J
jlhargus
Guest
JL: You will have to enlighten me on that definition. Did they define anything more than a primacy of honor. That would not be a doctrinal definition on the role of the papacy, but a discipline. A point of order.
I respectfully ask evangelical, protestant and sola scriptura proponents...
- Status
N
Nicea325
Guest
Blessings my friend. Perhaps it is not a question of what God has said;but moreover,a question if others are willing to listen and accept it?
N
Nicea325
Guest
None of the above prove Jesus intended a one volume Bible to be written. The last verse was said by Paul,not Jesus.
J
jmcrae
Guest
He is not saying that he was commanded to write something.
Rather, he is saying that what he has written down are the commands that he had received from the Lord. He could just as easily have preached the same words in a sermon, or created a litany by which the people could memorize them (and I have no doubt that he also did both of those things, in addition to writing them in his letter, so that everyone would have access to them, and not only the literate class.)
And indeed, the command that he is conveying from God is, that all should speak in plain words that are easy to understand, and that all teaching should be done in the Church and on behalf of the Church.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I don’t know much about the Orthodox, so if you could provide a statement from their church that states that our pope is not infallible, that would be helpful, Jon.
J
joe370
Guest
Jon, do you believe that the spirit of truth (John 16:13 @ John 14:16) - is still guiding Jesus’ church (be it either the catholic or the orthodox) - into all truth, (just as the HS guided the authors of scripture to teach and write infallibly) - regarding revealed truth that is, and will continue to do so until the end of time? Or, is it your belief that that guidance ceased in the 11th century, due to the schism and cannot, or will not be re-established until the east and west reunite at which point the HS will pick up where He left off?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Incidentally, Jon, I think your question is a valid one, and I will add it to my list of 7.
However, the question can only be posed to those who espouse the paradigm, “The Holy Spirit leads all of us to the Truth and thus a central authority is unnecessary.”
Catholics don’t believe this, however, so the question, when posed to is is answered by, “Exactly. That’s why we don’t claim that the Holy Spirit will lead us to all truth outside that of the authority of the Church.”
Yes, I believe the Holy Spirit continues to guide His Church. For me that’s not the question. The question for me is who is properly hearing His truth here. Certainly, we will all hear that truth together in the Church Triumphant.
That belief would be unscriptural, in my view.
Jon
J
joe370
Guest
Jon, you said, regarding the preceding: “I think this limits the Spirit.”
How so?
Jon, I kid you not, you are my only non-Catholic friend that believes that to be true.
D
David_Castlen
Guest
Joe370
Quote:
I certainly think the Church (held accountable to scriture) is His tool for guiding the faithful.
God bless you Joe, it was hard for me to see this; albeit, for months i knew it was right after reading and reading the bilbe and then The Fathers… It was very hard leaving my Baptist brothers but this one point would not leave me alone. I appreciate your courage. God bless you.
Quote:
I certainly think the Church (held accountable to scriture) is His tool for guiding the faithful.
God bless you Joe, it was hard for me to see this; albeit, for months i knew it was right after reading and reading the bilbe and then The Fathers… It was very hard leaving my Baptist brothers but this one point would not leave me alone. I appreciate your courage. God bless you.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I appreciate this info, Jon, but I think you are conflating 2 concepts: papal supremacy vs papal infallibility.
At any rate, the question of what the Orthodox believe vs what Catholics believe regarding papal infallibility is an irrelevant one, as it applies to my point. I am refuting the paradigm: “The Holy Spirit will lead me to a correct understanding of Scripture, apart from any authority.”
The fact that the Orthodox and Catholic Churches have contradictory teachings on this (and I am not conceding this, actually, for this has not yet been shown, as regards to papal infallibility, or any other Catholic teaching for that matter) would only serve to confirm my point: without the Church you will come to all sorts of contradictory understandings and be tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I am heartened to hear this, Jon. And therefore you do not fall into the category of those who support the paradigm that the Church has no authority over their own personal interpretations. IOW: when your personal interpretation contradicts that which has been handed down by the Apostles (the paradosis), you acknowledge that you defer to the paradosis.
I am refuting those who claim that if their personal reading of Scripture leads them away from the paradosis, that’s ok because the HS led them there.
Of course, we are bound by the Church, but the HS is not, and the HS can certainly inspire and assist anyone the HS wishes to inspire and assist. HOWEVER, the HS clearly will not tell the Lutheran Church that the Eucharist is Jesus’ presence, body and blood but the Methodists that it is merely a symbol.
That’s just :whacky:
I think if what you are saying is that we really need one Church authority, then I whole-heartedly agree. Schism and division do the message of Christ no good service, and this is a sin I am willing to confess. Christ’s call for us to be one rings in my ear, as I believe it should all of us.
As for papal infallibility (ex cathedra), again from the OCA:
oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/infallibility
Jon
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes.
And as a Lutheran you believe that your church’s teachings are that which the Apostles taught? You don’t believe that she has departed at all from the paradosis?
Thanks for the reference, and I again will proffer that my knowledge of the OCA is abysmal…but I will say that I have read that most of what we disagree on is merely semantics, and not theological.
And gathering from the quote you gave, it does indeed seem that it’s merely a question of semantics, for what is infallibility but being “guided in making correct decisions and in enunciating truth”? They claim to not believe in it, yet, peculiarly, believe in it.
Also, how does the OCA compare to the Eastern Orthodox Church?
K
kelman
Guest
To begin with we know Scripture doesn’t teach those doctrines and neither did the early church. It’s got nothing to do with “mere charge” it’s simply a fact church historians, on both sides, agree with. For example, we can look to both Roman Catholic and Protestant church historians who write that the churches were led not by “one” bishop but by a plurality – including the church at Rome.
Roman Catholic scholar Joseph F. Kelly wrote in The Concise Dictionary of Early Christianity (1992, p. 2), “The word ‘pope’ was not used exclusively of the bishop of Rome until the ninth century, and it is likely that in the earliest Roman community a college of presbyters rather than a single bishop provided the leadership.”
This is echoed by Protestant church historian J.N.D. Kelly who wrote:
*”In the late 2nd or early 3rd cent. the tradition identified Peter as the first bishop of Rome. This was a natural development once the monarchical episcopate, i.e., government of the local church by a single bishop as distinct from a group of presbyter-bishops, finally emerged in Rome in the mid-2nd cent. (p. 6).
When speaking of Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Telesphorus, and Hyginus (to A.D. 142), Kelly consistently notes the same thing: there was no monarchical episcopate in Rome at this time.”
Shared leadership is rooted in the Old Testament institution of the elders of Israel and in Jesus’ founding of the apostolate. It is a highly significant but often overlooked fact that our Lord did not appoint one man to lead His church. He personally appointed and trained twelve men. Jesus Christ gave the church plurality of leadership. The Twelve comprised the first leadership council of the church and, in the most exemplary way, jointly led and taught the first Christian community."*
Another Roman Catholic historian:
“Admittedly the Catholic position, that bishops are the successors of the apostles by divine institution, remains far from easy to establish…The first problem has to do with the notion that Christ ordained apostles as bishops…The apostles were missionaries and founders of churches; there is no evidence, nor is it at all likely, that any one of them ever took up permanent residence in a particular church as its bishop…The letter of the Romans to the Corinthians, known as I Clement, which dates to about the year 96, provides good evidence that about 30 years after the death of St. Paul the church of Corinth was being led by a group of presbyters, with no indication of a bishop with authority over the whole local church…Most scholars are of the opinion that the church of Rome would most probably have also been led at that time by a group of presbyters…There exists a broad consensus among scholars, including most Catholic ones, that such churches as Alexandria, Philippi, Corinth and Rome most probably continued to be led for some time by a college of presbyters, and that only in the second century did the threefold structure of become generally the rule, with a bishop, assisted by presbyters, presiding over each local church” (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, pp. 13,14,15).
K
kelman
Guest
We know that Paul is not referring to any modern RCC doctrines such as a papacy, the Marian doctrines, infallibility, etc. Rather, he was speaking about his oral teaching as mentioned in vs 15 and vs 5 - the second coming of Jesus - that it must be preceded by apostasy and the rise of antichrist in the church, and that the Thessalonians should hold fast to that teaching, and not be so easily misled by anyone into believing that Jesus’ return was imminent. As we see from the context what was to be “passed on” was that which Paul preached – not “new doctrines”. When we simply read the context we see that Paul is reviewing in writing what he had previously preached in person in Thessalonica regarding the immanency of the second coming and apostasy entering the church. None of this offers any help for “oral traditions”.
Then I must ask again for an example of an authoritative word from the Lord or His Apostles that is not found in Scripture? You assume an “authentic voice” but have not offered any scriptural evidence for a universal authoritative interpretive body. The church did very well on its own without a pope or a magisterium for hundreds of years – so what changed?
Hopefully no one is making an assumption that this refers to Papias’ association with any of the Apostles?.. if so, it would be a wrong one. By his own words Papias wrote that he heard only John the Elder – not the Apostle John. Nevertheless, it didn’t stop the error that Papias knew the Apostle John from being propagated. Eusebius comments in his Church History: “And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, acknowledges that he had received the words of the apostles from those who had followed them, but he says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion and John the Elder. In any event he frequently mentions them by name and includes their traditions in his writings as well. Let these statements of ours not be wasted on the reader.”
As is evident, we can see how easy it is to propagate fiction especially since word of mouth is notoriously unreliable. We find an example of this in Jn 21:22-23. Much of Papias’ work is entirely legendary in character. While Eusebius at times speaks highly of Papias, he also says of him: “I think were assumptions of his own, misconceiving the apostolic narratives, and not comprehending certain things upon their pages which were spoken mystically. For he seems to have been a man of extremely small intelligence”.
What Irenaeus is referring to is that we find references to almost the whole of Scripture in the writings of the church fathers. He is not here offering support for oral tradition.
The “traditions of the Apostles” are the inspired words they penned and it is these which were, and are, “known throughout the whole world”. Irenaeus here is simply repeating what God has already told us – it is upon these Scriptures that we must ponder. In the following, we have Irenaeus telling us that Scripture is the ”pillar and ground”. ”We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith”
He continues in defending against the heretics with the following: ”For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce:” Irenaeus, as all other church fathers, always defends the faith from the written Scriptures – the apostolic tradition handed down to us by God in His mercy. In fact, Irenaeus levels what he considers a serious charge against the heretics – ”They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures;”
K
kelman
Guest
Then I ask again for an example of an authoritative word from the Lord or His Apostles that is not found in Scripture? You assume an “authentic voice” but have not offered any scriptural evidence for a universal authoritative interpretive body. The church did very well on its own without a pope or a magisterium for hundreds of years – so what changed?
You describe the position of your church as it assumes authority over the Word of God by insisting it alone can interpret Scripture. This is not true of Protestants. While we interpret Scripture, and do so at the command of God, we never assume authority over it by claiming “infallibility”.
This is a comparison of apples to oranges. Protestants don’t make a fallible decision to disavow their responsibility to study Scripture for themselves, however, Roman Catholics do.
Simply not true. I do not “entrust” my spiritual life to any man, however, the same cannot be said of Roman Catholics. They have made the fallible decision to entrust their spiritual lives to a pope and a magisterium. Unfortunately, support for neither is found in Scripture nor did the early church subscribe to either.
Well, we certainly cannot say that Roman Catholism is immune to “all sorts of novel and bizzare ideas”.
Actually, you’ve haven’t established your point at all. In no sense, do Protestants have a “final interpretive authority”. That is the position of the Roman Catholic. Besides, you are simply assuming a position with regard to your church which you haven’t even begun to prove. There was no pope or magisterium in the early church, but only Christians who lived and argued together at the prodding of the Holy Spirit. Bishops and councils tried to settle disputes but some of these were in error on key points and in the case of councils often they were reversed by other councils.
K
kelman
Guest
No one has asserted that it was a “second change” or that it "saves anyone.
Nothing to do with purgatory, that’s for sure. It’s speaking about paying your creditors before going to the court(magistrate) to avoid paying interest on the debt or being thrown into prison. It’s the same concept Mainonides taught and it’s doubtful he believed in “purgatory”.
"when he that lends, requires what he has lent, though he is rich, and the borrower is distressed, and straitened for food, there is no mercy showed him in judgment, but his debt is, demanded of him , “unto the last prutah, or mite”.’’ Hilchot M. vah. c. 1. sect. 4.
We see in Scripture(Luke 18:14 for one) that the Lord forgave sin in advance of any restitution on the part of the penitent sinner…even restitution that could never be made! Scripture after Scripture negates even the possibility of purgatory.
: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the FIRE SHALL TRY EVERY MAN’S WORK OF WHAT SORT IT IS. 14 IF ANY MAN’S WORK ABIDE which he hath built thereupon, HE SHALL RECEIVE A REWARD. 15 IF any man’s work shall be BURNED, he shall suffer LOSS: but HE HIMSELF SHALL BE SAVED; YET SO AS BY FIRE.] When one doesn’t avoid the context, we see Paul is speaking about preaching the Gospel - being ministers of the Gospel. Those who will build upon the foundation he laid(vs 10) are labourers with him(vs 9). He warns to heed how you build(vs 10). If any builds upon the foundation of Christ it will produce either gold, silver, precious stones(those saved) OR wood, hay, stubble(the unsaved)(vs 12).
In other words, preaching might result in either salvation or damnation to those who hear, there are no guarantees for the minister of the Word…the Gospel is “the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life.” The minister’s work will one day be made manifest. Of those who heard, who became the gold, silver, precious stones? OR who became the wood, hay stubble? This is revealed in the “fire” - day of judgment(vs 13).
The “work” that abides (gold,silver, precious stones) will be the reward for the one who ministered to these, to see them become saved(vs 14). If the “work” is burned(wood, hay, stubble) the minister will suffer the loss of these who did not become saved; but it has no bearing on his own salvation(vs 15).
vs 5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed,…
vs 6 I have planted, Apollos watered…
vs 8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
vs 9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building.
vs 10 …as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
vs 11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
vs 12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
vs 13 Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.
vs 14 If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
vs 15 If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
- Status