Bible being the Sole Authority??

[SteveVH]

The refutation of those assertions consists in the fact that the Roman Catholic Church did not exist in New Testament times or in the early centuries after Christ.

Could you please give me the name of the Church that was in existence in New Testament times and in the early centuries? I can give you quotes from the first century that say it was called the “Catholic Church”.

There were Christian churches in many cities, including Rome, but the hierarchical structure, papacy, and the many unique doctrines and practices found in the Catholic church today did not exist til centuries after the scriptures were written, accepted, and shared among the early churches.

Yes, the Church spread very quickly all over the known world. But they were overseen by bishops ordained by the Apostles or their successors and they shared one faith. As for doctrines, they have never changed. They have been expounded upon, explained and presented to the faithful in ever new ways, but the doctrines have never changed. As to “practices”, if you are speaking of disciplines such as celibacy then you would be correct, but then so what?

You are trying to paint a picture of the Church as a rather disorganized bunch of “Christians” all running around starting their own churches, much like we have today in the Protestant world. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just read Pauls letters.

“6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!” (Gal 1:6-9)

There was a standard to which they were held and it was the Apostolic teaching. The Church watched over its flock and there was definite hierarchy. Just read the book of Acts. It wasn’t a bunch of born-again Christians with Bibles under their arms running around starting churches. They were subject to the authority of their respective bishops.

 

[JonNC]

Even if that argument is accepted, the point remains: ALL Christians must defer to an outside authority to tell them what is theopneustos.

This means that:
-they cannot be Sola Scriptura advocates

We defer to an authority - the Church - to determine this, and many other things. Sola scriptura, OTOH, is the practice of the Church to use scripture as the final norm.

-they proclaim the charism of infallibility has been given to this outside entity. On multiple occasions. (Unless, of course, they want to claim that this outside entity got it wrong in discerning the NT canon and wish to proclaim that, perhaps, Revelation needs to be omitted and the Shepherd of Hermas included?)

I don’t know about others, but Lutherans would not consider it a charism of infallibility.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Eufrosnia;10338590]

Catholic appeal to this natural line of reasoning through the fact that the Apostolic Successors are students of the Apostles who in turn were students of Christ the Rabbi who died and rose from the dead, thus proving his own authority. So the bishops of the Catholic Church have authority in the same way a student gets passed down the authority by a rabbi. So if one were to consider the teachings of Christ the Rabbi as the knowledge regarding the transcendent, the Catholic Church is the entity in charge of that field of knowledge, certifying new teachers while continuing to teach, correct and guide those who want to learn about Christ.

Agreed. The first Christians within the Catholic Church certainly understood how to differentiate Jesus’ one church from the many man-made sects cropping up… responsible for pseudo doctrines being disseminated e.g. Arius, gnosticism etc…The benchmark: trace the apostolic succession of the claimants. As was the case in every century, all Catholic bishops can trace their lineage all the way back to the apostolic age. Only the EOCs can make that claim. I stress the importance of apostolic succession because it is biblical e.g. Paul to the 4th generation. There we see successive consecration via the laying on of hands; leaders endowed with the authority to perform apostolic functions, receiving their commission in a lineal sequence from the apostolic age. The Eastern Orthodox Churches also share in the apostolic succession in terms of having valid episcopal orders. However…perhaps this should be for another discussion…

Another key factor in my conversion was the fact that the holy Bible was/is a product of the Catholic Church; not the other way around. I wanted to belong to the church founded by Jesus, that was responsible for the existence of the Holy Bible. That, I had thought long ago, was the church that could be trusted due to the guidance of God. After all, as per the Bible, God preserves and transmits truth via His Church. John 14, John 16 etc…

P.S. Nice to meet again in discussion Joe. Hope you are enjoying the winter

Nice to meet you again too…

 

[aidanbradypop]

Agreed. The first Christians within the Catholic Church certainly understood how to differentiate Jesus’ one church from the many man-made sects cropping up… responsible for pseudo doctrines being disseminated e.g. Arius, gnosticism etc…The benchmark: trace the apostolic succession of the claimants. As was the case in every century, all Catholic bishops can trace their lineage all the way back to the apostolic age. Only the EOCs can make that claim. I stress the importance of apostolic succession because it is biblical e.g. Paul to the 4th generation. There we seethe successive consecration via the laying on of hands; leaders performing the functions of the apostles, receiving their commission in a lineal sequence from the Apostles. The Eastern Orthodox Churches also share in the apostolic succession in terms of having valid episcopal orders,

Another key factor in my conversion was the fact that the holy Bible was/is a product of the Catholic Church; not the other way around. I wanted to belong to the church founded by Jesus, that was responsible for the existence of the Holy Bible. That, I had thought long ago, was the church that could be trusted due to the guidance of God. After all, as per the Bible, God preserves and transmits truth via His Church. John 14, John 16 etc…

Nice to meet you again too…

Well said joe. I think many people forget about Marcion. We can thank him for helping the Church construct a book of approved Sacred Text into the bible today.

 

[billwh77]

Bill,

Ok, you use the King James…here is the original King James with the Deuterocanonicals…

sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?textID=kjbible&PagePosition=1

Does your version have the deuterocanonicals?

I choose one that does not contain them as I do not subscribe to them. I would prefer to keep it at that, as the discussions are endless on this area. I have read them and found some of it interesting but that would be as far I go with it.

 

[aidanbradypop]

I choose one that does not contain them as I do not subscribe to them. I would prefer to keep it at that, as the discussions are endless on this area. I have read them and found some of it interesting but that would be as far I go with it.

So help me understand, you can personally decided what is Scripture or not? I do not like Numbers. Can I take it out of the Bible?

 

[PRmerger]

I choose one that does not contain them as I do not subscribe to them. I would prefer to keep it at that, as the discussions are endless on this area. I have read them and found some of it interesting but that would be as far I go with it.

What about 3 John, bill? Do you think you can exclude that? It doesn’t even mention Jesus. Not once!

 

[Porknpie]

The refutation of those assertions consists in the fact that the Roman Catholic Church did not exist in New Testament times or in the early centuries after Christ. There were Christian churches in many cities, including Rome, but the hierarchical structure, papacy, and the many unique doctrines and practices found in the Catholic church today did not exist til centuries after the scriptures were written, accepted, and shared among the early churches.

JR -

Here’s some direct quotes from writers in the early Church. When did the Catholic Church not exist and when did it start in your belief?

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

“[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished.” Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).

“…to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline…one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul’s name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church…But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all.” The fragment of Muratori (A.D. 177).

“[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180).

“For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago,–in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,–and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled.” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against Heretics, 22,30 (A.D. 200).

”Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.” Cyprian, To Florentius, Epistle 66/67 (A.D. 254).

 

[billwh77]

So help me understand, you can personally decided what is Scripture or not? I do not like Numbers. Can I take it out of the Bible?

I really wanted to not go into this has I have many times before. I do not believe they are inspired and we should attempt to be respectful of one other. I do not see a salvation issue without having these books. We can not prove anything to one anther but only provide your testament and let be up the Holy Spirit.

 

[aidanbradypop]

I really wanted to not go into this has I have many times before. I do not believe they are inspired and we should attempt to be respectful of one other. I do not see a salvation issue without having these books. We can not prove anything to one anther but only provide your testament and let be up the Holy Spirit.

Bill I am being very respectful. As I stated in the first post when I started the thread, I want everyone to be respectful.

Respect has nothing to do with the question I asked. Can I take Numbers out of the Bible if I do not like it and think it has nothing to do with Salvation?

 

[PRmerger]

I really wanted to not go into this has I have many times before. I do not believe they are inspired and we should attempt to be respectful of one other. I do not see a salvation issue without having these books. We can not prove anything to one anther but only provide your testament and let be up the Holy Spirit.

But you do see, bill, how you have set yourself up to be the arbiter of what’s inspired and what’s not?

Is the paradigm you use to determine whether you consider it to be the word of God the same as what the Mormons use–a “burning in the bosom”?

And how is it that you can know what’s considered to be necessary for our salvation? What if the things in 3 John are indeed necessary for your salvation but you have decided to dismiss it?

 

[batman1973]

Jones,

Mormons are the happiets people in Utah as well…

Not so much: sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53530394-78/suicide-utah-percent-health.html.csp

 

[billwh77]

Bill I am being very respectful. As I stated in the first post when I started the thread, I want everyone to be respectful.

Respect has nothing to do with the question I asked. Can I take Numbers out of the Bible if I do not like it and think it has nothing to do with Salvation?

I study greatly the 3 streams which all bibles are from. I would not remove any part of my bible I currently own. In our walk we have many bibles to choose from. The bible I currently have is the one I have chosen to accept. It not fair to say that I would remove any part of the bible because my version is not the same as yours or say I decide whats inspired.

 

[aidanbradypop]

I study greatly the 3 streams which all bibles are from. I would not remove any part of my bible I currently own. In our walk we have many bibles to choose from. The bible I currently have is the one I have chosen to accept. It not fair to say that I would remove any part of the bible because my version is not the same as yours or say I decide whats inspired.

So it is up to you as to what you “accept” as truth or not? What if 1 and 2 Maccabees or Judith was in the original Book? Do you just dismiss them? I have researched Scripture as well both in college and seminary. I do not see how that allows me the authority to decide which text to include or not.

 

[Porknpie]

I study greatly the 3 streams which all bibles are from. I would not remove any part of my bible I currently own. In our walk we have many bibles to choose from. The bible I currently have is the one I have chosen to accept. It not fair to say that I would remove any part of the bible because my version is not the same as yours or say I decide whats inspired.

Bill,

What is the name of the bible you are current using…or most frequently use?

Pork

 

[aidanbradypop]

Bill,

What is the name of the bible you are current using…or most frequently use?

Pork

He stated earlier. The KJV??? Is that right Bill?

 

[jrtrent]

But would you not agree that a faulty understanding by many Protestants of what Catholics mean by Sacred Tradition does not then constitute a valid opposing argument? You are aware that “Tradition” and “tradition” are not the same thing, right?

You’re right. I may well have a faulty understanding of just what Sacred Tradition is. The way it’s used in this thread, and the little I’ve looked at in the CCC, indicates to me that it is something exclusive to the Roman Catholic Church, and that it is considered co-equal with scripture as a means used for the transmission of divine revelation.

I mentioned in an earlier post that Anglicans accept and venerate the primitive traditions of the church which are in harmony with Holy Scripture, and acknowledged that several practices in Anglicanism stem from the beliefs and practices of the early churches, such as infant baptism and observance of the Lord’s Day. It’s not that the practice of those early churches is on a par with scripture, but if such practices aren’t against scripture, then there’s no reason not to do as they did.

With regard to the canon of scripture, prior to the decrees of any council, it seems there was widespread acceptance and use among the churches of the 27 books most Christians now accept as canonical. By this early practice, or tradition, the Anglican church also accepts those 27 books. When I was a Lutheran, there was room for legitimate difference of opinion on the books called the antilegomena, but no one made a big deal about it.

The fact that churches exist that don’t practice infant baptism, or that don’t use exactly the same books of the Bible that my church does, doesn’t bother me or cause me to think any less of them. Since there’s nothing in Scripture demanding that infant Baptism be performed, they aren’t going against divine revelation. They aren’t ignoring a Sacred Tradition that is equal to scripture; they are simply choosing not to follow what we think we know of the early churches’ practice, or tradition, concerning Baptism.

I believe the Holy Ghost had an influence in the teachings of first four ecumenical councils, the three creeds we recite, the development of the Book of Common Prayer, and the 39 Articles, but not in the same, inspired, infallible way that He influenced the writers of scripture; therefore these, and all other traditions, need to be examined in light of scripture before being cleared and accepted.

How would you describe the use of Sacred Tradition in the Catholic Church?

 

[CopticChristian]

Not so much: sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53530394-78/suicide-utah-percent-health.html.csp

Bat,

You are on to something here…

finlandforthought.net/2007/09/19/finland-no-longer-suicide-capital-of-the-world/

Finland’s dire reputation as a nation of suicidals dates back to the 25-year period from 1965 to 1990 when Finland experienced an economic and urban boom. During that period, the suicide rate tripled. By 1991, Finland was the world leader in teen suicides, and among the top three in overall suicides alongside New Zealand and Iceland. Faced with the grim figures, Finnish authorities dramatically increased funding to improve mental health and since 1991 the amount of available psychiatric help has doubled.

healthland.time.com/2011/04/25/why-the-happiest-states-have-the-highest-suicide-rates/

Worldwide surveys have consistently ranked the Scandinavian countries — with their generous family-leave policies, low crime, free health care, rich economies and, yes, high income taxes — as the happiest places on earth. But this happiness has always been accompanied by a paradox: the happiest countries also seem to have the highest suicide rates.

Is it the long, dark winters facing Finland and Denmark that cause the problem? Or some kind of Nordic depression gene? Or none of the above? A new study suggests the problem is not specific to Scandinavia, finding that high suicide rates accompany high rates of happiness in comparisons of U.S. states as well.

So, probably we have to recognize that the happiest place on earth is probably located in Anahiem, Disneyland, and I doubt they have a high suicide rate…

 

[philv]

I was non-Catholic last year and entered the church. That’s 30 years as a Protestant. I reasoned that it can’t be sola-scriptura because scripture never says that. Instead, it speaks about listening to oral tradition and scripture. Also the scriptures say the church is the foundation and ground of the truth. When I started to look into the source of the church history, it started to make sense seeing the apostolic lineage, and indeed God left me a church. Praise God.

 

[aidanbradypop]

I was non-Catholic last year and entered the church. That’s 30 years as a Protestant. I reasoned that it can’t be sola-scriptura because scripture never says that. Instead, it speaks about listening to oral tradition and scripture. Also the scriptures say the church is the foundation and ground of the truth. When I started to look into the source of the church history, it started to make sense seeing the apostolic lineage, and indeed God left me a church. Praise God.

Indeed praise God! Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut