D
Daniel_Keeran
Guest
Very true… with qualifications.
- Status
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Writings from the early 1900s prove your point about the Church? Wait a minute and I’ll write something newer up for you.
D
Daniel_Keeran
Guest
Aristides of Athens for one is a good possibility.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Dan-
If the churches of Christ ever really existed as claimed in the paper you referenced, then I have to say that with regard to the Great Commission given by your Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, to make disciples of all nations, you have failed miserably over the past 2,000 years.
Your sect is a backwater oddity that no one has ever heard of and the gospel has not been advanced appreciably because of anything that it has done. Consequently, no one should give any credence at all to the absurd notion that yours is the true Church that Jesus promised to build.
That is the real history of the churches of Christ.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
T
tukfryer
Guest
The Office of the Papacy in Scripture
No its not. but catholics do the same thing they accuse SS protestants of, selective facts and interpretation. As most of these post go its boiling down to SS and tradition. The claimed, inerrant CC was in comunion with the EO until 1054 long after they were presumably one in agreement, but a simple comparisons raises questions about that.
Both Tertullian and Jerome gave a list of oral traditions that were not found in the Bible. (Tertullian, The crown or De Corona, ch 3-4), (Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 8) Tertullian said of these practices that “without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone”. These include, baptizing by immersion three times, giving the one baptized a “drink of milk and honey” then forbidding the person from taking a bath for a week, kneeling in Sunday mass was forbidden, and the sign of the cross was to be made on the forehead. Jerome, echoing Tertullian, said that these “observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law”. Why does the Catholic church not immerse thrice and allow kneeling? Why do both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches not keep any of these traditions, with the exception of thrice immersion by the Orthodox? Why do Roman Catholic churches today have knelling rails in front of every pew? If the “apostolic tradition” was to make the sign of the cross on the forehead, why do both Orthodox and Catholic churches change this to the current practice of the sign on the chest and head? If extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed, then why don’t the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches practice all of these things?
No its not. but catholics do the same thing they accuse SS protestants of, selective facts and interpretation. As most of these post go its boiling down to SS and tradition. The claimed, inerrant CC was in comunion with the EO until 1054 long after they were presumably one in agreement, but a simple comparisons raises questions about that.
Both Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox church leaders make the identical claim that they gave the world the Bible. If both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches make the same claim they gave the world the Bible, why do they have different books in each of their Bibles? Whose “church authority” shall we believe? Whose tradition is the one we should follow?
If the Catholic church, “by her own inherent God given power and authority” gave the world the Bible, why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Roman Catholic church wait until 1546 AD in the Council of Trent, to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon?
Tradition is apparently a pick and choose doctrine also.Both Tertullian and Jerome gave a list of oral traditions that were not found in the Bible. (Tertullian, The crown or De Corona, ch 3-4), (Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 8) Tertullian said of these practices that “without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone”. These include, baptizing by immersion three times, giving the one baptized a “drink of milk and honey” then forbidding the person from taking a bath for a week, kneeling in Sunday mass was forbidden, and the sign of the cross was to be made on the forehead. Jerome, echoing Tertullian, said that these “observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law”. Why does the Catholic church not immerse thrice and allow kneeling? Why do both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches not keep any of these traditions, with the exception of thrice immersion by the Orthodox? Why do Roman Catholic churches today have knelling rails in front of every pew? If the “apostolic tradition” was to make the sign of the cross on the forehead, why do both Orthodox and Catholic churches change this to the current practice of the sign on the chest and head? If extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed, then why don’t the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches practice all of these things?
Provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Provide proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin.
Provide a single example of where inspired apostolic “oral revelation” (tradition) differed from “written” (scripture)?
If you are not permitted to engage in private interpretation of the Bible, how do you know which “apostolic tradition” is correct between the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and the Watchtower churches, all three teach the organization alone can interpret scripture correctly, to the exclusion of individual?
I find the last question rather telling, its a circular defense, no one has any way to refute the CC or the EO or JW. The Office of the Papacy has wrapped itself in a impregnable cocoon by declaring the bible is incomplete “not SS” anyone that says different is said to not have the HS, so they cant know the scriptures. To top the whole mess off they say its imposable to be saved without them, if that is not making ones self god I dont know what is. Protestants have differences but none of them claim to have exclusive privileges from God its usually the nut jobs like Jim Jones and David Koresh that make those claims.
D
Daniel_Keeran
Guest
My authority is the same scripture that Catholics and I agree is the ONLY writing inspired by the Holy Spirit.
P
pipper
Guest
So long as they worship the bible and accept all “chruch of Christ” doctrine they are Christian according to your interpretation of what a “christian is”.
A “christian” is a church of Christ member.
And the “church of Christ” self described and self named never existed before about 1906.
And BTW Dan all Catholics are Christians, not just thousands, and not just the ones who agree with yourself.
And the true Church of Christ was established by Christ himself, Christ could have established the Church had not a single page of the NT had ever been written, Acts 2 did not found the Church.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Excuse me, but Peter was an Apostle, and the office of Apostle is mentioned. The fact that the leader of the Apostles, Peter, went to Rome and that the Bishop of Rome was considered by all to by the head of the Church is a historical fact.
Since the scriptures clearly depict Peter as the leader of the Apostles in the eyes of Jesus, the Jews, and an angel, I think your statement is simply built on a false premise.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Then by all means show the scriptures that give you, or any other private individual, authority from their private interpretation of scriptures.
While the Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God, man’s private interpretation of those scriptures are not inerrant…
P
pipper
Guest
Hmmm, Danny I see you are taking the Landmarker Baptists idea of a Baptist Succesion through history and reinterpretting it.
Got to admit, that is a new one for a churchachrister.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
This is SO off topic, that I’m tempted to ignore it, but this error is so blatant, that I must correct it.
The Canon and the Councils
Council of Rome (382 A.D.)
Convoked by Pope Damasus, this council produced the Roman Code. The Roman Code identified a list of scriptural books identical to the Council of Trent’s formally defined canon. Pope Damasus I approved the work of the first Council of Constantinople, accepting St. Athanasius’ list as divinely inspired, and indicated that if any bishop used a list of books inconsistent with the Roman canon he would need a convincing explanation.
Council of Hippo (393 A.D.)
This council reiterated the list of books established by the Council of Rome.
First Council of Carthage (397 A.D.)
This council reiterated the list of books established by the Council of Rome and also affirmed the Decree of Damasus issued in 382 A.D… Carthage*, unlike Hippo, sent its decisions to Rome for ratification. *
Pope Innocent I (405 A.D.)
In a letter to Exsuperius, the Bishop of Toulouse, Pope Innocent listed the same books established by the Council of Rome.
Pope Boniface (ca. 420 A.D.)
Pope St. Boniface I (418-422) ratified the decision of the first Council of Carthage and declared the canon settled for the Western Patriarchate. Boniface also sent the decision to the Eastern patriarchs in Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. At that point, the Catholic Canon of Sacred Scripture was informally accepted worldwide.
Second Council of Carthage (419 A.D.)
This council reiterated the list of books established by the Council of Rome.
Second Council of Nicaea (787 A.D.)
This council formally ratified the African Code which contained the same list of books that Trent would name “canonical”.
Council of Florence (1441 A.D.)
This council defined a list of inspired books identical to those defined by the African Code and the Second Council of Nicaea.
Council of Trent (1546 A.D.)
On April 8, 1546, this council produced a decree, Sacrosancta, which was the first, formal canonical definition of Old and New Testament scripture. This was the third formal affirmation of the list by an ecumenical council and at least the eighth overall.
T
tukfryer
Guest
No more errant than the circular argument that only you hold the scriptures their interpretation and salvation. Its like trying to talk common sense to someone who thinks there god, it cant be done.
I dont know that the Pope knows anything about scripture I have never heard him teach like Protestants church leaders. All I know is some other magistrate church leader whom I have never heard teach ether say he can. You just expect people to believe by faith that hes a spiritual leader? Is that what Jesus said? But such is the world we live in today, someone can be the head of GM and not be able to find the dip stick in your car. Jesus always impressed me as a hands on type of leader. You know one that leads by example. I just dont see the family resemblance in the Pope and Jesus.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I see that you didn’t interact with my rebuttal of your previous posting at all.
Would you like to re-consider your previous statement that the Catholic Church added to the canon of scripture at the Council of Trent?
F
fellowChristian
Guest
Hi Daniel–
Well lets get a definition of the word “papacy” shall we? Papacy comes from the word “pope” which comes from the Greek word meaning “poppa” which means father. A father is head of the house. So in a nutshell…
We are talking about “head of the house”. The pope is a bishop that is head of the church on earth.
The word “father” and “bishop” can be found in scripture but remember what John said about not everything being written in scripture? There’s also stuff that was handed down by word of mouth a.k.a preaching and teaching a.k.a tradition after all how would we have gotten anything if it wasn’t handed down?
So you need to see in the Bible where it says succession? But is your heart open? Or have you already convinced yourself that your right and “the Catholic Church” is wrong?
Acts 1
15At this time** Peter **stood up in the midst of the brethren (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together), and said,
16"Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus.
17"For he was counted among us and received his share in this ministry."
18(Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out.
19And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)
20"For it is written in the book of Psalms,
‘LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE,
AND LET NO ONE DWELL IN IT’;
and,
** ‘LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE**.’
21"Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us–
**22beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us–one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection." **
23So they put forward two men, **Joseph called Barsabbas **(who was also called Justus), and Matthias.
24And **they prayed and said, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen **
25to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place."
26And **they drew lots **for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and **he was added to the eleven apostles. **
this is apostolic succession. But I’m sure you will explain it away.
F
fellowChristian
Guest
Numbers 27:18-20 (New American Standard Bible)
18So the LORD said to Moses, "Take Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the Spirit, and lay your hand on him;
19and have him stand before Eleazar the priest and before all the congregation, and commission him in their sight.
20"You shall put some of your authority on him, in order that all the congregation of the sons of Israel may obey him.
Will you also explain this away?
18So the LORD said to Moses, "Take Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the Spirit, and lay your hand on him;
19and have him stand before Eleazar the priest and before all the congregation, and commission him in their sight.
20"You shall put some of your authority on him, in order that all the congregation of the sons of Israel may obey him.
Will you also explain this away?
P
PRmerger
Guest
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Have you ever listened to the Pope? Have you ever researched any of his writings, available online?
Protestants make such uninformed statements about the Pope. The Pope is the leader of a worldwide Church and cannot go to each and every Church. Just as Jesus sent the Apostles out, the Pope, as the vicar of Christ, has people working the worldwide Church.
There is so much provided by the Pope and everything is available for those who want to search for it, way more than most can absorb.
The Catholic Church represents over half the Christians worldwide. There are thousands of Protestant denominations, making up the remainder of Christians, and no one Protestant Church leader has as many to lead, which means there is no comparison between Protestant Church leaders and the Pope, in my opinion.
Your comparison is similar to comparing a mayor to the president…
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
We can put this stupid argument to bed FOREVER.
Peter, James and the Council of Jerusalem
Many non-Catholics claim that Peter could not have been the head of the earthly Church or “pope” because they believe that it was James, not Peter, who gave the final decision concerning circumcision of the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. This position indicates a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of the council. Mark Bonocore, a noted Catholic apologist, addressed this misunderstanding in his debate with Jason Engwer in 1999.
Regarding the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, I pointed out in my [opening statement] how Peter gives the definitive teachings and how, after he speaks, all debate comes to an end. However, Engwer rejects this, citing the amendments given by James, and says how James is the only one to render “judgment.” Well, first of all, it must be noted that James bases his remarks on Peter’s teaching:
“Brothers, listen to me. Symeon (i.e., Peter) has described how …” (Acts 15:13-14).
Secondly, look at what James actually says in relation to his “judgment”:
“It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19).
Well, who is this “we”? Who was “troubling the Gentiles”? Certainly not Peter (Acts 10:44-49, 11:1-18, 15:7-10). Certainly not Paul or Barnabas. So, who? Acts 15:1 tells us:
“Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised …, you cannot be saved.”
It was the Jewish faction under James (bishop of Jerusalem) that was troubling the Gentiles (Acts 15:5, Gal 2:12). Thus, James is speaking for them, not for the whole council. Indeed, that’s why his remarks are recorded at all—to show that the leader of the Jewish faction subscribed to the decisions of the council, and so silence the Judaizers who Paul will encounter later (Titus 1:10-11).*
To Bonocore’s reference from Titus, I would add this passage from Paul’s Letter to the Galatians:
Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.
Clearly, James headed up the group who thought that Gentiles must become Jews through circumcision in order to become Christians. However, after hearing Peter’s doctrinal pronouncement, he accepted Peter’s teaching and added his own pastoral comments for the benefit of the pro-circumcision group present and for those who might doubt that the leader of the “Judaizers” had really accepted the decision of the full ecumenical council.
*Taken from: Mark Bonocore v. Jason Engwer: Was the Papacy Established by Christ?
bringyou.to/apologetics/debate13.htm
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Correct. James was head of the Church in Jerusalem, John in Ephesus, but Peter went to Smyrna, Rome, then Antioch during the banishment of the Jews from Rome, and then later back to Rome where he was martyred. Moreover, while Peter founded a led local churches just as Paul did, his role as head of the universal Church was, well, universal.
Is this in scripture? Part of it is. The rest is corroborated by the letters and histories of the Church written by eyewitnesses. Just because something isn’t inspired doesn’t mean you can’t trust that it is true, Daniel.
- Status