Why water into wine?

bbyrd009 · Jul 25, 2017

BreadOfLife said:
What a surprise . . .

hey, i'm surprised your parents let you on the computer, so what.

BreadOfLife · Jul 25, 2017

bbyrd009 said:
no, you just don't like the implications, and will not hear the truth.
There was a well documented revolt at the First Council of Trent, because what would become the RCC strong-armed all other opinions out of the council, the wolves having assumed control at that point.

And I have asked you and your cronies to point to ONE single heresy at the Council of Trent and ALL of you have failed miserably to produce one.

If you can't produce one - then maybe you should stop embarrassing yourselves . . .

bbyrd009 · Jul 25, 2017

BreadOfLife said:
at the Council of Trent

i already asked you which one, Sparky, and i know you are dying to avoid the point, but the point is nonetheless made to anyone with ears. have a good day.

BreadOfLife · Jul 25, 2017

bbyrd009 said:
i already asked you which one, Sparky, and i know you are dying to avoid the point, but the point is nonetheless made to anyone with ears. have a good day.

So, you're saying that you don't know if a heresy at the Council of Trent?
I thought you guys said that there was heresy at that Council - and now you're back-pedaling again . . .

Helen · Jul 25, 2017

perrero said:
Have you ever wondered why Jesus changed water into wine as His first miracle?

When you think of it, the majority of the people at the wedding didn’t even know he did it.

Wow, this Quote...is where this thread started...on a spiritual note.
Sadly threads seem to end up somehow with debates on who has the last word and who is right!!
BreadOfLife ....and, If you use that "user name" of being bread of life.. it would be nice if you lived up to it somewhat! Just saying!
You do seem to be always angry with everyone, and have a great need to be top dog , (at the expense of whatever the content of a thread started out to be!! )
Take a breath, smile once in a while...it will lower your blood pressure.

BreadOfLife · Jul 25, 2017

"ByGrace" said:
Wow, this Quote...is where this thread started...on a spiritual note.
Sadly threads seem to end up somehow with debates on who has the last word and who is right!!
BreadOfLife ....and, If you use that "user name" of being bread of life.. it would be nice if you lived up to it somewhat! Just saying!
You do seem to be always angry with everyone, and have a great need to be top dog , (at the expense of whatever the content of a thread started out to be!! )
Take a breath, smile once in a while...it will lower your blood pressure.

Soooo, YOU think that God approves of lies?

We're not talking about people simply "disagreeing" with the Catholic Church here - but making up some pretty filthy and abominable lies.
You think that this is pleasing to God? This thread took an anti-Catholic turn hundreds of posts ago.

Do you think that these lies should go unchallenged and that we should remain complacent about them?
Do you think God approves of people telling lies about anybody?

If you do - then have created a different God than the God of the Bible . . .

bbyrd009 · Jul 26, 2017

Marymog said:
Dear sir,

You answered my question. You are ignorant of scripture. It does NOT say that the wolves will assume control of Christianity. It says that "men will rise up and distort the truth to draw away disciples after them".

My prayers are with you....Mary

ya, ok, thanks, i already knew that your handlers had a more palatable interpretation programmed in, as they pretty obviously could not accept what Paul is really saying.

bbyrd009 · Jul 26, 2017

Marymog said:
The only thing that is mind bending is your twisting of scripture, facts and truth.

My prayers are with you....Mary

this, from someone who asks for forgiveness in a closet from a guy they call "father" lol. Got any Scripture for that? Jesus.

just ran across this, fwiw, not that the point is not pretty apparent to anyone with sense anyway.

"There is one pitfall about the movie Cowspiracy. Practically all its facts and data are known to be wrong by all people who are knowledgeable about science and statistics."

BreadOfLife · Jul 26, 2017

bbyrd009 said:
ya, ok, thanks, i already knew that your handlers had a more palatable interpretation programmed in, as they pretty obviously could not accept what Paul is really saying.

WRONG again.

Show me where ANYBODY in the New Testament says that the wolves with "take over" the Church.
You can't because it never says that.

That would make Jesus's promise in Matt. 16:18 about the gates of Hell null and void.

BreadOfLife · Jul 26, 2017

bbyrd009 said:
this, from someone who asks for forgiveness in a closet from a guy they call "father" lol. Got any Scripture for that? Jesus.

Yup:

- Jesus said, “Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” (John 8:56).
- St. Stephen refers to "our father Abraham," (Acts 7:2).
- St. Paul speaks of "our father Isaac” (Romans 9:10).
- For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).
- We see in Matt. 19:5, Mark 10:7 where Jesus quotes Gen. 2:24, which states: “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.”
- In Eph. 5:31, Paul quotes the very same verse. The Greek same word, πατερ (pat-ayr’), is used in all 3 verses.
- God commands us to “Honor your father and Mother” (Exod.20:12).

John 20:21-23
Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins YOU FORGIVE are forgiven them, and whose sins YOU RETAIN are retained.”

Now - instead of posting another moronic little comment - can you REFUTE the aforementioned??

Yeah - I didn't think so . . .

epostle1 · Jul 26, 2017

Wormwood said:
I disagree with this statement. Protestants do see the importance of tradition and the teaching of church leaders both now and in the past. The difference is that they believe that it is possible for church leaders and tradition to lose sight of the Scriptures and the Bible always acts as guardrails. It alone is infallible. There is no Scripture that teaches the infallibility of Magisterium. We see both the High Priest in the NT in error as well as Peter, himself, in error in the way he dealt with Gentiles for a period. Again, Protestants do value tradition and would never say it is not needed. We just do not see it as an equivalent authority as the Word of God.

There is plenty in Scripture that teaches the infallibility of the Magisterium far more than any biblical support for sola scriptura. Infallibility means teaching without error, and bad teachers teaching wrong things are not the Magisterium. Show me were Peter taught an error.
Matthew 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
If the church is not infallible, she would have taught errors, the gates of Hades would have prevailed, and Jesus would have lied. What year did Jesus cancel His promise?

John 14: 16-17, 26: "I will ask the Father and he will give you (the Magisterium, not individual believers) another Paraclete—to be with you always; the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot accept, since it neither sees him nor recognizes him because he remains with you and will be within you . . . . the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send will remind you of all that I have told you"

John 16:14: "When the Spirit of truth comes He will guide you (Magisterium) to all truth"

Luke 10:16: "He who hears you, (Magisterium) hears me"

Mt. 16:19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you (Magisterium) bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Binding and loosing requires infallibility, unless you want to argue that heaven can bind an error.

Yes, I agree that Protestants would disagree with the notion that the Scripture are a pile of bricks that need magisterium to decode the blueprint of what is ultimately intended.

Then they don't know if they are building a cathedral or a tool shed.

Again, I would disagree here. The way to ensure accuracy of understanding the Scriptures is not simply to appoint infallible interpretation to one or a few people.

Scriptures are never interpreted by one or a few people. Very few scriptures have been formally interpreted because you can't freeze dry the living word so that no further development could ever take place.

The Scriptures are comprehendible and while limiting those who have a voice in interpreting them does limit variance, it does not prove accuracy.

another non sequitur. Guidelines for anybody seeking to interpret scripture are found in Dei Verbum, paragraph 12-13.

The Jewish ruling council was the authority among the Jews and they clearly misinterpreted and misapplied many passages. So while Jesus did respect their position, he did not equate their position with a divine mandate that their declarations were accurate.

The Chair of Moses was an underdeveloped form of the Magisterium. It was not "equal" to the authority Jesus gave to Peter and the Apostles.

As I see it, this is equal authority with the Bible because that person or groups interpretation is mandated to be correct by virtue of their office and thus their declaration becomes the declaration of Christ.

Tradition is a different means of transmitting the Word of God, "equal authority with the Bible" is misleading because they both come from the same divine wellspring. apples and oranges. Tradition and Scripture are closely related; false dichotomies never work. Without the tradition of the episcopate, we would have no Bible. There is a complimentarity relationship between Tradition, Scripture and the Magisterium. ONE IS NOT OVER THE OTHER.

I never said as much. Although I am sure we would differ on our views on what the Scriptures teach about what constitutes a "validly ordained" church leader.

By What Authority - A Challenge to Protestant Pastors

Well, 1) it does matter because it shows that there were varying options among leaders in the early church on debatable matters that weren't settled by an ultimate voice of the Church on doctrine.

Find me a single document where debatable matters were not settled by a synod or a council.
Individual Church Fathers were not the Magisterium and they ALL accepted its final rulings.

2) Yes there was general consensus and it does matter that groups of church leaders got together to set official positions regarding what the Apostles taught and false teachings introduced by heretical groups. Most Protestants accept these councils and affirm them. However, they affirm them because they represent accuracy in their representation of the NT (as they should because these were disciples of the Apostles or their followers). I understand there are some people on here that post as if their voice alone is the authority and their own interpretation, void of any understanding or grasp of historical Christian doctrine is all that matters. This is not how most of Protestantism approaches history and church authority. I am sure you understand that but just want to clarify.

How was the canon of Scripture discerned when they had no Bible to go by?

Finally, I think your meme is a straw man. That is not what Protestants believe or reflective of our fundamental beliefs about the Church or Scripture. I know you guys get very upset when your views are caricatured. Im not upset at it, but just saying, this is the kind of stuff that creates this tit-for-tat belittling that is commonplace here recently.

It's a satire.

Wormwood · Jul 30, 2017

kepha31 said:
There is plenty in Scripture that teaches the infallibility of the Magisterium far more than any biblical support for sola scriptura. Infallibility means teaching without error, and bad teachers teaching wrong things are not the Magisterium. Show me were Peter taught an error.
Matthew 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
If the church is not infallible, she would have taught errors, the gates of Hades would have prevailed, and Jesus would have lied. What year did Jesus cancel His promise?

You have made three great leaps here. 1. You have interpreted Jesus comment to Peter about starting his Church as establishing an ongoing Magisterium with Peter holding a specific chair in that hierarchy that would be passed on from generation to generation. The text does not teach this...it simply says Peter would be the foundation of the Church that would not be overthrown. 2. You have interpreted Jesus' comment about the victorious Church as implying specific arenas in which certain individuals would take on a "teaching" role that would be infallible. The text does not teach this. 3. You believe any error from someone in a teaching position would render the church impotent. The text does not teach this.

John 14: 16-17, 26: "I will ask the Father and he will give you (the Magisterium, not individual believers) another Paraclete—to be with you always; the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot accept, since it neither sees him nor recognizes him because he remains with you and will be within you . . . . the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send will remind you of all that I have told you"

I agree this is not individual believers. But neither is it "the Magisterium." Both are imported ideas. Jesus says, "the Father will give you (the disciples Jesus is speaking to in this moment) another Paraclete..." Jesus is speaking to the Apostles...and he did give them the Spirit and they did remember all Jesus taught them (Jesus didn't teach "the Magisterium") and they recorded those words in their letters that we have in our NT.

John 16:14: "When the Spirit of truth comes He will guide you (Magisterium) to all truth"

Luke 10:16: "He who hears you, (Magisterium) hears me"

Mt. 16:19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you (Magisterium) bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

See above comment. Jesus never said "the Magisterium." He was speaking to the Apostles. They are the "foundation" of the church....it was these men, not their positions, that Jesus was speaking toward.

Tradition is a different means of transmitting the Word of God, "equal authority with the Bible" is misleading because they both come from the same divine wellspring. apples and oranges. Tradition and Scripture are closely related; false dichotomies never work. Without the tradition of the episcopate, we would have no Bible. There is a complimentarity relationship between Tradition, Scripture and the Magisterium. ONE IS NOT OVER THE OTHER.

Again, I appreciate Church tradition. However, I still go back to the fact that the Pharisees also tried to equate their tradition with the Word of God. They had the divinely established priesthood and elders of the people that the sought to use as a means to hedge the Word of God and ensure the people were obedient to it. Yet, Jesus never indicated their tradition carried this authority and actually chastised these leaders for discounting the Word of God in areas for the sake of their traditions. Tradition is a good thing, but NOWHERE in Scripture do we see the establishment of offices or hierarchies that would be the sole interpretive and authoritative voice concerning the Scriptures or the will of God.

By What Authority - A Challenge to Protestant Pastors
Find me a single document where debatable matters were not settled by a synod or a council.
Individual Church Fathers were not the Magisterium and they ALL accepted its final rulings. How was the canon of Scripture discerned when they had no Bible to go by?
It's a satire.
Ok, well my "single document" would be 1 Corinthians where Paul tells the local church leaders to "decide for yourselves" how to enact discipline and discern teachings among the local congregation. Yes, the early church established the canon...but this was agreed upon by all the churches and did not require a Papal see to make such determination. The council simply solidified what the churches had already agreed upon. You make it sound like the churches were floundering and it took a council to iron out doctrine so they would know what to teach in the local church. This is simply not an accurate picture of the early church.

pia · Jul 31, 2017

Weren't any disputes settled by and through The Holy Spirit at the beginning?

epostle1 · Jul 31, 2017

Wormwood said:
You have made three great leaps here. 1. You have interpreted Jesus comment to Peter about starting his Church as establishing an ongoing Magisterium with Peter holding a specific chair in that hierarchy that would be passed on from generation to generation.

The "Chair" is passed on to successors, not generation to generation.

The text does not teach this...it simply says Peter would be the foundation of the Church that would not be overthrown.

That's correct. The Church has never been overthrown. She has been attacked from inside and out, but the gates of Hades have never prevailed, and never will.

2. You have interpreted Jesus' comment about the victorious Church as implying specific arenas in which certain individuals would take on a "teaching" role that would be infallible. The text does not teach this.

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” "therefore" is a conjunctive verb joining vs 19 & 20, meaning Jesus explicitly gives the Apostles HIS VERY OWN AUTHORITY to teach, not individual believers.

3. You believe any error from someone in a teaching position would render the church impotent. The text does not teach this.

The text teaches authority to teach given to the Apostles by Jesus Himself. Some storefront church can teach errors, but it is IMPOSSIBLE for the Magisterium to teach errors on faith and morals. It's never happened and never will, or the Bible is wrong.

I agree this is not individual believers. But neither is it "the Magisterium." Both are imported ideas. Jesus says, "the Father will give you (the disciples Jesus is speaking to in this moment) another Paraclete..." Jesus is speaking to the Apostles...and he did give them the Spirit and they did remember all Jesus taught them (Jesus didn't teach "the Magisterium") and they recorded those words in their letters that we have in our NT.

The Bible itself says the world could not contain all that was taught. What the Magisterium formally teaches is infallible, but that is a major step down from inspiration. I think you have the 2 confused.
You are hung up on a term that is not in the Bible, but a later development. "Magisterium"applies to the Apostles, and their successors, in union with the bishops of the world. It means "teaching authority". The text teaches this. It's a development from "Moses Seat", which was in a sense, the "magisterium" of the Jews. They were corrupt hypocrites, so why did Jesus instruct His disciples to obey their authority???

See above comment. Jesus never said "the Magisterium." He was speaking to the Apostles. They are the "foundation" of the church....it was these men, not their positions, that Jesus was speaking toward.

Why can't it be both? Does the text explicitly rule out successors? How do you expect the Apostles to obey Jesus' command to "teach all nations", and cover the globe on foot without successors? It's impossible.

Again, I appreciate Church tradition. However, I still go back to the fact that the Pharisees also tried to equate their tradition with the Word of God.

Horsemuffins and a straw man. This has nothing to do with Tradition.

They had the divinely established priesthood and elders of the people that the sought to use as a means to hedge the Word of God and ensure the people were obedient to it. Yet, Jesus never indicated their tradition carried this authority and actually chastised these leaders for discounting the Word of God in areas for the sake of their traditions.

Yes, the ones they made up. There are bad traditions we are to avoid, and good Traditions we are commanded to follow. Because there are bad traditions in the Bible does not mean all Traditions are bad.

Tradition is a good thing, but NOWHERE in Scripture do we see the establishment of offices or hierarchies that would be the sole interpretive and authoritative voice concerning the Scriptures or the will of God.

Bishop, priest, deacon. That is a hierarchy. Many churches don't have bishops.

Ok, well my "single document" would be 1 Corinthians where Paul tells the local church leaders to "decide for yourselves" how to enact discipline and discern teachings among the local congregation.

Paul doesn't say that, unless I have the wrong verse that you didn't give, and no one debated what Paul said. 1 Corinthians 10:15 "decide for yourselves if what I am saying is true."

Yes, the early church established the canon...but this was agreed upon by all the churches and did not require a Papal see to make such determination.

History is not your friend.

The council simply solidified what the churches had already agreed upon.

Councils follow the model of the infallible Jerusalem Council.

You make it sound like the churches were floundering and it took a council to iron out doctrine so they would know what to teach in the local church. This is simply not an accurate picture of the early church.

Local churches weren't floundering because they had bishops who were all in union with an Apostle who were all in union with Peter. Some of your "local churches" wanted to put fake books into the Bible. Local churches participated in the canon of scripture to a large degree, but the Magisterium made the final ruling at the synod of Hippo which was reaffirmed at the Council of Carthage in 397 AD. It was a complex process with much debate. It required a Pope for final ratification.
Provide an accurate picture of the early church. I asked for a church document resolving debatable issues like Arianism, or Nestorianism, not Paul's communities. Leap back 4 centuries; who are these local church leaders Paul is talking to? A verse # would help.

PAUL WAS SUBJECT TO THE CHURCH

It is incorrect to regard St. Paul as some kind of spiritual “lone ranger,” on his own with no particular ecclesiastical allegiance, since he was commissioned by Jesus Himself as an Apostle.

In his very conversion experience, Jesus informed Paul that he would be told what to do (Acts 9:6; cf.9:17).
He went to see St. Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days in order to be confirmed in his calling (Galatians 1:18),
and fourteen years later was commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Galatians 2:1-2,9).
He was also sent out by the Church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-4), which was in contact with the Church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:19-27).
Later on, Paul reported back to Antioch (Acts 14:26-28).
Acts 15:2 states: “. . . Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.”
The next verse refers to Paul and Barnabas “being sent on their way by the church.”
Paul did what he was told to do by the Jerusalem Council (where he played no huge role),
and Paul and Barnabas were sent off, or commissioned by the council (15:22-27), and shared its binding teachings in their missionary journeys: “. . . delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4).
The Jerusalem Council certainly regarded its teachings as infallible, and guided by the Holy Spirit Himself. The records we have of it don’t even record much discussion about biblical prooftexts, and the main issue was circumcision (where there is a lot of Scripture to draw from). Paul accepted its authority and proclaimed its teachings (Acts 16:4).

Furthermore, Paul appears to be passing on his office to Timothy (1 Timothy 6:20; 2 Timothy 1:6, 13-14; 2 Timothy 4:1-6), and tells him to pass his office along, in turn (2 Timothy 2:1-2) which would be another indication of apostolic succession in the Bible.

The attempt to pretend that St. Paul was somehow on his own, disconnected to the institutional Church, has always failed, as unbiblical.

Please note the PROPER definition of TRADITION in the dagram below.

epostle1 · Jul 31, 2017

pia said:
Weren't any disputes settled by and through The Holy Spirit at the beginning?

The Holy Spirit is mentioned twice at the Council of Jerusalem: Acts 15, but it is not the job of the Holy Spirit to settle disputes but to guide the Church in her decisions.

pia · Jul 31, 2017

kepha31 said:
The Holy Spirit is mentioned twice at the Council of Jerusalem: Acts 15, but it is not the job of the Holy Spirit to settle disputes but to guide the Church in her decisions.

sorry I meant earlier than that, and isn't that sort of the same thing. To be guided one must be in agreement, thus without the disputes ( which would need to be sorted out first if there were any).... After Jesus left and sent The Holy Spirit, surely He must always be the highest authority among men ( mankind )?

epostle1 · Jul 31, 2017

pia said:
sorry I meant earlier than that, and isn't that sort of the same thing. To be guided one must be in agreement, thus without the disputes ( which would need to be sorted out first if there were any).... After Jesus left and sent The Holy Spirit, surely He must always be the highest authority among men ( mankind )?

I agree with that, but the Holy Spirit needs qualified men to work with. Not just the Council of Jerusalem, but future councils as well. There is nothing in Scripture saying it would be the last council.

Doctrinal development is a growth of depth and clarity in the understanding of the truths of divine revelation. It is important to understand that the substantial or essential truths at the core of each doctrine remain unchanged. Only the subjective grasp of men increases. This increase is the result of the prayerful reflection of the Church, theological study and research (often occasioned by heretical challenges), practical experience, and the collective wisdom of the Church’s bishops and popes, especially when joined in Ecumenical Councils.

Doctrines agreed upon by all develop, too. The Divinity or Godhood of Christ was only finalized in 325, and the full doctrine of the Trinity in 381.The dogma of the Two Natures of Christ (God and Man) was proclaimed in 451. These decisions of General Councils of the Church were in response to challenging heresies. What the Holy Spirit does is prevent these councils from making false teachings. That's why we call certain proclamations infallible. Infallibility is a gift from God, not popes or councils. That is why we have a complex, infallible doctrine of the Trinity, that all agree on. This gift has no expiry date.

Wormwood · Jul 31, 2017

kepha31 said:
The "Chair" is passed on to successors, not generation to generation. That's correct. The Church has never been overthrown. She has been attacked from inside and out, but the gates of Hades have never prevailed, and never will. Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” "therefore" is a conjunctive verb joining vs 19 & 20, meaning Jesus explicitly gives the Apostles HIS VERY OWN AUTHORITY to teach, not individual believers.
The text teaches authority to teach given to the Apostles by Jesus Himself. Some storefront church can teach errors, but it is IMPOSSIBLE for the Magisterium to teach errors on faith and morals. It's never happened and never will, or the Bible is wrong.
The Bible itself says the world could not contain all that was taught. What the Magisterium formally teaches is infallible, but that is a major step down from inspiration. I think you have the 2 confused.
You are hung up on a term that is not in the Bible, but a later development. "Magisterium"applies to the Apostles, and their successors, in union with the bishops of the world. It means "teaching authority". The text teaches this. It's a development from "Moses Seat", which was in a sense, the "magisterium" of the Jews. They were corrupt hypocrites, so why did Jesus instruct His disciples to obey their authority???
Why can't it be both? Does the text explicitly rule out successors? How do you expect the Apostles to obey Jesus' command to "teach all nations", and cover the globe on foot without successors? It's impossible.
Horsemuffins and a straw man. This has nothing to do with Tradition. Yes, the ones they made up. There are bad traditions we are to avoid, and good Traditions we are commanded to follow. Because there are bad traditions in the Bible does not mean all Traditions are bad. Bishop, priest, deacon. That is a hierarchy. Many churches don't have bishops.
Paul doesn't say that, unless I have the wrong verse that you didn't give, and no one debated what Paul said. 1 Corinthians 10:15 "decide for yourselves if what I am saying is true." History is not your friend. Councils follow the model of the infallible Jerusalem Council. Local churches weren't floundering because they had bishops who were all in union with an Apostle who were all in union with Peter. Some of your "local churches" wanted to put fake books into the Bible. Local churches participated in the canon of scripture to a large degree, but the Magisterium made the final ruling at the synod of Hippo which was reaffirmed at the Council of Carthage in 397 AD. It was a complex process with much debate. It required a Pope for final ratification.
Provide an accurate picture of the early church. I asked for a church document resolving debatable issues like Arianism, or Nestorianism, not Paul's communities. Leap back 4 centuries; who are these local church leaders Paul is talking to? A verse # would help.

PAUL WAS SUBJECT TO THE CHURCH

It is incorrect to regard St. Paul as some kind of spiritual “lone ranger,” on his own with no particular ecclesiastical allegiance, since he was commissioned by Jesus Himself as an Apostle.

In his very conversion experience, Jesus informed Paul that he would be told what to do (Acts 9:6; cf.9:17).

He went to see St. Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days in order to be confirmed in his calling (Galatians 1:18),

and fourteen years later was commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Galatians 2:1-2,9).

He was also sent out by the Church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-4), which was in contact with the Church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:19-27).

Later on, Paul reported back to Antioch (Acts 14:26-28).

Acts 15:2 states: “. . . Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.”

The next verse refers to Paul and Barnabas “being sent on their way by the church.”

Paul did what he was told to do by the Jerusalem Council (where he played no huge role),

and Paul and Barnabas were sent off, or commissioned by the council (15:22-27), and shared its binding teachings in their missionary journeys: “. . . delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4).
The Jerusalem Council certainly regarded its teachings as infallible, and guided by the Holy Spirit Himself. The records we have of it don’t even record much discussion about biblical prooftexts, and the main issue was circumcision (where there is a lot of Scripture to draw from). Paul accepted its authority and proclaimed its teachings (Acts 16:4).

Furthermore, Paul appears to be passing on his office to Timothy (1 Timothy 6:20; 2 Timothy 1:6, 13-14; 2 Timothy 4:1-6), and tells him to pass his office along, in turn (2 Timothy 2:1-2) which would be another indication of apostolic succession in the Bible.

The attempt to pretend that St. Paul was somehow on his own, disconnected to the institutional Church, has always failed, as unbiblical.

Please note the PROPER definition of TRADITION in the dagram below.

Keras,

I have no intention of trying to turn you away from the Catholic Church. I understand you have your faith and conviction and I am fine with that. I think we both are brothers in Christ, though we disagree on a number of issues.
Allow me just to conclude with a few thoughts. First, I just want to be clear that the text does not actually make the implications you are giving. It never says "passed on" or mentions offices or magisterium. It never even implies it. I understand your background teaches these things are implied in these verses, but that is presupposition you have going into the text. Those passages say no such thing about ongoing offices, etc. They just dont. It is fine with me if you think that is what Jesus meant, maybe you are right. But that is not what the passages overtly state.

Second, I think history is my friend. The letter of Athanasius in 367 shows a consensus view of the churches regarding the books of the NT. Even prior to this, we see that even earlier, around 200 AD other writings may indicate the same concepts. However, it was not until much later that the "official" canon was decreed upon by Church councils. Yet my point is that the council was merely affirming what the Church had believed, and was not "creating" a canon. It was merely solidifying what orthodox believers already accepted in the face of heretical groups and teachings.

Yes, Paul was subject to the Church, but he also declared that he did not need approval from those who "seemed influential." (Gal 2:6). Yet, I agree that Paul was not a Lone Ranger and he did seek to work within the guidance of the Church. Yet, he mentions he was not afraid to confront Peter when he was in error. To suggest that this is only because Peter was not in some special seat of teaching authority seems nonsensical to me. Clearly Peter was a leader and his leadership was leading people astray because of hypocrisy. Yet because Peter loved the truth and did not see himself as incapable of error because of position, he was humbled and repented of his misrepresentation of the Gospel. Paul himself declares that "even if an angel" declares a false gospel, they should be condemned. It is not position, but message that matters. The message always usurps position..at least that is how I read those texts.

Again, I know you will not change your mind and I am not trying to. Just trying to clarify my position.

pia · Jul 31, 2017

kepha31 said:
I agree with that, but the Holy Spirit needs qualified men to work with. Not just the Council of Jerusalem, but future councils as well. There is nothing in Scripture saying it would be the last council.

Doctrinal development is a growth of depth and clarity in the understanding of the truths of divine revelation. It is important to understand that the substantial or essential truths at the core of each doctrine remain unchanged. Only the subjective grasp of men increases. This increase is the result of the prayerful reflection of the Church, theological study and research (often occasioned by heretical challenges), practical experience, and the collective wisdom of the Church’s bishops and popes, especially when joined in Ecumenical Councils.

Doctrines agreed upon by all develop, too. The Divinity or Godhood of Christ was only finalized in 325, and the full doctrine of the Trinity in 381.The dogma of the Two Natures of Christ (God and Man) was proclaimed in 451. These decisions of General Councils of the Church were in response to challenging heresies. What the Holy Spirit does is prevent these councils from making false teachings. That's why we call certain proclamations infallible. Infallibility is a gift from God, not popes or councils. That is why we have a complex, infallible doctrine of the Trinity, that all agree on. This gift has no expiry date.

This is where we differ. In my experience, He needs a willing and obedient heart . He is more than capable in revealing those things which are relevant to a given situation. What we shouldn't do is then try to tell every one else that there is only this one way for the Lord to do a thing, and on and on the misconceptions and those who wish to rule over others. He is so very much bigger than the few pages in The Bible, and I love that we can KNOW Him in the power of His resurrection, instead of just reading about Him and wondering about those times. He keeps up ! All the very best to you though.

bbyrd009 · Aug 1, 2017

kepha31 said:
I agree with that, but the Holy Spirit needs qualified men to work with.

in my understanding the Holy Spirit usually expressly goes for the unqualified, at least in their own opinion. I'm not sure how you might even justify this tbh; i don't think the HS needs anything lol

Why water into wine?

Groper

Well-Known Member

Groper

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Groper

Groper

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Chaps

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Chaps

Well-Known Member

Groper

Similar threads