• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Featured Examples of Sacred Tradition

Discussion in 'General Theology' started by Tree of Life, Apr 21, 2018.

  1. narnia59

    narnia59 Regular Member

    +484
    Catholic
    Married
    I am responding to invalid interpretation by someone who views that Scripture is the sole authority for a Christian but has no Scriptural basis for that claim.

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

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

    In the NT those typologies are fulfilled perfectly in Christ. And it is Christ himself who gives to Peter the authority to bind and loose, and the keys to his kingdom (Matthew 16:15-19). Did Christ so err in that?
     
  2. narnia59

    narnia59 Regular Member

    +484
    Catholic
    Married
    To test with what? Scripture? Are we not aware that the literacy rate at that time was about 3-5%? Where were they to find this copy of Scripture to pour over to read? Are we not aware that any copies had to be laboriously hand copied? Monks spent their whole lives on this task so that each congregation could have a copy to read. None of this really changes for hundreds of years. Are we really to believe that John was telling people they should test the spirits by reading Scripture when they neither possessed a copy or could read it? Do you understand how out of touch that sounds with the historical reality of the believing people of God?


    The OT leadership, and everything in the OT points to Christ. The OT types are flawed and imperfect. The NT is fulfilled with the perfection of Christ. The NT leadership, while flawed and imperfect men literally have the Holy Spirit breathed into them by Christ (John 20:22). You accept without reservation that under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit they could be used to pen Scripture. You reject wholeheartedy that the Holy Spirit could also inspire them to ensure that Scripture is interpreted without error. That is contradictory. If the Holy Spirit is capable of inspiring men to write without error He is certainly capable of inspiring them to teach without error, and why would He not?

    In determining the ‘we’, ‘us’, ‘you’ etc in any of the epistles it is absolutely essential to go back to the beginning to see who the epistle is from. Yes this epistle has John’s name on it. But read the beginning where he is absolutely clear who the ‘we’ is who is writing.

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

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

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

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


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

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


    I’m not sure what all those quotes are for in particular, but the one I’ve italicized is the only one that is an official Catholic teaching document as it is a papal encyclical. You disagree that the Church has pastors and the flock, the one with the duty to lead and the other to be led? That seems quite Biblical to me, but in the world where the flock can fire their pastor, it is indeed quite upside down so may not look familiar. Hebrews 13:17 does say to “Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you” so I am curious what in particular you find problematic with that statement.
     
  3. narnia59

    narnia59 Regular Member

    +484
    Catholic
    Married
    That interpretation means the apostles could have erred when at the Council of Jerusalem they determined that the Gentiles could enter the Church without circumcision. After all, Scripture said that the covenant made with Abraham regarding circumcision was "everlasting". (Gen 17:13). Yet they did not err, because the Holy Spirit had been promised to them to guide them into all truth (John 14:26).

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



    The simple reality is when people determine that their particular revelation is accurate as opposed to another, they are claiming for themselves the authority they say the Church cannot have.

    Do you believe you have been gifted by the Holy Spirit to interpret universal truths of faith as you understand Scripture?
     
  4. narnia59

    narnia59 Regular Member

    +484
    Catholic
    Married
    I didn’t say “just” a good thing. But it is not necessary to be a Scripture scholar to know Christ and be saved by him. Salvation in Scripture does not come to those who ‘read the word of God’ and believe but to those who hear it (Romans 10:14, Luke 8:12-13, John 4:42, John 5:24, Acts 4:4, Acts 13:48, Acts 18:8, Acts 21:20, Romans 10:16, Galatians 3:2, Galatians 3:5, Ephesians 1:13, 1 Thessalonians 2:13). It is amazing when we make an assumption of modern life (everyone has a Bible, everyone can read) upon the lives of millions of Christians in past centuries who received the Gospel orally and that was not only all they had, it was sufficient for their salvation.

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


    Catholic Answers has had little impact on my view of why the authority of the Church is both Biblical and necessary. Studying Protestant theology did.

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

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

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

    The logical problem here is thinking that believers could read both the Scripture and obtain a copy, which has not been the practical reality until the last 150 years or so. It took both the invention of the printing press and the industrial revolution to change that reality.

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


    The Church began on Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles and they spoke the word of God.

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

    Do you believe that Paul entrusted Timothy with the authority he had been given?
     
  5. narnia59

    narnia59 Regular Member

    +484
    Catholic
    Married
    And answered. If you read the beginning of John's epistle, it is clear the 'we' and 'us' are the apostles who are writing to "the little children". But if John means to listen to the whole Church (not the apostles), where is that church to be found today? And if he means to test with Scripture, exactly how were people going to go about doing that the first 1500 years of the Church?
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2018
  6. narnia59

    narnia59 Regular Member

    +484
    Catholic
    Married
    I’m glad you recognize that Scripture has not authority over Christ.

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

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

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

    I am not making any sense out of that.

    I said “Christ himself is who gives his authority to the apostles and they are the foundation the valid NT church is built upon. They too become God-breathed.” This was your response. I’m not making any sense out of that either.

    In response to when I said this == Side note -- do you know the Bible references "authority" more than 80 times and not once does it call itself an authority?

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

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

    John 12:48 that you cite “He who rejects me and does not receive my sayings has a judge; the word that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day.”

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

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

    I have no confusion between God and his God-breathed Scripture or his God-breathed Church. None can be in conflict.
     
  7. narnia59

    narnia59 Regular Member

    +484
    Catholic
    Married
    Paul also taught that it was the apostles who had been approved by God to be entrusted with the Gospel (1 Thess 2:3-4, 5:21, 1 Tim 1:11, Titus 1:1-3) and that it was God who had established and commissioned them, giving them the Holy Spirit as a guarantee (2 Cor 1:21-22), that in the sight of God they speak in Christ (2 Cor 2:14-17), that the church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:14-15) and that the manifold wisdom of God is made known through the Church (Eph 3:10)

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


    2 Timothy 3:16 “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness”. 1 Timothy 4:8 says that “ for while bodily training is of some value, Godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come.

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

    I have provided a multitude of verses that establish and affirm Christ gave his authority to the apostles to preach, to teach, to govern, to forgive sins, but here are those plus more (Matt 10:1, Matt 10:40, Matt 18:18, John 13:20, John 16:14-15, Mark 6:7-13, Luke 9:1-2, Acts 28-30, Romans 1:5-6, 2 Cor 7:14-15, 2 Thess 3:4-6, 10-15, 2 Peter 3:1-2, Hebrews 13:17, 1 Peter 5:1-4, 2 Cor 13:2, 2 Cor 13:9-10, Titus 3:10-11, 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, 2 Corinthians 10:5-7, 3 John 1:9, 1 Thess 2:4, John 4:6, 1 Cor 2:10-16, Matt 28:19-20, Mark 3:4, 1 Thess 2:3-4, 2 Cor 1:21-22, 2 Cor 2:14-17, Titus 1:1-3, Romans 16:17-18, Titus 1:7-9, Eph 3:10-11, John 20:20-23, Matt 16:13-19, John 21:15-19, Acts 10, Eph 4:10-14, Acts 1:8, 1 Tim 1:3-7, 1:18-19, 4:1, 4:11-16, 5:7, 5:20-22, 6:2-4, 6:11, 6:17, 6:20-21, 2 Tim 1:6-7, 1:13-14, 2:2-7, 2:14-15, 3:10-17, 4:1-5). You reject all of these as being trivial it seems.

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

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

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

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

    I have never said that Scripture is subject to the Church. The Catholic Church views that Scripture and Sacred Tradition are related and harmonious, and the teaching office established by Christ as the servant.

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

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

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

    Eloy Craft Myth only points, Truth happened! Supporter

    +591
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    The above is typical. A clanking combination of words constructed to immediately divert the conversation. A discussion about something subtle and complex, by necessity requires subtopics in order to communicate the finer points. But acknowledging that doesn't seem to serve the purpose of your post. Your persistent diversion of the conversation to what you need to express simply doesn't allow them. No sincere exchange of ideas can happen. I don't remember one response of yours to actually engage the content of my posts. Your belief that the Catholic Church is the reincarnation of the Sanhedrin of Jesus time or the Pagan nations the Hebrews drove out, obstructs you and I from a sincere exchange of ideas. Try to consider the possibility that the other person may have a good point to make. I am inclined to believe you are trolling this website for Catholics.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2018
  9. PeaceByJesus

    PeaceByJesus Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

    +2,046
    Christian
    Single
    I had a major browser crash, losing hours of work the devil did not want posted, and the 5 replies are from backup data which may not be complete or may contain parts from another post and odd (’) formatting. Plus the preview function is not working nor can i tell if the posts are being posted, while CF complains about too many characters so some will not post, and so i will try to split some into two parts.

    I am not going to repeat hours of work with my stiff fingers here or spend even more time with this now. Sorry for the mess and for missing anything. CF apparently does not save drafts past restarts.
    Your latest response is a series of error after error, as will be shown, by the grace of God. Paul certainly did meet the qualification of an apostles, which that of personal discipleship by the risen Christ, seeing the resurrected Lord in person, which Paul also had and did, if privately, yet whose actual rising from the dead none of them actually saw, but all had encounters with the risen Lord after His ascension, as did Paul.
    Which testifies to Paul's personal discipleship/teaching by the Lord.
    The claim of the Lord to be the Messiah, and thus apostle's veracity was based upon the Lord being the fulfillment of Scripture and its promises of what the Messiah would be and do, which the Lord schooled the apostles and other disciples in, and enabled them to preach, (Luke 24:44,45) and which is what the apostles and NT church did preach, as Apollos: [COLOR=\"#000066\"]\"For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.\" (Acts 18:28; cf. Acts 9:22) [/COLOR]

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

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

    Therefore pastor Timothy \"knowing from whom you learned it” refers to the manner of man Paul was, one who, as with His Lord, [COLOR=\"#000066\"] \"as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,\" (Acts 17:2)[/COLOR] as well as manifesting Scriptural supernatural attestation.
    Please! Are you serious? If you think today's leaders, much less your pope and those of Rome, are like those in 2 Cor 6, in all things approving themselves as the ministers of God, in purity, power and probity, then you are fantasizing, and not even reading news from secular news sources, which would be telling of and targeting such.
    For fear, and thus being a respecter of persons, as a exception to the apostolic and Peter's norm, and is the only apostle to be publicly rebuked.
    It was holy men who penned Scripture, (2 Peter 1:21) if not sinless, and while God can use even wicked men, there is a correlation btwn character and how much God can use a person, (2 Peter 1:20, 21), and the apostles were not merely some Caiaphas-types, but supremely manifest men of God, as Moses was, whom as group we do not see today.
    We are not talking about stinkers, but leadership that can say of themselves what 2 Corinthians 6:4-10 says. In addition, in the NT church there was no ordained separate sacerdotal class of believers for whom the distinctive word for this sacerdotal class was used. Nor did presbuteros and episkopos refer to two different offices.
    As your premise is specious, so is your definite conclusion. Nowhere does Scripture say Timothy is being ordained as an apostle, which reading into Scripture that which at best you may see as an inference, supposing that [COLOR=\"#000066\"]\"Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery,\" (1 Timothy 4:14) [/COLOR]which included Paul, (2 Timothy 1:6) somehow means Timothy was ordained an apostle, but which is presumption, and also wrongly presumes that the Holy Spirit would not state this important status.

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

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

    In addition, you simply cannot invoke the teaching on the pastoral duties and character given to Timothy, who is never called an apostle, as interpretive of the clear statement on the credentials of apostles, including [COLOR=\"#000066\"]\"Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.\" (2 Corinthians 12:12)[/COLOR] The apostles were in a class by themselves as regards an office, and had distinct qualifications that disqualify men who fail of these from claiming they are apostles.
    Which is overall a load of sophistry. From the top, if the Lord was disparaging the use of supernatural attestation in Matthew12:38,39 then He would be inconsistent with Himself in working thereby and calling souls to faith in the light of them, (John 14:10,11) and stating that \"the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me,\" (John 5:36) and doing the same with his disciples, (Mark 16:20) of whom He said would do greater works, (John 14:12) which were a special mark of the office of apostles.

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

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

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

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

    PeaceByJesus Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

    +2,046
    Christian
    Single
    Romans 11:29 is actually speaking of predestination, but while i believe in the perpetuity of spiritual gifts, this does not mean God will always continue to provide those who occupy an office, as seen by the 400 year absence of a prophet, out of which \"dry ground\" (Isaiah 53:2) the Lord sprung. And the only ordained successor to an apostle was that of Judas, which was in order to maintain the foundational number of apostles, (Rv. 21:14) and which was by the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots, (cf. Prov. 16:33)) which Rome has never used to select popes.

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

    And thus while I do not disallow apostles from one day appearing on the earth, yet know not of any now, though some may function as sent ones as insofar founding churches. But certainly all those who claim to be successors to the apostles in Catholicism are not apostles, while presbyters are the only ones we see charged by apostles with being overseers of the church, and charged with caring for it. (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:1,2)
    Which is another conclusion based upon a specious premise, that not only was Timothy an apostles since he ordained pastors, but Titus also, yet nowhere are they referred to as apostles, and which status is mentioned for men as Paul, Peter, Barnabas, but instead they are instructed as pastors who ordain others.

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

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

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

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

    And later, \"at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul\" (Acts 13:1) laid their hands on Barnabas and Saul and sent them away to minister.

    What all this indicates is that laying on of hands in conveying power and in commissioning to service need not be done by an apostle, and the proposition that there was ordination of apostles going on without the Holy Spirit stating this and or calling Timothy, Titus or or Ananias apostles is simply preposterous in the light of the Catholic importance placed upon it.
     
  11. PeaceByJesus

    PeaceByJesus Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

    +2,046
    Christian
    Single
    It is you who asserted that we believe Scripture took their place, which i reproved with the fact that it was a continuation of Scripture being the supreme authority over leadership, which is what the NT church invoked as the established authoritative word of God, versus the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome.
    This is true, since pastors are accountable to leadership which normally ordains them, as its true with the \"powers that be\" of God in the civil realms, (Romans 13:1-7) yet leadership is not above Scripture, and if you believe that even the authoritative historical magisterium is, as possessing ensured veracity, and thus as necessarily disallowing the validity of any dissent to its formal judgments, then you have a bigger problem then those who make the flock itself the authority over pastors. That is what is flipped on top of itself, and is truly is what Scripture calls a ‘tradition of man’. Yet if you deny that your leadership is effectively above Scripture, and as the authoritative historical magisterium possesses ensured veracity then all your ecclesiology cannot rescue it.

    Also true is that souls can ascertain what is of God without an infallible magisterium.
    Which only confirms what I said, that \"we see pastors - presbuteros/episkopos (one office) - taking the place of the foundational (Eph. 2:20; cf. Rv. 21:14) apostles, looking after \"all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.\" (Acts 20:28)

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

    That Scripture is the sole supreme authority is true, which even the veracity of apostolic preaching was subject to testing by, (Acts 17:11) not vice versa, and to which they appealed to for substantiation.
    What is this? You mean preaching what Scripture attest to is Catholic oral tradition such as the Assumption, versus doing the same thing SS preacher do, even by pointing to Israel becoming a state in 1948 as fulfilling Scripture? You should return that spurious polemic back to its owner.

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

    PeaceByJesus Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

    +2,046
    Christian
    Single
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2018
  13. PeaceByJesus

    PeaceByJesus Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

    +2,046
    Christian
    Single
    <p>
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2018
  14. PeaceByJesus

    PeaceByJesus Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

    +2,046
    Christian
    Single
    Which manifests more ignorance. The church is a a group of believers. From the very text you wrest to support the church being as an identifiable entity that is separate and apart from a group of believers which does not exist in your world in any context, the Lord says (and relates to binding and loosing),

    Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:19-20)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. (James 5:16)

    Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit. Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins. (James 5:17-20)

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

    However, in the case of an infirm man the intercession of NT pastors (presbuteros) can obtain deliverance of chastisement, as indicated by James 5:14,15, as can the intercession of believers of fervent holy faith, but pastors as particularly expected to be so.
    But nowhere in the inspired record of what the NT church believed (Acts -Rv.) do we see a \"perfected\" reality of ensured perpetual infallibility of magisterial office, under which the veracity of a doctrine was assured under the premise that it could not err, much less with a pope calling a council to decree such

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

    And they were certainly not declaring that belief in a specific event is required, over 1700 years after it allegedly occurred, and which was so lacking in early testimony the Rome's chief scholars opposed it as being apostolic doctrine .
    A false dilemma. Peter was not given any power that was not given to the rest, and Christ certainly did not err by so doing, but Rome by presuming to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

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

    PeaceByJesus Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

    +2,046
    Christian
    Single
    Which manifests more ignorance. The church is a a group of believers. From the very text you wrest to support the church being as an identifiable entity that is separate and apart from a group of believers which does not exist in your world in any context, the Lord says (and relates to binding and loosing),

    Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:19-20)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. (James 5:16)

    Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit. Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins. (James 5:17-20)

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

    However, in the case of an infirm man the intercession of NT pastors (presbuteros) can obtain deliverance of chastisement, as indicated by James 5:14,15, as can the intercession of believers of fervent holy faith, but pastors as particularly expected to be so.
    But nowhere in the inspired record of what the NT church believed (Acts -Rv.) do we see a \"perfected\" reality of ensured perpetual infallibility of magisterial office, under which the veracity of a doctrine was assured under the premise that it could not err, much less with a pope calling a council to decree such

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

    And they were certainly not declaring that belief in a specific event is required, over 1700 years after it allegedly occurred, and which was so lacking in early testimony the Rome's chief scholars opposed it as being apostolic doctrine .
    A false dilemma. Peter was not given any power that was not given to the rest, and Christ certainly did not err by so doing, but Rome by presuming to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

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

    PeaceByJesus Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

    +2,046
    Christian
    Single
    Certainly it did not mean most everyone had their own copy of Scripture, and it is also certain that the alternative was not implicit trust in leadership, which they knew to be wary of in the light of history, and leads to such a scenario as obedience to the pope requiring Catholic rulers to exterminate the heretics, or even a situation in which leadership when so far South that people did not know who the true pope was.

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

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

    And the Lord and His apostles treated it as such. Thus is it based upon this light, as provided by hearing it, that Christians were to judge whether souls were walking in the light.
    You really try to milk John 20:22 for all you think it is worth! Do you have an infallible interpretation of this, or is this just one more example of your own specious private interpretations? Just what do you see in this verse that renders the church or just those who occupy the office of an apostles to be wholly inspired of God in all their judgements? Or as supporting the Catholic imagination of the laity regularly coming to the apostles to obtained forgiveness? Which is simply NOT what is manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels) Acts thru Revelation.

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

    Which was often by God raising up men from without the magisterium to correct those in it, and to preserve faith and provide new revelation. Thus the church did not begin upon the foundation of formal descent of office, but upon dissidents to it, apostles and prophets. (Eph. 2:20)
    That verse is speaking of apostles, yet which proves too much if this means \"we\" is always restricted to the apostles, for it means the subject is on how to know a true apostle, versus how to know you have eternal life, and that rather than being the standard for what is light, then the apostles are to judged by the recipients of this letter, as to whether they are walking in the light:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Therefore it is manifest that the \"we\" refers to the same persons who \"know ye the Spirit of God\" based upon confession of the Christ of Scripture, and who overcome those who \"are of the world,\" who hear false prophets, which are overcomers are believers, whom the world does not hear.
     
  17. BNR32FAN

    BNR32FAN He’s a Way of life Supporter

    +2,686
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Early church traditions can be helpful in concluding certain positions of the early church doctrines. St Iranaeus wrote that the scriptures are not ambiguous and the understanding of tradition is not necessary to understand the teachings of the Bible. Things like eternal salvation and faith without fruits or works are proven to be false teachings both by the scriptures and the early church father’s writings. Yet some people cannot correctly interpret the Bible because they don’t take all of the scriptures into account and often base their beliefs on bits and pieces of scripture instead of all the teachings as a whole. Personally I tend to accept the writings within the first 500 years because I’m not sure exactly when the Roman church began to slip away from the truth. If I’m not mistaken they began to slip away in the 8th-9th century but don’t quote me on that.
     
  18. BNR32FAN

    BNR32FAN He’s a Way of life Supporter

    +2,686
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    That began to happen around the 8th-9th century if I’m not mistaken and it was only the Roman church that began to slip away from the original apostolic teachings with the exception of the Nestorians. But they were excommunicated from the Catholic Church. You can be pretty sure that the first 500 years of the Catholic teachings are 100% sound.
     
  19. Philip_B

    Philip_B all shall be well and all shall be well and ... Supporter

    +4,425
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    Saeculum obscurum - Wikipedia

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

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

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

    I certainly am with you about the main line in the first 500 years was reliable.
     
  20. BNR32FAN

    BNR32FAN He’s a Way of life Supporter

    +2,686
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Thanks for sharing that. I have studied a little on the early church but still have loads to learn. I knew about the Gnostics but I wouldn’t even consider that Christianity at all. Their whole idea way way too far off from the scriptures. I also knew about Nestorians which I do prefer the term Christotokos over Theostokos just because I think it is more descriptive. The term itself doesn’t divide Jesus’ divinity and human nature just Nestorius’ view of the term was incorrect. I think it’s less confusing to many people and less controversial. Have a blessed day.
     
Loading...