• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

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

The Authority of the Church

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
I never said the empty tomb was meaningless. I simply said that it would be without meaning if the Church had not preserved it. It is the linchpin of Christianity.
Ok, I thought you said it didn't have much meaning.

I don't see anything in what you said that about II Peter that actually contradicts what I've said. You don't have an "any," but I did. It doesn't change the of the statement. I was quoting from memory.
The any(which is in the Bible, I'm the one who messed up there w/ memory) is not at question, the passage says prophecy is not to be privately interpreted, not the scripture itself(at least to me).

"Unlearned and unstable men" doesn't change anything either. It doesn't refer to academic learning; it can't. Early Christianity was a movement almost exclusively in the lower class. Peter himself wasn't educated.
I have always been taught that education was a part of the Israeli culture at this time, and that the majority would be decently educated, if this is wrong sorry.

It refers to the learning taught by the Apostles, their tradition of teaching. These men, who are outside of it, are "unlearned" and "unstable." They are unlearned for not being in the Apostle's traditions. They are "unstable," because they formed new churches and groups constantly (kind of like Protestants there).
To me it seems pretty simple, ignorant(possibly, maybe probably, of both apsotleistic and "school" education) and people with mental problems should not try to interpret(wrest with) the Bible because it leads to destruction.
 

chuck010342

Active Member
Mr_Spinkles said:
Heheheh....I knew this thread would get some good inter-Christian debate going.

Dance, puppets, dance! Muhuhahah... :D
YES SIR IS THIS TO YOUR LIKING? :woohoo::jiggy:
 

chuck010342

Active Member
NetDoc said:
I am simply Christian. I am niether Catholic, Protestant or Jew.

The Bible has all I need to see how the New Testament Church was conducted. The scriptures have the authority.

Not all who attend church are written in the Book of Life. The way is narrow and FEW find it. There is no corporate salvation taught in the New Testament. Each one should work out their salvation with fear and trembling.
well said very well said
 

chuck010342

Active Member
Gunga_ann said:
Bad fruit? What do you mean by bad fruit?
I mean exactly what Jesus meant concerning flase prophets. In case you forget....
A Tree and Its Fruit

15“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.


Gunga_ann said:
Do you mean bad people?
bad people produce bad fruit.

Gunga_ann said:
There are bad people and bad people produce bad fruit.
amen

Gunga_ann said:
No matter what their denomination, faith or creed is, there is always bad people.
not those who follow the way.

Gunga_ann said:
I don't know how the Catholic church has mad bad "fruit". Bad people make bad fruit, not faiths. Explain please.
You don't know your history. Remeber the crusades the inqusistion the book buring the buring at the stake? ...I wonder who started those The Roman Catholic Church started those and all in the name of God how hypocritial. Jesus Taught Love for enimies and The Catholic Church went around Buring people at the stake for Jesus. There cannot be a more extreme countradiction then that.
 

chuck010342

Active Member
NetDoc said:
I think the use of "bad fruit" is also inflammatory in such a discussion. Different fruit might be more PC. :D
was it PC when jesus Drived the money changers out of the temple?
 

HelpMe

·´sociopathic meanderer`·
Mr_Spinkles said:
Heheheh....I knew this thread would get some good inter-Christian debate going.

Dance, puppets, dance! Muhuhahah... :D
i saw that coming, that's why i only responded to your first post.

i guess since you're a mod, ans because they're foolish enough, it's ok to instigate.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
Let's go back to your statements... :D

Trusting the Bible is not enough to give you everything you need. It was never intended to serve that purpose.
AND this verse:

II Timothy 3:14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

What do you make of "thouroughly equipped for every good work."?

You say it's not enough, but the Bible says that I will be thouroughly equipped for every good work.

Which should I believe?

As for the empty tomb, if I have decided that the SPIRIT has kept the scriptures pure in SPITE of those around it, then it's all I need to believe that the tomb was indeed empty. I certainly don't need you or the Catholic church to tell that it was or wasn't now do I?

This might come as an incredible surprise, but I really don't think the Catholic church has a lock on the truth. But the last time I was completely candid about my thoughts, I hurt feelings, so I will be circumspect.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
and it won't change the fact that the Bible is a Catholic book.
Which is an odd assertion, since I never find "Catholic" written anywhere on it. I had always more or less related this to God, his Son and his Spirit. Silly me!

Your quote from II Timothy is good, but it fails on a couple of points.
Your lack of temerity in slandering the sriptures is blasphemous at best. If one believes in the scriptures at all, then one believes that they "don't fail". We may fail to understand them, but that's our problem, and not the scriptures.

I simply said that it would be without meaning if the Church had not preserved it.
Do you have a scripture to support this?

In fact, do you have a scripture that supports any of your claims that we need more than the Bible? Just one. Trot it out and let's take a looky.

I TImothy 4:3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.

You know there IS a sect that forbids marriage... and they don't eat meat on Fridays either. You don't think... nah! It couldn't be. :D

Speak where the Bible speaks... all else is conjecture!
 

logos

Member
NetDoc said:
Which is an odd assertion, since I never find "Catholic" written anywhere on it. I had always more or less related this to God, his Son and his Spirit. Silly me!
I don't want to put words in someone else's mouth, but I believe he meant that the bible is Catholic insofar as the bible, as we have it today, is the result of St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, who was the first to make a canon of the Scriptures as attested to in his Festal Letter of 367.

I don't want to jump into another's conversation though, but I did want to make that point.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
Logos,

You are quite right. It isn't the entirity of what I was saying, but it is a major point. It is a book whose component books were written by Catholics, compiled by Catholics, and maintained by Catholics.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
NetDoc,

You make much out of "thoroughly." Why does "thoroughly" equate to "completely" or "only?" I don't see a reason, nor do I see "thoroughly" capable of encompassing that. Neither did any Christian interpreter for 1500 years. You are welcome to cite Gnostics, though (if a quote survives on it).

Let me ask a question: why are you the Pope? All your system does, is reject infallibility of the Pope and replace it by making every man his own pope. Does the Spirit speak to you more than another man? Maybe I'm dishonest, which would explain why the Spirit isn't telling me what it seems to be saying to you. Maybe I'm somehow deficient. However, how many honest people must you label as deficient or dishonest?

Will you say that the Spirit has led you correctly, but no other person? In that case you are the Pope. Will you say that you have some error, even some things that the Spirit has led you to? In that case, you have embraced moral and spiritual relativism.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
Let me clarify... none of those who wrote the gospels seemed to want to call themselves "catholic". No where do they attest to being anything but Christian, saved, followers of the way, etc... but never catholic. Did anathasius attest to being Catholic?

It's great that you don't want to put words in a modern man's mouth, but I would be less inclined to put them into the mouths of the ancients. The latter are not here to defend themselves or their honor.

It is also curious that you are so quick to grab honors for a particular sect when in reality, the glory belongs to GOD ALONE. Take credit for your catichism if you must since it is of man, but please do not cheapen the word of God by denuding it of the power of the Spirit. Maybe some lessons in humility towards God are in order. They always are for me, and especially when I find myself thinking I am a bit too important or indespensible.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
Have you ever played a game where you are given the next clue only after you solve the one you have? Well, the Spirit will reveal more of God to you as you become more Godly. Milk for the infants and meat for the mature.

It's not enough to SAY that you believe, you must act on your belief in order to see the next piece of the puzzle.

As for a Pope... I don't see the need for one mentioned in the scriptures. Do you?
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
There's a lot of funny things about the word "Catholic" and the Bible. How would the Bible not be Catholic? The NT was written by Catholics. The books were selected by Catholics (according to their beliefs as well). It was preserved by Catholics. I don't need to read the word "Catholic" in the Bible to know that. I don't need Scripture to know that; just history.

I never said the Scipture "failed." I said that they weren't sufficient by themselves. Simple binary logic doesn't apply that easily. God is not responsible when we misuse His gifts. God gave us metals and creation. Does it "fail" because we make guns and kill each other? When someone uses Scripture in a way that is outside His design, why is it a suprise when there are harmful results?

Given that I never said, nor implied, that Scripture somehow "fails," would you please not make things up, unless you can show that somehow my beliefs logically result in that. If you can show that, then it is a valid criticism, and I must respond to it. You did not do that.

NetDoc said:
Do you have a scripture to support this?

In fact, do you have a scripture that supports any of your claims that we need more than the Bible? Just one. Trot it out and let's take a looky.

I gave you two. You gave me a rebuttal at first and ask for one Scripture to back up your belief. You attempted to rebutt mine, and offered a Scripture. I responded by pointing out context, and responded to your Scripture and demonstrated it never said "Scripture only," but even names things before it, and pointed out that it would refer to only the Old Testament and that you would have to throw out the New and keep just the old if everything else is "speculation."

Your response has been not to address my defenses of my verse, and indeed, by asking this question, you are acting as if it never happened. You also have redefined "thoroughly" to include "only," and that is your sole rebuttal.

Given those realities, I will not press further unless you both acknowledge that I offered Scripture and offer a sound rebuttal. I won't repeat what I've done as if it hadn't been done, just because one party wants to pretend that I haven't done so.

Now, for the last rebut, you need to learn more about Roman Catholicism, and I must make a distionction here in light of doctrinal and historical issues. Your first error is that Roman Catholicism doesn't force anyone to be celibate. I have never seen a priest take a young boy, twist his arm, and say "Now, you will be a priest. Therefore, you can't marry. Now, go get your collar and hop to it!" So, unless the RCC forces people to be priests, I think it's a moot point. If you want an example of forced celibacy, you should go read about sects like Heaven's Gate. They actually forbid all people to marry.
As for this detail, Catholicism is a complex matter. The Catholic Church is relatively easy to trace from 33 AD to the second millennium. At that point, Rome and the other four Patriarchs split with one another over papal authority, the Filioque, and a few other issues. Since I follow the East, I distinguish Rome from the Catholic Church after the second millinnium. I was hoping to keep away from teachings peculiar to the RCC, to avoid a three-way argument.

Now, the second does apply to my Church, and you know what? It's a lot different than you're interpreting it. Here's a first century teaching on it:

But do not let your fasts coincide with those of the hypocrites. They fast on Monday and Thursday, so you must fast on Wednesday and Friday.

I think I'll take the testimony of a first century Christian, over your application of the Scripture. You are welcome, of course, to assert you know more than he. I won't.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
Mister Emu,

I apologize for being vague on my part in reference to the tomb. I can see where you'd get your assumption.

I can see why you'd ask about "prophecies" here. Here are some odd examples of prophecies (foretelling) in the OT. First, look at David, where the Psalms are simultaneously prophecy. Who would have thought, before Christ, that the 22nd Psalm was a prophecy? Another is the battle of Joshua (his name in Greek is Jesus, so that's important), where Moses stood up on a hill. Whenever Moses' arms were outstretched, the Israelites won, but when they fell, they lost. In that way, Joshua (Jesus) conquered the enemies of the people of God by the sign of the cross. There are numerous other prophesies, but it really comes down to this: the whole OT is one big prophecy, and then, the NT is. A prophecy is simply telling forth the will of God, whether it is the future, or a miraculous word on the present. By this, II Peter 1.21 covers the whole of Scripture.

Hopefully, that makes some sense of the logic behind my post there :).

Education, now. I was taught that as well as a Protestant, but later I began to think about it. In the ancient world, books were copied entirely by hand. In order to buy a single book, you would have to employ a scribe to do it, and it may well have taken a whole year to do so. Obviously, he would need food, shelter, and other necessities. So would his family. Add up the costs, and it comes to an exhorbitant amount.

Now, consider that the average person struggled just to get bread or cheap fish. How would they have been able to afford a single book in order to teach their children? They could do it in synagogues, but even then, we couldn't expect the poor synagogues to have one. Those that did, probably didn't let every member use it, except during the services.

Now, I have no problem imagining them learning to read, but educating themselves like I was taught, and I think you are thinking of? It wouldn't happen. The costs were too prohibitive. Even some churches in the Early Church would have been without Bibles for a long while, and for this reason, books were chained in libraries and churches in the Middle Ages.

Given that, I doubt that the Apostles, men from the very bottom of society, would have had access to the necessary tools to learn. This reality extended into the Greek world, where the same problem existed. Christianity drew its converts from the poorest of society at first, almost overwhelmingly. It was, thus, logistically impossible for them to have many academically educated men.

On the "unstable," I believe what I say from the context both of the passage and the era. In the context, all the vitriol is directed towards the heretics. I would have trouble imagining them being slow, or mentally slow. They used cunning and devious words, according to the book. Similar problems are addressed by James. The Gnostics also valued "intellect" over the other attributes of men, and believed that was our spirit while the material was corrupt, less real, or some other thing. Given their fascination with intellect, I doubt their leaders would have been slow or simple (one does not have to be educated to be cunning, quick, or devious). I can't say anything about mental illness, but that would seem an anachronism to me.

However, even with your treatment of the issue, it leads to the same point I went to, albeit in a slower, more round-about way. The "slow" people (I'm trying to think of a term that isn't mean, and I'm not coming up with one) would need somebody to guide their interpretation and application. There, Scripture alone, is no longer sufficient. Once the can of worms is opened, it is hard to close. Does a newbie need heavy guidance? What about the average parishoner? The list keeps going up. Ultimately, we would have to establish a wholly arbitrary line.

Thanks for the post :). I enjoyed it. I'll close with a fun story on the books thing. I'm telling it from memory, so it's going to have some errors. Still, it pertains directly to what I said on books and price.

Once, a young scholar encountered a holy elder, and he invited the man to sup with him, so that he could learn from him. The elder, upon entering his house noticed that it was lined with books. In horror, he recoiled and fled. When the young man saw this, he hastened after the elder, and asked him, "Please, give me a word before you leave, that I may be edified." The old man replied, "You line your walls with the food and clothes of widows and orphans," on account of the fact that the young scholar had many books.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
NetDoc,

Thank you. "Not wanting" and "not using" are two very different things. If I omit a term, that doesn't mean I'm opposed to it. In fact, I think the term arose in response to the Gnostics. That part, however, is speculation.

Nowehere in the Gospels do they say the word "Catholic." However, my reasoning lies in this. St. Ignatius, a student of the Apostle John, used it in exactly the same way I am using it. He also used it like it was familiar already to the Christians.

This is pretty telling. He died less than a decade after the Apostle (107). He was the bishop of Ephesus when he was captured by the Romans, and he wrote letters while he went to his martyrdom. So what he states as an axiom, or a term he uses without any qualifications, is something that in the year 107 was believed all the way from Ephesus to Rome. He used the word "Catholic" in just such a way. His most famous quote is "Where the bishop is, there also is the Catholic Church be."

Evidently in 107, the word was widely used and accepted. I would assume that the Apostle John would have objected to the term if he didn't like it. Since Irenaeus, a typical Christian of the time, used the term in that way, it would indicate that at least the Apostle John didn't have a problem with it.

I don't want to put words into an ancient man's mouth. That is precisely why I'm becoming an Orthodox Catholic as well. I will explain in just a second why these go together. First I must explain that this isn't about one sect over another.

In Romans, the Apostle Paul teaches that the Church is the Body of Christ. It is such literally. A body cannot be divided among many sects. If I cut off my hand, it dies, and it's that simple. So it is with the Body of Christ, and that's why schisms and sects are so terrible; they cut off their members from the Church, the Body of Christ.

This is a physical thing as much as it is a spiritual. In the NT, the Church is called two basic words: ekklesia and synagoge. Both of these denote a physical entity, and ekklesia is used overwhelmingly. Ekklesia denotes an "assembly." In the Athenian Constitution, it means those who gather for governing matters. In Euripides, I believe, it denotes the audience for a theater. Most importantly, in the Septuagint, the Greek translation(s) of the Old Testament most used by the Apostles, it is used for "assembly" when referring to the "assembly of Israel."

The Church has offices, and they are also visible. It has the authority to expel someone from the Church. This also requires a visible and unified Church, because if it didn't have that, then the man who was expelled could simply flee to another church.

This unity further encapsulated in the mysteries, or sacraments. There is "baptism," of course. Another is "marriage." Still another is "chrismation," which is mentioned in the book of Acts when the Apostles laid hands on people so they could receive the Holy Spirit (this is why some men could be baptized and believers, but not have received Him, as was the case once in Acts). The most important is the "Eucharist."

I doubt that you are sacramental, but this is how Catholicism works. It is why the "us" is so important. It's not simply a matter of "we're right" any more than it is when you talk to a non-Christian. It's about "Here is the Body of Christ, the Body from which all other groups have broken away."

What I have outlined is how the Early Church Fathers addressed things. St. Clement of Rome did so before 70 AD (there are many who date it to 90). He is the same Clement who is mentioned in Phil. 4.3 as a companion of Paul. St. Ignatius did in 107, who was taught by the Apostle John. We have the same thing with other early writings.

I am of the firm opinion that the best interpreters of the Apostle's words are those close to them. The system we see in these men who knew the Apostles, and others who were very close, is universally Catholic.

The Reformers, though, do not harmonize with them. An invisible Church doesn't mix well with the term ekklesia. Anti-Sacramentalism doesn't mix well with sacramentalists. Sola Scriptura doesn't mix well with men who actively taught against it, and those who followed the Apostles were very vehement about that as a weapon against Gnostics.

By saying what I say, I do not deny the Word the power of the Spirit. I do not cheapen God's word. Rather, I have a deep fear of God. If you do not believe so, please consider this: I was training to enter the Baptist ministry upon conversion. The more I read of this, the more I became convinced that I was in error. I finally finished, not without a large debt, but when I made this decision, my degree has become void for a time. I have, in essence, thrown away six years of my life to follow what Christ teaches. I had numerous friends, but now, all but a small number have abandoned me as an apostate. There was no discussion, but immediately upon hearing what I had done, they cut off contact. Before you warn me about my fear of God, consider that. I would not have done what I had done had it not been for a fear of God. I always have problems with humility, but I am not saying what I have said out of a lack of reverance from God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top