second question for our non-catholic brethern

[Protestor]

Eph.3: 9 to 12 “And to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; that through the church [SINGULAR: meaning THE CATHOLIC Church]
GOD BLESS YOU!
Patrick

The term for church that is here used in the singular form you are correct, but your bracketed section is not absolutely correct. It is your opinion and also it is why it was not specifically stated in the text. The term church is also described as a body, you might prefer one body, but do not forget that a body has many parts. This is also a likely explanation and it should be given thought. If your opinion is backed up by tradition please quote tradition.

If you are going to argue against protestants try not using the stuff from the 101 course, and make a cogent argument. Not using something that is implied but not backed up.

 

[Nicea325]

The term for church that is here used in the singular form you are correct, but your bracketed section is not absolutely correct. It is your opinion and also it is why it was not specifically stated in the text. The term church is also described as a body, you might prefer one body, but do not forget that a body has many parts. This is also a likely explanation and it should be given thought. If your opinion is backed up by tradition please quote tradition.

If you are going to argue against protestants try not using the stuff from the 101 course, and make a cogent argument. Not using something that is implied but not backed up.

Christ founding One, Holy,Catholic, and Apostolic Church is not implied in the least,but very clear.

 

[pocohombre]

But we were living in accord with those writings before they were ever written and for centuries before they were canonized.

Absolutely, again (been down this road)

No authority is transferred via the Bible.

We just agreed that it did,per early father writings.

It is a reflection of a faith already well established, not the origin of that faith and not the whole faith.

Aww shcucks, we almost in beautiful agreement, that we live according to those writings.Ok , but today’s bishops and popes are not the origin of our faith either. It is scary thing to say scripture is not the whole faith therefore not completely authoritative for those in authority.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Absolutely, again (been down this road) We just agreed that it did,per early father writings.

Almost, but not quite.

The Bible is a witness to the Authority granted to the Apostles and their successors by Jesus. It doesn’t in itself transfer authority. It can’t.

It does provide one of the witnesses, though.

 

[PJM]

=Protestor;11507796]The term for church that is here used in the singular form you are correct, but your bracketed section is not absolutely correct. It is your opinion and also it is why it was not specifically stated in the text. The term church is also described as a body, you might prefer one body, but do not forget that a body has many parts. This is also a likely explanation and it should be given thought. If your opinion is backed up by tradition please quote tradition.

If you are going to argue against protestants try not using the stuff from the 101 course, and make a cogent argument. Not using something that is implied but not backed up.

Thanks friend, I truly appreciate your rebuke.

But what I shared IS precisely what Christ [1] desired [2[] instituted [3] following OT tradition od only One “chosen people.” [4] The Keys and Gods ACTUAL Powers and Authority are given to Peter and the Apostles.
Mt. 10:1-8
Mt. 16:18-19
Mt. 18:18
Jn. 17:14-20
Jn.20:21-23
Mk. 16:14-15
Mt. 28:18-20

Then add in Eph. 4:4-8:thumbsup:

What I shared is God’s SINGULAR truth my friend

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[pocohombre]

Almost, but not quite.

The Bible is a witness to the Authority granted to the Apostles and their successors by Jesus. It doesn’t in itself transfer authority. It can’t.

It does provide one of the witnesses, though.

Wellllll, I think the bible does say it is authoritative.I think the writers knew it was going to be authoritative. i think a few even said it was authoritative. Right it solidifies authority in itself and in all other things.

 

[eddie_too]

it seems a bit superstitious to imbibe inanimate objects with authority over living human beings.

one reason it is questionable is that there is no way for an inanimate object to exercise authority. this is particularly true when trying to apply such an unusual concept of authority to a particular set of circumstances.

only real persons possess the free will and intellect required to exercise authority.

sacred scriptures cannot interpret nor even disseminate themselves.

 

[Nicea325]

Wellllll, I think the bible does say it is authoritative.I think the writers knew it was going to be authoritative. i think a few even said it was authoritative. Right it solidifies authority in itself and in all other things.

Chapter and verse where the the Bible explicitly states it is the final authority?

 

[Protestor]

Mt. 10:1-8
Mt. 16:18-19
Mt. 18:18
Jn. 17:14-20
Jn.20:21-23
Mk. 16:14-15
Mt. 28:18-20
Then add in Eph. 4:4-8:thumbsup:
What I shared is God’s SINGULAR truth my friend
God Bless you

May you bless God
Your point "one church[Catholic church]
Mt.10:1-8 This passage is not even about the church. This passage would not even be about one church. I could even argue that the twelve were only given these gifts for this time that they were sent out.
Verdict, these verses do not come close to making your point
Mt16:18-19 Peter definitely given keys no problem, the rest of the disciples are given authority, and/or power I do not know what this would fall under, to bind and loose Mt.18:18 the word for you (ὑμῖν is in the Dative 2nd person plural) I read the NASB as I see it as the best translation arguably YLT is more of a favorite of mine.
Verdict, These verses do not come close to making your point.
Mt18:18 as you can see I am just going down the list. Also does not make your point.
Jn.17:14-20 We already talked about this one. He asks that all disciples of the apostles be given the same things he asked the father for the apostles in the verses prior
Verdict, does not come close to proving your point.
Jn.20:21-23 Disciples were truly made apostles this day with the baptism of the spirit. They were given the holy spirit for guidance so that when they forgave it was forgiven and when they condemned it was condemned.
Verdict, Good for them.
Mk.16:14-15 Agghh The Great Commission go forth and preach the gospel. I’m going to cross reference this with Mt.28:17 Jesus says all authority has been given to him, not to the apostles. Then matthew makes an addition to the great commission by saying that the apostles were not only to preach the gospel, but they should make disciples and baptize them. I do not see him saying make apostles of all nations
Verdict, Does not prove anything close to what you want it to.
Mt28:18-20 I am so glad we are on the same page, and we know our cross references.
Verdict, look at verses before you quote them and give me a commentary so I know how you are twisting scripture to fit your interpretation.
Eph.4:4-8 Finally you quoted something that looks like your point. This is something we can disagree on and never come to a conclusion. I would like to refer you to Gill’s Exposition for these verses which can be found at biblehub.com He does an infinitely better job of describing what is being said here then I can. There is one body remember the one with many parts that do not look the same or have the same function. One spirit I think we will all agree on this one. One hope the hope of (for lack of space) God’s covenant being full filed. One Lord easy God. One faith this is where the rubber meets the road. I do not want to straight rip Gills in here with a sprinkle of Barnes Notes as well. This does not necessarily mean one set of doctrines. One baptism the baptism of the spirit great. One God no disagreement. We are all given grace accordingly but not the exact same.
Verdict, could make your point but needs help. This verse does not make your point directly.

God’s singular truth, maybe is that you do not know how to put together verses to prove a point, or you just think no one will read them. If this was to blunt or crass please tell me I can tone it back for you. I do think you are a big boy though and need to know how people like me take your points. I really should tone it back for the other people reading and not commenting.

 

[Protestor]

Christ founding One, Holy,Catholic, and Apostolic Church is not implied in the least,but very clear.

Ok first things first. One line answers are not going to cut it. refuting what I say with quotes from bible or tradition would be great. I think you do not understand how this works. Someone says this is the way to interpret a verse. I come in and give another possible interpretation. Then that person or others needs to tell me why their interpretation is better or why mine is incorrect. Just stating that I am wrong does not do anything to further your point. I think you do not know what implied means or you think I am interpreting wrong. Which one is it? Again I think people like you and PJM do not understand that I am swayed by the Spirit and cogent arguments, and not by capitalized words.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

it seems a bit superstitious to imbibe inanimate objects with authority over living human beings.

one reason it is questionable is that there is no way for an inanimate object to exercise authority.

One could say it is at least borderline idolatrous.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Wellllll, I think the bible does say it is authoritative.I think the writers knew it was going to be authoritative. i think a few even said it was authoritative. Right it solidifies authority in itself and in all other things.

Like when it says:
1Ti 3:15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

 

[pocohombre]

it seems a bit superstitious to imbibe inanimate objects with authority over living human beings.

one reason it is questionable is that there is no way for an inanimate object to exercise authority. this is particularly true when trying to apply such an unusual concept of authority to a particular set of circumstances.

only real persons possess the free will and intellect required to exercise authority.

sacred scriptures cannot interpret nor even disseminate themselves.

So tell me .In the movies do we not see the king or general send a written order in an envelope and then comes the wax to seal it and the ring pressed on to the was to show authenticity of said letter .The inanimate object symbolically and in reality carry authority. It will be received in higher regard than the actual carrier/ambassador.

 

[Nicea325]

So tell me .In the movies do we not see the king or general send a written order in an envelope and then comes the wax to seal it and the ring pressed on to the was to show authenticity of said letter .The inanimate object symbolically and in reality carry authority. It will be received in higher regard than the actual carrier/ambassador.

U-huh…and is the written order above its author?

 

[pocohombre]

U-huh…and is the written order above its author?

Immaterial if the co-author is dead (human writers). The “letter” carries on thru church , the body. Then there is the other movies /scripture, where the king is held to what he wrote. He is not above his written decree, can’t even change it.

 

[pocohombre]

One could say it is at least borderline idolatrous.

Yes. may we avoid *biblioatry *and churchalotry.

 

[Nicea325]

Immaterial if the co-author is dead (human writers). The “letter” carries on thru church , the body. Then there is the other movies /scripture, where the king is held to what he wrote. He is not above his written decree, can’t even change it.

And again…show me one verse where Jesus teaches written scripture-alone is the final authority?

BTW: Did Scripture all on its own determine its authority or did an external entity determine?

 

[Nicea325]

Ok first things first. One line answers are not going to cut it. refuting what I say with quotes from bible or tradition would be great. I think you do not understand how this works. Someone says this is the way to interpret a verse. I come in and give another possible interpretation. Then that person or others needs to tell me why their interpretation is better or why mine is incorrect. Just stating that I am wrong does not do anything to further your point. I think you do not know what implied means or you think I am interpreting wrong. Which one is it? Again I think people like you and PJM do not understand that I am swayed by the Spirit and cogent arguments, and not by capitalized words.

I understand,but I am not going down the long drawn out posts of providing proof. Been there to many times. Others I am sure will provide you what you are looking for.

 

[pocohombre]

Like when it says:
1Ti 3:15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

That is right .We are His temple,even his monstrance (early father said that). Yes, the church whose foundation is twelve apostles(Revelations), who gave us writings to carry on, to guide the future sheep and their pastors. Jesus resides in the Body, the ecclesia ,the church. It does not diminish His written word. it is wrong to separate Jesus from his Word and say it is “inanimate”.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

That is right .We are His temple,even his monstrance (early father said that). Yes, the church whose foundation is twelve apostles(Revelations), who gave us writings to carry on, to guide the future sheep and their pastors. Jesus resides in the Body, the ecclesia ,the church. It does not diminish His written word. it is wrong to separate Jesus from his Word and say it is “inanimate”.

Is it fair for someone who has separated from the church to claim its authority?

Suppose I were to claim that I am the “true” senator from my state. Would there be any reason why I couldn’t go to DC to cast a vote in the senate?