L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Right, we had people spread out all over the place and look at the conditions of the primitive era. No email, fax machines, cars or planes, etc, etc. So not like each Father had access to full deposit of faith.
- Status
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Hi Ben.
I’d day Paul didn’t add any qualifying statements.
1 Tim 3:15 is concrete. As is Matt 18:17
Has to be a visible Church somewhere that not only teaches truth, but has actual authority to make final decisions and uphold that truth. No flimsiness.
But yeah, always tare among wheat, goats among sheep and so problems will come and go.
Pax
A
adf417
Guest
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Hi Ben
Well, easily, God has always had his guy like Moses and priests and high priest… there was structure in place with lawfulness. You listened to the authority or God may send snakes to bite you. They didn’t tell the authority they had a better idea or different interpretation of Torah.
Moses laid his hands upon Joshua…there was a process involved just like today.
Jesus said:
And so there has always been official interpretation, not everyone with the responsibility of figuring everything out for themselves.
So, again, structure and lawfulness has always existed. The difference between the two chairs in question is, the Church was given a promise by the Lord so that it wouldn’t become corrupted.
A
ajcstr
Guest
Yes he is a pastor or asst pastor of a Calvary Chapel church. And yes, this was one of a 3 part series. I always look for these types of things (as long as the speaker isn’t too over the top) because I find they push me to dig deeper and I always come out stronger for it.
I was just trying to fact check what he was saying and my knowledge of Church history aside from the Councils is sketchy at best - especially pre-Nicea and the East/West split. This is something I want to be stronger on and I have always turned to CAF when I need this kind of help.
B
benhur
Guest
Hi La,
yes , but you can’t stop that kind of error, by channeling distribution of the God’s already approved Word. The Word went out at the beginning , and yet God had to destroy what was done with it with a flood. Then the Word began afresh with Noah, yet Babel followed all too closely.
So because some , if not many , abuse the Word, are ignorant of it in spirit and truth, you must still disseminate and let the chips fall as they may. Wide is the destruction gate and narrow the righteous path, but one should avoid the temptation to institutionally or artificially make "narrow’’. For if you take the Word out of the hands of the individual , you could easily also end up with ignorance, even superstition, and not have any more spirit and truth than wacko P offshoots, making unity empty, for many.
The most one could say as far as limiting the Word is not to cast our pearls before swine.
The snake handlers is due to much more than easy dissemination of the Word. It is also an extreme, and extreme can be found in CC also.
Today’s CC shows that lay folks can have their bibles and still be carefully and lovingly shepherded.
it is also clear that reformation had it’s root in folks who were properly trained in catholic theology , and well before the printing press, and mass distribution of bibles.
Blessings
B
benhur
Guest
Hi la,
Correct and why I posted, " there is disagreement as to whether the 100% CC interpretations of Writ is “correct”." A wrong interpretation is “unbiblical”.
Yes, standard reply and standard error that we must all beware of doing.
Have not seen entire video but first few minutes I think he addresses this tangible authority and it’s scriptural basis head on. is there a justifiable point besides being right or wrong, biblical or unbiblical as far as her authority ?
yes thank you , have heard that before but forgot that. Not sure it is the same. I think SS merely states whatever we interpret , let us first interpret Writ as normative. Like be ye fully convinced of a doctrine or practice from a biblical standpoint first.
Blessings
B
benhur
Guest
Hi la,
agree. I mean Adam and Abel were quite visible and tangible , and had authority (but not over anothers conscience and will) and were pillars of Truth, even promise carriers.
A remnant is a tangible force, as is a long standing traditional church, and a reformed church, where they operate “in spirit and in truth”.
Blessings
L
ltwin
Guest
Actually, snake handling and strychnine drinking was introduced to Pentecostal churches in Appalachia between 1908 and 1914 in a relatively isolated and impoverished area of the country.
B
benhur
Guest
Hi a,
Reminds me of a joke. A man honors God first by saying that it is true that He knows all things, and also a day to Him is as a thousand, and if he would be so kind as to arbitrate a debated question and settle the matter once and for all. God responds and says thank you for I do know the correct interpretation, and I can settle the matter for all. I will get back to you in a second"
Blessings
PS- A second isn’t up, but He has answered the question for some, but just not all,…yet.
B
benhur
Guest
Hi la,
Yes there are teachers today as there were in Jesus time. They expound on the Law, and today on Writ. Back then succession of sorts rested thru the tribe of Levi mostly Today it is the gift of God given to whom He wishes. And once observed, detected , the church then lays hands to further anoint. Being ordained ,a seminarian, is no guarantee of being indwelt by the spirit in regeneration, as noted by Nicodemus.
Remember too that the status quo, the "official’ teachers of Jesus time had not only unregenerate spirits, and bad examples, but they also had leaven , as in bad doctrine…
No one denies pastors, presbyters/bishops, prophets, teachers , healers, etc…
Blessings
B
benhur
Guest
thank you!
A
adf417
Guest
Just let me know when you CAN answer the question and everyone will be listening. Untill then remember “He will be with us till the end of time” and this is not only for the intelligent folk but for the very simple also.
Peace!!!
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
You are right about the time line.
For some reason I was thinking 1880’s which is about 25 years from the actual date.
And BTW it wasn’t a slight at Pentecostals as I know most are/were not that foolish.
Just a example of what can and did happen to certain individuals lacking in common sense and proper exegesis. Had they had a educated priest/pastor there these things are much less likely to occur. So the Church was correct in being cautious about the Word getting into the wrong hands. Quality control and shepherding of souls.
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Hi Ben.
But it’s not just the crazy off-shoots that were the problem.
I’m sure you are aware that some of these bibles had copyists errors?
Have you ever heard of the “murderers bible”?
Well, in this error riddled copy, it said LET THE CHILDREN FIRST BE KILLED.
And bibles such as*** that*** were circulating. Not good.
So I don’t agree with your assertion that the Church was wrong by attempting quality control measures. She is/was the visible shepherd of souls and we are talking about a transitional period as people gradually became more and more educated and literate as a whole.
Always easy to monday morning quarterback.
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Hi Ben,
Just to clarify, you said:
And so to recap…
The Jews had the Chair of Moses.
The Church has the Chair of Peter.
The Jews had an official interpreter.
The Church has an official interpreter
The Jews had laying on of hands with succession/authority
The Church had/has laying on of hands with succession/authority.
I realize you are concerned about bad leaven. But do you see the continuity there, even though you don’t agree in principle ?
A
ajcstr
Guest
Not to derail the conversation, hopefully this will add to it.
The council of Nicea seems to be a focal point for a lot of people. Now of course the issue at hand was the divinity of Jesus which by my understanding was not settled at that time.
It’s also my understanding that there was a Pope (Damisus I ?) and there were 250-300 bishops with reportedly 1800 being invited.
So would all agree that this group represented a “Catholic” hierarchy or is this up for debate?
I’m trying to determine where an shift from the Church of Acts to a RCC would have occurred.
The council of Nicea seems to be a focal point for a lot of people. Now of course the issue at hand was the divinity of Jesus which by my understanding was not settled at that time.
It’s also my understanding that there was a Pope (Damisus I ?) and there were 250-300 bishops with reportedly 1800 being invited.
So would all agree that this group represented a “Catholic” hierarchy or is this up for debate?
I’m trying to determine where an shift from the Church of Acts to a RCC would have occurred.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Just wanted to jump in here;
I’m afraid that when Moses spoke specifically from his position of authority, “that was it”. I’ve even read a few protestant commentaries that described his seat as “infallible”, even though we’d agree that if they had their “anti-Cathiolic” brains switched on, there’s no way they would have used that word.
Moreover, in the time of Moses, there was very little, if any “Writ” as the only biblical events to have happened up to his life are contained almost exclusively in the book of Genesis. The proto-Jewish faith was still taught, largely, in the oral traditions of the Patriarchal priesthood.
Commonly given as: “Rome has spoken, the case is closed”.
Augustine understood that there was no written text more important in Christianity than the bible. He also understood that a divine text requires a divinely appointed teacher.
The authority and responsibility for teaching was given to the Apostles and their heirs. Not you and me. Just because I have a different view of 1 Peter does not, in any way, make it a potentially correct view.
The most fundamental problem with the approach to Christianity that consists of “A man and his bible - the church will arise from that” is that it assumes the existence of several things that didn’t exist for the overwhelming majority of Christian history.
$0.02
Are you suggesting that there was some authority to appeal to beyond the the Chair of Moses, especially if Moses ruled against you in your personal understanding of “Writ”?
I’m afraid that when Moses spoke specifically from his position of authority, “that was it”. I’ve even read a few protestant commentaries that described his seat as “infallible”, even though we’d agree that if they had their “anti-Cathiolic” brains switched on, there’s no way they would have used that word.
Moreover, in the time of Moses, there was very little, if any “Writ” as the only biblical events to have happened up to his life are contained almost exclusively in the book of Genesis. The proto-Jewish faith was still taught, largely, in the oral traditions of the Patriarchal priesthood.
Augustine also wrote “The two councils sent their decrees to the Apostolic See (Rome) and the decrees quickly came back. The cause is finished; would that the error were as quickly finished”.
Commonly given as: “Rome has spoken, the case is closed”.
Augustine understood that there was no written text more important in Christianity than the bible. He also understood that a divine text requires a divinely appointed teacher.
Imagine that! A living Church that didn’t want to encourage the idea that your personal interpretation of a text was somehow authoritative apart from that living Church that predates the text by God’s own decree.
The authority and responsibility for teaching was given to the Apostles and their heirs. Not you and me. Just because I have a different view of 1 Peter does not, in any way, make it a potentially correct view.
“The Word” in any sort of written form simply didn’t exist in this point in history. The priesthood did. It always has. But not the written “Word”.
As charitably as I can, these sound like the very accusations made against the JWs by the majority of remaining Christendom, not just Catholics.
I would argue about how “clear” or complete that training was.
The most fundamental problem with the approach to Christianity that consists of “A man and his bible - the church will arise from that” is that it assumes the existence of several things that didn’t exist for the overwhelming majority of Christian history.
- A man needed to be wealthy enough to afford a bible.
Books were items for the ultra wealthy prior to the advent of the printing press. After that, they were newly affordable by the very wealthy. It’s really been in the last 200 years or so where the working-class could reasonably afford one.
From a perspective of access, the JW (and wider protestant) approach to Christianity has only been workable for commoners for about 4% of the last 6000 years.
From the perspective of the much older apostolic churches (like the CC and EO), their approach has been workable for 100% of the last 6000 years. - A man needed to be literate enough to read the bible.
For the overwhelming majority of western history, the common man knew enough writing to sign his name and recognize the signage that he frequently encountered during his geographically limited life. As late as 1820AD, only 12% or so of Americans were literate enough to functionally read and write - much less divine ancient texts!
“A man and his bible” couldn’t work because he simply couldn’t read it.
$0.02
A
ajcstr
Guest
You read my mind, forget the Watchtower and the NWT for a moment. Russell picked up his KJV Bible and this is what he came up with. If the Bible is his only authority and the Bible is your only authority and you both search the scriptures and you both say the other is wrong after such search…you see where I am going with this. From Luther to Calvin to … Russell, all used the Bible alone. Who has the authority to say the other is wrong.
Would the Church have split in the 300’s between the Arians and Trinitarians if there was no authoritative Council to decide the matter?
- Status