Church "authority"

[pablope]

Thanks for the correction.

So following what you are saying…it should be the Catholic OT to be used…none of the NT?

No, the apostles writing the NT clearly acknowledged to each other that they were writing down scripture.

How? The Apostles went to different areas and where did Jesus tell them to write anything down?

How were they able to communicate with each other then? Do you think all them knew how to write?

I don’t know who Mark Shea is, but he is simply incorrect, the church (I assume he means the Catholic Church) is not the judge, nor is it higher then the scriptures as a judge is higher in authority in a courtroom then a witness. 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.

Mark Shea is a convert.

How do you know he is incorrect? What is your basis?

Who made the decision not to require circumcision-Scriptures (which) or the Church?

Where does it say in the Bible that Scriptures are higher than the Church?

In the council of Jerusalem, they appealed to Amos to norm their new teaching regarding the believing gentiles. Circumcision was not required because it was not part of the new covenant.

Actually…you should do a reexamination.

Peter stands up…7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them:

and makes his declaration…9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

Without citing any prophet…but what has been revealed to him.

And only then does James cite the prophet…15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

 

[Augustus24]

"Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun.

Obviously the universal church didn’t accept it, as the Greeks have a different canon from you, the Syriacs have a different canon from you and them, the Orthodox Tewahedo church has a different canon then you and them and them, and the Armenian Apostolic church has a different canon form you, and them and them and them. All of the “apostolic” churches have their own canon, proving that what the Pope said on the matter was ignored by most of the rest of the church.

 

[kwortham]

kwortham;10458749:

The church, not the Roman Catholic denomination.

The Church can trace its message and leaders back 2000 years. Heretical sects like the Campbellites, for example, cannot. Since the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, then only the Church can say what is true.

All heretical sects have fallen away from Christ’s Catholic Church, which can trace its history back 2000 years.

 

[Augustus24]

Hello.

How? The Apostles went to different areas and where did Jesus tell them to write anything down?

How were they able to communicate with each other then? Do you think all them knew how to write?

So? They taught people who later wrote it down.

Mark Shea is a convert.

Why?

How do you know he is incorrect? What is your basis?

Because of history. History doesnt attest that the bishop of Rome had the authority of complete jurisdiction over the whole church, infallible on faith and morals, and all christians ought be submissive to him under penalty of mortal sin. This teaching as well as many other Catholic distinctives took centuries to develop. That’s why none of the other sees went along with Rome in the split. The church during that time of the council of Jerusalem wasn’t the Catholic denomination.

Who made the decision not to require circumcision-Scriptures (which) or the Church?

The scriptures record that the new covenant does not require circumcision. The apostles affirmed that teaching using scripture.

Where does it say in the Bible that Scriptures are higher than the Church?

The church was “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15) in the sense of upholding, defending, and proclaiming the truth (1 Thess. 1:5-9; Phil. 1:7). The authority to reveal, change, or legislate for God was never in the church. The authority was in the inspired men who revealed God’s will by first speaking to the people and then by writing the Scriptures.

Peter stands up.

Peter stood up and spoke only as a fellow elder of the church, not as a pope, or infallible overlord. James had the last word, and the decision was his.

 

[Nicea325]

kwortham;10458749:

The church, not the Roman Catholic denomination.

Yes, of course.

The church? Which one Augustus? The Methodist? Lutheran? The fundamentalist church within the strip mall property? Tell us which church?

Sorry,but the RCC is not a denomination. Denominations were invented by non-Catholics and now simply want to add the RCC into the mix.

 

[Augustus24]

Augustus24;10458768:

The church? Which one Augustus? The Methodist? Lutheran? The fundamentalist church within the strip mall property? Tell us which church?

Sorry,but the RCC is not a denomination. Denominations were invented by non-Catholics and now simply want to add the RCC into the mix.

The church? Which one Augustus? The Methodist? Lutheran? The fundamentalist church within the strip mall property? Tell us which church?

Hello.

The church consists of all believers everywhere, not any one particular denomination.

Sorry,but the RCC is not a denomination. Denominations were invented by non-Catholics and now simply want to add the RCC into the mix.

Sure it is. A denomination is simply a body of believers that has a common name, identity. There were many denominations prior to the Reformation such as the Oriental Apostolic, the Eastern Orthodox, the Catholic, the Lollards, the Waldensians etc.

 

[JonNC]

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

Baptism now saves you. This would include children.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

pablope;10458672:

Hello.

The resurrection of Christ:

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

No, since the canon of scripture is not doctrine.

Through the scriptures.

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

Excuse me? The canon of Scripture is not doctrine? Then why do you and the vast majority of Christianity adhere to 27 NT canonical books…only?

You still did not answer: Where does Sola Scriptura defend or mention the collection of books into one volume? You are contradicting yourself and as I said, SS is self-refuting

Listen to what you said:

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.

If the the canon of scripture is NOT doctrine,then how can SS be used as a praxis and all doctrine be normed via scripture?

If it is not doctrine,then with what certitude do you have-some books may be missing?

 

[Augustus24]

Baptism now saves you. This would include children.

Jon

You didn’t answer my question.

Is believe in infant baptism essential for salvation, or essential to be a Lutheran?

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325;10458862:

Hello.

The church consists of all believers everywhere, not any one particular denomination.

Sure it is. A denomination is simply a body of believers that has a common name, identity. There were many denominations prior to the Reformation such as the Oriental Apostolic, the Eastern Orthodox, the Catholic, the Lollards, the Waldensians etc.

Consist of believers everywhere? That is it? Merely believe? James says in chapter 2:19 even the demons believe,are they included in the mix?

Ah no! Again, that is a term applied by non-Catholics. Christians denominations did not exist,heretical sects did.

 

[JonNC]

You didn’t answer my question.

Is believe in infant baptism essential for salvation, or essential to be a Lutheran?

I wasn’t talking about “belief” in it. I was talking about the sacrament of Baptism, being necessary for salvation, and that infants and children should therefore be Baptized.

Jon

 

[kwortham]

Obviously the universal church didn’t accept it, as the Greeks have a different canon from you, the Syriacs have a different canon from you and them, the Orthodox Tewahedo church has a different canon then you and them and them, and the Armenian Apostolic church has a different canon form you, and them and them and them. All of the “apostolic” churches have their own canon, proving that what the Pope said on the matter was ignored by most of the rest of the church.

And the gnostics didn’t accept it. And the arians didn’t accept it. And…

The True Church based on Peter as steward did accept them.
(Matt 16:18 [KJV])
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

(Matt 16:19 [KJV])
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Besides, this does not excuse you protestants (denominations) from ripping these books out of the Bible.

Saint Irenaeus, a student of Saint Polycarp who was a student of Saint John whom the Lord loved, said this:

[Against Heresies Book 3]
Chapter 3 paragraph 1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about.

Paragraph 2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,]*** by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul***; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

 

[Augustus24]

Augustus24;10458795:

pablope;10458672:

Excuse me? The canon of Scripture is not doctrine? Then why do you and the vast majority of Christianity adhere to 27 canonical books…only?

You still did not answer: Where does Sola Scriptura defend or mention the collection of books into one volume? You are contradicting yourself and as I said, SS is self-refuting

Listen to what you said:

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.

If the the canon of scripture is NOT doctrine,then how can SS be used as a praxis and all doctrine be normed via scripture?

If it is not doctrine,then with what certitude do you have-some books may be missing?

Hello.

Excuse me? The canon of Scripture is not doctrine? Then why do you and the vast majority of Christianity adhere to 27 canonical books…only?

Christians adhere to the 27 books of the NT for many reasons. The 27 books were universally accepted by the 4th century. All others had been proven not to be canonical.

Where does Sola Scriptura defend or mention the collection of books into one volume?

Sola Scriptura doesn’t mention anything. It is the practice of norming doctrine in the church. You could separate the scriptures into one volume of 10. It wouldn’t affect the practice.

If the the canon of scripture is NOT

doctrine,then how can SS be used as a praxis and all doctrine be normed via scripture?

Because scripture is outside and objective, to which everyone is accountable. Otherwise we have churches, like the RC and the LDS claiming that they alone can teach scripture, in other words, they are accountable to only themselves.

If it is not doctrine,then with what certitude do you have-some books may be missing?

Public revelation is over. Therefore, the canon of scripture is complete, as no one today is writing scripture.

 

[Augustus24]

Augustus24;10458882:

Consist of believers everywhere? That is it? Merely believe? James says in chapter 2:19 even the demons believe,are they included in the mix?

Ah no! Again, that is a term applied by non-Catholics. Christians denominations did not exist,heretical sects did.

Consist of believers everywhere? That is it? Merely believe? James says in chapter 2:19 even the demons believe,are they included in the mix?

No demons believe but they dont have faith. Belief is not synonymous with faith. A believer is someone with faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Ah no! Again, that is a term applied by non-Catholics. Christians denominations did not exist,heretical sects did.

No many denominations existed, the Eastern Orthodox, the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church etc.

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325;10458928:

No demons believe but they dont have faith. Belief is not synonymous with faith. A believer is someone with faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

No many denominations existed, the Eastern Orthodox, the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church etc.

Ah no! Again…what part of non-Catholic do you not comprehend? HERETICAL SECTS existed. Read history.

 

[Augustus24]

And the gnostics didn’t accept it. And the arians didn’t accept it. And…

The True Church based on Peter as steward did accept them.
(Matt 16:18 [KJV])
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

(Matt 16:19 [KJV])
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Besides, this does not excuse you protestants (denominations) from ripping these books out of the Bible.

Saint Irenaeus, a student of Saint Polycarp who was a student of Saint John whom the Lord loved, said this:

[Against Heresies Book 3]
Chapter 3 paragraph 1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about.

Paragraph 2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,]*** by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul***; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

And the gnostics didn’t accept it. And the arians didn’t accept it. And…

So? Neither do the Eastern Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, Armenian Apostolic Church, etc. They had little regard for what the pope taught in the Council of Rome.

The True Church based on Peter as steward did accept them.

I thought that the church was unified in 382? Why do these other branches have different canons now?

Besides, this does not excuse you protestants (denominations) from ripping these books out of the Bible.

Learned Catholics have long debated the canon from Jerome to Erasmus and Cajetan.

Paragraph 2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,]*** by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul***; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere

Irenaeus was speaking of a particular Gallic heresy at the time. Rome was teaching orthodoxy at that point, thats why he tells all churches to agree. However, he clearing didn’t believe that the Pope had universal jurisdiction over all, as when Pope Anicetus cracked down on Polycarp during the Quartodeciman controversy, Irenaeus opposed Anicetus and Anicetus backed down.

 

[Augustus24]

Augustus24;10458996:

Ah no! Again…what part of non-Catholic do you not comprehend? HERETICAL SECTS existed. Read history.

Your church does not consider those churches I mentioned to be heretical sects.

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325;10458914:

Augustus24;10458795:

Hello.

Christians adhere to the 27 books of the NT for many reasons. The 27 books were universally accepted by the 4th century. All others had been proven not to be canonical.

Sola Scriptura doesn’t mention anything. It is the practice of norming doctrine in the church. You could separate the scriptures into one volume of 10. It wouldn’t affect the practice.

Because scripture is outside and objective, to which everyone is accountable. Otherwise we have churches, like the RC and the LDS claiming that they alone can teach scripture, in other words, they are accountable to only themselves.

Public revelation is over. Therefore, the canon of scripture is complete, as no one today is writing scripture.

Again,you are not catching your blind faith on SS. Again, your own words:

The 27 books were universally accepted by the 4th century. All others had been proven not to be canonical.

Universally accepted-right? Who DECIDED? Others proven not to be canonical? BY WHOM?

One more time, your own words:

*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.

Well if Christians do not need a Church to tell them and canon is NOT doctrine-THEN WHY ARE YOU ACCEPTING A DECISION SET FORTH AND ESTABLISHED BY THE CC IN THE 4TH? Why are you not including the Gospel of Judas? Mary? Peter? Should I continue? Who DECIDED what constituted inspired scripture? The mass population,since according to you they need NO church or pope?

Wrong! The CC did not wait until Trent to formally canonize scripture A profound misunderstanding by non-Catholics. Trent merely re-affirmed what was established long before. Why do you think it re-affirmed at Trent? Hhmmmmm?

Your words again:

*Sola Scriptura doesn’t mention anything. It is the practice of norming doctrine in the church. You could separate the scriptures into one volume of 10. It wouldn’t affect the practice. *

If does not mention anything about a canon and no where mentions SS either-then how is the following possible:

SS is used as a praxis for all doctrine to be normed via scripture.

 

[Augustus24]

I wasn’t talking about “belief” in it. I was talking about the sacrament of Baptism, being necessary for salvation, and that infants and children should therefore be Baptized.

Jon

I see, thanks.

How do you regard those christians who disagree that infants should be baptized? Are their babies unsaved?

 

[kwortham]

I researched the history of the one with which we have been discussing history / truth. Prayer on our part is the only answer. As our 1st Pope said:

(2Pet 2:20)
For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
(2Pet 2:21)
For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
(2Pet 2:22)
But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.