I forgot to ask. What thread would this be?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
|
I forgot to ask. What thread would this be?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Peter spoke in the middle of the discussion, after some had spoke, and before Paul and Barnabas and James. He gave his opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wangdoodle
James spoke last and made the decision - that is not my claim, that is the Biblical record of the Council proceedings. Further, notice that James' decision is in part based upon Peter's opinion, but differs from Peter's statement. Let's look at both of them in comparison.
Peter suggested:
Acts 15:7-11
En and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they."
NKJV
Peter gave no specifics as to what he thought should be done and thus this could in no way be considered a final decision.
James' final decision gave specifics:
Acts 15:19-21
19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."
NKJV
And what happened? Without further discussion, James' decision was carried out exactly as he stated it:
Acts 15:22-23
22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren. 23 They wrote this letter by them:
NKJV
And the letter said exactly what James instructed them to put in it.
Acts 15:23-31
He apostles, the elders, and the brethren,
To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:
Greetings.
24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, 'You must be circumcised and keep the law'--to whom we gave no such commandment-- 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.
Farewell.
30 So when they were sent off, they came to Antioch; and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the letter.
NKJV
Why was the Council of Jerusalem convened? To decide if Gentiles needed to be circumcised. Paul did not just search the Scriptures alone.
What was the decision of the council?
Gentiles did not have to be circumcised.
Who announced the council’s decision?
Peter did after the long discussion had ended.
Why Peter?
Peter exercised his head ship in announcing the doctrine. James also gave instructions. He is the Bishop of Jerusalem. As the hosting Bishop it is acceptable to give instructions concerning how to proceed with the councils decision. He, in no way undermined Peter’s leadership by giving further instructions. It would be expected that his instructions would be carried out perfectly.
This is a fine example of a well-organized church exercising apostolic authority rather than just going to the Scriptures alone.
You have stated your opinion, but scripture was quite explicit about who decided. You may disagree with it and that is your right, but that will not change what it says. Despite your claim, Peter spoke in the middle of the discussion. Maybe your Bible is missing some verses!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wangdoodle
Ah nice try, but you forget that what they were penning was in fact to become scripture! Further, if you try to use that argument for going beyond what God's word says, the argument dies on the table since all 12 of the Apostles have since passed away.Quote:
This is a fine example of a well-organized church exercising apostolic authority rather than just going to the Scriptures alone.
Though they did hold a special position, they left us with what they wrote as scripture.
It is obvoius TJ3 has some agenda to disprove the bible as true or write their own version for some reason. The issues using bible verses are very clear unless you just don't want to accept them.
Sad when on their own web site it merely says to question, but I guess it should say to accept it after it is proven not to question it without end.
I would have to ask, if Peter was not the head of the group, who was according to your denominations teachings.
Oh yes, Chuck, when you don't agree, then just go after the person. One cannot simply disagree with the Catholic Church - they must have an agenda - right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
I don't know how you ignore the fact that James said "I judge". That is very clear. The fact that he gave detailed instructions and a detailed decision is very clear. If you feel that I have agenda, should I assume that you ignore this because you have an agenda?
I think that the Bible is very clear.
Strange, I keep saying that I have no denomination, and yet you keep asking questions like that. BTW, I accept what the Bible says about that also:Quote:
I would have to ask, if Peter was not the head of the group, who was according to your denominations teachings.
Eph 5:22-24
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.
NKJV
Do you agree with the Bible or not?
Sola scriptura is basically the belief that all things necessary for salvation and pertaining to faith and practice are found in the scriptures, that the bible is the source of and authority on these truths.
I admit some take it too far, such as some in the King James only crowd who can't seem to figure out that Sola scriptura does not mean we can't use extra-scriptural material to help in our understanding. They should understand that every time they pull out their concordances, commentaries and lexicons or when the preacher stands and delivers his take on the scriptures, but apparently the irony is lost on them.
This is a tired, old argument I doubt will ever be resolved here on earth. Catholics don't seem to be willing to consider there may have been an error or two down the long, long, long, long, line of traditions and thus it might be wise to settle on the scriptures as the authority - and we will never submit to the authority of the Pope or the Catholic church because experience tells us our relationship with God is not dependent on either. I found God just fine without the Catholic church, and I recall the unkind things Jesus had to say about the traditions of men.
I get that private interpretation can be a dangerous thing, but so is leaving the final authority in the hands of men. It is logical to me to have the traditions and teachings of men subject to scrutiny against the scriptures as opposed to giving man the final say.
Steve
No, Jesus did not tell Peter to establish a church. (A post on page one explains that.) And Martin Luther wasn't the one who started the first Protestant movement. There were others before him.
First, Jesus did not tell Peter any such thing. Jesus established one church and one church only - the body of all believers. Afterward, there were a number of churches and denominations started by men, but none of these, no matter how good they are can claim to be the church that Jesus established. That does not mean that there is anything wrong with a denomination if it remains true to God's word, but Jesus' church is the only one in which ALL members are saved.Quote:
Originally Posted by lalaman1
First, you give no reference for this and second, I don't see what relevance it would have to the discussion in any case.Quote:
Even Martin Luther (the guy who started the first protestant movement) on his deathbed said something like "can one person truly be right" or something along those lines.
First, why would you saythat a person is holy because they have been given a title?Quote:
Sola Scriptura was Martin Luther's idea, him thinking that ordinary people don't need holy people such as bishops and popes to interprate the bible.
Second, since 2 Peter 1:20 says that no man is tyo interpret scripture, why would you say that some men can?
That has nothing to do with the issue. Further, I am not a protestant.Quote:
Sola Scriptura is innaccurate, because how could there be so many different interpretations (there are over 33 thousand protestant churches because of their different interpretations).
Who said that any person is permitted by scripture to interpret their Bible? The only people that I see saying this are Catholics trying to argue against a strawman definition that they created of what they claim sola scriptura is, but that is NOT what the doctrine of sola scriptura teaches.Quote:
So if I smoked weed I could say that the parable of Jesus' sowing seeds is interpreted by me that I'm allowed to sow weed seeds and smoke them. Ok well that was an exaggeration, but if people are aloud to interpret the bible their way, sometimes they'll interpret it in a way that fits their lifestyle better.
I think you are over looking the point of the council. Do Gentiles have to be circumcised to be saved? This is the answer to that question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Act 15:11 But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."
That was said by Peter. The fact that the council continued with further instructions does not change the fact that Peter announced the answer.
Do Jews have to be circumised to be saved? Show me where you find that in scripture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wangdoodle
This is important - too many people take that which is symbolic and try to make it essential for salvation - whether it be the rituals of the OT or baptism.
Scripture disagrees with you. Who does it say judged?Quote:
Act 15:11 But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."
That was said by Peter. The fact that the council continued with further instructions does not change the fact that Peter announced the answer.
Acts 15:19-21
19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."
NKJV
judge
- Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, judged, judg·ing.
–noun
1. a public officer authorized to hear and decide cases in a court of law; a magistrate charged with the administration of justice.
2. a person appointed to decide in any competition, contest, or matter at issue; authorized arbiter: the judges of a beauty contest.
3. a person qualified to pass a critical judgment: a good judge of horses.
4. an administrative head of Israel in the period between the death of Joshua and the accession to the throne by Saul.
5. (esp. in rural areas) a county official with supervisory duties, often employed part-time or on an honorary basis.
–verb (used with object)
6. to pass legal judgment on; pass sentence on (a person): The court judged him guilty.
7. to hear evidence or legal arguments in (a case) in order to pass judgment; adjudicate; try: The Supreme Court is judging that case.
8. to form a judgment or opinion of; decide upon critically: You can't judge a book by its cover.
9. to decide or settle authoritatively; adjudge: The censor judged the book obscene and forbade its sale.
10. to infer, think, or hold as an opinion; conclude about or assess: He judged her to be correct.
11. to make a careful guess about; estimate: We judged the distance to be about four miles.
12. (of the ancient Hebrew judges) to govern.
–verb (used without object)
13. to act as a judge; pass judgment: No one would judge between us.
14. to form an opinion or estimate: I have heard the evidence and will judge accordingly.
15. to make a mental judgment.
(Source: Dictionary.com, Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.)
To judge is to make the decision. Why reject what scripture states explicitly?
Hold on there TJ3! I did not say that. And Nether did the Council.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Act 15:11 But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."
The Jews and the Gentiles are saved through the grace of the Lord.
Good!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wangdoodle
Now answer my question - Who does scripture say judged?
James' Judgement is based on what the Council had already decided.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Heh heh heh, that is not what scripture says. A "judgment" is a decision and that is the ONLY decision mentioned at the council.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wangdoodle
Ultimately we all have to decide if we will accept what scripture says, or submit ourselves to what others tell us to believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
The statement "But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will", was the conclusion of the "long debate". Yes, James decided to give further instruction on how to proceed. I never said James was not in a position of authority.
The debate continued. Peter spoke in the middle. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Peter did anything other than give some quality input to the debate, as did others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wangdoodle
But again - James "judged", and James was the last person to speak in the debate, and James gave direction, and James was unchallenged.
Acts 15:19-21
19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."
NKJV
I cannot imagine how an unbiased reader who read this for the first time by themselves would come to any other conclusion.
Let me add to this that the word that James chose to use for "judge" is krino, which means:
NT:2919
Krino (kree'-no); properly, to distinguish, i.e. decide (mentally or judicially); by implication, to try, condemn, punish:
(Strong's Concordance)
James decided. No one else.
Before we get side tracked, please answer the opening question:
Would you define the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and show me where it is in Scripture?
I gave the Catholic doctrine as confirmed in Scripture. If that is what you call the denominational position, then you are correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Not so. The verse you are showing has no relevance to the topic at hand. However I will show you that it does prove that Jesus established a Church which He said would never fall.Quote:
which is contrary to what scripture says.
At first. But then 16 SIMON PETER answered and Jesus then focused on him saying to him directly, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter,...."Quote:
Matt 16:13-19
13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?" 14 So they said, "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
NKJV
What do we see here?
- Jesus was speaking to his disciples as a group
You can compare this to a class room where the Teacher is asking all the students a question. But when one student answers, the Teacher addresses that one student directly but for all to hear.
Correct. The disciples all got it wrong, but Jesus expressly states that Simon Bar Jonah got it right and that he could only get it right if the Father had inspired him to do so.Quote:
- The topic was "who is Jesus"
"Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven."
Correct.Quote:
- Peter answered that he is the Messiah, son of the living God.
Wrong. He immediately speaks to the person who answered, Simon Bar Jonah and declares him to be Peter.Quote:
- Jesus does not immediately refer to Peter, but rather the fact that the revelation of the truth came from God the father.
Correct. It means stone.Quote:
The word Peter here is Petros, which means stone
It means stone or rock, not "piece of" stone or rock.Quote:
or a piece of a rock,
No, no, no. Please point to the exact reference where Jesus say, you are the rock and I am the Rock. I don't see it.Quote:
and then Jesus refers to the "rock" which is the revelation of who he is, and states that His church shall be built upon this revelation that He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
As I see it, Jesus is directly speaking to Simon and telling him how the Father has inspired him to make this statement and as a result Jesus renames Simon, calls him Peter or Rock and says He will build His Church on this Rock which He has just named.
Peter is the masculine derivative of Petra. They mean the same thing, exactly, except Peter is addressed to a man. Petra has the 'a" or feminine ending and is therefore inappropriate for use as a man's name.Quote:
The word "rock" here is Petra,
Peter does not mean "piece of" Rock but simply Rock. The Greek word for piece of Rock or small rock is "lithos".Quote:
which means rock, or a mass of rock. We do not build a building upon a piece of a rock or a stone, but rather upon a rock that is massive enough to provide a solid foundation.
In addition, Jesus prophecied that Simon would be renamed early on when He first met him. In that instance, St. John explains that Jesus called Simon, "Cephas", Aramaic for large "Rock".
John 1 42 And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.
That is precisely the point isn't it? Jesus gave Simon His Own Name. When Jesus gave Simon His Own Name, He did precisely what God did for Moses in the Old Testament:Quote:
Jesus' choice of words made it clear which should be the foundation of His church. This is confirmed in Paul's letter to the church at Corinth:
1 Cor 3:11
11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
NKJV
Exodus 7 1 And the Lord said to Moses: Behold I have appointed thee the God of Pharao: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
In other words, God is saying to Moses, when you see Pharaoh, you will be in My Place. You will be My Representative.
And Jesus is saying to Simon, when I build my Church, you will be in My Place. You will be My Representative.
Sincerely,
If Matthew had wanted to write that the Church would be built on Peter, he could have phrased it more explicitly. The Catholic argument also misapplies the English use of the demonstrative pronoun to the Greek language. This assumes that it refers to the noun previously referenced (Peter) when it actually refers to the subject closest to the speaker (Jesus himself).
If Matthew had written "and on you, Peter, I will build," or "and on your confession, Peter, I will build," or "on the Rock which is Me, I will build with you who is the stone," there would be no grounds for debate. But he did not, thus the controversy.
From christiancourier.com --
"If this conversation between Christ and Peter was intended to establish the fact that the church was to be built upon the apostle himself (with the implication of successors), it is strange indeed that Mark, who produced his Gospel record from the vantagepoint of Peter (see Eusebius, 2.15), totally omits the exchange (see Mk. 8:27-30)."
The Catholic Church does not even use the English version for its usage, This concept was accepted, believed and taught before there was even an English translation. They used the original greek text.
And of course it is not just the Catholic that accept this teachings, the Orthodox, many of the Anglican groups, the Lutheran groups ( at least in the early teachings of the church) and more.
It is in fact the smaller number and newer denominations that teach this is not this way. Who often use the English translations as their base without going to the early greek.
The Lutherans do not accept the pope as the head of the church. They do not believe that Peter was the first pope.
Something that I will often do is look at what the early Christians understood about various matters. It should not be ignored that the early Christians understood apostolic succession and tradition. St. Irenaeus gave witness to this in the second century, and St. Cyprian in the third.
Irenaeus, Adversus haereses
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
Cyprian, The Unity of the Church
And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.
Many things have been taught in the past. I could show you early teachings that disagree with you, but that is where the key issue is - when we have conflciting teachings between church traditiion/denominational teachings and what scripture teaches, which do we hold to be the standard which determines what is right?
I chose to stick with the Bible, which we know to be God's word. Teachings of men can fail, even church fathers (Paul had to rebuke Peter, for example), but God's word will never fail.
You've explained the problem incorrectly. There is no conflict between Church and Scripture. Indeed, the Church canonized the Old Testament and wrote the New.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
The conflict is between Church Tradition which includes Scripture and individual interpretation.
Scripture is clear that the Church is the standard:Quote:
I chose to stick with the Bible, which we know to be God's word. Teachings of men can fail, even church fathers (Paul had to rebuke Peter, for example), but God's word will never fail.
Matt 18:17, "take him to the Church, if he does not hear the Church treat him as a heathen."
1 Tim 3:15 "The Church, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth."
Sincerely,
De Maria
You are using the word "church" differently than in scripture - your denomination never existed when scripture was written.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Your denominational tradition is not scriptural and must be tested by using scripture. No private interpretation is permitted, and that includes by memebers of your denomination.Quote:
The conflict is between Church Tradition which includes Scripture and individual interpretation.
Again, this argues against you. Matthew 18 is speaking of any church not your denomination which did not exist, and is referring to disciplinary matters, not how to determine truth in doctrine.Quote:
Scripture is clear that the Church is the standard:
Matt 18:17, "take him to the Church, if he does not hear the Church treat him as a heathen."
1 Tim 3:15 "The Church, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth."
1 Tim 3:15 does not refer to a denomination but rather the body of Christ.
What does scripture say?
Rev 3:12
12 He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. And I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name.
NKJV
So we see that individuals who "overcome" are the pillars.
Show me how?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Matt 16:18 shows that Jesus Christ established a Church with authority to bind and loose.
Matt 18:17 which states that the Church has authority to settle disputes and discipline Her members.
You seem to be hung up on the idea that the Church is only defined as a body of believers, but there is more than one definition for the word as is clear in Scripture.
You've yet to provide the evidence that Scripture is the only test. But Scripture shows that the Church has the authority to resolve disputes. And history shows that when two parties dispute over how to interpret Scripture, the Church is the authority to which they have appealed.Quote:
Your denominational tradition is not scriptural and must be tested by using scripture.
We don't interpret the Scriptures privately. We interpret in accordance with the Spirit of the Church which is evidenced in Her Traditions.Quote:
No private interpretation is permitted, and that includes by memebers of your denomination.
I've asked you before, how do you keep from interpreting the Scriptures privately since you have nothing upon which to stand?
When I go to interpret Scripture, I say to myself, what did the Fathers of the Church teach?
Luther is an excellent example of an individual who interpreted the Scriptures privately. He taught Sola Scriptura, but Sola Scriptura is not taught in Scripture or in the Traditions of the Church through the centuries.
There was only one Church in existence at the time and the Catholic Church is the largest Church which can trace Herself to that time. Certainly no confession resulting from the Protestant reformation can trace itself to the Apostles.Quote:
Again, this argues against you. Matthew 18 is speaking of any church not your denomination which did not exist, and is referring to disciplinary matters, not how to determine truth in doctrine.
And this verse does not say, "except in matters of doctrine". It does not give any exceptions.
But 1 Tim 3:15 explicitly states "the Church". And only the Ancient Churches which trace themselves to the Apostles accept this blessing from God. Only the Ancient Churches consider themselves "Pillars of Truth". Of these, the Catholic Church is the largest.Quote:
1 Tim 3:15 does not refer to a denomination but rather the body of Christ.
None of the Reformed institutions consider themselves "Pillars of Truth". In fact, they will immediately admit that they may be teaching error. Although they defend their errors with as much gusto as they defend truth.
This verse is speaking in future terms. We will be pillars in the temple of God if we persevere to the end.Quote:
What does scripture say?
Rev 3:12
12 He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. And I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name.
NKJV
So we see that individuals who "overcome" are the pillars.
But 1 Tim 3:15 is speaking in present tense. The Church is already the Pillar of Truth.
Sincerely,
De Maria
The body of Christ - right, not your denomination.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Agreed. They are organizational churches who are mixes of saved and unsaved, and in some cases apostate. Scripture is clear that Jesus established the body of believers, not apostate churches. So we cannot mix the two meanings.Quote:
You seem to be hung up on the idea that the Church is only defined as a body of believers, but there is more than one definition for the word as is clear in Scripture.
I see little value in going on on this as long as you are demanding that your denomination IS the body of Christ. Each discussion that we have comes down to this one point.
Denominational traditions (private interpretation of your denomination)Quote:
We don't interpret the Scriptures privately. We interpret in accordance with the Spirit of the Church which is evidenced in Her Traditions.
God's word is nothing??Quote:
I've asked you before, how do you keep from interpreting the Scriptures privately since you have nothing upon which to stand?
There was no denomination at that time and many churches.Quote:
There was only one Church in existence at the time and the Catholic Church is the largest Church which can trace Herself to that time.
I am not protestant first of all, and any church which stands upon the word of God as their confession goes back to the Apostles. Your denomination goes back to 325AD.Quote:
Certainly no confession resulting from the Protestant reformation can trace itself to the Apostles.
A visible Church with authority to bind and loose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I already wrote that the Church considers all the baptized as members of the Body of Christ. I even provided the Catechism.Quote:
Agreed. They are organizational churches who are mixes of saved and unsaved, and in some cases apostate. Scripture is clear that Jesus established the body of believers, not apostate churches. So we cannot mix the two meanings.
I see little value in going on on this as long as you are demanding that your denomination IS the body of Christ. Each discussion that we have comes down to this one point.
1267 Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ: "Therefore . . . we are members one of another." Baptism incorporates us into the Church. From the baptismal fonts is born the one People of God of the New Covenant, which transcends all the natural or human limits of nations, cultures, races, and sexes: "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body."
791 The body's unity does not do away with the diversity of its members: "In the building up of Christ's Body there is engaged a diversity of members and functions. There is only one Spirit who, according to his own richness and the needs of the ministries, gives his different gifts for the welfare of the Church." The unity of the Mystical Body produces and stimulates charity among the faithful: "From this it follows that if one member suffers anything, all the members suffer with him, and if one member is honored, all the members together rejoice." Finally, the unity of the Mystical Body triumphs over all human divisions: "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."
Why do you insist on passing on your statement as Catholic Teaching?
Church teaching is not private interpretation. It is explanation of the Word of God in the Traditions of Word and Scriptures which were entrusted to Her care.Quote:
Denominational traditions (private interpretation of your denomination)
You aren't standing on God's word but on your interpretation of God's word.Quote:
God's word is nothing??
There are many churches today within the Catholic Church. But they are all Catholic.Quote:
There was no denomination at that time and many churches.
In the same way, all the Churches mentioned in Scripture are members of one and the same Church.
Ephesians 4 1 I therefore, a prisoner in the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called, 2 With all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity. 3 Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.
I didn't say you were. But Sola Scriptura, a doctrine to which you seem to hold, stems from the Protestant reformation and can't be traced to the Apostles nor the Early Christians. It is an innovation about 600 years old.Quote:
I am not protestant first of all,
You have yet to prove that your INTERPRETATION of Scripture is an accurate reading of the Word of God. Essentially, its your word against everybody else. And just as you don't see the Catholic Church in Scripture, I certainly don't see you in Scripture.Quote:
and any church which stands upon the word of God as their confession goes back to the Apostles. .
The Teachings of the Catholic Church go beyond the year 325 all the way to the Apostles, as I have shown.Quote:
Your denomination goes back to 325AD
Sincerely,
You ignored what I said once again. The body of Christ - right, not your denomination.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Including Muslims which the CCC refers to as foremost amongst those who worship the true God even though they reject Jesus as Saviour. But again, this had nothing to with who the church is - it once again is not your denomination, but is the body of Christ.Quote:
I already wrote that the Church considers all the baptized as members of the Body of Christ.
Yeah, yeah, yeah - we've heard this before, but it does not agree with the context of the book of Peter. That claim is in and of itself private interpretation.Quote:
Church teaching is not private interpretation.
Even the apostate ones?Quote:
In the same way, all the Churches mentioned in Scripture are members of one and the same Church.
This refers to those who are saved, not the organized church.Quote:
Ephesians 4 1 I therefore, a prisoner in the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called, 2 With all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity. 3 Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.
It goes back into the OT even as well as your "tradition", but your denomination I guess rejects those parts of "tradition" that don't agree with their private interpretation.Quote:
I didn't say you were. But Sola Scriptura, a doctrine to which you seem to hold, stems from the Protestant reformation and can't be traced to the Apostles nor the Early Christians. It is an innovation about 600 years old.
I am tired of repeating myself (and on three different threads) when you won't listen and won't deal with what I said. If you dealt honestly with my comments, I'd put more effort and time into this, but why bother when you ignore what I say and post strawman arguments and mi-representations of what I say, and then claim that I never said what I said in the first place.Quote:
You have yet to prove that your INTERPRETATION of Scripture is an accurate reading of the Word of God. Essentially, its your word against everybody else.
When you start taking the time to deal honestly with what I said, maybe that will show me that it is worthwhile spending more time repeating what I said before.
Strawman.Quote:
And just as you don't see the Catholic Church in Scripture, I certainly don't see you in Scripture.
Your own Cardinal John Henry Newman disagrees.Quote:
The Teachings of the Catholic Church go beyond the year 325 all the way to the Apostles, as I have shown.
No they believe that the church was built as Peter as the leader of the early church and that he was the "rock" being spoken by. Accepting Peter as the Rock and the leader of the early church has nothing to do with accepting the POPE,Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
The Lutheran Church also recommends private confession in their Catechism, infant baptism and absolution given by the minister.
** Luthers small catechism, copyright 1943**
Luther changed little in his teachings from that of the Catholic Church,
I do find it amazing, in that to fight the idea of private interpretation you must use it. Since to not have it, you have to look at the church for the churches teaching. And if you accept the bible as the word of God , you have to accept the Catholic and Orthodox Church as valid, since they are the ones that set up the New Testement as we know it, They are the ones that copied by hand and protected the bible for a over 1500 years before there was even anyone else having a bible. The Apostles Creed, and more all come out of the Catholic Church.
To deny their place protecting the faith, would mean to deny the history of all that any christian church uses or has today.
If one wants to follow scripture exactly, then why do no other church follow Jewish traditions, Jesus followed them hisself, From him being presented in the temple, to him teaching in the temple.
All churches have a tradition or custom, The same number of songs each Sunday, a sermon about the same length, normally a dinner or meal every so many sundays or on certain times every year.
Or only communion once a year not every service. That is still a tradition or custom
I note that you chose not to validate that claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
I can look to the Bible for God's teaching. Also, when you say the churches teaching, which denomination shall I use? Which denominations do we find in scripture? There are many churches, as there were in NT times.Quote:
Since to not have it, you have to look at the church for the churches teaching.
The Catholic church started more than 200 years after it was written.Quote:
And if you accept the bible as the word of God , you have to accept the Catholic and Orthodox Church as valid, since they are the ones that set up the New Testement as we know it,
You mean that which is documented in scripture? Let's also look at how Jesus established truth in doctrine - he quoted from scripture.Quote:
If one wants to follow scripture exactly, then why do no other church follow Jewish traditions, Jesus followed them hisself, From him being presented in the temple, to him teaching in the temple.
Having a custom is not the same as saying that your custom is doctrinal and must be followed by all other churches.Quote:
All churches have a tradition or custom, The same number of songs each Sunday, a sermon about the same length, normally a dinner or meal every so many sundays or on certain times every year.
Or only communion once a year not every service. That is still a tradition or custom
Cardinal Newman said many things before he became Catholic, and after. Will you please provide a reference?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
No I haven't. Jesus Christ established a Church. The Catholic Church is one of the few Churches which can trace Herself to the time of Christ. Certainly no confession believing in the doctrine of Scripture alone can do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
The Church does not condemn anyone out of hand. The Muslims "profess" to believe in God. The Church respects that "claim".Quote:
Including Muslims which the CCC refers to as foremost amongst those who worship the true God even though they reject Jesus as Saviour.
841 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."330
True. So why'd you bring it up?Quote:
But again, this had nothing to with who the church is
I believe it is. I can trace the Catholic Church to the time of Christ by history and by Scripture. As I have proven.Quote:
- it once again is not your denomination, but is the body of Christ.
And you can't trace your belief in Sola Scriptura by history or Scripture.
Again, I have proven that it is not private interpretation. It is keeping the Traditions which were established by the Apostles.Quote:
yeah, yeah, yeah - we've heard this before, but it does not agree with the context of the book of Peter. That claim is in and of itself private interpretation.
Your interpretation of Scripture is by defnition, "private" since you don't keep to any denomination, confession or tradition except your own.
Yes. Jesus said the weeds would grow with the wheat.Quote:
Even the apostate ones?
Where does it say so? I see a reference to baptism. The organized Churches all baptize.Quote:
This refers to those who are saved, not the organized church.
Not true. Jews not only kept oral traditions but they kept some man made traditions which Jesus rejected.Quote:
It goes back into the OT
Private interpretation is a "singular" matter. You are using a "plural" pronoun to describe the interpretation of the Church. The truth is that the Church explains Scripture in accordance to the spirit of the Authors who are themselves men of the Church.Quote:
even as well as your "tradition", but your denomination I guess rejects those parts of "tradition" that don't agree with their private interpretation.
And yes, the Church does reject any "traditions" like Sola Scriptura which contradict the Word of God.
I think I've dealt quite honestly with all your messages.Quote:
I am tired of repeating myself (and on three different threads) when you won't listen and won't deal with what I said. If you dealt honestly with my comments, I'd put more effort and time into this, but why bother when you ignore what I say and post strawman arguments and mi-representations of what I say, and then claim that I never said what I said in the first place.
When you start taking the time to deal honestly with what I said, maybe that will show me that it is worthwhile spending more time repeating what I said before.
Strawman.
I've already answered this on the other thread. I read the statement you provided. I don't see where he disagrees at all. In fact, if you read a little before he also says:Quote:
Your own Cardinal John Henry Newman disagrees.
"and yet it is plain from Tertullian that Christians had altars of their own, and sacrifices and priests."
And Tertullian existed 150 years before Constantine. Therefore Constantine could not be the founder of the Catholic Church, since it already existed before he was born.
Sincerely,
Validate, I have to laugh, obvious things, like your claim as to what the bible says, whose interpertatoin do you use if not your own, or some pastor. But seem to refuse the interpertation done by the historic church who helped define what books are even in the bible.
Seems if any group has validity it would be that one.
But it has become obvious that you are set in your way, and merely hate the Catholic Chruch for some misconcieved teaching that you were taught by some other group. Sad,
As for as Constantine, one merely has to look at the Church of the East, ( which became the Orthodox Church) they never were under the Bishop of Rome but yet in most teachings and beleifs have the same teachings, ( minus the supreme positoin of the Bishop of Rome) but in teachings of tradition, the bible and most teachings, they have very similar beleifs.
We often forget to view how the Orthodox and Catholic keep similar teachings, in those similar teachings we find some real truths, since they were the ones, that wre followed since the early church.
Scripture interprets scripture. Scripture is not of any private interpretation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
Which denomination? I don't see any denominations in scripture therefore, yes, I do reject denominational specific teachings which contradict scripture.Quote:
But seem to refuse the interpertation done by the historic church who helped define what books are even in the bible.
Odd that one must be accused of hate if they disagree with one or more doctrines. I think that it is unfortunate that we cannot simple discuss the doctrine without being subject to personal attacks.Quote:
But it has become obvious that you are set in your way, and merely hate the Catholic Chruch for some misconcieved teaching that you were taught by some other group.
I already provided both a quote and a reference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wangdoodle
Yep, the body of all believers.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
The Catholic church started in 325 AD. I'll stick with the Bible which is the earliest confession that exists, and came centuries before your denomination.Quote:
The Catholic Church is one of the few Churches which can trace Herself to the time of Christ. Certainly no confession believing in the doctrine of Scripture alone can do so.
Even though their god has no son, they reject Christ, they reject the gospel... shall I go on?Quote:
The Church does not condemn anyone out of hand. The Muslims "profess" to believe in God. The Church respects that "claim".
You are getting mixed up. I was responding to your comment.Quote:
True. So why'd you bring it up?
Actually, by both, but I prefer scripture.Quote:
And you can't trace your belief in Sola Scriptura by history or Scripture.
Really? Then why do the traditions of your denomination contradict the traditions of the Apostles as documented in scripture?Quote:
Again, I have proven that it is not private interpretation. It is keeping the Traditions which were established by the Apostles.
I don't interpret scripture, and just like Jesus and the Apostles, I belong to no denomination. Were Jesus and the Apostles wrong?Quote:
Your interpretation of Scripture is by defnition, "private" since you don't keep to any denomination, confession or tradition except your own.
So you think that the unsaved are members of the body of Christ - I'd love to see where you find that in scripture.Quote:
Yes. Jesus said the weeds would grow with the wheat.
As do Christians who are not part of organized churches and as does the Holy Spirit. Your point is?Quote:
Where does it say so? I see a reference to baptism. The organized Churches all baptize.
True and Jesus condemned the oral traditions which went above and beyond scripture. How does that help your cause?Quote:
Not true. Jews not only kept oral traditions but they kept some man made traditions which Jesus rejected.
Read the text.Quote:
Private interpretation is a "singular" matter. You are using a "plural" pronoun to describe the interpretation of the Church. The truth is that the Church explains Scripture in accordance to the spirit of the Authors who are themselves men of the Church.
Sola Scriptura is not a tradition.Quote:
And yes, the Church does reject any "traditions" like Sola Scriptura which contradict the Word of God.
Then you have not been reading.Quote:
I think I've dealt quite honestly with all your messages.
As well as an Institution with the power to bind and loose:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Matthew 16 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
The Bible describes the Catholic Church:Quote:
The Catholic church started in 325 AD. I'll stick with the Bible which is the earliest confession that exists, and came centuries before your denomination.
1. The Church is one,
Ephesians 4 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.
- united under one leader, a shepherd which we now call the Pope:
John 21 17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.
- Who will keep the Church from heresy:
Luke 22 31 And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.
2. The Church is Holy, built by Jesus Christ Himself:
Matthew 16 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
- Who Himself feeds us with His Body:
John 6 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.
- The Church gives us the bread of life daily:
Acts Of Apostles 2 46 And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of heart;
3. The Church is Catholic, in fulfillment of the call to make disciples of the world
Matt 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
- Teaching the Traditions of Jesus Christ by word and epistle:
2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
4. The Church is apostolic. Being built on the shoulders of the Apostles by Jesus Christ Himself:
Acts Of Apostles 4 33 And with great power did the apostles give testimony of the resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord; and great grace was in them all.
Unlike you, the Church teaches that all people are made in the image of God. We believe, even the Muslims are seeking God. If you want to debate Islam, find a Muslim to debate with. I am not a Muslim.Quote:
Even though their god has no son, they reject Christ, they reject the gospel... shall I go on?
Show me. I see you are the first one to bring up Muslims:Quote:
You are getting mixed up. I was responding to your comment.
Message #70, I said,
You responded:Quote:
Quote:
I already wrote that the Church considers all the baptized as members of the Body of Christ.
So, you brought up the subject of Muslims.Quote:
Including Muslims which the CCC refers to as foremost amongst those who worship the true God even though they reject Jesus as Saviour. But again, this had nothing to with who the church is - it once again is not your denomination, but is the body of Christ.
Show me.Quote:
Actually, by both, but I prefer scripture.
Show me. I've shown you how I believe Sola Scriptura contradicts Scripture. Show me where any Catholic doctrine contradicts Scripture.Quote:
Really? Then why do the traditions of your denomination contradict the traditions of the Apostles as documented in scripture?
Jesus established the Church to which the Apostles belonged. And the Church to which Apostles belonged contains all the same marks as the Church which is now called the Catholic Church. And this Church can trace Herself historically to the Apostles.Quote:
I don't interpret scripture, and just like Jesus and the Apostles, I belong to no denomination. Were Jesus and the Apostles wrong?
Matthew 13 30 Suffer both to grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn.Quote:
So you think that the unsaved are members of the body of Christ - I'd love to see where you find that in scripture.
John 15 5 I am the vine: you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing. 6 If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and case him into the fire, and be burneth.
Message #70You said:Quote:
As do Christians who are not part of organized churches... Your point is?
This refers to those who are saved, not the organized church.
Message #75 I responded:
Where does it say so? I see a reference to baptism. The organized Churches all baptize.
My point is that baptism now saves you:
1 Peter 3 21 Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also:
Therefore, you can't exclude those in the organized Churches from the saved.
But you ignored my question yet again. I repeat:
Where does it say so? Where does it say that "This refers to those who are saved, not the organized church."?
As does the Holy Spirit? Please explain what you mean by that part of your statement.Quote:
... and as does the Holy Spirit...
Catholic Traditions are confirmed in Scripture. Jesus condemned the traditions of men, like Sola Scriptura, which contradict the Word of God.Quote:
True and Jesus condemned the oral traditions which went above and beyond scripture. How does that help your cause?
I have. So I repeat,Quote:
Read the text.
Quote:
Private interpretation is a "singular" matter. You are using a "plural" pronoun to describe the interpretation of the Church. The truth is that the Church explains Scripture in accordance to the spirit of the Authors who are themselves men of the Church.
It has all the earmarks of tradition. It is information passed on from generation to generation.Quote:
Sola Scriptura is not a tradition.
The word tradition comes from the Latin word traditio which means "to hand down" or "to hand over." It is used in a number of ways in the English language: # A meme; beliefs or customs taught by one generation to the next, often orally.. .
En.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition
So, why do you say it isn't a tradition?
Yes, I have.Quote:
Then you have not been reading.
Sincerely,
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:51 PM. |