Sola Scriptura

[winsome]

Josiah,

Answer me a couple of questions –

Jesus said to the apostles
The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name—he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you. (Jn 14:26)
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth (Jn 16:13)

Later, the apostles made a doctrinal decision saying:
It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us.... (Acts 15:28)

Now, to whom or what were the apostles accountable for that doctrinal decision?

What "rule of faith

[Josiah]

Josiah

Tell which Christian Church is older than the One Catholic Church?

You are revealing the RCC "response" and rejection of the Rule of Scripture (and any other rule).  It's NOT that the RCC has any different theology of Scripture or has any other alternative as a Rule in norming.  The objection is accountability, it insists upon full and immediate accountablity for all OTHERS - right here, right now, but it rejects accountability in the singular, sole, exclusive case of it and it itself alone, itself alone insisting that itself alone is incapable of error in these matters, infallible and thus unaccountable, and that there is one teacher (exclusively) among us  which must be exempt from all accountability, exempt from norming, given a "free pass" on the issue of Truth or correctness, and whatever that one says is just to be accepted as dogmatic fact "with docility.  The one it so insists be exempt is itself. 

Thus, the issue is changed, from accountability to power, from truth to politics. 

Now, to your question, I see absolutely no relevance to the issue of correctness.   Hinduism is much older than Christianity, does that make Hinduism infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error in matters of faith and doctrine?   I fail to see the relevance to your question.   But, there's no evidence that any denomination existed before the 4th century, and it's entirely unclear if that one was the CC or EO or (most likely) some proto to them both.  But, so what?  If I'm older than you, does that make me unaccountable but you accountable?


Over and over, God warns us and tells us to beware of false prophets, false teachers, antichrists and those that lead many astray; where did He exempt a single denomination - the RCC?   Jesus praised the Ephesian Christians for doing what the Catholic Church teaches should not be done (CCC 87), He praised them for holding their teachers as accountable, for testing/norming them, for arbitrating the issue, and for declaring them false (Rev. 2:2).  Where does it say, "But whatever the RCC exclusively says is just to be accepted as true with docility?" 

The issue before us is whether teachers of dogma among us are accountable for such.  If they are, then they are - and this includes the RCC since it teaches dogma.   IF so, then norming is embraced and the first question becomes:  WHAT will serve as the rule/canon/norma normans among us for this process?   Again, the RCC has no alternative to Scripture, it just rejects accountability in the singular, sole, exclusive case of it itself alone, what IT says is just to be accepted as true with docility (CCC 87, etc.) - it gives itself an exclusive pass on the issue.  You are attempting to defend this exemption of the RCC alone for the RCC alone as the best way to determine the correctness of teachings.

There is NO protestant denomination that even comes close because the birth of Protestantism began with Martin Luther in 1517.

Again, I'm not following how the age of the teacher relates to the accountability of the teacher.   Would you consider my brother to be incapable of error, infallible/unaccountable because he's 4 years older than me?   That Hinduism is incapable of error because it's older than Christianity?   The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod as infallible/unaccountable because it's 150 years older than The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America? 

There's zero evidence that ANY denomination existed before the 4th century.  But again, so what?  The issue before us is not age but truth.  Is your rubric for determining truth which teacher is older?

You've made the claim that God has given one teacher (exclusively and eternally) a "pass" on accountability, and God has said that this one - specificly - is said to be infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error and whatever it and it alone says is to be accepted with docility.  And yet you have not given a single Scripture that indicates this.   



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

[Josiah]

Josiah,

(Acts 15:28)

What "rule of faith

[chestertonrules]

Josiah,

(Acts 15:28)

What "rule of faith

[Josiah]

Chester,


Let's look at Acts 15.


1.   Read 15:1-2.   There were teachers.  We don't know if any doctrine or dogma was involved, but there were positions.  Some said that circumcision is required for salvation, others not.   Now, the interesting thing is that the rubric of The Catholic Church is rejected here:  what teachers said was not accepted with docility as correct, NO ONE was given a "pass" on accountability.  ALL PARTIES WERE HELD FULLY ACCOUNTABLE for what they taught.  No one is permitted to give a "pass" to just one - self.  No one is permitted to say, "but I'm infallible/unaccountable, I'm incapable of being wrong, I'm right cuz I'm right so ergo I must be right - just accept whatever I exclusively say with docility for when I speak, Jesus speaks!"   This is an embrace of accountability for ALL teachers, not the RCC's insistence that self is exempt from such if self so exempts self.


2.  Read 15:5-12.   They gather and several speak - all sides are consider, all regarded as fully accountable, none given any "pass."  Peter is not the first to speak and not the last to speak - he's just ONE.  And when Peter speaks, there's NOTHING about him being infallible, the Pope, the Vicar of Christ.  He's just one of the speakers, one among several - some aren't even apostles.  Now, note, there were TWO speakers that do get special attention - they are Paul (an Apostle) and Barnabas (not an Apostle), the assemby "fell silent as they listened to Paul and Barnabas."  


3.  Read 15:6 and 13.  ALL the speakers are heard and held accountable.  There is an arbitration.  Unfortunate for us, we aren't told anything about that arbitive process but it's entirely moot to our discussion here.   Whatever the process, however the decision made, it is.  


4.  Read 15:15-18.  This is the section Catholics never quote (Catholic teachers pretend that Acts 15 ends with verse 13).  What clearly is the rule/canon/norma normans that the arbiters used?  We are specifically told.  "With this THE WORDS OF SCRIPTURE AGREE!"  The rule/canon is specific related to have been Scripture.  This is called "The Rule of Scripture" (aka Sola Scriptura).  Several Scriptures are specificly given (NOTE: not a single word of Peter is mention here, SCRIPTURE is the rule - not Peter).  Then note the first word in verse 19.   After SCRIPTURE is stated to have been the rule/canon, and some of them quoted, we find the word "THEREFORE...."   The THEREFORE is what Scripture says, grammatically it cannot be otherwise.   "It is written......  THEREFORE."  The arbitration was according to the Rule of Scripture, aka Sola Scriptura.


Notice:


1.  ALL teachers were held fully ACCOUNTABLE.   None were given a pass (as the RCC insists for itself exclusively), none were permitted to exempt self alone from accountability as the RCC, replacing such with "just accept whatever I exclusively say with docility."

2.  Peter was just one speaker - not the first, not the last, not the ones given special attention.  And he is NOT noted as being infallible or the Vicar of Christ.

3.  The Rule is specifically stated to be Scripture.  Embracing Scripture as the rule in norming is called "The Rule of Scripture" or "Sola Scriptura."



Are teachers of dogma accountable for what is taught as such?  If so, WHAT best serves among us as the rule/canon/norma normans in the norming process?   In Acts 15, accountability is fully embraced for all the positions.  Norming happens, and the rule/canon is specifically stated to be Scripture.  As you know, this is called Sola Scriptura.  It is the opposite of a teacher insisting:  "I'm incapable of being wrong, I'm infallible/unaccountable, just accept whatever I say as correct with docility for when I speak, God speaks" (read your Catechism # 87). 





.

[AvrilNYC]

Who told you that the Catholic Church bishops do not gather to debate (just like Acts 15 describes) key issues, with great care, deliberation and accountability? It's OK to be clueless just don't pretend you know what you're talking about.

The Pope very rarely (I think it has happened only twice in the Catholic Church's 2000 year history) makes ex-Cathedra dogmatic decisions and if then only after careful consultations with the Bishops. In most cases, councils of bishops and theologians work together for years to reach decisions on key issues


Take for example (added details from wikipedia), the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, or Vatican II. It was the 21st Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church. It opened under Pope John XXIII on 11 October 1962 and closed under Pope Paul VI on 21 November 1965. It lasted more than 3 years!!

Preparations for the Council took more than two years, and included work from 10 specialised commissions, people for mass media and Christian Unity, and a Central Commission for overall coordination. These groups, composed mostly of members of the Roman Curia, produced 987 proposed constituting sessions, making it the largest gathering in any council in church history. (This compares to Vatican I, where 737 attended, mostly from Europe.)

Attendance varied in later sessions from 2,100 to over 2,300. In addition, a varying number of periti (Latin: "experts") were available for theological consultation — a group that turned out to have a major influence as the council went forward. Seventeen Orthodox Churches and Protestant denominations sent observers. More than three dozen representatives of other Christian communities were present at the opening session, and the number grew to nearly 100 by the end of the 4th Council Period.

Josiah, you have no clue what the Catholic Church is all about and how it operates...I'm glad to inform you so you stop embarrassing yourself

[Josiah]

Who told you that the Catholic Church bishops do not gather to debate (just like Acts 15 describes) key issues, with great care, deliberation and accountability?

1.  Read CCC 87.

2.  REad this thread.  The Catholic objection to the Rule of Scripture is not Scripture but accountability (in the sole, exclusive, singular case of itself alone).

3.  In Acts 15, NO teacher was given a "pass" on accountability, just accepted with docility.  None was said to be speaking for God, not even Peter. And the Rule/canon is clearly Scripture (this is known as Sola Scriptura).

4.  Sure, Catholics may discuss anything.  Matters not yet proclaimed as official matters of dogma can, at times and under certain conditions, even be disputed and disagreed with.  But once the RCC has definatively spoken, it becomes closed.  Yhe RCC insists that the RCC exclusively CANNOT err in official matters of faith and morals; it insists that it exclusively is INCAPABLE of error in these matters, infallible, unaccountable, and the issue of truth must be laid aside and whatever IT (and it exclusively) says is rather to be accepted as dogmatic fact "with docility."  QUESTIONS of clarification to better understand are welcomed, but QUESTIONING is not.  Clarification is permitted, accountability is not.  The RCC is not accountable; all are required to just accept whatever it says with docility.  Thus, the objection from Catholics you are reading in this thread.  "The RCC is right cuz it's right so it's right - accountability is moot in the singular and exclusive case of the RCC, but it's absolutely and immediately required in the case of every OTHER teacher, for all OTHERS can be wrong but, the RCC insists, there's one who cannot be wrong, itself.   Read CCC 87.  Read what the Catholics here have posted.



.

[AvrilNYC]

Josiah,

Christian Truth is revealed. It comes from God, through the Holy Spirit and it's absolute. It's not the same as a bunch of guys talking about their favorite hobbies and then changing their mind through an appeal process

Christian Truth can only be comprehended with the help of the Holy Spirit, without that help any mere mortal is completely incapable of making a valid decision. The Catholic Church claims that the Holy Spirit guides the Pope when it makes dogmatic decisions ex Cathedra. The Holy Spirit protects the Church from heresy. If it didn't it would mean that Jesus was a liar when he promised to be with and guide His Church for ever.

What's so controversial about it? All the Protestant sects I know, claim that the Holy Spirit is present at their Councils and helps their bishops make the right decisions (it's exactly the same concept). The Methodists, for example, claim that the decisions of their councils are taken with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and before each meeting the Methodist Bishops pray for that guidance.

All Christian denominations in the end, Catholics or not, rely on the Holy Spirit to understand and verbalise God's truth. It's not a popularity contest..

[Josiah]

Josiah,

The Catholic Church claims that the Holy Spirit guides the Pope when it makes dogmatic decisions ex Cathedra. The Holy Spirit protects the Church from heresy. If it didn't it would mean that Jesus was a liar when he promised to be with and guide His Church for ever.

You are joining with the Catholics here in documenting my point.  The RCC rejects the Rule of Scripture NOT because it has a different theology of Scripture or a better alternative rule/norma normans, but because it rejects accountability in the sole, exclusive, singular case of it itself alone.  It's problem is with ACCOUNTABILITY (for itself), not the Rule of Scripture.  It insists on full accountability, right here and right now - for all OTHERS but rejects it in the singular, particular, exclusive case of it itself.  "I'm infallible and unaccountable, I'm incapable of error in these matters, when I speak - God speaks, thus I alone have an exclusive and absolute pass on accountability, an exemption from norming, and this whole issue is moot in the singular, exclusive, sole case of me alone." 

The issue before us is accountability.   IF you embrace that Truth matters (especially truth pertaining to our eternal salvation); and IF you agree with God in His many, many warnings about false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and those that lead many astray (never once exempting the RCC exclusively from these many warnings), and IF you agree that Jesus was correct to praise the Ephesian Christians for doing what the RCC insists not be done (CCC 87), praising them for regarding teachers as accountable, for testing/norming them, arbitrating it and declaring them false (Rev. 2:2), then you embrace that teachers ARE accountable.  And since the RCC teaches, it is too.  Thus, you embrace accountability and therefore norming.  The question becomes then WHAT best serves among us as the rule/norma normans for this normative process of the teachers among us?  But the RCC's objection (just like yours) is not Scripture but accountability.  Not for all OTHER teachers (it INSISTS upon it, fully, right here and right now) but in the sole, exclusive, singular, particular case of it itself alone.   






.

[AvrilNYC]

Josiah,

Whether you believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Bishop of Rome when he's making ex Cathedra dogmatic decisions, is a matter of how you interpret Scripture. Jesus clearly gave Peter the power to loose and bind on earth. Jesus also told Peter "Feed my lambs" Jesus told Peter "You are Petros and on this Petra I will build my Church.

So do you think Jesus will give Peter the assignment to build His Church and feed His lambs (Christians like me and you) and then not bother to send the Holy Spirit to help him? I believe Jesus cares about His Church (His body) and protects the Church from heresy. You don't.

Your big mistake btw is that you seem to believe that mere mortals are capable of understanding God's Truth through debate. They can't...so debate is useless without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Yes the Apostles debated in Acts 15, but the Holy Spirit guided their decision, not their human debate skills.

You and I and 1000 other bozos can debate forever. Unfortunately, without the help of the Holy Spirit (are you humble enough to accept that), we're not going to make any progress. That's why we rely on the Church (who has the help of the Holy Spirit in these matters)

Jesus picked 12 Apostles and picked a leader among them. It was Jesus' decision to pick leaders for His Church, not mine. Don't blame me for how God decides to reveal His Truth (it's through His Church)

[Josiah]

Josiah,

Whether you believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Bishop of Rome when he's making ex Cathedra dogmatic decisions, is a matter of how you interpret Scripture. Jesus clearly gave Peter the power to loose and bind on earth. Jesus also told Peter "Feed my lambs" Jesus told Peter "You are Petros and on this Petra I will build my Church.

Again, you continue to make my point. 
In Catholicism, the "problem" is not with Scripture or the Rule of Scripture (aka Sola Scriptura) but with accountability - in the sole, singular, exclusive, particular case of it itself alone (all OTHERS being fully and immediately accountable - right here, right now).

No, sorry.  It's not a case of hermeneutics.  For there is no verse that says ANYTHING about the RCC.  About anything.  For anything.  Concerning anything.  Jesus never so much as even mentioned it; at all, in any context, in any matter. 

And there is no verse for you to reference about any teacher among us or any denomination being incapable of error, infallible/unaccountable, exempt from norming.  None where we are to set aside the issue of truth and rather accept whatever that one says "with docility." 

The verse you quote is about Peter, not the RCC.  It's about the church - not The Catholic Church (or any other denomination).  And it says NOTHING about being infallible/unaccountable, incapable of error.  Indeed, even if you wanted to talk about Peter and not the RCC, why did Jesus spend 3 years correcting Peter if Peter was incapable of being wrong and was unaccountable?

So do you think Jesus will give Peter the assignment to build His Church and feed His lambs (Christians like me and you) and then not bother to send the Holy Spirit to help him?

1.  Peter died; tradition says in 67 AD in Rome, upside down so as not to die like his Lord.

2.  Did only PETER have the assignment to make disciples and feed His lambs?  If so, then this commandment died in 67 AD.  But again, you seem to be mixing unrelated things.  If I tell a contractor to build my fense, that doesn't make him infallible/unaccountable, incapable of error, whatever he says/does is to be accepted as correct with docility?  IF it did in the case of Peter, then Jesus was wrong to so often correct him and hold him accountable. 

3.  You seem to be confusing the Holy Spirit infallibly teaching with a single student being an infallible student.  I agree, God never teaches wrongly or guides us incorrectly.  But it's an incredible, baseless and illogical leap to assume that THEREFORE, there is ONE who is an infallible/unaccountable student and follower.   Did God teach Adam and Eve correctly?  Did God guide them correctly?  Ergo, did that make them infallible/unaccountable followings, incapable of doing wrong?  Did God hold them as unaccountable?  God correctly taught and correctly lead His Chosen People; ergo where they infallible/unaccountable followers - incapable of ever doing wrong, held unaccountable for their actions/teachings?   I don't argue that GOD teaches and guides correctly, I'm just wondering where you get the idea (from logic, Scripture or life) that ergo, there is ONE who is an infallible/unaccountable student or follower?

Yes the Apostles debated in Acts 15, but the Holy Spirit guided their decision, not their human debate skills.

What Acts 15 reveals is:

1.  All the teachers were held as ACCOUNTABLE.   
2.  Peter was given no special attention or value.
3.  The rule/canon was Scripture.  This is known as Sola Scriptura.





.

[John 6]

Josiah,

Take a closer look at Acts 15 you will see this passage proves the Catholic view:

verse 3-5--They brought there conflict to the Church, so the Church could settle the dispute

Verse 6--The Apostles and Presbyters met together to discuss how to handle the issue....This was the first council of the Church.  This is the model that the Catholic Church has used for the last 2,000 years to discern the truth.

You are correct a discussion occurred, we do not know who started the discussion, it may have been Peter.  However, we do know that Peter is the only who had anything to say that was worth quoting... and his quote was stated with authority.

In Acts  15:3-6 God shows how we are to discern the truth...God never changes if this is how the Apostles discerned the truth, we need to follow their actions. 

1 Timothy 3:15 tells us that the Church is the Pillar and foundation of truth. So if the scripture says the Church is the Pillar of Truth the question is which Church?  We should be able to take this concern to the Visible Church and let the Authorities that God has chosen discern the answer. 

Jesus prayed that we would be one just has He and the Father are one (John 17:20-21).  Do you think his prayer was answered?  As a Catholic if if I disagree with someone about the teaching of scripture I will turn to the Church because that is what the scripture tells us to do.  However, I have seen so many protestants who have disputes with in their churches and they split up and go two different ways.  Do you think this is part of God's plan?

I have heard it said that there are over 30,000 different protestant Churches, all them teaching their version of the Gospel...To me this is chaos not the oneness that Christ prayed for 1 Timothy 3:15? 




Now, let's take a closer look at Matt 16:14-19 Keeping in mind this is God's word and every word has meaning to it...You can not ignore a word or phrase...You also have to read the New testament in light of the Old.  Because the New testament is a fulfillment of the old and the old is the forshadowing of the new.

Jesus asked the disciples "Who do people say that I am".  The people in the crowd had a very personal relation with Christ.  A relationship you and I can only imagine...Yet, only one in the crowd knew who he was....that was Simon.  Jesus proclaimed here that Simon had a special relationship with the Father and he revealed this to him, not anyone else.

The next thing he does is change Simon's name to Peter.  When God changes some ones name it signifies they have a special leadership role.  Like Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel, etc.

He then gives him the Keys to the kingdom.  The apostles knew that when a king was away from his kingdom he left someone in charge, like a prime minister, everyone knew who this person was because they held the keys to the kingdom. Is 22:15-25 The OT also demonstrates that when this prime ministry dies he is replaced. 

He also gave the authority to Peter to Loose and bind things on earth and promised that the netherworld would not prevail against it...

My final point on the matter:  Have you read any of the writings of the Early Church Fathers?  These are the teachings of the leaders of the Church who walked with the apostles?  If you study what they believed you will see that they looked just like the Catholic Church.  Today and that is because we have our Traditions....Our tradition is to look to the first Christians and use their writings to determine our doctrine, We discern the teachings of the entire 2000 year history of Christianity.

To answer your questions where did Jesus give this authority to the RCC......Matt 16 is when Christ made this promise to the Catholic Church.  St. Peter was the first Pope of the Catholic Church.  He was followed by St. Linus.  You can look up a list of all the popes in any encyclopedia.  You will see we have an unending succession to Peter.

Cardinal Newman said "to be deep in history is to cease to protestant"

In Chirst,
John 6

[chestertonrules]

Chester,


Let's look at Acts 15.


1.   Read 15:1-2.   There were teachers.  We don't know if any doctrine or dogma was involved, but there were positions.  Some said that circumcision is required for salvation, others not.   Now, the interesting thing is that the rubric of The Catholic Church is rejected here:  what teachers said was not accepted with docility as correct, NO ONE was given a "pass" on accountability.  ALL PARTIES WERE HELD FULLY ACCOUNTABLE for what they taught.  No one is permitted to give a "pass" to just one - self.  No one is permitted to say, "but I'm infallible/unaccountable, I'm incapable of being wrong, I'm right cuz I'm right so ergo I must be right - just accept whatever I exclusively say with docility for when I speak, Jesus speaks!"   This is an embrace of accountability for ALL teachers, not the RCC's insistence that self is exempt from such if self so exempts self.


2.  Read 15:5-12.   They gather and several speak - all sides are consider, all regarded as fully accountable, none given any "pass."  Peter is not the first to speak and not the last to speak - he's just ONE.  And when Peter speaks, there's NOTHING about him being infallible, the Pope, the Vicar of Christ.  He's just one of the speakers, one among several - some aren't even apostles.  Now, note, there were TWO speakers that do get special attention - they are Paul (an Apostle) and Barnabas (not an Apostle), the assemby "fell silent as they listened to Paul and Barnabas."  


3.  Read 15:6 and 13.  ALL the speakers are heard and held accountable.  There is an arbitration.  Unfortunate for us, we aren't told anything about that arbitive process but it's entirely moot to our discussion here.   Whatever the process, however the decision made, it is.  


4.  Read 15:15-18.  This is the section Catholics never quote (Catholic teachers pretend that Acts 15 ends with verse 13).  What clearly is the rule/canon/norma normans that the arbiters used?  We are specifically told.  "With this THE WORDS OF SCRIPTURE AGREE!"  The rule/canon is specific related to have been Scripture.  This is called "The Rule of Scripture" (aka Sola Scriptura).  Several Scriptures are specificly given (NOTE: not a single word of Peter is mention here, SCRIPTURE is the rule - not Peter).  Then note the first word in verse 19.   After SCRIPTURE is stated to have been the rule/canon, and some of them quoted, we find the word "THEREFORE...."   The THEREFORE is what Scripture says, grammatically it cannot be otherwise.   "It is written......  THEREFORE."  The arbitration was according to the Rule of Scripture, aka Sola Scriptura.


Notice:


1.  ALL teachers were held fully ACCOUNTABLE.   None were given a pass (as the RCC insists for itself exclusively), none were permitted to exempt self alone from accountability as the RCC, replacing such with "just accept whatever I exclusively say with docility."

2.  Peter was just one speaker - not the first, not the last, not the ones given special attention.  And he is NOT noted as being infallible or the Vicar of Christ.

3.  The Rule is specifically stated to be Scripture.  Embracing Scripture as the rule in norming is called "The Rule of Scripture" or "Sola Scriptura."



Are teachers of dogma accountable for what is taught as such?  If so, WHAT best serves among us as the rule/canon/norma normans in the norming process?   In Acts 15, accountability is fully embraced for all the positions.  Norming happens, and the rule/canon is specifically stated to be Scripture.  As you know, this is called Sola Scriptura.  It is the opposite of a teacher insisting:  "I'm incapable of being wrong, I'm infallible/unaccountable, just accept whatever I say as correct with docility for when I speak, God speaks" (read your Catechism # 87). 





.

It's a straw dog parade!!

Address these simple points if you can:



1)Christians in Antioch had a doctrinal question.  They consulted the Church leaders.  The Church leaders ruled authoritatively.(Based on direct revelation from God to Peter, by the way!)

2)Doctrine was declared by the Church leadership and it was accepted by the laity.

3)The Holy Spirit revealed the Truth to the Church, and Christians followed the teachings of the Church.

[AvrilNYC]

Josiah,

What is scripture? In the NT Scripture is a bunch of books authored by 7 humans, mere mortals. Were these 7 humans "accountable", were they "infallible"? How about those other humans who decided which books are going to become "Scripture" (Catholic/Orthodox bishops at the early Ecumenical councils).

So in fact you, through blind faith, believe that all those humans involved in creating and compiling the Scripture were incapable of error (while they were writing/compiling the Scriptures), but you seem outraged!!! when someone believes that the Bishop of Rome is incapable of error in the narrow, rare cases where he's talking about dogma ex Cathedra!!!

Your anti-Catholic bigotry blinds you to the obvious contradictions in your beliefs.

[John 6]

One  additional note:

Jesus may not have used the word Catholic....He also never used word the Trinity.  Does that mean the teaching of the Trinity is not true? (which was disputed and the conflict was settled at council of Constantinople in 359)

[AvrilNYC]

Let's see Acts 11 for further evidence of Peter's leadership:

11:2-4 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him and said, "You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them." Peter began and explained everything to them precisely as it had happened.

11:5-17 Peter tells the crowd about the direct revelation he had from God.

11:18 When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, "So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life."

So much for Democratic debate!!

God did not (and does not) directly revealed His will to the crowd (or to those clueless Protestants who misread the Bible, with no direction from the Church), but to his chosen representative Peter (and his successor the Catholic Church)

[LightHammer]

Man this guy is dense.

Josiah, I'm trying help you understand because I'm a freethinking protestant of Rome and the East as you are.

Its not a matter of "ACCOUNTABILITY" when it comes to the bishops and formulating official doctrine. The Holy Ghost WILL NOT allow them to formulate official doctrine in error. The Holy Ghost Himself works through the leaders of the Church to establish doctrine. They can not make a mistake because GOD WILL NEVER EVER ALLOW IT. So when it comes to the formation of official doctrine the bishops have nothing to be held accountable for because God has made sure to never let them falter on that out of His desire to protect His sheep(Christians) from being taught falsehood.

Now those clergy who have committed grave sins and have hidden behind their titles as a means to live a false life, they have something to be "accountable" for. They will answer to God for their crimes and will be held to  higher standard for living in such a hypocritical manner but that is between them and God.

Brother you can abandon your fears and way of thinking when it comes to holding clergy "accountable" for their errors in formulating doctrine. God Himself, personally has prevented all error from even advancing an inch in His Church's doctrine.

Thats why I stressed the age of the Catholic Church so much. If Christ promised to never leave His Church leaderless and promised to protect them from all doctrinal error forever, the oldest Church simply has to be The Church.

The Apostolic Church simply dropped the term "Apostolic" and applied "Catholic" to it after Ignatius of Antioch and the other successors decided to do so.

The ONLY difference between the "Apostolic" Church and the "Catholic" Church is the title. There are no doctrinal differences whatsoever.

[desertknight]

Actually, the Catholic Church has no official name.  "RCC", Roman Catholic Church, is a British-ism that was unknown outside of England until the late 19th century.  It is incorrect as a label for the Church and even in Britain, it was meant only to distinguish Catholics from Anglicans but the name stuck and English speakers continue to use it even though it clearly doesn't apply to Eastern Catholics, for example.  

"Catholic" is what we use as a shorthand, but so do others, the Eastern Orthodox call themselves Catholic.  We still use Apostolic, as the closest thing you can get to an official name is the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church".  The Church of God, Church of Christ, Body of Christ, Mystical Body, Church Militant...all have been used by the Church and her pastors through the ages.

That is why the argument that a poster has made here about the, "RCC never being mentioned in the Bible", is just plain silly.  It's like the same argument about how the Bible never mentions the word "Pope", so that proves something.  Of course "pope" is totally unofficial as a title as well and just a Latin term of endearment, papa', pops!  No one is actually ever "Pope", officially.  They are the inheritor of the See of Peter, the chief of the Bishops, the regent of Christ, ("feed my sheep!").

[winsome]

4.  Read 15:15-18.  This is the section Catholics never quote (Catholic teachers pretend that Acts 15 ends with verse 13).  What clearly is the rule/canon/norma normans that the arbiters used?  We are specifically told.  "With this THE WORDS OF SCRIPTURE AGREE!"  The rule/canon is specific related to have been Scripture.  This is called "The Rule of Scripture" (aka Sola Scriptura).  Several Scriptures are specificly given (NOTE: not a single word of Peter is mention here, SCRIPTURE is the rule - not Peter).  Then note the first word in verse 19.   After SCRIPTURE is stated to have been the rule/canon, and some of them quoted, we find the word "THEREFORE...."   The THEREFORE is what Scripture says, grammatically it cannot be otherwise.   "It is written......  THEREFORE."  The arbitration was according to the Rule of Scripture, aka Sola Scriptura.


Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

This is nonsense. Peter clearly stated the position and all agreed. No scripture had been quoted at this point.

James returned to the topic to make a practical suggestion as to the next step in informing the church in Antioch of the decision.

A letter was sent, containing not one word of scripture. The authority was clearly given - It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us. They were expected to accept this decision on that authority, not of scripture. And they did.
Upon their arrival in Antioch they called the assembly together and delivered the letter. When the people read it, they were delighted with the exhortation. (vs 30,31). Did they demand proof from scripture? NO. They accepted the decision of the apostles on their authority alone.

The scripture that James quoted did not address the decision to drop circumcision, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from unlawful marriage. All these which were the message to the Antiochans  and were ruled on by the authority of the Apostles with no recourse to scripture.

[John 6]

  Good point winsome!

The New Testament was not even written yet! When the bible references scripture it is talking about the Old Testament. SO at this point Peter was exercising his authority to loose and bind!  

[pointmade]

John6 "To answer your questions where did Jesus give this authority to the RCC......Matt 16 is when Christ made this promise to the Catholic Church.  St. Peter was the first Pope of the Catholic Church.  He was followed by St. Linus.  You can look up a list of all the popes in any encyclopedia.  You will see we have an unending succession to Peter."

You have made some interesting points. I have looked up and read the reign of some of the popes. You will have to admit, the Lord was in dire need of leadership if He had to use some of these men to carry on His doctrine. Jimmy Swaggart in long robes!

Interesting to me that Peter never claimed to be the Lord's "vicar" on earth.  He had ever opportunity to do so at Pentecost when he opened the kingdom to the Jew, or approximately ten years later to the Gentiles at Caesarea. He never allowed Cornelius to bow before him in worship in Caesarea (Acts 10:25-26). Paul, "a chose vessel" never addressed Peter in his salutation when writing to the church of Christ in Rome. Amazing is it not to mention the founder?

In His high priestly prayer to the Father in John 17, Jesus is very clear to whom He gave the words from the Father. "Sanctify them (apostles) through the truth: thy word is truth." In John 20:22-23 we read of the transfer of authority to His apostles (not just Peter) by His "breath." Jesus has said to ALL these men "Whose soever sins YOU (not just Peter),  remit, they shall be loosed and whose soever sins YOU (not just Peter) retain, they shall be bound." The will do this by the words from the Holy Spirit (John 14:25-26). The binding and loosing on earth and in heaven refers to the forgiveness of sins by the proclamation of the divine means of pardon. Since Christ knew that Peter would faithfully deliver at Pentecost the decrees of heaven revealed to him by the Holy Spirit, Jesus could say that God would ratify in heaven what Peter proclaimed on earth.  It takes professional help to miss this John 6!!

Let' look at some historical facts: The Catholic church runs to Matthew 16 for accuracy that Peter is the "rock" of verse 18. It wasn't until the sixth century a pope was elected, the effort was made to justify the office by saying that Peter was the first Pope and appointed at Caesarea Philippi. Why, even as late as Augustine there was no unanimity of interpretation of this passage. In fact, Augustine declared that he had interpreted the passage in various ways, with Christ as the rock or with Peter as the rock. The attempt to make out the church was founded  on Peter was a view which grew up with the Catholic Church. Amazing that Catholicism has emphasized the similarity of the words for Peter and rock and the prominence of Peter in the early church in a feeble and farfetched effort to create a rule of Greek grammar in order to sustain the theory that the church was already in existence. According to Catholocism, it was Peter instead of Jesus who gave the great commission and establish the laws of pardon!

The church of Christ that Jesus died for is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone" (Eph. 2:20), not a bunch of Johnny come lately who would build  the "city of God" in Rome.

[Josiah]

Chester,


Let's look at Acts 15.


1.   Read 15:1-2.   There were teachers.  We don't know if any doctrine or dogma was involved, but there were positions.  Some said that circumcision is required for salvation, others not.   Now, the interesting thing is that the rubric of The Catholic Church is rejected here:  what teachers said was not accepted with docility as correct, NO ONE was given a "pass" on accountability.  ALL PARTIES WERE HELD FULLY ACCOUNTABLE for what they taught.  No one is permitted to give a "pass" to just one - self.  No one is permitted to say, "but I'm infallible/unaccountable, I'm incapable of being wrong, I'm right cuz I'm right so ergo I must be right - just accept whatever I exclusively say with docility for when I speak, Jesus speaks!"   This is an embrace of accountability for ALL teachers, not the RCC's insistence that self is exempt from such if self so exempts self.


2.  Read 15:5-12.   They gather and several speak - all sides are consider, all regarded as fully accountable, none given any "pass."  Peter is not the first to speak and not the last to speak - he's just ONE.  And when Peter speaks, there's NOTHING about him being infallible, the Pope, the Vicar of Christ.  He's just one of the speakers, one among several - some aren't even apostles.  Now, note, there were TWO speakers that do get special attention - they are Paul (an Apostle) and Barnabas (not an Apostle), the assemby "fell silent as they listened to Paul and Barnabas."  


3.  Read 15:6 and 13.  ALL the speakers are heard and held accountable.  There is an arbitration.  Unfortunate for us, we aren't told anything about that arbitive process but it's entirely moot to our discussion here.   Whatever the process, however the decision made, it is.  


4.  Read 15:15-18.  This is the section Catholics never quote (Catholic teachers pretend that Acts 15 ends with verse 13).  What clearly is the rule/canon/norma normans that the arbiters used?  We are specifically told.  "With this THE WORDS OF SCRIPTURE AGREE!"  The rule/canon is specific related to have been Scripture.  This is called "The Rule of Scripture" (aka Sola Scriptura).  Several Scriptures are specificly given (NOTE: not a single word of Peter is mention here, SCRIPTURE is the rule - not Peter).  Then note the first word in verse 19.   After SCRIPTURE is stated to have been the rule/canon, and some of them quoted, we find the word "THEREFORE...."   The THEREFORE is what Scripture says, grammatically it cannot be otherwise.   "It is written......  THEREFORE."  The arbitration was according to the Rule of Scripture, aka Sola Scriptura.


Notice:


1.  ALL teachers were held fully ACCOUNTABLE.   None were given a pass (as the RCC insists for itself exclusively), none were permitted to exempt self alone from accountability as the RCC, replacing such with "just accept whatever I exclusively say with docility."

2.  Peter was just one speaker - not the first, not the last, not the ones given special attention.  And he is NOT noted as being infallible or the Vicar of Christ.

3.  The Rule is specifically stated to be Scripture.  Embracing Scripture as the rule in norming is called "The Rule of Scripture" or "Sola Scriptura."



Are teachers of dogma accountable for what is taught as such?  If so, WHAT best serves among us as the rule/canon/norma normans in the norming process?   In Acts 15, accountability is fully embraced for all the positions.  Norming happens, and the rule/canon is specifically stated to be Scripture.  As you know, this is called Sola Scriptura.  It is the opposite of a teacher insisting:  "I'm incapable of being wrong, I'm infallible/unaccountable, just accept whatever I say as correct with docility for when I speak, God speaks" (read your Catechism # 87).  





.

Address these simple points if you can:


1)Christians in Antioch had a doctrinal question.  They consulted the Church leaders.  The Church leaders ruled authoritatively.(Based on direct revelation from God to Peter, by the way!)

Read Acts 15.1-18
There were some teaching about salvation.
ALL of them were regarded as fully accountable.
NONE were regarded as infallible/unaccountable, incapable of error, just to be accepted with docility (compare with CC 87, etc.)
Accountability for ALL teachers was embraced.
THAT is the RCC objection - accountability for the teaching of dogma (well, for ONE - itself.  Exclusively).  
The objection to the Rule of Scripture is not Scripture.  It's not that some alternative is suggested.  The objection of the RCC (and the Catholics in this thread) is to accountability in the singular, exclusive, particular, sole case of the RCC (its insisted upon in every single other case - right here, right now).

2)Doctrine was declared by the Church leadership and it was accepted by the laity.

Read Acts 15:1-18.
All positions of all teachers were regarded as accountable; none as infallible, incapable of error, exempt from norming.
ALL were listened to.
Peter was just one of speakers.  Not the first or last.  Not the ones given special notice and attention.  
NO mention of Peter being regarded as the infallible pope, the Vicar of  Christ.
Arbitration happened (we don't know how or by whom).
The Rule is stated.  It was Scripture (NOT Peter!).
Embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans is called Sola Scriptura.






.

[AvrilNYC]

Josiah,

Do you even know what "accountable" means? You keep repeating that word over and over again, out of context, like someone who really doesn't know what they're talking about. 

How do you understand "accountable"?

[chestertonrules]

1.   Read 15:1-2.   There were teachers.  We don't know if any doctrine or dogma was involved, but there were positions.  Some said that circumcision is required for salvation, others not.   Now, the interesting thing is that the rubric of The Catholic Church is rejected here:  what teachers said was not accepted with docility as correct, NO ONE was given a "pass" on accountability.  ALL PARTIES WERE HELD FULLY ACCOUNTABLE for what they taught.  No one is permitted to give a "pass" to just one - self.  No one is permitted to say, "but I'm infallible/unaccountable, I'm incapable of being wrong, I'm right cuz I'm right so ergo I must be right - just accept whatever I exclusively say with docility for when I speak, Jesus speaks!"   This is an embrace of accountability for ALL teachers, not the RCC's insistence that self is exempt from such if self so exempts self.

They did not know the answer so they consulted Church leaders who had authority.  They chose Paul and Barnabas to go get the answer from the Church.  If they all were authoritative and accountable why bother sending to the Church leaders for an answer?

2.  Read 15:5-12.   They gather and several speak - all sides are consider, all regarded as fully accountable, none given any "pass."  Peter is not the first to speak and not the last to speak - he's just ONE.  And when Peter speaks, there's NOTHING about him being infallible, the Pope, the Vicar of Christ.  He's just one of the speakers, one among several - some aren't even apostles.  Now, note, there were TWO speakers that do get special attention - they are Paul (an Apostle) and Barnabas (not an Apostle), the assemby "fell silent as they listened to Paul and Barnabas." 

Peter provides the answer, then all fall silent.  The matter is resolved after Peter speaks then they move on to other issues.  James sums up their decision at the end.  The authoritative Church ruled on the matter.  They confirmed their authority by dismissing those teaching without their authority.

3.  Read 15:6 and 13.  ALL the speakers are heard and held accountable.  There is an arbitration.  Unfortunate for us, we aren't told anything about that arbitive process but it's entirely moot to our discussion here.   Whatever the process, however the decision made, it is. 

The Church ruled as a unit.  The decision was binding.

4.  Read 15:15-18.  This is the section Catholics never quote (Catholic teachers pretend that Acts 15 ends with verse 13).  What clearly is the rule/canon/norma normans that the arbiters used?  We are specifically told.  "With this THE WORDS OF SCRIPTURE AGREE!"  The rule/canon is specific related to have been Scripture.  This is called "The Rule of Scripture" (aka Sola Scriptura).  Several Scriptures are specificly given (NOTE: not a single word of Peter is mention here, SCRIPTURE is the rule - not Peter).  Then note the first word in verse 19.   After SCRIPTURE is stated to have been the rule/canon, and some of them quoted, we find the word "THEREFORE...."   The THEREFORE is what Scripture says, grammatically it cannot be otherwise.   "It is written......  THEREFORE."  The arbitration was according to the Rule of Scripture, aka Sola Scriptura.

"It seemed right to the Holy Spirit and to us!!!"  The rule is the authority of the Church to interpret scripture in the light of new developments.  If scripture was the authority there would have been no need to send represenatatives to Jerusalem to consult the Church.

.

[chestertonrules]

You have made some interesting points. I have looked up and read the reign of some of the popes. You will have to admit, the Lord was in dire need of leadership if He had to use some of these men to carry on His doctrine. Jimmy Swaggart in long robes!

.

Many men chosen by God were terrible sinners, and all were sinners.  Take
David for example.  And adulterous murderer no less! 

All popes are sinners.  In fact, one of the popes denied Jesus three times.

The preservation of doctrine has nothing to do with the personal virtue of the popes, although many were(and are) very holy men.

[Josiah]

Josiah,

Take a closer look at Acts 15 you will see this passage proves the Catholic view:

verse 3-5--They brought there conflict to the Church, so the Church could settle the dispute

Verse 6--The Apostles and Presbyters met together to discuss how to handle the issue....This was the first council of the Church.  This is the model that the Catholic Church has used for the last 2,000 years to discern the truth.

You are correct a discussion occurred, we do not know who started the discussion, it may have been Peter.  However, we do know that Peter is the only who had anything to say that was worth quoting... and his quote was stated with authority.

In Acts  15:3-6 God shows how we are to discern the truth...God never changes if this is how the Apostles discerned the truth, we need to follow their actions. 

Yes, let's look at Acts 15.


Acts 15:1-5

1.  There were those teaching matters of salvation.
2.  ALL of them were regarded as accountable.
3.  NONE were permitted to grant self a "pass" on such, to declare self alone as infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error; that whatever self says is just to be accepted as true/correct "with docility."  Compare with the Catholic Catechism # 87, etc.
4.  Here we find a full embrace of accountability for teachers of doctrine.


Acts 15:6-12

1.  These various teachers were brought together, all presenting their positions.
2.  Peter is just ONE of the many speakers (some named, some not).  He is not the first speaker on the agenda, not the last.  He is not the teacher given special notice and attention.  NOTHING is said or indicated that Peter has ANY special or unusual status here, nothing about him being The Infallible Pope, nothing about him being The Vicar of Christ, nothing about any "keys" to him exclusively that give him anything of any relevance here.  


Acts 15:13-18

1.  Some arbitration happens; we aren't told how or by whom.
2.  The RULE for the process is specificly stated:  "this agrees WITH SCRIPTURE, for it is WRITTEN....."
3.  Embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans is called "The Rule of Scripture" (aka Sola Scriptura)
4.  Scripture is quoted.
5.  The "THEREFORE" in verse 19 connects with the "this agrees with Scripture, for it is written" and the quotes of some of these.  

Jesus prayed that we would be one just has He and the Father are one (John 17:20-21).  Do you think his prayer was answered? 

1.  It depends on what sense of "one" you believe is being addressed here.  Are all 2.2 billion Christians today registered in the same parish/congregation?  No.  Are all the world's 2 million congregations all legally affiliated with one denomination?  No.  Do all the world's 2.2 billion worship in the same room in the same worship service?  No.  Do all 2.2 billion Christians agree with each other in every single matter?  No. Are we all united in our love for each other as Christ first loved us?  Should be, we strive for such - but no. But then these things have NEVER been the case.  Are we all brothers and sisters through faith in Christ as our Savior?  Yes.  Are we all united in the ONE, holy, catholic church - the communion of saints, the community of beleivers?  Yes.  Always have been.  Always will be.   But let's stick to the issue before us:  teaching of dogma, and whether such is accountable, and if so, WHAT is the best rule among us for the norming of such.

2.  We all know that The RCC is in full agreement with just one: itself, it has a unity of one: self alone with self alone.  But that is limited to those issue that the RCC alone currently regards as necessary for agreement.  So, what we have is self alone agreeing with self alone exclusively on those issue where self alone determines should be agreed upon.   Do you think THAT is what Jesus was praying for?  That self alone would agree with self alone exclusively in those areas where self alone currently regards as necessary for agreement?  Friend, the same can be said of The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod.  EXACTLY like the RCC, it agrees with self alone in all matters where self alone currently regards as necessary for agreement.  Heck, I agree with me in all areas where I regard it good for agreement, so what?  Does THAT mean that ergo I'm infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error, and whatever I exclusively say is just to be accepted as correct/true "with docility" and that I'm to be regarded as speaking as Jesus?  

3.  You are illustrating my point about the RCC rejection of Sola Scriptura.  It's NOT that it has a different theology of Scripture or a better alternative rule/norma normans.  It's problem is accountability in the exclusive, singular, particular case of it itself alone.  ALL others are fully and immediately accountable, but the RCC makes ONE remarkable, exclusive, absolute exception:  itself.   You are trying to justify this exemption of self for self, but you are just defending my point: this is what the RCC does and what it's objection to Sola Scriptura is.

Christ made this promise to the Catholic Church.  St. Peter was the first Pope of the Catholic Church. 

Anyone who has read the NT knows that Jesus never so much as even MENTIONED the RCC.  Not once.  Not ever.  About anything.  Concerning anything.  In any context or in any regard.  The claims of the RCC alone for the RCC alone are just that.

What we read, over and over again, are the divine and stern warnings about false prophets, false teachers, antichrists and those that lead many astray - with NEVER any exclusive exemption for the RCC.   What we read is Jesus praising the Ephesian Christians for doing what the RCC says must not be done (CCC 87, Rev. 2:2), Jesus praising these Ephesians for regarding their teachers as accountable, for testing/norming them, for arbitrating the issue and for determining they are FALSE.  What we see in Acts 15 is ALL teachers being held as accountable, the testing/norming of them, the use of Scripture as the norma normans.   What we NEVER see is ANY mention of the RCC.  For anything.  About anything.   No promises.  No authorizations.  No exemptions.  No proclaimations that it is exempt from accountability or norming.  No statements that whatever it and it exclusively says gets a "pass" and whatever is just to be accepted as correct/true "with docility."  

IMHO, the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light, embracing accountability.  It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, who must shield himself from examination and accountability, who must build high walls all around him of remarkable claims of infalliblity and being the mouth of God, who must insist that all OTHERS are accountable, just not self.  Whatever self says is just to be accepted "with docility."  



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah







.

[winsome]

Josiah,

Take a closer look at Acts 15 you will see this passage proves the Catholic view:

verse 3-5--They brought there conflict to the Church, so the Church could settle the dispute

Verse 6--The Apostles and Presbyters met together to discuss how to handle the issue....This was the first council of the Church.  This is the model that the Catholic Church has used for the last 2,000 years to discern the truth.

You are correct a discussion occurred, we do not know who started the discussion, it may have been Peter.  However, we do know that Peter is the only who had anything to say that was worth quoting... and his quote was stated with authority.

In Acts  15:3-6 God shows how we are to discern the truth...God never changes if this is how the Apostles discerned the truth, we need to follow their actions. 

Yes, let's look at Acts 15.


Acts 15:1-5

1.  There were those teaching matters of salvation.
2.  ALL of them were regarded as accountable.
3.  NONE were permitted to grant self a "pass" on such, to declare self alone as infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error; that whatever self says is just to be accepted as true/correct "with docility."  Compare with the Catholic Catechism # 87, etc.
4.  Here we find a full embrace of accountability for teachers of doctrine.

You claim is that sola scriptura is the norm for accountability.
Please show where these people were accountable to scripture.

They were accountable to the Church in the form of the assembled apostles.
That is why they came to Jerusalem to raise the matter with those in authority.

Acts 15:6-12

1.  These various teachers were brought together, all presenting their positions.
2.  Peter is just ONE of the many speakers (some named, some not).  He is not the first speaker on the agenda, not the last.  He is not the teacher given special notice and attention.  NOTHING is said or indicated that Peter has ANY special or unusual status here, nothing about him being The Infallible Pope, nothing about him being The Vicar of Christ, nothing about any "keys" to him exclusively that give him anything of any relevance here. 

Acts 15:6,7 - The apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter.  After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them.........
After much debate had taken place. Peter got up and gave his ruling.
They all fell silent.
The matter was decided.

Acts 15:13-18

1.  Some arbitration happens; we aren't told how or by whom.
2.  The RULE for the process is specificly stated:  "this agrees WITH SCRIPTURE, for it is WRITTEN....."
3.  Embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans is called "The Rule of Scripture" (aka Sola Scriptura)
4.  Scripture is quoted.
5.  The "THEREFORE" in verse 19 connects with the "this agrees with Scripture, for it is written" and the quotes of some of these.   

"1.  Some arbitration happens; we aren't told how or by whom.

[mclees8]

You have made some interesting points. I have looked up and read the reign of some of the popes. You will have to admit, the Lord was in dire need of leadership if He had to use some of these men to carry on His doctrine. Jimmy Swaggart in long robes!

.

Many men chosen by God were terrible sinners, and all were sinners.  Take
David for example.  And adulterous murderer no less! 

All popes are sinners.  In fact, one of the popes denied Jesus three times.

The preservation of doctrine has nothing to do with the personal virtue of the popes, although many were(and are) very holy men.

Hi Im Mike and Ive heard discussions like this many times . The question is not Popes being perfect. The question is would Peter ever have sat as a pope. When we think of the pope we think of someone who wares long religious robes, with a tall hat  sits in a grand palace on a throne. he looks like some Royal king. Kings and world leaders come to pay their respects even bowing before Him. He is called things like Your eminence, holy father, But if we picture Peter we cannot see him in that light. nor any apostle. Jesus taught that we are not to make a big show of our religion. Not to be men who pride their positipn like the Pharisees and call attention to them selves. Not being called by titles and set apart from others.
Jesus taught and how the apostles and even Peter carried themselves, against what we see in the papacy that is totally the o posit of them. Yet they say they sit as Peter but Peter never sat as one of them
The question now is what happened that the bishops of Rome forgot who they were and parade and flaunt their position. It could not be that they lost sight and were flattered by power and position. Blinded with  personal ambition wanting to rule an empire.

This is just an observation but one that cannot be ignored.
Second Jesus did not found his church on religious and political power. It is evident that the church was none political before Constantine. The quest for this was never to be a part of the churches purpose. Christ himself rejected it when tempted of satan. Yet the popes say they sit as Christ's vicar. and sit as Peter but nothing we know from scripture supports that. To sit in such a position as being the authority of all Christianity in a grand city called the Vatican City n Rome sure would have borne recognition even from the Lord Himself. But surprisingly we see nothing about it coming from Christ and not even Peter. So is the RCC the church that Christ founded, or did something happen over three hundred years to change what Christ founded

god bless

[Josiah]

Josiah,

Take a closer look at Acts 15 you will see this passage proves the Catholic view:

verse 3-5--They brought there conflict to the Church, so the Church could settle the dispute

Verse 6--The Apostles and Presbyters met together to discuss how to handle the issue....This was the first council of the Church.  This is the model that the Catholic Church has used for the last 2,000 years to discern the truth.

You are correct a discussion occurred, we do not know who started the discussion, it may have been Peter.  However, we do know that Peter is the only who had anything to say that was worth quoting... and his quote was stated with authority.

In Acts  15:3-6 God shows how we are to discern the truth...God never changes if this is how the Apostles discerned the truth, we need to follow their actions.  

Yes, let's look at Acts 15.


Acts 15:1-5

1.  There were those teaching matters of salvation.

2.  ALL of them were regarded as accountable.

3.  NONE were permitted to grant self a "pass" on such, to declare self alone as infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error; that whatever self says is just to be accepted as true/correct "with docility."  Compare with the Catholic Catechism # 87, etc.

4.  Here we find a full embrace of accountability for teachers of doctrine

.

You claim is that sola scriptura is the norm for accountability.
Please show where these people were accountable to scripture.

You are confusing and blending issues....

What is revealed in Acts 15:1-5 is that these various teachers of doctrine were regarded as accountable.
NONE of them were permitted to designate self exclusively as infallible/unaccountable, incapable of error in the matter, exempt from accountability and norming, the mouth of God, and that their teaching is rather to just be accepted as true/correct "with docility."  Compare this with the Catholic Church's claim of itself for itself in CCC 87, for example.

Now, in the arbitative process, what was the embraced norm for all these teachers?
We are told.  It's Scripture.

Acts 15:6-12

1.  These various teachers were brought together, all presenting their positions.

2.  Peter is just ONE of the many speakers (some named, some not).  He is not the first speaker on the agenda, not the last.  He is not the teacher given special notice and attention.  NOTHING is said or indicated that Peter has ANY special or unusual status here, nothing about him being The Infallible Pope, nothing about him being The Vicar of Christ, nothing about any "keys" to him exclusively that give him anything of any relevance here

.  

Acts 15:6,7 The apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter.  After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them......
After much debate had taken place. Peter got up and gave his ruling.
They all fell silent.
The matter was decided.

Yes, there was arbitation because ALL the teachers of doctrine were regarded as accountable; NOT incapable of error, NOT infallible, NOT to be accepted with docility.  

Peter didn't give the ruling, a non-Apostle did.   Although it's not absolutely clear, it seems the crowd fell silent when PAUL and BARNABAS spoke, not Peter.   Peter was just one of several presenters.  Not the first, not the last.  Given no special recognition at all.  NOTHING about him being the INFALLIBLE Pope, the Vicar of Christ.  Nothing about any "keys" of Peter exclusively that has any relevance whatsoever in this matter.

Yes, I agree, arbitration happened.   This thread is not about arbitration, it's about the embraced rule/canon/norma normans in the evaluation of dogmas and the fundamental reason for the need for such: accountability.   IF teachers of dogma are accountable for such, as the Council of Jerusalem affirms, then norming is embraced (as the Council of Jerusalem illustrates).  THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS:  WHAT was embraced as the rule/canon for that evaluation of all those teachers, all held as accountable?   We are told.  It was Scripture.  The praxis here illustrated of embracing Scripture as the rule is called The Rule of Scripture or Sola Scriptura.  That's the topic here.

As you and the other Catholics here are revealing, is that the RCC objects to this NOT because it has a different theology of Scripture or a better alternative norma normans, but because it alone excempts it alone from accountability but rather insists that we lay aside the issue of whether it (exclusively) is correct and rather accept whatever it (exclusively) says in these matters, "with docility."  It's accountability it rejects (but only in the sole, exclusive, particular case of it itself - it insists upon it in every other case, making just one remarkable and absolute and singular exemption: itself).  

Acts 15:13-18

1.  Some arbitration happens; we aren't told how or by whom.

2.  The RULE for the process is specificly stated:  "this agrees WITH SCRIPTURE, for it is WRITTEN....."

3.  Embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans is called "The Rule of Scripture" (aka Sola Scriptura)

4.  Scripture is quoted.

5.  The "THEREFORE" in verse 19 connects with the "this agrees with Scripture, for it is written" and the quotes of some of these

.  

After Paul and Barnabus had spoken about the signs and wonders God had been working, James quoted scripture, but not scripture that was relevant to the decision regarding circumcision, but a general point about bringing the gentiles into the Church.

Whether you agree that the issues were correctly arbitrated or not is not the issue before us, the obvious and undeniable reality is that Scripture was the rule/canon/norma normans.   Pastor James notes, "This agrees WITH SCRIPTURE.... FOR IT IS WRITTEN..... THEREFORE......"  SCRIPTURE is noted and quoted; Scripture is the rule/canon/norma normans here.   Do you know what we call the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule?  It's called "The Rule of Scripture" (or Sola Scriptura).  






.

[winsome]

Whether you agree that the issues were correctly arbitrated or not is not the issue before us, the obvious and undeniable reality is that Scripture was the rule/canon/norma normans.   Pastor James notes, "This agrees WITH SCRIPTURE.... FOR IT IS WRITTEN..... THEREFORE......"  SCRIPTURE is noted and quoted; Scripture is the rule/canon/norma normans here.   Do you know what we call the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule?  It's called "The Rule of Scripture" (or Sola Scriptura).  

Josiah,

Your claim that scripture was the rule of faith here is completely bogus. It was not in any way the rule of faith.

All the important decisions in Acts 15 were made without reference to scripture and the scripture quoted does not address the nub of the discuss regarding circumcision.

The reason Paul and Barnabus came to Jerusalem is given in vs 1
Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved.

[desertknight]

You have made some interesting points. I have looked up and read the reign of some of the popes. You will have to admit, the Lord was in dire need of leadership if He had to use some of these men to carry on His doctrine. Jimmy Swaggart in long robes!

Yes, just as when He said to Peter that he would deny Him three times or told Peter, "Get behind me Satan!"  As chesterton mentioned, David was an adulterous murderer, yet God chose him and he was anointed.  Our faith teaches us with an absolute certainty that we are all sinners, from every Pope to every parishioner, and that not one of us is deserving of salvation.  

Interesting to me that Peter never claimed to be the Lord's "vicar" on earth.  He had ever opportunity to do so at Pentecost when he opened the kingdom to the Jew, or approximately ten years later to the Gentiles at Caesarea. He never allowed Cornelius to bow before him in worship in Caesarea (Acts 10:25-26). Paul, "a chose vessel" never addressed Peter in his salutation when writing to the church of Christ in Rome. Amazing is it not to mention the founder?

Nor does any Catholic bow down in "worship" to any on earth.  We do show respect, as Peter and anyone of his age who was educated in the faith would have for we are to respect and be obedient to those in authority.  (Hebrews 13:17).

I am curious however, does the fact that Christ specifically called Peter as His Vicar carry any weight with you?  (John 21:15-17, John 20:21  Matt. 16:19).

In His high priestly prayer to the Father in John 17, Jesus is very clear to whom He gave the words from the Father. "Sanctify them (apostles) through the truth: thy word is truth." In John 20:22-23 we read of the transfer of authority to His apostles (not just Peter) by His "breath." Jesus has said to ALL these men "Whose soever sins YOU (not just Peter),  remit, they shall be loosed and whose soever sins YOU (not just Peter) retain, they shall be bound." The will do this by the words from the Holy Spirit (John 14:25-26). The binding and loosing on earth and in heaven refers to the forgiveness of sins by the proclamation of the divine means of pardon. Since Christ knew that Peter would faithfully deliver at Pentecost the decrees of heaven revealed to him by the Holy Spirit, Jesus could say that God would ratify in heaven what Peter proclaimed on earth.  It takes professional help to miss this John 6!!

Yes, all of the Apostles, just as they passed down that authority through the Bishops, have the power to absolve sin, hence the sacrament of confession.  All are vicars in that sense.  Peter, as all of the Apostles, Bishops and Presbyters, are members of the priesthood.  And?

Let' look at some historical facts: The Catholic church runs to Matthew 16 for accuracy that Peter is the "rock" of verse 18. It wasn't until the sixth century a pope was elected, the effort was made to justify the office by saying that Peter was the first Pope and appointed at Caesarea Philippi.

Well, no.  The means of election of the Bishop or Rome have changed over the ages, but that he was from the begining, is not in dispute.  I think you have some misunderstanding of what the pope is, however.  First, no one is elected "pope".  That is just a term of endearment and one that did not exist for some centuries. I, like everyone else, uses the term merely for the sake of that reason and for clarity in conversation.   Second, even as Bishop of Rome, that is only incidental, preserved for the sake of small "t", tradition.  The Pope is simply who the Church designates, through her apostolic authority of the Bishops, to be the chief of the Apostles's successors, the Bishops.   Although Linus is listed as the second Bishop of Rome, it is not vital whether he was or not.  It is not vital whether the successor to the pope passes on authority personally, most in the early years did not as they were martyred for the faith.  All that matters is that the Church has the power to exercise her authority to anoint a chief bishop.  Pope Saint Clement I, who according to Tertullian, was consecrated by Saint Peter himself, is the first "pope" of the Church after Peter's death, whom we have a good record of.  His Epistle to the Corinthians was widely included in the canon of the New Testament for many generations until it was eventually excluded.  That is well before the 6th century.

"On him, Peter, He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep, and although He assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet He founded a single throne, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity....  If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith?  If he (should) desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?"  (St. Cyprian Of Carthage, "On the Unity of the Catholic Church," 251 A.D.).

Are all these guys wrong?  

Why, even as late as Augustine there was no unanimity of interpretation of this passage. In fact, Augustine declared that he had interpreted the passage in various ways, with Christ as the rock or with Peter as the rock.

There was near universal unanimity, (see St. Cyprian quote above as example.), you just don't understand what belief they were unified on.  Many Protestants have the erroneous idea that, "Christ was talking about Peter's faith, Christ is the metaphorical 'rock'," without realising that the Catholic take on that is.....yes.  The Church has always taught that it is Peter's faith in Christ, that is his special charism.  The Church has always taught that Christ is the true "Rock", the actual foundation of the Church.  Neither of those facts are in any way contradictory to the fact that Christ specifically changed Simeon Bar Jonah's name to Peter and gave him the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.  Neither of those facts contradict that Christ specifically told Peter that (because of His faith, because Christ is Lord.), that upon that Rock, Peter specifically was to be his chief vicar.  Matt. 16:18 clearly and unequivocally says,

"That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.  And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Christ is specifically addressing Peter and no one else.  All the attempts of getting around that in the world will not change the plain meaning of that passage.  

The attempt to make out the church was founded  on Peter was a view which grew up with the Catholic Church. Amazing that Catholicism has emphasized the similarity of the words for Peter and rock and the prominence of Peter in the early church in a feeble and farfetched effort to create a rule of Greek grammar in order to sustain the theory that the church was already in existence. According to Catholocism, it was Peter instead of Jesus who gave the great commission and establish the laws of pardon!

No, that is not Catholic belief, nor is that an accurate statement of the history.  

The church of Christ that Jesus died for is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone" (Eph. 2:20), not a bunch of Johnny come lately who would build  the "city of God" in Rome.

It is built on Jesus and the authority of the Apostles and prophets before them, quite true, that is why Apostolic authority is so important to us Catholics.  That Apostolic Succession is so clearly identified in the New Testament and that ordination through the laying on of hands by only those Bishops who preceded them, is what Christianity absolutely believed in, taught the faithful, and adhered to, and is so recorded throughout history, until a bunch of "Johnny come lately" Protestants some one thousand five hundred plus years later, heretically began to teach something very different.   The new Protestant belief had no foundation in either Sacred Scripture nor Sacred Tradition, is not believed in by any Christians before the AD1500's, and even the majority of Protestant sects in their obvious acknowledgement of that fact, attempt to assuage by keeping the titles of Bishop and the rites of ordination through their authorities unto today.    

[Josiah]

Whether you agree that the issues were correctly arbitrated or not is not the issue before us, the obvious and undeniable reality is that Scripture was the rule/canon/norma normans.   Pastor James notes, "This agrees WITH SCRIPTURE.... FOR IT IS WRITTEN..... THEREFORE......"  SCRIPTURE is noted and quoted; Scripture is the rule/canon/norma normans here.   Do you know what we call the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule?  It's called "The Rule of Scripture" (or Sola Scriptura).  

Josiah,

Your claim that scripture was the rule of faith here is completely bogus. It was not in any way the rule of faith.

READ what you quoted from me.

All the important decisions in Acts 15 were made without reference to scripture

I recommend that you read Acts 15, including the part after the RCC stops reading it.  "This agrees with the words of Scripture, just as it is written...."  Then some Scripture is quoted.  Verse 19 begins, "THEREFORE...."  Grammatically, that "therefore" refers back to the Scriptures quoted and the statement, "this agrees with the words of Scripture, just as it is written."  Friend, the rule for the norming is specifically stated, it's Scripture.  Do you know what the embrace of Scripture as the norma normans is called?  It's called Sola Scriptura. 



What we see in Acts 15 (especially if we read the parts the RCC doesn't quote):
1.  Teachers are ACCOUNTABLE; no one is permitted to give self a pass on such, self to declare self to be infallible/unaccountable, incapable of error in these matters, exempt from norming, and that all this must be laid aside and rather we are to just accept whatever one says "with docility."  Compare with the Catholic Catechism # 87, for example.
2.  Peter had no special... anything.  He was just one of the speakers; not the first, not the last, not it seems the one that brought special notice.  NOTHING about him being the Infallible Pope, nothing about him being the Vicar of Christ, nothing about any "keys" that has any relevance whatsoever to the issue of correctness or salvaton. 
3.  The Rule here is specificly stated.  It's Scripture.  Read verses 15-18. 


Accountability is embraced.
Scripture is the rule/norma normans.

For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths. (2Tim 4:3,4)

Thank you for that affirmation of the need for accountability.  Kinda flies in the face of the RCC granting one a remarkable, absolute, complete exemption from accountablity: itself.   Yup, as I noted, over and over, God sternly warns us and calls on us to beware of false teachers, antichrists, those that lead many astray.  You quoted just one of MANY examples of this!  Kinda suggests that teachers CAN err and that teachers ARE accountable, doesn't it?   And isn't it interesting that no where do we find the RCC given an exemption from this (except by the RCC for itself, exclusively)?  And it makes it more understandable that the Council of Jerusalem regarded teachers as accountable, and it makes it obvious why Jesus PRAISED the Ephesian Christians for doing what the RCC instructs not to do, He praised them for regarding teachers as accountable, for testing/norming them, arbitrating the issue, and declaring them false (CCC 87, Rev. 2:2). 


We are told teachers CAN err.
We are shown that they were held as ACCOUNTABLE.
Acts 15 is an obvious example of Sola Scriptura being used.
IMHO, all this flies in the face of the validity and worth of the RCC's insistence on accountability - full and immediate - for ALL except that it alone gives one remarkable, absolute, complete exemption to this: itself.  We are to give the RCC a pass on the whole issue of truth/correctness (but ONLY it), and laying all that aside, just accept whatever it says (in these matters) "with docility." 



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

[John 6]

POINTMADE
I will address this one paragraph at a time.

You are absolutely right, there have been some pretty bad popes.  Fortunately none of them ever made any declarations of Dogma or Doctrine.  They never exercised their authority...God protected His Church from those Goofballs.

Think about it the church has survived in spite of itself! That is an act of God!!

History is a little fuzzy, I believe the bad popes had all been appointed by the secular leaders at that time, that is why the Church decided to let the Cardinals Choose the Successor to Peter...

Again, that doesn't mean their decision were always perfect Look at John Paul I....He only lived a month after being elected, but it was  very joyful month for him, he even professed the the Cardinals had made a mistake and they were suppose to have chosen the bishop who sat across the table from him.....That bishop become John Paul II.

Even Peter was not perfect.  Right after Jesus gave him the Keys to kingdom he called him Satan.  Even the first pope who hand picked by Jesus made mistakes....Judas was also hand selected by Christ and look what he did!

[John 6]

Pointmade stated:
"Interesting to me that Peter never claimed to be the Lord's "vicar" on earth. He had ever opportunity to do so at Pentecost when he opened the kingdom to the Jew, or approximately ten years later to the Gentiles at Caesarea. He never allowed Cornelius to bow before him in worship in Caesarea (Acts 10:25-26). Paul, "a chose vessel" never addressed Peter in his salutation when writing to the church of Christ in Rome. Amazing is it not to mention the founder? "

Of course Peter never claimed to be the founder...he's not!!!  Jesus Christ is the Founder of the Catholic Church....

Of course Peter did not claim to be the Vicar of the Christ...Christ made it quite clear that he was.  For him to make this claim would have been prideful and boastful.  

Here are just a few scripture passages( I can get more if you need me to) that supports the theology that Peter was the head Bishop:

Peter is mentioned 155 times more the all the rest of the apostles put together. (just a minor detail)

For the Jewish people there was great significance in being first...When the apostles are listed Peter is always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 examples of this: Luke 8:51; 9:28-33 (he is the only who speaks at the transfiguration; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1,3,11; 4:13,19; 8:14 (Notice he is even listed before John, the Disciple that Jesus Loved) Acts 3:1,3,4 -

Matt. 16:17 – Only Peter receives divine knowledge from God the Father.

Peter is a spokesperson for the Disciples-He speaks on their behalf repeatedly:
John 6:68 - (after the disciples leave, Peter is the first to speak and confess his belief in Christ after the Eucharistic discourse.)  Luke 8:45 -John 13:6-9 -  Matt. 18:21 - Matt. 19:27 -Mark 10:28 -Mark 11:21 – Luke 12:41- Acts 2:14 – Peter speaks first and on behalf of the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them.

Jesus Speaks to Peter or gives instructions to Peter on behalf of the Apostles:
Mark 14:37 - Luke 5:4,10, Luke 7:40-50

Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.

Luke 5:3 – Jesus teaches from Peter's boat which is metaphor for the Church. Jesus guides Peter and the Church into all truth.

John 21:2-15
Peter leads the fishing and his net does not break.
only Peter got out of the boat and ran to the shore to meet Jesus.
in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus "more than these," which refers to the other apostles.  Then he commands Peter to "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep."

Acts 1:13-15 - Peter is first when entering upper room after our Lord's ascension. The first Eucharist and Pentecost were given in this room.  He initiates the selection of Judas successor.  (If Judas had a successor it stands to reason Peter needed one too.

Acts 5:15 - Peter's shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power.

Acts 8:20-23 - Peter casts judgment on Simon's quest for gaining authority through the laying on of hands. Peter exercises his binding and loosing authority.

Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.

Luke 24:12, John 20:4-6 - John arrived at the tomb first...and waited for Peter arrived and before he entered the tomb.

TO BE CONTINUED...

[mclees8]

Pointmade stated:
"Interesting to me that Peter never claimed to be the Lord's "vicar" on earth. He had ever opportunity to do so at Pentecost when he opened the kingdom to the Jew, or approximately ten years later to the Gentiles at Caesarea. He never allowed Cornelius to bow before him in worship in Caesarea (Acts 10:25-26). Paul, "a chose vessel" never addressed Peter in his salutation when writing to the church of Christ in Rome. Amazing is it not to mention the founder? "



Of course Peter never claimed to be the founder...he's not!!!  Jesus Christ is the Founder of the Catholic Church....

Of course Peter did not claim to be the Vicar of the Christ...Christ made it quite clear that he was.  For him to make this claim would have been prideful and boastful. 

Here are just a few scripture passages( I can get more if you need me to) that supports the theology that Peter was the head Bishop:

Peter is mentioned 155 times more the all the rest of the apostles put together. (just a minor detail)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike
Well John 6 i assume you are answering at the second paragraph where you state, "Of course Peter did not claim to be the Vicar of the Christ...Christ made it quite clear that he was.  For him to make this claim would have been prideful and boastful. "

I could not help but notice that you said to claim he was the vicar of Christ would be boastful and prideful, which is one of my points. do you think he would have allowed others to call Him the Vicar of Christ or your eminence. or Holy father.Do you think he would sit on a throne in a grand palace. ware religious vestments? Would that be not boastful and prideful? 

God bless