Authority in Catholicism and Protestantism..

[mackbrislawn]

I’Lincoln7;9281078]Mackbrislawn,

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

I see. Now, why do you think of them as greater teachers than yourself? Are they gifted by the Holy Spirit to understand scripture, as per below?

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.

But you had also pointed out they were appointed by Paul, therefore chosen by him, not by the congregation. Scripture doesn’t say they felt a calling, and who were these Godly men? If they were instructed by Godly men, one would think these men were themselves elders. Gifted by the Holy Spirit–that is simply an assumption.

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

Now, scripture indicates elders are over the others in the Lord. What does that mean? It’s pretty strong language. One would think that if they are over me in the Lord, the Lord has somehow given them that office.

You guessed it Well worth a read.

I’ll try to read a copy.

 

[GaryTaylor]

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

Thats his direct quote. Epistle to the Smyrnians Chaper 8, 1, So what would a different system apply to Rome where he marched off to be executed?

Chaper 7

Then he states to Antioch; “You have been the disciples of Paul and Peter[Those in Rome]; do not lose what was committed to your trust. Keep in remembrance Euodias, your deservedly-blessed pastor, into whose hands the government over you was first entrusted by the apostles.”

Chaper 8

“You presbyters, feed the flock which is among you”

What is he saying? Is it not…“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.”

I think you misunderstand my quoting of Hermas Gary, I’m not using it an an inspired source, I use it simply as it is a historical document, and has a message to convey… The same way I use Pliny in conversation about Christianity; it’s historical witness.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

Beggers, Hermas is fine personally I find it lacking. It has a historic value, but what actually is that value? It quickly fell out of favor in the church and soon to disappeared. No one knows who the author is or when it was written. We have to speculate without concrete evidence.

Christian writings is better IMHO anyway. Then they still need to be crossed with New Advent since all the same info is also there. Then of course Bible.

Again, Beggars

Yes, you don’t find that sight way over the line. Little much for me there.

The book “The heresy of orthodoxy” I recommend a lot is written solely to debate that hypothesis. .

I’ve read it, we disagree on its value. It entertains the same basic thinking as is being discussed by you. Not a big deal though, just something to discuss.

This is very old debate we have entered into, rehashed a very long time after the fact. What I would refer to at this point is; Father Hardin Archieves Chapter III Petrine Primacy

therealpresence.org

In any event both the early recorded history of the church and the uncontested Tradition place Peter as first Bishop of Antioch then of Rome. Where he died under Nero. Peters function in the early community as the “Rock” holding the “Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven” and "Strengthening his brethren, being a sociological as well as theologocal necessity, continued after him, as we see with Ignatius of Antioch. This is the why all the early Christians including the East were either heading there, defending it, or writting about it.

What other Apostle was designated by Divine Authority? Cousre I disagree with beggers that Paul wasn’t an Apostle. I’m sure you do also. I am of the belief he encountered the Lord in a Vision. These Visions really do happen. Not often, and never for most.

However…

Even when Peter and Paul argue Galatians 2;14, Paul admits there is higher authority to appeal 1-Corinthians 9:5 and its Peter whom Paul was sent to see after His converstion. 1-Corinthians 15:5

Caius a very valuable outside source provides evidence of the deaths of St. Peter and Paul at Rome in his historic works.

Ireneauis, Tertullian, and Hegesippus all record the Petrine Succession.

Honestly I fail to see the arguement. I would read Father Hardin though for he places the points of contention in perspective.

I have to run out, talk soon Linc. Interesting for sure.

Peace

 

[GaryTaylor]

Here’s the complete work by Fr Hardin

google.com/url?q=http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Papacy.htm&sa=U&ei=NuKrT4O2GKmX6QHylqGoBA&ved=0CBYQFjAB&sig2=WncXnyijaXespqFzp2eUYA&usg=AFQjCNENgYPp5k240rAAZlHQXaWu8r4S6g

 

[Lincoln7]

Gary,

Thats his direct quote. Epistle to the Smyrnians Chaper 8, 1, So what would a different system apply to Rome where he marched off to be executed?

Yes it’s his epistle to the Smyrnians not the Romans, his letter to the Romans makes no such mention of a bishop. My whole point on this was his silence in conjunction with the other evidence cited demonstrate the episcopal model was not in Rome at this point…

Beggers, Hermas is fine personally I find it lacking. It has a historic value, but what actually is that value? It quickly fell out of favor in the church and soon to disappeared. No one knows who the author is or when it was written. We have to speculate without concrete evidence.

Hmm personally I have found it a most excellent blog. Yes it did, I’m not debating that, but the purely historical evidence it does give us is rather important for this topic.

What other Apostle was designated by Divine Authority? Cousre I disagree with beggers that Paul wasn’t an Apostle. I’m sure you do also. I am of the belief he encountered the Lord in a Vision. These Visions really do happen. Not often, and never for most.

I’m a tad confused Gary where you have found a blog post by any of the authors over there that says Paul wasn’t an apostle? They heartily affirm him as an apostle!

Regards

Lincs.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Gary where you have found a blog post by any of the authors over there that says Paul wasn’t an apostle? They heartily affirm him as an apostle

Its on the beggers sight, I would have to re-read it since I didn’t save anything from it. However, its not a point of contention. So that will spare me the effort. I read much of it last night, it was an experience. Christian writers I believe we talkied about already at some point. Better sight IMO.

I have to re-read Fr Hardins work. He brings this arguement into focus clearer. I have a few things going on so I’ll need time.

Peace

 

[Lincoln7]

Its on the beggers sight, I would have to re-read it since I didn’t save anything from it. However, its not a point of contention. So that will spare me the effort. I read much of it last night, it was an experience. Christian writers I believe we talkied about already at some point. Better sight IMO.

I have to re-read Fr Hardins work. He brings this arguement into focus clearer. I have a few things going on so I’ll need time.

Peace

Ok, with respect though Gary I know all of them there affirm his apostleship! Are you sure it wasn’t a quotation from someone as a discussion point maybe, or an anonymous comment?

Take your time, we all have lives to live outside of CAF

Lincs.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Ok, with respect though Gary I know all of them there affirm his apostleship! Are you sure it wasn’t a quotation from someone as a discussion point maybe, or an anonymous comment?

Take your time, we all have lives to live outside of CAF

Lincs.

See, I’m thinking the Fathers work here.

In another passage of his work, however, Irenaeus wrote of the necessity for every Church to agree doctrinally with the Church of Rome, the greatest, the best known and most ancient of all.

For to this church on account of her more powerful principality it is necessary that every church should agree (or come together), that is the faithful from everywhere, in which, always, that which is the tradition from the Apostles has been preserved by those who are from everywhere.

Among the apostolic Churches, only the Church of Rome was so distinguished. It is not impossible that the reason for this was a belief in the primacy of the papal magisterium.

I see your points Linc.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Course the Father then used St Augustine a few time to elaborate.

With respect to Augustine, there are passages from his writings which indicate that he believed in the magisterial primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Underlying this conviction was his belief in the primacy of Peter.

In his work on the Gospel of John, he declared that Peter was the first of the Apostles. [85] In a sermon, he stated that Peter held the chief place in the apostleship. [86] In another work, it was held that the same chair in which Peter sat in Rome was that occupied in Augustine’s day by Pope Anastasius. [87]

Communion with the See of Peter was considered necessary for inclusion in the Catholic Church.

Why! a ****** that is cut off from the vine retains its shape. But what use is that shape, if it is not living from the root? come, brothers, if you wish to be engrafted in the vine. It is grievous when we see you thus lying cut off. Number the priests (i.e., bishops) even from the see of Peter itself. And in that order of fathers see who to whom succeeded: that is the rock which the proud gates of hades do not conquer. [88]
The popes therefore were regarded as the successors of the rock against which the gates of hell would not prevail. As Peter was necessary for the stability of the Catholic Church, so were the Bishops of Rome.

Course he goes on in Augustine and scripture.

You make a good point through Linc.

 

[Nicea325]

Lincoln7:

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.

According to who? Opponents of the papacy?

Rather his usage of the “we” is simply one which asserts the multiple presbyters have concluded communally on an issue.

Key word: asserts…not a concrete fact. No where does the text state the church is governed by multiple presbyters. It is merely a conjecture on your part.

The idea of multiple presbyters governing the church of Corinth is supported internally by the text.

Where does it state church structure and that multiple men govern her? Again,you are merely assuming it because the term “we” is used.

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 -

Majority position? According to who? No where does that specific passage refer to the type of church government. It makes references to those who served and have moved on,not the type of governement they operated or established.

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.

Again, where in the text does it explicitly state the church is governed by the numerous presbyters? Once again, you automatically connect it to the plural usage of “we” and believe it is concrete evidence. If the monarchial bishop was not universal,then why would any bishop less than 100 years name Clement as a successor of Peter?

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.” -

Yep! No different than ANY Diocese where more than one bishop runs and operates the local region. How does that negate the fact each Diocese still has ONE head bishop?

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.

Not true and not accurate at all. St. Irenaeus listed the first 14 Popes in “Against Heresies”, 3:3:3, 180 AD.

St. Peter (32-67), Matthew 16:18

• St. Linus (67-76), 2Timothy 4:21
• St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
• **St. Clement I (88-97), **Philippians 4:3

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”.

How does the “ministry of the Apostles” negate their God-given authority? You and I do not have the same authority they did and we would be under their authority given by Christ himself.

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.

Okay, then answer this: If the monarchial episcopate was NOT present until at least 150 AD.,then why the change from a “we” to “single” espicopal structure? When,where and why the change? Do you have writings from early church fathers making an affirmation of this structural change,if it did not exist before the mid-second century?

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

.

Those are secondary sources,why not go straight to the very men who more than likely knew and met the Apostles.

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.

Meaning what? Everything written outside the Bible is to be second guessed? Written off as legends and myths?

Quote:
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.blogspo…luminated.html

The auxiliary bishop here at this specific Diocese is a bishop,but under whose authority? The main bishop.

God Bless my brother in Christ.

 

[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?

 

[Lincoln7]

Nicea,

Key word: asserts…not a concrete fact. No where does the text state the church is governed by multiple presbyters. It is merely a conjecture on your part.

Where does it state church structure and that multiple men govern her? Again,you are merely assuming it because the term “we” is used.

Im not basing any of this on the “we” used in the text, I’m talking about the church in Corinth at the time. Which 1 Clement 44:4 shows to us had a presbyterian style of government:
Blessed are those presbyters who have gone before, seeing that their departure was fruitful and ripe: for they have no fear lest any one should remove them from their appointed place.

Majority position? According to who?

I doubt the dating of the letter is a major bone between us, i simply favour the later date proposed for the letter.

Again, where in the text does it explicitly state the church is governed by the numerous presbyters? Once again, you automatically connect it to the plural usage of “we” and believe it is concrete evidence. If the monarchial bishop was not universal,then why would any bishop less than 100 years name Clement as a successor of Peter?

As I’ve shown above, Corinth was governed by a multiplicity of presbyters, not a monarchial bishop at this stage. Im not basing any of this on the “we”. Perhaps you thought i was talking about Rome?

My point is to show that the monarchial episcopal model was not as yet a universal form of church government, but was one that developed gradually at a later date. Not a meg late one, its in places by the turn of the second century, but even still, at this point its not universal.

On why then was Clement named in the lists of Irenaeus you posted; Check the article by Louise Ambrowski, it is an excellent treatment of his works, and discusses this in depth.

those are secondary sources,why not go straight to the very men who more than likely knew and met the Apostles.

That is what Ambrowski is doing, reading the sources and formulating a position regarding them.

Yep! No different than ANY Diocese where more than one bishop runs and operates the local region. How does that negate the fact each Diocese still has ONE head bishop?

Well as I’ve already stated; the fact that monarchial episcopacy is not as yet a universal custom everywhere, the missing salutation to any bishop in the letter to Rome by Ignatius of antioch, (1) the plurality of the letter and its coming from the church of rome, not a bishop, hence it bears no name. The testimony of Hermas and his description of Clement presenting works to “the elders who preside over the city”… and his lack of meant ion of a single leader, rather always describing Roman leadership in the plural (2).

Meaning what? Everything written outside the Bible is to be second guessed? Written off as legends and myths?

No. I don’t actually say that… my post read that they are not inspired and i said i don’t advocate them as utterly wrong, i simply think it possible they can make mistakes. I’m simply saying they are not infallible.

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

Maybe, with respect my friend, you have a misunderstanding of what i mean by Sola Scriptura. The church is indeed a guide for people, and is authoritative. Tradition is a guide for the church, what i mean is that Scripture is the only infallible guide amongst these. SS is a hermeneutical principle, not a doctrine. If scripture is the word of God and Apostolic preaching in written form, it is naturally that to which teachings are held accountable for.

Lincs.

1 & 2 - Peter Lampe, from Paul to Valentius, on:beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/this-bridge-should-be-illuminated.html

 

[larrysarm27]

I do believe that the Catholic Church is the true church, for it has a central authority to resolve issues in the matters of faith and not individual/personal opinion or interpretation of the head/minister/pastor of each local individual church/sect. Authority is the central point that our Lord Jesus emphasize in the book Matthew. This is only my personal opinion and observation that I concluded that the Catholic is the true church for it has a traditions without much use of the Bible then when printing was not yet available for the first 1200 years when our Lord Jesus Christ founded the true church. Thank you for this space.:

 

[Skeptic92]

Nicea,

Im not basing any of this on the “we” used in the text, I’m talking about the church in Corinth at the time. Which 1 Clement 44:4 shows to us had a presbyterian style of government:
Blessed are those presbyters who have gone before, seeing that their departure was fruitful and ripe: for they have no fear lest any one should remove them from their appointed place.

I doubt the dating of the letter is a major bone between us, i simply favour the later date proposed for the letter.

As I’ve shown above, Corinth was governed by a multiplicity of presbyters, not a monarchial bishop at this stage. Im not basing any of this on the “we”. Perhaps you thought i was talking about Rome?

My point is to show that the monarchial episcopal model was not as yet a universal form of church government, but was one that developed gradually at a later date. Not a meg late one, its in places by the turn of the second century, but even still, at this point its not universal.

On why then was Clement named in the lists of Irenaeus you posted; Check the article by Louise Ambrowski, it is an excellent treatment of his works, and discusses this in depth.

That is what Ambrowski is doing, reading the sources and formulating a position regarding them.

Well as I’ve already stated; the fact that monarchial episcopacy is not as yet a universal custom everywhere, the missing salutation to any bishop in the letter to Rome by Ignatius of antioch, (1) the plurality of the letter and its coming from the church of rome, not a bishop, hence it bears no name. The testimony of Hermas and his description of Clement presenting works to “the elders who preside over the city”… and his lack of meant ion of a single leader, rather always describing Roman leadership in the plural (2).

No. I don’t actually say that… my post read that they are not inspired and i said i don’t advocate them as utterly wrong, i simply think it possible they can make mistakes. I’m simply saying they are not infallible.

Maybe, with respect my friend, you have a misunderstanding of what i mean by Sola Scriptura. The church is indeed a guide for people, and is authoritative. Tradition is a guide for the church, what i mean is that Scripture is the only infallible guide amongst these. SS is a hermeneutical principle, not a doctrine. If scripture is the word of God and Apostolic preaching in written form, it is naturally that to which teachings are held accountable for.

Lincs.

1 & 2 - Peter Lampe, from Paul to Valentius, on:beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/this-bridge-should-be-illuminated.html

I’m sorry that this is such a short reply, but I have seen academic works misquoted throughout that blog (beggarsallreformation), and conclusions taken out of context (we can not criticize a Theologians conclusion, if we don’t know how s/he reached that conclusion). Do you have a possible link to Professor Peter Lampe’s original thesis?

 

[Lincoln7]

I’m sorry that this is such a short reply, but I have seen academic works misquoted throughout that blog (beggarsallreformation), and conclusions taken out of context (we can not criticize a Theologians conclusion, if we don’t know how s/he reached that conclusion). Do you have a possible link to Professor Peter Lampe’s original thesis?

It’s not up online I don’t think, the work by Proffesor Lampe in question is this: amazon.com/From-Paul-Valentinus-Christians-Centuries/dp/0800627024

Lincs.

 

[anthony022071]

Hi Anthony,

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

No,Jesus did not teach that it was impossible to fulfil the commandments perfectly. On the contrary,he said “So be perfect,just as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5,48). But even if we do not fulfil the commandments perfectly,there is also God’s love and mercy,and repentence,forgiveness of sins and purgation. The commandments were given by God for our salvation. Grace is given so that we might fulfill the commandments. The moral commandments are not the ritual works of the law that St. Paul wrote about,and which were given only to the Hebrews. It is true that we must look to the righteousness of Christ,but this righteousness is not imputed to us. We are conformed to it through the Spirit of Christ and obedience to him.

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.

Grace justifies the believer initially,but that is not eternal salvation. The believer must continue to believe and to obey. Grace is not a legal declaration that a person has inherited eternal life. It is not a declaration of anything. It is spiritual help which leads us toward salvation by strengthening us to fulfill the commandments.

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)

That’s good,but the slogan is also wrongly used as a refutation of the Church and intercession by the mother of God and the saints. If you knew that Mary and the saints were alive in heaven with Christ,and that they intercede for us with their prayers,much more powerful than ours,would you refuse to pray to them for help?

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea,

Im not basing any of this on the “we” used in the text, I’m talking about the church in Corinth at the time. Which 1 Clement 44:4 shows to us had a presbyterian style of government:
Blessed are those presbyters who have gone before, seeing that their departure was fruitful and ripe: for they have no fear lest any one should remove them from their appointed place.

I doubt the dating of the letter is a major bone between us, i simply favour the later date proposed for the letter.

As I’ve shown above, Corinth was governed by a multiplicity of presbyters, not a monarchial bishop at this stage. Im not basing any of this on the “we”. Perhaps you thought i was talking about Rome?

My point is to show that the monarchial episcopal model was not as yet a universal form of church government, but was one that developed gradually at a later date. Not a meg late one, its in places by the turn of the second century, but even still, at this point its not universal.

On why then was Clement named in the lists of Irenaeus you posted; Check the article by Louise Ambrowski, it is an excellent treatment of his works, and discusses this in depth.

That is what Ambrowski is doing, reading the sources and formulating a position regarding them.

Well as I’ve already stated; the fact that monarchial episcopacy is not as yet a universal custom everywhere, the missing salutation to any bishop in the letter to Rome by Ignatius of antioch, (1) the plurality of the letter and its coming from the church of rome, not a bishop, hence it bears no name. The testimony of Hermas and his description of Clement presenting works to “the elders who preside over the city”… and his lack of meant ion of a single leader, rather always describing Roman leadership in the plural (2).

No. I don’t actually say that… my post read that they are not inspired and i said i don’t advocate them as utterly wrong, i simply think it possible they can make mistakes. I’m simply saying they are not infallible.

Maybe, with respect my friend, you have a misunderstanding of what i mean by Sola Scriptura. The church is indeed a guide for people, and is authoritative. Tradition is a guide for the church, what i mean is that Scripture is the only infallible guide amongst these. SS is a hermeneutical principle, not a doctrine. If scripture is the word of God and Apostolic preaching in written form, it is naturally that to which teachings are held accountable for.

Lincs.

1 & 2 - Peter Lampe, from Paul to Valentius, on:beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/this-bridge-should-be-illuminated.html

I believe we are going in circles here. However, I do not believe you answered my question clearly:

If the monarchial episcopate was NOT present until at least 150 AD.,then why the change from a “we” to “single” espicopal structure? When,where and why the change? Do you have writings from early church fathers making an affirmation of this structural change,if it did not exist before the mid-second century?

Im not basing any of this on the “we” used in the text, I’m talking about the church in Corinth at the time. Which 1 Clement 44:4 shows to us had a presbyterian style of government:
Blessed are those presbyters who have gone before, seeing that their departure was fruitful and ripe: for they have no fear lest any one should remove them from their appointed place.

Again, I already stated no where within those words does it strictly refer to the type of government…no where. Those words Clement said were not written in defense of the type of government the church of Corinth had set-up. I am sorry,but where within those words are you getting information that the church was governed by multiple elders?

Maybe, with respect my friend, you have a misunderstanding of what i mean by Sola Scriptura. The church is indeed a guide for people, and is authoritative. Tradition is a guide for the church, what i mean is that Scripture is the only infallible guide amongst these. SS is a hermeneutical principle, not a doctrine. If scripture is the word of God and Apostolic preaching in written form, it is naturally that to which teachings are held accountable for.

Where does Scripture teach it is the only infallible guide? You mean the Church Christ founded is fallible? How can a fallible guide (church) give us infallible doctrines: Trinity,Incarnation,etc? Second, who guided the church before anyone wrote a single word?

Peace my brother in Christ!

 

[Lincoln7]

Hi Anthony, hope you’re well.

No,Jesus did not teach that it was impossible to fulfil the commandments perfectly. On the contrary,he said “So be perfect,just as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5,48). But even if we do not fulfil the commandments perfectly,there is also God’s love and mercy,and repentence,forgiveness of sins and purgation. The commandments were given by God for our salvation. Grace is given so that we might fulfill the commandments. The moral commandments are not the ritual works of the law that St. Paul wrote about,and which were given only to the Hebrews. It is true that we must look to the righteousness of Christ,but this righteousness is not imputed to us. We are conformed to it through the Spirit of Christ and obedience to him.

Indeed we are called to be perfect, the position i hold however is that i will never by my own effort the perfect enough to merit eternal life, as such i must look to Christ alone and his work on my behalf for salvation. i strive for this perfection as a result of Gods freely given justification. Indeed Gods law is Holy and good (Romans 7:7), but what does it do; it makes to me known what sin is (Rom 3:20, 7:7), i can’t perform the law perfectly, for i do not do the good i want, but the evil i do not want is what i keep on doing (Rom 7:18). By works of the law, no one will be justified (Rom 3:28), works of the law cannot be limited purely to the ceremonial laws of the old covenant; “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the Law, and do them.” (Galatians 3:10). What does the law require of us? The sermon on the mount explains it for us… We can’t fulfil this perfectly. As such we are under curse, and deserving of wrath. Our own works could avail nothing; “We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment.” (Isaiah 64:6)… We must look to Christ, and not our own works (Titus 3:5), and put all our hope in him, it is by this faith alone, gifted to us by grace, by which we are justified in Gods sight. Declared righteous in his sight, clothed with the righteousness of his son; “For our sake he made him to be sin, who knew no sin, so that in him, we might become the righteousness of God.” (2 Corinthians 5:21). Our sins imputed to him, his righteousness imputed to us.

Grace justifies the believer initially,but that is not eternal salvation. The believer must continue to believe and to obey. Grace is not a legal declaration that a person has inherited eternal life. It is not a declaration of anything. It is spiritual help which leads us toward salvation by strengthening us to fulfill the commandments.

Indeed we must continue in obedience and faith, repentance is a daily thing.

That’s good,but the slogan is also wrongly used as a refutation of the Church and intercession by the mother of God and the saints. If you knew that Mary and the saints were alive in heaven with Christ,and that they intercede for us with their prayers,much more powerful than ours,would you refuse to pray to them for help?

I don’t really know what the saints do as they rest happily in heaven, if they pray for the saints on earth then they do… but i don’t offer up prayers to them.

kind regards

Lincs.

 

[PRmerger]

Indeed we are called to be perfect, the position i hold however is that i will never by my own effort the perfect enough to merit eternal life, as such i must look to Christ alone and his work on my behalf for salvation.

This is very Catholic, Lincs!

 

[Lincoln7]

This is very Catholic, Lincs!

Indeed, we are both western Christians! But the Sola Fide bit is where we have a discussion point

Lincs

 

[JaKael02]

Indeed, we are both western Christians! But the Sola Fide bit is where we have a discussion point

Lincs

I’ve heard that the top theologians in the world do not prefer to debate faith alone vs faith, hope, & charity because according to the best theologians in the world, the differences are largely semantics and not enough to create a Church schism.

Have others heard the same?

However, the real issue between Protestants and Catholics is the issue of authority, the centeral theme of this thread.

Probably why this thread is so popular. Thanks to our brother in Christ - Lincs.

-James