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.
I thought bishops couldn't be married....1 Timothy 3:1-3
1Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer,[a] he desires a noble task. 2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.
Overseer=Bishop.
8Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.
Peace
This is in direct contradiction to what Paul taught in Romans about the intrinsic depravity of mankind, that man's righteousness are as filthy rags, that no person is ever justified by the deeds of the law (or their obedience to it), and that when Jesus became our sacrifice on the cross, He paid the full price, so that we will never be punished for our sins - that Jesus took the whole punishment. That is what Paul clearly taught.
Here is a good example of the falibility of the Pope.
The greater proportion of the RCC church believes in the Pelegan, Semi-Pelegan, and Socinian view of man's natural state before God - that mankind is not intrinsically sinful but is affected by Adam's disobedience; therefore man can be justified through being obedient to the commandments of God and through his own righteousness. Also, after becoming a Christian, a person can continue to be punished for his sins whether they be venal or mortal.
This is in direct contradiction to what Paul taught in Romans about the intrinsic depravity of mankind, that man's righteousness are as filthy rags, that no person is ever justified by the deeds of the law (or their obedience to it), and that when Jesus became our sacrifice on the cross, He paid the full price, so that we will never be punished for our sins - that Jesus took the whole punishment. That is what Paul clearly taught.
Therefore, if the Pope holds to doctrines that are contradictory to Holy Scripture, how could he ever be infallible? He is promoting unscriptural doctrine. That has to make him in constant error.
I thought bishops couldn't be married....
I can understand the Bible just fine.
They never say "My word is always right>" They tell us a good thing, to read God's word for ourself. We are not so dense as to not realize what it says, and detect errors.
IF a million people read the bible, they will get a million different interpretations of it.
why did Jesus not write anything down? Why didnt he spend his whole life dictating?
IF Jesus wanted us to use only a written book (and not a personal teacher), he would have spent his life writing that book, or dictating a book.
Why did Jesus create a church composed of people to spread the word and teach and lead
instead of just publishing a million rule books to hand out and let everyone interpret in a million different ways?
Christianity is not a written rule book.
The pope is a christian leader, whos purpose is to help us interpret his teachings in the bible which was written later after he died. The pope, or whatever of the principle christian leaders there are in the church, are supposed to help us apply Jesus teachings to our current lives and to bind us together as one Church. The last thing Jesus wanted was for everyone to have a different opinion and different interpretation.
Would Jesus want thousands of different religions, each disagreeing on what He really said?
Jesus founded it, so logically we must conclude that Jesus wanted it.
Finally, who is to say that sacred Tradition is not inspired by God just as the Bible is inspired?
As stated before, God did not EXCLUSIVELY speak to us through Scripture, and it seems rather condescending to say that God can ONLY speak to us through Scripture. Are we limiting Him to what He can say and how He can say it?
It's a very different function that teaching us God's Holy Scriptures. The topic of this thread - the DOGMA of papal infallibility is a classic example of that.
If people believe the bible, and not the pope, then why do they trust how the pope created the bible?
Most people, including protestants, DO trust the pope in his decision to include the particular relgious writings that the pope chose.
Yes, and non catholic people have given God's word. You are being inclusive. I know you cannot not believe what you believe without losing your faith, but Jesus is the only head of the church.and it seems rather condescending to say that God can ONLY speak to us through Scripture. Are we limiting Him to what He can say and how He can say it?
I have no standing with Bishops...I have standing with JESUS.
He didn't.
Let's review that history...
The New Testament Canon
First Century:
1. The "heart of the Canon" is often regarded to be Paul's epistles. By the time 2 Peter was written (perhaps 70 AD), they seem to be regarding as normative and referred to as Scriptures (2 Peter 3:15-16). Many theologians - conservative and liberal - give great importance to Paul's works as perhaps the theological framework for that which was later added. So, by 70 AD, we have perhaps half of the NT books in some aspect of a Canon. A bit later, Clement and others also speak of "Paul's letters" in this way, indicating a canonical status.
2. The Synoptic Gospels (written between 45 - 65) also seem to have been quickly and nearly universally seen as canonical. They were "published" together - as a single tome - as early as 115 and were very common. They too are repeatedly spoken of as canonical.
By this point, we have a fairly solid canon of 18 of our 27 NT books. No "Pope" was involved whatsoever. The Roman Catholic Church was not involved whatsoever. The Roman Catholic denomination didn't even exist yet.
Second Century:
Many early writers not only reveal a knowledge of NT books, but refer to them specially - as Scripture. Clement points to Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians and maybe Titus. The Shepherd of Hermas (140) quotes from Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Hebrews, 1 & 2 Peter, Revelation and James. Ignatius (d.117) speaks of "all of Paul's epistles" authoritatively, he frequently uses normative quotes from Matthew, John and Acts as well. Tatian (c 170) writes that all Christians recognize that there are four Gospel books. Irenaeus also mentions that Christians accept only four Gospel books, he too speaks of "all Paul's epistles" and quotes from 1 Peter and 1 John. He speaks of these as a parallel of the Old Testament - having equal authority (ie being normative and canonical). Tertullian (d. 220) quotes authoritatively and normatively from all 4 Gospels, all the Pauline epistles, Acts, 1 Peter, 1 John, Jude and Revelation.
All these reveal that much of the NT canon was in place by the end of the Second Century. 20 of the 27 books are now in place. No "Pope" was involved whatsoever. The Roman Catholic Church was not involved whatsoever. The Roman Catholic denomination didn't even exist yet.
Third Century:
At the beginning, we seem to have a rather solid Canon of 20 of the 27 books. They are the Pauline letters (13), the 4 Gospels, Acts, 1 Peter and 1 John. The great majority of the Canon is in place. But a few books - including those eventually being dismissed - were still not embraces with a solid consensus.
Cyrian of Carthage (d. 258) says that all Christians accept 21 books: Paul's 13 (in all these lists, nearly always mentioned first), the 4 Gospels, Acts, First Peter, First John and revelation. They are referenced as normative and canonical.
Origin (d. 255) also reports on the status of the books as regarded by Christians. He places them into two groups: Homologoumena (all embrace) as 21 books - the same as Cyprian's list. Antilegomena (challenged) as 10 - they are Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, James, Jude (all which would eventually be accepted) and also Barnabas, Hermas, Didache and the Gospel of the Hebrews (all of which would soon be rejected).
The NT Canon is now solid for 21 of the 27 books. No "Pope" was involved whatsoever. The Roman Catholic Church was not involved whatsoever.
Fourth Century:
By this time, there is clearly an embrace of 21 books - and has been for a long time. the only "debate" centers around 5- 6 that eventually were embraced, and a handfull soon to be dropped. The core of 21 is now very solid and unquestioned.
Eusebius (d. 340) wrote that Christians all accept 21 books. He lists 4 as ones accepted by most but not by all: James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John (all eventually embraced). And he lists some as "spurious" - Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, the Didache. Most historians fully agree on this situation, although one of that solid 21 (Revelation) some historians think was more debated than Eusebius seems to indicate.
Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 350) does the same for us, listing the books that all Christians embrace as Holy Scripture. His list is the final Canon, except that Revelation was left out, giving us 26 (Matthew - Jude)
There now seems to be little debate at all, a consensus seem pretty solid - God's people settling on a pretty solid list. Although some historians believe that Revelation was still more disputed in the East.
Athanasius of Alexandria (d. 373) Once again, we have someone telling us what we want to know: What books were Christians embracing as Holy Scripture - the NT Canon? He lists them: It's our 27. He does mention the Didache and Hermas as "associated with" but clearly as inferior and below the 27.
Christians clearly had a canon of 27. No "Pope" was involved whatsoever. The Roman Catholic Church was not involved whatsoever.
Early Christian Meetings:
Early meetings were usually not focused on stating a canon (such seems to have already been in place, with no need to state) but more with practical issues of the lectionary - what would be the Sunday readings.
The Council of Laodicea (363) Really just a regional denominational synod and not an ecumenical council , it says that "uncanonical books are not to be read in the churches." While it mentions none by name, clearly all knew what was and was not a "canonical book" since there was no need whatsoever to specify which were so regarded. The canon already existed - clearly - in everyone's mind.
The Council of Hippo (393) Actually, just a regional denominational council and not an ecumenical council, this is the first official meeting (rather than individual) specifically listing exactly what that canon is. Of course, it's our 27, the 27 that had been clearly embraced as such for several decades (and in most cases, since the First Century). I'm not sure the Bishop of Rome even attended this meeting, but in any case, the "decision" was not his.
These acknowledged the canon that God's people developed over a period of centuries (most within the First Century). Every other denomination has done the very same thing - there's nothing unique about the RC denomination embracing the Canon - all Christian denominations have. Soli Deo Gloria!
Pope Benedict, while a wonderful man, has nothing whatsoever to do with this. Nothing.
Footnote:
It's historically necessary to point out that rarely has consensus in Christianity ever been perfect or without dispute. Various other lists - slightly different - continued well into the fifth century and beyond. Revelation and Hebrews (perhaps the last to be resolved in the mid 4th century) remained controversal for centuries - and some lectionaries excluded any readings form one or the other well into the middle ages.
Back to the topic?
Pax!
- Josiah
.
Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicated.”
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?