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

[OzSpen]

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.

There is not a word in your post #331 that affirms the infallibility of the Church. That's a RCC interpretation but it is not found in Scripture.

Since we don't have common ground on acceptance of the authority of Scripture alone, I don't see any reason for further discussion here.

I have many things to be thankful for, one of which is the wonderful salvation provided through faith in Christ alone (Gal 2:16 ESV). When my family and I were living in the USA, we celebrated 5 Thanksgiving Days. We are grateful for your heritage.

I hope that I can continue to be courteous in my approach to debates. It's not always easy when we disagree on some fundamentals.

Oz

 

[Mungo]

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

Never mind.

 

[OzSpen]

Never mind.

So you can't tolerate Dr Norman Geisler's criteria for canonicity? opcorn:

 

[Mungo]

So you can't tolerate Dr Norman Geisler's criteria for canonicity? opcorn:

Waiting for you to answer my question opcorn:

 

[OzSpen]

Waiting for you to answer my question opcorn:

What question? The one at #342:




Never mind.

 

[epostle1]

Funny how Giesler makes no mention of the councils that discerned the canon. but asserts the usual reformist nonsense about the Church being over the canon. It's a centuries old straw man.

(Acts 16:4). Acts 15:28).

When we put all of that together, and consider it as objectively as possible, we see an infallible council, presided over by Apostles (Peter: 15:7-11, and James: 15:13-21), and proclaimed by an apostle (Paul). It was a development of Tradition and Mosaic Law (about circumcision and what was proper to eat) and a binding exercise of Church authority at the highest levels; even seemingly infallible. All of this is strong counter-indication of sola scriptura, which proclaims that no Church or council can bind the conscience of a Christian believer, or can claim to be infallible. For the Protestant, only Scripture can do that. Yet here the same Scripture seems to refute that very proposition.

This is how one goes about refuting sola scriptura: by demonstrating how biblical teaching makes the Protestant rule of faith collapse into endless self-contradictions and incoherence. It's a death by a thousand qualifications (and worse).

 

[mjrhealth]

Neither did He send men out into teh world to build corrupt religions based on corrupt interpretation of the scriptures so that the religious could deny Christ and God and all there good work, keep men in bodage "SLAVERY" and so presecute the one they claim to serve.

Mat_25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me

You cannot turn a lie into the truth, it is what it is. and if you keep on insisting your lie is the truth, than you are calling God a liar.

Oh thats right. you already rejected the truth...

 

[heretoeternity]

Neither did He send men out into teh world to build corrupt religions based on corrupt interpretation of the scriptures so that the religious could deny Christ and God and all there good work, keep men in bodage "SLAVERY" and so presecute the one they claim to serve.

Mat_25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me

You cannot turn a lie into the truth, it is what it is. and if you keep on insisting your lie is the truth, than you are calling God a liar.

Oh thats right. you already rejected the truth...

Why do you argue against the Roman religious system? You seem to be following most of their doctrines, do you realize that?
Read Revelation 17 of the Bible, and see what God thinks of the Roman system, and the daughters, who claim to be removed from it, but still follow their doctrines...do you realize that?

 

[OzSpen]

Funny how Giesler makes no mention of the councils that discerned the canon. but asserts the usual reformist nonsense about the Church being over the canon. It's a centuries old straw man.

Here you go again with your loving to emphasise the importance of Church Councils determining the books in the canon. Geisler (please learn to spell his name correctly) demonstrated sound reasons/criteria for determining the books of the Bible (canonicity).

Oz

 

[mjrhealth]

Why do you argue against the Roman religious system? You seem to be following most of their doctrines, do you realize that?

Hmm you should read your own posts, I speak of Jesus you speak of the law, in whom is our salvation.

 

[Wormwood]

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.

Tom, let's not pretend the "Catholic Church" has had an unimpeded succession from day 1 (or even that Apostolic succession can be proven to be something the Apostles themselves intended). History shows many splinters and controversies over who was an authoritative Pope, or which church was the true one (east or west). The early focus on ensuring bishops were present was an effort to protect against heresy in the absence of a canon. It was not a plea for church infallibility.

 

[epostle1]

Here you go again with your loving to emphasise the importance of Church Councils determining the books in the canon. Geisler (please learn to spell his name correctly) demonstrated sound reasons/criteria for determining the books of the Bible (canonicity).

Oz

I never said the Church determined the canon, (Geisler said it, which is a misrepresentation, you said it, which is misquoting me) she DISCERNED the canon. Contrary to sola scripture myth, the councils were very important. I agree with what he says in the first chart, but then totally blows it with this statement:

"In the incorrect view the authority of the Scriptures is based on the authority of the church, the correct view is that the authority of the church is to be found in the authority of the scriptures. "

This is totally muddled. First, the Church predates the canon, not the other way around. Second, he presumes a false relationship between the church and scripture by pitting one against the other. Third,he fails to see a harmonious relationship between Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium, the BIBLICAL rule of faith.
Then he asserts the "corrrect view" the Church is under the canon, but the Church has never made the claim of being over the canon. For a highly respected scholar like Geisler, he sure makes up a lot of false assertions, and he should know better. The authority of Scripture has been a Tradition of the Church before the completion of the canon.

What year did Geisler's version of church authority spring out of the bible? Without church authority, and without councils, and without apostolic succession
THERE WOULD BE NO BIBLE!
Since you deny all three,you are forced to accept false histories.

Geisler doesn't give any EXPLICIT verses supporting sola scriptura because there aren't any.

It is very interesting to note that in I Timothy 3:15 we see, not the Bible, but the Church – that is, the living community of believers founded upon St. Peter and the Apostles and headed by their successors – called "the pillar and ground of the truth." Of course, this passage is not meant in any way to diminish the importance of the Bible, but it is intending to show that Jesus Christ did establish an authoritative and teaching Church which was commissioned to teach "all nations." (Matt. 28:19).

​

 

[epostle1]

Tom, let's not pretend the "Catholic Church" has had an unimpeded succession from day 1 (or even that Apostolic succession can be proven to be something the Apostles themselves intended). History shows many splinters and controversies over who was an authoritative Pope, or which church was the true one (east or west). The early focus on ensuring bishops were present was an effort to protect against heresy in the absence of a canon. It was not a plea for church infallibility.

Well, if only a bishop can ordain another bishop, are you saying there is a break in continuity somewhere? I'd like to see your evidence.
It's true there were false popes and anti-popes and corrupt popes, but doesn't that show Satan's efforts to attack the papacy? Why would he bother if the papacy is no threat? Does "not prevail" mean "never attack"? What year did the gates of hell prevail? You be the first to answer that question, since no one else has.

Infallibility is not a plea, and it is not above inspiration. It rests solely on the words of Jesus. To declare a heresy demands infallibility.
I've posted several times on what infallibility means, giving several proof texts . No point in posting again. See post #262

Jesus to Peter: "...Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven..."
Either the Church is infallible in binding and loosing, or heaven can bind errors.(which makes no sense)

Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ's own authority.

Acts 1:20 - a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his "bishopric") is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, "I'll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own."

Acts 1:22 - literally, "one must be ordained" to be a witness with us of His resurrection. Apostolic ordination is required in order to teach with Christ's authority.

Acts 6:6 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown.

Col 1:25 - Paul calls his position a divine "office." An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it's not an office. See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another successor after the previous office-holder’s death.

2 Tim. 2:2 - this verse shows God's intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles.

 

[heretoeternity]

The church Jesus established was commissioned to teach all nations....what makes you think He would establish a pagan based religious organization in Rome? Guess your false doctrines have blinded you to the truth...time to wake up and come out of her..Rev 17 and 18

 

[OzSpen]

What year did Geisler's version of church authority spring out of the bible? Without church authority, and without councils, and without apostolic succession
THERE WOULD BE NO BIBLE!
Since you deny all three,you are forced to accept false histories.

kepha,

You build another straw man fallacy.

Geisler doesn't give any EXPLICIT verses supporting sola scriptura because there aren't any.

Again you give us a straw man fallacy. What does Acts 17:11 (ESV) state? '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'.

It does NOT state: 'Now these Jews [at Berea] were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the Pope's word spoken ex-cathedra with all eagerness, examining the Pope's statements and teaching of Councils daily to see if these things were so'.

You are short-sighted indeed when you refuse to acknowledge the teaching of sola scriptura (Scripture alone) as taught by verses such as Acts 17:11. We also must not overlook the inspiration of Scripture alone in 2 Tim 3:16-17 (ESV).

I think you have a problem with myopia.

Oz

 

[mjrhealth]

When Jesus who is the truth, cannot convice men of the truth, than what chance do us mere men have ???

 

[epostle1]

kepha,


You build another straw man fallacy.

You should specify the fallacy instead of being rude. Still waiting for an answer to
What year did Geisler's version of church authority spring out of the bible? I don't think he has an anwer either. It's missing in his polemics.

Again you give us a straw man fallacy. What does Acts 17:11 (ESV) state? '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'.

It does NOT state: 'Now these Jews [at Berea] were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the Pope's word spoken ex-cathedra with all eagerness, examining the Pope's statements and teaching of Councils daily to see if these things were so'.

You are short-sighted indeed when you refuse to acknowledge the teaching of sola scriptura (Scripture alone) as taught by verses such as Acts 17:11. We also must not overlook the inspiration of Scripture alone in 2 Tim 3:16-17 (ESV).

Peter and Paul were colleagues, not competitors. It was Paul's job to preach to the Bereans,, not Peter's. Your condescending, juvenile dig at the Pope is uncalled for. Pitting the Bible against the Church is not in the Bible, but you do it because it is a man made Protestant tradition.

BTW, Paul was always subject to the Church.

I think you have a problem with myopia.x

Oz

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 you 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 Jews, and included in their search the Greek dueterocanon that they had been using as Scripture 200 years before Christ, and rejected by Protestants 1500 years later.

We also must not overlook the inspiration of Scripture alone in 2 Tim 3:16-17 (ESV).

It doesn't use the word "alone",. that's adding to Scripture. It's not even implied. You conveniently leave out verses 14 - 15 because it destroys the SS theory.

2 Timothy 3:
[14] But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, (Tradition)
knowing from whom you learned it (Magisterium)
[15] and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (Scriptures)
[16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
[17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Note verse 14-15. It admonishes Timothy to do three things:
1) Remember what you have learned and firmly believed (Tradition)
2) Know from whom you learned it (Magisterium)
3) Know you have the Scriptures

The Bible on St. Paul's list comes in third, not first. He actually gives here the traditional Catholic teaching on the three sources of sound teaching.
In verse 15 he goes into an excursus on the Bible. This brief excursus emphasizes the value of the Bible and recommends a fourfold method of exegesis. This verse was used in the pre-Reformation Church as a proof text for the Quadriga which was the standard Catholic approach to the Bible. The Quadriga method used the following four categories:

Literal/Literary (teaching) - the text as it is written
Analogical (reproof) - matters of faith
Anagogical (correction) - matters of hope/prophecy
Moral (training in righteousness) - matters of charity

The analogical, anagogical and moral senses of the Bible were known collectively as the spiritual senses, still taught today.
The 'reformers' rejected the BIBLICAL fourfold method of exegesis in favor of a more literal approach, and ignored 2 Tim 3:16!!!

2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul's reference to the "man of God" who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an
instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although you use it to prove your case, the passage is not even relevant to
most of the faithful.

Tim. 3:17 - further, Paul's use of the word "complete" for every good work is "artios" which simply means the clergy is "suitable" or "fit." Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, you cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.

James 1:4 - steadfastness also makes a man "perfect (teleioi) and complete (holoklepoi), lacking nothing." This verse is important because "teleioi"and "holoklepoi" are much stronger words than "artios," but Protestants do not argue that steadfastness is all one needs to be a Christian

 

[OzSpen]

kepha,

You wrote:

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.

Nice try, but no cigar! :wacko: Paul told the Bereans to 'examine the Scriptures daily' to examine if what Paul preached and what others preached was true. The Berean Christians examined the Scriptures alone and not Pope's encyclicals to determine if the preaching was correct and spot on. To tell the Bereans to be 'examining the Scriptures daily' to check the orthodoxy of Paul's and other's teaching, demonstrated that Paul had no other authority to refer to. It was Scripture alone! To arrive at any other conclusion distorts grammatical interpretation.

If I announce that you will find gold bullion at #21 Boundary St., Spring Hill, Brisbane and in no other house on that street, then I'm saying that in #21 alone will you find gold bullion.

You claim:

It doesn't use the word "alone",. that's adding to Scripture. It's not even implied. You conveniently leave out verses 14 - 15 because it destroys the SS theory.

It doesn't have to use the word 'alone' in the verse because of the clear statement of what is said, 'Examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so'. It doesn't say, 'Examine the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, Josephus and Tacitus to see if these things are so'. Paul made the statement exclusive to Scripture. Why? Because it is Scripture alone that is the final authority for the Christian believers.

I know that doesn't go down well with your RCC thinking on this point, but Paul was advocating Scripture alone as having divine authority, long before the Reformers. He was emphasising the theopneustos (God-breathed) nature of Scripture alone in 2 Tim 3:16-17 (ESV). No comprehensive decisions of Councils carried the authority of Scripture alone. We know that Acts 15:1-21 (ESV) demonstrates the decisions of the Jerusalem Council that made it to Scripture. The rest of those decisions have not made it to Scripture, so do not come with God's divine, authoritative seal.

Oz

 

[epostle1]

kepha,

You wrote:

Nice try, but no cigar! :wacko: Paul told the Bereans to 'examine the Scriptures daily' to examine if what Paul preached and what others preached was true. The Berean Christians examined the Scriptures alone and not Pope's encyclicals to determine if the preaching was correct and spot on. To tell the Bereans to be 'examining the Scriptures daily' to check the orthodoxy of Paul's and other's teaching, demonstrated that Paul had no other authority to refer to. It was Scripture alone! To arrive at any other conclusion distorts grammatical interpretation.

If I announce that you will find gold bullion at #21 Boundary St., Spring Hill, Brisbane and in no other house on that street, then I'm saying that in #21 alone will you find gold bullion.

You claim:

It doesn't have to use the word 'alone' in the verse because of the clear statement of what is said, 'Examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so'. It doesn't say, 'Examine the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, Josephus and Tacitus to see if these things are so'. Paul made the statement exclusive to Scripture. Why? Because it is Scripture alone that is the final authority for the Christian believers.

Acts 17 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessaloni′ca,
1) for they received the word with all eagerness,
2)examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
3) Many of them therefore believed,...

1)They received the word they had been reading all their lives? That makes no sense.
2) What word did they receive with all eagerness? The word of Paul's oral preaching, or the scriptures they already had?
3) if they believed scripture alone what was the point of Paul's oral teaching?
They heard Paul first, That should be obvious. .Then they verified his teaching with scripture. Paul's preaching + scriptures is not scripture alone. It's oral preaching (Tradition) plus scripture. Your scenario is illogical.


I know that doesn't go down well with your RCC thinking on this point, but Paul was advocating Scripture alone as having divine authority, long before the Reformers. He was emphasising the theopneustos (God-breathed) nature of Scripture alone in 2 Tim 3:16-17 (ESV).

Translation: post #357 has me stumped so I will ignore it.

No comprehensive decisions of Councils carried the authority of Scripture alone. We know that Acts 15:1-21 (ESV) demonstrates the decisions of the Jerusalem Council that made it to Scripture. The rest of those decisions have not made it to Scripture, so do not come with God's divine, authoritative seal.

Oz


The authority and inspiration of Scripture is not contested. No comprehensive decisions of Councils carried the authority of Scripture alone because scripture alone is a man made, unworkable, unbiblical tradition of men.

 

[tom55]

There is not a word in your post #331 that affirms the infallibility of the Church. That's a RCC interpretation but it is not found in Scripture.

Since we don't have common ground on acceptance of the authority of Scripture alone, I don't see any reason for further discussion here.

I have many things to be thankful for, one of which is the wonderful salvation provided through faith in Christ alone (Gal 2:16 ESV). When my family and I were living in the USA, we celebrated 5 Thanksgiving Days. We are grateful for your heritage.

I hope that I can continue to be courteous in my approach to debates. It's not always easy when we disagree on some fundamentals.

Oz

What makes your interpretation right and the RCC interpretation wrong? Is it possible that you are wrong and the RCC is right? You are relying on your interpretation of Scripture to say that the RCC interpretation of Scripture is wrong? Interesting.... opcorn:

Your entire website is your interpretation of Scripture and I suspect you think your interpretation is superior to everyone else's? (I am impressed by the volume of info on your website) Also I noticed on your website you did not fully quote Irenaeus:


[SIZE=10pt]When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition...It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture or tradition" (Against Heresies 3,2:1).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]"Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?" (Against Heresies 3,4:1).[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Likewise you did not fully quote Tertullian either:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]"Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition" (Prescription against the Heretics,28).[/SIZE]

......and from those traditions which have been carefully investigated by such as are able intelligently to understand the Gospels, and the declarations of the apostles. (ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS)

You did not fully quote Cyril of Jerusalem:

For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments. Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them an the table of your heart.

I could go on and on with more examples how you only partially quote ECF's to support your theory. If you read EVERYTHING they right you will eventually see that they were very Catholic in their beliefs and TRADITION was very important to them; just like scripture says. I had to take my Protestant glasses off so I could see the truth in their writings. You should try it.

Where in the States did you live?