Beliefs of the Early Church

[ahimsaman72]

mercygate:

ahimsaman72 – you need your coffee again this morning: Acts 28:14-17:

And Paul was martyred there.

I probably do need some more coffee! Although, my 20 oz. this morning got me going .

Paul did spend his last days in Rome, but he was in jail. He was able to have visitors and enjoyed some freedom in that respect. But, this really doesn’t state that he was a member of the church of Rome. He was imprisoned there, to be sure, but that wouldn’t mean he had “church membership” there.

 

[Chris_W]

ahimsaman72:

I know which writings because of apostles like Matthew who were EYEWITNESSES to the facts and handed them down.

This keeps coming up, ahimsaman72. The fact that the Apostles were eyewitnesses means they knew what Jesus said and did. It is not a reason by which you can possibly know which writings are authentic or authoritative, because you cannot explain how you know the writings you hold in your hand today are the very same writings the Apostles wrote. How can I make this more clear? You have no way of knowing the words contained in your Bible are the words of the Apostles, without relying on the authority of the Catholic Church who determined what were and what were not the writings of the Apostles. Furthermore, the original manuscripts no longer exist, so you can make no claim whatsoever to know what the Apostles wrote.

Your beliefs, as is becoming more obvious as this thread progresses, are based entirely upon your personal feelings. You cannot justifiably claim the Bible is authoritative because you cannot even explain why you believe the Bible you hold in your hands, is the Word of God, (other than because you ‘feel’ they are).

I guess people (like me) assume when you state your beliefs in a forum like this, that you actually intend to defend your beliefs. But you seem to be saying, “this is what I believe…because I believe it…because I can”. The rest of us are wasting our time here, if that is what you fall back on in your defense of faith.

You said you believe God wants you to to be true to your convictions, etc. How do you know what God wants, ahimsaman72? God is identified as Truth. Yet your stance seems to be that no one can know for sure what is truth because everyone is their own authority on all matters of faith…thereby reducing all truth (and therefore God and the Will of God) to mere human opinion.

You are right. You can assert anything you want, because you can. And you don’t have to back up your beliefs with proof. But do you want people in these forums to decide (as I am deciding) that dialogue with ahimsaman72 is futile?

 

[Chris_W]

I am becoming more and more convinced that people who reject the authority of the Catholic Church ultimately reject ALL authority, including the authority of God. They claim the Bible is the authority and yet no explanation is ever given as to how a person can use the Bible to arrive at truth with certainty. Thus all truth is determined by the individual, which removes even the authority of the Bible, because no one can say for sure what the Bible means…it’s up to the individual and how he/she feels. Ultimately this removes the authority of God because there is no way (either from difinitive interpretation of the Bible, or authoritative leadership of the Church) for the individual to know for sure what God expects of us or desires for us.

 

[mercygate]

ahimsaman72:

I probably do need some more coffee! Although, my 20 oz. this morning got me going .

Paul did spend his last days in Rome, but he was in jail. He was able to have visitors and enjoyed some freedom in that respect. But, this really doesn’t state that he was a member of the church of Rome. He was imprisoned there, to be sure, but that wouldn’t mean he had “church membership” there.

You’re kidding, right? Paul was under house arrest so he wasn’t a member of the Church at Rome? Tell that to the Orthodox. Some of them claim that Paul, not Peter, was the first Bishop of Rome!

 

[Exporter]

Ahimsamen wrote,“As for the second part of your post, this has been debated well on other threads already. I’m sure you will appreciate threads which involve poster ‘bouletheou’ in the apologetics section of the forum. I decline to answer your question.”

IMO, you decline to answer the question of where in the Bible does it say what books are inspired.

You decline because you know that the Bible does not tell us which books are inspired. I believe you have alreadt stated the YOU are the one to make that decision - not the Magesterium.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Chris W:

This keeps coming up, ahimsaman72. The fact that the Apostles were eyewitnesses means they knew what Jesus said and did. It is not a reason by which you can possibly know which writings are authentic or authoritative, because you cannot explain how you know the writings you hold in your hand today are the very same writings the Apostles wrote. How can I make this more clear? You have no way of knowing the words contained in your Bible are the words of the Apostles, without relying on the authority of the Catholic Church who determined what were and what were not the writings of the Apostles. Furthermore, the original manuscripts no longer exist, so you can make no claim whatsoever to know what the Apostles wrote.

Your beliefs, as is becoming more obvious as this thread progresses, are based entirely upon your personal feelings. You cannot justifiably claim the Bible is authoritative because you cannot even explain why you believe the Bible you hold in your hands, is the Word of God, (other than because you ‘feel’ they are).

I guess people (like me) assume when you state your beliefs in a forum like this, that you actually intend to defend your beliefs. But you seem to be saying, “this is what I believe…because I believe it…because I can”. The rest of us are wasting our time here, if that is what you fall back on in your defense of faith.

You said you believe God wants you to to be true to your convictions, etc. How do you know what God wants, ahimsaman72? God is identified as Truth. Yet your stance seems to be that no one can know for sure what is truth because everyone is their own authority on all matters of faith…thereby reducing all truth (and therefore God and the Will of God) to mere human opinion.

You are right. You can assert anything you want, because you can. And you don’t have to back up your beliefs with proof. But do you want people in these forums to decide (as I am deciding) that dialogue with ahimsaman72 is futile?

So, I need to be a theologian or another Karl Keating to be able to post and defend my beliefs? So, if I said chocolate ice cream tastes better than vanilla ice cream, you want proof of that?

Truth is found in a person - Jesus Christ. John 14:6. He said He was the way, the truth and the life…Given that man is sinful and acknowledges such, I believe that man is incapable sometimes of perceiving truth. There have been times in my life I haven’t seen things that were in front of me all along. Sin was in the way. My theory is that is why everyone has their perceptions of what truth really is.

As I have said already, many times in this thread (if you read it), the Bible as written needs no validation outside of itself. Paul wrote 2 letters to the Corinthians (we believe that). Paul wrote a letter to the Colossians (we believe that to be true also). Because they are said to be from Paul, I automatically conclude that they are valid.

By rule, it is always a safe bet not to assume - you know what that does, don’t you?

Peace to you…

 

[ahimsaman72]

Exporter:

Ahimsamen wrote,“As for the second part of your post, this has been debated well on other threads already. I’m sure you will appreciate threads which involve poster ‘bouletheou’ in the apologetics section of the forum. I decline to answer your question.”

IMO, you decline to answer the question of where in the Bible does it say what books are inspired.

You decline because you know that the Bible does not tell us which books are inspired. I believe you have alreadt stated the YOU are the one to make that decision - not the Magesterium.

2 Tim 3:16 states that all Scripture is inspired. Obviously, when this was written to Timothy from Paul, Paul was speaking of the Old Testament Scriptures. Paul repeatedly spoke of the gospel he was preaching and that if another gospel be preached, do not believe it.

Isn’t it possible to look at each letter or book as an individual piece within itself and at the same time part of the whole collection? Paul’s letters are authoritative. They came from one who had seen Christ and was commissioned by Christ. So, the same applies to the other writers of the NT. Paul and others spoke authoritatively and decisively on basic Christian issues. Therefore, why do I need a bishop to tell me what I already know? Do I need him to tell me what Paul’s message was? No. All I have to do is read Paul’s letters themselves.

 

[RBushlow]

ahimsaman72:

WBB:

Very well then. You have answered my question by your very silence, because there is no place that the bible speaks of itself as the sole

authority of faith and doctrine. Ironically, that is a protestant tradition which has no basis in scripture or in the Apostolic Tradition of the early church.
[/QOUTE]
Time is precious. No need to waste repeating it when there are other threads dealing with the same issue. I was involved in a sola scriptura thread a few weeks ago and exhausted myself in it. I suggest you do a search for sola scriptura and see the comments there.

Peace…Peace be with you, also.
I have looked and it seems to me that each person asked about this sidesteps the issue and states the same thing that you have, namely “it has already been answered”. Please address the issue directly. Is sola scriptura in the Holy Scripture or not? If so, where? Please point it out to me.

May Christ be with you.

 

[ahimsaman72]

mercygate:

You’re kidding, right? Paul was under house arrest so he wasn’t a member of the Church at Rome? Tell that to the Orthodox. Some of them claim that Paul, not Peter, was the first Bishop of Rome!

Would I kid my favorite catholic in the world? .

Okay, let’s look at this. We discussed this on another thread, but let’s face it again briefly.

Paul had at least three missionary journeys. He traveled extensively after his conversion to Christianity. He spent alot of time in Antioch with Barnabas for example. Would you say he was a member of the church at Antioch? To me it’s unclear as to what “church” he belonged to. It doesn’t matter. He spent time in different places, sometimes short stays and sometimes long stays. If you want to claim he was a member of the church of Rome, you must also claim he belonged to all the other churches he visited or spent time in. That wouldn’t make sense, would it?

 

[ahimsaman72]

RBushlow:

Peace be with you, also.
I have looked and it seems to me that each person asked about this sidesteps the issue and states the same thing that you have, namely “it has already been answered”. Please address the issue directly. Is sola scriptura in the Holy Scripture or not? If so, where? Please point it out to me.

May Christ be with you.

Okay, if we go with the definition of sola scriptura as “scripture alone is sufficient for matters of doctrine and faith”, then I can answer yes, it is there, maybe not as you would like it to be.

Paul (there’s that guy again) spoke of his gospel in his letters to various churches, significantly in I Cor. 15. In this he claims,

1 Corinthians 15

1. Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2. By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4. And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5. And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6. After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

As this is a great summary of basic Christian faith and is sufficient for man’s salvation, the Bible is also sufficient to determine lesser things.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Many have taken issue because I haven’t gone in-depth and have at times refused to answer certain questions about relying on Scriptures alone for my faith.

This thread is not about sola scriptura, it is about “beliefs of the early church”. As there are already some very good threads debating this same topic, I see no sense in examining sola scriptura in depth here. I suggest we keep to the topic of “beliefs of the early church”.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

Chris W:

This keeps coming up, ahimsaman72. The fact that the Apostles were eyewitnesses means they knew what Jesus said and did. It is not a reason by which you can possibly know which writings are authentic or authoritative, because you cannot explain how you know the writings you hold in your hand today are the very same writings the Apostles wrote. How can I make this more clear? You have no way of knowing the words contained in your Bible are the words of the Apostles, without relying on the authority of the Catholic Church who determined what were and what were not the writings of the Apostles. Furthermore, the original manuscripts no longer exist, so you can make no claim whatsoever to know what the Apostles wrote.

Yes, I’m afraid it does keep coming up. I have faith that what has been handed down are the actual words of Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc. I have that faith based on the many scribes and theologians who have gone on before me (catholic and protestant). They have researched, not me. They have collected the various letters from various authors and pieced them together, not me. That doesn’t leave all the responsibilty to someone outside of yourself.

I have the personal responsibility to verify my faith - with what has been handed to me and what my conscience (well formed) and mind have to offer. The Bereans spoken of in the NT searched the Scriptures to see if what Paul was saying about the Messiah was true. Shouldn’t I do the same? Of course. If one blindly accepts whatever the bishops or Pope declare as valid, then one has committed a grave error. I would be no better off to become a Mormon if that were the case. Many say, “Follow me”, I know the way, but I know of only one person who can rightfully say, “Follow me” and it is Christ.

I don’t believe the Bible fell out of the sky and into my hands. Obviously, I believe it was gathered together and put together piece by piece over the centuries. Luther and Calvin’s knowledge of Scriptures and church history lead me to believe that they are more right than anyone else. But, I would be a fool to cast my faith upon men. After all, men are fallible.

 

[theMutant]

ahimsaman72:

Many have taken issue because I haven’t gone in-depth and have at times refused to answer certain questions about relying on Scriptures alone for my faith.

This thread is not about sola scriptura, it is about “beliefs of the early church”. As there are already some very good threads debating this same topic, I see no sense in examining sola scriptura in depth here. I suggest we keep to the topic of “beliefs of the early church”.

Peace…

Fine, then, let’s skip the topic of sola Scriptura even though Protestants (and apparently you) seem to be arguing that it was believed by the Early Church

The Church existed and was teaching authoritatively before the Bible was completed. God established the Church and vested it with His own authority. (Matthew 16:18-19; 18:17; 28:18-20; Luke 10:16; John 14:16-17; Acts 2:42; Ephesians 3:4-5; 1 Thessalonians 4:1-2; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 1 Timothy 3:14-16) There is no indication in either Scripture or the writings of the early Church that this authority was temporary or would ever be replaced by the authority of Scripture. By this, I don’t mean to deny that God’s Spirit can lead an individual to know the truth through their reading of the Scripture to the exclusion of the authority of the Church. God can do anything He wants and could conceivably lead a person to know the truth without the Church or the Scriptures. However, Scripture shows that what God wanted to do was to establish an authoritative Church to guide the faithful until the Second Coming of Christ. Therefore, this is the truth God would lead them to know.

The authority of the Church was prefigured in the Old Testament Church. (Deuteronomy 17:8-11) It was declared by Christ. (Matthew 10:40; 18:17-18; 28:18-20; Luke 10:16; John 13:20; 17:18; 20:21-23) It was declared by the Apostles. (1 Corinthians 1:17; 1 John 4:6) It was exercised by the Apostles who governed it. (Acts 15:28-29; 1 Corinthians 5:1, 3; 2 Corinthians 2:9-10; 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15; Titus 2:15; Hebrews 13:7, 17; 1 Peter 5:5) The authority was exercised by the successors of the Apostles. (Acts 1:15-26; 20:28; 1 Timothy 5:22; Hebrews 5:1-4; 13:17; 1 Peter 5:1-4) I will demonstrate that the early Church and the Early Fathers, who were taught by the Apostles and their immediate successors, acknowledged and proclaimed this authority. They likewise show that the early Church was not a loosely associated band of believers, but a hierarchical structure with bishops, priests, and deacons. We need the Magesterium (i.e. teaching authority) of the Church because it is how God protects and presents the faith to us. The Magesterium is a gift from God.

Are we bound to its authority? Yes. The authority of the Church, like that of the Scriptures, comes from God Himself. In Matthew 18:17, Jesus says, regarding anyone who refuses to listen to the Church, “let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” To instruct Jews to treat someone as a Gentile and a tax collector means to consider them as no longer being part of the community and no longer welcome in it. Jesus is telling us to excommunicate those who refuse to listen to the Church. Excommunication lasts for as long as they refuse to listen to the Church. The Church welcomes those who repent and return to her guidance. We must ask, however, would God bind us to accept the teachings of a fallible institution under pain of excommunication? Would God command us to accept doctrines simply because they come from the Church He founded; even if those doctrines were false? Of course not. God is Truth and commands us to love and live in truth. He preserves the Church from teaching false doctrine so that we can obey this command. This is why He binds us to accept the teachings of His Church under pain of excommunication.

(continued…)

 

[theMutant]

(Continued from #93)

It is clear from Scripture that the Church is a religious authority. Jesus subjects those who refuse to listen to His Church to excommunication (Matthew 18:17-18). When Jesus sent His disciples out, He declared that those who rejected them, rejected Him (Luke 10:1-16). Jesus says that the basis of our accepting Him is our acceptance of the Apostles and their teaching (John 13:1-20). Jesus gave the Church the authority to forgive sins in His name (John 20:21-23). Jesus said that whatever the Church bound or loosed the faithful from would be accepted in heaven; meaning that He gave the Church His own authority. (Matthew 16:19; 18:18) (Note: The context of Matthew 18:18 is the authority of the Church to excommunicate followers who refuse to accept her teachings. The context of 16:18 is that of Jesus giving Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven; an allusion to conferring complete authority.) The Apostles exercised that authority and bound the faithful to their teachings even though they were not (yet) in Scripture (Acts 15:1-29). Peter taught that Scripture is not for private interpretation (2 Peter 1:16-21). This teaching, when combined with the Scripture’s teaching that we must accept the teachings of the Church or be excommunicated show that Peter is teaching that the faithful must accept the Church’s interpretation of Scripture. Just as Jesus sent the Apostles to teach with authority, they likewise appointed others to help them and continue in the work of Christ (Acts 1:15-26; 6:2-6; 13:2-3). The Apostles passed on their own authority to their successors (1 Timothy 1:1-5; 4:11-14; 2 Timothy 1:6-7; Titus 1:5; 2:15; 3:8; 1 Peter 5:1-11; 3 John 1:9).

It is a visible institution with a hierarchical structure of bishops, priests, and deacons. The Father, at the request of His Son, Jesus, sent the Holy Spirit to remind the Church of everything Jesus taught and to lead it to all truth. He Himself binds us to accept the teachings of this authority. If God, who is Truth, leads the Church to truth with His own Holy Spirit and binds us to accept the teachings of that Church or be excommunicated from it, then the doctrinal teachings of that Church must be infallibly true or God has bound us to accept error!

(continued…)

 

[theMutant]

(Continued from #94)

I will now try to demonstrate that Scripture clearly reveals that Peter was appointed by God as the leader of the Apostles. I will then try to show that the Apostles accepted that authority and taught their followers to accept it as well. Let’s take a look at what the Bible reveals to us about Peter and his role:

• God revealed to Peter that Jesus was the Messiah. (Matthew 16:15-17)

• Jesus said that He would build His Church on Peter and that the gates of Hades would not overcome it. (Matthew 16:18)

• Jesus promised to give Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven and also the authority to bind and loose (to govern the Church). (Matthew 16:19) It is well known that keys were the symbol of authority. See also Isaiah 22:22 and Revelation 3:7.

• Christ chose Peter to strengthen the others after the crucifixion. (Luke 22:31-32) “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen you brothers.”

• When Jesus appeared after the crucifixion, He told only Peter to “Feed my lambs,” “Take care of my sheep,” “Feed my sheep,” and to “Follow me.” (John 21:15-19)

• Peter announced that a successor to Judas Iscariot must be chosen. (Acts 1:15-26)

• Peter was the first to stand up on Pentecost and speak to the people, converting them to the new Church. (Acts 2:14-41)

• Peter was the first Apostle to cure someone through the power of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 3:1-4:4)

• It was revealed to Peter that Ananias and Sapphira kept some of the money from selling their property, though they claimed they were donating it all to the poor. (Acts 5:1-11)

• Peter was chosen to start baptizing the Gentiles into the Church. (Acts 10:1-11:18)

• It was Peter’s statement that settled the issue of whether or not the Gentiles needed to be circumcised. (Acts 15:6-29) Note that he also states that God chose him to be the instrument through which the Gentiles would be converted to the faith. This statement was not disputed by any of the others, including Paul, whom God chose to carry His name before the Gentiles.

• As you read through the Gospels, whenever Apostles are listed, Peter is usually placed first. The Apostle who usually speaks to Jesus and asks him questions is Peter. When Jesus spoke to an Apostle to tell or ask him something, or to ask him to do something, it was usually Peter. (Matthew 10:2, 14:28-32, 16:13-19,22-23, 17:1-5,25-27, 18:21, 19:27, 26:31-41,58,69-75; Mark 1:16,36, 3:13-19, 5:37, 8:27-33, 9:2-5, 10:28-31, 11:21, 13:1, 14:27-38,54,66-72; Luke 5:3-11, 6:12-16, 8:45,51, 9:20,28-33, 12:41, 22:8,31-34,54-62, 24:12,34; John 1:40-42, 6:68-69, 13:5-10,36-38, 18:10-11,15-18,25-27, 20:2-10, 21:2-22)

• Peter was often placed first and otherwise shown to be, in some sense, above the other Apostles in other New Testament writings as well. (Acts 1:13,15-26, 2:14-41, 3:1-26; 1 Corinthians 14:4-5) Acts 5:29 refers to “Peter and the other apostles,” setting him apart from and before the rest.

(continued…)

 

[theMutant]

(Continued from #95)

It must be admitted that, even though the above citations make a pretty strong claim to Peter’s authority, if Peter’s authority is clearly rejected elsewhere in Scripture, all of the above arguments prove nothing. Protestants claim that this is the case so I must address those claims.

Catholics and Protestants disagree about Matthew 16:17-19. “Jesus replied, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.’”

Protestants contend that since the Gospel, which was written in Greek, uses petros (a small rock) for Peter’s name and petra (a foundation stone) for the rock on which Christ will build the Church, that Christ was contrasting Peter and the rock. Many Protestants say that the “rock” is faith.

Catholics contend that the reason petros and petra are used in the Gospel is that petra is a feminine noun and it was unacceptable in those days to give a man a feminine noun for a name. While the New Testament was written in Greek, it was not the common speaking language of Palestine. The Jews of Jesus’ day spoke Aramaic. There is biblical evidence of this in that Aramaic phrases are in the Greek Scriptures, such as Matthew 27:46 (“Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?”). The question must be raised, “Did Jesus actually speak in Greek, or is the Greek a translation of what was actually said in Aramaic?” In looking at Scripture, I believe we can see that the latter must be true.

In John 1:42, Jesus meets Simon for the first time and says, “You will be called Cephas.” Cephas is not a Greek word. It is a transliteration into English of the Aramaic work, kepa. Kepa means “a large rock” or “a foundation stone.” The same as petra! Additionally, Paul usually refers to Simon as Cephas, clearly indicating that he was known by this name. (1 Corinthians 1:12, 3:22, 9:5, 15:4; Galatians 1:18, 2:9, 11, 14. Except in Galatians 2:7-8 where he used Petros.) It is clear from these passages that Jesus referred to Simon as “a large rock” or “a foundation stone.” If Jesus was actually calling Simon “a rolling stone” (petros) in Matthew 16:18 then was he lying in John 1:42 when He told Simon that he would call him “a foundation stone” (cephas)? No, that isn’t possible. The only plausible explanation is that the text in Matthew is a translation into Greek of what was actually said in Aramaic.

(continued…)

 

[theMutant]

(Continued from #96)

Are Catholics therefore claiming that Matthew made an error when writing the Gospel? Not at all. Petros is the Greek word which could be used as a man’s name and means almost the same thing as kepa. In Mark’s Gospel, he doesn’t record that Jesus predicted Simon would be known as Cephas (1:16-18), however, in 3:16, Mark does record that Jesus gave Simon a new name; Peter. Catholics feel that the play on words in the Greek is obvious. Are Protestants claiming that Matthew 16:18 and Mark 3:16 prove that John made an error in 1:42? That is the only conclusion one can reach if you reject the Catholic position. Yet, Protestants affirm that the Bible is the word of God and without error. The only plausible explanation is that John, in writing the last Gospel, wanted to make the meaning of Petros in the other Gospels perfectly clear. He did this by pointing out that the name Jesus would give to Simon was Cephas. Peter warned that the Scriptures could be misunderstood (2 Peter 1:16-21) and so John tried to make sure that this matter would be clearly understood. This interpretation, as I will demonstrate below, is supported by the teaching of the early Church.

Another question we must ask is, why did Jesus change Simon’s name? It certainly wasn’t necessary if Jesus was really talking about building the Church on faith. He could have just said, “And I tell you, Simon, on faith such as yours I will build my church…” Jesus didn’t do this though. He changed Simon’s name as he predicted he would in John 1:42 (“You will be called Cephas.”). The only way to support the non-Catholic claim, that “rock” refers to faith, is to take the phrase, “…and on this rock…,” out of the context of everything else that was said around it and of the whole of Scripture.

(continued…)

 

[RBushlow]

ahimsaman72:

Is sola scriptura in the Holy Scripture or not? If so, where? Please point it out to me.

Okay, if we go with the definition of sola scriptura as "scripture alone is sufficient for matters of doctrine and faith", then I can answer yes, it is there, maybe not as you would like it to be.

Highlights are mine.

1 Corinthians 15

1. Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2. By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4. And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5. And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6. After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

Thanks for your kind response ahimsaman72.
OK, I see where Pauls teaching “that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures”, fulfilling the OT prophesy. This is indeed a great summary of the basic Christian beliefs and “is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”, but, I’m sorry, how do you get "“scripture alone is sufficient” from this. I see scripture being profitable, yes, scripture alone sufficient, no.

The Lord be with you.

 

[theMutant]

(Continued from #97)

The next argument which usually follows against the authority of Peter is the fact that Jesus refers to Peter as Satan immediately after calling him a rock (Matthew 16:23). Would Jesus build His Church on someone whom He referred to as Satan? There are three facts which show that the answer is yes. First, Jesus said that He would do so and, being Truth itself, we must believe it. Second, Peter’s statement is understandable because none of the Apostles had the full understanding of Christ’s mission at this point. This understanding didn’t come to them until just before His ascension (Luke 24:44-49). Third, Jesus said that He would build His Church. He did not say, “You are Peter and you shall build my church.” Jesus is the one who built the Church. He used the Apostles as His instruments in accomplishing this, but the survival and the very existence of the Church is the work of Christ Himself and not of the men in the Church.

Another argument I have heard challenging Peter’s authority is when Paul rebuked him for avoiding the Gentiles when the Jews were around (Galatians 2:11-14). Peter would eat and associate with the Gentiles when the Jews were not around, but when they were, he would distance himself from them. He did this to avoid confrontations with the Jews and, as a result, others would too. Paul saw this and rightly criticized him for it. This event does not show that Peter did not have authority within the Church. It only shows that Peter did not have a perfect character and was therefore not above reproach; which the Catholic Church has never claimed. If we look at the entire event as described in the Scriptures (Acts 15:1-29 and Galatians 2:1-14), we can see that Peter definitely did have a leadership role in the Church:

After Paul and Barnabas returned to the Church at Antioch from their first journey, there was a dispute over whether the Gentiles needed to be circumcised. The Church and Antioch sent a delegation, including Paul and Barnabas, to the Church at Jerusalem (where Peter and the other Apostles were) to settle the question. Note that they did not settle the issue themselves even though they had an Apostle, Paul, present. They did not rely on their own interpretation of Scripture (which, at the time, was only the Old Testament so the only conclusion they could have reached would have been “yes”) but on the authority and judgment of the Church. When they arrived at Jerusalem, there was more debate over the issue. Peter was the one who settled the issue by declaring that Gentile converts did not have to be circumcised. After Peter had spoken on the matter, the debate was over. The decision was credited as being made known through the power of the Holy Spirit, speaking through the Church leaders (Peter and the other Apostles).

(continued…)

 

[theMutant]

(Continued from #99)

Some have further argued that the fact that James spoke after Peter at the Council refutes Peter’s authority. However, in his statement, James affirms the declaration of Peter and adds further disciplinary rules. Why would he do so? Because he was the bishop of Jerusalem and these additional rules would help end dissension by the Jewish converts in his flock over the issue of circumcision. Let’s look further at the statement of James. Are his declarations still binding on all Christians? James says that they should refrain from idolatry (anything contaminated by idols) and immorality and from anything strangled and from blood. These prohibitions are from the Old Testament and Christ also condemned idolatry and immorality. However, are Christians still bound to refrain from eating animals that have been strangled? Is it a sin for Christians to eat them? How about raw meats (blood)? Is it a sin for a Christian who gets a paper-cut to suck the wound because he would be drinking his own blood? No. These declarations of James are no longer considered binding by Christians, even though Scripture never revokes them. What about Peter’s declaration? Is it still a sin to require circumcision for Gentile converts to Christianity? Yes. The practice of circumcision among Christians today, where it exists, is purely cultural. It is clear, therefore, that James does not refute Peter’s decision. He supports it and it is still binding today. It is also clear that James’s decision is not irrevocably binding as is Peter’s. This is in spite of the fact that what James imposes with the approval of the other Apostles is based on the only Scriptures available at the time (the Old Testament). Peter’s declaration was not based on the Scripture which existed at the time he made it and it is binding to this day. It was binding on the whole Church even before Luke recorded it in Acts; i.e. before it was written in Scripture.

The proscriptions of James are the first examples of disciplines practiced in the Church which were binding even though they were not doctrine. Disciplines of this type are changeable precisely because they are not doctrine. However, they are binding on the conscience of the faithful and must be obeyed for as long as they are required. These disciplines were imposed for pastoral reasons because they were deemed to be necessary at the time for the good of the Church. Paul himself made accommodations for pastoral reasons. Right after the Council declaring that circumcision is not required, Paul had Timothy circumcised in order to not offend the Jews he was evangelizing (Acts 16:1-4). He had Timothy circumcised in order to deliver the message that circumcision was not required. Does this constitute a refutation of Peter’s declaration? Of course not. Scripture is clear that Paul taught that circumcision is not required. The point is that the Church has always exercised its authority to bind the faithful to disciplines which are considered pastorally necessary even though those disciplines are not doctrine. This authority, as I have already shown, was given to her by Christ Himself.

(continued…)