I respectfully ask evangelical, protestant and sola scriptura proponents...

[Bran_Stark]

First of all, this is chapter 14 and not chapter 4.

Haha sorry about that.

Second of all, reading the Bible in early 17th century English does not make it holier. Rather, it creates cognitive dissonance.

Hey it’s better than using Latin.

Fifth of all, Paul’s words are not a license for a Christian to create their own version of the truth. As mentioned by a previous poster, Paul had very harsh words for those with heterodox views of important doctrines (i.e. the Eucharist).

Well of course. But he didn’t make any mention about consubstantiation vs. transubstantiation. He just says, this is the Body and Blood of Our Lord, and don’t forget that.

 

[Syele]

Hey Syele, you said:

For the Christian protestant, the authority is the holy bible, as you have readily admitted, not any one leader/Pastor of any one particular protestant church! OK. That makes each and every sola scriptura Christian, like yourself, (and me long ago) - ultimately the final authority when it comes to the interpretation of the Holy Bible - correct?

If not please clarify?

Sola scriptura is a complicated term with different meanings depending on many things (and going over ALL of them would likely derail the thread), It would be Helpful to me, if you would tell me what you mean by using it.

Regardless of which version of sola scriptura you are thinking of, I don’t actually know of any of the definitions where people describe themselves as Sola scriptura and mean “I am the final authority on what Scriptures means”. I certainly do not claim to be a final authority on anything.

Please, forget about catholic theology for the moment for it matters naught to the sola scriptura advocate. So, you are admitting that there is no way for one to know if one has God’s authority to start a new church, other than citing scripture?

No, I just showed scripture that commands all Christians to gather together, sing praises to God, and fellowship/support one another. I also listed one that says where 2 or more are gathered, there God is. So what I see in a protestant church is people gathering, praising God, and supporting one another. Therefore according to scriptures they not only have authority to have their “church” they would be disobedient to God if they refused to have such gatherings. If I find myself in a remote area with only a couple fellow Christians and no church, yes, I would start one rather than forsake gathering together.

This position clearly does not exclude any authority other than the Bible, though it does assert that the Bible has authority.

Starting a denomination is a whole other ball of wax.

 

[Calgar]

Ok…

That’s awesome.

No need to friend. I am merely asking:

By whose authority do I, or anyone else, have the right to start a church and call my church either the church founded by Jesus Christ or the church reformed by me via the authority of Jesus?

Will you answer the question I asked you please?

 

[JHow]

God gave Paul his information. Why would you think God left out any doctrines when He says in 2 Tim 3:16All Scripture is God-breathed. He doesn’t say anything is so. He also doesn’t point Timothy to any other source for consideration including Jewish tradition. Please tell me what doctrines you feel are missing from scripture? Why wouldn’t God want necessary doctrines recorded in scripture? If you believe in tradition why not accept the Jewish traditions from the OT?

Others have covered some of this, but I wanted to comment briefly.

Yes! Paul got his information directly from Jesus - which is to say not from scripture. Even his knowledge of Hebrew scriptures did not lead him to Christ, otherwise why was he persecuting Christians?

When you then look at Paul’s missionary activities, we see that this too, is largely oral, as opposed to written activity - preaching. Even in the passage in Timothy that you discuss, Paul tells Timothy, that he can trust the message he has received because he knows the one he received it from (i.e. Paul, an apostle). The basis for trusting the message is Paul’s authority as an apostle with direct experience of Jesus.

 

[rbarcia]

I respectfully ask evangelical, protestant and sola scriptura proponents:

By whose authority does any one person, (such as myself) - have the right to start a church and call his/her established church the church founded by Jesus Christ on Pentecost? Please leave the catholic church out of the discussion unless of course you can prove that the catholic church is not the church founded by Jesus Christ circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost!

Thanks…

church = believers = saints = called out ones = Christians , etc…

Jesus started a church which are his believers. church = the people of God, not some institution.

By what right did people have to develop an institution or religion out of creating a Magesterium, an office of a pope, etc…

 

[JHow]

church = believers = saints = called out ones = Christians , etc…

Jesus started a church which are his believers. church = the people of God, not some institution.

By what right did people have to develop an institution or religion out of creating a Magesterium, an office of a pope, etc…

The Church is people, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t an organization. From the new testament it is clear that three was a structure in place in the very early church. For instance, we were just talking about Paul. Even Paul, who had a direct experience with Christ, after his conversion went to Jerusalem and met with the disciples and Barnabas vouched for him. How do you read the espistles if not as instructions from authority to those with less authority?

 

[CopticChristian]

QUOTE=jericho777;8432139]Let me be even clearer we start a church by the call of Jesus. Just As Paul was called directly by God apart from the 12.

Yes the Christian churches are part of the body of Christ.

Yes, what about you and the EO? You have differing doctrines from them. Do you have anything to say about that? They have just as much claim as you all to being the “true Church.”

You may ask as many questions as you like. It just seems like you can never understand an others position.

Hippo, where Augustine was bishop, was over run by Arians. Ephesus over run by muslims. The One Holy Catholic Church has more adherents in the world than any other body that claims to be Christian.

You are wrong. The numbers are skewed by your mind. The numbers are that 1/2 the population of the world is Muslim, Catholic, Orthodox. 30% of the population in the world is Christian and of that percentage the overwhelming majority is Catholic, Come on over the swim is safe and many will cheer you on.

 

[CopticChristian]

The Church is people, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t an organization. From the new testament it is clear that three was a structure in place in the very early church. For instance, we were just talking about Paul. Even Paul, who had a direct experience with Christ, after his conversion went to Jerusalem and met with the disciples and Barnabas vouched for him. How do you read the espistles if not as instructions from authority to those with less authority?

Why must you or anyone use the New testament to get an idea of what the Church is. Have you looked at Eusebius or any other history concerning the Church?

 

[CopticChristian]

church = believers = saints = called out ones = Christians , etc…

Jesus started a church which are his believers. church = the people of God, not some institution.

By what right did people have to develop an institution or religion out of creating a Magesterium, an office of a pope, etc…

Through Christ, for Christ, by Christ…the question is on what authority do you propose and back up your proposition. As a Protestant any formula you give is “fallible”. No Protestant can provide any formula that must be accepted and believed by all. It is always fallible and subject to question.

So what is the authority for your concept?

 

[JHow]

Why must you or anyone use the New testament to get an idea of what the Church is. Have you looked at Eusebius or any other history concerning the Church?

Because I suspect the person I was talking with may not be open to such evidence.

 

[Nicea325]

Jesus is the living word of God so the word is alive. The Word is Jesus and has His authority. The church is under Christ’s word because Christ and the Word are one in the same.

Okay,but you still did not answer: Does Jesus Church also have authority or did he merely empower the Bible as the authority?

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;8428791]Hey Jon…

I am trying to understand and I certainly respect your perspective. Jon, which concourse of non-catholic churches comprise the one true Church established by Christ (besides the CC, EOC and the LC being the one church established by Jesus) - which also consist of the congregation of believers where the sacraments administered? Also, are we talking 7 sacraments or 2 sacraments, or doesn’t it matter?

Hi Joe,
On the first, remember that Christ said, “when two or more are gathered in my name”. Now that’s not to say that wrong doctrine isn’t dangerous. It is.

On the sacraments, this comes under the above issue to an extent (not recognizing the sacramental nature of Baptism, Eucharist and Absolution is dangerous) , but terminologies and definitions also come into play. I don’t have to view my marriage as a sacrament, per se, to recognize it as a means of grace. Same with unction or Confirmation.

I agree that Jesus’ church has been wounded by division and schism, and men on all sides share the blame. However, I am still grappling with the logic of the premise you are presenting. So, even though men like Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, and John Calvin left the CC (or were excommunicated for whatever reason) - just to name a few, and started new movements that eventually took on the formation of separate autonomous churches over time, they still belonged to the church founded by Jesus, on Pentecost because, like you said, no one has the authority but Christ to establish His Church? Not me (LOL) - Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli or John Calvin? I am really trying to warm up to that concept but am still having trouble embracing it. Points for effort though - right?..LOL…

If one views the Church as a singular institution, it might be hard to understand. I have trouble, on my side, understanding how the CC can make the claim, as well, in light of the Schism. But I’m trying, too.

I don’t think that I have asked you this, so forgive me if I have; I’m getting’ old man. LOL…

If I, for example, start a church tomorrow and establish a following, over time, would you eventually consider my new congregation of believers part of the one true Church established by Christ, consisting of the congregation of believers where the Gospel is preached and the sacraments administered, if in fact I embraced some of the sacraments?

Certainly I would consider you, by virtue of your Baptism, to be within the congregation of believers. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t consider your Church heterodox, however.

Jon

 

[jericho777]

Others have covered some of this, but I wanted to comment briefly.

Yes! Paul got his information directly from Jesus - which is to say not from scripture. Even his knowledge of Hebrew scriptures did not lead him to Christ, otherwise why was he persecuting Christians?

When you then look at Paul’s missionary activities, we see that this too, is largely oral, as opposed to written activity - preaching. Even in the passage in Timothy that you discuss, Paul tells Timothy, that he can trust the message he has received because he knows the one he received it from (i.e. Paul, an apostle). The basis for trusting the message is Paul’s authority as an apostle with direct experience of Jesus.

Paul had to get his information directly from God because these were new doctrines that were not already in scripture. If you read Paul’s writings you will see he quoted scripture many, many times. Incidentally once God gave Paul the understanding he had no problem seeing Christ in the OT.

Every doctrine Paul preached is in the bible. Paul did use the OT to preach from before the NT was written. You’ll have to admit it would be pretty hard to have a bible to preach from before it is even written! As he wrote his letters they were used for doctrine and instruction. Paul had no problem with the Bereans testing his words against the scriptures Acts 17:11.

 

[jericho777]

Okay,but you still did not answer: Does Jesus Church also have authority or did he merely empower the Bible as the authority?

The church has the authority that is outlined for it in the bible.

 

[Nicea325]

The church has the authority that is outlined for it in the bible.

So you are claiming the canonized Bible is the authority? Where does Jesus teach such a belief? The canonized Bible came before Jesus Church? So the church is submissive to the Bible?

 

[JHow]

…Every doctrine Paul preached is in the bible…

Well, how about the trinity? (or perhaps you are non-trinitarian?) Although we have the great baptismal formula spelled out in scripture, the doctrine itself (God in three persons) is not explicitly there. It takes interpretation to get at it. Many get it wrong (ahem, JWs, ahem). Because the church teaches it, we can look backwards at scripture and see it.

 

[joe370]

I didn’t know you needed authority or a right.

When the Soviet Union fell in the early ninties you had a lot of people who had never heard, or cared, about Christ.

The tiny groups of Christians who had been secretly meeting for years suddenly had a bit of freedom to express their love for Christ and have open (well, more open) meetings. Many of these groups grew in size and soon were able to rent buildings and/or buy land to build on. Now there are thriving Christian communities teaching about and spreading Chritianity.

Are you saying that you believe this is wrong?

I do not think it is wrong for tiny groups of Christians (who had been secretly meeting for years until their liberation) - to express their love for Christ via meetings.

Are these protestant or catholic Christian communities that are now thriving?

 

[joe370]

rbarcia;8435022]church = believers = saints = called out ones = Christians , etc…

If you really believe the church (regardless of denomination) = believers = saints = called out ones = Christians , etc…then you must include Catholics as part of that one church which = believers = saints = called out ones = Christians , etc…? Do you?

Jesus started a church which are his believers. church = the people of God, not some institution.

By what right did people have to develop an institution or religion out of creating a Magesterium, an office of a pope, etc…

If you really believe the church (regardless of denomination) = believers = saints = called out ones = Christians , etc…then you must include Catholics as part of that one church which = believers = saints = called out ones = Christians , etc…? Do you?

By what right…???

God, if in fact the Catholic Church is the church established by God on Pentecost! After all, Jesus said: I will build my church; Not church(es) If Jesus did not establish the CC on Pentecost then you would be right to believe that the CC had no right to start a church and claim that their church was founded by God, on Pentecost!!! If history reflected that Jesus established the Lutheran church on Pentecost, I would belong to the Lutheran church.

Don’t you mean: church(es) = believers = saints = called out ones = Christians , etc…

The Pope is the leader of the CC just as every Protestant Church has their respective leader, and I respect each and everyone of those leaders even if I don’t agree with all of their teachings or their right to start a new church. To each their own…

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

JonNC;8435915]Hi Joe,
On the first, remember that Christ said, “when two or more are gathered in my name”. Now that’s not to say that wrong doctrine isn’t dangerous. It is.

On the sacraments, this comes under the above issue to an extent (not recognizing the sacramental nature of Baptism, Eucharist and Absolution is dangerous) , but terminologies and definitions also come into play. I don’t have to view my marriage as a sacrament, per se, to recognize it as a means of grace. Same with unction or Confirmation.

So it doesn’t matter if my church (hypothetically of course) - has 2 sacraments or 7?

If one views the Church as a singular institution, it might be hard to understand. I have trouble, on my side, understanding how the CC can make the claim, as well, in light of the Schism. But I’m trying, too.

I know you are brother. Remember, I used to be right where you are. The difference is: you truly feel that you are Home in the Lutheran church, which means, in my estimation, that you really are…

You know, I have noticed, even on this thread, that some non-Catholics (not you of course) - seem to refer to the CC as an institution in a way as to almost suggest that the CC isn’t a church. I snagged the official definition of institution and I really don’t see what all the hubbub is about. Every church, be it catholic or protestant, is the following:
an organization, establishment, foundation, society, or the like, devoted to the promotion of a particular cause or program, especially one of a public, educational, or charitable character.
2.
the building devoted to such work.

Certainly I would consider you, by virtue of your Baptism, to be within the congregation of believers. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t consider your Church heterodox, however.

Jon

I have often wondered, (in the non-catholic sphere) - if there was/is any kind of litmus test for determining who (or which church) - is NOT within the congregation of believer??

 

[joe370]

Well, how about the trinity? (or perhaps you are non-trinitarian?) Although we have the great baptismal formula spelled out in scripture, the doctrine itself (God in three persons) is not explicitly there. It takes interpretation to get at it. Many get it wrong (ahem, JWs, ahem). Because the church teaches it, we can look backwards at scripture and see it.

That is so true. Absolutely nowhere in the bible does the bible explicitly or implicitly refer to the father and the holy spirit as one, or the son and the holy spirit as one, like the bible does regarding the father and the son being one. Every protestant that embraces that formula does so because the CC defined that particular dogma in the fourth century. That was one of the things, as a former protestant, that really got me thinking/interested in the CC…

I thought, if the the CC, in the 4th century, rightfully defined the Trinitarian dogma, then it stands to reason that the CC has the final say so in matters of faith, morals and doctrine, yesterday, today and until the end of time. I then thought: If the CC didn’t possess the authority, from Jesus, to define the Trinitarian dogma then there was a chance that that dogma, believed by almost all protestants, could have been heretical.

I bet you if the CC, in the 4th century, had decided against the Trinity, in favor of something else, almost all protestants today would follow suit. Protestants, unwittingly adhere to a doctrine spelled out by the CC…

Absolutely no one embraced scripture alone as the Christians final authority, until the 16th century. As a former protestant, I was quite surprised to find that out, so many years ago…