Were the NT churches independent or One?

[patricius79]

Originally Posted by Rightlydivide
Define in a practical sense what this one church looked like. If that is too specific, narrow it down. What was the polity of the church in 90 AD? That is just an example. You can elaborate any way you wish. But please elaborate.

Well, by about this time the distinction between Bishop and presbyter had been made, so there were three tiers of hierarchy: bishop priest and deacon. Each locality had one Bishop who represented the authority of GOd to the flock. The Church at Rome had not fully developed politically, and neither had the Church. Ast Scriptrue says, the Kingdom of Heaven is alike a mustart seed. Mt 4:31-32.

The Church was One Body: that of Jesus Christ, and was gradually understanding the deposit of faith. So the way the Church functioned thenn organically grew and grew until you see teh Cahtolic Church and teachings of of today. which are all present in inchoate and clear form in the writings of the Biblcial and post-Biblical fathers in the 100s, 200s, etc

 

[steve_b]

Steve b.

The "Moses seat’ argument is an old one and it is being used a lot lately by catholics to try and defend the primacy of Peter.

True, it’s an old argument…~1500 years old. Jesus used this oral tradition to defend the authority of the scribes and pharisees BECAUSE they sat on Moses seat. Which means Jesus did NOT use scripture to teach this point. And there was no argument.

The same argument can be used and is used to defend the primacy of Peter, only Catholics have an avalanche of written evidence to support the claim, and we have Jesus establishing this tradition
yd:

In actuality, there was no Seat (or Chair) of Moses. It was used figuratively. Moses was a law giver. He didn’t make any laws. He wrote only what God said.The pharisees declared these same laws, When Jesus said the pharisees were sitting in Moses seat it was because they enforced these same laws, but Jesus said not to do what they do because of the lofty status they gave themselves. They had no fear of God, but a self righteous pride.They were very legalistic and sought to keep people slaves to the law. (which we are no longer under) Jesus rebuked the pharisees time and again because of their superior attitude.

Let’s look at what Jesus said

Mt 23:2-3

2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat (καθέδρα); 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you,

Seat in that passage = καθέδρα kathedra

Definition:
1) a chair, a seat
a) used of the exalted seat occupied by men of eminent rank or influence, as teachers and judges

Jesus validated this ORAL tradition as truly valid and must be believed and obeyed, because it came through the successors to Moses seat…

Their hypocrasy while offensive, didn’t invalidate their authority sitting on Moses seat.
yd:

What was the one thing they did that angered Jesus? Their elevation of traditions. They nullified God’s word with** their traditions.** Making God’s word of no effect. (Matt 15,6, Mark 7:13)

Randy gave you the answer. I don’t need to repeat.
yd:

Yes, the people had to obey these laws in the OT, but Jesus came to fulfill the OT and under the NT we are no longer under the law but under grace.

grace does NOT exempt one from obedience to apostolically ordained NT authorities? Anyone who says it does exempt, is NOT as Paul says, serving our Lord but their own appetites
yd:

The point is, there are no new laws. So there is no chair of Peter!

Of course there is. Jesus established it. Just like Moses was established. Both had successors to their authority.
yd:

Every time the pharisees complained that Jesus or the apostles weren’t following traditions, i.e. washing their hands, Jesus condemned them. His response was always: “Ye do err,not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.” (Matt 22:29, Mark 12:24)

Jesus is talking to Sadducees in those passages you reference. They don’t believe in the resurrection. The pharisees and scribes DO believe in the resurrection. Jesus tells sadduccees that THEY don’t know scripture.

And BTW, THEY (sadduccees) don’t sit on Moses seat either.
yd:

Many times Jesus said**:"** It is written" to show the final authority of God’s word.This shows how easily we can fall into error when we do not know what the word of God says.

When Jesus said “it is written”, He is speaking ONLY about the OT. Not a jot or tittle was even written yet of the NT.
yd:

Jesus always went to God’s word, the Holy Scriptures to settle all arguments.

:doh2:

Jesus IS the Word of God.
yd:

When he was tempted by satan, did he use tradition to resist the devil? NO! He used what? The Scriptures. 3 times He said: “It is written” and satan fled. Yes the pharisees were law givers, but Steve this is the Old Covenant. After Christ died, the New Covenant was ushered in. Neither Peter nor any of the apostles were law makers. Instead they taught only what Jesus taught. They were commissioned to preach Christ and Him crucified. Not to “sit” on some man made throne and act as Christ on earth.

Steve, its really sad that you care more about “gaining traction” like this is some game, than searching the Scriptures for yourself. We are to test all things, even those who preach the Gospel. But RCs are not taught to be “Berean” Christians. (Acts 17:11) I’m amazed what little respect for the Bible many catholics have

I withdraw the traction comment. I was acknowledging that a small agreement looked possible. I was wrong.

Randy has answered you on your Berean comment. I hope you take the correction

As for the rest of what you wrote, I’m quite frankly stunned at how badly you twist everything.

 

[yankee_drifter]

Randy Carson,

I don’t know what happened to my post to you yesterday but I responded to your Wednesday post about authority of the RCC and it never made it on the forum.

Anyway, we are debating the authority of the RCC.

Randy wrote:

Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant

You used the catechism for evidence which tells me nothing. It does not tell me its authoritative or that it came from the apostles. Do you see the problem here? I can quote all day long from books and creeds from my church and it would be totally meaningless to you. There must be a source of authority that all Christians must recognize.

However, you admit by the above statement you quoted, that your church, bishops and pope, are under the authority of the Scriptures.

Ok, now on to questions 2 and 3. Where and how did the they receive this authority?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Anyway, we are debating the authority of the RCC.

You used the catechism for evidence which tells me nothing. It does not tell me its authoritative or that it came from the apostles. Do you see the problem here? I can quote all day long from books and creeds from my church and it would be totally meaningless to you. There must be a source of authority that all Christians must recognize.

Question #1 was “Who is authorized to speak for Rome”.

I think it is entirely reasonable for you to accept the Catholic Church’s own words regarding who speaks for the Catholic Church.

You did not ask, “Who is authorized to speak for Christianity?” or “Who is authorized to speak for God?” - which are completely different questions.

However, you admit by the above statement you quoted, that your church, bishops and pope, are under the authority of the Scriptures.

Please show me where the passage that I quoted states this.

Ok, now on to questions 2 and 3. Where and how did the they receive this authority?

Why don’t we clear up your confusion on the point above first?

 

[yankee_drifter]

Let’s deal with this Moses seat argument which is old among RCs because they are Traditionalists. First off, everyone on here said the Bible does not mention Moses seat in the OT. Wrong! I pointed out this error and referred you to Ex. 17 and 18:13-27. The RCC has tried to bolster their claim that tradition is on par with the Scriptures by erroneously using the expression: Moses’ Seat.

What we find is that it was a stone that Moses sat on and he sat on it because he was frail and tired. It bears no other significance. Tradition defenders such as the RCC, like to use this in order to try and prove “succession” and that only through oral tradition do we learn of a succession of authority of Moses’ seat from Joshua down to the current Sanhedrin. Wrong on both counts!

Second, In Exodus 18:13-27 there was not “ONE” chair of Moses, it was a figurative expression. This is proven by the fact that Jesus said that the “Scribes and the Pharisees” were seated on the “Seat of Moses”. The Scribes and the Pharisees, even all the leaders of Israel were on Moses Seat. For RCs to suggest there was a single literal seat, flies in the face of the context of Ex 18:13-27, Matt 23:2-3 and all recorded history. Read it for yourself: many were sitting on the seat of Moses at the same time, not a single man.

There was no direct succession ever recorded in history of who sat on Moses Seat. To argue such is to misrepresent history. While Moses was the actual law giver, those who supposedly “succeeded him” had no power to make new Laws. Contrary to this pattern in the Scriptures, the RC magesterium believes it has the right to make new law just as the scribes and Pharisees made all kinds of new laws.

Jesus said: You err not knowing the Scriptures!

 

[yankee_drifter]

Randy Carson I am asking you some very simple questions and its taking you several days and you still haven’t answered. Others are trying to speak for you but I asked YOU, not them. Below is your quote from the catechism.

Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant

The above quote is self explanatory. It says that the Magisterium is not superior to the Holy Scriptures, but is a servant to it. In other words, the magisterium must be obedient to the Scriptures and never override or contradict it. To be a servant to something means to obey and be loyal to. Please show me where Christ ever said the Word of God includes unwritten tradition? Were these oral traditions ever “God breathed?” "So, are the Holy Scriptures the ultimate authority of your church? Or is it Scriptures plus oral traditions?

Randy wrote:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48
87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me",49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

Regarding your quote above. where does it say anything about what is the authority of the RCC? Its says authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ, but what is this authority? It also says interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops. Are the bishops authorized to speak for the roman church? Is that your answer?

Randy wrote;

I think it is entirely reasonable for you to accept the Catholic Church’s own words regarding who speaks for the Catholic Church.

Who gave the RC magisterium its authority? Its one thing to claim authority, its entirely another thing to prove this authority was given by Christ and the apostles. The RCC claims a different authority than do Christians. You use the catechism to try and prove your church has this authority but how is this different if I use a Protestant or Evangelical book to claim authority. Its meaningless. You would reject it flat out. Anyone can make a claim but to prove it is another thing altogether.

 

[steve_b]

Let’s deal with this Moses seat argument which is old among RCs because they are Traditionalists.

In Exodus 18:13-27 there was not “ONE” chair of Moses, it was a figurative expression.

This is proven by the fact that Jesus said that the “Scribes and the Pharisees” were seated on the “Seat of Moses”. The Scribes and the Pharisees, even all the leaders of Israel were on Moses Seat.

For RCs to suggest there was a single literal seat, flies in the face of the context of Ex 18:13-27, Matt 23:2-3 and all recorded history. Read it for yourself: many were sitting on the seat of Moses at the same time, not a single man.

There was no direct succession ever recorded in history of who sat on Moses Seat. To argue such is to misrepresent history. While Moses was the actual law giver, those who supposedly “succeeded him” had no power to make new Laws. Contrary to this pattern in the Scriptures, the RC magesterium believes it has the right to make new law just as the scribes and Pharisees made all kinds of new laws.

Jesus said: You err not knowing the Scriptures!

Here’s the passages.

Ex 18
13 On the morrow Moses sat to judge the people, and the people stood about Moses from morning till evening. 14 When Moses’ father-in-law saw all that he was doing for the people, he said, “What is this that you are doing for the people? Why do you sit alone, and all the people stand about you from morning till evening?” 15 And Moses said to his father-in-law, “Because the people come to me to inquire of God; 16 when they have a dispute, they come to me and I decide between a man and his neighbor, and I make them know the statutes of God and his decisions.” 17 Moses’ father-in-law said to him, “What you are doing is not good. 18 You and the people with you will wear yourselves out, for the thing is too heavy for you; you are not able to perform it alone. 19 Listen now to my voice; I will give you counsel, and God be with you! You shall represent the people before God, and bring their cases to God; 20 and you shall teach them the statutes and the decisions, and make them know the way in which they must walk and what they must do. 21 Moreover choose able men from all the people, such as fear God, men who are trustworthy and who hate a bribe; and place such men over the people as rulers of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens. 22 And let them judge the people at all times; every great matter they shall bring to you, but any small matter they shall decide themselves; so it will be easier for you, and they will bear the burden with you. 23 If you do this, and God so commands you, then you will be able to endure, and all this people also will go to their place in peace.” 24 So Moses gave heed to the voice of his father-in-law and did all that he had said. 25 Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens. 26 And they judged the people at all times; hard cases they brought to Moses, but any small matter they decided themselves. 27 Then Moses let his father-in-law depart, and he went his way to his own country.

points in order

• Moses ALONE represented the people to God. He decided everything and taught them the matters of God. No seat of Moses BTW, is mentioned
• Moses took advice from his Father in law, to let others lighten his load and so Moses delegated authority to certain men to decide everyday matters.
• Not everybody received this authority, only certain men Moses chose.
• Moses taught those he gave authority to, IOW, he still was overseer to all
• Moses was to decide the big matters. Not every joe six pak.
• fast forward 1500 years. Jesus says the scribes and pharisees sit on Moses seat, so do everything they tell you to do. [Mt 23:2-3]

Now what is it again you’re trying to deny?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy Carson I am asking you some very simple questions and its taking you several days and you still haven’t answered. Others are trying to speak for you but I asked YOU, not them. Below is your quote from the catechism.

Since you quote my quote from the Catechism, I obviously HAVE responded to the first question. You went on to draw an inaccurate conclusion from what you read, and I asked if we should correct that misunderstanding before moving on.

The above quote is self explanatory. It says that the Magisterium is not superior to the Holy Scriptures, but is a servant to it. In other words, the magisterium must be obedient to the Scriptures and never override or contradict it.

The Catholic Church does not override or contradict the scriptures in any of its teachings. As an infallible guide, she fulfills her role as the servant of the Word of God.

However, this is where your problem seems to lie: I say, “Word of God” and you think “Bible”. The written scriptures are not the complete word of God. Read the passage from the Catechism again:

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God [whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition - see above], but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48
87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”,49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

I don’t see the word “Bible” or “scripture” anywhere in that passage, do you? Consequently, the fact that you are reading this with Protestant-colored lenses is causing you great difficulty in understanding these things.

To be a servant to something means to obey and be loyal to. Please show me where Christ ever said the Word of God includes unwritten tradition?

You mean show you from the Bible where Christ said the Word of God includes unwritten tradition?

Are you willing to concede that all of the books of the New Testament contain the words of God? Or are you trying to shoe-horn me into relying exclusively on the words of Christ in my red-letter edition?

I do hope that you will allow me to prove my case using the full canon of the New Testament, but please let me know what the rules are here.

Were these oral traditions ever “God breathed?” "So, are the Holy Scriptures the ultimate authority of your church? Or is it Scriptures plus oral traditions?

There is not a single, ultimate authority; we have the Sacred Scriptures, the Sacred Tradition, and the teaching authority of the Church.

Now, a question for you: Were the Apostles inspired and infallible in their oral preaching and teaching?

Randy wrote:

Regarding your quote above. where does it say anything about what is the authority of the RCC? Its says authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ, but what is this authority? It also says interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops. Are the bishops authorized to speak for the roman church? Is that your answer?

First, you should already be aware of the fact that Jesus gave His authority to the Apostles. This is red-letter text from your own Bible. Second, I have already stated that the Bishops in communion with the Pope (or Bishop of Rome) speak for the Church. Finally, I know of no organization known as the Roman Church; if you mean to speak of my church, then I respectfully ask you to refer to it by its proper name.

Randy wrote;

Who gave the RC magisterium its authority?

Jesus Christ.

Its one thing to claim authority, its entirely another thing to prove this authority was given by Christ and the apostles. The RCC claims a different authority than do Christians.

With good reason, of course, since other Christians were not invested with the same authority.

You use the catechism to try and prove your church has this authority but how is this different if I use a Protestant or Evangelical book to claim authority. Its meaningless. You would reject it flat out. Anyone can make a claim but to prove it is another thing altogether.

I did not use the Catechism to PROVE anything concerning authority.

You asked a question about the spokesmen of the Catholic Church, and I answered you from the Church’s own documents. If you want to know the official position of the Boy Scouts of America, would it make sense to review their own handbook or documents? Similarly, the Catholic Church should be allowed to state who within its ranks has authority to speak on its behalf and to define the boundaries of that authority.

 

[yankee_drifter]

Randy Carson,

Thank you for continuing this debate respectfully and without ad hominem. Maybe now we can get somewhere. I have numbered my questions to make it easier for you. There are 7 questions.

The Catholic Church does not override or contradict the scriptures in any of its teachings. As an infallible guide, she fulfills her role as the servant of the Word of God.

1. Do you agree based on your statement above, that all of your church’s teachings/doctrines agree with the written Scriptures as well as with oral traditions? In other words, do you agree that I will not find any RCC teaching/doctrines that contradicts what the Bible says? Please document your answer.
2. Did Christ ever promise infallibility to the church? Please document.
3. Does this mean the RCC never changes its doctrines/teachings? Please document.
4. You say the catechism says the Word of God includes oral traditions/teachings. If you can prove this from the Bible, please do so. Show me that these oral traditions came down to the RCC from the apostles. If you need to use another source for evidence, please explain why.

When I asked you who gave the RCC its authority, you replied:

Jesus Christ

.

1. Did Christ pass along the authority to men to become as He was? Please document.

First, you should already be aware of the fact that Jesus gave His authority to the Apostles.

Of course we’re agreed on this Randy.

1. Where and when was this authority that Christ gave to the Apostles passed down to this day?

Second, I have already stated that the Bishops in communion with the Pope (or Bishop of Rome) speak for the Church

1. Please show me that Peter, Paul or another apostle ever transferred apostolic authority or oral tradition down to this day.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Wow. We started with only three questions, and now we’re up to seven.

There are 7 questions.

1. Do you agree based on your statement above, that all of your church’s teachings/doctrines agree with the written Scriptures as well as with oral traditions? In other words, do you agree that I will not find any RCC teaching/doctrines that contradicts what the Bible says? Please document your answer.

It would be incorrect to say that all of the teachings/doctrines of the Catholic Church “agree with the written Scriptures as well as with oral traditions” since, IMO, this implies a complete overlap of Scripture and Tradition, and I do not believe that a complete overlap exists. Therefore, I think it would be more accurate to say that all of the doctrines agree with Scripture OR Tradition.

None of the teachings/doctrines of the Catholic Church contradict the literal meaning of scripture (as opposed to the literalist meaning).

1. Did Christ ever promise infallibility to the church? Please document.

Yes, Jesus Christ promised that the Church would be protected from teaching error in matters of faith and morals. I will presume that you understand that infallibility is a negative gift until I see otherwise.

How would I document this? With the following verses and questions (which are rhetorical…you don’t have to respond except for your own edification):

The Infallibility of the Catholic Church Proved from Scripture

The following verses suggest that the Catholic Church is protected by God from ever teaching error in matters of faith and morals, and questions concerning each verse are provided as food for thought.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?

Matthew 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error at any time during the nearly 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation, did Jesus remain with the Church “always”?

John 14:15-16
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, did Jesus not give the Counselor or did the Counselor simply fail to remain with the Church “forever”?

John 14:18
18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, did Jesus actually leave us as “orphans” during all that time?

John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Q: Despite this promise, did the Holy Spirit fail to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Q: Did the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth?

Now, consider the following three verses:

1 John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

1 Timothy 3:13
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Mark 3:27
27In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.

Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?

In light of the above, is it possible that the Church fell into doctrinal error? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history. Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong and vibrant – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.”

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. Does this mean the RCC never changes its doctrines/teachings? Please document.

Two questions:

a. What do you mean by “change”? Is the Church allowed to develop deeper theological understanding over time? Or are we limiting “change” to mean “reverse”, “abandon” or “deny” in one period of time a teaching/doctrine held previously?

1. You say the catechism says the Word of God includes oral traditions/teachings. If you can prove this from the Bible, please do so. Show me that these oral traditions came down to the RCC from the apostles. If you need to use another source for evidence, please explain why.

I think you have this backwards. Christianity exists not in a book but in the living experience of those who follow Christ. Some of what Christians do and believe has been written down, and these writings are properly called scripture (specifically the New Testament). But not everything about the Church’s way of life, practices, beliefs, rites, etc., are written. Let me show you an example of what I mean…and, yes, the following is my own original work…I just like headlines and introductory paragraphs.

Tradition and A Few Good Catholic Men

Tradition is often thought to add to the content of the Gospel, and indeed, there are things that we know from Sacred Tradition that we cannot learn exclusively from Sacred Scripture. This manner of looking at Scripture and Tradition is known as the “Two Source” model, and it is one valid way of understanding the relationship between Scripture and Tradition. However, another model, called the “Two Mode” model, recognizes that Tradition is also properly understood to be another mode of transmission of the one Gospel.

I want to focus here on the Two Mode model, and I would like to offer an excerpt from the movie, A Few Good Men, which illustrates this principal very clearly:

---

Capt. Ross: Corporal Barnes, I hold here the Marine Corps Outline for Recruit Training. You’re familiar with this book?
Cpl. Barnes: Yes, sir.
Capt. Ross: You’ve read it?
Cpl. Barnes: Yes, sir.
Capt. Ross: Good. Would you open it up to the chapter that deals with code reds, please?
Cpl. Barnes: Sir?
Capt. Ross: Just flip open to the page of the book that talks about code reds.
Cpl. Barnes: Well, sir code red is a term that we use, I mean, just down at Gitmo, I really don’t think that…
Capt. Ross: Ah, we’re in luck then. Standard Operating Procedures, Rifle Security Company, Guantanamo Bay Cuba. Now I assume we’ll find the term code red and its definition in that book. Am I right?
Cpl. Barnes: No sir.
Capt. Ross: Coporal Barnes, I’m a Marine. Is there no book. No pamphlet or manual, no regulation or set of written orders or instructions that lets me know that, as a Marine, one of my duties is to perform code reds?
Cpl. Barnes: No sir. No book, sir.
Capt. Ross: No further questions.
[as Ross walks back to his table Kaffee takes the book out of his hand]
Kaffee: Corporal would you open this book up to the part that says that where the mess hall is.
Cpl. Barnes: Well, Lt Kaffee, that’s not in the book either, sir.
Kaffee: You mean to say the entire time you’ve been at Gitmo you’ve never had a meal?
Cpl. Barnes: No, sir. Three squares a day, sir.
Kaffee: Well, I don’t understand. How did you know where the mess hall was if it wasn’t in this book?
Cpl. Barnes: I guess I just followed the crowd at chow time, sir.
Kaffee: Thanks. No more questions.

+++

When the Apostles taught about whether infants were to be baptized, how the Lord’s supper was to be celebrated, about confession, weddings and many other things, they did not write an instruction manual. They taught by their actions and their personal example - their living witness - what we are to believe and do.

Jesus quoted scripture but never wrote a word Himself; the Apostles learned exclusively from what He said and what He did. In turn, the Apostles taught their disciples by their oral preaching and teaching, by their personal example, and by their written letters. Finally, the successors of the Apostles, the Bishops of the Catholic Church, continue to teach as Jesus and the Apostles did - from the scriptures, from their manner of life and from their oral teaching.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

When I asked you who gave the RCC its authority, you replied:

Jesus Christ.

1. Did Christ pass along the authority to men to become as He was? Please document.

“As He was”? You mean God? No, Jesus did not make the Apostles God. I don’t think that’s what you intend, but the question is vague.

However, Jesus did give the Apostles His own authority. Here are just two of many passages that reflect this:

Matthew 28:18-20
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. **Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. **And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

John 20:21-23
Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

How did the Father send Jesus? With all authority. How did Jesus send the Apostles? “As the Father sent [him]”; namely, with that same authority.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. Where and when was this authority that Christ gave to the Apostles passed down to this day?
2. Please show me that Peter, Paul or another apostle ever transferred apostolic authority or oral tradition down to this day.

These really seem to be two questions related to the single matter of Apostolic Succession, so unless you have objection or wish to make a greater distinction between them, I will answer them jointly with the following (and, yes, this is my own work):

Apostolic Succession Proved from Scripture and History

Many people deny that the successors of Peter and the Apostles had Apostolic Authority because they believe that the idea of “Apostolic Succession” is not found in the Bible. Is this really true?

To the contrary, the Bible contains clear evidence that the Apostle Paul taught Apostolic Succession to his disciples and fellow workers, Timothy, Titus and Clement. Here are the relevant passages:

---

2 Timothy 2:1-2
You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

In the passage above, there are four generations of believers contained in this one passage: 1. Paul himself, 2. Timothy, who was Paul’s disciple, 3. Those whom Timothy would disciple, and 4. Those to whom Timothy’s disciples would preach. Paul commanded Timothy to hand on the gospel to reliable men and further to ensure that those men would also hand on the gospel reliably.

---

Titus 1:5
The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.

In the passage above, we see that Paul was concerned with the appointing of capable leaders in the Cretan church. So in addition to his concern for the content of the message, he is concerned with the succession of the leadership, as well.

---

Philippians 4:3
Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow, help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

In the Letter to the Philippians, Paul mentions one of his fellow workers, Clement, who was ordained by the Apostle Peter and later became the fourth Bishop of Rome (after Peter, Linus, and Anacletus). Clement wrote his own Letter to the Corinthians, and in that letter, he stated:

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (*Letter to the Corinthians *42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

“We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. (ibid.)

From these two passages, we can see that Clement had 1) witnessed his mentors, the Apostles Peter and Paul, naming men to the office of Bishop and 2) received instructions from them that other men should succeed those Bishops appointed by the Apostles in the event that these first Bishops should die. Thus, history records that both the Apostles and their disciples such as Clement, Timothy and Titus understood and followed the practice of appointing successors to the Apostles.

While many seem to believe that anyone with a Bible may become a “pastor” by simply gathering around himself a group of fellow believers to form a church, the Bible itself teaches that true leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ must be ordained by those who were ordained before them. This process, known as Apostolic Succession, maintains an unbroken chain of continuity from Jesus, Peter and the Apostles down to the present day.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Apostolic Succession Through the Laying on of Hands Proved from Scripture

How was this Apostolic Authority handed on? By a formal ceremony known as “laying on of hands” as we see in the following passages:
1 Timothy 4:14
“Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders [or bishops] laid their hands on you.”

2 Timothy 1:6
“For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands.”
Notice that multiple Bishops were present at the ordination of Timothy and that Paul was apparently among them. This practice of having multiple Bishops involved in the ordination of a new Bishop continues in the Catholic Church today to ensure the validity of the Apostolic Succession.

Later, Timothy was sent to Corinth with the Authority of Paul to teach and remind them of the things Paul had taught them personally. Again, Paul instructed Timothy concerning the handing on of his teachings:
2 Timothy 2:2
“And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.”
In this one passage, we see four generations in the line of Apostolic Succession: 1) Paul, 2) Timothy, 3) those to whom Timothy would pass on Paul’s teachings, and 4) those whom they in turn would teach. Remember, the mission of the Church is to teach, and one office in the Church is that of teacher. Thus, Paul is instructing Timothy about the handing on of teachings of Christ which is the function of a Bishop. This is Apostolic Succession at work. Paul also told Titus:
Titus 1:5-7
The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer [or bishop] is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless.
Paul also cautions Timothy:
1 Timothy 5:22
Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands
So we see that the ordaining of Bishops is not something to be taken lightly or done spuriously. The mission of the teaching Church must be entrusted to reliable men through the laying on of hands – a ceremony which we now call “ordination”.

 

[steve_b]

Let’s deal with this Moses seat argument which is old among RCs because they are Traditionalists.

The proper way to say it is scripture, Tradition, and the teaching authority of the Magesterium.
yd:

First off, everyone on here said the Bible does not mention Moses seat in the OT. Wrong! I pointed out this error and referred you to Ex. 17 and 18:13-27.

The RCC has tried to bolster their claim that tradition is on par with the Scriptures by erroneously using the expression: Moses’ Seat.

What we find is that it was a stone that Moses sat on and he sat on it because he was frail and tired. It bears no other significance. Tradition defenders such as the RCC, like to use this in order to try and prove “succession” and that only through oral tradition do we learn of a succession of authority of Moses’ seat from Joshua down to the current Sanhedrin. Wrong on both counts!

Second, In Exodus 18:13-27 there was not “ONE” chair of Moses, it was a figurative expression. This is proven by the fact that Jesus said that the “Scribes and the Pharisees” were seated on the “Seat of Moses”. The Scribes and the Pharisees, even all the leaders of Israel were on Moses Seat. For RCs to suggest there was a single literal seat, flies in the face of the context of Ex 18:13-27, Matt 23:2-3 and all recorded history. Read it for yourself: many were sitting on the seat of Moses at the same time, not a single man.

There was no direct succession ever recorded in history of who sat on Moses Seat. To argue such is to misrepresent history. While Moses was the actual law giver, those who supposedly “succeeded him” had no power to make new Laws. Contrary to this pattern in the Scriptures, the RC magesterium believes it has the right to make new law just as the scribes and Pharisees made all kinds of new laws.

Jesus said: You err not knowing the Scriptures!

Mt 23:2
2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat;

seat there in the Greek καθέδρα kathedra
Definition:
1) a chair, a seat
a) used of the exalted seat occupied by men of eminent rank or influence, as teachers and judges

Ex 18:13
Moses sat

ישבyashab

Reading Ex 18:13-27 the points made in those passages
· Moses ALONE represented the people to God. He decided ALONE everything and taught them the matters of God.
· Moses then took advice from his Father- in- law, to let others lighten his load and so Moses gave authority to certain men to decide everyday matters. But not the big matters.
· Not everybody received this authority, only certain men Moses chose.
· Moses taught those he gave authority to, and he still was overseer to all.
· Moses was to decide the big matters, His voice was the final authority.
Look it up yourself, that’s what those passages said

As an analogy, In the American court system, when there is a disagreement, we have various courts, district, state and federal. There are various higher courts of appeal if one doesn’t like the ruling in lower courts. And assuming one still has the energy to keep fighting after those rounds, and not obtaining the ruling they want, there is the supreme court which mercifully puts an end to the issue(s) at hand,… correct?. Moses word was the final word that would end the matter. Therefore, even in the OT ONE man was at the top

Jesus gave us an authoritative teaching body and final court of appeal in the NT in the theological, doctrinal and ecclesiastical relm. It’s the Church. Because without a final court to end debate, people will argue over everything forever as in the lower court analogy with the possibility of no resolve. However, the Church has a final voice amongst all the other voices. God established ONE office over the others just as He always has. I think you know where I’m going with this.

Abraham had that voice. Moses had that voice, Peter had that voice, and so does the pope, successor to Peter.

Peter and his successors, and those in union with him makes the Church ONE.

 

[yankee_drifter]

Randy Carson,

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. I have a few more I would like to ask you for clarification’s sake before I continue.

It would be incorrect to say that all of the teachings/doctrines of the Catholic Church “agree with the written Scriptures as well as with oral traditions” since, IMO, this implies a complete overlap of Scripture and Tradition, and I do not believe that a complete overlap exists. Therefore, I think it would be more accurate to say that all of the doctrines agree with Scripture OR Tradition.

Are you saying that your church has some doctrines that do NOT agree with the Holy Scriptures? if the RCC teaches something not found in the Scriptures or even contradicts the Scriptures is it ok as long as such teachings agree with oral tradition? What do you do with tradition that does not agree with the Holy Scriptures? If a mormon tells me he has other books of equal authority with the Bible and thus his church has teachings not found in the Bible but in these other books, how is that different from what you do when you use tradition and claim its on a level with the Scriptures? Where besides the catechism and other RC sources does it ever say that the word of God can mean other sources than the Holy Spirit inspired written word of God?

None of the teachings/doctrines of the Catholic Church contradict the literal meaning of scripture (as opposed to the literalist meaning).

Could you elaborate on the difference between literal meaning and literalist meaning?

Tradition is often thought to add to the content of the Gospel, and indeed, there are things that we know from Sacred Tradition that we cannot learn exclusively from Sacred Scripture. This manner of looking at Scripture and Tradition is known as the “Two Source” model, and it is one valid way of understanding the relationship between Scripture and Tradition. However, another model, called the “Two Mode” model, recognizes that Tradition is also properly understood to be another mode of transmission of the one Gospel.

Where did Jesus or the apostles ever say tradition is needed because the Holy Scriptures are not sufficient? When the Holy Bible says we are not to add to the written word of God or go beyond what is written, what does that mean to you?

You wrote that tradition adds to the content of the Gospel. Please define what Gospel means to you. What is the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

When the Apostles taught about whether infants were to be baptized, how the Lord’s supper was to be celebrated, about confession, weddings and many other things, they did not write an instruction manual. They taught by their actions and their personal example - their living witness - what we are to believe and do.

Does not the Scriptures tell us the correct mode of baptism, whether infants were baptized and about the Lord’s Supper? That Christ alone is our Mediator and we can go directly to Him to confess our sins?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy Carson,

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. I have a few more I would like to ask you for clarification’s sake before I continue.

Are you saying that your church has some doctrines that do NOT agree with the Holy Scriptures?

I specifically stated the opposite.

if the RCC teaches something not found in the Scriptures or even contradicts the Scriptures is it ok as long as such teachings agree with oral tradition?

Yes. It would be okay if the Catholic Church teaches something not found in Sacred Scripture provided it does not contradict Sacred Scripture.

What do you do with tradition that does not agree with the Holy Scriptures?

We would reject it.

If a mormon tells me he has other books of equal authority with the Bible and thus his church has teachings not found in the Bible but in these other books, how is that different from what you do when you use tradition and claim its on a level with the Scriptures?

It is different because Jesus founded the Catholic Church (whose existence is easily demonstrable from both scripture and history) whereas Joseph Smith invented Mormonism. I understand the analogy, but surely you don’t need too much convincing of the problems associated with Mormonism. Let me know…

Where besides the catechism and other RC sources does it ever say that the word of God can mean other sources than the Holy Spirit inspired written word of God?

Would the Bible itself suffice?

Could you elaborate on the difference between literal meaning and literalist meaning?

Sure. The literal meaning of a text is what the author intended to convey. The literalist meaning is slavish adherence to the words themselves. Here is an example:

It was raining cats and dogs last night.

Literal meaning: It was raining very heavily last night.
Literalist meaning: Dogs and cats were falliing from the sky last night.

Where did Jesus or the apostles ever say tradition is needed because the Holy Scriptures are not sufficient?

Where did Jesus or the Apostles ever say that the Holy Scriptures are sufficient? In fact, where in all of the Bible do we read that the Bible alone is to be the sole rule of faith for the believer?

When the Holy Bible says we are not to add to the written word of God or go beyond what is written, what does that mean to you?

Patrick Madrid addressed this question when he was a staff apologist here at Catholic answers. He wrote:

Some commentators see in 1 Corinthians 4:6 an allusion to “what is written” in the Book of Life (Ex. 32:32-33, Rev. 20:12). This is quite possibly what Paul had in mind, since the context of 1 Corinthians 4:1-5 is divine judgment (when the Book of Life will be opened and scrutinized). He admonishes the Corinthians against speculating about how people will be judged, leaving it up to “what has been written” in the Book of Life. Although that interpretation of the text is a possibility, being consistent with the rest of Scripture, it is by no means certain.

What is certain is that Paul, in saying, “do not go beyond what is written,” was not teaching sola scriptura. If he had, he would have been advocating one of four principles, which are inconsistent with the rest of his theology: (1) Accept as authoritative only the Old Testament writings; (2) accept as authoritative only the Old Testament writings and the New Testament writings penned as of the date Paul wrote 1 Corinthians (circa A.D. 56); (3) accept as authoritative orally transmitted doctrine only until it has been reduced to writing (scripture) and only while the apostles are alive, then disregard all oral tradition and adhere only to what is written; or (4) the most extreme position, accept as authoritative only doctrine that has been reduced to writing.

The difficulties with these options are immediately clear. No Protestant would agree with option one, that the Old Testament is a sufficient authority in matters of doctrine. Nor would he accept option two, for this would mean all New Testament books written after the year 56 would not qualify under the 1 Corinthians 4:6 guideline. Hence, John’s Gospel, Acts, Romans, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, Titus, 1 & 2 Timothy, Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1, 2, & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation would all have to be jettisoned as non-authoritative.

Option three fails because in order for sola scriptura to be a “biblical” doctrine there must be, by definition, at least one Bible verse which says Scripture is sufficient, or that oral Tradition is to be disregarded once Scripture has supplanted it, or that Scripture is superior to oral Tradition. But there are no such verses; and as we’ll see, 1 Corinthians 4:6 is no exception.

Option four is likewise untenable because it contradicts Paul’s express command in to “Stand fast and hold firm to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours” (2 Thess. 2:15). Thus, for 1 Corinthians 4:6 to support the theory of sola scriptura, Paul would have been talking out of both sides of his mouth, on one side demanding adherence to the written word only, and on the other urging fastidious adherence to both written and oral tradition.

GOING BEYOND
By Patrick Madrid
catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9208chap.asp

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

You wrote that tradition adds to the content of the Gospel. Please define what Gospel means to you. What is the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Oh, c’mon…I don’t mind chatting with you, but don’t insult me. Tell you what…rather than spending my time typing up something so that you can pick at the nits, why don’t you spend your time reading the following and letting me know your opinion of it:

What is the Gospel?
by James Akin
cin.org/users/james/ebooks/gospjust/gospel.htm

Does not the Scriptures tell us the correct mode of baptism, whether infants were baptized and about the Lord’s Supper?

Apparently not sufficiently. Otherwise, why do we see some Protestants sprinkle while others immerse? Why do some Protestants claim that infants should be baptized while others reject this? Why do some Protestants believe in Christ’s real presence while others only believe in symbolism?

That Christ alone is our Mediator and we can go directly to Him to confess our sins?

Scripture does say these things, and no Catholic should claim otherwise. Scripture also shows that we may participate in Christ’s mediation for one another and that He gave the authority to forgive sins to men.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Let’s deal with this Moses seat argument which is old among RCs because they are Traditionalists. First off, everyone on here said the Bible does not mention Moses seat in the OT. Wrong! I pointed out this error and referred you to Ex. 17 and 18:13-27. The RCC has tried to bolster their claim that tradition is on par with the Scriptures by erroneously using the expression: Moses’ Seat.

I think the argument is more nuanced than that.

I, personally, would use Exodus 18:13-27 to illustrate the principle of Apostolic Succession. In the OT, we see three levels of priesthood: 1) Aaron, the high priest, 2) Levites, the ministerial priesthood who assisted Aaron in performing all the rituals, and 3) all Israel, the nation of priests. Since the Old Testament is a foreshadowing of the New, we should not be surprised to find 1) Jesus, our eternal high priest, 2) Bishops, Priests and Deacons, who share in Jesus’ priesthood, and 3) the universal priesthood of all believers (where you and I live). But I digress.

Just as Moses authorized others to assist him in judging the people, so there are many Bishops responsible for overseeing the Church. Each Bishop has a chair or “cathedra” and this is reminiscent of the “seats” of those who judged the smaller groups in Israel.

However, the Catholic argument concerning Jesus’ citing of an oral tradition still holds true: there is no specific verse in the OT that uses the image of a “seat” to convey the idea of God-given authority…yet, the Jews clearly viewed that phrase as having significant meaning…otherwise, our Lord would not have used it. Consequently, we may be confident that Jesus was drawing upon an extra-biblical Tradition to convey the point He was trying to make.

What we find is that it was a stone that Moses sat on and he sat on it because he was frail and tired. It bears no other significance. Tradition defenders such as the RCC, like to use this in order to try and prove “succession” and that only through oral tradition do we learn of a succession of authority of Moses’ seat from Joshua down to the current Sanhedrin. Wrong on both counts!

Perhaps you should Google “Moses Seat” to view the PHOTOGRAPHS of examples of the seat of Moses which apparently existed in every synagogue. Here’s one:

google.com/images?q=tbn:BBOCuwdWlj8WwM::www.bible.ca/moses-seat-chorazin.jpg&h=78&w=104&usg=__6VcOCkWAViN7pyCzTKdTSGcpbMA=

Second, In Exodus 18:13-27 there was not “ONE” chair of Moses, it was a figurative expression. This is proven by the fact that Jesus said that the “Scribes and the Pharisees” were seated on the “Seat of Moses”. The Scribes and the Pharisees, even all the leaders of Israel were on Moses Seat. For RCs to suggest there was a single literal seat, flies in the face of the context of Ex 18:13-27, Matt 23:2-3 and all recorded history. Read it for yourself: many were sitting on the seat of Moses at the same time, not a single man.

Dealt with above.

There was no direct succession ever recorded in history of who sat on Moses Seat. To argue such is to misrepresent history. While Moses was the actual law giver, those who supposedly “succeeded him” had no power to make new Laws. Contrary to this pattern in the Scriptures, the RC magesterium believes it has the right to make new law just as the scribes and Pharisees made all kinds of new laws.

I disagree. The transition from Moses to Joshua is significant in its typology.

Numbers 27:15-23
Moses said to the LORD, “May the LORD, the God of the spirits of all mankind, appoint a man over this community to go out and come in before them, one who will lead them out and bring them in, so the LORD’s people will not be like sheep without a shepherd.” So the LORD said to Moses, “Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay your hand on him. Have him stand before Eleazar the priest and the entire assembly and commission him in their presence. Give him some of your authority so the whole Israelite community will obey him. He is to stand before Eleazar the priest, who will obtain decisions for him by inquiring of the Urim before the LORD. At his command he and the entire community of the Israelites will go out, and at his command they will come in.” Moses did as the LORD commanded him. He took Joshua and had him stand before Eleazar the priest and the whole assembly. Then he laid his hands on him and commissioned him, as the LORD instructed through Moses.

Deuteronomy 34:9
Now Joshua son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom because Moses had laid his hands on him. So the Israelites listened to him and did what the LORD had commanded Moses.

Jesus said: You err not knowing the Scriptures!

Yankee_drifter-

If we’re going to “drift” into taking cheap shots like this, the conversation will draw to a close very quickly. For example, I could retaliate by hurling the following at you:

[2 Timothy 4:3](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2 Timothy+4:3&version=NIV)

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

But I won’t. So, let’s take the high road, okay?

 

[yankee_drifter]

Randy Carson.

I’m not sure why you take offense to my asking you to give me your definition of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Different faiths have different beliefs more or less .They also use same terms but have a different meaning. In order to have an effective dialogue, we need to understand the other’s definition. I believe in the finished work of Christ. Not everyone does. What is your belief on this? If we have the truth we would not fear examination.