1 Timothy 3:15

[guanophore]

**You can play the fool all you want; makes no difference to me. Your logic is skewed. For you use the very book to try to prove your own faith. The Bible is a living book because it is the very word of God; God breathed. Is not what is God breathed alive? In a spiritual sense. **

It is true the Scripture does testify to the vailidity of the Church, however, it was never intended to be used to “prove” that faith. Jesus provided sufficient “proofs” before the NT was written. The Book itself is not “alive”, but the Word, yes, in a spiritual sense. But you are trying to assign qualties to it that it does not posess. The Scripture though holy and God breathed, cannot wield authority. That task requires a person.

The Church is also “God Breathed” and that is why the Scripture and the Church are held to be equal in Divine Revelation.

The Bible can validate itself on many fronts; for example the over 300 prophecies on the coming and life of Jesus, no one could predict that with 100% accuracy unless it came from God.  You have a low view of Scripture; as do many ...but that will be to their demise.  I would go as far to say that where salvation begins is how you view Scripture.

These statements are errors. I agree, there are some interal validities in Scripture. However, the problem you have is how Scripture is defined. The scripture does not always identify itself as such. This is why an authority outside the canon is necessary.

Our view of Scripture is actually higher. We do not separate it from the Sacred Tradition that produced it. We do not try to make it assume duties and qualities that are not intended by God.

To say that one’s salvation begins with how one views scripture is also an error, as Scripture, holy as it is, is not the Source of Salvation. Christ is our salvation, and he was providing salvation before any Scripture was written, in the OT or the NT.

What you are proposing here is a form of Bibliolatry.

At first, the Septuagint (LXX) consisted only of the Pentateuch (Torah, first five books of the Bible). Different books were translated from the Hebrew over a span of two centuries, including the books of the Apocrypha, and were added to the LXX. Since the Greek used in the LXX reflects an Alexandrian origin, the scholars who created it were most likely Alexandrian rather than Palestinian, as was suggested by a legend circulated by a writer who called himself Aristeas.

Here is a link that is outside of the Church:
bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm

I am glad that you are finally learning something accruate about your own family history, Seeking. The Alexandrian Septuagint was the canon used by Jesus and the Apostles. That is why it was adopted by the Church.

 

[guanophore]

** Of course that is my opinion, but I God will prove the truth of my opinion;**

Wow. This is one of the best Freudian slips I have ever encountered on CAF. I am going to save this one in my archives.

:dancing:

 

[guanophore]

For some reason no one has tried to answer my question about the other 72 disciples that Jesus sent out to preach the gospel. They were also blessed with the same authortiy s Peter. So what makes you believe that they didn’t “lay hands” and pass that authority on to somone other than a leader of the CC?

There were not any other valid leaders. All who were ordained were in communion with the Apostles and bishops of the Church, or they were heretics and apostates.

 

[guanophore]

How many people attend your church on a given Sunday? It is not that complicated; unless one doesn’t believe and/or one is deceived and/or one doesn’t understand.

Are you serious? Do you really believe that, when Jesus appointed His Apostles to authority, He meant authority belonged to whoever showed up on Sunday?

 

[guanophore]

**You said it was invisible; I didn’t. Are you one of those people that puts words into people mouths to create something that isn’t there? It is invisible only in this sense; you cannot see the elect; can you. **

I thought you said we could know them by their fruits?

I agree, we cannot see the elect. Some who are elect may not even know it yet!

Given this, how can we discern the authority who is to settle the dispute? We take it to whoever shows up on Sunday, some of whom are not even members of the Body…should be take a democratic vote? Is that what you see happening in Acts?

 

[SteveGC]

The Holy See of Rome, One Faith, One Church and One God, built on Peter and guided by the Holy Spirit. I can’t go on.

I assume this was in response to my request that you provide us with OUR definition of “church”. Quite a scattered array of terms you decided to use for our definition. Mind if I give you The Church’s definition of itself?

Here it is…from the CCC.

*751 The word “Church” (Latin ecclesia, from the Greek ek-ka-lein, to “call out of”) means a convocation or an assembly. It designates the assemblies of the people, usually for a religious purpose.139 Ekklesia is used frequently in the Greek Old Testament for the assembly of the Chosen People before God, above all for their assembly on Mount Sinai where Israel received the Law and was established by God as his holy people.140 By calling itself “Church,” the first community of Christian believers recognized itself as heir to that assembly. In the Church, God is “calling together” his people from all the ends of the earth. The equivalent Greek term Kyriake, from which the English word Church and the German Kirche are derived, means “what belongs to the Lord.”

752 In Christian usage, the word “church” designates the liturgical assembly,141 but also the local community142 or the whole universal community of believers.143 These three meanings are inseparable. “The Church” is the People that God gathers in the whole world. She exists in local communities and is made real as a liturgical, above all a Eucharistic, assembly. She draws her life from the word and the Body of Christ and so herself becomes Christ’s Body. *

See anything in there that says it’s the Pope?
See anything in there that says it’s The Vatican?
See anything in there that says it’s a physical structure?
See anything in there that says it’s an institution?

Now, although our church’s visible nature and authority do contain those things (pope, Vatican, etc), it is not OUR DEFINITION of “church”. In fact, it may surprise you that our definition is much like a non-Catholic’s definition, if not, exactly like it. We don’t capitalize the “C” in church because it designates a proper name of a place, or a man. We capitalize it because it belongs to Christ as His Bride. The only difference really between our church and your church is Christ’s designation of it. Our “body of believers” is the true Body, or I should say, is composed of the fullness of the Truth. This is why I asked you for our definition, to expose the fact that non-Catholics persistently misunderstand what the Church is to us.

God Bless

 

[guanophore]

You do not have the context of the message correct. There was no church established in Antioch at the time. .

If that is the case, what was the point of appealing to the Apostles?

How do you dispense with the Biblical account that a church existed?

Acts 11:19-26

19 Now those who were scattered because of the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoeni’cia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to none except Jews. 20 But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyre’ne, who on coming to Antioch spoke to the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus. 21 And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number that believed turned to the Lord. 22 News of this came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. 23 When he came and saw the grace of God, he was glad; and he exhorted them all to remain faithful to the Lord with steadfast purpose; 24 for he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And a large company was added to the Lord. 25 So Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul; 26 and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church, and taught a large company of people; and in Antioch the disciples were for the first time called Christians.

 Some Jewish converts (see verse 1) were teaching Jesus plus the works of the law; similar errors Catholics teach.  It is also similar to what Paul rebuked Peter for.

You have clearly misunderstood Catholicism, Seeking. The Apostles taught that we can fulfill the commandments of God because it is no longer we who live, but Christ who lives in us.

The reason that Paul rebuked Peter is something separate entirely. However, let’s try to stay on topic. Actually, come to think of it, this whole discussion is off topic!

Anyway, the Jewish converts came long after the Church was established in Antioch.

… the whole church would know already and they would have many people holding them accountable.

Who is authorized to hold the others accountable? In Antioch, how can you say the Jews who insisted on circumcision were not fulfilling what God had revealed to them that the beleivers should be circumcised?

**You do know that Pastor and Bishop are the same office? **

No. A bishop is a pastor, but a pastor is not necessarily a bishop.

** There are only two offices in biblical record; deacon and pastor/bishop. **

No again, however, I think this is grist for another thread.

** The primary difference in qualification is the pastor/bishop must have the ability to teach on top of the other qualifications. **

Thank you for sharing what you do in your ecclesial community.

** The idea of the office is to put men that are mature in their faith and are not tossed around by every wind of doctrine, but unfortunately we see too many weak “Christians” in positions they do not qualify for.**

I agree, but what does this have to do with who is the authority?

** The same is true within the Catholic Church as in other churches; I would dare say it is worse in the Catholic system…**

Certainly there have been persons given pastoral responsibility who have grossly misused it.

**There is a large church in our area that has had problems because of the politics inside the church. **

Jesus appointed a Teaching Authority protected by the HS because of the is phenomenon. We see this teaching authority (magesterium) at work in the book of Acts, giving direction to the disciples in Antioch and throughout the world.

 

[mmplps7783]

I started to answer earlier.
I’m not sure what you mean by authority. Yes the 72 were sent out in pairs and given the Authority to heal and cleanse etc. However i don’t see where they were given the Authority to “Bind and Loose” that Peter and the 12 Apostles were given.
Furthermore one must realize that these 72 were all followers of Christ and were certainly members of the early Church under the direction of the Apostles. Therefore any actions they might have taken during their ministerial lifetimes would have been within the context of the original Church (that is “Catholic”).
Finally I would be careful about confusing Gifts and Authority. Healing and various other Gifts are manifestations of the Holy Spirit. Authority is that which is given of God to Peter and the twelve, and through them and their successors, to the Church.
In the particular passage to which you refer, Christ Gave them Authority over unclean spirits etc, and not over the establishment of a Church.

Peace
James

Oh I must have misunderstood. I thought that when he sent them out he gave them the authority to loose and bind…but I can’t seem to locate that verse anymore so I can’t check it. Thanks for clearing it up:thumbsup:

 

[broski234]

**You said it was invisible; I didn’t. Are you one of those people that puts words into people mouths to create something that isn’t there? It is invisible only in this sense; you cannot see the elect; can you. **

So you agree that Christ’s Church is a visible one? Which is it? On one hand it’s visible but on another it’s “invisible only in this sense; you cannot see the elect”. Answer this question: Is Christ’s Church a visible, organic Church? If so, which Church is it?

 

[broski234]

Oh I must have misunderstood. I thought that when he sent them out he gave them the authority to loose and bind…but I can’t seem to locate that verse anymore so I can’t check it. Thanks for clearing it up:thumbsup:

Matt 16:18-21 and John 20

 

[Seeking12]

Oh I must have misunderstood. I thought that when he sent them out he gave them the authority to loose and bind…but I can’t seem to locate that verse anymore so I can’t check it. Thanks for clearing it up:thumbsup:

**
Matthew 18:18 is where the authority to loose and bind is given to all disciples of Jesus. it is not limited to Peter, nor the Apostles.**

 

[SteveGC]

**
Matthew 18:18 is where the authority to loose and bind is given to all disciples of Jesus. it is not limited to Peter, nor the Apostles.**

Yet another example of how Bible-only Christians erroneously hold firm to the logic that God is addressing EVERYONE whenever He addresses ANYONE in Scripture. Sometimes this is true…often it is NOT. They can’t get around this problem. That’s why they think there’s no Church…because in their view, God was talking to ALL of us, not just Peter, when God granted authority over protecting the truth with the shield of the Holy Spirit. It would be borderline arrogance if it weren’t for blatant ignorance.

God Bless

 

[Seeking12]

I assume this was in response to my request that you provide us with OUR definition of “church”. Quite a scattered array of terms you decided to use for our definition. Mind if I give you The Church’s definition of itself?

Here it is…from the CCC.

*751 The word “Church” (Latin ecclesia, from the Greek ek-ka-lein, to “call out of”) means a convocation or an assembly. It designates the assemblies of the people, usually for a religious purpose.139 Ekklesia is used frequently in the Greek Old Testament for the assembly of the Chosen People before God, above all for their assembly on Mount Sinai where Israel received the Law and was established by God as his holy people.140 By calling itself “Church,” the first community of Christian believers recognized itself as heir to that assembly. In the Church, God is “calling together” his people from all the ends of the earth. The equivalent Greek term Kyriake, from which the English word Church and the German Kirche are derived, means “what belongs to the Lord.”

752 In Christian usage, the word “church” designates the liturgical assembly,141 but also the local community142 or the whole universal community of believers.143 These three meanings are inseparable. “The Church” is the People that God gathers in the whole world. She exists in local communities and is made real as a liturgical, above all a Eucharistic, assembly. She draws her life from the word and the Body of Christ and so herself becomes Christ’s Body. *

See anything in there that says it’s the Pope?
See anything in there that says it’s The Vatican?
See anything in there that says it’s a physical structure?
See anything in there that says it’s an institution?

Now, although our church’s visible nature and authority do contain those things (pope, Vatican, etc), it is not OUR DEFINITION of “church”. In fact, it may surprise you that our definition is much like a non-Catholic’s definition, if not, exactly like it. We don’t capitalize the “C” in church because it designates a proper name of a place, or a man. We capitalize it because it belongs to Christ as His Bride. The only difference really between our church and your church is Christ’s designation of it. Our “body of believers” is the true Body, or I should say, is composed of the fullness of the Truth. This is why I asked you for our definition, to expose the fact that non-Catholics persistently misunderstand what the Church is to us.

God Bless

I guess that settles it; all of God’s elect can be seen at your local Catholic church. Interesting that the Scripture never capitalized the word “church”; don’t you follow the Apostolic example?

 

[Seeking12]

Yet another example of how Bible-only Christians erroneously hold firm to the logic that God is addressing EVERYONE whenever He addresses ANYONE in Scripture. Sometimes this is true…often it is NOT. They can’t get around this problem. That’s why they think there’s no Church…because in their view, God was talking to ALL of us, not just Peter, when God granted authority over protecting the truth with the shield of the Holy Spirit. It would be borderline arrogance if it weren’t for blatant ignorance.

God Bless

**You are going to tell me that if you could present the gospel to someone and they told you that “you and your god can go to hell; I don’t believe your so called god”; that you wouldn’t feel comfortable telling them the Kingdom is not open to them; you remain in your sin? Give me a break, anyone that can present the gospel has the same “key” and “authority” because it comes from the very word of God and by saying that to this fictitious person; you are merely restating what heaven has already said.

On Matthew 18:18; you need to look at the scene and who was there and whom the Lord spoke. You continue to prove the truth of Scripture.**

 

[JRKH]

You do not have the context of the message correct. There was no church established in Antioch at the time. Some Jewish converts (see verse 1) were teaching Jesus plus the works of the law; similar errors Catholics teach. It is also similar to what Paul rebuked Peter for.

Your kidding right?
Acts 11:19 - 30. Describes the founding of the Church in Antioch by Faithful men who went there during the dispersion.
Acts 13: 44 - 49 Describes Paul’s Preaching to first teh Jews and then the Gentiles in Antioch.
Acts 14: 24-28 describes how Paul returned to Antioch and met with the “Congregation”, and with the “Disciples”.
This is then FOLLOWED by the Council in Jerusalem in Chapter 15.
How long are you going to deny the very evidence laid before you?

[qoute]Reread my previous post; I said under the scenario you gave the majority would rule. We have a very small church and if someone were in the state of sin (say infildelity), the whole church would know already and they would have many people holding them accountable.
So thst is how it would be handled for an individuals sin, but what if the issue were one of doctrine. Say, just as an example, whether contraception is permissable?
Part of the Church believes it is acceptable and the other part believes it is not acceptable. Is it still majority rules?

Peace
James

 

[Seeking12]

Yet another example of how Bible-only Christians erroneously hold firm to the logic that God is addressing EVERYONE whenever He addresses ANYONE in Scripture. Sometimes this is true…often it is NOT. They can’t get around this problem. That’s why they think there’s no Church…because in their view, God was talking to ALL of us, not just Peter, when God granted authority over protecting the truth with the shield of the Holy Spirit. It would be borderline arrogance if it weren’t for blatant ignorance.

God Bless

**Silly Bible-only people; sticking with the word of God; silly foolish people; don’t you know there is the See of Rome; She is greater than the word of God; we will tell you it is the same, but us silly Bible-believers just are so stupid and blind; we will never know salvation from that silly Bible.

Just having a light moment.**

 

[SteveGC]

I guess that settles it; all of God’s elect can be seen at your local Catholic church. Interesting that the Scripture never capitalized the word “church”; don’t you follow the Apostolic example?

I also said nothing that inferred all the elect are contained down the road in your local Catholic Church. Just because one is Catholic does not make automatic their salvation. No, I merely gave you a proper definition of Church, from the Church Herself. The point being…you are right in your definition of “church”, to an extent. One thing missing from it (which is essential to the definition) is the divine proclamation of it, and the teaching authority granted to it.

I didn’t say the Apostles capitalized “church” in the Bible, I said we (the faithful) capitalize it, as a manner of giving it the reverence it is due. But I will concede your point. Yes, our capitalization is first and foremost out of reverence for Christ’s designation of it, and does serve a secondary purpose of providing a clear distinction to the modern, religiously fragmented and scattered world, that The Catholic Church IS the One True Church. It didn’t need to be done biblically, since there was no dispute at the time. It was a given.

God Bless

 

[JRKH]

**Silly Bible-only people; sticking with the word of God; silly foolish people; don’t you know there is the See of Rome; She is greater than the word of God; we will tell you it is the same, but us silly Bible-believers just are so stupid and blind; we will never know salvation from that silly Bible.

Just having a light moment.**

Thanks for the light moment. Sometimes family members really need that when things get - ummm - tense.

Of course you know I could write something just as silly as this and point it at you.

In fact I will:

Silly Catholics; sticking with the Church Christ Founded; silly foolish people; don’t you know there is a bible?; The Bible is all you need - Never mind that it was the Catholics who wrote the NT and assembled the Bible; Never mind that “Bible Believers” - supposedly led by the “Holy Spirit” cannot agree on what it says; Catholics just don’t understand that salvation is in the Bible - so long as you agree with my interpretation of it. Silly - Silly Catholics.

My light moment

Peace
James

 

[Seeking12]

Your kidding right?
Acts 11:19 - 30. Describes the founding of the Church in Antioch by Faithful men who went there during the dispersion.
Acts 13: 44 - 49 Describes Paul’s Preaching to first teh Jews and then the Gentiles in Antioch.
Acts 14: 24-28 describes how Paul returned to Antioch and met with the “Congregation”, and with the “Disciples”.
This is then FOLLOWED by the Council in Jerusalem in Chapter 15.
How long are you going to deny the very evidence laid before you?

[qoute]Reread my previous post; I said under the scenario you gave the majority would rule. We have a very small church and if someone were in the state of sin (say infildelity), the whole church would know already and they would have many people holding them accountable.

So thst is how it would be handled for an individuals sin, but what if the issue were one of doctrine. Say, just as an example, whether contraception is permissable?
Part of the Church believes it is acceptable and the other part believes it is not acceptable. Is it still majority rules?

Peace
James

**James, thanks for the correction concerning the previously established church in Antioch. However after seeing the flow of the entire messages; what is obvious is that these Jews were stirring up the people and blaspheming God and distorting what Paul had already preached. Since Jerusalem was the place where the Apostles and Jewish authorities were firmly established, so to speak, it is the place the people seeking answers wanted to verify and sort out the truth. It would be common for Jews to be accustomed to settling things at Jerusalem.

This does not imply that this was the normal thing; probably why we have only this example. There are other examples where Paul is instructing the elders on how to sort their problems out; without appealing to Jerusalem. You must also look at the whole picture, the church is in it’s infancy and Jesus established these Godly Apostles to get the whole thing off the ground and running and as you can see they are feeling some growing pains.

This is no way establishes a Catholic authority.**

 

[broski234]

**You are going to tell me that if you could present the gospel to someone and they told you that “you and your god can go to hell; I don’t believe your so called god”;

**

I remember our banned friend, NonCatholic, saying almost the exact same thing as this. NonCatholic got kicked off right about the same time as your join date. Could you be NonCatholic? Just curious!