The historicity of the Church

[House_Harkonnen]

I forgot you believe that errors crept in even during the apostolic age. Therefore there is really nothing more to say. This means that john 16:13, even for the apostles, is a lie: But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth.

Even back then, they only possessed partial truth, and you gave Peter and Paul as an example.

That means only Jesus taught infallibly, passed it on to the apostles, who immediately failed to follow in Jesus’ footsteps via the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I guess our discussion is over.

There was error. Peter erred gravely and Paul had to correct him on it. That’s because he wasn’t adhering to the teachings of Jesus and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Even after, the early church fathers had errors, for example Augustine taught that sex between a married Christian couple is at least venially sinful. That’s an error.

 

[benhur]

Well how to tie this in ? From the beginning the question has been: “(What) has God really said?”. When it was written it was still to be discerned. When God does something we ask what does that mean ? It all goes back to what God does, says and “writes” that should be our authority. That is, the proper discernment of all three types of God’s communication should be authoritative. If you do not judge it properly according to God’s interpretation/meaning you have no authority on the given issue. To be fair the term SS we must remember it came after God finished his "writings, after He had done His major work thru Jesus and the apostles-even 1500 years later. It was not pulled out of thin air. By Luther’s time the authoritative power struggle was between councilarism and papal decree. Both claimed reliance on scripture. However what got muddled was the balance between them. As I stated earlier there is no authority on a matter if you are wrong. Could a council be wrong ? Could a papal decree be wrong ? SS merely states the foundation for such corrections. Certainly Jesus depicts this, as does the Jerusalem council partly and many of the first councils. Reliance on scriptures, and the proper interpretation of them. Councils are fine. A head bishop (even pope) might be fine, and we would all agree none are above the authority of correct interpretation of scripture. That correct interpretation is given of God, first to an individual, then to a council or bishop /pope etc. After all, what is a council, but a group of individuals come together for one purpose, to determine indeed what has God really said, done and written. (Much like we can thankfully do here at CAF).

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Well how to tie this in ? From the beginning the question has been: “(What) has God really said?”. When it was written it was still to be discerned.

And it’s still being discerned and twisted.

When God does something we ask what does that mean ? It all goes back to what God does, says and “writes” that should be our authority. That is, the proper discernment of all three types of God’s communication should be authoritative.

Interesting you say this. In Catholicism we have what it’s called the 3-legged stool in regards to authority:

Sacred Tradition (Does) - Sacred Scriptures (Writes) - Magisterium (Says).

If you do not judge it properly according to God’s interpretation/meaning you have no authority on the given issue.

And who resolves these conflicts of interpretation/meaning?

To be fair the term SS we must remember it came after God finished his "writings, after He had done His major work thru Jesus and the apostles-even 1500 years later. It was not pulled out of thin air.

I cannot be fair to the term SS. I can be flexible to the term Prima Scriptura, but not SS.

By Luther’s time the authoritative power struggle was between councilarism and papal decree. Both claimed reliance on scripture. However what got muddled was the balance between them.

It was actually a couple of hundred years before Luther during the Papal Schism (Avignon controversy). But the damage had been done at the time yes - rebellion followed from these dark times.

As I stated earlier there is no authority on a matter if you are wrong. Could a council be wrong ? Could a papal decree be wrong ? SS merely states the foundation for such corrections.

I have to ask again:

And who resolves these conflicts of interpretation/meaning?

Certainly Jesus depicts this, as does the Jerusalem council partly and many of the first councils.

But when Jesus and the Council uses Scriptures it’s because they are part of the authority - not without and not Scripture Alone. Why do you think Jesus had to constantly correct the Pharisees in their interpretations? No one was more SS than the Pharisees, and we already know the end of that story…

Reliance on scriptures, and the proper interpretation of them. Councils are fine. A head bishop (even pope) might be fine, and we would all agree none are above the authority of correct interpretation of scripture. That correct interpretation is given of God, first to an individual, then to a council or bishop /pope etc. After all, what is a council, but a group of individuals come together for one purpose, to determine indeed what has God really said, done and written. (Much like we can thankfully do here at CAF).

Indeed, but if there is anything we can learn form Scriptures themselves is that God has always given us men, His creation, a delegated authority to participate in His plans.

For the New Covenant, it was - is - and will be - His Church.

 

[joe371]

I am not sure he didn’t. We only have 2 verses in Galatians detailing the event.

Even so, Peter was going against Jesus teachings, which we have recorded. And they both knew well. So they could just norm their dispute with Jesus teachings that they already knew, since the NT hadn’t been written down yet.

I covered the Peter - Paul issue a few days ago. :thumbsup:Why didn’t saint Paul, when he was in Antioch, simply use the existing scriptures he had, to norm their teachings and settle the dispute in Antioch?

Acts !5: “Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them.** So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. **3 The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.”

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I covered the Peter - Paul issue a few days ago. :thumbsup:Why didn’t saint Paul, when he was in Antioch, simply use the existing scriptures he had, to norm their teachings and settle the dispute in Antioch?

Acts !5: “Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them.** So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. **3 The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.”

[bibledrb]Ephesians 3:10[/bibledrb]

 

[joe371]

There was error. Peter erred gravely and Paul had to correct him on it. That’s because he wasn’t adhering to the teachings of Jesus and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Even after, the early church fathers had errors, for example Augustine taught that sex between a married Christian couple is at least venially sinful. That’s an error.

Paul essentially chastised Peter for not practising what he preached; it was Peter that first opened up the New Covenant to the Gentiles; it was Peter who said the Gentiles should not be shackled to the Mosaic Law in order to become Christians. Paul did not correct Peter for any false teachings; he corrected him for not following his own teachings; Peter was guilty of hypocrisy only. Remember, it was Paul who came to Peter to confirm his own teachings before he decided to go out and evangelize to the Gentiles!

However, as I have said: If you are right then that means only Jesus taught infallibly, passed it on to the apostles, who immediately failed to follow in Jesus’ footsteps via the guidance of the Holy Spirit. You are unique in that belief.

 

[joe371]

[bibledrb]Ephesians 3:10[/bibledrb]

 

[spina1953]

I would like to point out something the Council of Jerusalem in that there was no SS going on. First I point out that in chapter 15 of Acts I) "Some men came down to Antioch from Judea and began to teach the bothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved.” This caused much in the way of dissension and controversy between Paul and those who were teaching something different than what Paul was teaching. Paul decided to go to Jerusalem and see the Apostles about this question concerning ‘one cannot be saved unless one is circumcised by Mosaic practice.’ Paul and Barnabas were received in Jerusalem by the Apostles and Presbyters and reported all that God had helped them to accomplish.

Some of the converted Pharisees got up and demanded that such Gentiles be circumcised and told to keep the Mosaic law. (Acts 15:5) Now the Apostles and presbyters accordingly convened to look into the matter. After much discussion Peter, took the floor and said to them :“Brothers, you know well enough that from the early days God selected me from your number to be the one whose lips the Gentiles would hear the message of the Gospel and believe. God who reads the hearts of men show His approval by granting the Holy Spirit to them just as he did to us. he made no distinction between them and us, but purified their hearts by means of faith also. Why then, do you put God to the test by trying to place on the shoulders of these converts a yoke which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear? Our belief is rather that we are saved by the favor of the Lord Jesus and so are they.” At that the whole assembly fell silent."

In Acts 15 14, James speaks and says Symeon has told you how God first concerned Himself wit taking from among the gentiles a people to bear his name The words of the prophets agree with this, where it says in Scripture hereafter I will return and rebuild the fallen hut of David: from its ruins I will rebuild it and set it up again so that all the rest of mankind and all the nations that bear my name may seek out the Lord.

Now it seems to me that it does not say what or which Scripture James is or way referring to. When Peter spoke to everyone at the council and especially to those Pharisees who demanded that Gentiles be circumcised It was God who revealed that he Peter convert Gentiles by way of the Gospel before others did so.

When James spoke it was not about Gentiles having to nor having to be circumcised but about dietary laws in that they were not to eat the meat from anything contaminated by idols from illicit sexual union and from he meat from strangled animals and from eating blood. There was no Sola Scriptura going on, since there was no New Testament in any written form only the oral teaching they had received from Jesus and reaffirmed by the Holy Spirit. So it seems to m that those who somehow think that SS was the norm at that time during the council of Jerusalem and afterwards are highly mistaken. it also seems to me that at the council of Jerusalem, it was peter who decided that Gentiles would not be circumcised and James only really added that gentile not eat from anything contaminated by idols etc. from which he quoted from Scripture what we do no know which Scripture he was referring to and it sounds to me that h was speaking orally and not reading from any particular Scripture text.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Hypothetically if I wanted to go to North Korea and secretly evangelize; risking death so that others could gather and discuss Christ… Would I be wrong?

You’d be right insofar as your teaching conformed to the Church that Jesus started; you’d be teaching error in the parts that didn’t conform.

Now, rather than asking another question, can I ask that you answer joe’s direct question:

Originally Posted by joe371
No sarcasm here: So, if I establish a church tomorrow and call JD ministries, can we add that as one of the churches established by Jesus?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Quote:

1. Follow the judgement of the higher authority (the Pope).
2. Read and study the Church Fathers.

Then Jesus was wrong or not telling the truth.
In which case nothing we do or say matters in the least.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Not at all. In fact the ECFS got things wrong, for example Augustine thought that marital sex between two Christians is still at least venially sinful. That’s error.

As far as I know, he taught that marital sex between two Christians may still be at least venially sinful.

That’s true.

The error is in your interpretation.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I am happy to acknowledge the apostolic nature of both our churches.

As I am happy to acknoledge an equal claim to the winning lottery ticket between myself and the purchaser.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Actually, he has a point though; that is if I say “We make scripture the rule and norm of every doctrine” most Catholics would object to that statement. Remember, Sola Scriptura says Scripture is the highest authority.

This is the problem.

We believe that Truth cannot contradict Truth.
So, if something has Divine Authority, it’s superfluous to compare the level of Authority.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

If a council declares something against scripture, scripture has to win.

IF “a council declares something against scripture” then not only is the council wrong, but scripture is also wrong, since Jesus promised to guide His Church. So, if this hypothetical were to happen, we (as in the Universe) would all lose.

They never had it, as such an infallible authority doesn’t exist in a church or denomination but rather scripture.

Even though you can’t show this from scripture?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

James and all the apostles at the council used scripture to norm their doctrine. They were using Sola Scriptura.

This is seriously wrong.

Let me quote from “By What Authority” by Mark Shea:

Jesus establishes the Tradition that he has not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets but to fulfill them (Mt 5:17). But when Tradition bumps into the theories of the circumcision party, the Council of Jerusalem is still necessary to authoritatively flesh that Tradition out. Moreover, the Council settles the questin by calling the Bible, not to the judge’s bench, but to the witness stand. Scripture bears witness to the call of the Gentiles, but the final judgement in Acts 15 depends on the authority of Christ speaking through his apostles and elders whose inspired declaration is not “The Bible says …” but “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us …” (Acts 15:28)

I’d really strongly suggest you read this book. It’s wonderfully logical and accessible.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

It says that with scripture I can be complete, and fully equipped for every good work. Teaching correct doctrine is a good work.

How much more equipped can I be than fully?

You don’t need scripture for that; according to scripture what you need is steadfastness.
Jas 1:4 And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

How much more perfect can I be than perfect and complete, lacking in nothing?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Can you enumerate the traditions that are outside of scripture that Paul said to hold fast to, and how you know they are Pauline in origin?

Besides the canon, which you’ve been unable to address, how about polygamy?

The Lens in My Eye
(excerpted from Chapter 6 of By What Authority?)

Polygamy

The next test of the theory that we Evangelicals derive our essential beliefs from the Bible alone was sparked by something I remembered about two of the greatest figures of Protestant history.

In college I had run across the peculiar fact that John Milton, the great Puritan poet and author of Paradise Lost, thought that monogamy was unbiblical and had written against it (though he did not actually act on his principles). Milton seems have had pious reasons for his views: he wished to preserve the biblical patriarchs against what he saw as a threat against their holiness. Milton thought that if polygamy were forbidden, then he “should be forced to exclude from the sanctuary of God as spurious, the holy offspring which sprang from them, yea, the whole of the sons of Israel, for whom the sanctuary itself was made.” So he wrote, “Either therefore polygamy is a true marriage, or all children born in that state are spurious; which would include the whole race of Jacob, the twelve holy tribes chosen by God.”

Of course, Milton is remembered primarily as a poet, not a theologian, though he knew his Bible extremely well. Since his views on polygamy were thoroughly at odds with the mainstream Christian thinking, I chalked up my discovery as a historical curiosity of the English Reformation. But to my surprise, years later I discovered that another Bible-believing figure in Protestant history held similar views, and he is not so easily dismissed. His name was Martin Luther.

Luther, it seems, was confronted with the question of whether or not the Landgrave Philip of Hesse, an important official of his day, might enter into a bigamous marriage. When pressed to render a judgment in the matter, Luther (together with Philip Melancthon) concluded that monogamy was no necessary part of the Christian revelation and that polygamy was a legitimate practice for a Christian. In his words:

I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in such a matter.

Like Milton, Luther found that the universal Christian condemnation of polygamy was not really provable from Scripture alone. For him, it was therefore a matter of Christian liberty.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

See it as one denomination in boat saying they are better than others, which may be, due to beginnings, foundation or longevity or present day correctness. All can be critiqued in much the same fashion as the holder of the churches did in Revelations and the seven churches. Again, problematic yet discernable.

Sorry, but I take that statement is much the same way as I take the beliefs of some newer religions that Jesus is just one among many prophets, who we say is better than the others.

 

[benhur]

Sorry, but I take that statement is much the same way as I take the beliefs of some newer religions that Jesus is just one among many prophets, who we say is better than the others.

Well, as I stated, if some new religion is stating Jesus is a lesser prophet it is not Christian, has no lampstand. I do not place in the Christian boat of Dominus lesus.

 

[benhur]

As I am happy to acknoledge an equal claim to the winning lottery ticket between myself and the purchaser.

To be like the early church you must act like it.