:confused:What were those?
:confused:What was the occasion?
:confused:What brought them about?
:)Peace and kindness,:)
Fred

Since the declaration of Papal Infallibility (under VERY limited circumstances) in 1870 it's been used just once: In 1950 when Pope Pius XII affirmed the Assumption of Mary.

Arguably, though, there were other times before the pronouncement in 1870...

From what I've read, no two scholars agree on the exact number of Papal pronouncements that should be considered Infallible.

RickJ,
Thanks for that.
I have heard that there were 2 or 3 times, but I don't know what they were.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

The "catch" is that the pronouncement affirms prior practice... even before the pronouncement... so that's where the debates lie: in confirming/affirming what pronouncements of previous popes should be considered ex cathedra.

RickJ,
Thanks much for your answer.
It helps somewhat.
But what were the rulings that were spoken from ex-cathedra?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

RickJ,
Thanks much for your answer.
It helps somewhat.
But what were the rulings that were spoken from ex-cathedra?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

The Catholic Church doesn't officially define doctrine unless the doctrine is challenged. That is why the Church had not officially defined the doctrine of infallibility until the 19th century. Before then, it was taken for granted.

Experts agree that these pronouncements are ex-Cathedra:

The decree of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary:

MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS (http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12MUNIF.HTM)

And that of her Immaculate Conception:

Papal Definition of the Immaculate Conception (http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marye1.htm)

But, since all Catholic doctrine is infallible anyway, it seems unnecessary to sift through 2000 years of history and figure out which Papal statements are infallible and which aren't.

However, that might be a task you want to undertake. If you do, remember to include 1 and 2 Peter.

:)

Sincerely,

De Maria

The Catholic Church doesn't officially define doctrine unless the doctrine is challenged. That is why the Church had not officially defined the doctrine of infallibility until the 19th century. Before then, it was taken for granted.

An earlier pope actually denounced the belief in papal infallibility, so it has not always been taken for granted even in your denomination.

An earlier pope actually denounced the belief in papal infallibility, so it has not always been taken for granted even in your denomination.

Actually, he denounced the idea that he wasn't infallible.

A group of Franciscan brothers were told to change a house rule that Father Francis of Assissi had set up. They argued that the rule had stood for centuries since Father Francis had presented it to the Pope presiding at that time and it was approved.

The Franciscan brothers argued the rule was protected by the infallibility of the previous Pope.

But that isn't what infallibility is about. Any Pope can change the rules and disciplines of any branch of the Church. Infallibility has to do with teaching doctrine to the ecumenical Church. Not with ettiquette and procedure of a certain order within the Church.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Actually, he denounced the idea that he wasn't infallible.

A group of Franciscan brothers were told to change a house rule that Father Francis of Assissi had set up. They argued that the rule had stood for centuries since Father Francis had presented it to the Pope presiding at that time and it was approved.

The Franciscan brothers argued the rule was protected by the infallibility of the previous Pope.

But that isn't what infallibility is about. Any Pope can change the rules and disciplines of any branch of the Church. Infallibility has to do with teaching doctrine to the ecumenical Church. Not with ettiquette and procedure of a certain order within the Church.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Actually, there is no evidence of belief in infallibility of anyone prior to that.

Actually, there is no evidence of belief in infallibility of anyone prior to that.

Pope Clement I: "Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us… Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret… If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [God] through us [that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger… You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy…" (Letter to the Corinthians 1:1, 58:2-59:1,63:2[A.D.80]).

Cyprian of Carthage: "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?"(Letters 59 [55], 14)[A.D. 256]

Pope Clement I: "Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us… Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret… If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [God] through us [that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger… You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy…" (Letter to the Corinthians 1:1, 58:2-59:1,63:2[A.D.80]).

Cyprian of Carthage: "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?"(Letters 59 [55], 14)[A.D. 256]

Also Augustine, Sermon 131: "Rome has spoken; the case is closed."

See also Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 3.3.

Pope Clement I: "Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us… Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret… If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [God] through us [that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger… You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy…" (Letter to the Corinthians 1:1, 58:2-59:1,63:2[A.D.80]).

This says nothing about infallibility.


Cyprian of Carthage: "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?"(Letters 59 [55], 14)[A.D. 256]

This one seems quite elusive. I am trying to have a look at the reference in context.

This says nothing about infallibility.

Pope Clement I: "Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us… Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret…

Pope Clement speaks with confidence that his counsel will be correct.


If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [God] through us

Pope Clement believes God is speaking through him. It is reminiscent of what St. Peter said to Ananias:

Acts 5
4Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? And after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.


[that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger… You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit,

Here he confirms that he believes the Holy Spirit is speaking through him.


you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy…" (Letter to the Corinthians 1:1, 58:2-59:1,63:2[A.D.80]).

Pope Clement speaks with confidence that his counsel will be correct.

I could say the same when I read from scripture or if were to be given a word of knowledge from the Holy Spirit.

I could say the same when I read from scripture or if were to be given a word of knowledge from the Holy Spirit.

That is the basis of the Church's belief in the Pope's and the Church's infallibility.

That is the basis of the Church's belief in the Pope's and the Church's infallibility.

So it is akin to me declaring myself as infallible. Okay. I understand now.

De Maria,
Again you are right in face of Tj3's errored beliefs.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

De Maria,
Again you are right in face of Tj3's errored beliefs.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

My beliefs come from an infallible and inerrant source.

Then WHY do YOU interpret some of it incorrectly??

Then WHY do YOU interpret some of it incorrectly????

I don't interpret it - it interprets itself. I don't rely on men to interpret scripture. Who do you rely on?

I'm never sure what to make of the idea that Scripture interprets itself. Given the fact that intellectually honest, faith-filled, and diligent people come to divergent understandings (we don't have to call them "interpretations" if that term gives offense to some) of Scripture, it seems we are all obligated to support our claims to find particular truths affirmed in Scripture with appeal to something--if not Papal authority, then reasoned argument, or textual analysis... something, anyway, other than still more verses of Scripture the meaning of which can in turn be contested. There is no good reason I can see to suppose that disagreement over the meaning of Scripture emerges only where one or more of the parties to the disagreement are cognitively or spiritually deficient. In other words, there is genuine and honest disagreement. Each of us has to work to mitigate our own propensity to misunderstand God's word, and we do this in different ways. A rigorous discussion of the ways in which we do this is, I think, profitable.

I'm never sure what to make of the idea that Scripture interprets itself.

From the Bible.


Given the fact that intellectually honest, faith-filled, and diligent people come to divergent understandings (we don't have to call them "interpretations" if that term gives offense to some) of Scripture, it seems we are all obligated to support our claims to find particular truths affirmed in Scripture with appeal to something--if not Papal authority, then reasoned argument, or textual analysis... something, anyway, other than still more verses of Scripture the meaning of which can in turn be contested.

Of course the opinions of men can always vary and can always be contested. That is why scripture says that it is not to be interpreted by any man.

Of course the opinions of men can always vary and can always be contested. That is why scripture says that it is not to be interpreted by any man.

Okay, fair enough. But that's who's reading it, us, eminently fallible men and women. I completely agree with you that the Bible does not make mistakes; but we do all the time. And so what do we, any of us, do when we come to an honest parting of the ways regarding the meaning of some passage or passages of Scripture? We've done our homework, we're making an honest and forthright effort to understand, and yet we come up with different answers? Do we all just go our own separate ways? That doesn't seem right.

Now I don't mean to suggest that the understanding of Scripture should be a matter of mere consensus: majorities can err just as individuals can. So, as a practical matter, to what do we appeal, if anything, when two or more people come to an honest parting of the ways over the meaning of Scripture? There must be some means by which we can discern the truth from the error. (Of course, the really tricky case is when both, or all, participants to the disagreement are wrong but none knows it).

I, for one, am interested to hear anyone's thoughts on this.

Don't make me laugh.
It is OBVIOUS that YOU are the one that interprets Scripture. Your many errors prove that.

Don't make me laugh.
It is OBVIOUS that YOU are the one that interprets Scripture. Your many errors prove that.

I see - rather than deal with the issue, you attack the person.

Okay, fair enough. But that's who's reading it, us, eminently fallible men and women. I completely agree with you that the Bible does not make mistakes; but we do all the time. And so what do we, any of us, do when we come to an honest parting of the ways regarding the meaning of some passage or passages of Scripture? We've done our homework, we're making an honest and forthright effort to understand, and yet we come up with different answers? Do we all just go our own separate ways? That doesn't seem right.

That is when those who truly desire truth, put aside personal prejudices, put aside their own long held belifs, decide that their denominational distinctives will be submitted to God's word, and then we honestly and with all sincerity with a desire to find truth, see what God's word says, not our opinions.

After all, why do you think that God told us that NO man is to interpret the Bible? Did God err? Or did He mean what He said? Are we to say that He did not understand, and did not know what He was talking about, or do we take Him at His word?

So it is akin to me declaring myself as infallible. Okay. I understand now.

Similar but not exact. The Word of God says:

1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

The Church accepts this charism and believes that she can only and ever uphold the truth of Jesus Christ.

The Word of God also says:

Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The Church believes this is the self same charism protecting her from the snares of Satan.

We believe the promises of Christ.

That is when those who truly desire truth, put aside personal prejudices, put aside their own long held belifs, decide that their denominational distinctives will be submitted to God's word, and then we honestly and with all sincerity with a desire to find truth, see what God's word says, not our opinions.....

OK. You first. :)

My beliefs come from an infallible and inerrant source.

Certainly God and His Word are inerrant. But human beings are fallible and error prone. God didn't design His system so that His message could be lost by the fallible and error prone. It would negate His grace of inerrancy. In order for the Bible's grace of infallibility to be truly useful, there must exist an infallible interpreter. Therefore, God gave His Church the charism of infallibility. So that His message wouldn't be lost.

That is when those who truly desire truth, put aside personal prejudices, put aside their own long held belifs, decide that their denominational distinctives will be submitted to God's word, and then we honestly and with all sincerity with a desire to find truth, see what God's word says, not our opinions.

Afterall, why do you think that God told us that NO man is to interpret the Bible? Did God err? Or did He mean what He said? Are we to say that He did not understand, and did not know what He was talking about, or do we take Him at His word?

Again, I think what you say is fair enough. I just don't know what kind of a prescription it is. People can put aside lots of things, but there's still going to be disagreement. Say we set aside our denominational preferences and prejudices; say, also, that we carry-on in good faith, in a spirit of genuine humility. We are still going to disagree. After all, not all disagreement is the result of people being insincere or brainwashed by a denomination or ideology (and there is no one who is entirely free from, nor immune to prejudice of one sort or another): It just strikes me as uncharitable, even unkind, to believe that the only reason people understand Scripture differently is that they are in the grip of an ideology, or are mendacious, or insincere, etc. The most well-intentioned people, moved by the right impulses and instincts, can read Scripture differently. The problem, as we agree, isn't with Scripture; it's with us. And this is why the question stays with me: What then? Where do we go from there? How do we sort through the differences?

I hope I expressed the concern in a way that makes sense.

Again, I think what you say is fair enough. I just don't know what kind of a prescription it is. People can put aside lots of things, but there's still going to be disagreement. Say we set aside our denominational preferences and prejudices; say, also, that we carry-on in good faith, in a spirit of genuine humility. We are still going to disagree. After all, not all disagreement is the result of people being insincere or brainwashed by a denomination or ideology (and there is no one who is entirely free from, nor immune to prejudice of one sort or another): It just strikes me as uncharitable, even unkind, to believe that the only reason people understand Scripture differently is that they are in the grip of an ideology, or are mendacious, or insincere, etc. The most well-intentioned people, moved by the right impulses and instincts, can read Scripture differently. The problem, as we agree, isn't with Scripture; it's with us. And this is why the question stays with me: What then? Where do we go from there? How do we sort through the differences?

I hope I expressed the concern in a way that makes sense.

The Word of God answers the question:

Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

This has happened throughout Christian history. The Arian heresy is a wonderful example. Who declared Arius a heretic. The Church.

But before that happened, first Athanasius and Arius debated. They both used Scripture to support their positions. But Athanasius also had Tradition on his side. Arius did not. The Church then pronounced Arius a heretic:

The Council interrogated Arius using Scripture, only to find that he had a new way of interpreting every verse they brought before him. Finally, they used the argument that Arius' view had to be wrong because it was new. Athanasius says, "But concerning matters of faith, they [the bishops assembled at Nicea] did not write: 'It has been decided,' but 'Thus the Catholic Church believes.' And thereupon confessed how they believed. This they did to show that their judgement was not of more recent origin, but was in fact of Apostolic times..." (Volume 1, Faith of the Early Fathers, p338). In this regard also, Athanasius askes rhetorically, "... how many fathers [in other words, the writings of the early Christians] can you cite for your phrases?" (Ibid, p325)
The Council of Nicea (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea.htm)

Tj3,
Gee whiz Tom I did not intend to attack you and don't think I did, but if you think so I apologize.
I thought that I was just reminding you of the errors I believe you made just like you pointing out errors you believe I made.
So please accept my apology.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Tj3,
Gee whiz Tom I did not intend to attack you and don't think I did, but if you think so I apologize.
I thought that I was just reminding you of the errors I believe you made just like you pointing out errors you believe I made.
So please accept my apology.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred, pointing out errors would require that you provide scripture and then discuss in a respectful manner. I would look forward to that.

Similar but not exact. The Word of God says:

1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

The Church accepts this charism and believes that she can only and ever uphold the truth of Jesus Christ.

The church of the living God is the body of ALL believers, not a denomination.

The Word of God also says:


Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The Church believes this is the self same charism protecting her from the snares of Satan.

The church of the living God is the body of ALL believers, not a denomination.

1 Cor 12:26-27
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.
NKJV

Certainly God and His Word are inerrant. But human beings are fallible and error prone. God didn't design His system so that His message could be lost by the fallible and error prone. It would negate His grace of inerrancy. In order for the Bible's grace of infallibility to be truly useful, there must exist an infallible interpreter.

Right. The Holy Spirit.

John 14:15-18
15 "If you love Me, keep My commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever-- 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.
NKJV

The problem, as we agree, isn't with Scripture; it's with us. And this is why the question stays with me: What then? Where do we go from there? How do we sort through the differences?

The problem is with us. Look around at the messages. We find people constantly referring to their own interpretations, their pastor, their denomination, their church, extra-Biblical sources, opinions.

Any doubt as to why we have variant views?

Right. The Holy Spirit.

John 14:15-18
15 "If you love Me, keep My commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever-- 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.
NKJV

Like you said in the other message to Akoue. Look at us. I claim the Holy Spirit as well as you? Yet WE CONTRADICT EACH OTHER.

So, as in the Arius/Athanasius dispute, there is one Judge which Jesus appointed to resolve Christian dispute:

Matthew 18 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

Therefore, the Church must be a living authority which one can locate and which has the authority to adjudicate the dispute.

Sincerely,

The problem is with us. Look around at the messages. We find people constantly referring to their own interpretations, their pastor, their denomination, their church, extra-Biblical sources, opinions.

Any doubt as to why we have variant views?

And that is the question which remains unanswered in the Scripture and Tradition Thread:


This is good, it speaks to the second view of the OP. So, if I may, I'd like to ask you to say a little bit about how you might apprach the question I asked Fred:

You and I are intellectually honest, faith-filled, diligent people who sit down together and talk about a passage of Scripture. And we find ourselves in disagreement over what it says. Each of us understands it differently. We talk it through, each of us explains why we understand it the way we do, and still we find ourselves understanding it differently. What, if anything, do we do then to sort out the disagreement? Since it is the word of God we know that it can't be saying two conflicting things. And yet here we are with two conflicting understandings of what it says. What resource do you and I have--assuming that neither of us is inclined to appeal to Tradition in the sense of the first view--for figuring out whether one of us is right and the other wrong, or whether we're both mistaken?

I'd appreciate any thoughts you care to offer on this.

So as not to derail this thread, please respond to it there if you so desire:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/scripture-tradition-290835-8.html#post1425642

Sincerely,

Like you said in the other message to Akoue. Look at us. I claim the Holy Spirit as well as you? Yet WE CONTRADICT EACH OTHER.

Two things. With all due respect (and this is not aimed at you personally), but claiming the Holy Spirit is not the same as having it, and secondly just having the Holy Spirit is not the same thing as allowing the Holy Spirit to speak to us through His word without adding man's interpretation to it.

Two things. With all due respect (and this is not aimed at you personally), but claiming the Holy Spirit is not the same as having it,

I think we can all agree on that.


and secondly just having the Holy Spirit is not the same thing as allowing the Holy Spirit to speak to us through His word without adding man's interpretation to it

This would make for an interesting thread topic.

Two things. With all due respect (and this is not aimed at you personally), but claiming the Holy Spirit is not the same as having it, and secondly just having the Holy Spirit is not the same thing as allowing the Holy Spirit to speak to us through His word without adding man's interpretation to it.

My points exactly.

So here's the dilemma. Two Christians, apparently in good faith, with contradicting understanding of the Scriptures each claiming to have the Holy Spirit and each claiming the Holy Spirit is speaking to them and through them without addition of man's interpretation. How do we determine who is right? Neither has more authority than the other. So, who resolves the difference?

My points exactly.

So here's the dilemma. Two Christians, apparently in good faith, with contradicting understanding of the Scriptures each claiming to have the Holy Spirit and each claiming the Holy Spirit is speaking to them and through them without addition of man's interpretation. How do we determine who is right? Neither has more authority than the other. So, who resolves the difference?

We discussed that in one thread already, but I think that we are getting off topic on this one, so I would suggest starting a new one.

Let me just say, though, that since this is the approach that God gave us in His word, do you really think God made a mistake?

We discussed that in one thread already, but I think that we are getting off topic on this one, so I would suggest starting a new one.

Let me just say, though, that since this is the approach that God gave us in His word, do you really think God made a mistake?

We also believe that the approach God gave us is His Word, in Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium. Do you think God made a mistake?

We also believe that the approach God gave us is His Word, in Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium. Do you think God made a mistake?

Except we do not find support for the tradition and denominational magisterium in scripture.

Except we do not find support for the tradition and denominational magisterium in scripture.

This is a conversation well worth having. As I've said on the Scripture & Tradition thread, reasonable people can approach it in different ways.

The Catholic and Orthodox teaching--along with that of some others--looks at Mt.16 & 18, Jn.20.22 (where Christ breathes on the Apostles and tells them to "receive the Holy Spirit"), Acts, Titus and Timothy (where the authority of the bishop appears to be confirmed, and we are instructed to avoid teaching that comes from other sources), and understands Scripture to instruct faithful obedience to the teachings of the Apostolic Church. Add to this that the early disciples of the Apostles re-affirm this understanding (Ignatius of Antioch and the Didache discusse it at great length). My point here is just that, whatever else may be the case, it doesn't look like Catholics just invented this out of whole cloth. And the fact that they do point to Scripture as the basis for this teaching suggests no bad-faith on their part: They are diligently undertaking to serve the Lord by adhering to their best understanding of what the Scriptures teach.

The Catholic and Orthodox teaching--along with that of some others--looks at Mt.16 & 18, Jn.20.22 (where Christ breathes on the Apostles and tells them to "receive the Holy Spirit"), Acts, Titus and Timothy (where the authority of the bishop appears to be confirmed, and we are instructed to avoid teaching that comes from other sources), and understands Scripture to instruct faithful obedience to the teachings of the Apostolic Church.

Ah yes, but that is where issues arise because some people feel that means their denomination and there were no denominations prior to 325AD.

Ah yes, but that is where issues arise because some people feel that means their denomination and there were no denominations prior to 325AD.

A lot depends here on what one means by the word "denomination". In one sense of the word there were no denominations until well after 325. In another sense of the word, though, there were lots of denominations before 325: There were Marcionites, Valentinians, Basilideans, Montanists, Arians, Donatists, etc. Groups, in other words, that for various reasons broke off from the main body of Apostolic Churches (each of the groups I mention were around before 325) which recognized themselves as a single body until well after the Council of Nicaea.

Except we do not find support for the tradition and denominational magisterium in scripture.

Denominational? No, Jesus established one Church.

As for Tradition. Jesus wrote not a word of Scripture and established many Traditions.

As for Magisterium. That means, Teacher, and is the mission which the Church has obediently accepted by command of Jesus Christ:

Matthew 28:20
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Denominational? No, Jesus established one Church.

The body of Christ - no denomination.


As for Tradition. Jesus wrote not a word of Scripture and established many Traditions.

There is only one truth.


As for Magisterium. That means, Teacher, and is the mission which the Church has obediently accepted by command of Jesus Christ:

The question is - what is "The Church". Again, there were no denominations until the 4th century, and in scripture the true church is referred to as the body of Christ not a manmade organization.

Originally Posted by De Maria View Post
Denominational? No, Jesus established one Church.



The body of Christ - no denomination.

I believe that is what I said. Jesus formed on Church, the Body of Christ. No denominations.


Quote:
As for Tradition. Jesus wrote not a word of Scripture and established many Traditions.



There is only one truth.

All of Jesus' Traditions are truth.


The question is - what is "The Church". Again, there were no denominations until the 4th century,

See Akoue's previous response on the same topic.


and in scripture the true church is referred to as the body of Christ not a manmade organization.

That is correct. Christ established the Church. Therefore, if you want to belong to Christ's Church, find the one you believe He established.

I believe that is what I said. Jesus formed on Church, the Body of Christ. No denominations.

Good. Then the interpretation of scripture would not come from men who lead your church organization.


That is correct. Christ established the Church. Therefore, if you want to belong to Christ's Church, find the one you believe He established.

According to scripture, the moment hat we receive Christ as Saviour, we are a member of His church. I don't need to find anything to be a member of His church.

Good. Then the interpretation of scripture would not come from men who lead your church organization.

Huh? How does that even follow my statement?


I said:
Originally Posted by De Maria View Post
I believe that is what I said. Jesus formed on Church, the Body of Christ. No denominations.

And you respond:

Good. Then the interpretation of scripture would not come from men who lead your church organization

Are you saying that Jesus did not give His Church the authority to interpret His Word?


According to scripture, the moment hat we receive Christ as Saviour, we are a member of His church. I don't need to find anything to be a member of His church.

You'll have to show me where that is written. Because Scripture is clear that the Church makes disciples by teaching them and baptizing those who believe.

Matthew 28: 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Huh? How does that even follow my statement?

It follows logically.


Are you saying that Jesus did not give His Church the authority to interpret His Word?

Yes, He does. But the question is "what is His church?"


You'll have to show me where that is written. Because Scripture is clear that the Church makes disciples by teaching them and baptizing those who believe.

Do you know the difference between making a disciple and being saved?

It follows logically.

I don't think so.


Yes, He does. But the question is "what is His church?"

Not really. You have a definition for that term, which is different than mine. The question is, who is right?

As you so astutely said to me before, just because you believe it, doesn't make it true.

So, I'll start another thread with that question. You provide your definition of "what is His Church" and I'll provide mine. Then we will each support our definition with Scripture and the Early Church Fathers.

Sound fair?


Do you know the difference between making a disciple and being saved?

I know my understanding of the difference. That understanding differs from yours. I think my understanding is right. Who do you think is right?

I don't think so.

I was not expecting you to agree.


Not really. You have a definition for that term, which is different than mine. The question is, who is right?


I'll stick with the definition from scripture.


So, I'll start another thread with that question. You provide your definition of "what is His Church" and I'll provide mine. Then we will each support our definition with Scripture and the Early Church Fathers.

I'll stick with scripture.


I know my understanding of the difference. That understanding differs from yours. I think my understanding is right. Who do you think is right?

I'll stick with scripture.

A lot depends here on what one means by the word "denomination". In one sense of the word there were no denominations until well after 325. In another sense of the word, though, there were lots of denominations before 325: There were Marcionites, Valentinians, Basilideans, Montanists, Arians, Donatists, etc. Groups, in other words, that for various reasons broke off from the main body of Apostolic Churches (each of the groups I mention were around before 325) which recognized themselves as a single body until well after the Council of Nicaea.

Good point Akoue. Perhaps we could discuss this further in the new thread entitled, "What is His Church?"

I agree with akoue on that.
There were NO denominations as we understand them till the reformation took place.
Peace and kindness,
Fred