My rule of faith

[Nick_Jones]

You asked how we know that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ.

It is not circular reasoning to say that:

1. Scripture says Christ will build his Church upon Peter.

As I’ve been pointing out, your church teaches that without the Magisterium, your ability to interpret scripture is inadequate. This leads to the following circular argument:

We know that Christ built his Church upon Peter because Rome says so, and Rome teaches infallibly because it is the true and infallible church founded upon the rock of St. Peter.

1. The Catholic Church traces its history back to the Church witnessed by the first 150 years of Christianity, and that Church was in communion with Peter.

Circular:

We know that The Catholic Church traces its history back to the Church witnessed by the first 150 years of Christianity, and that Church was in communion with Peter because Rome says so, and Rome teaches infallibly because it is the true and infallible church founded upon the rock of St. Peter.

1. Early writings confirm that it was generally held that the See occupied by Peter was honored both because of its historical association with Peter and because of its doctrinal integritiy.

Circular:

We know that certain early writings confirm that it was generally held that the See occupied by Peter was honored both because of its historical association with Peter and because of its doctrinal integritiy because Rome says so, and Rome teaches infallibly because it is the true and infallible church founded upon the rock of St. Peter.

1. If Jesus was God and the Son of God, we can trust that he would be able to do, and WOULD do, what he said he would do: build his Church upon Peter.

Circular:

We know Jesus built his Church upon Peter because Rome says so…

This is not a circular argument. It is derived from Scripture, from history, and from tradition – a triple strand of witness.

The problem with this triple strand of witness is that none of it can stand unless the authority of Rome has already been established. Since we have no way of knowing that Jesus made Peter a pope, Rome’s assertions of authority must be accepted arbitrarily–without any objective reasoning.

 

[Damascus]

So Nick, if you dont accept the idea of Peter being first Pope then at very least you do accept Linus as first Pope?
Or have I presumed too much? Was it Martin Luther?

 

[mercygate]

We know that Christ built his Church upon Peter because Rome says so, and Rome teaches infallibly because it is the true and infallible church founded upon the rock of St. Peter.

You say Scripture is your sole rule of faith. So in your Bible do you not have Matthew 16:18-29, Mt. 18:18, Lk 22:32, Jn 21:15-17, Acts 2 & 15?

Doesn’t Jesus in your Bible say “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church”?

We know that The Catholic Church traces its history back to the Church witnessed by the first 150 years of Christianity, and that Church was in communion with Peter because Rome says so, and Rome teaches infallibly because it is the true and infallible church founded upon the rock of St. Peter.

Then are you saying that the documentary evidence – manuscript sources from the Early Church – are not admissible into evidence, even as history?

We know that certain early writings confirm that it was generally held that the See occupied by Peter was honored both because of its historical association with Peter and because of its doctrinal integritiy because Rome says so,

“Rome” says so because these things are actually demonstrable in the historic record from earliest times.

and Rome teaches infallibly because it is the true and infallible church founded upon the rock of St. Peter.

That pretty much says it.

We know Jesus built his Church upon Peter because Rome says so…

There you go again: you are rejecting the Roman position simply because it is the Roman position. Don’t let the facts get in your way, Nick.

The problem with this triple strand of witness is that none of it can stand unless the authority of Rome has already been established. Since we have no way of knowing that Jesus made Peter a pope,

I don’t know what you mean by the word “pope.” Jesus certainly placed Peter first among the apostles.

Rome’s assertions of authority must be accepted arbitrarily–without any objective reasoning.

Are you serious here? What would you call objective reasoning?

We have more “objective” witness/reasoning to demonstrate the primacy of Peter than we have against it.

You can’t even make an act of faith in Jesus Christ with any kind of intellectual integrity or moral certitude unless you first establish the credibility of Scripture.

Talk about “circular.”

 

[Little_Mary]

What is wrong with scripture alone as my rule of faith? If sola scriptura is not adequate as a rule of faith, what should I replace it with?

Thanks,

Nick

Don’t replace it, but you might want to complete it.

Please visit www.biblechristiansociety.com and order all of their CD’s to listen to. They are free.

The Bible Christian Society supports the Church that Christ founded using scripture as it’s source.

I think you will like it.

 

[KindredSoul]

Nick, you seem to admit that you do believe Christ founded one Church. You even seem to admit that you think your own interpretations of the Bible could be very fallible.

Ask yourself, would Christ found His one Church on the principles of people who (by their own admission) may get everything wrong by accident (which you admit you might) or on a principle of changeless truth?

That said, we know that the gates of hell would not prevail against Christ’s Church. That Church must have always existed, then, for as long as there has been any Christian Church whatsoever. It’s a fact that the only Church to exist continuously and in an unbroken line is the Catholic Church. In fact, the only other Church that one could even begin to argue as much for would be the Orthodox Church, and even the Orthodox Church (which teaches almost the same theology as the Catholic Church) was once part of the Catholic Church before the Great Schism. That narrows the options down quite a bit. After all, there are periods in history when no history account denies that there was no Christian Church outside of the Catholic Church, at least not that believed in the same general form of Christianity that you and everyone on this board believes in–that Christ is Fully Human, Fully Divine, etc. Even if one might argue that there were non-Catholic Christian Churches (teaching the same Christianity we have today) in the beginning, they faded out of existence until the Reformation, meaning that such churches have not been around unbroken forever.

So…if the Catholic Church isn’t the true Church, there must have been periods of history when the gates of Hell truly prevailed against the Church. Either that or Christ intentionally set up a relativist Church in which everyone could just believe whatever they could personally justify through scripture (which wasn’t even complete for some time after His death–oops), even if that meant they had thousands of contradictory views about significant beliefs. I think He cared a little more about us than to leave us with that kind of confusion.

 

[Nick_Jones]

So Nick, if you dont accept the idea of Peter being first Pope then at very least you do accept Linus as first Pope?
Or have I presumed too much? Was it Martin Luther?

I haven’t found the concept of a “papal office” suggested in the bible period.

To assume from Mt. 16 that Peter is the bedrock upon which the Church is to be founded is to miss the point which is actually being made: That it is that it is Christ who will “build My church” (vs.18). Christ has the supremacey, and He alone. He as well is the only one who possesses the power to do such a work, i.e., the building of a spiritual community of believers who have been callled by His Spirit to trusting faith. (1 Cor 6:19-20).

The assumption of Rome that it is Peter who is the foundation upon which the Church is to be built is patently false and unBiblical. In Ephesians Paul says that God’s household is built “upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone” (2:20). In all of the Gospel accounts, Peter is seen as the preeminent leader, or representative spokesman during Jesus’ earthly ministry. (C.f. Mt 15:15; 19:27; Jn 6:68). Peter was also the chief preacher and worker of miracles during the early years of the Church. (c.f. Acts 1:15-22; 2:14-40; 3:4-6, 12-26; 5:3-10, 15,29). It was to the Apostles doctrine to which the early church gave honor and focus to, not to their person. (Acts 2:42). The humility and low regard with which the apostle Peter ascribed to himself is readily seen in Acts 3:12, “Men of Israel, why do you marvel at this, or why do you gaze at us, as if by our own power or piety we had made him walk?” Peter was clearly loathe to take credit for this miracle!

I am free to use the bible to defend the doctrines of the church. You are free to defend your “church” but your church insists that you don’t have adequate capacity to interpret the bible without the help of Rome. Every time you (RC’s) quote scriture in order to prove the correctness of your church’s teachings, you prove that in reality, you reject what Rome teaches: that I am not capable of interpreting the bible.

 

[Nick_Jones]

You say Scripture is your sole rule of faith. So in your Bible do you not have Matthew 16:18-29, Mt. 18:18, Lk 22:32, Jn 21:15-17, Acts 2 & 15?

Doesn’t Jesus in your Bible say “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church”?

I am free to interpret the bible without the help of Rome. You have arbitrarily decided to trust in Rome for the correct interpretation of such phrases as, “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.”

You are a fallible creature, and fallible creatures fail. Like me, it is possible that your interpretation of, “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” might be in serious error. Do you deny this?

Then are you saying that the documentary evidence – manuscript sources from the Early Church – are not admissible into evidence, even as history?

As I’ve been saying, even history (manuscript sources from the Early Church) must be interpreted by fallible people. What you think you know infallibly, you cannot know infallibly because you (and me) are fallible.

 

[Nick_Jones]

You can’t even make an act of faith in Jesus Christ with any kind of intellectual integrity or moral certitude unless you first establish the credibility of Scripture.

Talk about “circular.”

It is God who speaks through the scriptures. God doesn’t need to establish His credibility to anyone.

 

[Nick_Jones]

Nick, you seem to admit that you do believe Christ founded one Church. You even seem to admit that you think your own interpretations of the Bible could be very fallible.

Ask yourself, would Christ found His one Church on the principles of people who (by their own admission) may get everything wrong by accident (which you admit you might) or on a principle of changeless truth?

Here you seem to assume that God has left His entire project (the church) to chance… as though His sheep were being led poorly by their Master!

Jesus said, “my sheep hear my voice.”

 

[Nick_Jones]

That said, we know that the gates of hell would not prevail against Christ’s Church. That Church must have always existed, then, for as long as there has been any Christian Church whatsoever. It’s a fact that the only Church to exist continuously and in an unbroken line is the Catholic Church.

I agree, that Church must have always existed, then, for as long as there has been any Christian Church.

God always keeps His word. The gates of hell have not, and cannot prevail against His church.

 

[Nick_Jones]

Even if one might argue that there were non-Catholic Christian Churches (teaching the same Christianity we have today) in the beginning, they faded out of existence until the Reformation, meaning that such churches have not been around unbroken forever.

It doesn’t logically follow that because we have comparatively few written records of the various branches of the church before the sixteenth century, we must assume that it completely faded away for some unknown period of time until the Reformation.

 

[Damascus]

I haven’t found the concept of a “papal office” suggested in the bible period. ]

Okay.​

I am free to use the bible to defend the doctrines of the church.

##church is a good thing. Why the lower case “c” here?
##what church is this church? I may have been there once.

You are free to defend **your “church” **but your church insists that you don’t have adequate capacity to interpret the bible without the help of Rome. Every time you (RC’s) quote scriture in order to prove the correctness of your church’s teachings, you prove that in reality, you reject what Rome teaches: that I am not capable of interpreting the bible.

##well at least you are fair about the lower case “c” in any event.
Its not MY Church. Its a community of believers that can not claim individual ownership to it. Its the Church I am a part of, yes.

You are not capable of interpreting the bible correctly Nick. And even if you were by luck, you would be missing all of the oral tradition unless you became a Catholic. Where will you be getting proper worship? We dont worship a book Nick.

This is a lousy link but it has a good diagram for you to look at. Take a look at the diagram Nick. I know you did not read all of my signature line. You made no commentary on that yet. Except that you dispute the date of the Reformation. Yet you dont provide me with evidence to the contrary Nick.

When did it occur?

Look at this diagram Nick and tell me what your thoughts are.

Godspeed Nick. soladeiverbum.com/ecf.shtml

Again, I apologize its not the best site but just look at the diagram.

 

[KindredSoul]

Here you seem to assume that God has left His entire project (the church) to chance… as though His sheep were being led poorly by their Master!

Jesus said, “my sheep hear my voice.”

Actually, I’m precisely assuming that God has not left His “project” to chance. I believe that God left the true Faith to a Church that would always explicitly and obviously guard the truth; so obviously that all who even presume to follow that Church’s teachings will believe the same things in all matters of doctrine; there will be no confusion or contradictions (after all, if the sheep hear Christ’s voice, there is no room for differences in doctrine). To say that Christ founded a Church where it’s members must admit that many their beliefs–even big ones–may be mistaken interpretations (as you have admitted of yourself; if most Protestants were as honest, they’d do likewise) is to say He left it to chance. To say that Christ founded a Church which will actually correct and guide its followers in one Truth throughout the ages (which is exactly what the Catholic Church claims) is to say He didn’t leave even one doctrine to chance. He made sure that the sheep would always hear His voice perfectly, uninhibited by their personal desires or broken interpretations…they would hear, have heard, and do hear His voice through His Church, if only they will accept.

 

[davidv]

I am free to interpret the bible without the help of Rome. You have arbitrarily decided to trust in Rome for the correct interpretation of such phrases as, “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.”

We don’t trust in Rome, we trust God’s representative and his helpers. We don’t do it arbitrarily. We have listened to Jesus when he asked Peter to care for us. Peter and his successors are Jesus’ visible representatives.

 

[mercygate]

I am free to interpret the bible without the help of Rome. You have arbitrarily decided to trust in Rome for the correct interpretation of such phrases as, “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.”

You are a fallible creature, and fallible creatures fail. Like me, it is possible that your interpretation of, “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” might be in serious error. Do you deny this?

As I’ve been saying, even history (manuscript sources from the Early Church) must be interpreted by fallible people. What you think you know infallibly, you cannot know infallibly because you (and me) are fallible.

Nick, my brother, you are thrashing. simply thrashing. As for the Rock. I may be fallible. You may be fallible. But Scripture is credible. Catholics go so far as to call it “inerrant.” In it Jesus says who the rock is, who the Apostles are, and points to his church. Not the church of mercygate. Not the church of Nick. **His **Church.

Your profile says you are “very philosophical.” Then do duh math. I know you can.

 

[mercygate]

It is God who speaks through the scriptures. God doesn’t need to establish His credibility to anyone.

God has never been shy about letting people know who He is.

Why do you believe the Scriptures at all?

Don’t tell me that your Holy Spirit can beat up my Holy Spirit.

 

[Nick_Jones]

Damascus:
You are not capable of interpreting the bible correctly Nick. And even if you were by luck, you would be missing all of the oral tradition unless you became a Catholic. Where will you be getting proper worship? We dont worship a book Nick.

God hasn’t left it to “luck” either. Who’s oral tradition is the necessary oral tradition, and how should we know it? And, I’m not suggesting that anyone should worship a book.

This is a lousy link but it has a good diagram for you to look at. Take a look at the diagram Nick. I know you did not read all of my signature line. You made no commentary on that yet. Except that you dispute the date of the Reformation. Yet you dont provide me with evidence to the contrary Nick.

When did it occur?

Look at this diagram Nick and tell me what your thoughts are.

Godspeed Nick. soladeiverbum.com/ecf.shtml

Again, I apologize its not the best site but just look at the diagram.

I’ve looked at your diagram. I don’t know what to say about it, except that I don’t understand exactly what it is supposed to prove.

Blessings to you,

Nick

 

[Nick_Jones]

God has never been shy about letting people know who He is.

Why do you believe the Scriptures at all?

Don’t tell me that your Holy Spirit can beat up my Holy Spirit.

I agree, God has never been shy about letting certain people know who He is.

Why do I believe the Scriptures? Only because of the grace of God. I was once an atheist who believed that the books of the bible were just ancient mythology. Only people who are willing to believe the truth will accept the truth. God’s grace makes the elect willing to believe the truth.

 

[Damascus]

QUOTE=Nick Jones;1665120]God hasn’t left it to “luck” either. Who’s oral tradition is the necessary oral tradition, and how should we know it? And, I’m not suggesting that anyone should worship a book.

God did not leave it to luck Nick. If he did, every Christian who lived prior to your church would be S.O.L. right Nick?

I’ve looked at your diagram. I don’t know what to say about it, except that I don’t understand exactly what it is supposed to prove.

Blessings to you,

Nick

Can you just take a stab at it Nick? Do any of these men have a connection to your Church Nick? Did God decide to cut these men out of the loop?

Did he wait for you to tell us the Gospel? To teach us oral tradition?

That diagram is loaded with men who knew the correct oral tradition.

 

[Nick_Jones]

Nick, my brother, you are thrashing. simply thrashing. As for the Rock. I may be fallible. You may be fallible. But Scripture is credible. Catholics go so far as to call it “inerrant.” In it Jesus says who the rock is, who the Apostles are, and points to his church. Not the church of mercygate. Not the church of Nick. **His **Church.

Your profile says you are “very philosophical.” Then do duh math. I know you can.

The verse says, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church…”

Note that Jesus could have said, “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on YOU, PETER, I will build my church…”

Do you ever wonder why Jesus didn’t say that?