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

[OzSpen]

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.

Tom,

Based on Acts 15:22-29 (ESV), the only thing that is inspired (theopneustos = God-breathed) is that which is recorded in Acts 15. There is no indication in these verses that God inspired an infallible church to make judgments ex-cathedra.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

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

Where do the Scriptures say anything about teaching infallibly?

 

[OzSpen]

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?

Tom,

1. What did the Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15) deal with? The false teaching about circumcision (Acts 15:1 ESV). The main thing that came out of that Council that is theopneustos (God-breathed) is the record of it in the infallible Scriptures through the Book of Acts. Where in Acts 15 is it called a Council? It seems that that is an interpretation, even by Bible translators (see the ESV divisions in this chapter).

2. The authority to make binding decisions on all Christians ended when the last book of the NT was written. This is generally understood to be the Book of Revelation.

3. You state, 'Decisions that are made by Church leaders that are binding on all Christians after the Apostles passed are not SCRIPTURE'. I agree. However, if one wants to be a member of any church/denomination, that person needs to agree with the church's basic beliefs and be subject to the rules of that church.

4. I agree with you that the Holy Spirit did not stop guiding (or prompting). However, I disagree with you that it is the church leaders responsibility to properly interpret Scripture. What did Paul state in Acts 17:11 (ESV)? 'Now these Jews [at Berea] were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so'. Note what this verse does NOT say. It does not promote the view that these Jews were church leaders whose job it was to properly interpret Scripture. It is the responsibility of ALL Christians to be careful hearers and interpreters of Scripture to see if the things preached were so. All Christians need to be hear the word preached or written and compare with Scripture.

You may believe in an infallible church, but the Bible doesn't teach that view. The only thing that is infallible (breathed out by God: theopneustos) is Scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17 ESV).

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

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

You may not like my answer, but I have given you an answer.

 

[OzSpen]

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

I have answered it at #323.

 

[heretoeternity]

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.

You should know by now, sin is bondage according to Romans 6.6 in the Bible. Also in the Bible in 1st John "sin is transgression of God's law" So connect the dots, and see that following God is freedom, following satan by sinning is bondage..but you do not appear to worry about what the Bible says, so those Biblical words will have no signifance to you.

 

[epostle1]

Where do the Scriptures say anything about teaching infallibly?

I've listed them at least twice, you just keep ignoring them.

Tom,

1. What did the Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15) deal with? The false teaching about circumcision (Acts 15:1 ESV). The main thing that came out of that Council that is theopneustos (God-breathed) is the record of it in the infallible Scriptures through the Book of Acts. Where in Acts 15 is it called a Council? It seems that that is an interpretation, even by Bible translators (see the ESV divisions in this chapter).

Acts 15:28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:
It looks to me that the Holy Spirit was at that Council, but you refuse to believe the Church was infallible. Why? Because it is a man made Protestant tradition to do so. It was a council by it's function and ecclesiastical structure. Complaining the word "council" is not in the Bible is an absurd petty legalism. Trinity is not in the Bible either, does that make it invalid? I've said this before and I'll say it again:

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.

2. The authority to make binding decisions on all Christians ended when the last book of the NT was written. This is generally understood to be the Book of Revelation.

You don't understand the difference between inspiration and canonization. Canonizing books does not make them inspired, they already were inspired. It means the inspired books were binding on all Christians. You are going in circles and repeating yourself.

4. I agree with you that the Holy Spirit did not stop guiding (or prompting). However, I disagree with you that it is the church leaders responsibility to properly interpret Scripture.

That depends on which church leaders you are talking about, what the controversy was is, and what heresy is being addressed. Sola scrtiptura has never addressed a heresy, mainly because every heretic in the world was a sola scripturist!
Contrary to the psychotic ramblings of anti-Catholics, we CAN interpret the Bible for ourselves. The parameters are much broader than the confining sola scriptura approach.

What did Paul state in Acts 17:11 (ESV)? 'Now these Jews [at Berea] were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so'. Note what this verse does NOT say. It does not promote the view that these Jews were church leaders whose job it was to properly interpret Scripture. It is the responsibility of ALL Christians to be careful hearers and interpreters of Scripture to see if the things preached were so. All Christians need to be hear the word preached or written and compare with Scripture.

Well, you're half right.
Acts 17:11-12 - here we see the verse "they searched the Scriptures." This refers to the Bereans who used the Old Testament to confirm the oral teachings about the Messiah. The verses do not say the Bereans searched the Scriptures alone (which is what Protestants are attempting to prove when quoting this passage). Moreover, the Bereans accepted the oral teaching from Paul as God's word before searching the Scriptures, which disproves the Berean's use of sola Scriptura.

Acts 17:11-12 - Also, the Bereans, being more "noble" or "fair minded," meant that they were more reasonable and less violent than the Thessalonians in Acts. 17:5-9. Their greater fairmindedness was not because of their use of Scripture, which Paul directed his listeners to do as was his custom (Acts 17:3).

Furthermore, the Bereans were Greek speaking Pharisees, and included the Greek Deuterocanon scriptures in their search (the 7 books Luther threw out) 200 years before Christ.

You may believe in an infallible church, but the Bible doesn't teach that view. The only thing that is infallible (breathed out by God: theopneustos) is Scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17 ESV).

Oz

This is the 4th or 5th time you have confused inspiration with infallibility, and the difference has been repeatedly explained. Please consult a dictionary. You cannot comprehend infallibility due to the sola scriptura mindset. And you forget or ignore the fact that Jesus breathed on the Apostles.

Isa. 35:8, 54:13-17 - this prophecy refers to the Church as the Holy Way where sons will be taught by God and they will not err. The Church has been given the gift of infallibility when teaching about faith and morals, where her sons are taught directly by God and will not err. This gift of infallibility means that the Church is prevented from teaching error by the power of the Holy Spirit (it does not mean that Church leaders do not sin!)

Acts 9:2; 22:4; 24:14,22 - the early Church is identified as the "Way" prophesied in Isaiah 35:8 where fools will not err therein.

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.
Oz says it is they who speak without the Spirit of their Father, therefore the Church cannot be infallible, in flat out contradiction to what Jesus said.

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. isn't that right, Oz?

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. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with the holiness of the person receiving the gift. Sola scripturists claim the individual can bind and loose.

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. Oz must assert that Jesus left us.

Luke 10:16 - whoever hears you, hears me. Whoever rejects you, rejects me. Jesus is very clear that the bishops of the Church speak with Christ's infallible authority. Oz has been asserting the Jesus is NOT infallible, because he cannot comprehend that infallibility is a protection promised to us from Jesus

Luke 22:32 - Jesus prays for Peter, that his faith may not fail. Jesus' prayer for Peter's faith is perfectly efficacious, and this allows Peter to teach the faith without error (which means infallibly). Did God ignore Jesus' prayer???

John 11:51-52 - some non-Catholics argue that sinners cannot have the power to teach infallibly. But in this verse, God allows Caiaphas to prophesy infallibly, even though he was evil and plotted Jesus' death. God allows sinners to teach infallibly, just as He allows sinners to become saints. As a loving Father, He exalts His children, and is bound by His own justice to give His children a mechanism to know truth from error.

1 & 2 Peter - for example, Peter denied Christ, he was rebuked by his greatest bishop (Paul), and yet he wrote two infallible encyclicals. Further, if Peter could teach infallibly by writing, why could he not also teach infallibly by preaching? And why couldn't his successors so teach as well?

Gen. to Deut.; Psalms; Paul - Moses and maybe Paul were murderers and David was an adulterer and murderer, but they also wrote infallibly. God uses us sinful human beings because when they respond to His grace and change their lives, we give God greater glory and His presence is made more manifest in our sinful world.

John 14:16 - Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would be with the Church forever. The Spirit prevents the teaching of error on faith and morals. It is guaranteed because the guarantee comes from God Himself who cannot lie.

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.

1 Cor. 2:13 – Paul explains that what the ministers teach is taught, not by human wisdom, but by the Spirit. The ministers are led to interpret and understand the spiritual truths God gives them over time.

Eph. 4:13,15 – Paul indicates that attaining to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God to mature manhood is a process. We are to grow up in every way into Christ. Doctrine (which means “teaching”) develops as we understand God’s Revelation.

Acts 15:27-28 - the apostles know that their teaching is being guided by the Holy Spirit. He protects the Church from deception.

Gal. 2:11-14 - non-Catholics sometimes use this verse to diminish Peter's evident authority over the Church. This is misguided. In this verse, Paul does not oppose Peter's teaching, but his failure to live by it. Infallibility (teaching without error) does not mean impeccability (living without sinning). Peter was the one who taught infallibly on the Gentile's salvation in Acts 10,11. With this rebuke, Paul is really saying "Peter, you are our leader, you teach infallibly, and yet your conduct is inconsistent with these facts. You of all people!" The verse really underscores, and not diminishes, the importance of Peter's leadership in the Church.

Eph. 3:10 - the wisdom of God is known, even to the intellectually superior angels, through the Church (not the Scriptures). This is an incredible verse, for it tells us that God's infinite wisdom comes to us through the Church. For that to happen, the Church must be protected from teaching error on faith and morals (or she wouldn't be endowed with the wisdom of God).

Eph. 3:9 - this, in fact, is a mystery hidden for all ages - that God manifests His wisdom through one infallible Church for all people.

Eph. 3:20 - God's glory is manifested in the Church by the power of the Spirit that works within the Church's leaders. As a Father, God exalts His children to roles of leadership within the body of Christ.

Eph. 5:23-27, Col. 1:18 - Christ is the head of the Church, His Bride, for which He died to make it Holy and without blemish. There is only one Church, just as Christ only has one Bride.

Eph. 5:32- Paul calls the Church a "mystery." This means that the significance of the Church as the kingdom of God in our midst cannot be understood by reason alone. Understanding the Church also requires faith. "Church" does not mean a building of believers. That is not a mystery. Non-Catholics often view church as mere community, but not the supernatural mystery of Christ physically present among us.

1 Thess. 5:21 - Paul commands us to test everything. But we must have something against which to test. This requires one infallible guide that is available to us, and this guide is the Catholic Church, whose teachings on faith and morals have never changed.

1 Tim. 3:15 - Paul says the apostolic Church (not Scripture) is the pillar and foundation of the truth. But for the Church to be the pinnacle and foundation of truth, she must be protected from teaching error, or infallible. She also must be the Catholic Church, whose teachings on faith and morals have not changed for 2,000 years. God loves us so much that He gave us a Church that infallibly teaches the truth so that we have the fullness of the means of salvation in His only begotten Son.

1 John 4:6 – John writes that whoever knows God “listens to us” (the bishops and successors to the apostles). Then John writes “This is the way we discern truth and error. John does not say “reading the Bible is the way we discern truth and error.” But if listening to mere human beings helps us discern truth and error, God would have had to endow his chosen leaders with the special gift of infallibility, so that they would be prevented from teaching error.

Matt. to Rev. - we must also note that not all Christian doctrines are explicit in Scripture (for example, the dogma of the Blessed Trinity). However, infallibility is strongly inferred from the foregoing passages. Non-Catholic Christians should ask themselves why they accept the Church's teaching on the three persons of the Trinity, the two natures of Christ in one divine person, and the New Testament canon of Scripture (all defined by the Catholic Church), but not other teachings regarding the Eucharist, Mary, the saints, and purgatory? Because of Luther and Calvin's opinions?

a satire on the absurdity of sola scriptura

 

[mjrhealth]

I suupose it goes well along with this


Mar 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mar 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
Mar 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

And that is why we are ALL given the Holy Spirit

1Jn 2:26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
1Jn 2:28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.

So you can abide in your church and we will abide in Him.

 

[Mungo]

You may not like my answer, but I have given you an answer.

The (revised) question was:
How do we know which authors are the infallible ones through whom God breathed out the infallible Scripture?

You made NO attempt to answer that.

 

[epostle1]

He made an attempt, but still didn't answer the question. Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is a "standard of truth"—even the preeminent one—but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition and the Church. The Bible doesn’t teach that.

Catholics agree that Scripture is materially sufficient. In other words, on this view, every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction. But no biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the formal authority or rule of faith in isolation from the Church and Tradition. Sola scriptura can’t even be deduced from implicit passages.

[SIZE=13pt]A Visual Diagram of the History of the New Testament Canon[/SIZE]
Explanation of Symbols: * Book accepted (or quoted)
? Book personally disputed or mentioned as disputed
x Book rejected, unknown, or not cited

New Testament Period (c.35-90)​

In this period there is little formal sense of a Canon of Scripture

Apostolic Fathers (90-160) Summary: The New Testament is still not clearly distinguished qualitatively from other Christian writings​

Gospels Generally accepted by 130
Justin Martyr's "Gospels" contain apocryphal material
Polycarp first uses all four Gospels now in Scripture

Acts Scarcely known or quoted​

Pauline Corpus Generally accepted by 130, yet quotations are rarely introduced as scriptural
Philippians, 1 Timothy: x Justin Martyr
2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon: x Polycarp, Justin Martyr​

Hebrews Not considered canonical
? Clement of Rome
x Polycarp, Justin Martyr
James Not considered canonical; not even quoted
x Polycarp, Justin Martyr
1 Peter Not considered canonical
2 Peter Not considered canonical, nor cited
1, 2, 3 John Not considered canonical
x Justin Martyr
1 John ? Polycarp / 3 John x Polycarp -
Jude Not considered canonical
x Polycarp, Justin Marty
Revelation Not canonical
x Polycarp​

Irenaeus to Origen (160-250)​

[SIZE=10pt]Summary: Awareness of a Canon begins towards the end of the 2nd century[/SIZE]​

Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria first use phrase New Testament​

Gospels Accepted
Acts Gradually accepted
Pauline Corpus Accepted with some exceptions:
2 Timothy: x Clement of Alexandria
Philemon: x Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria
Hebrews Not canonical before the 4th century in the West.
? Origen
* First accepted by Clement of Alexandria
James Not canonical
? First mentioned by Origen
x Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria
1 Peter Gradual acceptance
* First accepted by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria
2 Peter Not canonical
? First mentioned by Origen
x Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria
1 John Gradual acceptance
* First accepted by Irenaeus
x Origen
2 John Not canonical
? Origen
x Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria
3 John Not canonical
? Origen
x Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria
Jude Gradual acceptance
* Clement of Alexandria
x Origen

Revelation Gradual acceptance
* First accepted by Clement of Alexandria
x Barococcio Canon, c.206 Epistle of Barnabas * Clement of Alexandria, Origen-rejected
Shepherd of Hermas * rejected: Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria
The Didache * Clement of Alexandria, Origen
The Apocalypse of Peter * Clement of Alexandria - quoted
The Acts of Paul * Origen -quoted
* Appears in Greek, Latin (5), Syriac, Armenian, & Arabic translations -
Gospel of Hebrews * Clement of Alexandria - quoted​

Muratorian Canon (c.190)​

Excludes Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter​

Includes The Apocalypse of Peter, Wisdom of Solomon ​

Origen to Nicaea​

(250-325) Summary: The Catholic epistles and Revelation are still being disputed
Gospels, Acts, Pauline Corpus Accepted
Hebrews * Accepted in the East
x, ? Still disputed in the West
James x, ? Still disputed in the East
x Not accepted in the West
1 Peter Fairly well accepted
1 John Fairly well accepted
2, 3 John, Jude Still disputed
Revelation Disputed, especially in the East
x Dionysius​

Council of Nicaea (325)​

Questions canonicity of James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude​

From 325 to the Council of Carthage (397)​

​

Summary: Athanasius first lists our present 27 New Testament books as such in 367. Disputes still persist concerning several books, almost right up until 397, when the Canon is authoritatively closed
Gospels, Acts, Pauline Corpus, 1 Peter, 1 John Accepted
Hebrews Eventually accepted in the West
James Slow acceptance
Not even quoted in the West until around 350!
2 Peter Eventually accepted
2, 3 John, Jude Eventually accepted
Revelation Eventually accepted
x Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianz
Epistle of Barnabas * Codex Sinaiticus - late 4th century
Shepherd of Hermas * Codex Sinaiticus - late 4th century (quoted, later rejected)
Used as a textbook for catechumens according to Athanasius
1 Clement, 2 Clement * Codex Alexandrinus - early 5th century (!)

Protestants do, of course, accept the traditional Canon of the New Testament (albeit somewhat inconsistently and with partial reluctance - Luther questioned the full canonicity of James, Revelation and other books). By doing so, they necessarily acknowledged the authority of the Catholic Church. If they had not, it is likely that Protestantism would have gone the way of all the old heresies of the first millennium of the Church Age - degenerating into insignificant, bizarre cults and disappearing into the putrid backwaters of history.

Sources for N.T. Canon Chart (all Protestant):​

​

1) Douglas, J.D., ed., New Bible Dictionary, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962 ed., 194-98.
2) Cross, F.L., and E.A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd ed., 1983, 232,300,309-10,626,641,724,1049,1069;
3) Geisler, Norman L. & William E. Nix, From God to Us: How We Got Our Bible, Chicago: Moody Press, 1974, 109-12,117-25.
On what grounds, then, can we receive the canon today except on the authority of the Church in the fifth century? Tradition, Church authority, and development were all crucial elements in the very human process of selection of the biblical canon.

It is foolish to assert, then, 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 someone many centuries later claim that it was altogether simple for him and every other sincere Christian to determine?

 

[tom55]

Tom,

1. What did the Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15) deal with? The false teaching about circumcision (Acts 15:1 ESV). The main thing that came out of that Council that is theopneustos (God-breathed) is the record of it in the infallible Scriptures through the Book of Acts. Where in Acts 15 is it called a Council? It seems that that is an interpretation, even by Bible translators (see the ESV divisions in this chapter).

2. The authority to make binding decisions on all Christians ended when the last book of the NT was written. This is generally understood to be the Book of Revelation.

3. You state, 'Decisions that are made by Church leaders that are binding on all Christians after the Apostles passed are not SCRIPTURE'. I agree. However, if one wants to be a member of any church/denomination, that person needs to agree with the church's basic beliefs and be subject to the rules of that church.

4. I agree with you that the Holy Spirit did not stop guiding (or prompting). However, I disagree with you that it is the church leaders responsibility to properly interpret Scripture. What did Paul state in Acts 17:11 (ESV)? 'Now these Jews [at Berea] were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so'. Note what this verse does NOT say. It does not promote the view that these Jews were church leaders whose job it was to properly interpret Scripture. It is the responsibility of ALL Christians to be careful hearers and interpreters of Scripture to see if the things preached were so. All Christians need to be hear the word preached or written and compare with Scripture.

You may believe in an infallible church, but the Bible doesn't teach that view. The only thing that is infallible (breathed out by God: theopneustos) is Scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17 ESV).

Oz

1. The meeting of Church leaders in Jerusalem fit the definition of a "Council": an ecclesiastical assembly. Historians call it such. Scholars call it such. It doesn't matter if the word Council is not in Acts. It was in FACT a Council. A Council that in FACT produced a DOCUMENT that was read to all Christians and that was in FACT binding on all Christians. (Matthew 16:19) You seem to believe that that authority died with the Apostles but scripture and history prove you wrong.

2. That authority to make binding decisions on all Christians was in FACT passed down (2 Tim. 2:2, Matthew 28:20) to The Church that the gates of hell will not prevail against (Matthew 16:18). Your theory that no Church has the authority to make binding decisions on all Christians is opposite of what Scripture teaches. It is opposite of what the Apostles practiced and The Church leaders who proceeded the Apostles practiced and the leaders who proceeded those men practiced and so on and so on.... According to your theory no Church has binding authority which means no one can be called a heretic and all interpretations of Scripture are valid. Scripture says opposite of that.

3. I do not know what you mean by "basic beliefs" and "rules" of a church. I am speaking only of beliefs/rules/dogma/doctrine that effect ones SALVATION. I believe what Scripture teaches: there is One Church that has the authority to bind all Christians to One rule of faith so that we are all One body speaking with One voice and that One Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth. (Romans 12:5, 1 Corinthians 12, 1 Corinthians 1:10, 1 Tim 3:15).

4. This theory that "It is the responsibility of ALL Christians to be careful hearers and interpreters of Scripture to see if the things preached were so" is opposite of Scripture (2 Peter 3:16, Acts 8:31). On one hand it is OK for believers to explore the meaning of Scripture but on the other hand it takes an authoritative Church that has the power to bind and loosen and to authentically define the meaning of Scripture. In regards to your Acts 17:11 theory see Kepha's post #327.

I do believe that there is an infallible Church, just like Scripture teaches. It seems you think The Church's authority disappeared when the Apostles died? Scripture and history prove you wrong. On your website/blog you quote the words of the ECF that fit your belief. How about we quote the words of the ECF that support an authoritative Church that has the power to bind and loosen with the guidance of the Holy Ghost?

You seem to have accepted the Protestant tradition of The Reformers. You do know that they didn’t suddenly “find” sola scriptura in the New Testament? What they did was reject the authority of The Church and they were then left with Scripture alone to interpret it as they see it. How sad.

 

[mjrhealth]

re, how could someone many centuries later claim that it was altogether simple for him and every other sincere Christian to determine

Its called "faith in God". its waht saves people.

 

[OzSpen]

The (revised) question was:
How do we know which authors are the infallible ones through whom God breathed out the infallible Scripture?

You made NO attempt to answer that.

I have answered that question but you seem to have avoided my answer. I'll not be repeating it.

 

[Mungo]

I have answered that question but you seem to have avoided my answer. I'll not be repeating it.

Because you didn't make an answer.

 

[OzSpen]

Because you didn't make an answer.

See #316. See also,

"Does God Observe the Law of Contradiction? ... Should We?" (PDF), by Richard L. Pratt, Jr.

Some more criteria for determining which books should be in the Bible are in Dr Norman Geisler's article, 'The Canonicity of the Bible'.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Kepha's post #327.

I do believe that there is an infallible Church, just like Scripture teaches.

Where?

 

[tom55]

Where?

It is catholic (universal) and it is lead by the Pope in Rome. Ignatius of Antioch student of the Apostle John and the third bishop of Antioch: "Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

Who or what Church do you think is infallible?

 

[OzSpen]

It is catholic (universal) and it is lead by the Pope in Rome. Ignatius of Antioch student of the Apostle John and the third bishop of Antioch: "Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

Who or what Church do you think is infallible?

You have not quoted Scripture. It is only Scripture that is inspired (God-breathed). See 2 Tim 3:16-17 (ESV).

Ignatius of Antioch and the Pope are not inspired (inerrant) according to Scripture.

Oz

 

[tom55]

You have not quoted Scripture. It is only Scripture that is inspired (God-breathed). See 2 Tim 3:16-17 (ESV).

Ignatius of Antioch and the Pope are not inspired (inerrant) according to Scripture.

Oz

I did quote scripture to back up the FACT that the Church was given infallibility when teaching on the matters of faith. (post #331). Ignatius and other Apostolic Fathers say the Catholic Church has that authority. But you already know that since you study and quote the Apostolic and ECF extensively so there is no reason for me to bore you and re-quote them here. I believe Scripture and the ECF.

You have, once again, failed to prove me wrong.

BTW..Here in America we are celebrating Thanksgiving today. It is a time to acknowledge things we are thankful for and spend time with family. I am thankful for you and your courteous debates....God Bless.

 

[mjrhealth]

Ignatius and other Apostolic Fathers say the Catholic Church has that authority.

God did not, neither did Jesus not the disciples. its like someone trying to justify there own existence, Just to think, if man walked with God religion would have no place but

Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;

and so man still today denies God just as teh Israelites did,

1Sa_8:7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

And its still teh same today.