Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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 consider the canon to be closed. Don't you?
You do not have to this comment my friend.
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.
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...All Churches interpret scripture, which in fact is doctrine
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.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 ).
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 .
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 Acts of the Apostles is but chapter 1 of Holy Tradition
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.which is itself the movement of the Holy Spirit in the Lives of the Body of Christ.
Even if the Canon of Scripture is closed, the Ekklesia of God is open...One is treading on dangerously thin ice to believe in an open canon of scripture.
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);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.
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.On whose authority ? What if we found one of Paul's letters , which he claimed he wrote ,.
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.but is not included in the final Cannon which include the deuterocanonical books ( which was removed from the King James version ) .
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.Who was the authority to compiled the final Cannon
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.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 .
And each Catholic can, to varying degrees, interpret his church differently.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 committed to Peter and to his successors, 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 this authority, 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 schismatics cannot 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 schismatics cannot 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 not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. 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]
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.
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.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.
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.
I have little strength left to write.
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).
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.
First, do not create 500+ word paragraphs if you want to expect many replies, and provide the quote you are responding to, which i told you how to do.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 pointed out , from the testimony of the early Church fathers and you can reference there beliefs about Rome from Clement and on wards .
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..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 .
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]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: 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).(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 )
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.(Eph 4:11 Church leaders are hierarchical)
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.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 .
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.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 .
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.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 .
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)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 .
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.The best you have done is to ignore or counter these overall historical facts , claiming there the was no such unity at that time .
"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.After saying all this, have I proven the RC Church is the true Church , no ,not quite .
Eternity would not provide you time to proof what you can only imagine you have started to.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 .
Wrong, for 1.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 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.All other Churches have to deny this authoritative Church to justify their existence
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.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 ." ."
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)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 "
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.and we should avoid those who create dessentions" Rom 16:17 a
Which contextually is speaking of Christ, not Peter.and "that here should be one fold and one shepherd" Jn 10:16
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.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 .
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,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 ?
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).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 .
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,but, more important, it doesn't explain why the RCC-- if it agrees with this particular argument--itself treats the canon as closed
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?