence: "The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismaticscannot become participants in eternal life but will depart into everlasting fire...unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that..no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” — Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (Seventeenth Ecumenical Council), Cantate Domino, Bull promulgated on February 4, 1441 (Florentine style), [considered infallible by some]
Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence: "The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismaticscannot become participants in eternal life but will depart into everlasting fire...unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that..no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” — Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (Seventeenth Ecumenical Council), Cantate Domino, Bull promulgated on February 4, 1441 (Florentine style), [considered infallible by some]
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos: Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does notaccept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimatesuccessors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius [the eastern “Orthodox “schismatics] and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls?...Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned...” - Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, PTC:873) The Promotion of True Religious Unity), 11, Encyclical promulgated on January 6, 1928, #11; Mortalium Animos (January 6, 1928) | PIUS XI
Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Encyclical Singulari Quidem, March 17, 1856): “There is only one true, holy, Catholic Church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded on Peter by the word of the Lord, outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church. (On the Unity of the Catholic Church) Singulari Quidem - Papal Encyclicals
Pius XII, Humani Generis (27,28):
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]"Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[6] Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation...These and like errors, it is clear, have crept in among certain of Our sons." - Humani Generis (August 12, 1950) | PIUS XII [/FONT]
How about quoting from the Catechism of The Catholic Church (836,837,838 846,847,848) The Second Vatican Council , under the guidance of the "Holy Spirit into all truth" , and under development of doctrine has declared a more positive view of Christians outside the Church . scriptures encourage unity amongst us all . But the Catholic Church still believes that all are required to be under the authority of Rome and the Papacy . And salvation is at stake .
"There are others not of this sheepfold , I must bring them to "
"I pray the may be one as we are one "Jn 17:17-23
As I have read your past comments , which seem to be a self authoritative denunciation/condemnation of fellow Protestant Christians . I can't imagine how you view me . I am sure , according to you I am going to hell .
You should read some of the condemnations of the Protestant reformers against Catholics in the past vs present . You are outside the Church . We believe that you must follow your conscience and that is how you will be judged . If you believed the Catholic Church was the true Church and remained outside of it you would be held accountable by God .Stay true to yourself.
We all must begin somewhere, and i began years ago debating Muslims, some of whom blasphemed the God of the Bible, and I was initially more protesting by asserting what I believed than actually countering them. But the error my most Catholics seems to be that of obtaining their knowledge of "Bible Christians" (AKA "fundamentalists" as they call them) and how to counter them from the likes of Catholic Answers. Whose moderators is not going to tolerate much that counters them, and thus the Catholics are not prepared for actual refutation.
And after thousands of posts doing so by the grace of God and prayer, i have yet to personally debate a Catholic apologist online that prevailed as Scripturally justifying Rome as the one true church as she uniquely claims to be, and all that comes with it.
I have pointed out , from the testimony of the early Church fathers and you can reference there beliefs about Rome from Clement and on wards .I have shown the was a precedence of acknowledging Rome as having held the Presidency and authority over other historical see's of the early Church . You will find also that they believed in Apostolic Succession (1 TIM 3:1,8;5:17 identifies roles of bishops,priests and deacons )(Eph 4:11 Church leaders are hierarchical) ( Tit 1:5 commission for bishops to ordain priests ) where others in the Book of Acts had others to take over the office of another Apostle Acts 1:20 ( by the laying on of hands 1 Tim 4:14 ) and which continued throughout history and the Church grew. You can read how they acknowledge the Pope of Rome had authority , referencing primacy using Math 16:18-19 in ancient letters in the first four centuries . It is historical fact , which Orthodox Christians purposely overlook , yet whey do see the Pope of Rome as " first among equals " ,to negate the authority of the Pope of Rome . The fact is the Catholic, Oriental And Eastern Orthodox do share many common beliefs , practices , understanding of a organized historical church, under the guidance of the Bishops , with the same 7 sacraments...these are historical facts . None of which protestants share . In scripture Christ call his Church Jn 16 is the " pillar and foundation of truth." which is a promise that there is such a Church . The best you have done is to ignore or counter these overall historical facts , claiming there the was no such unity at that time . After saying all this, have I proven the RC Church is the true Church , no ,not quite . But I can show from historical writings what the early Christians believed and share a common belief of doctrine and Practice (eg the eucharist was always celebrated at church ) and Bishops did gather to address crises at Councils and put together the Canon of scripture in 397 under guidance of the Holy Spirit ( which were kept as individual scrolls in different churches ) These are historical facts and points towards a authoritative church in history . I of course would have to prove any and all Catholic doctrine from scripture and historical witnesses and Holy Tradition . The evidence is there and it would take time . But when I use Holy Tradition and the Early Church fathers and the development of doctrine, it is considered relevant to protestant apologists . But it is relevant . I can refer to the history the United States to legitimize its existence in history ; it has a Constitution ( a type of scripture ) , the founding fathers beliefs ( traditions/interpretation ) and the legislative body/supreme court ( magisterium ) that work together .to form a whole country that has developed over time . It is no different in regards to the Catholic Church as a factual historical institution , which has been around, with strong foundational roots , for 2000 years . All other Churches have to deny this authoritative Church to justify their existence .
However you have not proved to me that your interpretation of scripture/history is infallible and is in agreement with every other Christian denomination or Christian individual interpreter ." Nor is the Church build on individual popes , the new testament for the NT warns us that" there should not be divisions among you " 1 Cor 1:10 ",and we should avoid those who create dessentions" Rom 16:17 and "that here should be one fold and one shepherd" Jn 10:16 . Church is a communal " body of Christ " under the leadership of Bishops/elders where Scripture says who have teaching authority ( 2 Tim2:2 ) PBJ you are your own authority and not apart of any one body . I think you reject any authority over you, as you left your Fundamentalist Baptist Church . A church of one can lead nothing and on one will carry on the torch of your individual interpretation unless you start a new community/church . I know you do not hold the beliefs of some of you Protestant brethren/churches , and a some point there will be disagreement . Nor will you find a church that will believe everything you believe in and you will continue to be on your own and remain as you owe individual church . I don't believe this is scriptural or healthy .
By the way do you consider Catholics Christians ( and saved ) and which denominations do you feel teach false doctrine ? Leave the liberals out of it . Each church does have doctrines/teachings/interpretations . I can strongly suggest that you consider RC's and Orthodox false Christians .But who else ?
But the point made by bbbbbbb still remains. Catholics here criticize Protestants for considering the Bible to be more authoritative than the writings of various church leaders over the centuries after the Bible was canonized, arguing that there's no reason God cannot continue to reveal himself in the way that he did with the OT and the Gospels, but the RCC doesn't itself add any such writings to the canon. In practice, it is not different in this respect from any Protestant church.
While the RCC doesn't itself add any such writings to the canon, by making the uninspired writings equal to Scripture it is essence adding to Scripture, with the magisterium being the supreme, if non-inspired, 100% Truthful authority above both.
There is also the reasoning that since sinners write Scripture then what Scripture says cannot be superior to others today who claim to be hearing from God. However, this premise can be used to validate everything from Quakers liberal theology to Mormonic doctrine, and thus the issue becomes that of the basis for the validity of the claim to be speaking the formal word of God, the false presumption of which was a capital crime in the OT, and which, as with misusing the name of God/Christ to validate something that is not actually done in His name, is taking the name of the Lord in vain, and which abounds today.
Backing up, we should consider while a Being can be said to be separate from His expression of himself, yet kind and of what value is a being that has no expression? And which expression would be revelatory of the attributes and character of that being. And if said expression was pure, then in a real sense that expression is that being, if not His person, and to believe in or attack that expression is to believe in or attack the one whose expression it is.
However, revelatory expression can be a matter of from and degrees and scope of the subjects to whom this revelation is provided. Thus theologically we have the terms "general revelation" and "express revelation." For God is seen to express Himself most universally thru His creation, manifesting His power, wisdom and glory,and which is described as "speech:"
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. (Psalms 19:1-3)
He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion. (Jeremiah 10:12)
Thus man has a basic revelation of as creator worthy of worship, for the knowledge of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them, (Romans 1:19)
God also gave man a basic innate sense of morality, whereby may "those which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law," (Romans 2:14) by which they are judged.
However, God giveth more grace, first by expressly providing a very limited scope of revelation of His character, power, will and ways (if not His glory) to a very limited scope of people such as Adam, Lamech, Enoch, Abraham etc. And then, when it was time to reveal Himself and His character, power, will and way far more fully to a nation, and preserve it, then He did so in writing.
The man of God chosen to do this was Moses, who represented the God of Abraham and Issac and Jacob and Joseph, with the evidence of this being his holy character and teaching along with profound over supernatural attestation.
And all of which we know, and history from creation, because God commanded the writing of His Law and such things as were to be held in memorial, this God's chosen most-reliable means of preservation of His authoritative word for remembrance. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Numbers 5:23; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3; 31:24-27; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19; 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 this 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. Thus the veracity of oral preaching subject to testing by Scripture, and not vice versa.
And which word is not simply "about" God, but His word which He has exalted above His name (Psalms 138:2) are spirit, and are life, (John 6:63) and alive, "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)
And which Scripture is, as the established, assured word of God, with the Christ and the gospel and its foundation the church depends upon being grounded in the Scriptures, (1Corinthians 15:3,4; Luke 24:,27,44) being "promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures," and "now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith." (Romans 1:2; 16:26)
While it is because of God that His words are so powerful, one cannot minimized the revelation and power His word contrary to its own testimony of itself without minimizing God.
While it is abundantly evidenced that God established the written word as the supreme standard on earth for Truth, faith and obedience, yet there is the issue of how and on what basis that establishment took place.
Which is were conflation and complementarity and attestation comes in. The greater revelation of God to Moses could not contradict the very limited revelation of Abraham, and thus neither could the basic morals of Moses. But the revelation of God to Moses was far greater in scope and degrees, from the manifestation of His power and glory to His expansive laws. And which would not see its equal until Christ.
And while there were added further restrictions in universal morals, violations of which the Canaanite nations were to be exterminated for disobeying, (Leviticus 18:24-28; 20:22,23; Deuteronomy 18:12; 1 Kings 14:24) as well ordinances particular to Israel in the land, this profoundly greater revelation served to conflate with and complement with what had been provided before.
In addition, both the faith of Moses and attestation on His behalf served to attest to the veracity and authority of Moses as a profound instrument of righteousness, and the human author of the writing of the Torah (thus in substantiating His messiahship, the Lord opened the Scriptures, "beginning at Moses...that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [also] in the prophets, and in the psalms" - Luke 24:2,7,44).
As seen especially in Psalm 19 and Psalm119, not body of revelation had more impact and was more esteemed than the Law of God. Prophets condemned violations of it, and judicial courts judged cases by it, and the people of God were blessed or cursed depending upon whether they obeyed it or not, and the degrees thereof.
It was thus charged that when the king sat "upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites."(Deuteronomy 17:18) The law was to be read before all Israel in their hearing, (Deuteronomy 31:11) and thus we read how men "read in the book of the law of the Lord their God one fourth part of the day; and another fourth part they confessed, and worshipped the Lord their God." (Nehemiah 9:3)
Accordingly, it was not because oral tradition preserved the Word of God that resulted in needed national revival, but because of reading and hearing the wholly inspired-of-God written word:
And Hilkiah answered and said to Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord. And Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan. (2 Chronicles 34:15)
And the king went up into the house of the Lord, and all the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the priests, and the Levites, and all the people, great and small: and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant that was found in the house of the Lord. And the king stood in his place, and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments, and his testimonies, and his statutes, with all his heart, and with all his soul, to perform the words of the covenant which are written in this book. (2 Chronicles 34:30-31)
Scriptirre was the supreme transcendent standard for faith and obedience.
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. [or, "there is no morning for them"] (Isaiah 8:20)
And as prophets preached according to it and God inspired men to write their words as well as historical narratives and wisdom teachings, then these heavenly words progressively were also established as being of God.
And consistent with the prophecy that the Lord "will magnify the law, and make it honourable," (Isaiah 42:21) the Lord fully kept the law as intended, and required the fulfilling of the intent of the law, and in letter could even further restricted what Moses has been allowed to allow. (Matthew 19:8,9)
And like as revelation to Moses was followed by history of application and further expression of that revelation of God and His teaching, so the Lord promised He had more to give by way of His Spirit.
And as in the past, the Spirit of God inspired the writing of the Lords life and teachings and that of the NT church which He wanted recorded. And which writings are interpretive of the Lord's teachings on earth, and which with the gospels are interpretive of the O.T.
And as with O.T. writings, both men and writings of God were correctly recognized as being so, essentially due to their heavenly qualities and attestation.
Therefore we have a consistent pattern of teaching and history being reliably recorded (though most of the books written in the NT is direct teaching, not the recording of what was taught as with much of the gospels).
All of which conflate and complement what came before, with covenantal differences in fulfillment of Scripture written before. (Jeremiah 31:31-34; (Colossians 2:14-17; Hebrews 8:7-13; Hebrews 9:9,10)
And as in the past, which wholly inspired "living" writings of God are the standard for Truth, for faith and obedience, to which all Truth claims are subject to testing by.
And as said before, there is no "God versus His word" dichotomy: God is supreme as being, but His word is what He has made the living and effectual supreme standard, and which word Scripture most assuredly is. And if there were any more wholly inspired writings, then as in the past, I am sure they would have been overall established as so by now, by the non-compelled inclusion and reading of them.
I hope this is enough to settle this for now. I have little strength left to write.
While the RCC doesn't itself add any such writings to the canon, by making the uninspired writings equal to Scripture it is essence adding to Scripture, with the magisterium being the supreme, if non-inspired, 100% Truthful authority above both.
I agree. However, that wasn't the issue being addressed. The idea had been advanced that if Protestants consider the canon to be closed, that this means they don't acknowledge that God can and does communicate with some people in our own times. That isn't correct but, more important, it doesn't explain why the RCC-- if it agrees with this particular argument--itself treats the canon as closed.
While the RCC doesn't itself add any such writings to the canon, by making the uninspired writings equal to Scripture it is essence adding to Scripture, with the magisterium being the supreme, if non-inspired, 100% Truthful authority above both.
Granting for the sake of this argument your theory that Scripture is the SUPREME AUTHORITY, and that God is no longer that Authority, which Catholics also tend to affirm, you are then left with INTERPRETATION of Scripture, of which interpretation's supreme authority the Latins ascribe to their Magesterium, which you ascribe to your self, and the Orthodox ascribe to the Church throughout its history...
So for you, the SUPREME AUTHORITY OF INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE is summarized in your proclamation when you read Scripture and say: "This I understand from my reasoning about the Bible."
For the Latins, it is summarized in: "This the Magesterium has decided and the Pope affirmed...
For the Orthodox, we simply say: "This the Church has believed and practiced from the beginnings to this present day and hour...
Each of us has our own methods of "Proofs"...
So there is supreme authority of the Bible, in your view...
And then there is the supreme authority of the Bible's interpretation...
Confusing the two makes for confusion...
There is also the reasoning that since sinners write Scripture then what Scripture says cannot be superior to others today who claim to be hearing from God. However, this premise can be used to validate everything from Quakers liberal theology to Mormonic doctrine, and thus the issue becomes that of the basis for the validity of the claim to be speaking the formal word of God, the false presumption of which was a capital crime in the OT, and which, as with misusing the name of God/Christ to validate something that is not actually done in His name, is taking the name of the Lord in vain, and which abounds today.
This is a great argument for the authority of the Church to interpret Scripture...
Especially since Scripture itself records that it is the Church
The very Ekklesia which gave us Scripture
That IS the Pillar and the Ground of the Truth...
Therefore we have a consistent pattern of teaching and history being reliably recorded (though most of the books written in the NT is direct teaching, not the recording of what was taught as with much of the gospels).
Please show this consistent pattern of teaching and history reliably recorded between the time of the last word of Revelation being written and the invention of the Guttenburg printing presses...
Show the doctrine of sola Scriptura and her 4 sisters being consistently taught and recorded in the first 1500 years of the History of the Body of Christ on this earth...
And as said before, there is no "God versus His word" dichotomy: God is supreme as being, but His word is what He has made the living and effectual supreme standard, and which word Scripture most assuredly is. And if there were any more wholly inspired writings, then as in the past, I am sure they would have been overall established as so by now, by the non-compelled inclusion and reading of them.
God the Word IS God, and His Body, at His behest, WROTE the Bible, and then decided what is to be included in and excluded from it... God IS the Word... And the Bible is NOT God... The Bible is God's word but not His Word - It is the Holy Book OF God... That we worship Him... In Spirit and in Truth, IN His Holy Body, the Ekklesia of God, the Church, against which the Gates of Hell shall not prevail...
I thank God that you have these issues working in your soul...
I have pointed out , from the testimony of the early Church fathers and you can reference there beliefs about Rome from Clement and on wards .I have shown the was a precedence of acknowledging Rome as having held the Presidency and authority over other historical see's of the early Church . You will find also that they believed in Apostolic Succession (1 TIM 3:1,8;5:17 identifies roles of bishops,priests and deacons )(Eph 4:11 Church leaders are hierarchical) ( Tit 1:5 commission for bishops to ordain priests ) where others in the Book of Acts had others to take over the office of another Apostle Acts 1:20 ( by the laying on of hands 1 Tim 4:14 ) and which continued throughout history and the Church grew. You can read how they acknowledge the Pope of Rome had authority , referencing primacy using Math 16:18-19 in ancient letters in the first four centuries . It is historical fact , which Orthodox Christians purposely overlook , yet whey do see the Pope of Rome as " first among equals " ,to negate the authority of the Pope of Rome . The fact is the Catholic, Oriental And Eastern Orthodox do share many common beliefs , practices , understanding of a organized historical church, under the guidance of the Bishops , with the same 7 sacraments...these are historical facts . None of which protestants share . In scripture Christ call his Church Jn 16 is the " pillar and foundation of truth." which is a promise that there is such a Church . The best you have done is to ignore or counter these overall historical facts , claiming there the was no such unity at that time . After saying all this, have I proven the RC Church is the true Church , no ,not quite . But I can show from historical writings what the early Christians believed and share a common belief of doctrine and Practice (eg the eucharist was always celebrated at church ) and Bishops did gather to address crises at Councils and put together the Canon of scripture in 397 under guidance of the Holy Spirit ( which were kept as individual scrolls in different churches ) These are historical facts and points towards a authoritative church in history . I of course would have to prove any and all Catholic doctrine from scripture and historical witnesses and Holy Tradition . The evidence is there and it would take time . But when I use Holy Tradition and the Early Church fathers and the development of doctrine, it is considered relevant to protestant apologists . But it is relevant . I can refer to the history the United States to legitimize its existence in history ; it has a Constitution ( a type of scripture ) , the founding fathers beliefs ( traditions/interpretation ) and the legislative body/supreme court ( magisterium ) that work together .to form a whole country that has developed over time . It is no different in regards to the Catholic Church as a factual historical institution , which has been around, with strong foundational roots , for 2000 years . All other Churches have to deny this authoritative Church to justify their existence .
And i have told you over and over that the uninspired words of men are not determinitive of what the NT church believed, and to stop reiterating what was already refuted.
.I have shown the was a precedence of acknowledging Rome as having held the Presidency and authority over other historical see's of the early Church .
Actually i do not recall seeing that attempt, but i already provided findings of even Catholic researchers, among others, to the contrary, so you must deal with them. As well as the Orthodox who attest to Peter of a decidedly different status than the elevated Roman pope that developed.
You will find also that they believed in Apostolic Succession...where others in the Book of Acts had others to take over the office of another Apostle Acts 1:20
Wrong again. NT presbuteros are not apostles, and [FONT=Arial, sans-serif] the NT church never manifestly saw apostolic successors being voted for after Matthias was chosen for Judas (even though James was martyred: Acts 12:1,2), which was in order to maintain the foundational number of apostles (cf. Rv. 21:14) and which was by the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots. (cf. Prov. 16:33) So much for the extended succession of Italians. [/FONT]
In addition, Rome's so-called apostolic successors fail of the qualifications and credentials of manifest Biblical apostles. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:1-0; 12:12)
(1 TIM 3:1,8;5:17 identifies roles of bishops,priests and deacons )(Eph 4:11 Church leaders are hierarchical) ( Tit 1:5 commission for bishops to ordain priests )
Wrong again: There was no bishops ordaining "priests," since bishops and elders were one: the former (episkopos=superintendent or “overseer,”[from “epi” and “skopos” (“watch”) in the sense of “episkopeō,” to oversee, — Strong's) refers to function; the latter (presbuteros=senior) to seniority (in age, implying maturity, or position).
Titus was to “set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders [presbuteros] in every city, as I had appointed thee: “If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop [episkopos] must be blameless...” (Titus 1:5-7) Paul also "sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church," (Acts 20:17) who are said to be episkopos in v. 28. Elders are also what were ordained for every church in Acts 14:23, and bishops along with deacons are the only two classes of clergy whom Paul addresses in writing to the church in Phil. 1:1.
Nowhere does the NT teach a separate sacerdotal class of believers, corresponding to the Old Testament priesthood, kohen, for which the distinctive Greek word "hiereus" is uniquely used by the Holy Spirit in NT.
But who never uses that distinctive word for NT church pastors, and instead the words "episkopos" (superintendent or overseer, referring to function), and "presbuteros" (senior, in age, implying maturity, and or position) were used, with again, both referring to the same person in the pastoral office. (Titus 1:5,7; Acts 20:17,28) Which is contrary to Catholicism, which often calls translates presbuteros as well as hiereus as "priest," since in Catholicism presbyters are considered a distinctive sacerdotal class of believers
The English word "priest" is a etymological corruption of the Greek presbuteros, if with uncertainty, being referred to in Old English (around 700 to 1000 AD) as "preostas" or "preost," and finally resulting in the modern English "priest," which is also used for Old Testament ko^he^n, thereby losing the distinction the Holy Spirit provided by never using the distinctive term of hiereus for NT presbuteros, or describing as them as a distinctive sacerdotal class of believers
You will never even see presbuteros described as conducting the Lord's supper in the only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed (Acts - Revelation, including how they understood the gospels) of what the church did and how they understood the gospels. Though I am sure they did conduct this, yet they are not seen or charged with this in the epistles as being a unique and or primary function, nor preaching the Lord's supper as the means of regeneration, that of obtaining spiritual life.
Which is in contrast to presbuteros/episkopeos (same persons) being charged with and exampled as preaching the word as their primary active function, (2Tim. 4:2) feeding the flock thereby. (Acts 20:28) with believing the gospel being the means of regeneration, of obtaining spiritual life (Acts 10:43; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and being nourished (1Tim. 4:6) and built up (Acts 20:32) for the word, is what is called spiritual food, "milk" (1Co. 3:22; 1Pt. 1:22) and "meat," (Heb. 5:12-14)
All believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).
Which is that of apostles, presbuteros/episkoposas and deacons as far as formal pastoral care is concerned, and as shown, nowhere is presbuteros divided from episkopos, but the two tersm are used interchangeably, as Jerome even confirms.
The presbyter is the same as the bishop, and before parties had been raised up in religion by the provocations of Satan, the churches were governed by the Senate of the presbyters. But as each one sought to appropriate to himself those whom he had baptised, instead of leaving them to Christ, it was appointed that one of the presbyters, elected by his colleagues, should be set over all the others, and have chief supervision over the general well-being of the community. And this is not my private opinion, it is that of Scripture. If you doubt that bishop and presbyter are the same, that the first word is one of function, and the second one of age, read the epistle of the Apostle to the Philippians. Without doubt it is the duty of the presbyters to bear in mind that by the discipline of the Church they are subordinated to him who has been given them as their head, but it is fitting that the bishops, on their side, do not forget that if they are set over the presbyters, it is the result of tradition, and not by the fact of a particular institution of the Lord. (Commentary on Tit. 1.7, quoted. in “Religions of authority and the religion of the spirit," pp. 77,78. 1904, by AUGUSTE SABATIER. A similar translated version of this is provided by "Catholic World," Volume 32, by the Paulist Fathers, 1881, pp. 73,74).
You can read how they acknowledge the Pope of Rome had authority , referencing primacy using Math 16:18-19 in ancient letters in the first four centuries .
Which argument leaves you guilty of your primary fallacy of making the uninspired words of men determinitive of what the NT church believed over the wholly inspired word of God in Scripture. What matters is what the latter reveals about Peter.
In which Peter was initially the humble street-level leader among brethren, and initially perhaps the lead pastor in the church at Jerusalem, (Acts 5) and the first to use the keys to the kingdom, the gospel, (Col 1:13) for both Jews and Gentiles, (Acts 2,10) and receives the vision from Christ to include the latter, and thus is the lead speaker in the council at Jerusalem, exhorting salvation by heart-purifying faith, (Acts 15) and with whom Paul abode with at one early time fifteen days, and who is mentioned named specifically among other apostles as one who was married. (1Co. 9:5)
However, nowhere do we see the NT church looking to him as the first of a line of infallible popes, nor reigning from Rome. Submission to Peter is never mentioned in any of the letters to the churches, including a lack it is being a cause for any problems in churches, or as a solution to them, nor are special regular prayers enjoined for him, or something like "remember the holy father."
Even the Spirit's words to the churches in Revelation 2,3 are not addressed to their supposed earthly corporate head, but to each church, with certain distinctive conditions and critiques.
And after Acts 15, Peter is actually only mentioned in two of the remaining 22 NT books besides his own, and is married in one (as said) and is listed second after James in Gal. 2 as just one of those who seemed to be pillars. And the overall holy Peter is the only one to be publicly rebuked for sinful duplicity. In addition, Peter himself only refers to himself as "an elder" and "an apostle."
Nor is there any manifest preparation for a successor for a Petrine papacy, nor for that of the martyred apostle James. (Acts 12:1,2) Instead, it is presbuteros/episkopos (one office: Titus 1:5-7) ) which are ordained as overseers over the flock, ( Acts 14:23; 1 Timothy 3:1-7) (and who were normally married, and whom the Holy Spirit never calls hiereus, the the distinctive term for a separate sacerdotal class of believers, nor is conducting the Lord's supper shown to be their unique sacerdotal function).
Peter comes into the picture after there had been much disputing and obtains silence to give his testimony with its evangelical gospel, and his exhortation to recognize this manifest grace of God with its basic implications regarding the keeping of the whole Law.
And to which Paul and Barnabas give their own confirmatory testimony, and which collectively enabled the matter to be settled by James, who, rather than simply giving assent, is the one who provides the conclusive Scripturally substantiated judgment, confirmatory of Peter, Paul and Barnabas, who is acting more like a pope would in declaring,
"Wherefore my sentence [krinō=judgment, conclusion] is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God..." (Acts 15:19)
Only after his words is the matter shown to be truly resolved by the church collectively then sending out their judgment of consensus, with no further mention of Peter but that "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things..." (Acts 15:28)
Note also that no one determined to go see Peter, much less in Rome, about this issue, but "they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question." (Acts 15:2) Nor did Peter call the council or any council together to meet, unlike Paul, who both called the Ephesian elders together and charged them what to do. (Acts 20) Which is one of the many things which are invoked in 51 Biblical Proofs Of A Pauline Papacy And Ephesian Primacy
The R.C. exaltation of Peter is foundationally based upon Mt. 16:13-19, wherein there is a play on the word "rock" by the Lord, in which the immovable "Rock" upon which Christ would build His church is the confession that Christ was the Son of God, and thus by implication it is Christ himself. The verse at issue, v.18, cannot be divorced from that which preceded it, in which the identity of Jesus Christ is the main subject. In the next verse (17) that is what Jesus refers to in telling blessed Peter that “flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,” and in v. 18 that truth is what the “this rock” refers to, with a distinction being made between the person of Peter and this rock.
This is the only interpretation that is confirmed, as it must be, in the rest of the New Testament. For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism affirms both, thus stating, “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the ancients concur with.
It is historical fact , which Orthodox Christians purposely overlook , yet whey do see the Pope of Rome as " first among equals " ,to negate the authority of the Pope of Rome .
The Orthodox likewise claim to be the uniquely correct judges of what valid tradition is and means in any conflict, but Scripture began with common souls correctly discerning who and what was of God, in dissent from those who validly sat in the magisterial office, (Mark. 11:27-33; 12:37; Luke 19:35-40; John 7:45-49) and in the light of Scripture it is a historical fact that the development of the Roman papacy is contrary to Scripture and the Peter of it.
The fact is the Catholic, Oriental And Eastern Orthodox do share many common beliefs , practices. The fact is the Catholic, Oriental And Eastern Orthodox do share many common beliefs , practices , understanding of a organized historical church, under the guidance of the Bishops , with the same 7 sacraments...these are historical facts . None of which protestants share .
Once again that is not a valid argument, since the "validity based on unity" premise requires not simply a degree of unity, but full unity, and not simply as here, on a ritual level, but among the people. And since class of "Bible Protestants" do testify to degree of unity among the people then your argument is in vain. The issue is the basis and quality of unity, as explained, but per usual, you just ignore and reiterate your vain argument.
In scripture Christ call his Church Jn 16 is the " pillar and foundation of truth." which is a promise that there is such a Church .
The problem is what you attempt to extrapolate out of (in Greek) "church living God pillar/support and ground [hedraiōma: said to be unseen in the Hellenistic Jewish literature, or in the LXX or in secular Greek] the truth." And rather than the church being The Source or the sure supreme standard on Truth, instead a body of wholly inspired writings existed before the church did, and which provided the foundation for its claims and its "gospel of God, which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures," (Romans 1:1-2) "But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith." (Romans 16:26)
The best you have done is to ignore or counter these overall historical facts , claiming there the was no such unity at that time .
Wrong again: I did not ignore them, or counter such assertions by claiming there the was no such unity at that time, but that the historical record of weight are the wholly inspired Scriptures. In addition, while there was no comprehensive doctrinal unity, the greatest unity was under manifest mighty men of God which stand in contrast to what we have today in the judgment of God. And your popes and prelates are not even in the running (nor am I) as such. Yet as former active RC, even after i became born again, i can attest the greatest living "fellowship of the Spirit" (Philippians 2:1) is found among evangelical types.
After saying all this, have I proven the RC Church is the true Church , no ,not quite .
"Quite?" To the contrary your rhetorical rant has works to provide more of a burden to an already sinking Roman ship. You have yet to provide a single valid proof that Rome is overall a valid church let alone the one uniquely assuredly true church she claims to be, whose official teaching no one can dissent from and be right.
But I can show from historical writings what the early Christians believed and share a common belief of doctrine and Practice (eg the eucharist was always celebrated at church ) and Bishops did gather to address crises at Councils and put together the Canon of scripture in 397 under guidance of the Holy Spirit ( which were kept as individual scrolls in different churches ) These are historical facts and points towards a authoritative church in history . I of course would have to prove any and all Catholic doctrine from scripture and historical witnesses and Holy Tradition . The evidence is there and it would take time .
Eternity would not provide you time to proof what you can only imagine you have started to.
Your attempted proof from history, even when accurate is actually overall proof of progressive deformation of the NT church. By just the 4th century you has a pope (Damasus 1) who employed a murderous band of thugs in order to secure his papal office from his competitor, yet such a man would not even be qualified to be a church member in the NT church, let alone an "apostolic successor."
Moreover, the fact that you have a history or being an authoritative church simply does not equate to Rome being the one uniquely assuredly true church she claims to be any more than actual Scriptural proof that the Scribes and Pharisees sat in the seat of Moses meant they were uniquely assuredly true, to whom no one could validly dissent from.
But when I use Holy Tradition and the Early Church fathers and the development of doctrine, it is considered relevant to protestant apologists . But it is relevant . I can refer to the history the United States to legitimize its existence in history ; it has a Constitution ( a type of scripture ) , the founding fathers beliefs ( traditions/interpretation ) and the legislative body/supreme court ( magisterium ) that work together .to form a whole country that has developed over time . It is no different in regards to the Catholic Church as a factual historical institution , which has been around, with strong foundational roots , for 2000 years .
Wrong, for 1.
The analogy to the Constitution does not mean the interpreters of it are necessarily doing so correctly, any more than those are of Scripture. The basis for veracity must rest upon the weight the evidence. In which the evidence of how the men who wrote the Constitution manifested they understood it would have the most weight, which certainly excludes everything from the exclusion of any official invocation of God for help or in gratitude, to the a sanction of men marrying men and punishing states that forbid it.
Even in the OT, in which dissent from the supreme court was a capital crime, (Dt. 17:8-13) yet authority simply does not equate to or require they can never err in major matters. Thus, while the form of government is valid, yet rather than supporting the Roman government which presumes ensured official veracity, at least in salvific matters, and forbids any dissent from possibly being correct, instead we this presumption to be invalid in both cases.
All other Churches have to deny this authoritative Church to justify their existence
Wrong again, for we no more need to deny the existence of the church of Rome when it was the only known organized church in order to justify our existence and dissent than the NT church had to deny the existence of those who sat in the seat of Moses in order to justify their existence and dissent. In both cases dissent was justified by a critical culmination of unScriptural teaching and recalcitrant hardness of heart, which compelled separation. No Luther was hardly Christ, but Rome wanted him dead due to Scriptural reproof.
And there was also the prior separation of the EO's from Rome, as well as the royal mess a century before the Reformation which i documented, in which your one true church was much a mass of immorality and confusion.
However you have not proved to me that your interpretation of scripture/history is infallible and is in agreement with every other Christian denomination or Christian individual interpreter ." ."
Your argument is a strawman, since i never claimed to be incapable of error, nor that agreement with every other Christian, neither of which is needful, either for me or for a judge or jury. The basis for veracity must rest upon the weight evidential warrant. The church did not begin under the premise of believers presuming they could not err in their judgment, nor that they had to be in agreement with all others.
Nor is the Church build on individual popes , the new testament for the NT warns us that" there should not be divisions among you " 1 Cor 1:10 "
And it nowhere teaches ensured doctrinal infallibility of a pope, and while unity is always a goal and can be realized to a degree, especially in heart and core issues, yet the Truth means division from error, and in the next chapter the NT also states, For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies [sects] among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. (1 Corinthians 11:18-19)
and we should avoid those who create dessentions" Rom 16:17 a
Indeed, and which Rome has due to her presumptuous elitism, and damning those who cannot submit to her in the light of what Scripture says, while joining her would mean being brethren with a divided multitude of Ted Kennedy-type liberals versus conservatives, since your church manifestly treats both as members in life and in death.
Thus separation from Rome is compelled by those who want to obey Scripture, and in fact you should separate from her if you want to obey Scripture which says to "put away from among yourselves that wicked person, (1 Corinthians 5:13) "And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed." (2 Thessalonians 3:14) Instead, Rome typically even treats proabortion, prosodomite public figures as members without manifest discipline, which if any, usually is the result of a rare conservative prelate, not the Vatican (the pope even wrote a nice letter to Ted Kennedy before he did).
How can you be part of such a church? You can claim they are not members, but you are supposed to follow the judgment of your church, at least that is what you tell us, and yet you expect us to forsake evangelical fellowship and become brethren with such an unholy mixed multitude?
and "that here should be one fold and one shepherd" Jn 10:16
Which contextually is speaking of Christ, not Peter.
Church is a communal " body of Christ " under the leadership of Bishops/elders where Scripture says who have teaching authority ( 2 Tim2:2 ) PBJ you are your own authority and not apart of any one body . I think you reject any authority over you, as you left your Fundamentalist Baptist Church . A church of one can lead nothing and on one will carry on the torch of your individual interpretation unless you start a new community/church . I know you do not hold the beliefs of some of you Protestant brethren/churches , and a some point there will be disagreement . Nor will you find a church that will believe everything you believe in and you will continue to be on your own and remain as you owe individual church . I don't believe this is scriptural or healthy .
I am not part of a community of one, and am answerable to leadership in our community, and rather than rejecting any authority over me, for most of my 40 years of my born again Christian life I have been subject to the orders of others, by choice if I was to obey my call.
And with much experience i can say it is your members that are quite rebellious: Catholics broke with their Church's teachings more than most other groups, with just six out of 10 Catholics affirming that God is "a person with whom people can have a relationship", and three in 10 describing God as an "impersonal force." 2008The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Religious Landscape Study
By the way do you consider Catholics Christians ( and saved ) and which denominations do you feel teach false doctrine ? Leave the liberals out of it . Each church does have doctrines/teachings/interpretations . I can strongly suggest that you consider RC's and Orthodox false Christians .But who else ?
Forum rules forbid saying a group that qualifies as Christian here are not, but I will say that anyone who has not had "day of salvation," (2Co. 6:2) in which they personally turned to the risen Lord Jesus in deeply penitent faith as spiritually destitute, guilty, needy sinners,
and with all their heart trusted Him to save them on His account, by His sinless shed blood, and not their merits or that of a church or someone else, including by proxy as in infant baptism,
but with a faith that effects obedience, and is shown first in baptism,
and has realized the profound basic changes in heart and life which true regeneration effects,
needs to do so.
This took up hours of my time and energy, and most it was replying again the same issues refuted before, thus it hardly warrants more.
I agree. However, that wasn't the issue being addressed. The idea had been advanced that if Protestants consider the canon to be closed, that this means they don't acknowledge that God can and does communicate with some people in our own times. That isn't correct .
The aforementioned false dichotomy is no more true than concluding that if Scripture is the supreme authority then God is no longer that Authority, despite showing how the two are not mutually exclusive in the sense in which they are used (God is the supreme authority but as revelation of Himself for faith and obedience He has manifestly given His word as that supreme authority, and which Scripture most assuredly is).
And some posters do not like being much ignored as warranted after much long-suffering.
but, more important, it doesn't explain why the RCC-- if it agrees with this particular argument--itself treats the canon as closed
Yes, they do but they do not, since as said, in essence they adding to Scripture by making doctrine of men equal with them, and with the basis for this being the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults). Thus,
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 is true that everything is subject to interpretation, including magisterial statements and what level they belong to, but it is also true that magisterial office is valid, as Westminster affirmed so, and which is the case even when saying that "we always believed this," since as with Catholic and Orthodox claims which are not what we see believed in the inspired NT record, this is based upon the authority of what others hold to be the valid source.
And which my history of the giving of revelation deals with.
And then you have the oft-exposed (but which some seem programed also to ignore) fallacy that the instrumental preservers of Scripture are the assuredly correct interpreters of it, which means 1st c. souls should have unconditionally followed all the judgments those who sat in the seat of Moses.
Of course, despite the extensive writing of OT and NT history and teaching, some people seem to think the Bible does not show a consistent pattern of this, not that it was said to be all in inclusive, and cults want to fill in what they see is missing.
