Posted on 06/29/2015 11:23:16 AM PDT by RnMomof7
Primacy of Scripture, yes.
Sola Scriptura, no.
Jesus gave the keys to Peter to “build my church.” (a human church, not a divine one)
Peter became the first Pope. Peter was human, not divine. All churches are human not divine.
No other Christian church was started with the blessing of Jesus other than Peter’s.
And, it continues, uninterupted to this day.
Primacy of scripture. Yep, Catholics believe that.
The “sola scriptura” mantra, in my mind, is anti-Catholic discourse.
I’m happy to be a member of a church that goes back to the time of the Apostles.
Christ also called Peter Satan.
“They had the books of the Holy Bible, which all existed, but at first they weren’t all together in one volume. The various books of the Bible circulated among the churches in individual scrolls. In the second century the Codex (a modern book style) was invented, and within a couple of centuries they were putting all the books together in a codex.”
Yep. Nor did it mean any church was missing some truth necessary for salvation in the meantime: the gospels were widely circulated, and the letters expounded on various errors and revealed other encouraging things to the first century Christians.
You lost me with that last part. What "is so" today - the declarations of what is canon or doctrine, or the maintained competency allowing the modern church to make future declarations?
Either the church has authority to make declarations regarding both the canon of Scripture and regarding doctrine. One cannot exist without the other for the declaration of the canon of Scripture is in itself a question of doctrine. Now if this authority existed in the past it must continue to exist today.
It never did exist for the Catholic Church. They just deluded a lot of people into thinking it did. God entrusted His word to the Jews NOT the Catholics. The Catholic Church adding the apocrypha did not make them scripture.
While every Christian needs to become personally familiar with the Holy Bible instead of letting somebody else interpret it for them as low-information citizens have done with respect to the Constitution, please consider the following.
Jesus had clarified in the Gospel of John that regardless that the hypocrite religous leaders of the Jews knew the Scriptures that they had nonetheless rejected Jesus as their Savior.
So Christians are ultimately dependent on the Holy Spirit to open their minds to Jesus and the Scriptures.
And what did you get from that?
Do you think that Christ actually believed Pater was Satan?
Or did you read on and get the real message behind that statement?
You statement is taken out of context T-O-T-A-L-L-Y if you really think Jesus thought Peter was Satan.
Now: Either the church has authority to make declarations regarding both the canon of Scripture and regarding doctrine. One cannot exist without the other for the declaration of the canon of Scripture is in itself a question of doctrine. Now if this authority existed in the past it must continue to exist today.
"Authority" wasn't the word you argued for in your last post. You talked about whether the church (then or now) was "competent" to judge doctrine and canon. That's an entirely different topic. Authority might be conferred by the laying on of hands, but it's a much different argument to talk about how competency is passed on.
I’m happy to be a member of a church that goes back to the time of the Apostles.
As Irenaeus wrote:
For they [the Apostles] were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men...
And as Augustine wrote:
The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church...
What is your opinion of teaching as sacred a sacrilege as defined by the Septuagint Bible of Jesus’s day?
The church did not declare the canon of Scripture, but they confessed what was from the apostles. Similarly, the church does not declare doctrine, they can only confess what was already revealed.
One cannot exist without the other for the declaration of the canon of Scripture is in itself a question of doctrine.
The belief that apostles had authority to declare doctrine, and the judgement of what was authentic from the apostles, does not equal the authority of the apostles.
Now if this authority existed in the past it must continue to exist today.
If I recognize the authority of the apostles, that does not mean I have the authority of apostles. Recognizing the authority of the apostles is doctrine. Collating their authenticated works is not doctrine.
The early scene and for the first three centuries after the death of the last Apostle had five hubs of bishoprics: Alexandria, Rome, Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem. The first great church council was held in Jerusalem (Acts 15). Until the schism into two legs, the meetings of the Bishoprics were conducted in Greek not Latin.
IIRC, it was not until pope Innocent iii (1198 - 1216) that even the Eastern leg assented to the leadership of the Roman Bishopric.
This totalitarian pagan-Christian thing called the RCC, masquerading as the original church, is one of the biggest hoaxes in all of history, a bigger hoax than even Mormonism.
Their origin is not the 1st century, one has to be blind not to see that the church in the Bible, in the book of Acts, bears no resemblance whatsoever to this thing called the RCC. It arose centuries later, under the auspices of the Roman emperor Constantine.
It hijacks the prerogatives that belong only to the true catholic church, the one you see in the book of Acts. A fraud plain and simple.
Jesus told Peter to 'feed my sheep'. Jesus gave the 'keys' to the Kingdom (not the church and not the institution of catholicism) to Peter and we see clear evidence IN SCRIPTURE of Peter using those keys to open the door/gate to Justification, first to the Jews on Pentecost, then to the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius.
Jesus, via The Holy Spirit, builds His own Church, and it is not an institution named catholicism.
I assume the person pointing is Gustavo Gutiérrez. Which of the students is Pope Francis?
-— we see clear evidence IN SCRIPTURE of Peter using those keys to open the door/gate to Justification -—
Scripture shows that the keys that Jesus gave Peter were the keys of the Vizier of the eternal Davidic Kingdom, of which Jesus is king.
Jesus sits on David’s throne. See Luke.
The master of the palace or vizier of the king in the ancient world and in the Davidic kingdom was the king’s “right hand man.” In Kings the vizier rules in place of an incapacitated king.
In Isaiah 22 we see the succession in office of the vizier, from Shebna to Eliakim.
The office was represented by an oversized key that the vizier wore around his neck.
In Isaiah the vizier is described as “a father to Judah” with the power to “open and shut.”
Jesus gives Peter both the office of His Vizier, and also the power to “bind and loose,” meaning indisputable ecclesiastical authority. Look up “binding and loosing” in the Jewish Encyclopedia.
If Protestants don’t know this they can blame their pastors.
LOL, so that was literal but, This is my body wasn't ?
That sort of selective garbage is absolute proof that Christ, knowing the hearts of men, left us an ongoing ordained priesthood with the athority they received from the Apostles to properly interpret Holy Scripture thereby protecting us from exactly the sort of dolts who He knew would selectively interpret Scripture to suit their Self and Self Alone the way Protestant doctrine says it should be interpreted to suit the Self.
First Protestantism bows down and kisses the feet of anti-Christ, anti-Christian, Jewish Pharisees (the exact same Pharisees Christ Himself condemned), then Protestantism agrees with Eve that Self and Self Alone should interpret His Word to suit their Self.
The bible itself speaks of the witness of nature and the witness of the Holy Spirit, and the witness of believers (giving a reason for the hope that is within us).
The scriptures are what tie its meaning all together for the Christian. It doesn’t mean that nothing else can or does furnish information. The results would be ludicrous (and deny the bible too) if it meant that.
Some people are so devoted to the bible that Jesus can’t get a word in edgewise, so to speak.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.