Succession of Bishops

[Eden]

Eden,

I’m not a Bible only.

John
www.gideonsword.net

Please finish the following sentence about yourself “I am Bible and __________ .”

 

[bibleapologist]

Odell,

Why do not all the apostles have a book in th ebible if that is what they are for?

Some of their writings were not completely truthful (not good interpretations of revelation).

Why did we have to wait 300 or so years for a complete bible?

We didn’t, the writings of the Apostles were testified by Turtullian to have been posted on the walls of the early churches into the 2nd century. In the mid- 2nd century the New Testament had been compiled in it’s present form in two translations… the Peshito, and the Itala Biblia.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

Please finish the following sentence about yourself “I am Bible and __________ .”

I am Holy Spirit led, and the truth that is revealed to me is verified by the infallible Word of God.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Eden]

Eden,

I have already shown how claiming infallibility negates the origin of truth being God… twice.

And I did not find your claims to be valid… twice. The Church is the Bride of Christ and Christ works through His Church.

And I have already shown through scripture that all those who are born again, are indwelt with the Holy Spirit… twice.

Being indwelt with the Holy Spirit does not mean that one individually interprets the Bible without error.

As far as each individual believer being led into all truth… How else could we have access to truth, if not by the origin of truth.

Have access to truth and being capable as a fallible human being of interpreting that truth without error is not possible.

If the Holy Spirit, being God is the origin of truth… from an eternal perspective He IS all truth. So, God, being all truth (infallible) is the benchmark from which we get truth.

God is the source of truth and you and I are fallible human beings.

We are never told that we will understand all truth, or that our minds will contain all truth… but that we will be LED into all truth… which indicates a process of revelation.

But you are capable of rejecting that truth, in your fallibility and following the course of error, which I believe you have by rejecting the 2,000 year-old Church He founded and embracing a belief-system created by men 400 years ago.

We will not come to the FULL KNOWLEDGE of truth until we are present with Christ in eternity…

Agreed.

In light of the previously quoted verse, how do explain the Catholic Church’s claim to have “all truth”, or to be infallible?

The Bible calls the Catholic Church “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). And Jesus promised to guide his Church into all truth (John 16:12–13). You would have to say Jesus lied, if His Church has not been guided into all truth.

 

[Eden]

Eden,

I am Holy Spirit led, and the truth that is revealed to me is verified by the infallible Word of God.

I can see that you are having trouble with this. I don’t mean to sound patronizing, but you are not seeing the obvious.

You cannot say that the truth is revealed to you and that you repeat it or understand it without error without claiming to be infallible.

Do you interpret God’s inerrant Word with or without error?

 

[Church_Militant]

The Roman Catholic Church claims that the early churches were Catholic right? Why is it not recorded in the New Testament that they were called “Catholic”?

The only reason you can give for that is that those early churches were Catholic in “faith and practice”… Not so John! Or do you not know any New Testament Greek? It is in the New Testament Greek in Acts 9:31ἡ μεν ουν εκκλησια καθ᾽ ὁλης της ιουδαιας και γαλιλαιας και σαμαρειας ειχεν ειρηνην οικοδομουμενη και πορευομενη τω φοβω του κυριου, και τη παρακλησει του ἁγιου πνευματος επληθυνοντο. Tell us John, what do the bolded Greek words mean? In English letters they read “ecclesia catholos”. Right there in the Word of God…

Oh and so St. Ignatius of Antioch used the name Catholic Church in his letter to a church clear on the other side of Christianity knowing that they wouldn’t know what he was referring to? LINK

Note also this LINKED POST. Look how far apart Antioch and Smyrna were…yet Ignatius knew they’d recognize the name.

I am Holy Spirit led, and the truth that is revealed to me is verified by the infallible Word of God.

So you are right and everyone for the prior history of Christianity is wrong?
If you say so…:ehh:
Pax tecum,

 

[Eden]

Odell,

Some of their writings were not completely truthful (not good interpretations of revelation).

We didn’t, the writings of the Apostles were testified by Turtullian to have been posted on the walls of the early churches into the 2nd century. In the mid- 2nd century the New Testament had been compiled in it’s present form in two translations… the Peshito, and the Itala Biblia.

John
www.gideonsword.net

The Canon was not set until the late 4th and early 5th centuries in two Councils. The men doing the “setting” were Catholic bishops, which, incidentally, was the only Christian Church around in those days.

The book “Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church” by Rt. Rev. Henry G. Graham (who, incidentally, was not Catholic) shows how the Catholic Church defined which are canonical books and how the Catholic Church preserved the Bible through the centuries.

---

 

[NotWorthy]

Notworthy,

But if the Catholic church is guided by the Holy Spirit, doesn’t that make any truth the Catholic Church conveys only truthfulness?

How does being led by the Holy Spirit equate with infallibility?

Infallibility is the inability to err. But the Catholic Church, made up of fallible men, do have the God given liberty of free-will… and therefore the ability to err.

John
www.gideonsword.net

How can the Holy Spirit guide you to teach a falsehood.

Look at it this way, you trust the Holy Spirit to lead you to the truth when you read the bible, and you’re a fallible man. Just as millions of other trust the Holy Spirit to guide them, and they come up with totally different interpretations than you do.

The Catholic Church, however, trusts the Holy Spirit to guide us in teaching the truth. As you know, this has nothing to do with the personal actions of anyone in the Church, that’s where free will comes in. That’s why the Church has been consistent in teaching about Baptism, Salvation, the Eucharist, Penance, the Communion of the Saints, etc., etc., etc…

 

[NotWorthy]

Odell,

No, I don’t believe the Apostles were infallible… Peter taught heresy and was rebuked by Paul, Thomas was an unbeliever. But the Word of God is infallible because it is from eternity… John 1:1.

Jude, along with Nebuchadnezzar’s writings are included in the scripture because they are perfectly inspired interpretations of the Holy Spirit’s revelation.

John
www.gideonsword.net

What teaching did Peter give that was heresy? He was rebuked for his actions (not eating with Gentiles), not his teaching.

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

I can see that you are having trouble with this. I don’t mean to sound patronizing, but you are not seeing the obvious.

You cannot say that the truth is revealed to you and that you repeat it or understand it without error without claiming to be infallible.

Do you interpret God’s inerrant Word with or without error?

Of course not, I am only claiming to be more truthful than the Catholic Church on these points.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Church militant,

Not so John! Or do you not know any New Testament Greek? It is in the New Testament Greek in Acts 9:31ἡ μεν ουν εκκλησια καθ᾽ ὁλης της ιουδαιας και γαλιλαιας και σαμαρειας ειχεν ειρηνην οικοδομουμενη και πορευομενη τω φοβω του κυριου, και τη παρακλησει του ἁγιου πνευματος επληθυνοντο. Tell us John, what do the bolded Greek words mean? In English letters they read “ecclesia catholos”. Right there in the Word of God…

Sorry CM, the two distinct words that you misinterpreted to say Catholic, are καθ and ολης which are “katah” (meaning down) and “holos” (meaning all). Truly these two words are preceded by “ekklesia”, but they conjunctively do not mean “catholic”…

These two words in the context would mean “down throughout”… which would testify to the correct interpretation of the King James Version…

Act 9:31 Then had the **churches rest throughout all **Judaea and Galilee and Samaria…

The alternative translation you suggest does not even come close to a correct translation.

Beside, you offer no explanation to the inclusion of the word μεν “men” which gives the word “ekklesia” it’s plural tense… “churches”.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Notworthy,

What teaching did Peter give that was heresy? He was rebuked for his actions (not eating with Gentiles), not his teaching.

The reason for Paul rebuking Peter was that his actions were persuading others such as Barnabas to be carried away with their dissimulation. Peter’s actions were teaching a false doctrine.

Gal 2:13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before [them] all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Notworthy,

How can the Holy Spirit guide you to teach a falsehood.

The Holy Spirit doesn’t guide me to teach a falsehood, if I teach a falsehood it’s because I have failed to be led by the Holy Spirit.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

The Canon was not set until the late 4th and early 5th centuries in two Councils. The men doing the “setting” were Catholic bishops, which, incidentally, was the only Christian Church around in those days.

The book “Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church” by Rt. Rev. Henry G. Graham (who, incidentally, was not Catholic) shows how the Catholic Church defined which are canonical books and how the Catholic Church preserved the Bible through the centuries.

Can you explain why Augustine, and Eusubius condemned those who translated the scripture in the 2nd century? Those who apparently were not acting in accordance with the Catholic Church… according to the CC’s leaders.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Eden,

I am Holy Spirit led, and the truth that is revealed to me is verified by the infallible Word of God.

John
www.gideonsword.net

That infallible word comes to you from the Magisterium of Christ Church.

Only an infallible body with infallible teaching authority can determine the infallible word.

There are several writings that were considered for the canon of the Bible that were deemed to be inspired by God, yet were not determined to be of apostletic origin. Have you read those? They were deemed to be inspired by God.

Would you like that list of inspired writtings so you can start to see the full word and meaning of the word?

 

[Odell]

The Canon was not set until the late 4th and early 5th centuries in two Councils. The men doing the “setting” were Catholic bishops, which, incidentally, was the only Christian Church around in those days.

The book “Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church” by Rt. Rev. Henry G. Graham (who, incidentally, was not Catholic) shows how the Catholic Church defined which are canonical books and how the Catholic Church preserved the Bible through the centuries.

---

Would that not make them infalible?

Church militant,
Sorry CM, the two distinct words that you misinterpreted to say Catholic, are καθ and ολης which are “katah” (meaning down) and “holos” (meaning all). Truly these two words are preceded by “ekklesia”, but they conjunctively do not mean “catholic”…

These two words in the context would mean “down throughout”… which would testify to the correct interpretation of the King James Version…

Says who?

Notworthy,
The Holy Spirit doesn’t guide me to teach a falsehood, if I teach a falsehood it’s because I have failed to be led by the Holy Spirit.

John
www.gideonsword.net

Do you teach falsehood? YES or NO?
I really want your answer to that.

Does the Chuch teach falsehood? NO because it is led by the Holy Spirit.

You know what infaillibilty is. It is the same thing you claim being led by the Spirit into truth. You have failed to prove why you can claim to have truth but the Church cant when we both claim to be guided be the Spirit. Again you know what the Chruch teaches regarding infaillibility but you throw out, how when Peter sined… You also know that sinnig and infalliblitly is not the same thing we have told you this over and over. The Holy Spirit leads you to truth thats what you claim is it not? But you are a sinner does that disprove that you are lead by the spirit into truth? Stop going in circles John Infalibillty make perfict since to you so stop pretending.

you have failed to say If you told someone artificial incemination is wrong would that be false or truth if it is a truthfull statement John than it is an infallible statement. It is not a statement in error because it cant be truth and error at the same time. What do you have to say about this?

Eden,
Can you explain why Augustine, and Eusubius condemned those who translated the scripture in the 2nd century? Those who apparently were not acting in accordance with the Catholic Church… according to the CC’s leaders.
John
www.gideonsword.net

Can you first give your historical proof if it comes from someone who has an ax to grind with the Church im willing to bet it aint true. So please give your historical proof dont throw out history without showing where you got it.

 

[Eden]

Eden,

Of course not, I am only claiming to be more truthful than the Catholic Church on these points.

John
www.gideonsword.net

So what are some of the errors that you have made when in interpreting His message? Maybe if you could give us the list of the areas in which you have not mistaken His message and the areas in which you have mistaken His message, we could work toward some sort of understanding.

So, let’s do a Top Ten List.

If you could list for us the Top Ten Truths that you have understood correctly and then the Top Ten Truths that you have understood in error as transmitted to you by the Holy Spirit, I think that would be the easiest format for us all to discuss.

 

[Eden]

Eden,

Can you explain why Augustine, and Eusubius condemned those who translated the scripture in the 2nd century? Those who apparently were not acting in accordance with the Catholic Church… according to the CC’s leaders.

John
www.gideonsword.net

Can you please give me a specific reference for what you are asking?

You are implying that the Church was playing tricks with Scripture, but that would mean that the Bible that was handed down to you from the Church and transformed into the KJV is a fruit of trickery.

I never understand why anti-Catholics accuse the Church of shady dealing with the Bible, yet never worry about the chain of command for 1600 years before the first Protestants had their way with it.

Canon of the New Testament (a brief history): mafg.home.isp-direct.com/bible02.htm

 

[bibleapologist]

This reply is to Eden… but is also intended to answer Odell and SeanBoyle…

If you could list for us the Top Ten Truths that you have understood correctly and then the Top Ten Truths that you have understood in error as transmitted to you by the Holy Spirit, I think that would be the easiest format for us all to discuss.

First of all… If I am not completely sure of a truth, I won’t teach it.

Secondly, if there is a truth that I feel like I don’t understand completely, I study and pray about it until I am satisfied with my understanding as it compares with what has already been revealed to me as truth… So, If I harbor incomplete understanding of truth in a certain area… I’m not so apathetic to let them accrue to the number ten before I begin to rectify what would seem to be an inconsistency.

Thirdly, beside the fact that if I had them I would not give you a list of ten truths I did not understand… we are disussing the succession of bishops… and you as a Catholic have been challenged to defend the Catholic position with scripture and reason, and not from a fideist philosophical position.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Mickey]

Irenaeus

It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times: men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about. For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries which they taught to the elite secretly and apart from the rest, they would have handed them down especially to those very ones to whom they were committing the self-same Churches. For surely they wished all those and their successors to be perfect and without reproach, to whom they handed on their authority **(Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 180-199]).

It is necessary to obey those who are the presbyters in the Church, those who, as we have shown, have succession from the Apostles; those who have received, with the succession of the episcopate, the sure charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. But the rest, who have no part in the primitive succession and assemble wheresoever they will, must be held in suspicion (ibid 4:26:2).