• Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Knowingly or not, scholars operated for two centuries under an Enlightenment prejudice that assumes all progress to come from religious skeptics, and that whatever the church touches is backward, superstitious, even barbaric.

Since the mid-20th century, this unscholarly prejudice has thankfully begun to melt away, and professors of a variety of religious backgrounds, or none at all, increasingly acknowledge the church's contributions.

Nowhere has the revision of what we thought we knew been more dramatic than in the study of the history of science. We all remember what we learned in fourth grade: While scientists were bravely trying to uncover truths about the universe and improve our quality of life, stupid churchmen who hated reason and simply wanted the faithful to shut up and obey placed a ceaseless stream of obstacles in their path.

That was where the conventional wisdom stood just over a century ago, with the publication of Andrew Dickson White's book, "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom," in 1896. And that's where most Americans (and Europeans, for that matter) believe it still stands.

But there is scarcely a historian of science in America who would endorse this comic-book version of events today. To the contrary, modern historians of science freely acknowledge the church's contributions — both theoretical and material — to the Scientific Revolution. It was the church's worldview that insisted the universe was orderly and operated according to certain fixed laws. Only buoyed with that confidence would it have made sense to bother investigating the physical world in the first place, or even to develop the scientific method (which can work only in an orderly world). It's likewise a little tricky to claim the church has been an implacable foe of the sciences when so many priests were accomplished scientists.

The first person to measure the rate of acceleration of a freely falling body was Father Giambattista Riccioli. The man who has been called the father of Egyptology was Father Athanasius Kircher. Father Roger Boscovich, who has been described as "the greatest genius that Yugoslavia ever produced," has often been called the father of modern atomic theory. In the sciences it was the Jesuits in particular who distinguished themselves; some 35 craters on the moon, in fact, are named after Jesuit scientists and mathematicians.

By the 18th century, writes historian Jonathan Wright, the Jesuits "had contributed to the development of pendulum clocks, pantographs, barometers, reflecting telescopes, and microscopes, to scientific fields as various as magnetism, optics, and electricity. They observed, in some cases before anyone else, the colored bands on Jupiter's surface, the Andromeda nebula, and Saturn's rings. They theorized about the circulation of the blood (independently of Harvey), the theoretical possibility of flight, the way the moon affected the tides, and the wave-like nature of light."

Their achievements likewise included "star maps of the southern hemisphere, symbolic logic, flood-control measures on the Po and Adige rivers, introducing plus and minus signs into Italian mathematics."

These were the great opponents of human progress?

Seismology, the study of earthquakes, has been so dominated by Jesuits that it has become known as "the Jesuit science." It was a Jesuit, Father J.B. Macelwane, who wrote the first seismology textbook in America in 1936. To this day, the American Geophysical Union, which Macelwane once headed, gives an annual medal named after this brilliant priest to a promising young geophysicist.

The Jesuits were also the first to introduce Western science into such far-off places as China and India. In 17th-century China in particular, Jesuits introduced a substantial body of scientific knowledge and a vast array of mental tools for understanding the physical universe, including the Euclidean geometry that made planetary motion comprehensible.

Jesuits made important contributions to the scientific knowledge and infrastructure of other less developed nations not only in Asia but also in Africa and Central and South America. Beginning in the 19th century, these continents saw the opening of Jesuit observatories that studied such fields as astronomy, geomagnetism, meteorology, seismology and solar physics. Such observatories provided these places with accurate time keeping, weather forecasts (particularly important in the cases of hurricanes and typhoons), earthquake risk assessments and cartography.

The early church also institutionalized the care of widows, orphans, the sick and the poor in ways unseen in classical Greece or Rome. Even her harshest critics, from the fourth-century emperor Julian the Apostate all the way to Martin Luther and Voltaire, conceded the church's enormous contributions to the relief of human misery.

The spirit of Catholic charity — that we help those in need not out of any expectation of reciprocity, but as a pure gift, and that we even help those who might not like us — finds no analogue in classical Greece and Rome, but it is this idea of charity that we continue to embrace today.

The university was an utterly new phenomenon in European history. Nothing like it had existed in ancient Greece or Rome. The institution that we recognize today, with its faculties, courses of study, examinations and degrees, as well as the familiar distinction between undergraduate and graduate study, come to us directly from the medieval world.

It is no surprise that the church should have done so much to foster and protect the nascent university system, since the church, according to historian Lowrie Daly, "was the only institution in Europe that showed consistent interest in the preservation and cultivation of knowledge."

Until the mid-20th century, the history of economic thought started, more or less, with the 18th century and Adam Smith. But beginning with Joseph Schumpeter, the great economist and historian of his field, scholars have begun to point instead to the 16th-century Catholic theologians at Spain's University of Salamanca as the originators of modern economics.

And the list goes on.
By the time of the Reformation, no secular government had chartered more universities than the church. Edward Grant, who has written on medieval science for Cambridge University Press, points out that intellectual life was robust and debate was vigorous at these universities — the very opposite of the popular presumption.

I can already hear the complaint: What about these awful things the church did that I heard about in school? For one thing, isn't it a little odd that we never heard any of the material I've presented here in school? Doesn't that seem a trifle unfair?

But although an episode like the medieval Inquisition has been dramatically scaled back in scope and cruelty by recent scholarship — the University of California at Berkeley, not exactly a bastion of traditional Catholicism, published a book substantially revising popular view — it is not my subject here. My aim is to point out, as I do in my book "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization," how indebted we are, without realizing it, to an institution popular culture teaches us to despise.
Commentary: History shows contributions of Catholic Church to Western civilization


Catholic_Church_Africa_001.jpg

Great. You're selling your book. Is that why you are here....make some money. Of course it is.

Stranger
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
BoL,

I’m surprised you knew about Mt 18:15-17. I guess I have to take it with a grain of salt that unsaved men can sometimes understand scriptures. I’ll probably get reprimanded by many by what I’ve just stated but I follow the criteria set forth in 1Jo 4:1. I was about to post with Matthew 18 but you beat me to the punch.

Also, you are correct about the authority of the church over it’s members, again beating me to the punch.

But we will NEVER be in agreement when you quote Jesus not leaving a book (Bible) but a church. A church cannot save anyone only God can. This is the reason the Jews wanted Jesus killed because they said, He claimed to be equal with God. We cannot learn anything from a church because it’s leaders are all sinners therefore, what they say or do is tainted by sin unless they are faithful to the word of God. In other words, the Bible is the Authority, for it is the word of God that carries complete obedience and never the church.
Jesus founded a church to teach us about salvation, there was no "book" as we know it for 4 centuries. He gave no instructions for any of His Apostles to write anything, except Rev. Do a search on "word of God" in any translation. It appears 180-200 times. Nowhere does it mean the written word alone.
This is also why the reason so many local churches of the world have their own presuppositions so as to avoid being under the authority of the Bible, like the Catholic church.
You are grossly misinformed. All Catholic doctrines are derived directly or indirectly from the Bible. The Church is not, and never was, over the Bible. The Church is the custodian and servant of the Bible. Tradition, Scripture and the Magisterium work in harmony, one is not over the other. That is the BIBLICAL rule of faith, not some 16th century invention that Luther pulled out of thin air.
You say the Catholic church adheres to the Lordship of Christ yet you also say your church is the ground and foundation of truth. Which is it, the Lordship of Christ Who is the truth, the way, and the life, or the Catholic church?
You make a false dichotomy. The CHURCH is the pillar and ground of truth, it doesn't say the BIBLE is the pillar and ground of truth. Jesus founded a church.
SPOT THE FAKE VERSE!
Matthew 18:17 If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Matthew 18:17 If the member refuses to listen to them, show him the Bible; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the Bible, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Have you even consider 1 Corinthians 11:3 which stipulates the chain of command?
God gives truth to Jesus who reveals it to the Apostles who are commissioned to teach us. Paul is using the family as an analogy. The Catholic Church has been practicing 1 Corinthians 11:3 for 2000 years.
Or, Ephesians 5:22-25 where the chain of command is also stipulated, but verse 25 indicates that Jesus gave His life for His church.
What Paul means is the authority of the husband comes from the cross, not from the couch.
Has any of your popes given his life for the church?
The first 40 popes were martyred by pagan Romans, not to mention other persecutions of popes down through history. But you never hear about any of that in anti-Catholic circles.
Did Benedict do something to save his church which was in trouble but instead abdicated?
The Church has always been in trouble in one way or another. But "trouble" has never prevailed, and never will. We have God's promise that can never happen, and we have faith it never will. Pope Benedict retired because he was to old and tired to do an extremely demanding job.
I apologize if I seem a little harsh but I do believe this is what James was talking about in James 2:17-18 how to defend one’s faith.
???
James 2:17-18
17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.
Well tomorrow is another day to put on the boxing gloves again.
To God Be The Glory
Amen.


2386cdd7011843f24dad6640f7662adc.jpg
......​
 
Last edited by a moderator:

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
You can rephrase all you like. You are now changing your story. Is Rome the whore or not. You said she was.

Stranger
Could be both. I don't care which one it is. But go ahead and assert that the Catholic Church is the anti-Christ, or pagan Rome, or apostate Jerusalem or whatever toxic theories you may have poisoned your mind with. You will just embarrass yourself.
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Could be both. I don't care which one it is. But go ahead and assert that the Catholic Church is the anti-Christ, or pagan Rome, or apostate Jerusalem or whatever toxic theories you may have poisoned your mind with. You will just embarrass yourself.

Im not the one that said it. You and BoL did.

Stranger
 
  • Like
Reactions: pia

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
And we rape children, murder people. sell drugs, have homosexual cardinals. castrate children for there voices, tel lies yell loudly when we wont be heard, and still louder God till we drown out your still small voice, we have being doing it for a thousands of years and are good at it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pia

pia

Well-Known Member
May 30, 2009
2,003
1,678
113
70
West Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
God gives truth to Jesus who reveals it to the Apostles who are commissioned to teach us.
Apologies for popping in here, but when I saw what you wrote there, a 'light bulb' happened in my own thinking, because seeing it written that way, I now understand much better why there is such dissension .
The way I understood the Bible, Jesus received truth from the Father through His Holy Spirit, Jesus passed on these truths to his disciples for the time He was with them and then He explained to them that the promise of the Father would come to them (The Spirit at Pentecost ) and that from then on 'No man will have any need to be taught by their neighbors or any other men' (paraphrased), because He, The Holy Spirit (who had passed on the truth from the Father ) would Himself teach them whatsoever they needed and also bring to their remembrance anything Jesus had ever taught them.
Sadly the people obviously did not trust God or The Holy spirit to do what Jesus had told them, and that seems to be so till this day. Instead we ended up with a 'carbon copy' of worship, which included a book to read from in a temple built by human hands. One thing at least the Hebrews did not do, was to stand in the temple and read to the people in a language they did not understand, such as the Catholic church did for centuries.......I mean, really ??? What possible good could it do anyone, to have some preacher standing in a pulpit spouting off, what they now regarded as scripture, in Latin, to all the people who did not understand a single word they said.....How can one sincerely say 'Amen' to something they have no comprehension of ?
I cannot fathom how this is still regarded as the only true 'church' by a ton of people , now that we can read the Bible for ourselves, and considering that, how do people just totally ignore that Jesus made it clear that The Holy Spirit was going to be our teacher, so that there would not be all that confusion.......But then again Jesus did warn that false teachers would come in to try and destroy what He had begun and we should remember what was said to the Galatians, about having begun in the Spirit, were they now going to be made perfect through their flesh ? That question seems as relevant today, as when it was written to the Galatians.
Again I am sorry I 'barged' in to your post to someone else, I am still having a little trouble figuring out how to respond to some posts. I will endeavor to improve. 'ByGrace' has given me a few good tips, but I am still not as good at this as I would like to be.
I hope you will forgive me ? Pia
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jun2u

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Apologies for popping in here, but when I saw what you wrote there, a 'light bulb' happened in my own thinking, because seeing it written that way, I now understand much better why there is such dissension .
The way I understood the Bible, Jesus received truth from the Father through His Holy Spirit, Jesus passed on these truths to his disciples for the time He was with them and then He explained to them that the promise of the Father would come to them (The Spirit at Pentecost ) and that from then on 'No man will have any need to be taught by their neighbors or any other men' (paraphrased), because He, The Holy Spirit (who had passed on the truth from the Father ) would Himself teach them whatsoever they needed and also bring to their remembrance anything Jesus had ever taught them.
Pay attention to who Jesus is talking to. The Apostles. No "man" could teach them (Matthew 18:17) because the fullness of truth already existed. God>Jesus>Apostles>elders and successors. There is no room for "man" to butt in and teach something else. Having the Holy Spirit is not a license to rebel against ordained leaders. That's why church structure and accountability is important.

John 14:26 – Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would teach the Church (the apostles and successors) all things regarding the faith. This means that the Church can teach us the right moral positions on such things as in vitro fertilization, cloning and other issues that are not addressed in the Bible. After all, these issues of morality are necessary for our salvation, and God would not leave such important issues to be decided by us sinners without His divine assistance.

John 16:12 – Jesus had many things to say but the apostles couldn’t bear them at that point. This demonstrates that the Church’s infallible doctrine develops over time. All public Revelation was completed with the death of the last apostle, but the doctrine of God’s Revelation develops as our minds and hearts are able to welcome and understand it. God teaches His children only as much as they can bear, for their own good.

John 16:13 – Jesus promises that the Spirit will “guide” the Church into all truth. Our knowledge of the truth develops as the Spirit guides the Church, and this happens over time. (that's why it took 450 years to develop the full doctrine of the Trinity)

Sadly the people obviously did not trust God or The Holy spirit to do what Jesus had told them, and that seems to be so till this day. Instead we ended up with a 'carbon copy' of worship, which included a book to read from in a temple built by human hands. One thing at least the Hebrews did not do, was to stand in the temple and read to the people in a language they did not understand, such as the Catholic church did for centuries.......I mean, really ??? What possible good could it do anyone, to have some preacher standing in a pulpit spouting off, what they now regarded as scripture, in Latin, to all the people who did not understand a single word they said.....How can one sincerely say 'Amen' to something they have no comprehension of ?
Sola scriptura is Latin. Why is that? Anyone who could read in the 4th century and on, could read and understand Latin. It was the universal language of the time. English didn't even exist.
I cannot fathom how this is still regarded as the only true 'church' by a ton of people , now that we can read the Bible for ourselves, and considering that, how do people just totally ignore that Jesus made it clear that The Holy Spirit was going to be our teacher, so that there would not be all that confusion......
Jesus made it clear the Holy Spirit would teach the Church, who in turn would teach us, not directly to individual believers to teach the Church. That's why we have so many false cults.
But then again Jesus did warn that false teachers would come in to try and destroy what He had begun and we should remember what was said to the Galatians, about having begun in the Spirit, were they now going to be made perfect through their flesh ? That question seems as relevant today, as when it was written to the Galatians.
John, Paul, and Ignatius all wrote against these false teachers called the Gnostics. They were trying to infiltrate the Church.
Again I am sorry I 'barged' in to your post to someone else, I am still having a little trouble figuring out how to respond to some posts. I will endeavor to improve. 'ByGrace' has given me a few good tips, but I am still not as good at this as I would like to be.
I hope you will forgive me ? Pia
We are all learning.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
BIBLE TRIVIA

Luther's Protestant Bible came out 1520 and before his Bible the Catholic Bible had been translated into Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemian, Hungarian and English, there was exactly 104 editions in Latin; 38 editions in German language, 25 editions in Italian language, 18 in French. In all 626 editions of the Bible with 198 in the language of the laity, had been edited before the first Protestant Bible was sent forth into the world.

The divisions of the Bible. The Bible was divided into chapters by Bishop Stephen Langton in the 13th century, and into verses in the 15th and 16th centuries. The first Bible to be printed in the modern chapter-verse format was Stephanus' Latin Bible of 1555. The first English Bible to incorporate these divisions was the popular Geneva English Bible of 1557, which was a forerunner of the 1611 King James Bible.

The process by which the Biblical Canon was formed took quite a while and was not really finalized until the late 4th and Early 5th Centuries. The Council of Hippo in 393 AD gave the canon that was adopted by the Latin West which they sent to the "Transmarine Church" (i.e., Rome) for confirmation. Letters from the Popes in 401 and 405 affirmed this canon as did the watershed document from all the North African Councils ratified by the pope in 418 AD. The Latin Vulgate (despite Jerome's reticence about the Deuteros)was published @ 407 AD and used this same canonical list from Hippo in subsequent editions.

Prior to that time, the exact content of the Bible was in flux. The Gospel of John was considered too gnostic in some circles in the 2nd Century. There was question about certain of the epistles attributed to St. Paul. Jude, 2&3 John, 2Peter, and Revelation were also not received everywhere at first. And some books like 1 Clement, The Shepherd of Hermas, and the Gospel of Peter were esteemed in many Churches. It really took centuries of discernment to boil it down to that list from the Synod of Hippo, which was affirmed by the Council of Carthage in 397 AD, which affirmed the same list by the Council of Florence (1431-39) which was affirmed by the Council of Trent. Catholics use the same list of books as Hippo and Carthage of 397 AD.
 

tabletalk

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2017
847
384
63
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Tradition, Scripture and the Magisterium work in harmony, one is not over the other. That is the BIBLICAL rule of faith, not some 16th century invention that Luther pulled out of thin air.

Just my opinion here: when your church says *one is not over the other* , that is not the rule of faith. The written Word of God (Scripture) is over Tradition and the Magisterium.
And no, I don't have the *proofs* to back this up. But I think that is what the Church of God has taught from the beginning of the Church.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jun2u

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Im not the one that said it. You and BoL did.
Stranger
Until all the worlds' commentators and scholars agree on Jerusalem or Rome as Babylon, I will take the freedom to use these cities interchangeably. Jerusalem was occupied by pagan Romans, ruled by the Emperor who was in Rome. Either way, I'm right. So was Peter in 1 Peter 5:13 writing from Rome, nicknamed Babylon. You are bending over backwards trying to disprove the papacy. Don't pull a muscle.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Just my opinion here: when your church says *one is not over the other* , that is not the rule of faith. The written Word of God (Scripture) is over Tradition and the Magisterium.
And no, I don't have the *proofs* to back this up. But I think that is what the Church of God has taught from the beginning of the Church.
Please explain explain how the Church of God taught scripture as the sole rule of faith from the beginning when there was no Bible as we know it for 4 centuries, and 95+% of the population couldn't read anyway.


divinerev.jpg
 

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Please explain explain how the Church of God taught scripture as the sole rule of faith from the beginning when there was no Bible as we know it for 4 centuries, and 95+% of the population couldn't read anyway.


divinerev.jpg
Wow that was a loud shout heard it from teh other side of teh world, Revelation from Jesus , ye dont you get it, its for all men.


Mat_11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

Not the religious, not the learned, but to those who have an ear to hear,

Gal_1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Some sorry many just dont want it.
 

tabletalk

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2017
847
384
63
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Please explain explain how the Church of God taught scripture as the sole rule of faith from the beginning when there was no Bible as we know it for 4 centuries, and 95+% of the population couldn't read anyway.


divinerev.jpg


All of what your Church calls *Sacred Tradition* was finally written down in Scripture, or not included for reasons that only God knows. There is no continuing oral tradition.
Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church are not infallible; only the Scriptures are. Again, I'm woefully inadequate to provide proofs for these statements.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jun2u

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Until all the worlds' commentators and scholars agree on Jerusalem or Rome as Babylon, I will take the freedom to use these cities interchangeably. Jerusalem was occupied by pagan Romans, ruled by the Emperor who was in Rome. Either way, I'm right. So was Peter in 1 Peter 5:13 writing from Rome, nicknamed Babylon. You are bending over backwards trying to disprove the papacy. Don't pull a muscle.

Sure. Make it say what you want it to say. You do it with the rest of Scripture, why not with (1 Peter 5:13). Whatever it takes to get Peter into that popes office.

Stranger
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,953
3,400
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I was the one that said Babylon in Revelation was not the Roman Church or Rome. Not you. You said Babylon in Revelation was Rome. Which makes Rome the great Whore. See your post #925.

Now you say, the whore is Jerusalem. So, which is it? Who is the whore?

Stranger
Apparently, you're not familiar with Revelation, so let me educate you . . .
Babylon is not the whore. The "whore" serves Babylon, which is pagan Rome.

Have you ever opened a Bible??
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Apparently, you're not familiar with Revelation, so let me educate you . . .
Babylon is not the whore. The "whore" serves Babylon, which is pagan Rome.

Have you ever opened a Bible??

Once or twice.

Gee, you're going to educate me. Yet, all you did is make a remark. Show me in Revelation that what you say is so. I will take good notes.

Stranger
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,953
3,400
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Once or twice.

Gee, you're going to educate me. Yet, all you did is make a remark. Show me in Revelation that what you say is so. I will take good notes.

Stranger
I already showed you yesterday that "Babylon" is code for Rome. I explained to you that this is evident in Jewish writings as well:

- Both
extrabiblical Jewish tests, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, talk about the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans by comparing Rome with Babylon.

- In Revelation, Babylon is described as having “7 hills”. Rome has 7 hills.

- Rev. 14:6-11
speaks of a coming judgment against “Babylon the great" - "she who made all nations drink the wine of the passion of her sexual immorality”. There is a call to all peoples to worship the Creator in much the same terms as Paul’s preaching to the Athenians (Rev. 14:7; cf. Acts 17:24-25). This judgment is against the classic Jewish polemic against pagan idolatry, which is pagan Rome.

Rome is "Babylon" in Revelation.
Rome is "Babylon" in 1 Peter 5:13.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,953
3,400
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
All of what your Church calls *Sacred Tradition* was finally written down in Scripture, or not included for reasons that only God knows. There is no continuing oral tradition.
Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church are not infallible; only the Scriptures are. Again, I'm woefully inadequate to provide proofs for these statements.
Show me where Scripture makes this claim.

Try as you might - there is NO expiration date on 2 Thess. 2:15.
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, EITHER BY an oral statement - OR BY a letter of ours.
 

lforrest

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Admin
Aug 10, 2012
5,601
6,858
113
Faith
Christian
Every time I read the title of this topic I think "Anything is possible for those who believe."

Don't think God had this topic in mind concerning that scripture.