M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
I concur, see above.
.
is apostolic succession scriptural?ch.
It is **one **Church united with the see of St Peter.
- Status
.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
apostolic succession isn’t found in Scripture and wouldn’t be seen as the basis for deciding the “true church.” What is found in Scripture is that the true church will teach what the Scriptures teach and will compare all doctrines and practices to Scripture in order to determine what is true and right and what is not.
In important matters, the truth can be determined by comparing Scripture with Scripture, not apostolic succession, as the determining factor of the trueness of a church
In important matters, the truth can be determined by comparing Scripture with Scripture, not apostolic succession, as the determining factor of the trueness of a church
D
djrakowski
Guest
Where does scripture make the distinction between ‘important’ matters and ones that are less important? What, in your own personal interpretation of scripture, constitutes ‘important’ matter upon which all Christians must agree in order to hold the name ‘Christian?’ Your principle of ‘comparing Scripture with Scripture’ to arrive at the truth is fraught with problems, namely:
- sola scriptura is non-scriptural
- it has led to absolutely no doctrinal unity amongst those who adhere to ecclesial systems that have descended from the reformation - kinda tough to assert that Protesantism is the means through which the Holy Spirit will guide believers into all truth!
- you and other Protestants keep insisting that the Bible is the measure of truth, in clear opposition to 1 Timothy 3:15
- which Bible? and where did you get it? who told you what belongs in it?
J
jimmy
Guest
We are there, we are trying to guide the protestants. But they need to help themselves, God gave them free will. We are waiting with the fatted calf to be slaughtered.
J
jimmy
Guest
Protestants are the ones that appended the word Roman to the name. The Church is called Catholic.
R
RyanL
Guest
Too bad none of your cited “Protestants” in the early Church agree with you. Neither does the Bible, for that matter, but that’s not the topic I’m adressing.
And no, you didn’t answer my questions. You gave me the name of someone who manifestly believes something contrary to what you posit, and the name of a later Heretical group (who also believed stuff you do not).
You have not said whether you can produce a name from the first 1000+ years of Christian history who thinks that the Gospel is what you claim it is. This is not a trick question, like “have you stopped beating your wife”; this is an objective question of history. If no one, including the students of the Apostles, believed what you think the Gospel is…why should I trust that you have it right?
You also have not said that if it could be shown that the early Church believed what the Catholic Church believes if you would be willing to follow what would seem then to be the teachings of Christ. I don’t care what they called themselves (and thus your "c"atholic distinction is completely irrelevant), but rather I care about what they believed. The simple fact is that your beliefs are found nowhere in early Christian history, and the Catholic beliefs abound.
Finally, you have not said whether or not you believe that the gates of Hell prevailed against Christ’s Church, leaving it completely apostate until Reformer X “revived” the “true” Gospel. You seemed to have implied that some minor type of apostacy occurred, but you did not state whether you think a complete apostacy occurred.
Again, would you please answer any of my questions?!? It may not be a court of law, but it is supposed to be a two way discussion - that means that I ask and you ask, I answer and YOU answer. That does not mean that I ask and you go off on some other tangent.
You asked me what I had to say about your “early Protestants”, and I responded. I would appreciate the same courtesy in return.
God Bless,
RyanL
J
jimmy
Guest
Read the writings of Cyprian of Carthage, he predates Constantine. He is very firm on the authority of the pope(bishop of Rome). Read Irenaeus’ against Heresies which was written in the end of the second century. He is very clear when he says that all churches should obey the church of Rome ‘on account of its pre-eminent authority’. Read Ignatius of Antioch who gives Rome a place of honor. There are others as well.
J
jimmy
Guest
You are making assumptions about scripture that are not true about scripture. It does not say that the true Church will teach only from scripture. It does say to ‘hold to the traditions handed down to you whether by word of mouth or by epistle’. The scriptures were written by the Church and they can’t be taken without the Church, otherwise you have widespread confusion like the reformation has caused.
You claim that the authority of the pope can not be dated back before Constantine(already shown to be false) but I say the bible can’t be dated back before the council of Hippo. Your version is incomplete.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
lol, whaaat?
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Nowhere in Scripture did Jesus, the apostles, or any New Testament writer set forth the idea of “apostolic succession.” Never is it anything like it mentioned in Scripture, and because of that fact, never is it seen as the qualification of the “true church.” What is mentioned in Scripture is the idea that the word of God was to be the guide that the church was to follow (Acts 20:32). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17), not some infallible leader. It is the Scriptures that teachings are to be compared with (Acts 17:10-12).
R
RyanL
Guest
Are you serious? What came first, the New Testament or the Church? Keep in mind that Revelations was written around 100AD, and Christ died around 33AD…
God Bless,
RyanL
D
djrakowski
Guest
Some problems with your line of reasoning:
- Acts 20:32 says “Now I commit you to God and to the word of his grace, which can build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified.” What in this verse indicates that the word of grace, or the word of God as you say it in your post, is limited to the Bible?
- 1 Timothy 3:16-17 says that “All Scripture is God-breathed,” but note that it does NOT say that “only” scripture is God-breathed.
- Can you tell us what scriptures the Bereans examined in Acts 17:10-12, and tell us if they are identical to the New Testament that you use and regard as inspired and infallible today?
J
jimmy
Guest
Learn a little history. The scriptures were written by Catholics for Catholics. They were canonized by Catholics. They were translated and copied by Catholics. They were preserved by Catholics.
The Church predates everything in the new testament. The Church is mentioned in the NT. Not one place in the scriptures does it say that scripture is the pillar of truth, but it says this exact thing about the Church. I would even presume to say that the Church predates the Old Testament as well but lets save that discussion for another thread and another day.
Please point me to the place in scripture where it gives the list of scriptural books, otherwise scripture is dependant on Catholic tradition. You can not support the gospel of Matthew being scripture without looking to Catholic tradion. The same can be said of every other NT book.
R
RyanL
Guest
LOL - he cited 2 Tim 3:16 (which you quote), but you typo-d a response of 1 Tim 3:16 (which is only one verse off of the best Scriptural refutation: 1 Tim 3:15). The Church is the pillar and bulwark of Truth, not the Scriptures.
That’s funny…maybe I’m just easily amused…
God Bless,
RyanL
J
jimmy
Guest
As Luther said,
``We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all" - Martin Luther
``We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all" - Martin Luther
R
RyanL
Guest
That’s not really true - he could also rely on a “burning in the bosom” like the Mormons do, or he could rely exclusively and uncritically on a “tradition of men” (which is more likely the case, hence the rejection of the Catholic canon of the OT).
God Bless,
RyanL
D
djrakowski
Guest
Doh!
RyanL, thanks for the correction. I’m terribly embarrassed by my typo - it should indeed be written as “2” Timothy 3:16 and not “1” Timothy 3:16!Yesterday, I quoted the real 1 Timothy 3:15, and ‘martin’ responded that I need to read the context in which the verse was included, and went on to quote from 2 Timothy 3:16-17. I was amused then, as well
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Do Catholics hold the following question to be true…
A church must follow the same doctrinal and social foundation as the original church if it is to be considered the “true church.” ?
A church must follow the same doctrinal and social foundation as the original church if it is to be considered the “true church.” ?
R
RyanL
Guest
Largely, yes. It’s more like an acorn/oak view of looking at it, but yes, if the Church is a birch it cannot be said to be the true Church.
God Bless,
RyanL
God Bless,
RyanL
N
Nicene
Guest
Absolutely, Read Paul to Timoty. You’ll have difficulty contradicting Paul, See Acts and Peter.
Interesting comment. Can you answer these comparing scripture to scripture please.
- After Moses died was his body assumed into heaven? If so can you point to where scripture (OT) checks itself on this, if not, again show where scripture checks itself on this.
- When the apostles quote Jesus are the sayings to be found in the gospels?
- When Jesus is approached about the apostles plucking grain on the sabbath, is his statement accurate when he refers to the OT?
- Are there any prophesies in the NT not found in the OT or do they all check each other?
- Is the bible a tradition, particularly the NT?
Nicene
- Status