When did the universal Church first mentioned in 110AD stop being universal?

[heretoeternity]

Read in Revelation 17 what God thinks of the pagan Roman religious system, and Revelation 18 how He will deal with the pagan based blasphemer of a religious system.

 

[mjrhealth]

Read in Revelation 17 what God thinks of the pagan Roman religious system, and Revelation 18 how He will deal with the pagan based blasphemer of a religious system.

Sometimes before one goes telling others of about there religious system one might sit and look at there own. It is all the same religion, no matter what title you put to it. none of it is from God, thats what is keeping you in bondage.

 

[Mungo]

Read in Revelation 17 what God thinks of the pagan Roman religious system, and Revelation 18 how He will deal with the pagan based blasphemer of a religious system.

Many assertions - zero evidence!

But then it is heretoeternity posting.

As my signature says: Prejudice is a great timesaver. It enables you to form opinions without bothering to get facts

 

[epostle1]

Many assertions - zero evidence!

But then it is heretoeternity posting.

As my signature says: Prejudice is a great timesaver. It enables you to form opinions without bothering to get facts

Hi Mungo! I'm glad you're back!

Some anti-Catholics claim the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18. Dave Hunt, in his 1994 book, A Woman Rides the Beast, presents nine arguments to try to prove this. His claims are a useful summary of those commonly used by Fundamentalists, and an examination of them shows why they don’t work.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/hunting-the-whore-of-babylon

 

[Mungo]

Hi Mungo! I'm glad you're back!

Some anti-Catholics claim the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18. Dave Hunt, in his 1994 book, A Woman Rides the Beast, presents nine arguments to try to prove this. His claims are a useful summary of those commonly used by Fundamentalists, and an examination of them shows why they don’t work.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/hunting-the-whore-of-babylon

Hi kepha,

Of course those arguments don't work. And I suspect anti-Catholics know it, which is why people like heretoeternity will never actually discuss issues. They prefer to sit on the sidelines trolling away.

 

[OzSpen]

I think we are in agreement then: They (the men at the Council of Jerusalem) did produce and infallible document because they were led by the Holy Spirit.

Did that ability (authority), to teach infallibly and bind upon all Christians their decision, end with the Apostles?

I think we are in agreement then: They (the men at the Council of Jerusalem) did produce and infallible document because they were led by the Holy Spirit.

Did that ability (authority), to teach infallibly and bind upon all Christians their decision, end with the Apostles?

No, Tom.

The infallible authors were the nine (9) authors of the books of the NT who produced 27 books. In total, over 40 authors produced the 66 books of the Bible. They are the ones through whom God breathed out the infallible Scripture. No Council produces documents that are theopneustos - breathed out by God (see 2 Tim 3:16-17 ESV; 2 Pet 1:20-21 ESV).

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

If infallibility was not given to the church....to whom was it given?

Tom,

To each writer of the OT and NT was given infallibility (see 2 Tim 3:16-17 ESV; 2 Pet 1:20-21 ESV). See my article,The Bible’s support for inerrancy of the originals

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

The decision at Jerusalem did in FACT produce an infallible document that was binding on all Christians.

Who said that it was a FACT?

 

[epostle1]

Well, that rules out the New Testament as infallible, unless you think it fell from the sky. The canon of scripture did not come about by itself. It came about by 4 centuries of discernment by the Church and no amount of bible origin fantasies can change that fact.

I have observed that no sola scripturist can understand what infallibility means, even with 1000 explanations, because it is totally contrary to the mindset. Briefly, infallibility means teaching without error; it has nothing to do with impeccability, which means living without sinning. Infallibility comes from the words of Jesus, not popes, bishops or councils. Infallibility is a promise of Jesus, not some Catholic invention.

Matt. 10:20; Luke 12:12 - Jesus tells His apostles it is not they who speak, but the Spirit of their Father speaking through them. If the Spirit is the one speaking and leading the Church, the Church cannot err on matters of faith and morals.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus promises the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church. This requires that the Church teach infallibly. If the Church did not have the gift of infallibility, the gates of Hades and error would prevail. Also, since the Catholic Church was the only Church that existed up until the Reformation, those who follow the Protestant reformers call Christ a liar by saying that Hades did prevail.

Matt. 16:19 - for Jesus to give Peter and the apostles, mere human beings, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth requires infallibility. (heaven cannot bind an error) This is a gift of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with the holiness of the person receiving the gift.

Matt. 18:17-18 - the Church (not Scripture) is the final authority on questions of the faith. This demands infallibility when teaching the faith. She must be prevented from teaching error in order to lead her members to the fullness of salvation.

Matt. 28:20 - Jesus promises that He will be with the Church ALWAYS. Jesus' presence in the Church assures infallible teaching on faith and morals. With Jesus present, we can never be deceived.
The Church : scripturecatholic

The Bible teaches that the true Church is infallible and indefectible. That is a promise of God. One either accepts it in faith or not. That is the task: does one accept all of what the Bible teaches, or just selectively, with man-made traditions added to it?

What the Bible says is to reject those who cause divisions, which is the very essence of the onset of Protestantism: schism, sectarianism, and division. It is Protestantism that departed from the historic Church, which is indefectible and infallible (see also 1 Tim 3:15).

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

The theopneustos of the Bible is never pitted against the Church. This leads to setting the Bible against the Church, which is typical Protestant methodology, and ultra-unbiblical. The Bible never does that.

If it weren't for the gift of infallibility given by Jesus to the Church, there would be no Bible. Just individuals subtracting whatever didn't suit their opinions.

I did, in post #264. That's just 7 of them, there are plenty more. You want me to provide scriptures after I have provided scriptures. :wacko:

You prove my point when I said, "I have observed that no sola scripturist can understand what infallibility means, even with 1000 explanations". That's my opinion, which I am entitled to make the same as you. You can't get it, which is why you ask for scriptures that I already gave.

Beginning in the fourth century there was Church wide consensus that the Old Testament contained 46 books. That number of books is identified in the ancient Alexandrian (Christian) list of Scriptures as opposed to the Palestinian (Jewish) list that has fewer books. The decision to favor the Alexandrian list was subscribed to at the Council of Hippo in 393 and reaffirmed at the Council of Carthage in 397, decreed by Pope Damasus in 405, reaffirmed at the Council of Florence 1441, and the historic canon was reaffirmed at the Council of Trent. There were no "additions" during this entire period of history; those who say otherwise are ignorant polemicists.
We use the SAME BIBLE today as used in 393 AD.

Luther's followers left out Tobit, Judith, First and Second Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach and Baruch, as well as parts of Daniel and Esther because they didn't sit well with man made Protestant traditions, which is what you are indirectly trying to defend.

No, Tom.

The infallible authors were the nine (9) authors of the books of the NT who produced 27 books. In total, over 40 authors produced the 66 books of the Bible. They are the ones through whom God breathed out the infallible Scripture. No Council produces documents that are theopneustos - breathed out by God (see 2 Tim 3:16-17 ESV; 2 Pet 1:20-21 ESV).

Oz

SUMMARY:
The Bible is inspired, and made binding on all Christians (canonization) by the Church protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error . (infallibility) Otherwise, there would be no Bible. The process to canonize all the books of the Bible took 4 centuries. You are obfuscating infallibility with inspiration. You also have no concept of early church history and the timeline of the canon of Scripture. Like I said in post 282, the sola scriptura mindset is blind to the concept of infallibility and denies numerous supporting scriptures. You keep redefining infallibility because you are forced to.
The Church did not determine the canon, she discerned the canon, which requires infallibility on what is inspired and what is not.

"No Council produces documents that are theopneustos - breathed out by God (see 2 Tim 3:16-17 ESV; 2 Pet 1:20-21 ESV)."

That;s true. No council has written inspired text. What councils rule on comes directly or indirectly from inspired text, usually to address challenging heresies. It seems to me you cannot accept the hard historical facts of how we got the Bible in the first place. Because if you did, you would have to acknowledge the authority of the Catholic Church. This is one reason why sola scriptura is contradictory and illogical.

 

[Mungo]

No, Tom.

The infallible authors were the nine (9) authors of the books of the NT who produced 27 books. In total, over 40 authors produced the 66 books of the Bible. They are the ones through whom God breathed out the infallible Scripture.
Oz

Who decides which authors are the infallible ones through whom God breathed out the infallible Scripture?

You?
or
Martin Luther?
or
The Church that Jesus Christ founded and promised he would preserve from error?

 

[OzSpen]

Who decides which authors are the infallible ones through whom God breathed out the infallible Scripture?

You?
or
Martin Luther?
or
The Church that Jesus Christ founded and promised he would preserve from error?

Mungo,

Which church did Jesus Christ found that he promised to preserve from error? Evidence please!

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

That;s true. No council has written inspired text. What councils rule on comes directly or indirectly from inspired text, usually to address challenging heresies. It seems to me you cannot accept the hard historical facts of how we got the Bible in the first place. Because if you did, you would have to acknowledge the authority of the Catholic Church. This is one reason why sola scriptura is contradictory and illogical.

kepha,

You make a leap of logic (i.e. making it illogical) when you move from understanding there is inspired text to the Bible, to 'acknowledge the authority of the Catholic Church [Are you meaning Roman Catholic Church?]'. You are confusing the process of inspiration with the process of gathering inspired books into a compendium called the Bible (canonisation).

To say that 'This is one reason why sola scriptura is contradictory and illogical.' You have switched horses (subjects) from canonisation to the nature of biblical authority and hermeneutics.

Oz

 

[epostle1]

kepha,

You make a leap of logic (i.e. making it illogical) when you move from understanding there is inspired text to the Bible, to 'acknowledge the authority of the Catholic Church [Are you meaning Roman Catholic Church?]'. You are confusing the process of inspiration with the process of gathering inspired books into a compendium called the Bible (canonisation).

It's not me that's confused. I never said inspiration was a process. I said canonization was a process, one that took nearly 4 centuries. How many Protestants were at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage that drew up the final list of inspired books that we call the Bible? None. They were all Catholic bishops. You can find this in any encyclopedia.
The pope is not infallible.
Bishops are not infallible.
Church authority, under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit, (promised by Jesus the Church would never teach errors) ruled on the canon of Scripture. This is one instance of infallibility at work. Your only alternative is bible origin fantasies. That way you avoid acknowledging the hard historical FACT that the Bible came from the Catholic Church.

To say that 'This is one reason why sola scriptura is contradictory and illogical.' You have switched horses (subjects) from canonisation to the nature of biblical authority and hermeneutics.

No, I have repeatedly stated that the sola scriptura mindset makes it almost impossible to comprehend infallibility, and you are a perfect example of this.
If the Bible is the sole rule of faith, that eliminates the authority of the Church that infallibly produced it, which is contradictory and illogical.

At some point it seems the protestant must concede the Catholic Church was led infallibly to compile the Canon of Scripture if they are to retain any rational credibility. The respected reformed theologian R C Sproul attempts to get around this problem by stating the scriptures are 'a fallible collection of infallible scriptures' ; this argument falls at the first hurdle as a fallible collection of scriptures is not 'a closed collection of scriptures' therefore scripture can be added or taken away.

 

[Mungo]

Mungo,

Which church did Jesus Christ found that he promised to preserve from error? Evidence please!

Oz

Trying to doge the issue oz?

To avoid your attempted diversion let me re-phrase the question:
How do we know which authors are the infallible ones through whom God breathed out the infallible Scripture?

 

[OzSpen]

At some point it seems the protestant must concede the Catholic Church was led infallibly to compile the Canon of Scripture if they are to retain any rational credibility. The respected reformed theologian R C Sproul attempts to get around this problem by stating the scriptures are 'a fallible collection of infallible scriptures' ; this argument falls at the first hurdle as a fallible collection of scriptures is not 'a closed collection of scriptures' therefore scripture can be added or taken away.

kepha,

We have no statement in Scripture that concludes that any church, Catholic or another, was infallible in any of its decisions.

The oldest copy we have of the NT canon is the Muratorian Canon, which is dated about AD 170-200, and is a manuscript fragment. While it excludes some books from our current canon (it contained portions of 22 books).

We are not progressing in this discussion, so I'll not continue further on the topic with you.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Trying to doge the issue oz?

To avoid your attempted diversion let me re-phrase the question:
How do we know which authors are the infallible ones through whom God breathed out the infallible Scripture?

Doge??? :wub:

Try using the logic God has given us and that includes the law of non-contradiction. Ever heard of the nonsense barometer? Try reading the Gospel of Peter and your nonsense barometer should rise.

 

[tom55]

No, Tom.

The infallible authors were the nine (9) authors of the books of the NT who produced 27 books. In total, over 40 authors produced the 66 books of the Bible. They are the ones through whom God breathed out the infallible Scripture. No Council produces documents that are theopneustos - breathed out by God (see 2 Tim 3:16-17 ESV; 2 Pet 1:20-21 ESV).

Oz

You have me a bit confused. You said "No Council produces documents that are theopneustos..." but I think we are in agreement that the meeting by the Church leaders at Jerusalem in Acts is considered a Council? Yes or No?

At that Council The Church leaders made a decision that was good to the Holy Ghost and was binding on all Christians. Yes or No?

Did that authority to make decisions that are binding on all Christians end when the Apostles died? Yes or No?

I agree with your two Scripture references. SCRIPTURE is breathed by God and no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. That is what happened at the Council of Jerusalem. Decisions that are made by Church leaders that are binding on all Christians after the Apostles passed are not SCRIPTURE.

I do not believe that the Holy Spirit stopped guiding The Church leaders to properly interpret scripture after the Apostles died. Do you?

 

[tom55]

Who said that it was a FACT?

Acts 15:22-29

They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, with the following letter (document)

For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit...(infallible)

The FACT is that a document was produced by the guidance of the Holy Spirit that made the decision (by the men who were leading the Church at the time) binding on all Christians.

 

[tom55]

No, Tom.

The infallible authors were the nine (9) authors of the books of the NT who produced 27 books. In total, over 40 authors produced the 66 books of the Bible. They are the ones through whom God breathed out the infallible Scripture. No Council produces documents that are theopneustos - breathed out by God (see 2 Tim 3:16-17 ESV; 2 Pet 1:20-21 ESV).

Oz

You did not answer my question: Did that ability (authority), to teach infallibly and bind upon all Christians their decision, end with the Apostles?

 

[Mungo]

Doge??? :wub:

Try using the logic God has given us and that includes the law of non-contradiction. Ever heard of the nonsense barometer? Try reading the Gospel of Peter and your nonsense barometer should rise.

You've still failed to answer the question. I think dodge is the right word.