Authority in Catholicism and Protestantism..

[JaKael02]

Brandon,

I can’t help but think your motive for being in this forum is to persuade every Catholic has blind faith (aka Superstition) only.

Your thread does not seem to have a central theme except to persuade others to reason alone.

Am I mis-reading your posts?

I don’t mean to come off wrong. Trying to understand your thesis better.

Kind regards,

James

 

[anthony022071]

Originally Posted by PRmerger:

Well, if we’re really emphasizing the “alone” part, Catholics profess that it’s through CHRIST alone that we are saved.

That’s not entirely true. We believe that we are also saved through the Catholic Church and the Eucharist,both of which are the Body of Christ. And we believe that we are saved through both faith and good works.

I adhere to the solas as accurate of biblical teaching: By Grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, for the glory of God alone.

That is not biblical teaching. When Jesus was asked what is necessary to inherit eternal life,he answered with the commandments (Mark 10,17-23). Grace is spiritual help from God which strenghens us from within to obey his commandments. It is the presence of the Spirit of Christ within us. It is not merely an unmerited favor and it is not a free pass to heaven.

It does not make sense to say “Christ alone” as if it meant that Christ stands alone in heaven,apart from his angels and saints and his mother in heaven,and from his Church,
and they do not participate in his work of salvation.

 

[JaKael02]

I’m with the understanding that the top theologians in the world (Catholic & Protestant), rarely debate the differences between justification. Mostly because the differences are largely semantics.

The differences for common folks and non-theologians seems to be greater than it really is. Thus continues to cause division between the two sides.

Anybody else have heard similiar?

 

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by PRmerger:

Well, if we’re really emphasizing the “alone” part, Catholics profess that it’s through CHRIST alone that we are saved.

That’s not entirely true.

Yeah, and that’s why I offered the explanation of Jesus Alone, which you curiously omitted.

The only “ALONE” we proffer is JESUS ALONE, but, of course, we see that this doesn’t really mean Jesus only.

 

[PRmerger]

And this comment is further evidence that you do not understand what I’m trying to say.

Clearly.

Alright. Well, it’s been nice talking to you.

:sad_bye:

 

[Nicea325]

Lincoln7:

On dating Clement, I think there is liberty on this, I’ve always been convinced by a slightly later date at the very end of the first century personally. Regardless of its date, it’s internal evidence of multiplicity of elders, not to mention the reference noted in Hermas of Clements job being to present information to the plurality of presbyters who lead the church make for a strong case.

Again, the position of mulitplicity of elders is a serious Protestant misconception and I’ll tell you why. You have stated numerous times the usage of “we” among the text;however, this is where many opponents of the papacy fall of the map. First, the very doctrine of Papal Infallibility implies the pope can never act apart from the general teaching of the church.Second, when popes used the plural “we” they were not only using the majestic plural,but they had gathered into their utterances with a special closeness a portion of that great whole church [the Church] in whose name they were justified in speaking. Third, the primacy which belongs strictly to the Bishop of Rome,as the successor of Peter,is often attributed to,not to the Bishop of Rome,but to the Church of Rome.

Likewise, it should also be noted that Paul frequently used the plural “we” without ever placing his individual authority in question (e.g.,1 Cor 1:23; 4:10; 2 Cor 1:24;8:1;Gal 1:8). Was Paul advocating the Protestant position of not one head bishop, because he uses the term “we” in scripture?

I’m not advocating they fabricated it, but that they simply got this one wrong.

Based on what ancient primary sources?

Considerinng the lists come 100 years after the letter was sent, if we accept your AD80 date, it’s entirely plausible.

And the first letter of the NT was written about 20-25 years after Christ? Are we to question whether the epistle is authentic?

Bishop and presbytr ar interchangeable at this stage, they are equal.

Yes such is the case today where all bishops are priest.

They are quite right clement probably sent the letter, but his role was not of monarchial bishop.

You have not provided a single shred of ancient historical evidence clearly stating Clement was NOT a monarchial bishop. I gave an explanation of where your position lacks deeper insight. Paul used the term “we” does he consider his authority less?

I recommended a small work by Luise Ambrowski earlier in a post, if you have journal site access/a good library near you I’d recommend it, it deals with the lists on succession rather well.

Will look into it,but I have sources which come straight from the mouth of men who lived much closer to the Apostles.

 

[Nicea325]

Lincoln7:

Yes the church is in place, I don’t debate this Gary. I’m not among the crowd who advocate that the church disappears in about 100 and never surfaces again until 1517… Im in the camp tht during this period clarity on the essential truth of the gospel gradually became more obscured, hence the need for the reformation. Hence the Protestant call to** return to scripture as the guide for the church.**

Where does Jesus,the 12 or Scripture teach: Scripture is “the” guide for the church?

Who guided the church before anyone wrote a single word?

 

[JaKael02]

Lincoln7:

Again, the position of mulitplicity of elders is a serious Protestant misconception and I’ll tell you why. You have stated numerous times the usage of “we” among the text;however, this is where many opponents of the papacy fall of the map. First, the very doctrine of Papal Infallibility implies the pope can never act apart from the general teaching of the church.Second, when popes used the plural “we” they were not only using the majestic plural,but they had gathered into their utterances with a special closeness a portion of that great whole church [the Church] in whose name they were justified in speaking. Third, the primacy which belongs strictly to the Bishop of Rome,as the successor of Peter,is often attributed to,not to the Bishop of Rome,but to the Church of Rome.

Nicea,

Great response. Lincoln has done a fantastic job of arguing for the plurality of bishops in Rome, however your response is the best response yet to that argument.

It appears Lincoln is wanting some written proof of one single leader in Rome from the death of Peter to shortly after Pope Clement.

Does this exist?

Kind Regards,

James

 

[Lincoln7]

Hi Anothony,

That is not biblical teaching. When Jesus was asked what is necessary to inherit eternal life,he answered with the commandments (Mark 10,17-23). Grace is spiritual help from God which strenghens us from within to obey his commandments. It is the presence of the Spirit of Christ within us. It is not merely an unmerited favor and it is not a free pass to heaven.

Indeed, can you fulfil these commands? The Lord says this to show the young man his utter inability to ever fulfil the commands perfectly… As such he must look for a righteousness that comes from elsewhere. “our Lord’s drift, eternal life is never to be obtained by the works of the law.” - Gills exposition of the bible, see it here: bible.cc/mark/10-19.htm
Or Calvin here: m.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom32.ii.lxx.html
Free pass to heaven? I see God’s grace in justifying the believer freely by grace alone through faith alone a wonderful and most comforting truth of scripture, which leads one to a profound love for God, leading to daily repentance; a new love for God and a hatred of sin.

It does not make sense to say “Christ alone” as if it meant that Christ stands alone in heaven,apart from his angels and saints and his mother in heaven,and from his Church, and they do not participate in his work of salvation.

Solus Christus means I put all my hope and trust for salvation in Christ alone, and not in any others, not in my own works done in righteousness, but in his mercy and love (Titus 3:5)

Regards

Lincs.

 

[Lincoln7]

Nicea,

I apologise I don’t have time tonight (9:30pm here) to reply with a good response, which the effort you have clearly put into a cracking response deserves, as I’m off out. One should come your way, Lord willing, in a few hours or in the morning!

Regards

Lincs.

 

[JaKael02]

So you present an argument that revelation can be more reliable than reason. But your argument is developed by human reason (in this case, some interpretation of Pascal to apply to our conversation).

Either you accept revelation on blind faith (which it seems as though you do, right here!), or you have reasons for accepting revelation. If you have reasons for accepting revelation, and the reasons are wrong, it is possible that the revelation is still right, but how would you know, except by blind faith?

Pre-Note: Faith & Reason are completely compatible with one another and do not contradict one another.

Faith > Reason

Why? Faith is greater than reason because we can have a better knowledge of God via “Grace” than via reason. (St. Thomas Acquinas) This is not “Blind Faith”, it is called “Grace”.

John 10:14: “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me.” - NIV

This is because his sheep have grace. “Aka…gifts of the holy spirit.” One of those gifts are “Understanding”.

What is Understanding?

Understanding – (Understanding > faith) helps those who have it penetrate to the heart of revealed truth even when they do not fully understand its entire meaning. It gives great confidence in the revealed word of God and leads those who have it to reach true conclusions from revealed principles.

There is much more to this life than reason alone.

Kind Regards,

James

 

[mackbrislawn]

Lincoln7;9276736]Mackbrislawn,

Indeed. I stand with the reformers, you with Rome.

I thought you stood with scripture.

I see this pattern as simply that presented in the NT, I would appeal to numerous passages in the pastorals for this, the immediate example that springs to mind for example, being 1 Thessalonians 5, in which Paul expresses his desire for the church to obey their leaders (vs 12), and also indicates the church still practices the gift of prophecy (vs 19-21).

Were they elders? It may not matter. What I want to know is how these leaders got the power to be “over you in the Lord,” as the RSV has it.

Something funny about these prophetic utterances. If they are truly prophetic utterances from the Spirit, they would not need to be tested. However, Paul says to test them, hold fast to what is good. Strange.

We strive to align ourselves with the infallible scriptures and the model of the Apostles yes, as the old motto goes… Eclessia Semper Reformanda Est. On the constructing the NT, I’ve stated how I view canon development, and again refer people to "The Heresy of Orthodoxy

".

Yes, I guess I haven’t followed your posts on canon development. I’m informed a lot by Lee McDonald’s The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon.

Actually, I don’t really see how it is possible to recreate the early church. The early elders were appointed by apostles, but obviously present day elders are not. So, how did those today get to be legitimate elders? And “over you in the Lord”?

I gotta get The Heresy of Orthodoxy. I take it is a refutation of Walter Bauer?

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea,

I apologise I don’t have time tonight (9:30pm here) to reply with a good response, which the effort you have clearly put into a cracking response deserves, as I’m off out. One should come your way, Lord willing, in a few hours or in the morning!

Regards

Lincs.

My brother in Christ, I understand and by all means I admire and respect your efforts and beliefs. God bless you.

 

[Lincoln7]

Nicea,

Again, the position of mulitplicity of elders is a serious Protestant misconception and I’ll tell you why. You have stated numerous times the usage of “we” among the text;however, this is where many opponents of the papacy fall of the map. First, the very doctrine of Papal Infallibility implies the pope can never act apart from the general teaching of the church.Second, when popes used the plural “we” they were not only using the majestic plural,but they had gathered into their utterances with a special closeness a portion of that great whole church [the Church] in whose name they were justified in speaking. Third, the primacy which belongs strictly to the Bishop of Rome,as the successor of Peter,is often attributed to,not to the Bishop of Rome,but to the Church of Rome.

The idea of the “royal we” as I will call it, in Clement has been dismissed by most, it is a later tradition for monarchial offices to use such a “we”, and appears not the attention of Clement.(1). Rather his usage of the “we” is simply one which asserts the multiple presbyters have concluded communally on an issue. The idea of multiple presbyters governing the church of Corinth is supported internally by the text. If we assume a late first century dating for Clement, which I think is the majority position(2), this fits well; "Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them." - 1 Clem 44:4 - earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-roberts.html
As such internally the document testifies that Corinth has been governed by multiplicities of presbyters, as opposed to a single monarchial bishop, meaning that the episcopal model was not as yet a universal one. It is present in some areas and not in others. (3)

Hermas testimony of clement states: "So Clement shall send to the foreign cities, for this is his duty; while Grapte shall instruct the widows and the orphans. But thou shalt read (the book) to this city along with the elders that preside over the Church." - earlychristianwritings.com/text/shepherd-lightfoot.html

Clement sends things to foreign cities, but one copy of the work is to be read in this city (Rome), which as Hermas states: has a plurality of elders governing it. The monarchial episcopal model was not yet in Rome at the time of Hermas’ writing, but plurality eldership (3b) dated around 100-160AD. (4)

Likewise, it should also be noted that Paul frequently used the plural “we” without ever placing his individual authority in question (e.g.,1 Cor 1:23; 4:10; 2 Cor 1:24;8:1;Gal 1:8). Was Paul advocating the Protestant position of not one head bishop, because he uses the term “we” in scripture?

Some of these verses however I think don’t completely show this though: 1 Cor 1:23 and 4:10 testify to the entire apostolic ministry, Paul is speaking of the apostles as a whole here, hence chapter 4 is subtitled in my ESV as “the ministry of the apostles”. Paul here if anything is demonstrating an equality in the apostles. I will grant though that in the passage from 2 Corinthians Paul uses the “we” as reference to himself, Timothy and Silvanus and I still happily admit his position of leadership amongst them. So yes, you’re quite correct, the plural “we” can be used by those in authority, but my reasons for not seeing clement in such a manner are as I’ve said above, internally it speaks clearly of plurality government. However I must note I think Paul here has every right to claim as much, as an Apostle of Jesus Christ, commissioned by Him. Remember, I do not debate strong church government with you, just the idea that the episcopal model was present in Rome prior to the mid second century.

Based on what ancient primary sources?

Textual study of the ones we are discussing, I refer you again to that article by Louise Ambrowski for this one.

And the first letter of the NT was written about 20-25 years after Christ? Are we to question whether the epistle is authentic?

I suppose this would come down to the difference that scripture is God breathed, infallible and Apostolic, these works are not. By no means do I advocate them as all utterly wrong, simply they are not inspired.

Yes such is the case today where all bishops are priest.

Quite so, I mean to say that how they are used in clement and in Hermas denotes no difference in role, one is not higher than the other at this point, see the Lampe extract again at: beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/this-bridge-should-be-illuminated.html

Continued…

1 - ww.w.studylight.org/his/ecf/view.cgi?sid=ant&aid=01-01%20,%2008-03
2 - earlychristianwritings.com/1clement.html
3 - Peter Lampe, from Paul to Valentius, on: beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/this-bridge-should-be-illuminated.html
3b - Peter Lampe, from Paul to Valentius, on: beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/this-bridge-should-be-illuminated.html
4 - earlychristianwritings.com/shepherd.html

 

[Lincoln7]

You have not provided a single shred of ancient historical evidence clearly stating Clement was NOT a monarchial bishop. I gave an explanation of where your position lacks deeper insight. Paul used the term “we” does he consider his authority less?

I have given my musings on this above, but to continue with evidence that means I hold the view I do, let’s look at some other sources that Lampe lists in his pretty extensive work; Ignatius of Antioch, renowned for his support and writings on the office of bishop, in his letter to the Romans, makes no mention of a monarchial bishop, which I find most odd if one is present: earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-romans-lightfoot.html (5).

So my evidence then, is the clear description by Hermas of plurality government in Rome, specifically relating to the period we are discussing. The plural nature of the letter itself mentioned in the first line “the church that is in Rome…” sends the letter, not a single individual. And the absence in the Ignatian material sent to Rome of a bishop (6), most unusual considering Ignatius’ fame for his praise of said role.

Regards

Lincs.

5 - Peter Lampe, from Paul to Valentius, on: beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/this-bridge-should-be-illuminated.html
6 - Peter Lampe, from Paul to Valentius, on: beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/this-bridge-should-be-illuminated.html

 

[Lincoln7]

Mackbrislawn,

I thought you stood with scripture.

Doesn’t preclude teachers, among whom are the reformers, who I look up to as greater teachers and expositors than myself

Were they elders? It may not matter. What I want to know is how these leaders got the power to be “over you in the Lord,” as the RSV has it.

They felt a calling from God to help pastor people, we’re gifted by the Holy Spirit for it and we’re instructed by Godly men for ministry. They were encouraged by members of the congregation to become elders.

Yes, I guess I haven’t followed your posts on canon development. I’m informed a lot by Lee McDonald’s The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon.

Actually, I don’t really see how it is possible to recreate the early church. The early elders were appointed by apostles, but obviously present day elders are not. So, how did those today get to be legitimate elders? And “over you in the Lord”?

I do not have this book, will have to get a hold of it See above for my elders bit.

I gotta get The Heresy of Orthodoxy. I take it is a refutation of Walter Bauer?

You guessed it Well worth a read.

Regards

Lincs.

 

[PRmerger]

Hiya, Lincs,

I hope you are not put off by my request to give me your statistic for the actual number of Christian denominations…but I notice you did not address this?

I assure you that this is a sincere request and I will absolutely use your demographic, should I find it valid.

Thanks!

 

[GaryTaylor]

Ignatius of Antioch-Apostolic Fathers, states…

“Let us follow the Bishop, as Jesus Christ follows His Father. and the college of presbyters as the Apostles; respect the deacons as you do Gods law. Let no one do anything concerning the Church is seperation from the Bishop”.

Hermas is Void, its to no avail in this converstion. You are reading websights which range from “speculation to pure heresy”. I read all beggarsallreformation last night…drival.

They go as far as to state Paul was never even an Apostle. There theory on Irenaus and Tertullian in Apostolic Succession is based on misunderstanding, which then reached an incorrect conclusion. They state Peter wasn’t even in Rome but possibly for two years and their is no evidence of Martydom… Testimony of his martyrdom is extensive, including Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, St. Clement I of Rome, St. Ignatius, and St. Irenaeus.

That websight is a circus of misinformation with a sole purpose to create “doubt”.

Tertullian confirms the Apostolic Succession in his work Against all Heresies. He dosen’t give the “order” of Apostolic Succession but states Clement was chosen by Peter which we have shown very early on this thread, Peter chose the first Few in succession.

And of course we know what Tertullian state’s about the Shepard, it would be admitted if it hadn’t been deemed “false” already.

Then the web sight claims “conspiracy” by Rome to gain control by controlling the heresies, which in itself is a heretical statement. In the first few centuries the writtings all come from the Eastern Saints, what control was sought by the East? Rome was a killing field. All those from the East further indicate the reality of Rome.

 

[Lincoln7]

Hi Gary,

Let us follow the Bishop, as Jesus Christ follows His Father. and the college of presbyters as the Apostles; respect the deacons as you do Gods law. Let no one do anything concerning the Church is seperation from the Bishop".

Quite so, I’m just saying he never says anything like this to the Roman church of his time.

Hermas is Void, its to no avail in this converstion. You are reading websights which range from “speculation to pure heresy”. I read all beggarsallreformation last night…drival.

I think you misunderstand my quoting of Hermas Gary, I’m not using it an an inspired source, I use it simply as it is a historical document, and has a message to convey… The same way I use Pliny in conversation about Christianity; it’s historical witness. Do you mean Beggers all is “trivial” or early Christian writings is?

That websight is a circus of misinformation with a sole purpose to create “doubt”.

Again, Beggars all or Erly Christian writings? The latter I don’t use for its historical notes, I use it because it has multiple free translations of the sources I need available. I will use ccel in the future.

Then the web sight claims “conspiracy” by Rome to gain control by controlling the heresies, which in itself is a heretical statement. In the first few centuries the writtings all come from the Eastern Saints, what control was sought by the East? Rome was a killing field. All those from the East further indicate the reality of Rome.

If you mean early Christian writings, then I would debate that conclusion heavily. The book “The heresy of orthodoxy” I recommend a lot is written solely to debate that hypothesis.

So yeah some clarity on what site you mean would help Gary, I’m a tad confused, I apologise.

Lincs.

 

[Lincoln7]

Hiya, Lincs,

I hope you are not put off by my request to give me your statistic for the actual number of Christian denominations…but I notice you did not address this?

I assure you that this is a sincere request and I will absolutely use your demographic, should I find it valid.

Thanks!

Hi PRMerger,

I don’t have an exact figure, but the “tens of thousands” number has been soundly dismissed. The catholic source I posted lists 140. I don’t have the work usually cited for numbers however, it’s too expensive!

But no worries about asking, you are quite right to do so ofc

Lincs.