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

[tom55]

"Are you calling Jerome a liar?"

Tom, give me a break. Im saying that 400 years is a long time between the time of Jerome and Clement, especially without media as we have it today. Not to mention Jerome was not an inerrant writer of Scripture. Should I quote early church writers who argued that the Jerusalem bishop should be preeminent? My point is, these records start long after, and just like the mistreatment of Scripture taking place here that takes a Scripture that has absolutely no mention of papacy, you two are using it as rationale for RCC heirarchies. You must be joking.

Why don't you quote your records and Clement's letter if you have some sort of proof to share. I have taken plenty of church history courses and have read Clement's letter. I stand by my statements. I have a feeling that your "proof" will be more of the same where you take a general comment (such as the previous comment we discussed about not performing rites without the bishops and extrapolate that into proof for the RCC heirarchy).

Even one of your own scholars, Klaus Schatz, concedes that it is wrong to read Ignatius of Antioch and the First letter of Clement's statements about the church in Rome "presiding in love" as a ecclesiastical statement arguing for this bishops primacy.

"Your main problem is your view of the Church as purely a human institution. If she were, she would never have survived 2000 of constant resistance from the world. Do you think there are 1.1 billion Catholic because our leaders are all holy and smart? I don't."

What kind of logic is that kepha?? By that rationale, Buddhism and Islam must not be "purely a human institution" since they have been around nearly as long or longer! I'm not saying the early church was not a true church or used by God. Im just saying I think the development of the structure of its hierarchy was man's doing, not Gods. It doesn't mean God didn't use it. Just like in the time of Kings, God moved among the structures they established. But I think it's a great error to confuse the people of God with the ranks and models they set up. The two are not the same.

In any event, I don't think this is going to amount to much, your mind is pretty much made up and you will see every quote and thought as validation for what you already believe. I am simply sharing why I don't hold to the views of you two, but that doesn't mean I do not believe you are Christ-loving believers. For me, the development of the papal heirarchy is not much different than the development of the doctrine of venerating Mary. This view developed over a few hundred years and was based out of the phrase that was declared Mary to be the "mother of God." The focus of the phrase originally was to defend Christ's divinity against Arianism and other heresies. However, the phrase soon began to be used to highlight Mary as the mother of God and led to her verneration. The point is, many of these quotes you see can be understood many ways. Mary, the mother of God, could be a phrase that emphasizes Mary's significance as the mother of God, or it could be understood as a phrase that emphasizes the birth of Jesus as the incarnation of God, himself. I think the focus is on the latter. Likewise, you might see a quote about Rome's primacy in love and see that as a plea for Roman supremacy as a church and therefore the supremacy of their bishop. I, however, do not think this is the heart of what is being said.

In sum, I don't think this is going anywhere. If you want to convince me, you are going to have to use Scripture. We both agree it is authoritative and divine. I, however, do not believe that men such as Tertullian, Jerome, Luther, Wesley or any other person in Church history has that same authority in my life. No where in Scripture does Paul speak of leadership needing to recieve their authority to lead from Peter or someone he had appointed to grant that authority. On the contrary, the ONLY teachings we see on starting churches and appointing elders and bishops focus only on faith in the Gospel and godly character. Unless you can show me in Scripture, I don't think we are going much further.

I hope the two of you have a blessed day.

A very simple question you did not answer: Are you calling Jerome a liar?

I will even give you another option: Was Jerome a sloppy scholar of history?

You wrote a 760 word response but did not answer any of my legitimate questions that was based on YOUR statement: We are to obey our local church leaders, but if they disobey the Gospel, we are called to remain faithful to God, first and foremost."

Which local church leaders? The Baptist Church? Methodist? Mormons? Jewish Church leaders? Lutheran? Catholic? Which local church leaders are you speaking of?

Which one do I go to in fulfillment of Matthew 18:15-18? Which Church has the binding authority scripture speaks of? Who determines if they have disobeyed the Gospel?

I know you don't think it is The Catholic Church so which church is it? You made the statement I am just asking you to back it up. opcorn:
When did Apostolic Succession end? When did the authority of The Church end?

I hope you have a blessed day also Wormwood. Is this your way of politly bowing out of this conversation since you can not back up your theory with scripture OR history?

 

[epostle1]

A very simple question you did not answer: Are you calling Jerome a liar?

I will even give you another option: Was Jerome a sloppy scholar of history?

You wrote a 760 word response but did not answer any of my legitimate questions that was based on YOUR statement: We are to obey our local church leaders, but if they disobey the Gospel, we are called to remain faithful to God, first and foremost."

Which local church leaders? The Baptist Church? Methodist? Mormons? Jewish Church leaders? Lutheran? Catholic? Which local church leaders are you speaking of?

Which one do I go to in fulfillment of Matthew 18:15-18? Which Church has the binding authority scripture speaks of? Who determines if they have disobeyed the Gospel?

I know you don't think it is The Catholic Church so which church is it? You made the statement I am just asking you to back it up. opcorn:
When did Apostolic Succession end? When did the authority of The Church end?

I hope you have a blessed day also Wormwood. Is this your way of politly bowing out of this conversation since you can not back up your theory with scripture OR history?

Our friend hasn't posted in 3 days. Maybe you stumped him or he is too busy to sit at the computer. I would like to answer the questions.
Protestants like Wormwood are forced to defend the "man made hierarchy" theory in order to justify their break from Rome. It has no basis in Scripture or history. He demands scripture, scripture scripture, and when I give scripture, scripture, scripture, you can hear the crickets chirping. (a metaphor for no reply)

I gave a list of Scriptures showing how Paul was always subject to the Church in post 384, a list that makes Protestants very uncomfortable. On with the questions.

A very simple question you did not answer: Are you calling Jerome a liar?

I will even give you another option: Was Jerome a sloppy scholar of history?

St. Jerome was under the mistaken impression that the Septuagint was in error and the Hebrew text was the correct one (as he learned from the Jewish rabbis of his day). We now know that St. Jerome was in error, thanks to findings like the Dead Sea Scrolls. (DSS)

The DSS came from 1st Century Palestine and were very different from the Hebrew texts we can document to the 4th & 5th Centuries AD. The proto-MT tradition actually existed among the DSS material but represented only part of the biblical texts that were there. It became dominant among the Jews in the late 2nd Century around the time that the Mishnah was composed. This was likely to oppose those variant Hebrew readings in the Western Palestinian tradition that the Christians favored from the Septuagint.

St. Jerome had made the incorrect assumption that the Hebrew texts available in his day were superior to the Septuagint and more faithful to the originals. We now know that this is not the case. He did not have the type of information that is available to us today and so his mistake is understandable.

It now appears that the NT and Early Church witness to the Septuagint is justified. It represents a preference on the part of the Christian movement for one of the families of Hebrew OT texts among several. It also now appears that the Jews may have deliberate chosen a different family of Hebrew biblical texts just to spite the Christians.

St. Jerome was a linguistic genius. He translated the oldest available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek manuscripts into Latin. He had the assistance of Jewish rabbis. In any case, there is no evidence in the Early Church that the Hebrew Bible was ever considered to be the 'true' Bible over and against the Septuagint. Some individual later theologians like St. Jerome favored the Hebrew texts over the Septuagint, but in retrospect they were in error as were the prot "reformers" after them. The Septuagint is a valid witness to one family of Hebrew biblical texts, which would have otherwise been unknown except for the DSS. In fact many Early (and modern) Christians have considered the Septuagint to be not only the official Bible of the Christian Church but actually the inspired word of God.

Quote
Does not the SCRIPTURE say: 'Burden not thyself above thy power' [SIRACH 13:2] Jerome, To Eustochium,Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207
St. Jerome himself calls Sirach, which he had referred to as non-canonical, as Scripture. Thus, in practice, to support doctrine, he calls it Scripture. This quotation, even if there were no other quotations from him on the Deuterocanonicals, show that his view on what is and is not Scripture can not be seen from his earlier citation.

Quote
Do not, my dearest brother, estimate my worth by the number of my years. Gray hairs are not wisdom; it is wisdom which is as good as gray hairs At least that is what Solomon says: "wisdom is the gray hair unto men.’ [Wisdom 4:9]" Moses too in choosing the seventy elders is told to take those whom he knows to be elders indeed, and to select them not for their years but for their discretion (Num. 11:16)? And, as a boy, Daniel judges old men and in the flower of youth condemns the incontinence of age (Daniel 13:55-59, or Story of Susannah 55-59, only found in the Catholic Bibles) Jerome, To Paulinus, Epistle 58 (A.D. 395), in NPNF2, VI:119

Here St. Jerome mixes use of the Book of Wisdom with Moses’ writing. In the midst of referring to Moses, he also refers to the Story of Susanna to establish a point. He makes no distinction in practice from the writing of Moses, from the two Deuterocanonical books.
Quote
"I would cite the words of the psalmist: 'the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,’ [Ps 51:17] and those of Ezekiel'I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,’ [Ez 18:23] AND THOSE OF BARUCH,'Arise, arise, O Jerusalem,’ [Baruch 5:5] AND MANY OTHER PROCLAMATIONS MADE BY THE TRUMPETS OF THE PROPHETS." Jerome, To Oceanus, Epistle 77:4 (A.D. 399), in NPNF2, VI:159

Notice how Jerome makes no distinction at all between the Psalmist, Ezekiel, and Baruch. They are all Scripture, God's Word. Also, contrary to Rhodes' assertion that the Deuterocanonicals had no prophets, Jerome himself calls Baruch a prophet, thus according his writing Scriptural status. According to Jerome, Baruch thus authoritatively spoke God's Word. He uses Baruch in tandem with these prophets to prove David in Psalm 51 correct.
More quotes here.

 

[epostle1]

.Which local church leaders? The Baptist Church? Methodist? Mormons? Jewish Church leaders? Lutheran? Catholic? Which local church leaders are you speaking of?

I think it's Baptist. They invented the Baptist Succession theory. I notice that when every you ask for names of these "local church leaders" they appeal to the all purpose "man made hierarchy" fallacy, which is contradictory and self defeating.

Baptist Successionism / Authority of the First Popes

Jesus changed His mind and abandoned His Church in 1517 and made Martin Luther the "pope" of the the so called reformation. :wacko:

Which one do I go to in fulfillment of Matthew 18:15-18? Which Church has the binding authority scripture speaks of? Who determines if they have disobeyed the Gospel?I know you don't think it is The Catholic Church so which church is it? You made the statement I am just asking you to back it up. opcorn: When did Apostolic Succession end? When did the authority of The Church end?

That's IMPOSSIBLE, according to the Bible.

a satire

 

[mjrhealth]

I think it's Baptist. They invented the Baptist Succession theory. I notice that when every you ask for names of these "local church leaders" they appeal to the all purpose "man made hierarchy" fallacy, which is contradictory and self defeating.

And thats different to what???? How blind can one be to ones own foolishness.

 

[Heb 13:8]

And thats different to what???? How blind can one be to ones own foolishness.

How do we really hold a candle to the religious, with their pictures and all. their so massive, growing in numbers with the mega churchse. I can't compete. i guess eternal life is alternative

 

[epostle1]

How do we really hold a candle to the religious, with their pictures and all. their so massive, growing in numbers with the mega churchse. I can't compete. i guess eternal life is alternative

Truth is easier to defend. But the truth is, Truth does not need a defense or it's not Truth.It stands on it's own merits.

The splendour of truth shines forth in all the works of the Creator and, in a special way, in man, created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gen 1:26). Truth enlightens man's intelligence and shapes his freedom, leading him to know and love the Lord. Hence the Psalmist prays: "Let the light of your face shine on us, O Lord" (Ps 4:6)

Jesus Christ, the true light that enlightens everyone
1. Called to salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, "the true light that enlightens everyone" (Jn 1:9), people become "light in the Lord" and "children of light" (Eph 5:8), and are made holy by "obedience to the truth" (1 Pet 1:22).

This obedience is not always easy. As a result of that mysterious original sin, committed at the prompting of Satan, the one who is "a liar and the father of lies" (Jn 8:44), man is constantly tempted to turn his gaze away from the living and true God in order to direct it towards idols (cf. 1 Thes 1:9), exchanging "the truth about God for a lie" (Rom 1:25). Man's capacity to know the truth is also darkened, and his will to submit to it is weakened. Thus, giving himself over to relativism and skepticism (cf. Jn 18:38), he goes off in search of an illusory freedom apart from truth itself.

But no darkness of error or of sin can totally take away from man the light of God the Creator. In the depths of his heart there always remains a yearning for absolute truth and a thirst to attain full knowledge of it. This is eloquently proved by man's tireless search for knowledge in all fields. It is proved even more by his search for the meaning of life. The development of science and technology, this splendid testimony of the human capacity for understanding and for perseverance, does not free humanity from the obligation to ask the ultimate religious questions. Rather, it spurs us on to face the most painful and decisive of struggles, those of the heart and of the moral conscience.

SPLENDOR OF TRUTH Pope St. John Paul the Great

 

[mjrhealth]

Truth is easier to defend. But the truth is, Truth does not need a defense or it's not Truth.It stands on it's own merits.

Tuth waht truth. There is 2000 years of history proving your church is not from God, truth that yiou are willing to ignore to hold onto your churches doctrines. rejecting teh tuth that is in Christ for your religion and tell us all it is so wonderfull. How foolish is teh wisdom of man.

 

[heretoeternity]

Informative read on the website: End times deception the antichrist hidden in plain sight...

 

[tom55]

I think we can agree that no ONE is infallible. Martin Luther asserted that Popes and Church Councils had erred OR that they were fallible. If they had erred like Luther and others think then it means God had not guided them OR His Church into all Truth. Instead God allowed them and The Church to fall into error AND even worse to proclaim error as Truth....Satan prevailed?

The most a Non-Catholic can do is tentatively assent to doctrinal statements made by his LOCAL church, pastor, or denomination. Since Non-Catholics believe that man is fallible then the statements/doctrines of their church/pastor/denomination ARE fallible and they could be changed at any time in the future. This happens all the time in Protestantism especially after ones church has changed its position on an issue one considered important; such as gay marriage. Ultimately a Protestant studies the relevant sources (Scripture, history, the writings of authoritative figures in his tradition) and chooses the Protestant denomination that agrees with HIS judgment and then proclaims that church to be right and everyone else wrong.

Protestantism has ultimately led Christians to submit only to ones own judgment which (oddly enough) he knows to be fallible.

Those that render total assent to the doctrines of the visible Church that Jesus Christ clearly established in Scripture, and that has been sustained for 2,000 years thru Apostolic Succession, knows that his doctrine is the same doctrine as Christ's. Those that assent to The Church can be secure that they are following the doctrines/beliefs of the universal Church that was spoken of in 110 AD. It is still here and it is still alive.

 

[OzSpen]

Tom,

Again you confuse two views of the church - the Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church. As a Protestant, I'm a member of the Catholic, meaning universal, church. I am not associated with the Roman Catholic Church, which you are.

I think we can agree that no ONE is infallible. Martin Luther asserted that Popes and Church Councils had erred OR that they were fallible. If they had erred like Luther and others think then it means God had not guided them OR His Church into all Truth. Instead God allowed them and The Church to fall into error AND even worse to proclaim error as Truth....Satan prevailed?

Luther, a fallible human interpreter, showed where Popes and Councils had erred. He was correct in his exposure of the false RCC doctrine of justification by works, instead of by faith.

The most a Non-Catholic can do is tentatively assent to doctrinal statements made by his LOCAL church, pastor, or denomination. Since Non-Catholics believe that man is fallible then the statements/doctrines of their church/pastor/denomination ARE fallible and they could be changed at any time in the future. This happens all the time in Protestantism especially after ones church has changed its position on an issue one considered important; such as gay marriage. Ultimately a Protestant studies the relevant sources (Scripture, history, the writings of authoritative figures in his tradition) and chooses the Protestant denomination that agrees with HIS judgment and then proclaims that church to be right and everyone else wrong.

Again this is false. Those who are born again Christians, by the Spirit of God, have this responsibility before God: 'Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true' (Acts 17:11 NIV).

The highly regarded apostle Paul who was inspired of God (theopneustos, 2 Tim 3:16-17 NIV) to write Scripture told those Christians in Thessalonica that it was their responsibility to test what he said against Scripture, just as the Berean Jewish Christians were doing. He didn't tell them to test what he said against what Peter said or what future popes and councils would say.

What you object to is what Paul agreed with and what he wrote has become Scripture.

Protestantism has ultimately led Christians to submit only to ones own judgment which (oddly enough) he knows to be fallible.

Those that render total assent to the doctrines of the visible Church that Jesus Christ clearly established in Scripture, and that has been sustained for 2,000 years thru Apostolic Succession, knows that his doctrine is the same doctrine as Christ's. Those that assent to The Church can be secure that they are following the doctrines/beliefs of the universal Church that was spoken of in 110 AD. It is still here and it is still alive.

I agree that there are some/many within Protestantism who have led some Christians to submit to false views of Scripture. However, you seem to have a blind spot or two. There have been numerous Roman Catholics who have promoted views that are contrary to Scripture. I spent 5 years of my recent life writing a 488pp doctoral dissertation exposing the heretical views of a Roman Catholic priest (now no longer a priest), John Dominic Crossan, who taught biblical studies at DePaul University, Chicago, for 23 years as a RC priest.

Have you never heard of the false teachings of Roman Catholic scholars such as Edward Schillebeeckx, Hans Kung and others.?

'Beware of false teachers' applies to Protestants, Roman Catholics, Orthodox and other Christianised groups. What's the standard of judgment? Scripture! (Acts 17:11 NIV; 2 Tim 3:16-17 NIV).

The most critical, erroneous theology of the RCC is its teaching that faith alone in Christ is insufficient for salvation.

Oz

 

[epostle1]

Tom,

Again you confuse two views of the church - the Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church. As a Protestant, I'm a member of the Catholic, meaning universal, church. I am not associated with the Roman Catholic Church, which you are.

Catholics have no problem with that. But the reformers changed the meaning of "catholic" in the Apostles' Crreed to avoid trashing the whole thing.

Luther, a fallible human interpreter, showed where Popes and Councils had erred. He was correct in his exposure of the false RCC doctrine of justification by works, instead of by faith.

If fallible Luther showed error in the Church, on what grounds are his judgments infallibler? He is fallible, or infallible on the alleged errors in the Church. Did he meet the indicated scripture requirements for infallibility?

Again this is false. Those who are born again Christians, by the Spirit of God, have this responsibility before God: 'Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true' (Acts 17:11 NIV).

This has nothing to do with the Pinciple of Private judgement. The Brereans searched the scriptures AFTER the heard (not read) Paul's apostolic revelation. We call iPaul's oral preaching Sacred Tradition, you might call it disturbing. The Bereans were Greek Pharisees, also searching the Deuterocanonical books they had been using as scripture for 200 years before Christ. (the books Luther threw out because they didn't suit his fallible opinions.)

• It is incorrect to regard St. Paul as some kind of spiritual “lone ranger,” on his own with no particular ecclesiastical allegiance, since he was commissioned by Jesus Himself as an Apostle.In his very conversion experience, Jesus informed Paul that he would be told what to do (Acts 9:6; cf. 9:17). Who told Paul to do what what?
• He went to see St. Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days in order to be confirmed in his calling (Galatians 1:18), and

fourteen years later was commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Galatians 2:1-2,9).

• He was also sent out by the Church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-4), which was in contact with the Church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:19-27).
• Later on, Paul reported back to Antioch (Acts 14:26-28).
• Acts 15:2 states: “. . . Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.” The next verse refers to Paul and Barnabas “being sent on their way by the church.”
• Paul did what he was told to do by the Jerusalem Council (where he played no huge role), and Paul and Barnabas were sent off, or commissioned by the council (15:22-27), and shared its binding teachings in their missionary journeys: “. . . delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4).

The Jerusalem Council certainly regarded its teachings as infallible, and guided by the Holy Spirit Himself. The records we have of it don’t even record much discussion about biblical prooftexts, and the main issue was circumcision (where there is a lot of Scripture to draw from). Paul accepted its authority and proclaimed its teachings (Acts 16:4).

Furthermore, Paul appears to be passing on his office to Timothy (1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:6, 13-14; 2 Tim 4:1-6), and tells him to pass his office along, in turn (2 Tim 2:1-2) which would be another indication of apostolic succession in the Bible.
The attempt to pretend that St. Paul was somehow on his own, disconnected to the institutional Church, has always failed, as unbiblical. Protestant frown upon institutions, but we Catholics rather like the Church that Jesus Christ set up, initially led by St. Peter.

The Bible repeatedly teaches that the Church is indefectible; therefore, the hypothetical of rejecting the (one true, historic) Church, as supposedly going against the Bible, is impossible according to the Bible. It is not a situation that would ever come up, because of God’s promised protection.
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).

the Jerusalem Council was a greater authority than Paul since it sent him off (Acts 15:22-25), and he proclaimed “for observance” the “decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4). Thus the Council, representing the infallible and binding authority of the Church (binding and loosing), had greater authority than he did.

What you object to is what Paul agreed with and what he wrote has become Scripture.

False conclusion. Do you read what you quote?

I agree that there are some/many within Protestantism who have led some Christians to submit to false views of Scripture. However, you seem to have a blind spot or two. There have been numerous Roman Catholics who have promoted views that are contrary to Scripture. I spent 5 years of my recent life writing a 488pp doctoral dissertation exposing the heretical views of a Roman Catholic priest (now no longer a priest), John Dominic Crossan, who taught biblical studies at DePaul University, Chicago, for 23 years as a RC priest.

We would have been happy to help. We know he is a false teacher and a heretic, Maybe we whould count the number of Protestant pastors who founded bizarre cults in this past cenbtury, or the anti-Christian liars teaching the Bible in certain universities.
crossmen

Have you never heard of the false teachings of Roman Catholic scholars such as Edward Schillebeeckx, Hans Kung and others.?

'We call them "false" too. What's your point? Should we abandon Peter because of Judas?

Those Scriptures don't support Scripture as standard of judgment. Bible alone theology is not in the Bible.
every hereticic in the history of the world thumbed their nose at the institutional Church and went by Scripture alone. It is the heretical worldview to do so, precisely because they know they can’t prove that their views were passed down through history in an unbroken succession.

If your "faith alone" excludes hope and love, then your faith alone is useless. James 2:24
The Church doesn't teach faith alone, because it is man made Protestant tradition.and it's not in Scripture and no one ever ever heard of it for 1500 years. We have lots of teaching on the sufficiency of Christ, salvation, justification, redemption, available for anyone who wants to read it., Your implication that we don't teach the sufficiency of Christ is false.




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.

 

[mjrhealth]

Protestantism has ultimately led Christians to submit only to ones own judgment which (oddly enough) he knows to be fallible.

all religion has put it all down to mans judgement and we all know man is quiet corrupt, just look at all his religions based on twisted scripture. yes we know all from the same basket. Dont believe God lets believe"our" religious leadres even when the ydeny God Himself.

 

[OzSpen]

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.

This is false, Kepha, and you ought to know it if you read your Bible.

The apostle Paul taught it long before the Reformers. The Reformers discovered what the Scriptures taught: '8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast' (Eph 2:8-9 NIV).

Oz

 

[mjrhealth]

Protestants don’t have enough faith to believe that God could preserve an infallible Church

Nah thats not true its just that some insist that they have tehw infallible church all built by corrupt men and than make a mockery of God by insisting its His. Good thing God is patient with us, how foolish is teh wisdom and understanding of man.By teh way teh JW's have the one true infalliable church just ask them the ywill insist as you do. I know they have insisted many times to me and like you they are worng. Religion making fools of God and jesus .

 

[epostle1]

This is false, Kepha, and you ought to know it if you read your Bible.

The Church is infallible, you ought to know it if you read your Bible. But the concept is almost impossible for the sola scripturist to grasp.
The apostle Paul taught it long before the Reformers. The Reformers discovered what the Scriptures taught: '8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast' (Eph 2:8-9 NIV)

The CC has been teaching Eph 2:8-9 for 2000 years. In post #411, I listed 6 scriptures showing that Paul was subject to the Church.
The reformers didn't discover anything, they invented a whole new religion. Their novel inventions have no apostolic roots. Granted, the revolt did spark the Church to make necessary reforms faster than what was already taking place. With one crisis after another, the Church is in a constant state of renewal. Sometimes she thinks in terms of centuries, not sound bytes.

This is false, Kepha, and you ought to know it if you read your Bible.

Infallibility, (in general) exemption or immunity from liability to error or failure; (in particular) in theological usage, the supernatural prerogative by which the Church of Christ is, by a special Divine assistance, preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals.

The word "infallible" is not in scripture, but I have plenty of indications.

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.

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. If Hades did prevail, when did this monumentous event allegedly happen that no one noticed until the middle of a revolt?

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.

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. When did Jesus go back on His promise? 1517???

Mark 8:33 - non-Catholics sometimes use this verse to down play Peter's authority. This does not make sense. In this verse, Jesus rebukes Peter to show the import of His Messianic role as the Savior of humanity. Moreover, at this point, Peter was not yet the Pope with the keys, and Jesus did not rebuke Peter for his teaching. Jesus rebuked Peter for his lack of understanding.

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. (not mere human authority)

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 not answer 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. (1&2Peter) 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. 5:32- 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?

False inferences, Oz?

 

[OzSpen]

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.

What does 1 Tim 3:15 (NIV) state? '15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth'. There is not a word here that states that the church, even the Roman Catholic Church or Catholic Church teaches infallibly. Not a word!

I wrote:

The apostle Paul taught it long before the Reformers. The Reformers discovered what the Scriptures taught: '8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast' (Eph 2:8-9 NIV)

You avoided the content emphasis of Eph 2:8-9 (NIV) that I made, 'saved, through faith', claiming it was an invention of the Reformers. Your claim is that,

The CC has been teaching Eph 2:8-9 for 2000 years.

But it is you who opposes salvation by grace alone through faith alone. But that is the teaching of Eph 2:8-9 (NIV). When the RCC does not teach salvation by grace through faith it is not promoting biblical Christianity.

Bye,
Oz opcorn:

 

[epostle1]

OzSpen, on 17 Dec 2016 - 4:03 PM, said:
Quote
What does 1 Tim 3:15 (NIV) state? '15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth'. There is not a word here that states that the church, even the Roman Catholic Church or Catholic Church teaches infallibly. Not a word!

Oh contrare, miseur! Paul is talking about the Church, God’s household. According to you, the Church Jesus builds gave way to the gates of hell. Does Jesus build junk? Does Jesus back out of His promises? Did He take a vacation for 1500 years? What you are forced to do is "discover" in the scriptures, like the reformers, a new definition for God’s household, that can't hold water.

"church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth" would crumble with errors in the pillar. Truth and error can't mix, it's impossible. If truth is not infallible, then neither is God, the source of all truth. That's called infallibility. CHURCH + TRUTH + GOD'S PROMISED PROTECTION= INFALLIBILITY. 1 Tim 3:15 doesn't use the WORD infallibility, but the inference is stronger than non-existing biblically bankrupt sola scriptura. What Protestants do is redefine the Church to be an invisible collective, contrary to Scripture, Tradition, and history.

No one doctrine rests on one verse, but Tim 3:15 still affirms infallibility. So, I intentionally posted an overwhelming 30 verses on infallibility, with a brief exegesis, because the false claim that it is not in the Bible gets tiresome.
you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s invisible household? c'mon
Does Tim 3:15 say the Bible is the pillar and ground of truth? No, but you do.
When did the CC lose her authority ...still waiting.
I wrote:

You avoided the content emphasis of Eph 2:8-9 (NIV) that I made, 'saved, through faith', claiming it was an invention of the Reformers. Your claim is that,But it is you who opposes salvation by grace alone through faith alone. But that is the teaching of Eph 2:8-9 (NIV). When the RCC does not teach salvation by grace through faith it is not promoting biblical Christianity.

That is not what I said. Scroll up. The CC teaches 'saved, through faith" the Bible teaches 'saved, through faith", the reformers invented 'saved, through faith alone. It's a man made Protestant tradition. The Bible nowhere uses the expressions "justification by faith alone" or "salvation by faith alone." The first was directly the invention of Luther; the second is by implication. Luther inserted "alone" into the German translation of Romans 3:28 to give credence to his new "discovered" doctrine.

Tell me more about avoiding content emphasis, i.e. post #415

 

[mjrhealth]

You wont win Ozpen hes figting scripture and doctrine with doctrine, when you finally give them teh truth, and explain to them how they have Rejected Christ and all His good worksf for their religion than the ywill ignore you to.

 

[epostle1]

You wont win Ozpen hes figting scripture and doctrine with doctrine, when you finally give them teh truth, and explain to them how they have Rejected Christ and all His good worksf for their religion than the ywill ignore you to.

That's a harsh dogmatic statement that I would never make. Ozpen is "holding fast" to the traditions he was raised with. As much as I disagree with Protestant theology, I have met MANY Protestants who are good Christians, who love and serve the Lord, and their neighbor. Doctrinal differences are not grounds to claim anyone has rejected Christ.

I don't see a need to continue discussing infallibility, the topic is nearly exhausted. "faith alone" is off topic and deserves it's own thread. If Ozpen abandons the thread I don't think its because he is ignoring me, the thread has just run it's course.

 

[tom55]

Tom,

Again you confuse two views of the church - the Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church. As a Protestant, I'm a member of the Catholic, meaning universal, church. I am not associated with the Roman Catholic Church, which you are.


Luther, a fallible human interpreter, showed where Popes and Councils had erred. He was correct in his exposure of the false RCC doctrine of justification by works, instead of by faith.


Again this is false. Those who are born again Christians, by the Spirit of God, have this responsibility before God: 'Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true' (Acts 17:11 NIV).

The highly regarded apostle Paul who was inspired of God (theopneustos, 2 Tim 3:16-17 NIV) to write Scripture told those Christians in Thessalonica that it was their responsibility to test what he said against Scripture, just as the Berean Jewish Christians were doing. He didn't tell them to test what he said against what Peter said or what future popes and councils would say.

What you object to is what Paul agreed with and what he wrote has become Scripture.


I agree that there are some/many within Protestantism who have led some Christians to submit to false views of Scripture. However, you seem to have a blind spot or two. There have been numerous Roman Catholics who have promoted views that are contrary to Scripture. I spent 5 years of my recent life writing a 488pp doctoral dissertation exposing the heretical views of a Roman Catholic priest (now no longer a priest), John Dominic Crossan, who taught biblical studies at DePaul University, Chicago, for 23 years as a RC priest.

Have you never heard of the false teachings of Roman Catholic scholars such as Edward Schillebeeckx, Hans Kung and others.?

'Beware of false teachers' applies to Protestants, Roman Catholics, Orthodox and other Christianised groups. What's the standard of judgment? Scripture! (Acts 17:11 NIV; 2 Tim 3:16-17 NIV).

The most critical, erroneous theology of the RCC is its teaching that faith alone in Christ is insufficient for salvation.

Oz

I am not confused about the 2 views of The Church. There is The Church (RCC) and then there is everyone else (catholic church).

You bear false witness when you make the claim of a "false RCC doctrine of justification by works, instead of by faith". The Church teaches justification by faith AND works.

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/faith-and-works-0

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/faith-and-works

Your statement "There have been numerous Roman Catholics who have promoted views that are contrary to Scripture" has nothing to do with the doctrine or teachings of the RCC. The heretical teaching of any priest is not the teaching of the RCC and that person is excommunicated. A protestant can teach whatever belief they want, change it every once in a while, and still be a protestant.

A protestant can never promote a view contrary to scripture because the protestant churches don't recognize anyone with authority. If an individual in the church does promote a view contrary to what their church teaches they just go find another protestant church that teaches what they personally believe and presto, like magic, they are right in their belief and the church they just left is wrong in their belief. That means a protestant can NEVER be wrong.

As a protestant you can pick and choose which doctrine you like and go to the protestant church that fits your belief. As a Catholic we recognize God did not abandon us and he left a visible Church with authority to claim that abortion is a sin, even though scripture does not say abortion is a sin, The Church says it is and whatever The Church binds and loosens on earth is bound or loosed in heaven.

Your statement ,"The most critical, erroneous theology of the RCC is its teaching that faith alone in Christ is insufficient for salvation" is not based on facts.

You should take the time to read the FACTS instead of promoting your theory: http://ccc.usccb.org/flipbooks/catechism/index.html

The good thief publicly proclaimed the innocence of Christ. The good thief did not have time to do further good works after his conversion, however, he still went to heaven. He had faith but he did not have time to do the works and went to heaven. Paul wrote to the Galatians, "In doing good let us not fail. For in due time we shall reap, not failing. Therefore while we have time let us work good to all men, but especially to those who are of the household of the faith" (Gal. 6:9-10).

It rests with God how much time each of us will have. But while we have it God expects us to do good, and our salvation depends upon our doing it which is VERY clear in scripture. If we do it, Paul tells us that we shall reap our reward.