Built On The Wrong Apostle

[H. Richard]

When did the church start:

Why is it important to know when the church for this age of grace started

If we think that the church for this age started with Peter on the day of Pentecost then we must consider that Peter was still a Jew, speaking to Jews, going to the Jewish Temple to worship and that he still wanted to keep the Law of Moses when he told God he did not want to eat anything unclean and that his going to the house of a Gentile would make him unclean.. (see supporting scriptures below)

In other words he considered himself to still be under the Jewish law. No where in his preaching on the day of Pentecost did he indicate that no one was under the Law of Moses. Therefore if the church started with Peter’s preaching on the day of Pentecost, then the church started under the Law of Moses, not grace, and Paul’s gospel was a heresy.

In addition, the scriptures state the gospel of grace that was given to Paul had been hidden in God and was now revealed to Paul. Therefore, the gospel of grace was not given to mankind until Paul preached it.

Therefore a person has to choose whether he is in a church started under the law of Moses or a church that started under grace the day Paul, preached the gospel of grace. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t mix law and grace without destroying them both and, in my opinion, that is just what most of the churches of today are doing.

According to the scriptures the world will be judged according to Paul’s gospel (not Peter‘s). That is why it is important to know when your church started.

Supporting scripture:

Acts 2:46
46 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart,
NKJV

Acts 3:1
3 Now Peter and John went up together to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour.
NKJV

Acts 3:6 8
6 Then Peter said, "Silver and gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk."
7 And he took him by the right hand and lifted him up, and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength.
8 So he, leaping up, stood and walked and entered the temple with them — walking, leaping, and praising God.
NKJV

Acts 5:25
25 So one came and told them, saying, "Look, the men whom you put in prison are standing in the temple and teaching the people!"
NKJV

Acts 5:41 42
41 So they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His name.
42 And daily in the temple, and in every house, they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.
NKJV

 

[epostle1]

You're grasping at straws. James' judgement/decision resulted in James issuing instructions, not Peter. It's obvious that mere "agreement" is not the issue here. Again, Peter just didn't seem to realize he was the first pope.

First, a peculiar commission says nothing regarding preeminence. The other problem you face is the interpretation of the keys. They are mentioned in such close proximity to binding and loosing, that they may be one and the same. I await your argument in this regard.

Mat 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."[/QUOTE]
James had authority as bishop of Jerusalem, that does not mean Peter had no authority. Just because James spoke last does not mean he made a ruling that had already been made by Peter, it means that James was addressing the Jerusalem community, not the universal Church. Peter isn't mentioned after that because to repeat what he already declared would be stupid.

***

When a church plots murder it is not a church established by Jesus. You wish to define your version of Faith. I will stick to mine.

You just refuse to accept that my faith in what Jesus did for mankind on the cross is somehow not faith since it is not sanctioned by your church. Hog wash. I will glorify Jesus and His work on the cross while you wish to glorify a church ran by men and want others to follow you. IMO a religious church is a sure way to a very warm place.

The scriptures plainly say that it is our faith that overcomes the world but you wish to say it is your church. I will go with the scripture.

Heb 12:2
2 looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
NKJV

1 John 5:4-5
4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world — our faith.
5 Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?
NKJV

Nothing in these scriptures say anything about your church overcoming the world nor does it say your church equals faith. You place to much of your faith in the ideas of men in your church. Perhaps you should do and independent study on apostasy. Did you know that it started before Paul died? I believe your church was at the center of it killing anyone that placed their faith in Jesus' work on the cross and not faith in your church. That is why you are here. You wish to elevate faith in your church over faith in Jesus' work on the cross.

A big pack of lies.

Isa. 22:22 - we see that the keys of the kingdom pass from Shebna to Eliakim. Thus, the keys are used not only as a symbol of authority, but also to facilitate succession. The keys of Christ's kingdom have passed from Peter to Linus all the way to our current Pope with an unbroken lineage for almost 2,000 years.

Rev. 1:18; 3:7; 9:1; 20:1 - Jesus' "keys" undeniably represent authority. By using the word "keys," Jesus gives Peter authority on earth over the new Davidic kingdom, and this was not seriously questioned by anyone until the Protestant revolt 1,500 years later after Peter’s investiture.

Revelation 3:7 "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: `The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens. (where is James?)

Matthew 16:19 - whatever Peter binds or looses on earth is bound or loosed in heaven / when the Prime Minister to the King opens, no one shuts. This "binding and loosing" authority allows the keeper of the keys to establish "halakah," or rules of conduct for the members of the kingdom he serves. (where is James?)

Where in scripture is apostolic authority transferred to the Bible alone?

***

When a church plots murder it is not a church established by Jesus. You wish to define your version of Faith. I will stick to mine.

Provide scholarly evidence of "a church plots murder" or stop the hate speech.
You may deny being a Seventh Day Adventist or a similar cult but you preach the same anti-Catholic lunacies as they do.

 

[epostle1]

When did the church start:

Why is it important to know when the church for this age of grace started

If we think that the church for this age started with Peter on the day of Pentecost then we must consider that Peter was still a Jew, speaking to Jews, going to the Jewish Temple to worship and that he still wanted to keep the Law of Moses when he told God he did not want to eat anything unclean and that his going to the house of a Gentile would make him unclean.. (see supporting scriptures below)

In other words he considered himself to still be under the Jewish law. No where in his preaching on the day of Pentecost did he indicate that no one was under the Law of Moses. Therefore if the church started with Peter’s preaching on the day of Pentecost, then the church started under the Law of Moses, not grace, and Paul’s gospel was a heresy.

In addition, the scriptures state the gospel of grace that was given to Paul had been hidden in God and was now revealed to Paul. Therefore, the gospel of grace was not given to mankind until Paul preached it.

Therefore a person has to choose whether he is in a church started under the law of Moses or a church that started under grace the day Paul, preached the gospel of grace. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t mix law and grace without destroying them both and, in my opinion, that is just what most of the churches of today are doing.

According to the scriptures the world will be judged according to Paul’s gospel (not Peter‘s). That is why it is important to know when your church started.

Supporting scripture:

Acts 2:46
46 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart,
NKJV

Acts 3:1
3 Now Peter and John went up together to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour.
NKJV

Acts 3:6 8
6 Then Peter said, "Silver and gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk."
7 And he took him by the right hand and lifted him up, and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength.
8 So he, leaping up, stood and walked and entered the temple with them — walking, leaping, and praising God.
NKJV

Acts 5:25
25 So one came and told them, saying, "Look, the men whom you put in prison are standing in the temple and teaching the people!"
NKJV

Acts 5:41 42
41 So they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His name.
42 And daily in the temple, and in every house, they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.
NKJV

What??? God didn't go POOF! and instantly make Peter a 21st century Pope???

 

[bbyrd009]

God ignoring Scripture, and instituting popes lol

Teh only thing church ever did was show me everything God is not.

this is not true mjr. You made the commitment in church, right, and you surely got an intro to the Book there too.

suffer the little children to come unto Me

 

[FHII]

Why is it important to know when the church for this age of grace started

Absolutely true! And everything you stated in this post is true.

I have heard you say in other past posts that the book of Acts was the transition of the law of Moses to the Law of faith. I agree that's when it manifested, but I believe Jesus (and the gospels) as setting it up, and thus... The beginning of the transition. So I see the gospels through Acts 10:13 as the transition. I see Acts 13:46 as be beginning of the new covenant.

Its in Acts 10 that a voice (not Jesus or God... At least specifically identified as such) began to give Peter (not Paul) the start to go to the gentiles. Peter didn't handle that situation perfectly. He got the job done... But perhaps (and I am speculating) the fact that he argued about it with God (the voice) is the reason he wasn't given the commission to go to the gentiles. God gave Peter first dibs... But later picked a Christian killing Pharisee instead.

Peter knew Jesus in the spirit but also in the flesh. Paul only knew him in the spirit. Paul never met the son of man Jesus. Perhaps that is wwhatGod wanted all along.

I read Peter's epistles and I see grace through faith in them. I see some resistance... But I see admittance but also resistance.

Keep in mind that Peter's epistles were written sometime when Peter was in Rome and thus around 60-67 AD. Paul was already done with his evangelical missions and laying down the doctrine of grace.

Here's my point: when Peter preached the first apostolic message on the Pentacost, it was TRUTH. It was the present truth. In 34 AD.

Yet... In 65 AD (more or less timewise) Peter is xhanging his tune just a bit. He's talking a bit more about grace through faith... He's saying that Paul is a bit hard to understand (though Paul spoke with great planeless of speach, unlike Moses) but that Paul's epistles are scripture. And even though what he said in 34 AD was truth, he encourages them to be established in the present truth.

He was in Rome at the time where Paul had already been preaching and had laid the foundation throughout Greece, Turkey, Macedonia, Ceasria and now Rome as well.

And Peter said be established in the PRESENT truth. Not rhe 30 AD truth where Jesus was preaching Truth. The 34 AD Truth where Peter was laying down the truth where Jesus waa the Christ. But the 65 AD truth of grace trough faith.

Paul preached that and the other Apostles and leaders (except for James) saw that as truth and followed Paul's lead.

Don't cry for James though... History (not the Bible for you folks that think I am sola scriptura) says James pointing to Christ when he died.

Lot of theories... But everything I have said is based on the Bible. Its also based on history to the best that I know. But if this is just speculation... At least give it a fair shake.

 

[mjrhealth]

its actually

Peter,G4074 andG2532 uponG1909 thisG5026 rockG4073

this is not true mjr. You made the commitment in church, right, and you surely got an intro to the Book there too.

Funny thing about God, is that teh world has determined He who created all thing cannot save anyone without church and teh bible, yet God has proved men wrong on may occasions, such is the foolishness of men, you know this bit

Rom_1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

christianity teh religion has made God less than man, so sad.

 

[Nomad]

The instructions were from ALL the Apostles. It says:
Acts 15:23-28

Eventually, but not initially. I love how you skipped the pericope that contradicts you. Lets look again at what precipitated the letter in question:

Act 15:19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,
Act 15:20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.

1. Blessed are YOU Simon Bar Jonah

Jesus pronounced blessing on many. Preeminence is never the result. Here are a few examples. If these aren't enough, there are more.

Mat_5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Mat_5:4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
Mat_5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Mat_5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
Mat_5:7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Mat_5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
Mat_5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Mat_5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Mat_5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
Mat_11:6 And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.
Mat_13:16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

2. YOU are Kepha and I will build my Church on YOU.

I answered this nonsense already -- many times over. Built On The Wrong Apostle

3. I will give YOU the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.

Again, you need to prove that the keys are different than binding and loosing. Even if they are different a peculiar commission says nothing regarding preeminence.

The last blessing harkens back to Isaiah 22:22 when God gave similar authority to Eliakim regarding the House of Israel.

Binding and loosing is also a commission of authority and may be one and the same as the keys.

 

[Nomad]

James had authority as bishop of Jerusalem, that does not mean Peter had no authority.

No one said that Peter had no authority. The proceedings of the Jerusalem Council make it clear that Peter wasn't 'the pope.'

Just because James spoke last does not mean he made a ruling that had already been made by Peter...

The text of Acts 15 says nothing about Peter 'making a ruling' on anything. Let's be clear here. Peter could 'make rulings' like any other Apostle, but again, the Jerusalem Council demonstrates that Peter did not have 'preeminence' over the others.

 

[epostle1]

H. Richard said: ↑
When a church plots murder it is not a church established by Jesus. You wish to define your version of Faith. I will stick to mine.

Provide scholarly evidence of "a church plots murder" or stop the hate speech.
Your anti-Catholic lunacies are boring as they are false.[/QUOTE]

Normal people with a modicum of education don't take Baptist Successionism seriously. It appears you are locked in a time warp. They no longer teach your brand of hate in Bible colleges.

It is left for you who rejects church authority to demonstrate from Scripture where Christ eliminates the authority of the Apostles and His Church, and replaces it with Scripture alone.

Numbers 16:3. Here we have folks rising up against Moses and Aaron (Divinely appointed authority) and using almost verbatim the same exact attacks used against the Catholic Church by anti-Catholic Protestants.
Numbers 16:1-3
Now Korah the son of Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi, and Dathan and Abi’ram the sons of Eli’ab, and On the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men; and they rose up before Moses, with a number of the people of Israel, two hundred and fifty leaders of the congregation, chosen from the assembly, well-known men; and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said to them, "You have gone too far! For all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them; why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?"

Now if you keep reading in Numbers 16, you see that these folks didn’t fare too well:
Numbers 16:28
And Moses said, "Hereby you shall know that the LORD has sent me to do all these works, and that it has not been of my own accord. If these men die the common death of all men, or if they are visited by the fate of all men, then the LORD has not sent me. But if the LORD creates something new, and the ground opens its mouth, and swallows them up, with all that belongs to them, and they go down alive into Sheol, then you shall know that these men have despised the LORD."
And as he finished speaking all these words, the ground under them split asunder; and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with their households and all the men that belonged to Korah and all their goods. So they and all that belonged to them went down alive into Sheol; and the earth closed over them, and they perished from the midst of the assembly.

So I guess the bottom line is, I’d tread veeeeery carefully when attacking the authority God establishes on this earth. We've already seen where such rebellion leads.

Peace!

 

[epostle1]

You're grasping at straws. James' judgement/decision resulted in James issuing instructions, not Peter. It's obvious that mere "agreement" is not the issue here. Again, Peter just didn't seem to realize he was the first pope.

Jesus made it very clear, it didn't become unclear until the Protestant revolt. It went from bad to worse when 18th century Protestant modernists started influencing most of Protestantism

First, a peculiar commission says nothing regarding preeminence. The other problem you face is the interpretation of the keys. They are mentioned in such close proximity to binding and loosing, that they may be one and the same. I await your argument in this regard.

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

Now just because Christ gives specific authority to Peter, doesn’t mean that Christ no longer has the authority himself. He is simply allowing Peter to participate in His own authority in a unique way, just as the chief minister participated in the authority of the king back in Isaiah 22.
Then James says, ‘I rule, then...' Acts 15:7-21

 

[mjrhealth]

It is left for you who rejects church authority to demonstrate from Scripture where Christ eliminates the authority of the Apostles and His Church, and replaces it with Scripture alone.

your church has no authority except to those who bow down to it.

There is only one authority, this one

Eph_1:22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
Eph 1:23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

not mens religions.

 

[Nomad]

Now just because Christ gives specific authority to Peter, doesn’t mean that Christ no longer has the authority himself.

Show me where I even alluded to such nonsense.

 

[bbyrd009]

its actually

Peter,G4074 andG2532 uponG1909 thisG5026 rockG4073



Funny thing about God, is that teh world has determined He who created all thing cannot save anyone without church and teh bible, yet God has proved men wrong on may occasions, such is the foolishness of men, you know this bit

Rom_1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

christianity teh religion has made God less than man, so sad.

but as usual you are not really even replying to me so much as using me for fodder to embark upon another preaching moment.
Can you reply to the post? ty

 

[H. Richard]

H. Richard said: ↑
When a church plots murder it is not a church established by Jesus. You wish to define your version of Faith. I will stick to mine.

Provide scholarly evidence of "a church plots murder" or stop the hate speech.
Your anti-Catholic lunacies are boring as they are false.

Normal people with a modicum of education don't take Baptist Successionism seriously. It appears you are locked in a time warp. They no longer teach your brand of hate in Bible colleges.

It is left for you who rejects church authority to demonstrate from Scripture where Christ eliminates the authority of the Apostles and His Church, and replaces it with Scripture alone.

Numbers 16:3. Here we have folks rising up against Moses and Aaron (Divinely appointed authority) and using almost verbatim the same exact attacks used against the Catholic Church by anti-Catholic Protestants.
Numbers 16:1-3
Now Korah the son of Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi, and Dathan and Abi’ram the sons of Eli’ab, and On the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men; and they rose up before Moses, with a number of the people of Israel, two hundred and fifty leaders of the congregation, chosen from the assembly, well-known men; and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said to them, "You have gone too far! For all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them; why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?"

Now if you keep reading in Numbers 16, you see that these folks didn’t fare too well:
Numbers 16:28
And Moses said, "Hereby you shall know that the LORD has sent me to do all these works, and that it has not been of my own accord. If these men die the common death of all men, or if they are visited by the fate of all men, then the LORD has not sent me. But if the LORD creates something new, and the ground opens its mouth, and swallows them up, with all that belongs to them, and they go down alive into Sheol, then you shall know that these men have despised the LORD."
And as he finished speaking all these words, the ground under them split asunder; and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with their households and all the men that belonged to Korah and all their goods. So they and all that belonged to them went down alive into Sheol; and the earth closed over them, and they perished from the midst of the assembly.

So I guess the bottom line is, I’d tread veeeeery carefully when attacking the authority God establishes on this earth. We've already seen where such rebellion leads.

Peace![/QUOTE]
***

Since you say what I write is boring then just stop reading it. You have your opinion and I have mine. I have the same right to express my opinion as you do yours. I think you are so in love with your religion that you can not see anything wrong with it. When the Pharisees plotted to murder Jesus they broke the law. When your church leaders plotted the murder of people in their inquisitions they broke the law. And now you wish to say they are your leaders. Sorry, IMO following them is the sure way to a very warm place. But if that is your wish, follow them. But don't think you can get me to follow them.

If it quacks like a duck, swims let a duck, it is a duck.

 

[epostle1]

Show me where I even alluded to such nonsense.

I didn't say you did. But false dichotomies (either/or) thinking is so common with Protestants, and not "both/and'. The authority of James and Peter is "both/and"; most of this thread is arguing for "either/or".

The Council of Jerusalem is a model for future councils. How this is denied while accepting the canon of the NT is anybody's guess. The only way to do it is to alter the facts of history. The C of J is an infallible council. Infallibility is a big scary word that gives anti-Catholics fits. It just means 'teaching without error'. The C of J taught without error because the Holy Spirit was there. We know this from Acts 15:28. It does not mean authority comes from men, but from God through men.

Paul was under Church authority, in various ways. It is the pitting of the ultimate source against the secondary, human source (the Church) which is the problem in your approach and that of Protestantism in general. You guys don’t like human, institutional authority and don’t have enough faith to believe that God can and does preserve it, so you try to undermine it by fallacious arguments, as presently.

No doubt you aren’t even aware that you are doing it. To do this is automatic in Protestantism; it’s like breathing. It’s like the fish that doesn’t know it’s in water. It all comes from the rejection of the infallibility of the Church (which is one thing that sola Scriptura always entails).

In Galatians 1-2 Paul is referring to his initial conversion. But even then God made sure there was someone else around, to urge him to get baptized (Ananias: Acts 22:12-16). He received the revelation initially and then sought to have it confirmed by Church authority (Gal 2:1-2); then his authority was accepted or verified by James, Peter, and John (Gal 2:9).

So we see that the Bible doesn’t pit the divine call directly from God, against Church authority, as you do. You do it because it is Protestant man-made tradition to do so; period, and because the Protestant has to always undermine the authority of the Church, and the Catholic Church, in order to bolster his own anti-system, that was set up against the historic Church in the first place.

We believe in faith that the Church is infallible and indefectible, based on many biblical indications. It is theoretically possible (speaking in terms of philosophy or epistemology) that the Church could stray and have to be rejected, but the Bible rules that out. We believe in faith that it has not and will not.

Protestants don’t have enough faith to believe that God could preserve an infallible Church, even though they can muster up even more faith than that, which is required to believe in an infallible Bible written by a bunch of sinners and hypocrites.

We simply have more faith than you guys do. It’s a supernatural gift. We believe that the authoritative Church is also a key part of God’s plan to save the souls of men. We follow the model of the Jerusalem Council, whereas you guys reject that or ignore it, because it doesn’t fit in with the man-made tradition of Protestantism and a supposedly non-infallible Church.
Dialogue with a Calvinist: Was Paul a "Lone Ranger"?
The Church is called the “Body” of Christ often (e.g., Eph. 1:22-3), and is compared to a seed which grows into a tree (Mt. 13:31-2). Seeds and bodies grow and expand. Yet Protestants tend to see Church and Doctrine as more like a statue, subject to pigeon droppings (i.e., so-called Catholic “corruptions”!). This robs the metaphors of Christ of their essential meaning. It is impossible to claim that no development occurred in Church history, or that it ceased after the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 5th century, etc. (all arbitrary human traditions). The Bible is not absolutely clear in every part, and requires the developing wisdom of the Church.

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. Why should Protestants accept these authoritative verdicts, but reject similar proclamations on Church government, the Eucharist, Mary, Purgatory, etc.?
Development of Doctrine (Index Page for Dave Armstrong)

 

[Nomad]

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.

No, truth doesn't develop. What develops is our understanding. These things were true long before they were codified as a result of controversy. Truth is truth whether man fully grasps it or not.

Why should Protestants accept these authoritative verdicts, but reject similar proclamations on Church government, the Eucharist, Mary, Purgatory, etc.?

Because the former are clearly taught in Scripture, whereas the latter contradicts or attempts to supersede God-breathed revelation.

 

[epostle1]

Since you say what I write is boring then just stop reading it. You have your opinion and I have mine. I have the same right to express my opinion as you do yours. I think you are so in love with your religion that you can not see anything wrong with it. When the Pharisees plotted to murder Jesus they broke the law. When your church leaders plotted the murder of people in their inquisitions they broke the law. And now you wish to say they are your leaders. Sorry, IMO following them is the sure way to a very warm place. But if that is your wish, follow them. But don't think you can get me to follow them.

If it quacks like a duck, swims let a duck, it is a duck.

What gives you the right to LIE about the inquisition and slander my faith with falsehoods? Yet you talk about breaking the law. Bearing false witness is breaking a commandment of God. But your invincible ignorance lets you off the hook. The Church does not have the authority to execute anyone, and never did. Your oversimplification of a complex historical event allows you to say anything that suits your agenda. So why bring up the inquisition? What does that have to do with Acts 15? Nothing. It means you are losing the debate and threw the inquisition in as an act of desperation.

What's boring is your anti-Catholic hate speech (lies and falsehoods). It's all been refuted repeatedly. It's just a matter of knowing where to look.

 

[epostle1]

No, truth doesn't develop. What develops is our understanding. These things were true long before they were codified as a result of controversy. Truth is truth whether man fully grasps it or not.

I didn't say truth develops. I said doctrine develops, much like the Bible itself is a development, since it took 350 years to be realized. That's called development of doctrine.

Because the former are clearly taught in Scripture, whereas the latter contradicts or attempts to supersede God-breathed revelation.

Nonsense.

C. S. Lewis, the famous Anglican writer, once wrote:

The very possibility of progress demands that there should be an unchanging element . . . the positive historical statements made by Christianity have the power . . . of receiving, without intrinsic change, the increasing complexity of meaning which increasing knowledge puts into them.

The Catholic Church, in agreement with Lewis, defines doctrinal development as a growth of depth and clarity in the understanding of the truths of divine revelation. 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.

Like many Christian doctrines, the idea of doctrinal development is based on much implicit or indirect scriptural evidence. The best indications are perhaps Mt. 5:17, 13:31-2, Jn. 14:26, 16:13, 1 Cor. 2:9-16, Gal. 4:4, Eph. 1:10, 4:12-15. Furthermore, doctrine clearly develops within Scripture (“progressive revelation”). Examples: doctrines of the afterlife, the Trinity, the Messiah (eventually revealed as God the Son), the Holy Spirit (Divine Person in the New Testament), the equality of Jews and Gentiles, bodily resurrection, sacrifice of lambs evolving into the sacrifice of Christ, etc. Not a single doctrine emerges in the Bible complete with no further need of development.

In general, whenever Scripture refers to the increasing knowledge and maturity of Christians and the Church, an idea very similar to doctrinal development is present. Holy Scripture, then, is in no way hostile to development. It is only Protestant presuppositions – not always so “biblical” – which preclude development for fear of “excess.”

The Canon of Scripture itself is an example of developing doctrine. The New Testament never informs us which books comprise itself, and its Canon (final list of books) took about 360 years to reach its final form (at the Council of Carthage in 397). For instance, the books of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation were not widely accepted by the Church until 350 A.D.!

And books such as Barnabas and 1 and 2 Clement were considered Scripture by many at the same time (for example, the manuscripts Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus). Of the 27 New Testament books, 14 were not mentioned at all until around 200 A.D., including Acts, 2 Corinthians, Galatians and Colossians.

On what grounds, then, can we receive the Canon today except on the authority of the Church in the 5th century? These facts cause insuperable problems for Protestantism and its guiding principle of “Scripture Alone,” but are not a difficulty in the least for Catholics, who believe in Tradition, Church Authority, and development – all crucial elements in the very human process of selection of the biblical Canon.

It is plain silly (not to mention insufferably arrogant) to assert, as did Luther and especially Calvin, that the knowledge of what books constitute Scripture is attained simply by an intuitive and subjective inkling within each Spirit-filled person. If the early Church had such a difficult time determining what was and was not Scripture, how could Calvin 15 centuries later claim that it was altogether simple for him and every other sincere Christian?!

The Church is called the “Body” of Christ often (e.g., Eph. 1:22-3), and is compared to a seed which grows into a tree (Mt. 13:31-2). Seeds and bodies grow and expand. Yet Protestants tend to see Church and Doctrine as more like a statue, subject to pigeon droppings (i.e., so-called Catholic “corruptions”!). This robs the metaphors of Christ of their essential meaning. It is impossible to claim that no development occurred in Church history, or that it ceased after the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 5th century, etc. (all arbitrary human traditions). The Bible is not absolutely clear in every part, and requires the developing wisdom of the Church.

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. Why should Protestants accept these authoritative verdicts, but reject similar proclamations on Church government, the Eucharist, Mary, Purgatory, etc.?

Although understanding increases, the essential elements of doctrines exist from the beginning. Today’s Church shouldn’t be expected to look like the primitive Church if it is a living, vibrant, spiritual organism. But even the early Church looks like a small “Catholic tree.” It doesn’t look like a Protestant “statue,” doomed to be increasingly corrupted by an encroaching, “diabolical” Catholicism, as is imagined by millions of Protestants unacquainted with the early Church and the oldest source materials after the New Testament, such as the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch (d.c. 110) and St. Clement of Rome (d.c.101).

John Henry Cardinal Newman (1801-1890), the great English convert to Catholicism, who is widely regarded as one of the most profound religious thinkers of his time, wrote in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine(1845), the one indispensable work on this subject:

One thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches . . . at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this. And Protestantism . . . as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination . . . of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone . . . To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.

Development of Doctrine (Index Page for Dave Armstrong)​

 

[Nomad]

I didn't say truth develops. I said doctrine develops...

That's a distinction without a difference. Doctrine is the systematic expression of Biblical truth. The systematic expression of truth developed, the truth it embodies did not.

...much like the Bible itself is a development, since it took 350 years to be realized.

All Scripture was God-breathed the second it was penned. Scripture was Scripture long before it was formally recognized by Church councils.

 

[aspen]

All Scripture was God-breathed the second it was penned. Scripture was Scripture long before it was formally recognized by Church councils.

Hmm.....
If it was so clear what belonged in the Bible and what did not, why were so many people in disagreement? From the Early Church Fathers to even Luther....