The 'Roman' in Roman Catholic

Online4Him »

Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:18 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Irenaeus,

You also have presented your case well; I appreciate your candor and mature dialogue. I am sure we both we be chatting again in the near future. I too may have to chime in on that one. Take care.

irenaeus »

Thu Feb 28, 2008 7:23 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

O4H,

I agree, and you have presented your position well and very diplomatically. So I will presume that we are done here for now. This was the first thread that I posted on. I am following the Pro-Gay Booklet's thread, and it is amazing the convoluted rationalizations going on over there. I finally had to chime in.

Online4Him »

Wed Feb 27, 2008 8:04 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Irenaeus,

So why does having a chief bishop do so?

Scripture is absolutely silent about a chief bishop; as a matter of fact, this passage indicates that Christ is our true bishop –

For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls – 1Peter 2:25.

The Holy Spirit was sent to be our guide and teacher. It is He who lives within God’s people; -

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God – Romans 8:14.

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you – John 14:26.

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you – John 16:7.

The Word of God explicitly declares the will of God and the Holy Spirit is the one who empowers us to walk in harmony with its teachings. A chief bishop is not necessary for salvation nor is this office mentioned in the list of church structure –

And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues – 1Corinthians 12:28.


Most first century believers worshipped in many house churches and were led by the Spirit of God to proclaim the gospel. My point is; the Holy Spirit is the one who internally guides and leads the people of God.

But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth – Acts 1:8.

I guess we can continue to discuss this topic as long as you want to but it seems that we have expounded and elaborated our positions extensively.

irenaeus »

Sun Feb 24, 2008 1:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

O4H,

That there were more than one claimant to the office at a given time does not invalidate apostolic succession. In fact, right now, there are several rival claimants to the office. Pope Michael supposedly lives somewhere in Kansas. And Pope Pius XIII is somewhere in Washington state or Montana. Both of these men have websites explaining the validity of their claims.

Neither does the vacancy of an office invalidate apostolic succession. Remember that that point was made previously regarding the office and the office holder. Often, dioceses have been vacant for a couple of years before a successor bishop has been appointed; this is no different with the bishop of Rome, whether the office is vacant for several years or only several weeks.

irenaeus »

Sat Feb 23, 2008 9:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

O4H,

Regarding whether other bishops were called pope or ‘papa’ is irrelevant because even during those times it was understood who had the primacy of honor and jurisdiction. Similarly, it wouldn’t matter if the bishop of Rome were no longer called pope; he would still be the chief bishop of the Church.

Regarding Christ being the Head of His body, the church, a hearty Amen! I agree. Local congregations have a senior pastor (i.e., chief shepherd, local head, etc), but this does not mean that they are usurping the prerogative of Christ’s headship. So why does having a chief bishop do so? The Catholic Church whole-heartedly agrees that Jesus Christ is the ultimate and absolute Head of the Church. But just as King Hezekiah had a chief steward (i.e., vizier, prime minister, etc) who was in charge of the kingdom, especially in the king’s absence, so was Peter delegated authority to him by the King as chief steward. As chief steward, he had authority over the kingdom, especially during the King’s physical absence. Notice that King Hezekiah never relinquished his authority. The ultimate and absolute authority always remains with the king. Similarly, Jesus never relinquishes His authority; He merely delegates it to another (Peter) in His absence until He returns. Secondly, the office of prime minister, or chief steward, was a successive office and would REMAIN SO as long as the Davidic Kingdom continued. Therefore, Peter’s office, that of being chief steward or prime minister, would be one of succession. The king’s office was successive by virtue of lineage; the prime minister’s office was successive by appointment. Since Jesus resumes the kingship of the Davidic kingdom, then Jesus is allowed to delegate authority to a prime minister in his absence (as was the prerogative of the Davidic kings).

With regard to the faithful succession of apostolic teaching, again I would agree with you. Where we would disagree is where the apostolic teaching solely resides, which is why I believe we moved over to the canon of scripture earlier in this thread. I do not believe that the complete deposit of faith is contained explicitly in the NT scriptures. That was not the purpose of authors, and scripture never makes this claim for itself. For example, how do we as Christian’s know with absolute certitude (i.e., infallibly) that abortion is wrong? The scriptures never address the subject.

And yes, “our faith is in the things that are ‘not seen’” yet this did not help Paul, Barnabas, and others settle the dispute in the early church over circumcision of Gentile converts to Christianity. They did not appeal to the invisible headship of Christ for their clarification. They appealed to visible leadership.

Online4Him »

Wed Feb 20, 2008 5:19 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Simply stated, neither is Rome's bishop today linked to Peter by any unbroken chain of successors. The supposed lineage has been often and irretrievably broken. There have been numerous times when multiple claimants to the papacy were seated in opposition one to another (antipopes). This office has also been sold to the highest bidder. Only looking back with the benefit of hindsight does Rome now pick one of them as the 'true pope'. There have also been many times when there was no bishop of Rome for years at a time (e.g. 304-308, 638-640, 1085-86, 1241-43, 1269-71, 1292-94, 1314-16, 1415-17).

Former Jesuit Peter De Rosa writes in Vicars of Christ, speaking of John Paul II:

In the Vatican's lists he is called the 263rd pontiff, but the number is not certain. There have been times when no one knew who was the rightful pope of several claimants. Moreover, it was only in the year 1073 that Pope Gregory VI forbade Catholics to call anyone pope except the Bishop of Rome. Before then, many bishops were fondly addressed as 'pope' or 'papa'.

Online4Him »

Wed Feb 20, 2008 5:18 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Irenaeus,

As I mentioned earlier; to share with the apostles the same faith, to believe their word as found in the Scriptures, to receive the same Holy Spirit, is the only sense in which apostolic succession is meaningful, because it is in this sense only that men have fellowship with God in the truth.

The most meaningful apostolic succession for most Protestants, then, is the faithful succession of apostolic teaching. This is what is most important; the importance of doctrinal continuity in the Church as the scriptures reveal.

To begin with, the Scriptures tell us clearly, repeatedly, and thoroughly that Christ Himself is the Head of His Church (Colossians 1.18; 2.8-10, 18-19; I Corinthians 11.3; Ephesians 1.19-23; 4.14-16; 5.23). He Himself is the Head of His Body, and the Source of its unity. All of these Scriptures were written after Jesus had ascended to the right hand of the Father, and His Church remained on the earth. He was at that time the Head of His Church, and nothing has occurred to change that. He remains the Head of His Church today. Nowhere in the New Testament (or the Old) is there any indication that there is a second, "visible"—as Rome claims—head of the Body.

Christ is all sufficient. When He ascended to the right hand of the Father, the Holy Spirit came as His Vicar on the Earth (John 14.16-17, 26; 15.26; 16.7-13). The Church doesn't have a "visible head". Our faith is in the things that are "not seen" (see e.g., II Corinthians 4.18; 5.7; Hebrews 11.1) Peter wrote of Christ, "Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory: Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls." Paul wrote to the Colossians, "If ye then were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God." Jesus is fully capable of fulfilling His office as Head of His Church while seated at the Father's right hand. He has not relegated that office to anyone else.

irenaeus »

Mon Feb 18, 2008 8:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

O4H,

I agree that I too have strayed off topic.

Yes, the Catholic Church (Latin rite and all eastern rites) claim apostolic succession as well as the various Orthodox churches. Whether there are certain Orthodox churches that teach “every bishop is a successor of Saint Peter and holds 'the Chair of Peter', whereas presbyters can be considered successors to the apostles” I do not know. Remember, the primacy of Peter is a special case of apostolic succession.

The following came from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America website:

Apostolic Succession: The direct, continuous, and unbroken line of succession transmitted to the bishops of the Church by the Apostles. The bishops, who form a collective body (that is the leadership of the Church), are considered to be successors of the Apostles; and, consequently, the duties and powers given to the Apostles by Christ are transmitted through "the laying-on-of-hands" to the bishops and priests who succeeded them by ordination (cheirotonia) to priesthood.

Bishop: (Gr. Episkopos, Archiereas). A clergyman who has received the highest of the sacred orders. A bishop must be ordained by at least three other bishops and is considered a successor of the Apostles.

Nothing is said of the bishops specifically being successors of Peter.

Also, the succession of bishops and the handing on of apostolic teaching is not necessarily mutually exclusive. Both are true. In fact, in combating various heretical teachings, Tertullian states as much in the two statements below; the first speaking of the former while the second speaks to the latter…

“Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [their first] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men—a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter" (Tertullian - Demurrer Against the Heretics 32 [A.D. 200]).

"But should they even effect the contrivance [of composing a succession list for themselves], they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles [as contained in other churches], will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory" (ibid.)

Online4Him »

Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:05 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Irenaeus,

Sorry for getting back to you so late; I have been very busy. Thank God, the weekend has finally arrived.

I have not been alone with introducing or talking about different subjects during the course of our discussions. Directly or indirectly; we both have touched upon the subjects of tradition, scripture, the church, the role of bishops, infallibility, etc.

"Okay, let’s please stick to a narrower focus"

Apostolic Succession –

In pre Protestant Churches (Chaldean Church of Babylon, Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, Oriental Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church), Apostolic Succession is claimed as having been passed through unbroken lines of bishops beginning with the original Apostles. The Roman Catholic Church has traditionally been the most vocal in claiming unique legitimacy in terms of Apostolic Succession based on the assertion that Saint Peter, believed to be the rightful leader of the Church, was the first Bishop of Rome. Other communions such as Anglican and Oriental Orthodoxy claim legitimacy on a similar basis Western Christian groups, including the Roman Catholic Church, hold that bishops are successors of the apostles. The Roman Catholic Church further teaches that the unique successor of the apostle Peter is the bishop (pope) of Rome. Is this not the point that you are trying to make?

However, strict Eastern Orthodox theology and ecclesiology teaches that every bishop is a successor of Saint Peter and holds 'the Chair of Peter', whereas presbyters can be considered successors to the apostles. Most Protestant Churches would deny that the apostolicity of the Church rests on an unbroken episcopacy. They generally hold that one important qualification of the apostles was that they were chosen directly by Jesus and that they witnessed the resurrected Christ. According to this understanding, the work of these twelve (and the Apostle Paul), together with the prophets of the twelve tribes of Israel, provide the doctrinal foundation for the whole church of subsequent history through the Scriptures of the Bible. To share with the apostles the same faith, to believe their word as found in the Scriptures, to receive the same Holy Spirit, is the only sense in which apostolic succession is meaningful, because it is in this sense only that men have fellowship with God in the truth.

The most meaningful apostolic succession for most Protestants, then, is the faithful succession of apostolic teaching. This is what is most important; the importance of doctrinal continuity in the Church as the scriptures reveal.

irenaeus »

Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:04 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

O4H,

Okay, let’s please stick to a narrower focus, because I cannot possibly address in a timely fashion every new concern that you are bringing up. I would gladly do so, but I just don’t have the time. Until now, I have attempted to narrow the scope to apostolic succession and the early church prior to about 300 A.D in order to not be spread so thin, then we can move to another topic. We somehow then drifted off to the canon of scripture and the Church’s discernment of which early Christian writings were considered canonical. As soon as the term ‘infallible’ was brought up with regard to the Church’s discernment, instead of addressing the immediate point that was brought up, a list of cases throughout the history of the church supposedly demonstrating how the Catholic Church cannot possibly be infallible is then brought up.

So, getting back to the topic at hand, as stated prior, whether or not you want to call the ‘church’ of the first couple hundred years the ‘Roman Catholic Church’ is irrelevant. It has already been demonstrated that this early ‘church’ (call it the ‘xyz’ Church or the Christian Church, it doesn’t matter) whatever its name clearly taught apostolic succession. But based on your response about miracles and such, perhaps we are talking passed one another regarding what an apostolic successor means. I never claimed that the successors to the apostles were themselves ‘apostles’ in the sense that the Twelve were. Obviously, the witness of Jesus’ earthly ministry and the eyewitness testimony to having seen the risen Christ would eventually no longer be able to be fulfilled as the criteria as time progressed further away from when these events occurred. By apostolic successor is meant a person who has been discerned as a leader and been appointed and ordained as a presbyter or bishop by either an apostle or a bishop. There is not one example in the NT where a church leader (whether presbyters or a bishop) assumes the role for themselves; rather, they are appointed and ordained by the apostles and other already-appointed leaders. This is apostolic succession.

"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" (Clement's Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 90]).

Online4Him »

Sat Feb 09, 2008 1:26 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

In direct contrast to these “infallible” declarations, the Roman Catholic church is now saying the following regarding Muslims. Their contradiction is:

“The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. ‘The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day’ “(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994, p. 223).

Question: If Muslims can be saved on the basis of professing to hold to the faith of Abraham, why can’t the Jews?

Infallible; I think not. Only God has infinite understanding and makes no mistakes. That is why His Word is infallible (John 10:35) – it comes straight from him 2Timothy 3:16. Scripture never promised that there would be successors to Peter who would be divinely protected from error when speaking ex-cathedra. That is a man-made doctrine.

Online4Him »

Sat Feb 09, 2008 1:25 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Another example would be Pope Liberius (352-366) who acquiesced to Arian demands by signing an Arianizing confession and agreeing to the excommunication of Athanasius.

Pope Zosimus (417-418) in an encyclical letter rebuked Augustine and the North African Church for their condemnation of Pelagius and his teachings. The North Africans then assembled a general synod of their own at Carthage in 418 A. D., at which some two hundred bishops were present. They passed a number of cannons specifically condemning the teachings of Pelagius. This was done in defiance of the decrees of Zosimus, giving clear evidence that the early Church did not believe the bishops of Rome were infallible. As a result of their opposition, Pope Zosimus reversed his position and condemned the Pelagian heresy.

Pope Honorius I (A.D. 625-638), who was soundly condemned by the Sixth General Council (680-681) for teaching the monothelite heresy in which he was also condemned by every pope until the eleventh century.

Pope Eugenius IV (1431-1447) facing the possibility of a renewed schism and a crises in his own authority, Eugenius IV finally accepted and fully approved the Council of Basel, which had reaffirmed the decrees of the Council of Constance revoking his previous bulls in opposition to it. The legates appointed by the pope swore to accept and defend its decrees. In this bull Pope Eugenius IV affirmed the Council’s teaching of the superiority of General Councils.

I might also mention the sad reality of “antipopes” in Roman Catholicism’s history. This refers to the fact that there have been times in Catholic history in which there has been more than one pope at a time. (Those interested in this aspect of Roman Catholic history should consult historical works on the Great Schism between A.D. 1378 and 1417 when there were rival popes at Avignon and Rome.) Scholars tell us that there have been about 35 antipopes in the history of the church.


Finally, the RCC teaches that there is no salvation outside of its church; “not only pagans, but Jews, heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but are to go into the eternal fire ‘prepared for the devil, and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the close of their lives they shall have entered into that Church;” – (Mansi, Concilia, XXXi, 1739.) (Pope Eugene IV, The Bull Cantate Domino, 1441). This goes hand in hand with Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctum, 1302 in which he state, “it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff”.

Online4Him »

Sat Feb 09, 2008 1:25 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Scripture indicates that the church is built on the foundation of the prophets and apostles (Ephesians 2:20). Of course, once a foundation is built, no further foundation is needed. And because no further foundation is needed, there is no need for apostolic successors. The Bible clearly teaches that the apostles and prophets were foundational gifts, and there is not a shred of biblical proof that there were to be successors to the apostles in the RCC.

"Second, the Christian church recognized what was Scripture. It did not establish it. This is a very important point. The Christian Church recognizes what God has inspired and pronounces that recognition. In other words, they discover what is already authentic. Jesus said, "my sheep hear my voice and they follow me..." (John 10:27)."

The same Holy Spirit who moved upon men to pen down the inspiration of God’s Word was the same agent who caused the Church to discern and recognize which books were inspired and accepted. The general consensus had already been made by the divine content of the books themselves – again the church recognized the inspiration of the God’s Words. The contents of the apocryphal and many Gnostic gospels were never widely accepted by the Jews or early Christians because they “discerned” the lack of inspiration that these books required in order to be included with the rest of Scripture. The Old Testament scriptures were already accepted by the early church and most of the NT writers quoted from its pages.

Never made the claim that the NT writings became authentic by virtue of an ecclesiastical declaration.

This has been my point all along; God has preserved his word from the beginning –

For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven – Psalm 119:89.

You continuously used the word ‘infallibly’ – this term is used to prove that the RCC does not error when speaking in matters of the faith. I beg to differ; history proves otherwise – the Galileo debacle – when Galileo, using a telescope, posited the theory that the sun, not the earth, was the center of the solar system, this rocked the boat with the pope and the RCC, which held to the theological position of an earth-centered system. Galileo was promptly summoned by an Inquisition in 1632, was tried, and was pronounced “vehemently suspected of heresy.” From that point forward, he was forced to repeat the seven penitential psalms once a week for three years, and was held under house arrest until his death in 1642.

Online4Him »

Sat Feb 09, 2008 1:24 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Irenaeus,

Sounds like you had a good time this past weekend; I was kind of curious as to what happened to you. I did not think that you would just vanish without commenting on my last post. Sorry, for my delay; I am getting over the flu this past week.

"And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another – 1Corinthians 4:6."

I am citing from the KJV.

We have covered this already; it is a known fact that the early church was NOT the RCC as many would like it to be. At any rate; the apostles themselves were unique, the uniqueness of the apostles is seen in the unique miraculous powers they possessed. The apostles were handpicked by God and were given special, unmistakable “signs of an apostles” (2Corinthians 12:12). These signs gifts included the ability to raise people from the dead on command (Matthew 10:8), heal incurable diseases (Matthew 10:8, John 9:1-7). On one occasion an apostle pronounced a supernatural death sentence on two people who had “lied to the Holy Spirit,” and they immediately dropped over dead (Acts 51-11).

Significantly, these miraculous powers ceased during the lives of the apostles. We read in Hebrews 2:3, 4, -

How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will? The supposed successors did not demonstrate these signs.

While the apostles and their miraculous confirmations have passed away, their authoritative teachings remain in authority in the pages of Holy Scripture. “The authority of apostolic writings has replaced the authority of the first-century apostolic writers. Jude 3 states, “Contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” “The faith” refers to the apostolic body of truth that became regulative upon the church (see Acts 6:7, Galatians 1:23, 1Timothy 4:1).

“The faith” refers to “that which is believed, a body of faith or belief, a doctrine which was “once” delivered for “all” and handed down to the saints by the unique apostles of God. The “once for all” refers to something that has been done for all time, something that never needs repeating.

irenaeus »

Mon Feb 04, 2008 8:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

O4H,

I stated, “THE REVELATION THAT JESUS OF NAZARETH WAS THIS SAME CHRIST that was spoken of in the OT that was being made known through the apostles. THAT was the NEW revelation being preached.”

You responded, "I agree with your point. My point is, the apostles messages were and always have been in harmony with the scriptures."

And I would say the same thing regarding the teaching of apostolic succession.

irenaeus »

Mon Feb 04, 2008 7:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

O4H,

"Fourth, when the apostles wrote the New Testament documents, they were inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit. There wasn't any real issue of whether or not they were authentic. Their writings did not need to be deemed worthy of inclusion in the Canon of Scripture by a later group of men in the so-called Roman Catholic Church. To make such a claim is, in effect, to usurp the natural power and authority of God himself."

Again, no one here is stating that the NT documents were not written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. As to whether they were all recognized as such is a completely different matter. And as to whether the writings did not need to be ‘deemed worthy of inclusion in the Canon’ is easy for you to say since you are 2000 years removed with your NT books micely bound by Zondervan Press. But to state that the Church did not need to discern which books belong is intellectually and historically dishonest, for without an ‘infallible’ decision of the church, you would not know which books belong. After all, how do you know that 2 Peter or Jude or Hebrews belong in the NT canon? And if the list is fallible (i.e., the list may be in error), how do you know we have them all (or possibly too many as Luther thought)? Maybe the Gospel of Peter, the Acts of Paul, or the First Letter of Clement to the Corinthians should be included.

"Fifth, the Scripture says, "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Pet. 1:20-21). The Bible tells us that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the very nature of the inspired documents is that they carry power and authenticity in themselves. They are not given the power or the authenticity of ecclesiastical declaration."

Never made the claim that the NT writings became authentic by virtue of an ecclesiastical declaration. This may be a poor analogy, but an investment-grade VVS1 diamond is a diamond regardless of whether or not I can recognize it out of a pile of other clear shiny gems. However, it takes a certified gemologist from GIA or IGI to discern the grade, quality and color for me to KNOW which diamond is a VVS1 apart from the other diamonds in the pile of lesser grade or even fakes.

irenaeus »

Mon Feb 04, 2008 7:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

O4H,

"Second, the Christian church recognized what was Scripture. It did not establish it. This is a very important point. The Christian Church recognizes what God has inspired and pronounces that recognition. In other words, they discover what is already authentic. Jesus said, "my sheep hear my voice and they follow me..." (John 10:27)."

Agreed. The Church did not give the scriptures their authority; rather, the Church discerned and recognized which writings were inspired. But did the Christian Church ‘infallibly’ recognize what God had inspired? Again, since the scriptures do not contain a divinely revealed and inspired Table of Contents, this demonstrates that an infallible decision had to be made (yes, by the guidance and direction of the Holy Spirit), which is OUTSIDE the NT.

"Third, the Roman Catholic Church did not give us the Old Testament, which is the Scripture that Christ and the apostles appealed to. If the Roman Catholic Church wants to state that it gave us the Bible, how can they claim to have given us the Old Testament, which is part of the Bible?"

The Catholic Church acknowledges that it received the Old Testament scriptures from the Jews, although the Church also claims to have been guided by the Spirit in discerning which Jewish canon was authentic.

irenaeus »

Mon Feb 04, 2008 7:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

O4H,

Sorry it took so long to respond. I was attending a work function last Thursday evening. Then Friday, we left out of town for the weekend with the in-laws. At any rate, I’m back with a few responses.

"And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another – 1Corinthians 4:6."

First, I don’t believe that ‘of men’ is in the Greek. Are you citing from the KJV?

"First of all, the Roman Catholic Church was not really in effect as an organization in the first couple hundred years of the Christian church. The Christian church was under persecution and official church gatherings were risky business in the Roman Empire. Catholicism as an organization with a central figure located in Rome did not occur for quite some time, in spite of its claim that they can trace the papacy back to Peter."

We have covered this before. Whether or not you want to call the ‘church’ of the first couple hundred years the ‘Roman Catholic Church’ is irrelevant. It has already been demonstrated that this early ‘church’ (whatever its name) clearly taught apostolic succession. In other words, you claim that the Catholic Church did not yet exist, and when quotations are cited from early church leaders speaking of a ‘Catholic’ doctrine (in this case, apostolic succession), you dismiss it as erroneous teachings of wayward or apostate leaders.

star2 »

Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

thelordismylight

What do you mean by 'baptism'?

Online4Him »

Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:14 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

The church hears the voice of Christ; that is, it recognizes what is inspired and it follows the word. It does not add to it as the Roman Catholic Church has done. Therefore, the Catholic Church is not following the voice of Christ.

Third, the Roman Catholic Church did not give us the Old Testament, which is the Scripture that Christ and the apostles appealed to. If the Roman Catholic Church wants to state that it gave us the Bible, how can they claim to have given us the Old Testament, which is part of the Bible? It didn't, so it cannot make that claim. The fact is that the followers of God, the true followers of God, recognize what is and is not inspired. The Jews knew what was inspired of God and they recognized what God had inspired. That is what those who are of God do.

Fourth, when the apostles wrote the New Testament documents, they were inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit. There wasn't any real issue of whether or not they were authentic. Their writings did not need to be deemed worthy of inclusion in the Canon of Scripture by a later group of men in the so-called Roman Catholic Church. To make such a claim is, in effect, to usurp the natural power and authority of God himself.

Fifth, the Scripture says, "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Pet. 1:20-21). The Bible tells us that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the very nature of the inspired documents is that they carry power and authenticity in themselves. They are not given the power or the authenticity of ecclesiastical declaration.

“THE REVELATION THAT JESUS OF NAZARETH WAS THIS SAME CHRIST that was spoken of in the OT that was being made known through the apostles. THAT was the NEW revelation being preached.”

I agree with your point. My point is, the apostles messages were and always have been in harmony with the scriptures.

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so – Acts 17:11.

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica — The comparison is between the Jews of the two places; for the triumphs of the Gospel at Thessalonica were mostly among the Gentiles. See Act_17:2-4.

in that they received the word with all readiness of mind — heard it not only without prejudice, but with eager interest, “in an honest and good heart” (Luk_8:17), with sincere desire to be taught aright (see Joh_7:17). Mark the “nobility” ascribed to this state of mind.

searched the scriptures daily whether those things were so — whether the “Christian” interpretation which the apostle put upon the Old Testament Scriptures was the true one.

Online4Him »

Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:12 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

Irenaeus,

(although not every man has cooperated with that grace to act in a manner becoming of a presbyter or a bishop).

This is why “all” must be subjected to the Word of God; I agree that the office of a bishop does have meaning, however, the office or title itself means nothing if those in office are unwilling to be true to the Scriptures.

“Of course, I don’t have to be a bishop either to teach my children the scriptures, but in order for me to teach them correctly, and not just my private and personal interpretation, I need to teach them in accordance with apostolic tradition and the teaching office of the church, the pillar and foundation of truth.”

I am not talking about my private interpretation; I am talking about the Word of God being above apostolic tradition. We both agreed that history bears witness of those who have taught things contrary to Scripture. The Scriptures never contradict themselves – so, they have proven to be 100% reliable. The church is the pillar and foundation of biblical truth; any one or any “church” which teaches things that are not explicitly taught in the scriptures is missing the mark.

And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another – 1Corinthians 4:6.

First of all, the Roman Catholic Church was not really in effect as an organization in the first couple hundred years of the Christian church. The Christian church was under persecution and official church gatherings were risky business in the Roman Empire. Catholicism as an organization with a central figure located in Rome did not occur for quite some time, in spite of its claim that they can trace the papacy back to Peter.

Second, the Christian church recognized what was Scripture. It did not establish it. This is a very important point. The Christian Church recognizes what God has inspired and pronounces that recognition. In other words, they discover what is already authentic. Jesus said, "my sheep hear my voice and they follow me..." (John 10:27).

thelordismylight »

Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

The Catholic Church believes that, being born of flesh and blood, we have a biological family. Through baptism we are SPIRITUALLY born and we gain a spiritual family, Jesus, God, The Holy Spirit, Mary, and all the Saints.

thelordismylight »

Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

star2-

Through baptism of course.

irenaeus »

Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

O4H,

“‘Moses Seat’ - (Matthew 23:1-33) when Jesus said, ‘All therefore whatsoever’ - That is, all those things which they read out of the LAW and PROPHETS, (Isaiah 8:20) and all things which they teach consistently with them.”

I think that you missed the point I was making, which was that Jesus was referring to Jewish tradition since nowhere in the OT does it state that the Pharisees possess Moses’ seat nor does the OT speak of Moses’ seat being an authoritative prerogative of any Jewish body.

“This is a false assumption; the Jewish faith had been established throughout the known world.”

I never meant to state that no Gentiles understood or was even familiar with the OT. But certainly, there were many Gentiles who knew nothing of the Jewish scriptures.

With regard to my statement, “[I]t was Paul who INTERPRETED the OT prophecies concerning the Christ as pointing to Jesus,” you respond by saying that “This is another false assumption.”

Not at all, this was why Paul went through such great pains to preach even to those who not only knew the OT, but also knew about Jesus of Nazareth. For example, Agrippa knew about Jesus' death and (alleged) resurrection. ...But the fact that ‘these things’ were not ‘done in a corner’ and that they ‘had full knowledge’ does not necessarily mean that they believed – and in the case of Agrippa and some others, they did not believe. Those people that knew the OT knew of the prophecies concerning the Messiah, agreed? And we also agree that those same people also knew what happened to Jesus of Nazareth, for these events were not done in a corner. So their knowledge of these events is not being questioned. It was, however, THE REVELATION THAT JESUS OF NAZARETH WAS THIS SAME CHRIST that was spoken of in the OT that was being made known through the apostles. THAT was the NEW revelation being preached.

“It is always best to allow the passage to speak for itself instead of reading into the passage our personal preferences.”

I believe that the scriptures do speak for themselves. I only made the statement regarding the Greek because I don’t know how to read Greek, so I am relying on others when I read the translation of Acts 17:11. And commentaries from those who do know Greek state that the Bereans were regarded as more noble because that received the message with great eagerness. That is the primary reason for the noble character. That they diligently examined the scriptures was a result of their receiving the message with eagerness in order to determine whether what Paul was teaching made sense. Besides, what do you think the Bereans received from the apostle Paul? The Old Testament? No, they already had that. What they received was Paul’s new and final revelation that according to Paul himself was “NOT made known to men in other generations.” So this is not necessarily obvious to anyone diligently searching the OT scriptures; otherwise, how could Paul say that it was NOT known?

irenaeus »

Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

O4H,

“The first century church determined that these NT writings were inspired because it had the stamp of the apostles, which could be supported by living eye witnesses, and because of their early dating. The apostle Paul wrote his epistles in the 50’s AD and it describes the first century “biblical creed” in 1Corinthians 15:3-5 –”

The first century church determined SOME of the NT writings to be inspired. Other writings of the NT would be in dispute for some time before being officially declared one way or the other. This would be analogous to some in the church teaching that one must be circumcised first before becoming a Christian. Some in the church were teaching this; some were not. It took an official declaration by a church council to determine upon which side of the dispute orthodoxy fell. Similarly, it took a church council to make the official determination which books belong in the canon of the NT and which were to be excluded.

“You are correct when you said that the first churches in the east do not equate to the modern day Orthodox Church; my point was that the early first century church “recognized” the divine inspiration of scripture prior to formation of the Roman Catholic Church. The first century church was clearly not the Roman Catholic Church as many claim…. establishing Churches in major communities, with the first Churches appearing in Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem; hence the churches in the East.”

I beg to differ; the first century church was the Catholic Church (East and West were unified). Even if I grant your proposal that the Eastern Orthodox Church was the church that officially discerned the NT canon, you would have to admit that this church (the Orthodox Church) also teaches apostolic tradition and apostolic succession of bishops. In your estimation, where did they get such an unbiblical idea? By the way, there were numerous Easterns who were bishops of Rome: the 4th successor of Peter as Bishop of Rome - Evaristus (Greek), 7th - Telephorus (Greek), 8th - Hyginus (Athenian), 10th - Anicetus (Syrian of Emesa), 12th - Eleutherius (Greek of Nicopolis), 18th - Anterus (Greek), 23rd - Sixtus II (Athenian), 27th - Caius (Dalmatian), 30th - Eusebius (Greek of Calabria). The East and West were still unified during this time period.

irenaeus »

Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

O4H,

“An office does not sanctify anyone; it is the Word of God accepted by faith that transforms the heart. I guess we will have to agree to disagree when it comes to the office of a bishop and how they were to safeguard the truth. I say that it was the Word of God that permeated the hearts of faithful men in the church who in turn shared these same words to the rest of the church. While you believe the actual office takes precedence over the actual message – ‘the Word of God.’”

Remember, I am not saying that it is either/or, but both/and. Amen… the Word of God accepted by faith transforming the heart… this is absolutely true, but certain ones are to be designated the ‘official’ custodians of the deposit of faith. And the ‘office’ of bishop must have some meaning regarding both the grace and sanctity given the person in the 'office' to do this (although not every man has cooperated with that grace to act in a manner becoming of a presbyter or a bishop). Note that Timothy is charged with guarding the deposit of faith entrusted to him because he holds the office of bishop (the gift of God that is in Timothy by virtue of the laying on of hands), and he is to guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit (cf 2 Tim 1:6, 14). So notice it is Timothy’s responsibility and obligation by virtue of BOTH him being bishop AND his yielding to the Holy Spirit to help him safeguard that good deposit.

“I am sure that his grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice (2Timothy 1:5) actually taught him the scriptures. They did not need an official bishop to declare to the scriptures.”

Of course, I don’t have to be a bishop either to teach my children the scriptures, but in order for me to teach them correctly, and not just my private and personal interpretation, I need to teach them in accordance with apostolic tradition and the teaching office of the church, the pillar and foundation of truth.

star2 »

Tue Jan 29, 2008 5:15 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

irenaeus

Jesus is the Rock not Peter. Jesus doesn't build anything on a human being. He builds it upon Himself.

The body of Christ is not a denomination. It consists of all those who have placed their faith in the saving grace of God, not in the traditions/teachings of man.

One cannot even get saved unless he/she (hereafter referred to as he)

1) knows in his heart that he is a sinner worthy of damnation,

2) knows that Jesus, the Son of God, took God's judgment on Himself by dying on the cross so he wouldn't have to,

3) know that Jesus was raised from the dead,

4) accepts what Jesus did for him by turning to God in prayer and asking Jesus to forgive him of his sins, come live in his heart and be the Lord of his life.

If anyone has not experienced that in his/her life then that person is not saved. They are still lost in the sins.

Online4Him »

Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:24 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

“I don’t know that the grammar lends itself expressly to mean that the Bereans were more noble BECAUSE they searched the Scriptures.”

It is always best to allow the passage to speak for itself instead of reading into the passage our personal preferences.

“I would suspect that some of the Thessalonians did indeed search the scriptures and still did not believe.”

This would not negate the inspiration of scripture; the scriptures are for believers not unbelievers. Paul and the other apostles did preach that Jesus was the messiah; their message was an echoing of what the scriptures already said. The apostles received authority from Christ himself and they were unique in their calling and ministry.

Online4Him »

Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:23 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Christianity first spread in the predominantly Greek-speaking eastern half of the Roman Empire. Paul and the Apostles traveled extensively throughout the Empire, establishing Churches in major communities, with the first Churches appearing in Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem; hence the churches in the East. Previous to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 by the Roman army, at which time the apostles were dispersed, the gospel had gone to Samaria, Ethiopia, Syria, Asia Minor, Greece, Italy, and India.

“Moses Seat” - (Matthew 23:1-33) when Jesus said, “All therefore whatsoever” - That is, all those things which they read out of the LAW and PROPHETS, (Isaiah 8:20) and all things which they teach consistently with them. He could not have desired them to do everything, without restriction, which the Jewish doctors taught; because he himself warns his disciples against their false teaching, and testifies that they had made the word of God of none effect by their traditions. See Matthew 15:6 - . . . . Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. You can read the first five books of the OT and clearly see that Moses penned down the Words of God.

“What of the Gentiles who knew nothing of the Jewish scriptures?”

This is a false assumption; the Jewish faith had been established throughout the known world. How did the wise men of the east hear about the coming messiah? Many gentile converts to Judaism can clearly be seen thought the scriptures, so to say that gentles knew nothing of the OT is incorrect. A good example of this would be the Ethiopian eunuch – Acts 8:27.

“But it was Paul who INTERPRETED the OT prophecies concerning the Christ as pointing to Jesus.”

This is another false assumption; to say that the people cannot understand the messianic prophecies apart from an “authority” figure. These messianic prophecies permeated the Jewish mind; I am sure that during the three and a half years of Jesus’ ministry, the Jewish people were discussing, debating, reviewing the OT messianic prophecies as the viewed the life of Christ. It is the Holy Spirit that guides and instructs the hearts and minds of men. At any rate, the Bereans “confirmed” Paul’s message “after” they verified his message from “scripture.” Why did they do this? We both agree that there have been leaders throughout history who have taught things contrary to scripture; this is why the Bereans reviewed the scriptures for themselves; this is why we must do the same. Again, the patterns we continually see are Jesus and the apostles referring to the “written” record. The Jews, who rejected Jesus as the messiah, did so because of their unbelief despite what Paul said. The only way to verify any message is to compare it with scripture.

Online4Him »

Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:23 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

“Yes, it was true that scriptures were inspired prior to the council, but nevertheless, the church had to discern which ones they were.”

I agree; the scriptures were inspired prior to the council; the NT is canonical – that is divinely inspired from the moment they were written. The church does make canons and the church does not make books inspired; God does – 2Timothy 3:16, 17. Again, a book is not canonical because a church puts its stamp on it; it is canonical because God breathed it and the church acknowledged it. The church merely “recognized” that the NT writings were intrinsically inspired by God. The first century church determined that these NT writings were inspired because it had the stamp of the apostles, which could be supported by living eye witnesses, and because of their early dating. The apostle Paul wrote his epistles in the 50’s AD and it describes the first century “biblical creed” in 1Corinthians 15:3-5 –

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

The passage above also addresses your comment on the development of doctrine; it is true that this development did not occur over night; however, unlike today with information so readily available at the touch of a finger, the early church did gradually distribute the epistles. I mean it did take some time for the epistles to be sent throughout the empire. The creeds only highlighted what was already described in the NT. It is presumptuous to say the first century church did not understand the doctrines that the NT clearly defined. You are correct when you said that the first churches in the east do not equate to the modern day Orthodox Church; my point was that the early first century church “recognized” the divine inspiration of scripture prior to formation of the Roman Catholic Church. The first century church was clearly not the Roman Catholic Church as many claim.

Online4Him »

Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:22 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Irenaeus,

“First, I never said that the authority was solely due to the office, since we obviously know that there were some leaders in the early church that taught false doctrine. But the scripture makes clear that authority is tied to the office of bishop and presbyters; otherwise, there would have been no reason for such offices to exist.”

The only authority that truly defines and exemplifies the true position of bishop/presbyters is the Spirit behind the office. I agree that there were some leaders in the early church that taught false doctrine. Our Lord and the apostles demonstrated how false doctrines were to be exposed; it was by the Word of God – Hebrews 4:12. It is also true that “truth” does exist (namely God) and he has given us HIS WORD to sanctify the hearts of his children – John 17:17. An office does not sanctify anyone; it is the Word of God accepted by faith that transforms the heart. I guess we will have to agree to disagree when it comes to the office of a bishop and how they were to safeguard the truth. I say that it was the Word of God that permeated the hearts of faithful men in the church who in turn shared these same words to the rest of the church. While you believe the actual office takes precedence over the actual message – “the Word of God.”

“If someone is teaching another person, it is important to know the authority behind the one supposedly presenting the truth. Remember, Jesus was often challenged ‘by what authority’ was he doing such and such. Paul often times had to appeal to his authority as an apostle in order to establish some wait to his teaching. Paul charged Timothy to hold fast to what he learned because of both SCRIPTURE and FROM WHOM he learned the teachings that expounded the scriptures.”

What you are saying is that the messenger is greater than the message. It is actually the other way around; the message is the Word of God himself, will the servant boast of being greater than the message he was committed to preach? As I mentioned before; the Bereans were more concerned with WHAT Paul said more than WHO was teaching. This is evident by the fact that they searched the scriptures to VERIFY Paul’s claims. The Bible tells us that God is no respecter of persons – Acts 10:34. 2Timothy 3:15 says that Timothy, as a child knew the Holy Scriptures; I am sure that his grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice (2Timothy 1:5) actually taught him the scriptures. They did not need an official bishop to declare to the scriptures;

1Peter 2:9 says, - “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;.”

irenaeus »

Mon Jan 28, 2008 6:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

star2,

"How can Peter be the "Rock" when scripture teaches that it is Jesus who is that "Rock"?"

How can Abraham be called "Rock" if God is the "Rock"? How can the apostles and prophets be the foundation when scripture teaches that Jesus is the foundation? It depends on the perspective and/or analogy being used.

Someone could argue that Jesus Christ is our paschal sacrifice (I Cor. 5:7, I Jn 2:2). Someone else could argue no, He is our High Priest (Heb. 4:14, 8:1). Well, guess what?… He is BOTH the sacrificial offering AND the one offering the sacrifice (depending on the perspective of focus).
Someone could argue that the Church is the body of Christ (Eph. 5:23, Col. 1:18). Someone else could argue no; the Church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:25-27). Well, … the Church is BOTH the body of Christ AND the bride of Christ (depending on the perspective of focus).
Someone could argue that the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ as the chief cornerstone (Eph. 2:20). Someone else could argue no; the Church is built on no other foundation but Jesus Christ (I Cor. 3:11). Well, guess what?… BOTH are true (depending on the perspective of focus).
Someone could argue that Jesus is truly man (Jn. 1:14, I Tim. 2:5, Heb. 4:15). Someone else could argue no; Jesus is truly God (Jn 1:1-5, 18, Col. 1:15-17, Tit. 2:13). Well, … BOTH are true.
Someone could argue that Jesus is the Good Shepherd (Jn. 10:14). Someone else could argue no; Jesus is the Lamb of God (Jn. 1:29). BOTH are true.
Someone could argue that salvation is a reward (Matt. 25: 34-36, Rom. 2:6-7, Gal. 6:8). Someone else could argue no; salvation is a gift given freely (Rom. 6:23, Eph. 2:8-9). BOTH are true.

Do not present a dichotomy where there is none. All of these are true; however, if one is only true to the exclusion of the fidelity of the other one, then that person’s understanding is, at best, a half-truth.

That is why as a Catholic, we do not find a contradiction by saying that Peter is the Rock; but by this statement, we are not denying that Christ is the Rock. For us, both are true based on the perspective of focus. However, Protestants will say Peter is NOT the Rock precisely BECAUSE Christ is the Rock. In other words, Protestants will interpret one verse at the expense of another verse that does not fit into their theological system.

star2 »

Sun Jan 27, 2008 5:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

thelordismylight

How do you become born again of the Spirit of God?

star2 »

Sun Jan 27, 2008 4:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

thelordismylight

It is good to see you again my friend.

How can Peter be the "Rock" when scripture teaches that it is Jesus who is that "Rock"?

Scripture defines that Jesus is the "Rock" :

And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ – 1Corinthians 10:4.

Jesus is the Rock and He builds His Church upon Himself not a human being.

Re:It is still HIS church, he just built it around PETER.

For God to do this He has to take His Son's glory and praise and give it to Peter.

God says the following in His Word:

"I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory I will not give to another, neither my praise to graven images." (Isaiah 42:8)

thelordismylight »

Sun Jan 27, 2008 3:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Star2-

That is completely incorrect. The Church IS illegitimate. Whether you like it or not YOUR church is built upon man's opinions of Jesus and the scripture. It is illegitimate because it is human. Jesus SAID that he built his church upon Peter. He did not say Himself, he said PETER! PETER PETER PETER! And upon this rock I build my church. It is still HIS church, he just built it around PETER. He did not say, well Peter, you ARE Peter, but I build this church upon myself. That would be stupid. It is like saying "You are you, and I build this church on me." If he was building it on himself he would not even have MENTIONED Peter. He may SAY IT TO PETER, but he would never say "Thou art Peter AND..." if Peter were not directly involved. Jesus did not try to complicate things. And what about the quote "I am with you always, from now unto the consummation of the world"? What about THAT? It means that there could not have been a day's interval between Jesus' saying that and the first church's birth. It means NO BREAKOFFS. Please explain THAT.

irenaeus »

Sun Jan 27, 2008 12:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

O4H,

Bereans cont'd.

I don’t know that the grammar lends itself expressly to mean that the Bereans were more noble BECAUSE they searched the Scriptures. Rather, the Bereans were more noble than the Thessalonians because they ACCEPTED THE MESSAGE WITH GREAT EAGERNESS while the Thessalonians (or at least most of them) did not accept the message at all. In fact, the Thessalonians later came to Berea, because Paul went to preach there, just to agitate and stir up the crowds (not a very noble thing to do either). The searching of the scriptures by the Bereans was incidental but was not necessarily why they were considered nobler. One could search the scriptures all one wants, but unless one accepts the message with eagerness, how could one be considered more noble. I would suspect that some of the Thessalonians did indeed search the scriptures and still did not believe. Would they also be considered noble simply because they searched the scriptures? No, of course not. What made them less noble than the Bereans was that they did not accept Paul’s INTERPRETATION of the scriptures - the same scriptures that BOTH the Jews of Berea and Thessalonica knew.

Since the OT did not explicitly state that ‘this Jesus’ was ‘the Christ,’ the Bereans could not have come to know this by the OT alone. They accepted BOTH Paul’s apostolic authority along with the corroborating evidence of the OT that Paul explained.

irenaeus »

Sun Jan 27, 2008 12:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

O4H,

"The Bereans, we are told in Acts 17:11 compared Paul’s oral message with the Word of God to make certain that it conformed to the inspired Scriptures. Only then would they accept it. If this was done with the teaching and preaching of an apostle, it is even more necessary for the teachings of those who are not apostles. Thus, where any teaching or tradition conforms to Scripture, it is to be received; and where it does not conform to Scripture, it is to be rejected."

First of all, those Bereans who searched the scriptures to verify that what Paul and Silas had said was true were those who already believed the OT. What of the Gentiles who knew nothing of the Jewish scriptures? What was to be their authority? Secondly, I don’t have all the scriptures memorized; so consequently, sometimes when someone quotes scripture on these threads, I have to ‘search the scriptures’ to verify that that’s indeed what scripture says and read it in context. But that in no way demonstrates that I believe that scripture is the sole authority apart from apostolic tradition. Thirdly, notice that it was Paul’s teaching authority AND scripture that are used in teaching the Bereans. The Bereans knew the OT, and they believed in the OT prophecies that pointed to the coming of a Messiah. But it was Paul who INTERPRETED the OT prophecies concerning the Christ as pointing to Jesus. Nowhere in the OT is the name ‘Jesus’ mentioned as the Christ. That was NEW revelation. It was Paul’s use of the OT (authoritative apostolic teaching) that set out to EXPLAIN and PROVE that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead (Acts 17:3). The Jews didn’t believe that the Messiah was to ‘suffer and rise from the dead.’ But Paul explains this first, then states that ‘This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.’ Paul’s message was being applied to the ‘one called Jesus.’

irenaeus »

Sun Jan 27, 2008 12:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

O4H,

As to the development of doctrine, this has to be admitted by all Christians since it can be historically demonstrated that more precise definitions were required later. For example, while you and I would both agree that the Trinity is taught in scripture, we have to admit that it is deduced from certain truths in scripture and not explicitly taught in clear catechetical terms. Same with the canon of scripture: there was much debate for decades, even centuries, as to whether certain books should be included in the NT canon. That doesn’t mean that it suddenly became true only when it was later taught more clearly, but that a more precise teaching was needed when challenges arose.

"Jesus himself always quoted Scripture; he never quoted from the traditions of his day as having authority. He was always using the phrases – “it is written”, “have ye not read”, “how readest thou” and he stated in John 10:35 that the Scriptures cannot be broken. Finally, Rome did not give us the canon as many RC’s claim. It was the Eastern Orthodox Church that came up with the list of twenty-seven books of the New Testament first. The consensus by the Eastern Church was decided in 367, and the twenty-seven books were included in Athanasius Easter letter from Alexandria."

This is interesting considering that the Eastern Orthodox Church did not exist in 367 A.D. We have already covered this earlier in this thread. A church in the East does not equal Eastern Orthodox Church anymore than the fact that a number of early bishops of Rome were Greeks from the East would mean that the Eastern Orthodox Church is really the one who has a pope. But this aside, you still have to acknowledge that it was an official authoritative declaration by the Catholic Church (or, according to you, the Orthodox Church) discerning which books belong in the NT canon. So either the Holy Spirit guided the church in this matter (similar to the way that it guided the Council of Jerusalem) or they just accidentally got it right.

We also discussed already that Jesus and Paul both appealed to certain Jewish tradition as authoritative. For exmaple, Jesus referred to the ‘seat of Moses’ which is not contained in the OT regarding the teaching authority of the Pharisees.

irenaeus »

Sun Jan 27, 2008 12:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

O4H,

You state that the canon is a statement about what is INSPIRED. Fair enough, but the scriptures still do not tell you WHICH scriptures are inspired; i.e., the canon is a statement about what is inspired, but who is going to tell you what the canon is? If you were a new Christian and someone gave you a Bible, you are still trusting in some authority that assembled which books belong. No one gave you 50 or so manuscripts for you to study and then for the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth - to the ones inspired through your personal discernment. You state that the canon “is not an object of revelation SEPARATE FROM Scripture, but is revealed and DEFINED by God’s action of inspiration.” Not sure what you mean by this, but the canon is certainly an object of revelation SEPARATE FROM scripture precisely because scripture does not REVEAL to us what scriptures are inspired. And I agree that the canon is revealed and DEFINED by God’s action – this occurred when the Church made a declaration of what scriptures were inspired. Yes, it was true that scriptures were inspired prior to the council, but nevertheless, the church had to discern which ones they were.

irenaeus »

Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:55 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

O4H,

Wow, that was a long post.

First, I never said that the authority was solely due to the office, since we obviously know that there were some leaders in the early church that taught false doctrine. But the scripture makes clear that authority is tied to the office of bishop and presbyters; otherwise, there would have been no reason for such offices to exist. There is truth; truth exists; there is an authority behind truth (namely God); and that authority can be, was, and is delegated. Yes, Paul was handing on divinely revealed teachings to all Christians, but in a particular way and in an official capacity, Paul handed on the sound doctrine to be safeguarded by those to whom he entrusted it. They were to act as custodians. Paul charged Timothy with the responsibility to guard the deposit of faith precisely because Timothy was bishop of the Church in Ephesus. Yes, all the Christians in Ephesus were admonished to hold to sound doctrine, but in an official capacity, Timothy as bishop (overseer) was charged with holding and teaching sound doctrine. Timothy had apostolic authority by virtue of both his office AND the divinely revealed truth handed down to him.

"It is evidently clear from the passages above, the WHAT was being taught was more important than WHO was doing the teaching."

This is not and either/or, but rather a both/and. It is not only WHAT was being taught, but WHO was doing the teaching. If someone is teaching another person, it is important to know the authority behind the one supposedly presenting the truth. Remember, Jesus was often challenged ‘by what authority’ was he doing such and such. Paul often times had to appeal to his authority as an apostle in order to establish some wait to his teaching. Paul charged Timothy to hold fast to what he learned because of both SCRIPTURE and FROM WHOM he learned the teachings that expounded the scriptures.

star2 »

Sat Jan 26, 2008 3:08 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

to all Catholics:

God never builds anything upon man. He builds it upon Himself. If He built it upon man, then the opinions of mankind is what Jesus would have built His church on. To build a church on what man say is to make that church illigitimate.

When Jesus asked His disciples who did men say He was, they answered Him, some say you are Elijah, others say that you are John the Baptist, and others that Prophet. If Jesus was going to build His church on what men thought then He could have built it on Elijah, John the Baptist or some other prophet. But no, He built it upon Himself. How's that? By the revelation that God gave Peter of who Jesus really was. (Unless you have had a revelation from God you cannot possibly understand that concept.)

Again, the people of Jesus' day had all kinds opinions of who Jesus was. Elijah, John the Baptist, some other prophet, and the Son of God. Only one was right. The one who got it right was Peter. Why was it right? Not because Peter had head knowledge that Jesus was the Son of God but because God gave Peter that revelation. Peter knew it from his heart by the Holy Ghost not from his head like the others did.

Jesus builds His church on revelation not on head knowledge.

Man's witness as to who Jesus is has no value. The only witness of who Jesus is that has ligitimate value is the witness of the Holy Ghost. Jesus does not build His church on what man says about Him, He builds it on what He says about Himself through the Holy Ghost. That is the only kind of church that is ligitimate.

The body of Christ is the Church of which Jesus is its head. This body consists of people who were born again of the Spirit of God through revelation and not through head knowledge.

star2 »

Sat Jan 26, 2008 12:37 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Online4Him

Re:The Bereans, we are told in Acts 17:11 compared Paul’s oral message with the Word of God to make certain that it conformed to the inspired Scriptures. Only then would they accept it. If this was done with the teaching and preaching of an apostle, it is even more necessary for the teachings of those who are not apostles.


Amen to that brother!

Online4Him »

Sat Jan 26, 2008 9:46 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Jesus himself always quoted Scripture; he never quoted from the traditions of his day as having authority. He was always using the phrases – “it is written”, “have ye not read”, “how readest thou” and he stated in John 10:35 that the Scriptures cannot be broken. Finally, Rome did not give us the canon as many RC’s claim. It was the Eastern Orthodox Church that came up with the list of twenty-seven books of the New Testament first. The consensus by the Eastern Church was decided in 367, and the twenty-seven books were included in Athanasius Easter letter from Alexandria.

Online4Him »

Sat Jan 26, 2008 9:45 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

The truths Paul first communicated to the churches in an oral fashion, especially the content of the gospel, he later committed to writing – and he explicitly warned believers in Colossae to ‘BEWARE LEST ANY MAN SPOIL YOU THROUGH PHILOSOPHY AND VAIN DECEIT, AFTER THE TRADITION OF MEN, AFTER THE RUDIMENTS OF THE WORLD, AND NOT AFTER CHRIST – Colossians 2:8.This is the definitive New Testament model for ascertaining truth. The Bereans, we are told in Acts 17:11 compared Paul’s oral message with the Word of God to make certain that it conformed to the inspired Scriptures. Only then would they accept it. If this was done with the teaching and preaching of an apostle, it is even more necessary for the teachings of those who are not apostles. Thus, where any teaching or tradition conforms to Scripture, it is to be received; and where it does not conform to Scripture, it is to be rejected.

The canon is a FUNCTION of Scripture, or to be more specific, it is a RESULT of the inspiration of Scripture itself. It is not an object of revelation SEPARATE FROM Scripture, but is revealed and DEFINED by God’s action of inspiration. This is a crucial point that has rarely been addressed by RC apologists. The canon is a function of the Scriptures themselves. The canon is not just a listing of books; it is a statement about what is INSPIRED. The canon flows from the work of the Author of Scripture, God himself. To speak of the canon outside of speaking of what is “God-breathed” is to miss the mark. Canon is not made by man; Canon is made by God. It is the result of the action of His divine inspiration. That which is “God-breathed” is canon; that which is not “God-breathed” is not canon. It’s just that simple. GOD DEFINES the canon not by giving some revelation outside of the SCRIPTURA but by giving the SCRIPTURA itself! The error lies in creating a dichotomy between the two things that cannot be separated, and then using that false dichotomy to deny SOLA SCRIPTURA.

2Thessalonians 2:15 says – Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye HAVE BEEN taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

The first thing we note is that this is a command to stand firm and hold fast to a SINGLE BODY OF TRADITIONS ALREADY DELIVERED TO THE BELIEVERS. The verse says, “hold the traditions which ye HAVE BEEN TAUGHT.” There is nothing FUTURE about this passage at all. Does Paul say to stand firm and hold fast to traditions that WILL be delivered? Does he say to hold on to interpretations and understandings that have not yet developed? NO, this oral teaching which he refers to has ALREADY BEEN delivered to the entire church, not just to the episcopate, not just to the bishops, but to EVERYONE in the Church at Thessalonica.

Online4Him »

Sat Jan 26, 2008 9:43 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

The passage is quite clearly speaking of the transmission of sound doctrine – not an authoritative office!-in the face of those who do not want to endure it. Although Timothy certainly possessed a legitimate office as overseer of the church at Ephesus, there is no mention of apostolic authority (in the sense of an office) being passed on to Timothy by Paul.

It is evidently clear from the passages above, the WHAT was being taught was more important than WHO was doing the teaching. Jesus himself said of those who were not part of his inner circle – And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part – Mark 9:38-40. Whosoever this individual was; he surely did not get apostolic approval to work in for the Lord. It is apparent that the Holy Spirit moved upon this individual to preach and cast out devils.

It was the Holy Spirit that moved upon the apostles to speak and write the Words of God (2Timothy 3:16 & 2Peter 1:20-21); we can thus safely say, that what they wrote is infallible. This confidence cannot be said of those who followed after them. It is true that the apostles began their preaching before it was penned; however, the apostles themselves were in complete harmony with the testimony of the Old Testament message of the coming Messiah and his mission. All of the apostles quoted these OT messianic prophecies.

In reference to the nine other apostles, they were called to be apostles by Christ himself and they were able to demonstrate the truth that they preached from the scriptures (OT) and with signs and wonders. When the NT scriptures came into being; they were in complete harmony with the OT and the church recognized it to be so. The NT scriptures were written by the apostles themselves or a close associate of an apostle who also had firsthand account of the life of Christ.

The Christian church recognized what was Scripture. It did not establish it. This is a very important point. The Christian Church recognizes what God has inspired and pronounces that recognition. In other words, they discover what is already authentic. Jesus said, “my sheep hear my voice and they follow me…” John 10:27. The church hears the voice of Christ; that is, it recognizes what is inspired and it follows the word. It does not add to it as some have done.

Paul did praise those who heard him preach and commended them for searching the scriptures themselves, in order to see if his message was in harmony with the rest of scripture – These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so – Acts 17:11.

Online4Him »

Sat Jan 26, 2008 9:42 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works – 2Timothy 3:14-17.

For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers – Titus 1:5, 9.

But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:
These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee – Titus 2:1, 15.

In Sum, although Timothy and Titus were certainly ministers appointed by an inspired apostle, and though we might loosely refer to them as “successors” to Paul, it is more than abundantly demonstrated by the above passages that their authority over their respective churches was derived from their faithfulness to Paul’s teachings. In no way did their authority stand alone, as something inherent in their “office”. Finally, Paul’s express command was that the teachings – not the office – that had been entrusted to them by he himself were to be passed on to other faithful men. In the following passage; Paul does not seem to be passing on an office:

I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry. For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand – 2Timothy 4:1-6.

Online4Him »

Sat Jan 26, 2008 9:41 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

Ireneaus,

Forgive me for this long post; however, I noticed several key points that you mentioned concerning apostolic succession. Let me know if I missed something: 1-new leaders receiving authority, 2-the office, 3-preserved from error when teaching the faith, 4-well before anything was written, 5-nine other apostles, 6-Paul praised those who heard him preach, 7-oral teaching infallible, 8-how some writings were considered infallible & 9-the canon.

No one denies that the Apostles of Christ possessed authority over other believers. But what was that authority? Was it something that was tied to direct revelations given them by Christ (the receipt of which set them apart from everyone else in the Church), or was it simply an “office” instituted by the Lord and designed to be passed on dynastically, as was the Old Testament priesthood?

Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit – Ephesians 2:19-22.

This “building” composed of the saints of God is a non-successive structure, the base upon which the rest of the building is constructed. A foundation does not have “successors”, nor does it “develop” over time; it is a given from the start of the project. On the contrary, what does “develop” is the structure that rests on the foundation. What we do find being “passed on” to others in the pastoral epistles of Paul is most definitely not an office replete with successors, but a body of teaching that is said to originate from Christ himself. For example:

As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, – 1Timothy 1:3.

If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things [warnings about false teachers], thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. These things command and teach. – 1Timothy 4:6, 11.

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen – 1Timothy 6:20-21.

irenaeus »

Fri Jan 25, 2008 6:27 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

O4H,

“The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture.”

That’s not exactly true… the apostles must have been preserved from error when officially teaching the faith, apart from anything they may have written, since they were obviously going around preaching to the infant church well before anything was committed to writing. It did not, only then, suddenly become true when pen was put to paper. Also, we do not have any record of any writings from about nine of the apostles, so are we saying that these were not reliable leaders since we cannot have any moral certainty that their teachings were correct when they were preaching? Paul also praised those to whom he was preaching for receiving his teaching not as the word of men, but as the Word of God. And this was true of his oral teaching before his letters were written, so these official teachings must have been infallible.

Second, the NT writings were discerned to be infallible by the church. While the Bible talks of the inspiration of scripture, it does not tell us which writings are inspired scriptures (i.e., there is no inspired Table of Contents). Someone had to gather the 50+ early writings and discern which ones were actually inspired by the Holy Spirit. The church discerned the 27 books that we currently have in the NT. More evidence of apostolic authority.

irenaeus »

Fri Jan 25, 2008 6:10 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

O4H,

Thank you for the well thought-out and cordial response. I am not denying much of what you have stated; e.g., the gift of the call is from the Holy Spirit, that Jesus is the cornerstone of the foundation of the church (per analogy given in Eph 2:19-20), that the ordained leaders were commended to the Lord, that errors could be and have been introduced by leaders themselves (as evidenced within Paul’s own time), but that does not speak against apostolic succession. The verses cited speak of the new leaders receiving their authority from the apostles; e.g., apostolic foundation (authority), appointment (ordained) and commissioned through laying on of hands, episkopee as being an ‘office’ which implies succession since a person ‘occupies’ an office, and upon the person leaving the ‘office,’ the 'office' remains to be occupied by another. Also, not one instance of a church leader taking upon the office of deacon, presbyter, or bishop on his own initiative apart from the apostles or their successors. When Paul asked Timothy to appoint presbyters or to not too quickly lay hands upon another (do not too quickly ordain a bishop without appropriate discernment), these are instructions from an ‘apostle’ to a ‘bishop’ whom the ‘apostle’ himself ordained, regarding ordination of successive presbyters and bishops… this is apostolic succession.

Regarding the deaconate: no, there is not a succession of deacons. Deacons are ordained by BISHOPS to a ‘lesser’ office. Note that deacons do not ordain deacons, so they still receive their authority from the bishop.

star2 »

Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

thelordismylight

Glad you are back. I have been mising you.

I went to that website. It didn't make any sense to me. Oh, well...just a dumb protestant? HaHa