a question for "Bible Only" churches

  • Thread starter Thread starter aquabatix
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rightlydivide
*I do not feel like any group has to justify anything to the Catholic Church. That is presumptious to say the least. It is also kind of hard to be a member of the Hussites…your church executed the leader and it had a hard time really taking off after that…
Once again, I do not recognize your churches authority. Just because one group is saying they have infallible teachings, does not mean the rest of us agree obviously. So please, for the sake of civil discourse, drop that any Christian has to justify their actions to a church they are not a member of.
Maybe…your church should answer to us! Since we follow the Bible…
See, I did not THINK you would like that…grin…trying to keep it light. *

The RCC should answer to your “johnny-come-lately” church? Why? Because you say so? Based on what authority? That is the whole issue with non-Catholics,refusal to accept authority,which has caused divisions,splits, and factions due to not obeying a church with authority. It is all about: We will do it our way.

You follow the Bible? Show me where Jesus gave mere men the authority to ‘create’ their own church based on private interpretation of scripture? Scripture does not teach how one can build their own church,but how to FOLLOW the one founded by Jesus,not some church founded by man/woman centuries later.
 
Rightlydivide said:
The Didache does support the view it was a meal. Of course that coincides with Paul as well. Perhaps you should look at the very next verse.
No, the early church choose their own leaders. That is a matter of history. That actually changed around the fourth century. Surely this is not new information to you. The Didache shows the pattern. Paul’s letter to Timothy talks about the personal characteristics bishops that people choose are to have.
Yes, apostles appointed people to churches but not all the churches. Clement’s letter confirms the Didache’s view as well. You see, the earliest writings support our view.
Baptism IS by immersion. It is not “fine” as you state. The text simply does not say that. It is only an option another way if water is not available.
Click to expand...
Use the scriptures your referencing. Paul did not teach the Eucharist was just a meal. He very well distinguished it from being just a meal in the letter to the Corinthians.

Where are the scriptures showing that Churches fully appointed clergy? While they may have put forth men, they did not use, or have authority to use, the impostion of hands. You’re basing your statement on a private interpretation of scriptures.

And in the world today, are rivers running by, or through every river? This reminds me of Christ correcting those who held the letter of the law as a burden over people.

You know, scriptures can be an easy read, just as the early Church fathers can be, but some have to read them in a way to fit them to theology. If you read all of either, you’re going to find doctrines that you have to read differently, or deny, because their are very clear Catholic doctrines explained.
 
Nicea325 said:
**How carefully did you read the Apostolic Fathers? Not meant as an accusatory but more rhetorical. Did they believe in the Assumption of Mary? Did they venerate images? Did Eusebius write about how no images were found in churches? Did they choose their own leaders? Lets be fair here. **

Very carefully. Simply because a church fathers does not mention or teach about a specific doctrine,does not mean it is false or ‘invented’ as so many non-Catholics tend to believe. Did St.Paul discuss in deep detail or the theology behind the Trinity or the canon? Does it make false? Jerome wanted to follow the 39 Hebrew canon,but guess what? It is not about private judgment but what the whole church.Jerome set aside his own judgment for the decision/authority of the church. Private judgment runs cirlces in the non-Catholic world,the reason why there exist thousands of different churches.

**
The doctrines I believe are also found in the Apostolic writings. **

Such as?

As it advances to the Ante-Nicene writings a little later, starting around 175 AD lets say, what I believe and what you believe starts to really shape up.

Are you refering to doctrinal development? The Trinity,Incarnation,Canon of scripture,the Assumption of Mary,Infallibility,etc.

Please understand a crucial distinction, the canon is not dependent on man.

Not true.It was dependent on man,because it is not a question of WHO (God) guided the bishops in its determination,but HOW God did it. He chose men to decide the canon. Who gaves us deep theological understanding of the Trinity? Ordained men called bishops through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

** Men DO recognize different truths but that does not make their truth…Truth.**

Exactly! Precisely why Jesus left a Church with authority and infallible. It is absurd to believe we have an infallible book called the Bible,but the very church which formulated the canon was fallible. That would bring the entire canon into question and serious issues.

**I do not think you can historically prove the distinctions that exist between us prior to around 200 AD. **

Based on what?

There is only ONE that I can think of and I will readily admit…I am sure it will be brought up. However, documents like the Didache support a meal instead of a religious ceremony and local choosing of bishops by individual churches and baptism by full immersion UNLESS it was not available

The Didache was more a guidebook and it was not said it was ‘the’ official book of the church. As for the meal? Exactly the Lord’s Supper is a sacrificial meal and read what it meant to the early Christians. It was a religious ceremony,not just a routine meal.
Click to expand...
There is no doctrinal development possible on issues of history. Do you agree or not?
On matters of theology, yes. Who said anything about a routine meal? Did I use the word routine? Please keep your adjectives out of my sentences!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prodigal Son1
Rightlydivide,

Did the Protestant choice of canons bring all groups together?

Absolutely not. Neither did the Catholic canon. Or the Orthodox canon either. No, I am not sure why you would think that it would.

Oh but isn’t it amazing the NT is all the same? :confused:
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Use the scriptures your referencing. Paul did not teach the Eucharist was just a meal. He very well distinguished it from being just a meal in the letter to the Corinthians.

Where are the scriptures showing that Churches fully appointed clergy? While they may have put forth men, they did not use, or have authority to use, the impostion of hands. You’re basing your statement on a private interpretation of scriptures.

And in the world today, are rivers running by, or through every river? This reminds me of Christ correcting those who held the letter of the law as a burden over people.

You know, scriptures can be an easy read, just as the early Church fathers can be, but some have to read them in a way to fit them to theology. If you read all of either, you’re going to find doctrines that you have to read differently, or deny, because their are very clear Catholic doctrines explained.
Click to expand...
Paul absolutely taught it was a meal. Thats why he admonished them for treating it like a common meal instead of what it was. Drop the “just” part. Do not put adjectives in where I do not. I would not and have not done that to you.
As far the imposition of hands, that was done by the church sending people out. That is why they are warned to not do it hastily.
Scripture never says that the hands have to come from someone who had hands laid on them before. IF it did, then Catholics would have a case but they do not. Because, it is not in there.
 
Rightlydivide said:
Paul absolutely taught it was a meal. Thats why he admonished them for treating it like a common meal instead of what it was. Drop the “just” part. Do not put adjectives in where I do not. I would not and have not done that to you.
As far the imposition of hands, that was done by the church sending people out. That is why they are warned to not do it hastily.
Scripture never says that the hands have to come from someone who had hands laid on them before. IF it did, then Catholics would have a case but they do not. Because, it is not in there.
Click to expand...
Paul did not teach it was just a meal. He said if you’re hungry do you not have homes to eat in.

Those that were warned were appointed men of the Church.

Show me one example of anyone without authority imposing hands. I don’t think you can, because it is not in there. :rolleyes:
 
Nicea325 said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prodigal Son1
Rightlydivide,

Did the Protestant choice of canons bring all groups together?

Absolutely not. Neither did the Catholic canon. Or the Orthodox canon either. No, I am not sure why you would think that it would.

Oh but isn’t it amazing the NT is all the same? :confused:
Click to expand...
I believe he was referencing doctrinal differences though. What are you confused about? Thanks.
 
Nicea325 said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prodigal Son1
Rightlydivide,

Did the Protestant choice of canons bring all groups together?

Absolutely not. Neither did the Catholic canon. Or the Orthodox canon either. No, I am not sure why you would think that it would.

Oh but isn’t it amazing the NT is all the same? :confused:
Click to expand...
But in this very thread you said not all use the Catholic canon and the Catholic canon did not bring all the groups together. You reject one by a measure to take another that is no better. That’s my point.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Paul did not teach it was just a meal. He said if you’re hungry do you not have homes to eat in.

Those that were warned were appointed men of the Church.

Show me one example of anyone without authority imposing hands. I don’t think you can, because it is not in there. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Since you insist you using just. I can clearly state that I would never refer to it as just a meal. The reason he said that is because the way they were conducting themselves. People were starting ahead of one another. Clearly you see that everyone is to eat at the same time…when was the last time that occured in your church?

What do you mean by authority? Churches had authority and they imposed hands. They had the authority to send out people from their congregation…kind of like my church does and almost all of Christianity.
The apostles laid hands but it does not say they had to lay hands only.
The presbytery laid hands, but it does not say they had hands laid on them prior.
Who does Ananias get his authority to lay hands on Paul? God.
 
Rightlydivide said:
I do not feel like any group has to justify anything to the Catholic Church. That is presumptious to say the least. It is also kind of hard to be a member of the Hussites…your church executed the leader and it had a hard time really taking off after that…
Click to expand...
It was his own congregation who killed him, when his Bishop was too slow in removing him from their parish.
Once again, I do not recognize your churches authority.
Click to expand...
Neither did Hus’s own congregation - they took matters into their own hands, without waiting for the Bishop.
 
Rightlydivide said:
Since you insist you using just. I can clearly state that I would never refer to it as just a meal. The reason he said that is because the way they were conducting themselves. People were starting ahead of one another. Clearly you see that everyone is to eat at the same time…when was the last time that occured in your church?

What do you mean by authority? Churches had authority and they imposed hands. They had the authority to send out people from their congregation…kind of like my church does and almost all of Christianity.
The apostles laid hands but it does not say they had to lay hands only.
The presbytery laid hands, but it does not say they had hands laid on them prior.
Who does Ananias get his authority to lay hands on Paul? God.
Click to expand...
Ananias got his authority from the Apostles. God recognized the authority that the Apostles had given to Ananias, because of His own promise to the Apostles, that what they bind on earth is bound in heaven, and what they loose on earth is loosed in heaven.

Ananias was not an independent church of his own, apart from the Apostles. If he had been, Saul of Tarsus would not have had any reason to seek him out, either to kill him in the first place, nor to be baptized by him in the second place.

If Christianity at the time of St. Paul had been nothing but a scattered diversity of individual believers having no material connection to each other, there would have been nothing for either the Roman or the Jewish authorities either to be offended by, or to seek out and attempt to destroy.
 
jmcrae said:
Ananias got his authority from the Apostles. God recognized the authority that the Apostles had given to Ananias, because of His own promise to the Apostles, that what they bind on earth is bound in heaven, and what they loose on earth is loosed in heaven.

Ananias was not an independent church of his own, apart from the Apostles. If he had been, Saul of Tarsus would not have had any reason to seek him out, either to kill him in the first place, nor to be baptized by him in the second place.

If Christianity at the time of St. Paul had been nothing but a scattered diversity of individual believers having no material connection to each other, there would have been nothing for either the Roman or the Jewish authorities either to be offended by, or to seek out and attempt to destroy.
Click to expand...
That is NOT what occurs in Acts 9.
The rest of this post is very presumptious. I never said he was “apart” from the apostles. Did I? I said there is no evidence they laid hands on him. I never said the early churches had no “material” (what does that mean exactly) connection to each other.
I have said enough without people reading their preconceived arguments into what I have actually said.
 
jmcrae said:
It was his own congregation who killed him, when his Bishop was too slow in removing him from their parish.

Neither did Hus’s own congregation - they took matters into their own hands, without waiting for the Bishop.
Click to expand...
What source are you using?
 
Rightlydivide said:
That is NOT what occurs in Acts 9.
The rest of this post is very presumptious. I never said he was “apart” from the apostles. Did I? I said there is no evidence they laid hands on him.
Click to expand...
What are you considering to be “evidence”? Yes, we don’t see a written out scene with the Apostles laying hands specifically on him and sending him forth (although we certainly see them laying hands on the ones being sent forth, every time we see them sending someone forth); however, we do see that he knows who the Apostles are, and that he considers the laying on of hands to be an essential rite (which means that it must also have been done to him, as well; otherwise, he would have considered it optional).
 
jmcrae said:
What are you considering to be “evidence”? Yes, we don’t see a written out scene with the Apostles laying hands specifically on him and sending him forth (although we certainly see them laying hands on the ones being sent forth, every time we see them sending someone forth); however, we do see that he knows who the Apostles are, and that he considers the laying on of hands to be an essential rite (which means that it must also have been done to him, as well; otherwise, he would have considered it optional).
Click to expand...
We also see the presbyter laying hands.
I mean there is nothing to prove your point. I am not the one claiming it must it must be some kind of direct line. The burden of proof is not on me. All I know is it does not say that.
 
jmcrae said:
It’s from a talk that I heard on the subject of pre-Reformation heresies, given by Ron Seminoff. 🙂
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure the Bishop spoke at his trial…almost positive. But I am bookless right now. I can get it later if it is a big deal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top