Church "authority"

[Nicea325]

Hello,

I submit to you that the apostles practiced none other then the praxis of Sola Scriptura in the famous council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 as they used scripture to norm their doctrine concerning gentile believers.

Also when Jesus corrected the Sadduccees by commending them to scripture:
*
29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God*. 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31 But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”

Also I would point you to the closing verses of Romans:
*
25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, 26 but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith*; 27 to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen.

Sorry…but pure conjecture! Answer this, if SS is the mother of all doctrines:

Kindly tell us what Bible did Abraham use,since you believe SS has been around since day one?

Sola Scriptura was not even a thought, let alone a praxis. If they practiced the praxis of Sola Scriptura,then why even bother to convene a council, if SS alone takes care of the matter? Tell me…what “canonized” Bible did the 12 use in Acts to make such a determination using SS?

And the fact Jesus retorts to Scripture does not support or prove Sola Scriptura. If SS is the mother of all doctrinal disputes, I find at odds Jesus never once mentions it as the solver of all issues?

Sola Scriptura a is fabricated practiced invented centuries later.

 

[JonNC]

The scriptures are unified on essential doctrine, like the divinity of Christ, his virgin birth, his resurrection, his ascending into heaven, etc. There are plenty of things in scripture that we can debate on, without compromising essential doctrine, like the type of church government we should have, whether babies should be baptized etc.
.

From a Lutheran perspective, infant Baptism** is **an essential doctrine.

Jon

 

[Augustus24]

Sorry…but pure conjecture! Sola Scriptura was not even a thought, let alone a praxis. If they practiced the praxis of Sola Scriptura,then why even bother to convene a council, if SS alone takes care of the matter? Tell me…what “canonized” Bible did the 12 use in Acts to make such a determination using SS?

And the fact Jesus retorts to Scripture does not support or prove Sola Scriptura. If SS is the mother of all doctrinal disputes, I find at odds Jesus never once mentions it as the solver of all issues?

Sola Scriptura a is fabricated practiced invented centuries later.

Kindly tell us what Bible did Abraham use,since you believe SS has been around since day one?

I never said such a thing. Please don’t put words in my mouth. Abraham spoke directly to God and God to him as there was no scripture during that time. Then God used prophets to spread his word until the end of the period of revelation. Both protestants and Catholics agree that there is no new revelation.

Sorry…but pure conjecture! Sola Scriptura was not even a thought, let alone a praxis.

Sure it was. The apostles resorted to scripture to norm their doctrine, that is Sola Scriptura.

If they practiced the praxis of Sola Scriptura,then why even bother to convene a council, if SS alone takes care of the matter?

Because thats not what Sola Scriptura is. Sola Scriptura simply means that scripture is the highest authority, that all doctrine must be normed via scripture for it to be binding on all Christians. The apostles encountered a new problem, that is of the gentile believers, and they used scripture to formulate their response.

Tell me…what “canonized” Bible did the 12 use in Acts to make such a determination using SS?

They used the book of the prophet Amos. Part of the hebrew scriptures. They did not need a pope or a magisterium to tell them that this was scripture, nor did any Christian. That’s why the Catholic Church waited until Trent to formally canonize the Catholic scriptures.

 

[Augustus24]

From a Lutheran perspective, infant Baptism** is **an essential doctrine.

Jon

Essential for salvation, or essential to be considered a Lutheran?

 

[kwortham]

And where does Scripture make such a declaration? And 2 Tim 3:16 is not concrete proof.

What he ^^^ said! Show us in the bible where it says that we have to show you in the bible.

 

[pablope]

The scriptures are unified on essential doctrine, like the divinity of Christ, his virgin birth, his resurrection, his ascending into heaven, etc. There are plenty of things in scripture that we can debate on, without compromising essential doctrine, like the type of church government we should have, whether babies should be baptized etc.

That is not what I asked…despite all this…who decides what is Biblical and what is not? Who decides what is essential and what is not?

Originally Posted by pablope
Okay…who determines what is unbiblical or not? Who get to decide what is unbiblical or not?

Are you the authority, Augustus 24…to determine what is Biblical and what is not?

If not you…then who?

If I disobey who? Saul disobeyed God by failing to destroy the Amalekites completely. Sammuel was a prophet and spoke the word of God. Now that there aren’t any more prophets and no more new revelation is being given, everything we need to know and is binding on all Christians is in the scriptures.

 

[Augustus24]

 

[pablope]

Hello,

I submit to you that the apostles practiced none other then the praxis of Sola Scriptura in the famous council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 as they used scripture to norm their doctrine concerning gentile believers.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Sorry…but pure conjecture! Sola Scriptura was not even a thought, let alone a praxis. If they practiced the praxis of Sola Scriptura,then why even bother to convene a council, if SS alone takes care of the matter? Tell me…what “canonized” Bible did the 12 use in Acts to make such a determination using SS?

And the fact Jesus retorts to Scripture does not support or prove Sola Scriptura. If SS is the mother of all doctrinal disputes, I find at odds Jesus never once mentions it as the solver of all issues?

Sola Scriptura a is fabricated practiced invented centuries later.

Quote:
Kindly tell us what Bible did Abraham use,since you believe SS has been around since day one?

Augustus24:
I never said such a thing. Please don’t put words in my mouth. Abraham spoke directly to God and God to him as there was no scripture during that time. Then God used prophets to spread his word until the end of the period of revelation. Both protestants and Catholics agree that there is no new revelation.

And when did I say you said such a thing? I said it myself as a direct challenge to you in regards to the self-refuting belief called Sola Scriptura. I will easily prove to you how it is bogus and an invention. If there was no scripture during that time of Abraham, then it IS OBVIOUS SOLA SCRIPTURA WAS INVENTED…LATER! Who invented it? Thus, how can it binding to all Christians when it was never practiced at one in time?

Quote:
Sorry…but pure conjecture! Sola Scriptura was not even a thought, let alone a praxis.

Augustus24:
Sure it was. The apostles resorted to scripture to norm their doctrine, that is Sola Scriptura.

No, it was not! Really? Show me ONE verse where Jesus or the 12 teach,encourage,defend and exhort the belief in Sola Scriptura? Where is SS mentioned in the Bible? Tell me…what scripture passage was used by the early church to determine the canonicity of the entire Bible? If SS is truly valid and orthodox,then show me the chapter and verse explicitly telling us where scripture was to be canonized?

Quote:
If they practiced the praxis of Sola Scriptura,then why even bother to convene a council, if SS alone takes care of the matter?

Augustus24:
Because thats not what Sola Scriptura is. Sola Scriptura simply means that scripture is the highest authority, that all doctrine must be normed via scripture for it to be binding on all Christians. The apostles encountered a new problem, that is of the gentile believers, and they used scripture to formulate their response.

Sorry,but SS has been defined differently by different Christian denominations. So who has it correct? Again…SHOW ME WHERE SCRIPTURE EXPLICITLY SAYS IT IS THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY AND IS BINDING ON CHRISTIANS?

Quote:
Tell me…what “canonized” Bible did the 12 use in Acts to make such a determination using SS?

Augustus24:
They used the book of the prophet Amos. Part of the hebrew scriptures. They did not need a pope or a magisterium to tell them that this was scripture, nor did any Christian. That’s why the Catholic Church waited until Trent to formally canonize the Catholic scriptures.

Contradictions. First of all, you did not answer my question: What Bible did they use, I did not ask what letter. Second, was Amos considered part of the OT canon at the time of Jesus? If it was already canonical by the time of the Council,tell me when,where and under whose authority was it canonized?

They did not need a pope or church to tell them what was scripture? Wrong! So in other words, every Christian could discern for himself or herself what constituted scripture? Really? What criteria did they use to come to a conclusion what they read was truly inspired scripture?

 

[pablope]

How does the Scripture identify what is essential? Did Scripture come up with a list? Did Scripture come up with a list of what the Canon should be?

God desires obedience to himself, not any man claiming to speak for God then commanding Christians obey extra biblical, or unbiblical doctrines and practices. As Peter exclaimed in Acts 5, “we ought to obey God rather then men”.

How does God convey what he desires to the people of the earth?

Again…you have not answered the question…who decides what is unbiblical or not?

The Bible or someone, something else?

My church has the authority to teach what has been revealed in the scriptures, everything other then that is not binding on me as a Christian. My church has no authority to define or formulate any new doctrine, or bind the conscience of any Christian to anything that is not in the scriptures.

Where is this in the Bible?

Then from 1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

This passage says listen to the Apostles to tell the spirit of truth…not read or listen to the Bible…so do you think this passage still applies today?

And how do you apply it?

 

[kwortham]

Essential for salvation, or essential to be considered a Lutheran?

(Ex 4:24) And when he was in his journey, in the inn, the Lord met him, and would have killed him. 25 Immediately Sephora took a very sharp stone, and circumcised the fore skin of her son, and touched his feet and said: A bloody spouse art thou to me. 26 And he let him go after she had said: A bloody spouse art thou to me, because of the circumcision.

(Col 2:11-12)
In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

(Acts 2:38-39)
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

 

[pablope]

I

They used the book of the prophet Amos. Part of the hebrew scriptures. They did not need a pope or a magisterium to tell them that this was scripture, nor did any Christian. That’s why the Catholic Church waited until Trent to formally canonize the Catholic scriptures.

Check you history, my friend. It was in AD382…by Pope Damasus…at the Council of Rome.

What Trent did was a response to what the protestant reformers were doing to the Bible.

And besides, what Trent did was merely affirm the actions of previous councils and popes.

 

[Nicea325]

Check you history, my friend. It was in AD382…by Pope Damasus…at the Council of Rome.

What Trent did was a response to what the protestant reformers were doing to the Bible.

And besides, what Trent did was merely affirm the actions of previous councils and popes.

That is the whole problem with SS advocates: Failure to study church history,especially on the formulation of canonical scripture.

 

[Augustus24]

There was nothing written at the time of the Council of Jerusalem…only the Septuagint…or the Catholic OT today, not the protestant 66 book OT.

 

[kwortham]

Check you history, my friend. It was in AD382…by Pope Damasus…at the Council of Rome.

What Trent did was a response to what the protestant reformers were doing to the Bible.

And besides, what Trent did was merely affirm the actions of previous councils and popes.

In other words, the protestants were eradicating sections of scriptures that they didn’t like. To be sure, heretic Luther wanted to get rid of vast sections of the New Testament. Protestants wanted to rip out all of the gospels, save John.

It is an indisputable fact that a canonical listing of scripture as protestants have cannot be found in history until after the time of Luther.

 

[kwortham]

pablope;10458639:

I fact, it is the opposite, the scriptures are higher then the church, the church can only serve the scriptures, not the other way around.

What part of this is hard for you to understand?

(1Tim 3:15 [KJV])
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Is your church 2000 years old? Can your church trace its history back 2000 years?

Christ’s Church (our Church) can! It is the pillar and ground of the truth.

 

[Augustus24]

Check you history, my friend. It was in AD382…by Pope Damasus…at the Council of Rome.

What Trent did was a response to what the protestant reformers were doing to the Bible.

And besides, what Trent did was merely affirm the actions of previous councils and popes.

The Council of Rome was purely a local council and not accepted by the whole church. That’s why the Greeks have a different canon then you. Also, Athanasius produced a list of the NT canon in 363, how could he have known without a Pope telling him?

 

[Augustus24]

Augustus24;10458730:

What part of this is hard for you to understand?

(1Tim 3:15 [KJV])
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Is your church 2000 years old? Can your church trace its history back 2000 years?

Christ’s Church (our Church) can! It is the pillar and ground of the truth.

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

The church, not the Roman Catholic denomination.

Is your church 2000 years old? Can your church trace its history back 2000 years?

Yes, of course.

 

[kwortham]

The Council of Rome was purely a local council and not accepted by the whole church. That’s why the Greeks have a different canon then you. Also, Athanasius produced a list of the NT canon in 363, how could he have known without a Pope telling him?

"Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon * two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus * one book.

Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book, with Ginoth, that is, with his Lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books *, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books.

Likewise the order of the writings of the New and Eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book.

The Epistles of Paul the Apostle in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one.

Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle."

• Decree of the Council of Rome (AD 382) on the Canon of Scripture during the reign of Pope Damasus I (AD 366-384).***

 

[Augustus24]

Hello.

How does the Scripture identify what is essential?

In most places it flat out tells you. For example, the deity of Christ:

*“This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.” *

The resurrection of Christ:

“And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith,”

Did Scripture come up with a list of what the Canon should be?

No, since the canon of scripture is not doctrine.

How does God convey what he desires to the people of the earth?

Again…you have not answered the question…who decides what is unbiblical or not?

The Bible or someone, something else?

Through the scriptures.

Then from 1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

This passage says listen to the Apostles to tell the spirit of truth…not read or listen to the Bible…so do you think this passage still applies today?

Yes, since what the apostles taught is recorded in scripture, we obey their teachings by obeying scripture. Everything else is just someone’s opinion.