Out for the night, be back late. Look forward to your post Chuck, convince Joe to join on board. 

top

Thank you.  

Before I go into what my view is, I need to clarify something and ask a question, the answer to which will determine whether or not this conversation can continue and how it can continue.  

My view of authority is purely a biblical view of authority.  This means that my view is based on the bible, all of the bible, and nothing but the bible.  The “faith and works” forum eventually landed at the fact that you are unwilling to accept the evidence that Joe and I provided for the doctrine we hold to primarily because you do not believe our bible to be valid, nor do you believe we have the authority to interpret the bible.  As my view of authority is based on what the bible teaches, this inherently means that my view of authority is based what I believe the bible to be teaching, and NOT on anything any church father has said.  

So my question is, are you prepared to accept scriptural evidence as support for my views?  

As we agreed, this is a discussion, so I will present my view, but I’m not willing to go any further into the discussion until you answer the question above. 

The authority and responsibility to interpret and teach is available to all believers.  There are specific requirements outlined to fill the office of elder, or to be a teacher of a local church, but all believers are commanded to make and baptize disciples, so to some degree all believers must teach at least the core essentials of the gospel.  

Peter was not granted any particular authority over the other apostles, and there was no specific interpretive authority given to him or them.  This is evidenced by the fact that Paul directly addresses an occurrence where he reproved Peter (Galatians 2:11-14).  All of the books of the bible written by the apostles are scripture, but this is due to the inspiration of God, not due to their office.  Their office did grant authority to what they wrote, but not everything they wrote was scripture.  This is very clear through the fact that Paul’s letter to the church at Corinth references another letter he wrote to Corinth that is not in the bible.  Clearly this was not a simple grocery list where we can say “oh, it was scripture when Paul decided it was scripture”.  This was another, apparently very strongly worded, corrective letter to Corinth, yet it’s not in any of our bibles.  There are only two options here.  Either it SHOULD be in the bible – in which case none of our bibles are complete and God is not sovereign, or God did not intend for that letter to be scripture and thus it was not preserved.  

As for how doctrine was established, we have very clear historical information.  Each of the major heresies of the early church were addressed by church councils.  An example would be the First Council of Nicaea in 325AD.  You’ll note that the council was a discussion among church leaders as to what proper doctrine was regarding specific false teachings, NOT a statement from one man.  Additionally, this was not one man with the responsibility to create doctrine getting advice from his underlings.  

In the end, the apostles did play a special role in the church as they were the first missionaries, and God used them and those they disciples to author much of the new testament.  However, the bible clearly teaches the priesthood of all believers, clearly lays out requirements for elders/teachers (and apostolic origin is not in the list), and clearly commands believers to work out their own salvation.  

Therefore, no believer alive or dead has any more or less authority to read or interpret the bible.  All of use are sinners saved by grace, and all of us are capable of error.  God has blessed us with His revelation of Himself for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness.  He has commanded us to grow in truth and love.  

So to answer your questions:

Did authority to teach and make doctrinal decisions exist in early Christianity?
Yes 

Did the original apostles receive authority to teach and make decisions? 
They were believers, so yes.  

Above I outlined – in general – my view point.  That’s why it “covered a ton”.  

I’m happy to address specific questions, so long as those specific questions can be fully addressed with a simple answer.  That said, my posts will be as long as necessary for me to feel I’ve properly treated the question.  If your after one or two line responses, I’m the wrong guy to discuss with – God has not yet blessed me with a gift of pithiness :)  

sola scriptura – first we need to clarify what you think this means and what I do.  Any time we use a word like that, there is a high degree of potential that we are using the same word and meaning different things, and thus casting the other person into holding a different position than they actually do.  

What I believe is this:  The bible is God’s revelation of Himself to us and therefore contains all information and knowledge necessarily for justification and sanctification of the believer.  Further, any doctrine we develop must come FROM what the bible says and teaches.  We cannot formulate a doctrine we think good and then go hunting and pecking for support in the bible.  

Support:

Ultimately the bible itself does, at least implicitly, teach this view point.  

2 Timothy 3:16-17 clearly teaches that all scripture is God breathed and profitable.  The counter argument that this only referenced the Old Testament is invalid as Paul and the other Apostles references the New Testament writings as being scripture: 2 Peter 3:15-16 (Peter calls Paul’s writings scripture), 1 Timothy 5:18 (Paul quotes the gospel of Luke 10:7 as being scripture).  

Jesus referenced scripture as the final authority when contending with Satan.  Matthew 4:4, 4:7, 4:10

The bible contains several warnings not to add to or take away from what God has given.  1 Cor. 4:6, Deut. 4:2, Prov. 30:5-6, Rev. 22:18-19.  

all of these are references to what God would reveal and inspire to be written AS SCRIPTURE, so anyone adding further doctrines and claiming them to be on part with, but not, scripture is clearly operating in opposition to these commands.  If a man feels that he has been given a revelation by God that is on par with scripture, then he should be authoring scripture, but you and I both agree that this is not the case. Even the Catholic church would not claim that any Pope has ever authored scripture, so the obvious question we must answer is, if your not inspired to write scripture, then how is it you are developing something that is on equal authority with scripture without being in clear violation OF scripture?  

Finally, though the bible indicates believers followed the traditions set in place by the Apostles, this was due to their present authority in the church, and not because any oral tradition they offered was on par with scripture.  Anything that was scripture was laid down in scripture.  Further, there is absolutely no biblical evidence what so ever that the Apostles setup any sort of apostolic succession, and thus there is no biblical evidence that any future elders in the church had the same authority as the apostles.  

Yes, our elders and teachers have authority, yes as a believer I am to be in glad submission to that authority and to seek the good of my elders and teachers in prayer and in all ways – so long as what they teach and do is inline with the clear commands of scripture.  

So that’s my position, and if you view it as long, I apologize - it’s as long as it needs to be to be clear.  Also, I would content that the burden of the subject is on you rather than me. The scripture is clearly God’s Word.  I think we agree on this.  If so, the burden then falls on you to justify why any doctrine or tradition should be considered of equal authority and weight with scripture?  

Chuck, sorry for such a delay, it was a crazy week for me. I’m back though.

Okay, where to begin? I guess Sola Scriptura.

Chuck: “What I believe is this:  The bible is God’s revelation of Himself to us and therefore contains all information and knowledge necessarily for justification and sanctification of the believer.”

My Response: Which came first, the bible, or Christian traditions? I would argue that Christian traditions came first, and from those traditions arrived the bible. In fact, I don’t think this point is arguable. Jesus did not leave a bible with the apostles. He left a way of life that all should aspire to live by, which developed in to traditions, such as baptism, caring for the poor, and secretly breaking bread together in remembrance of Him. 

Simply put, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church. No where does Jesus (God) say that the Word of God must be written down in a book.My question to you: If you are ready to rely on Sola Scriptura Chuck, shouldn’t you be absolutely 100% certain that God wanted the deposit of faith to be passed down strictly through the bible? Which means the bible itself would have to teach absolutely 100% clearly that Sola Scriptura is the end all be all. Your response below concerns me, Chuck: “Ultimately the bible itself does, AT LEAST IMPLICITLY, teach this view point.” That does not sound like a 100% answer to me Chuck. And the verses you reference aren’t 100% clear either.———-I think I will stop here and wait for your answer or opinion. I don’t think I’ll answer your other question, that the burden falls on me to prove tradition is on the same level as scripture, until you prove more fully that sola scriptura is 100% backed by scripture; implicitly makes me hesitant in a discussion like this.

This is great, so to your first point about tradition. You are correct, John was done writing in 95 A.D.

But what happened between 33 A.D. and 95 A.D.? As Christians do we disregard those years as irrelevant to our heritage? 

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think Christians were dying for the faith, secretly celebrating the mass (or whatever you want to call it), evangelizing with their actions and words, baptizing, etc. etc. These are all living traditions that were most certainly happening before 95 A.D. that eventually influenced Sacred Scripture, would you disagree? 

For the second point, I have no burden to prove that Christians are allowed to look outside of scripture. Do you understand why? I will try to be clear. Catholics do not believe in Sola Scriptura obviously. We believe that Sacred Scripture & Sacred Tradition make up the deposit of faith or Word of God. This means we can live as Christ lived by reading the bible and by trying to live out the traditions of the early Christians, the men and women who actually knew Jesus. 

It would go against my faith if I tried to prove Sacred Tradition from Sola Scriptura since my religion does not believe in the later. 

Therefore, I believe the task falls upon you to prove 100% that Sola Scriptura is based in Scriptura, correct? Or am I off the mark here? Please tell me honestly if I’m way off here. I think I’m making sense but I want to make sure. 

top.

1.  Same quesiton.  Don’t you think that the bible should be definitive on “bible +” if a Christian is to believe in the bible +?  And by definitive I mean “makes any statement what so ever to promote tradition that is not found in the bible as being on par with Gods Word”. 

*what I’m saying is that I don’t think the bible makes such a statement and therefore I believe that any position that promotes the ideas of man to the level of the commands of God promotes false gospels and will end in sever error.  

Also, I’ve already answered this question.  I do find the scripture to be definitive, and the scripture itself as well as the testimony of the Holy Spirit in my life both attest to the validity of the scripture.  

2.  It doesn’t matter.  The authors of Scripture were… well they were AUTHORING SCRIPTURE.  If one of the apostles established a tradition in the early church and God intended it to be normative in the church body through out all time, then it was laid out in the scripture.  If one of the apostles established a tradition in the early church that God did not intend to be normative in the church body through out all time, then it wasn’t laid out in scripture.  

1.  It makes sense, it’s just not an answer.  You’re saying you’ve based the entier foundation of your knowledge of Christ on what men have taught, but because you’ve done that, you have no burden not to do so.  I understand what your saying, but I find it deeply concerning.  

By the same token, I’ve given you the evidence for my view from scripture.  You don’t accept it because it goes counter to what the Catholic Church teaches and you are more committed to men’s doctrine than God’s Word.  All I can do for you there is pray for you, and I will continue to do so.  

2.  I would define “tradition” the same way in the early church as I would today.  The “traditions” that were intended to be normative were explicitly made so in scripture.  Any other traditions – such as meeting in secret in the woods – were not laid out in scripture because they were not commands, but places where the church could oprate as necessary given the situation.  Once again, this seems to be more of an issue for you than me.  I see no requirement to meet in secret in the woods.  By your commitment to tradition, it seems like you should be doing so.  

3.  I’m strongly tempted to answer this, but for now I’m not going to as you are the one that requested a conversation about what the bible is and who can interpret it before we get into actually interpreting it.  We agree the bible teaches communion.  How communion works, what it does – that’s interpretation and that’s were we disagree.  

1. Chuck, Scripture + Tradition. They form the foundation. We LOVE scripture and LOVE tradition. All I’m saying is that it is interesting that protestants disregard tradition all together when in fact that is all the early Christians had. 

In other words, nothing is believed on the authority of tradition alone, Scripture alone, or the magisterium alone. It is like three legs of a stool, without one the stool will fall. 

I knew eventually we would come back to the topic, authority. 

2. What authority did Luther have to remove those 7 books? If your answer is God, then I would love some citations for that. The gist of the question is of course back to our topic, where does authority come from in the protestant tradition? 

top.

to your question – today yes.  Prior to the establishment of the canon, I suppose not, though I’m not willing to say that the first citable historical evidence is necessarily the same as a general agreement of the people at the time.  

No I do not believe the “Catholic Church” to have existed at that time.  There was no specific schism in believers, but nothing resembling the modern or middle ages Catholic Church existed until somewhere around 7 to 800 AD.  Please be careful not to read more in than is actually there I simply stated that you believe your historians and I believe them to be in error.  There really isn’t any way to say that me saying they are in error means I believe them to be correct in some other area.  

As for your reference to The Council of Laodicea – canon 60 which is supposedly the specific listing of the canon that included the books you mention – is highly suspect, missing from many manuscripts, and is generally agreed that it was added later.  

At any rate there is a mixture of early opinion regarding the Apocrypha with the majority of church fathers being against it.  Including two Catholic saints and at least one Doctor of the Catholic Church.  You guys didn’t seem to all get on the same page about until 1546 at the Council of Trent.  How did we end up in the canon discussion in the authority thread?  Wasn’t that in the other one?

In short – no one. The canon was long sense closed.

Creation of scripture closed with the death of John – the last apostle, the Apocrypha was never considered scripture and never included in the historical church so it wasn’t going to be added in later.  

But lets really get down to the question you seem to be asking.  No, I do not in any way affirm the authority of the Catholic Church or the Pope to set doctrine or determine what is or is not scripture.  

I’ve provided it in the other thread, you inadvertently linked to the evidence.  You’ve not refuted anything, just gone back to “the Catholic Church says”.  

Why are you so obsessed with what authority Luther has?  I don’t recall relying on him for any sort of authority.  He was a great man and a great theologian, but still a man, and not in any higher authority.  

Once again, you seem to think I must prove that the Pope doesn’t have authority.  I see no more need to meet that charge than you seem to feel in justifying that authority.  

As I have said before, when you promote tradition and the doctrine of man to the same level as that of the Word of God, you are relying on man’s law and man’s ideas and not Gods.  You open yourself up to, and to some degree lock yourself into error.  

The best suggestion I have for you is to actually read the bible.  

top.

So far you’ve linked to a wikipedia article that didn’t actually support your case, and a protestant theologian that didn’t support your case.  Now you want to question the scholarship of sources?  

If you wish to defend apostolic succession feel free to give as much “evidence” as you feel necessarily, but once again we are back to the same place we ended up in the Faith & Works forum.  You like to ask questions and make challenges, and you offer to provide evidence for your views only as a response.  I’m sorry, but I’m not playing that game with you.  If your goal here is to honestly try to convince me of your views then feel free to try and do so.  If your goal is just to spar with a protestant then, as I’ve said before, I have no interest in debate.  I’ve engaged and will continue to engage in discussion with you in hopes that you will come to a true knowledge of who Jesus is on his terms and not through the trappings of superstition and man made dogma.  What I won’t do is have a debate.  I have no interest in “winning the debate”, but only serving the Lord and spreading his gospel.  

charity chuck, charity.

Actually the moderator of CARM has his masters of divinity from a reputable seminary see for yourself- http://carm.org/matt-slick. Also he doesn’t just make unfounded statements he gives all his sources so that you can’t accuse him of some sort of dishonesty, also if you can verify that his information is incorrect then by all means tell him so, he has no problem being corrected. His aim is to properly represent what it is speaking. If you have a problem with what he and his contributors are saying then please verify their sources and see for yourself if they are speaking the truth and by all means call them out if they are not.

below

He sites his sources you can check them, by all means please do.

Feel free.  

I have some issues with your reading of Luke.

Lets look closer. Jesus said ‘whoever LISTENS to you…’ 
Jesus did not say, ‘whoever READS what you write…’ 

Just want to make sure we agree that Christ gave the original apostles authority (or inspiration if you prefer that) to TEACH, not to ‘write scripture’ specifically. Agreed? Yes of course they wrote later on, but Jesus did not say ‘to write.’ 

Also

‘Jesus gave us all authority to evangelize and teach about Christianity.’ Now in 2012, yes. But I’m not sure I agree with that based on Luke 10, and other verses. “The seventy-two returned with joy…”

Jesus appointed 12, and then 72, to teach. He did not appoint the entire Roman Empire.  Therefore, a select few actually had the authority to baptize, read at Mass, break the bread, etc.

Just to clarify your position, who dealt with schism or false teachings between 33 AD and lets say 150 AD (i.e. – who created and or protected doctrine, such as the trinity or virgin birth, which I think we both believe in)? I guess I’m unclear as to who you think can protect Jesus’ teachings after he died; not just teach period. 

Thank you for your clear responses above, much appreciated. 

The writers of the new testament dealt pretty clearly with falsehood in the new testament.  The bible gives clear teaching on what is the truth of the gospel and how to deal with heresy.  

Any believer who is committed to Jesus and truth and love as he commanded can and should protect and proclaim his gospel.  

top.

top

I’ll be more concise this time.

How did the early Christians between 33 AD and 150 AD know what to follow and what not to follow when it came to heresy, false teachings, or the truth?

I’m not talking about discerning God’s will in one’s life. Of course everyone can discern God’s will for their life. I’m talking about doctrine. I’m talking about denouncing teachings like ‘Jesus did not know he was the son of God.’ 

My point, think of the billions of Christians in the world… I find it hard to believe that every single one of them has the ability to discern God’s teachings on core Christian doctrines; stuff that if changed could make Christ look like a crazy lunatic who thought he was the Son of God, but really was just a self-conceited Jew. You see what I’m talking about here Chuck? This is serious stuff. If some of those early heresies were not denounced, they could have ruined Christ’s divinity for all Christendom.The Catholic Church teaches that we must rely solely on Christ to overcome the sins of this world. And then, because we must rely solely on Christ, we must follow Christ’s teachings. 
Scripture and early Church History strongly support that Christ gave authority to a select few men to harbor and protect Christ’s teachings, the very divinity of Christ in the eye’s the world. 

I’m not talking about placing Bishops on a pedestal who are historical snobs and think that early Christian peasants had no ability to hear God’s voice in the world; or listen to Scripture when it was proclaimed at Mass (or whatever you want to call it). Of course early Christians could listen to Scripture and evangelize in their sphere of the world, that’s their duty. 

I’m talking about CORE Christian teachings that must be protected, that fell to the hands of Bishops and Councils. You’ve even cited councils from pre 300 AD I do believe?

QUESTION: Does every Christian today have the ability to discern correctly the doctrines of Christ?

I will leave you with a quote:

St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110. The words run: “Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church.”

I think we now have to dig into the question below, phrase it however you like. 

In Scripture, did Jesus give certain men a unique duty to protect His doctrine after he died? 

Obviously, there were issues then, as there are issues now, in protecting Jesus’ teachings. We agree on that at least.

Therefore, we must figure out:

A. Did Jesus appoint a specific plan for protecting his teachings, 

or

B. Did Jesus not appoint a plan for protecting his teachings?

————

I ask this because you discerning God’s vision for Christianity is obviously different than my discernement; and a million other people probably differ from me, and so on. So you say I’m a wolf, but really Chuck, that means there are over 1.5 billion wolfs, and the Evangelicals have it EXACTLY correct? Because your view, in my mind, means that you, Chuck Rhoades, must discern God’s truth 100% accurately, there is no room for error in your statement above. I digress for now

*rephrase questions above however you like, hopefully you see what I’m asking

*by teachings I mean his divinity, virgin birth, the big stuff

top. digging into scripture, could be a while before I find it all to support the Catholic Church’s view. check back in a bit. 

Point 1 – Unity:

I agree with you that we ought desire unity.  Believers should seek unity over division.  I won’t quote scripture as we appear to be in agreement here.  

That said though, Paul nor any other apostle, nor Jesus himself ever call for unity when someone is teaching a false gospel, or calling “good” what God names “sin”.  

You picked an odd quote for your second supporting reference there.  Paul is not only pointing out that there is division, but is actually affirming the need for it where it brings about recognition of those who are genuine.  Why would that be?  

Because there are some among the body who are not actually believers.  Yes and amen we must desire unity, and yes we are often far too willing to look for differences first and only accept people into our fellowship if absolutely none are found.  At the same time, we must not accept people into fellowship when the differences in question run to the very core of what the gospel is.   

Conclusion:  We must desire unity, but we must not accept false doctrine and teaching.  The only way this argument would be in favor of the Catholic Church having primacy would be if you are saying that unity with the church is more important than sound doctrine.  I know you’re not saying that, but at the same time, this point does not really lend any weight to your defense.  

A final note – your “33,000″ denominations comment is over blown and inaccurate.  If you look at the data behind that number you will find that it breaks what you call “sects” down in a very granular way, including geographically.  In fact, this number breaks Catholics into 243 or so “denominations”.  At the very least, the number is far far smaller.  

Even with in that, there are many many protestant denominations that, though we may differ slightly in minor ways, we affirm each other as brothers and possess unity amongst us.  Your quoteing the “33,000″ as though that shows 33,000 incompatible sets of doctrines and using that as evidence to suggest that what ever the protestant view is, it can’t be right.  1.  that number does not accurately represent much of anything and is basically useless due to it’s vagueness, 2.  It certainly does not represent 33,000 unique and incompatible sets of doctrine, and 3.  quoting this number suggests to me that you have very little understanding of what protestant churches are actually like or what we actually believe.  

Point 2 – Catholic Church only pillar of truth, only true way for Christians to be one

When using scripture, please quote whole verses, not half verses.  All sorts of error comes out of proof texting out just the words you like.  Better yet, keep the scripture in the full context the author intended.  In this case, the 1 Timothy 3:15 verse you quote is actually Paul explaining to Timothy why he has written the letter.  It is so that if Paul delays in coming Timothy would know how one ought to behave in the household of God.  

This is Paul clarifying that the teaching in the letter has authority, and instructs on how believers are to behave in the body.  There is nothing in this that for one moment makes the point you use it to support.  I disagree that Catholics take it at face value.  They appear to read their own value into it, even though it’s not actually there.  

Point 3 - Scripture backs up the notion that oral tradition (apostolic teaching) and scriptural tradition are equally authoritative

If I’ve been unclear I apologize.  I do not deny the authority of the apostles.  What i deny is the idea that the apostles handed down that authority.  Paul himself seems to remove the possibility of this when in Galatians 1:1 he very clearly bases his authority on it being given directly to him from Jesus and not by, nor through men.  He makes it very clear that the apostles authority rests on Jesus and the direct granting from Jesus.  Clearly much of what the Catholic Church calls “tradition” was not from the apostles, but from later men, most of whom in the early church didn’t even try to claim apostolic authority.  I don’t deny the apostles authority, but I do deny the later development of new “tradition”.  

Point 4 – “invisible Church”

First of all, saying that protestants “believe in an invisible church” is a bit strong.  The discussion of the visible vs invisible church is not a doctrinal statement.  It’s simply a short way of saying that some who call themselves “Christian” are in actuality not.  

Where do we get this from:  Well two examples would be Matthew 13:24-30 in the parable of the wheat and the weeds which shows that there are those who are not the body, but are among the body, and Matthew 7:21-23 where Jesus says there will be many on the last day who claim the did works in his name and he says he never knew them.  This is a clear indication that there is such a thing as false converts and in that state they are not a part of the body and are not in fellowship with Jesus.  

Who does 1 Timothy 3:15 apply to?  Well, it’s something that any believer should be interested in, but obedience is a response to the grace of God, not a way of earning God’s grace, so it is a description of how a true, faithful follower of Jesus should want to behave.  

Point 5 – Apostolic Succession

I’ll start and end the same way – nothing you’ve said here actually defends the “succession” part of the doctrine of apostolic succession.  

Once again, I do not deny the authority of the apostles.  I do deny that this authority was handed down.  

The first scripture you reference, Matthew 18:18, must be evaluated in it’s context.  If you look at the section in question, you will find it is in the context of discipline with in the body.  Here Christ is not endowing believers with the ability to decide who is or isn’t saved, but rather is affirming that when done correctly as proscribed in the scripture, we can be sure that the discipline we administer within the body is in accordance with God’s will.  When we gather and act in submission to Christ’s lordship, we are guaranteed that he is with us.  

Next you quote John 20:21 – Jesus is giving the grate commission, this is important, but you shouldn’t tie it to the previous reference as you did.  One is in the context of discipline within the body, the other is the establishment of the great commission.  

Next you said something that you provide no reference for about all men being joined to the apostles.  I don’t believe this is a scripture reference.  

Next you quote John 20:22-23 – yes, again, the apostles had authority, but again – this in no way indicates any succession.  Also, if we are careful of the original Greek, we see that the verbs “they are forgiven” and “it is withheld” are both what are called perfect-tense verbs.  This gives a sense of completed past action.  Jesus is once again affirming that the apostles can be confident that as they act in submission to Christ, what ever they forgive or don’t has already been forgiven or not by God.  It is an affirmation that they are working in accordance with his will, not an endowment for them to be able to direct God’s action.  

In summation, you’ve proof texted many of these verses out of their proper context, and used them incorrectly.  Beyond that, even in the understanding you present them, they only speak to the apostle’s authority, and in no way indicate any succession.  

“If God can inspire Scripture without error, then why can’t He inspire a Church without error? Since both are indicated in Scripture and apostolic and patristic tradition, Catholics believe both. ”  - Your begging the question.  Your seeming to argue that because God CAN do something that he has.  You’ve yet to show that he has.  God could have wiped man off the earth when we fell into sin.  Saying that because God could, he did, is an irrelevant argument.  

Point 6 – sinners in the Catholic Church does not invalidate the Catholic Church

I’ve never argued that.  You say it’s been your “experience that protestants are always trying to find a pure church”.  That’s a simplistic view.  I can’t speak for the entirety of the history of Protestantism, but what I will say is we are firm on the fact that we are all sinners in need of grace.  I’ve heard a anonymous protestant quote that goes “if you ever fine a perfect church, stay away – you’ll ruin it”.  We are not seeking the “perfect pure church”, but we do desire to be as faithful as possible.  Some church/denominational splits have been for good reasons and others have not.  The current modern age of promoting reason and intellect to the highest possible virtue, and promoting synchronistic approaches to try and create unity among various religions and world views have further brought issues that must be dealt with.  I think your being very disingenuous if you claim that this only effects Protestantism.  Look at the debate on the subject of birth control you yourself posted.  You may claim a unity of belief withing Catholosism, but it’s pretty clear that you have large swaths of people who do not affirm the official doctrines.  They may not out right question it, but they certainly don’t seem to follow it.  In the protestant church we would say that either the doctrine is wrong, and we would look to the scripture to check that, or we would say that the person is walking in outright open disobedience and sin and deal with that as the scripture teaches.  

Truth and unity are both important and faithfully walking in obedience to Jesus and seeking both is of critical importance.  The point your defending here isn’t one I’ve raised, and I don’t deny Catholic authority on those grounds.  

Point 7 – conclusion

I wont’ address everything you say here as you are summarizing the other points you made and I’ve addressed those above.  What I will say here is, I see no way in which you have showed scripture as being supportive of an apostolic succession.  

You’ve made a case for unity, which I agree with, but I do not agree lends any weight to your argument.  

You’ve defended the special authority of the apostles, which I agree with.  

You’ve suggested that the apostles passed their special authority down – which I do not agree with and find absolutely no support for in scripture.  

You’ve also suggested, implicity, that the apostles taught things orally and in their tradition that was completely unstated in scripture – while I agree that the apostles had special authority, and I am sure they taught things orally in addition to in written letter, I do not agree that the apostles would have taught things in person that were not in complete accord with what they wrote.  Paul often writes of “the gospel I brought you”, but never once even suggests that that may have differed from the gospel he wrote.  

When Paul speaks to his authority he uniequivically bases that authority on his direct reception of it from Jesus.  This negates the possibility of anyone receiving this authority through man.  

Biblically we see the church is to be governed by a plurality of local elders.  Early church history shows this to be the way it was done in the first century.  The first time an office of bishop shows up is early in the second century, and those speaking of it have no direct tie to an apostle.  

We see no office of “bishop” established in the scripture, and we see no first century evidence of that office existing.  I see no evidence what so ever that the apostles instructed this office to exists – only a second century idea that grew into a tradition that has no biblical foundation what so ever.  

Point 1 – It does matter when you were using the absurdly large number to heep scoren on the entirety of Protestantism.  Your implication was “there is one Catholic Church and 33,000 protestant.  protestent must clearly be the inferior answer”.  Once again, I agree that we should pursue unity, but not at the cost of the gospel.  I would happily be a Catholic if only your doctrine did not run counter to the gospel.  

I know, I know, you disagree that it does, but we must at least agree that the reason I am not a member of your church is exactly the same reason you are not a member of mine.  For this argument to have validity, both of us would have to consider becoming Mormon if that were the church most likely to bring about “unity”.  Obviously that’s not an answer, and not what you are intending, but the way you are approaching this particular point in inconsequential.  There is not separation in Catholics and protestants because we or you believe it’s a better path to unity, but rather because we protestants have had to break unity with the Catholic Church due to the conviction that your doctrine has strayed from the gospel.  

point 5 – I already addressed that verse in the above section.  Your response in no way answers mine.  You just kept driving deeper at the point you already put forward without answering anything I posted.  Still, I’ll try again - 

once again – I agree that Jesus gave special authority to the apostles.  You keep repeating the verses in John as though I’ve not addressed them.  This IN NO WAY supports the idea of succession, only a special authority of the apostles.  Also, Jesus NEVER called the apostles priests. 

Your Matthew 18:18 quote is out of context, and you seem to have failed to read my previous response.  The verb tense is very clear that what Jesus was saying was the apostles would act out what God had already ordained by his sovereign will.  He was NOT giving the apostles the power to decide who would be saved or lost.  That is a power that only God has.  

Your doctrine seems to mostly rest on invoking the old testament office of priest and showing how Jesus refined it in the new covenant.  He didn’t!  The priest in the old testament was in place to offer sacrifices to temporarily atone for sin – Jesus was the final sacrifice, so this is no longer needed, and to enter the holiest of holies.  once again, no longer necessary as all believers are now able to enter in to the holiest of holies in Jesus blood.  Not to mention, if the apostles were to be “priests” like the old testament then that would have nothing to do with doctrinal authority as that was done by the profits, not priests.  You guys are riffing willy nilly on the OT to make it up.  I’ve not forgotten the OT, but I’m also no invoking it where it does not belong.  If you want to carry forward OT law, you can’t do it willy nilly.  Time to start killing your irreverent children and stop eating pork.  You know, Paul addresses that sort of activity very clearly in Galatians and he was not a fan.  Those trying to meld old testament law and the new covenant were called by him accursed.  

Finally you go leaping and bounding in to areas of silence.  The apostles must hear confession before they can decide what to forgive?  Come on man, that’s not even close to being in there.  Where the scripture addresses confession, it is either to God, or to “one another”.  There is never anything even vaguely close to a requirement to confess to a “priest”.  

Point 7 – first, once again, I do not affirm the authority of tradition developed by later church fathers that is not in line with scripture, so St. Iranaeus has no weight with me, particularly sense he was the guy who first seems to have addressed the office of bishop.  That bit about “imparting hidden mysteries” only to a chosen few sounds a lot more like pagan mystery religions than it does Christianity.  You’ve appealed to the guy twice, and I suppose you can keep doing so, but understand here and now, it’s not going anywhere with me.  

I’ve answered the John 20 post twice now, please read either of them.  It doesn’t affirm the office of bishop, and the only scriptural description of church government is a plurality of elders.  Some second century guy talking like a advocate of mystery religion does not sway me.  

Point 1 – I’m saying that we should all be faithful to what the bible teaches.  You’re making a false assumption that protestants believe that “only one denomination is correct”.  That’s not true.  I happen to belong to a church that doesn’t really put emphasis on denominational lines, but by doctrine you could call us a reformed charismatic baptist church.  We are using study material from a Presbyterian church in our home groups currently, we have strong ties with a local bible church, and partner with churches with other denominational affiliations in world missions.  What I am saying is, we can and should affirm brotherhood with people who we may have minor non-primary differences or preferences with.  What we cannot do is affirm brotherhood with churches that have issues that effect core doctrines like who God is, who Man is, who Jesus is, or how salvation works.  

Point 5 – your still ignoring the text in the original language.  Your interpretation is based on a pre-assumed idea of succession and an unwillingness to actually look at the text outside of that context.  

Point 6 – It was a foretaste of the Holy Spirit that would come in full at Pentecost.  Even in your interpretation that this was his issuing of authority to them, that still in no way supports your concept of apostolic succession.  

That’s the question you’ve yet to answer.  Where biblically do you actually support apostolic succession?  Jesus giving authority to the disciples does not in any way lend any support to your concept.  Nothing in the scripture shows an apostle handing down the authority as you suggest.  

First, you really don’t need to type my name three times in your response.  A simple initial address would be sufficient.  I’ve yet to assume you started talking to someone else mid way through the post.  

Point 1:  You’re going to have to show me a scripture that supports “1 denominational line”.  I don’t think you actually understand what a “denomination” is at this point.  I’ll agree that there is one body of Christ.  One “church” if you will.  I’ll agree that we must all agree on core doctrines to be a part of the body of Christ.  The body is not limited by a “denomination”, but rather whether or not the teachings put forth are actually the gospel or not.  

You still seem to be suggesting that it’s more important that anything called “church” report to the same hierarchy than it is that the church follow the true gospel.   

Point 5:  The “Keys to the kingdom” is related to something Jesus said in Luke 11:52 where he pronounced woe on the Jewish lawyers - pharisees – for “taking away the key of knowledge”.  The “keys” referenced here are the proclamation of the gospel, the truth of God.  The key to the Kingdom of God, is the gospel of who he is.  He is commissioning the apostles to carry forth his gospel.  

the binding and loosing IS directly related to forgiveness of sins, but it must be understood in the context of the previous “keys” reference.  The gospel is the key to God’s forgiveness.  Who ever receives the gospel and is granted faith to believe is forgiven, who ever is not, is not.  Once again, as you’ve ignored, the specific tense of the words used suggests completed past action.  

What Jesus is saying here is that he is entrusting the gospel to his disciples and that by that God’s preordained, predestined plan of salvation will be revealed.  

As to “reading the context buddy” – I know your reading in A context, just not the right one.  Your reading in the context of your preassumed doctrine, not the biblical context.  

I honestly do not mean this to be hostel, but I must be forthright.  You seem to flip back and forth in your approach with absolutely no consistency.  You’ll argue as though no writing in the bible is of any value unless you have the whole bible, but then you’ll turn around and feel no need to actually interpret any text in the bible in the context of the whole bible.  

You said:  ”And then I find it concerning that b/c the original Christians who led the cities of the early Christian Church did not get their writings in the bible. ”

You seem to be suggesting that early Christians did not have the old testament, nor the gospels, nor the epistles.  That is objectively historically wrong.  An official ”canon” may not have existing in the first century, though there is good evidence that it did exist well prior to the first documented listing – but to use that as an argument that the early church did not have the letters and gospels that eventually became the canon is absurd.  Look at the proliferation of the New Testament.  It is by far the most extensively copied writing from antiquity.  There are over 6000 koine greek manuscripts.  The gospels and epistles were very very clearly copied and circulated through out the churches from the very beginning.  Suggesting that the early church did not have any writings and so must have had to rely solely on tradition quite simply factually wrong.   

Your next question is going to be “oh ya Chuck, well Chuck how did they – Chuck – tell the difference in what was and wasn’t heresy, Chuck?”

By studying the writings and relying on the Holy Spirit.  You make it sound like we non-bishop believers are all a pack of idiots that would run off the cliff if a book said that Jesus said we could all fly.  There were only a very few limited cases of documents that were considered for New Testament canon that were rejected.  Most of the documents like the gnostics and such were so clearly written too late and contained errors that the early church didn’t even consider them.  A few documents such as the gospel of Peter and the Sheppard of Hermas were looked at, but easily rejected due to false teaching, false authorship, an late authorship.   

Point 7 – You said: 
“ How does Jesus giving authority to the apostles to do ‘WHATEVER’  and ‘ANYTHING’, and Peter the keys to the ‘KINGDOM’, discredit apostolic succession? Can God not instill a church hierarchy to lead the early Christians? I would say that He did and was wise to do so.”

First of all, Jesus didn’t give the apostles authority to do what ever, or anything.  We clearly disagree on the meaning of the text, but at the very least please don’t parse it down to that degree.  ”whatever you bind” and “do whatever you want” are not even vaguely related.  

Second, “discredit apostolic succession” – so we are back there then.  The start of this particular line was when you attempted to prove it, now your giving up and saying that we are back to me having to disprove it?  I already answered that. I told you before that I feel no need to disprove succession as there is nothing biblical that supports it.  You then presented 7 or so points supposedly to “prove it”, and apparently now having failed to do so you’re trying to implicitly put the burden back on me to disprove it.  

I can understand how each of us feel’s the other has the burden of proof in general, but this discussion started with your proofs, none of which prove succession.  If you can’t ok – but don’t try mid stream to switch context please.  

As for “can God do X” – I’ve already answered that.  God CAN do what ever he wills.  Suggesting that because he CAN, he DID is a logical fallacy.  Once again, if you desire to convince me that the bible supports the doctrine of apostolic succession please feel free to do so, all you’ve done so far is parse words and use scripture out of context to support a doctrine derived from tradition. Your not going to convince me of the authority of tradition by relying on tradition.  If that’s all you have, fare enough – but please don’t try to tell me it’s “scripturally supported” when it’s not.  

You commented again above that I “toss a lot out”.  I write what I need to in order to address the issues you’ve raised as completely and faithfully as I can.  You are comfortable with short statements that disregard large swaths of the earlier conversation.  I’m not.   

top

Point 1 – so the catholic church is currently in perfect unity?  no major sections of the church are struggling with any doctrines?  

Issue occur.  We are not perfect,and so we work through it.  I think your defining church as “one authority structure”, which the bible never commands.  The only single authority all of the body is under is Christ.  That is our authority.  Anyone who is a believer is part of the church, and we are to desire and pursue unity with one another while also protecting truth.  

Point 5 & 7 – I’ve already explained above your your use of Matthew 18 and John 20 together is incorrect and not applicable.  I’m not typing it again.  Please read what I’ve posted, and if you disagree address my point and show me where you disagree.  Ignoring my post and restating your same question again is not having a discussion.  

“You can keep trying to argue the details of the apostles authority, but that still in no way provides a shred of support for them PASSING that authority on.”

I don’t know, apostolic succession seems pretty clear in Acts 1:12-26, specifically verse 20 & 26, but read the entire dialogue. 
——————
20-26: “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the Book of Psalms:

“‘May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,’[e]

and,

“‘May another take his place of leadership.’[f]

21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

23 So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
——————-
Why would Scripture call Judas a bishop in Acts 1:20 if he was not a bishop? Episkopos is the word I’m thinking of. Which would mean all the other apostles were bishops as well, or….?

The apostles lost Judas, then prayed to Christ for guidance on whom to replace (cast lots), and then chose Matthias to replace him. Hmmmm… sounds like apostolic succession to me.

*also they were fulfilling the OT book of psalms, even Peter quotes it, pretty cool that Christ, even though he was gone, inspired the apostles through their prayer to fulfill the OT teachings.

I have more Scripture citing succession, but let’s focus in on Acts first. 

PS – You are exactly right, Jesus commissioned Paul directly in Galatians 1:1, just like the other Apostles.

I was using your translation for Acts 1:20 to appease you; and I thought you would look up the original, so here is the translation I read at home: 

“For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric (Episkopos) let another take.” *check out episkopos in the OT

Chuck, you waiver a bit above, and it makes me wonder what is to come. Paul was commissioned directly by Christ, along with Peter, James, Andrew, and the others. And how interesting it is that they took the time to appoint another to replace Judas; it almost sounds like you agree with me in your statement that this 1 case of appointing a replacement for Judas is apostolic succession. 

Chuck: “We do see the apostles replace one among their number, but we do not see them increase their number”

Jesus:
You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, 2and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (2 Timothy 2:1-2)

I just pull up Timothy to show that Jesus did not put a cap or limit on how many faithful men the apostles could entrust their office to. Do you think Jesus put a cap on the 12, or does 2 Tim 2:1-2 disprove this?
 
I must say Chuck, this is getting interesting. 

1The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task. 2Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher, (1 Timothy 3:1-2)

Any thoughts on the ‘office of bishop’ that Timothy is talking about? Obviously I think this lends much support for the office of bishop within the Catholic faith. You also talk about Paul being appointed by Jesus, and so why did Timothy record this from Paul?

 Just for fun Chuck, a little insight in to Catholicism: Catholic bishops still lay the hands on their successors at a special ordination Mass: “22 Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure.” 1 Tim 5:20
- they do this to remember scripture

I know we can’t go out of scripture with you, but Clement the 1st of Rome wrote this in 70 AD: 

Similarly, our Apostles knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be dissensions over the title “Bishop.” In their full foreknowledge of this, therefore, they proceeded to appoint the ministers I spoke of, and they went on to add an instruction that if these should fall asleep, other accredited persons should succeed them in their office.

top. 

Neither Acts or Timothy contain information that suggests apostolic succession.  Once again, I’ve clearly illustrated why I believe that to be the case, and all you’ve come back with is an attempt to claim I’m agreeing with you when we both know I’m not.  

Please answer my other questions.  Have you actually read Timothy?  Do you actually believe that Timothy was the author of the book of Timothy and that he was quoting what Jesus had told him?  

Seth, are you sure Timothy wrote the letters to Timothy?

pauline lineage to first timothy is agreed upon by most scholars, 2nd tim and titus are a little hazier unfortunately

Yes, you are correct, I wrote the wrong name. Sorry, I’m human.

Again, ’3 question marks above, but just one question to answer. Thanks’

Stay on topic. 

Exactly Chuck, elders/leaders of the Church, you are correct! Deacons, Priests and Bishops, Presbyters and Episkopos! The Apostles chose men to groom and hand on their ‘office’ to.

“So they nominated two MEN: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” Acts

“1The saying is sure: If ANY ONE aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task.” 1 Timothy 3

In the two verses above, once again, I see no where that the Apostles were to exclude ordinary men. They wrote down in SCRIPTURE MEN and ANY ONE. Through prayer, as we see in Acts, the Apostles entrusted their responsibilities to MEN whom they thought could carry out their office of bishop. 

Chuck: “I don’t know what more you hope to accomplish here.” 

I think you have a grave misunderstanding of what Apostolic Succession is. It is simply the passing on of ‘the office of bishop’ to men whom can be ‘trusted.’ It does not mean that the men chosen have to be one of the 12 Apostles. That is physically impossible. I’m talking about the ‘teaching office,’ which is what Paul was talking about. Not keeping the number at exactly 12 original Apostles. 

I’m trying to accomplish the fact that Apostolic succession and the handing on of the office of the bishop is very clear in Scripture, and therefore an authority structure was set-up by Christ and the original apostles. 

Do you agree or disagree that a hierarchy of authority based up on the apostles was set up in Scripture?

Yes to both.

Okay. Do you accept that an office of bishop is present after Christ’s death? 

top

No, the bible does not define the office you describe.  No the word “bishop” did not mean what you state above in the early church.  

You asked if bishop as you defined it existed biblically.  It did not.  Your quote of Philippians does not justify the definition you provided.   

Your changing the topic.  Are you conceding that the definition of bishop you provided did not exist in the church and now want to discuss what offices the bible defines?

So when Paul (who wrote the letter we call 1 Timothy) said:
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God according to the promise of the life that is in Christ Jesus, To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.(2 Timothy 1:1-2 ESV)

That does not establish his authorship?  

Acts 1:20-26 is exactly depicting Apostolic Succession, choosing a bishop. That’s why they wrote down ‘apostolic ministry’ and not just ministry. I’m afraid you’re denying Scripture if you don’t believe that the Apostles were appointing someone specific to take over the duties of Judas. 

John 20:19-23 – another that is very clear how Jesus was bestowing special duties to the apostles. 

Couple these with Timothy and Titus and it is clear that the early Church Fathers were in fact appointed to become Episkopos. Deny all you want, but it’s what the bible says. 

“Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”
 7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” Acts 1

Another. 

Sorry man, if you just want to deny the bible and history continuously, then go for it, but it says clearly that Christ gave special duties to the Apostles, who then prayed about passing or entrusting those duties on to specific men. 

If only you were brave enough to read about the early church outside the Bible from the men who actually knew the Apostles. Oh well… protestantism does not like that I guess?

I said I’m human. Paul.

Okay, so are you willing to venture outside the Bible to dig into this question?

Apostle and Episkopos are the same thing when the Bible shows that the Apostles PRAYED about who to replace them; interesting that those very men who were elected went on to lead early christian communities. 

So then, what does bishop mean in your book? What relevance does bishop have in Scripture to the early Christian Church? 

So you need to “venture outside the Bible” to prove the Catholic definition of Episkopos?

The Acts passage shows the apostles praying about who to replace Judas with as an apostle.  This does not tie to the appointment of episkopos.  

Replacing 1 apostle who fell away does not equal appointing episkopos.  

Episkopos are elders/overseers/bishops of the church.  The bible spells out clear requirements for this office.  They are to shepherd, teach and pastor the body and to guard the truth of the gospel.  They were not granted the authority to author scripture.  Nothing suggests that any doctrine they might create should be considered equally authoritative to scripture, and the practice of sacradotalism is abjectly anti-biblical, thus not comparable with a biblical definition of Episkopos.  

Your going to have to expand on that a bit.  Your quote about scholars suggests that there is some open question about the authorship of 2 Timothy and Titus.  

Are you just suggesting the factual reality of the state of scholarship, or suggesting that there is a valid question regarding the authorship of those books?

“guard the truth of the gospel” - 

As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. (1 Timothy 1:3-4 ESV)

The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. (1 Timothy 3:1-7 ESV)   — “able to teach implies that they have a firm understanding of and commitment to the gospel”

Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears. And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified. (Acts 20:28-32 ESV)

This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you—if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. (Titus 1:5-9 ESV)  – this also shows that the office of “Episkopos” and “elder” are the same.  

Are you suggesting that you deny that episkopos were to guard the truth of the gospel?

“able to teach implies that they have a firm understanding of and commitment to the gospel”
I’m just confused how you can use the word ‘implies’ but me as a Catholic am not allowed to use it? I think that is the second time you’ve brought out the word implies, and all that means is personal interoperation in my book. Does not lend much strength to your thoughts.

At least you admit that there were priests, deacons, and bishops, that’s a start. 

You did not answer my question though, “Okay, so are you willing to venture outside the Bible to dig into this question?”

No to your last question. Once again: ”Okay, so are you willing to venture outside the Bible to dig into this question?”

Paul authored them. period. 

What I implied was that your claim to be able to prove the validity of your doctrine with scripture and your desire to bring in other sources do not match up.  

Also, you said above   ”At least you admit that there were priests, deacons, and bishops, that’s a start. ”  - I did not admit any such thing.  

that’s fine Chuck to your last point.

“Okay, so are you willing to venture outside the Bible to dig into this question?”

top. 

“will be bound…will be loosed” = the greek clearly phrases this as prior completed action.  The proper translation is “will have been bound…will have been loosed”. 
- citation please, thanks

Wow, am I allowed to fail Chuck? Am I allowed to sin? Holy smokes. Until you ask me a question, I will keep asking for your respect by answering mine: “Why can’t I cite non-scriptural sources?”

So are you saying you cannot validate your doctrine from the bible and so want to look at other sources?

I honestly don’t know what your looking for at this point.  I’ve answered your question 3 times.  For the purpose of this discussion, you suggested you could make your argument from scripture.  This is why you cannot cite non-biblical sources.  This is the answer to your question.  

I already answered that question as well.  No.  

Here’s why:

1.  I do not accept any other source as being on par with the bible in commanding truth so I deny the ultimate authority of non-biblical tradition.  Anything that was developed as tradition is open to refinement, replacement and refutation.  

2.  Because of this, any claim to the authority of tradition that comes only from tradition is not a claim I will lend any weight to. 

3.  I do know Church History and I do esteem and value the early church fathers.  The truth is though, they were not “Roman Catholic”. You’ll argue that I’m sure, but the weight of history shows that the earliest date anything resembling the Roman Catholic Church can be said to have come into existence is in the 5th century with Leo 1st.  Also, there were valuable theologians after that point as well and yes – we would have to say they were Roman Catholic – but they were not infallible and we are free to study and accept the theology they worked on that is compatible to the bible while rejecting their errors.  To be fair, Roman Catholicism developed slowly and in stages and so a clear firm dating is not possible. That said, there is a clear gradient and as you go back further and further you find less and less dogma and doctrine that even vaguely resembles the Roman Catholic Church.  Neither you nor I are trained historians and so you are going to rely on Catholic interpretations of history by Catholic historians while I rely on other sources.  So ultimately, this is a pointless argument that spins out of who you believe more than who is right.  

You can’t make your argument for the authority of tradition from the scripture and as I said at the outset, the scripture and the Holy Spirit are the only sources of attestation to authority I’m willing to accept.  So, in conclusion – I don’t know what more you hope to accomplish here.    

top. 

for my comment below, I’m truly curious if you are making that decision personally or is that what your pastor teaches or something else…

From God via His Word (aka the bible). 

I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.

(1 Corinthians 4:6 ESV)  – Do not go beyond what is written

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.(Luke 1:1-4 ESV)  –  Certainty of authority and truth is only via the written scripture

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV)  – All Scripture is from God, and with scripture along the “man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work”.  if the Man of God is complete then nothing more need be added outside of what is found in Scripture. 

The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men. (Acts 17:10-12 ESV)  –  Final validity of teaching was confirmed in the Scriptures

You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”’ (that is, given to God)—then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.” (Mark 7:8-13 ESV)  –  Jesus speaking on the asset to the tradition of men over Scripture. Note the example he gives is a case of exceeding scripture and thus implicitly voiding Gods word in favor of man’s tradition.  

Jesus never refers to oral tradition in a positive way, nor any tradition outside of scripture. He never uses oral tradition to answer a challenge, but rather quotes scripture.  

Deuteronomy 4:2, Deuteronomy 12:32, Revelation 22:18-19,  Proverbs 30:5-6

All four of these are explicit direct commands to be obedient to all of what Scripture says and to not add additional requirements to what scripture says.  These verses do not leave any room what so ever for “tradition” to be elevated to equal standing with Scripture, in fact there are explicit warnings that adding to what Scripture says will result in reproof, being proved a liar, and being cut off from the Kingdom of God.  

You addressed one word in the entire verse and didn’t really need to reference the greek to do so (though I don’t deny you that).  what you basically said was the word translated “profitable” in the greek means “profitable” – umm, ya?  

What you didn’t address was the “that the man of God may be complete” portion.  All this verse discusses is “all scripture” and then it talks about the man of God being complete.  Where do you find – in scripture – any suggestion that the man of God requires anything else to be complete?  

Your off topic.  The “where did the bible come from” discussion is in another forum.  We’ve already had it, and I’ve already addressed your views.  If you want to address the scriptures I posted, feel free, but I’m not going to go off on a rabbit trail while you ignore the majority of the verses.  

Profitable does not mean sufficient, don’t assume that it does. 

So are you brave enough to talk about fallible and infallible scripture as well in the other forum? Just let me know, and I will join you over there too. And if you have any friends who want to chip in that would be great as well. The invitation is on the table.

I made the last post in that forum.  You didn’t address it, now your asking if I’m “brave enough”?  That question is overly dramatic and fairly absurd considering you never responded to my last comment in that forum.  

As for inviting friends, no, I don’t believe I will.  You have yet to show that you are even willing to fully address points that I raise by myself, I don’t think bringing in more posters is going to improve that.  In all likelihood it would be far more likely that you would simply have more posts to pick and choose from to try and take shots at without having to actually engage with what the other person is representing.  

i responded above FYI an hour ago

I’m only forthright with the brave comment because as a whole, I’ve yet to meet a Protestant in my entire life who is in fact brave enough to venture beyond the Bible to see how the early Church Fathers and Christians actually lived out their faith through confession, the real presence, etc. Therefore, I have to assume as a whole that Protestants are afraid of what they will find until someone proves me otherwise. Sorry I did not clarify in detail above. 

Responded to what?  The comments in the other forum?  I was referencing the “where the bible came from”, and I see no response on my last post from several weeks ago.  

If you mean you responded to something in this forum, I was catching up.  For some reason yahoo email decided stuff from your site was spam and it was going into the trash so I wasn’t seeing it.  

So I guess that means you are unaware of the fact that there are many protestant theologians who specialize in church history?  You are, I assume, unaware that protestant seminars teach courses in church history?  

I mean, if your “assuming” that all us protestants are “afraid of what we will find” – that would then suggest that no protestants read any church history, right?

You know, you don’t actually have to make assumptions.  You can do a quick google search like “protestant seminary church history course” and see if anything pops out.  

that’s why I said I, me, Seth DeMoor, have not met ANY Protestant who is willing…not some worldly protestant stereo type on seminary courses…more assumptions being made. Perhaps you could be the first? 

with regards to 1 Cor 4:6, that is why the Catholic Church protects scripture and tradition. Both are equally important . 

“So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.” 2 Thes
Chuck, really? EITHER, what does EITHER mean? Come on man, you are lying to yourself if you think this verse is defending just the letter. 

top

So we are back around to where we’ve been repeatedly and you simply don’t see.  You said way back in the faith + works thread that effectively the reason that I am wrong in what the bible says is, I don’t have the authority to interpret scripture.  

You can’t prove the authority you claim to be valid from scripture, yet you still think scripture supports it – all though you must rely on that authority’s interpretation of scripture to find justification of that authority.  

I did make a mistake in giving you verses below – not because they are wrong, but because you have no intention of studying the scripture for yourself.  I could go back and forth with you on any of these verses and eventually we would land back where the faith & works discussion landed with your only remaining answer being that I don’t have the “right” to interpret scripture thus what ever I say can’t be right.  

You keep saying that Catholics hold tradition and scripture to be equally valid, but the source of that “tradition” is the only one allowed to interpret the scripture.  I can call a chainsaw a tomato but that doesn’t make it so.  As long as you hold to a “tradition” that only the authority in that “tradition” can tell you what scripture means, you are placing scripture below the “tradition”.  

The reality is, you don’t hold scripture and tradition in equal standing.  You view scripture through the lens of the tradition, thus leaving God’s word for the traditions of men.  If you were to actually take an honest look at Catholic tradition and scripture you will quickly find that many things your church practices are directly opposed to the clear teachings of the scripture, you won’t or can’t do this though because the only lens you are able to view the bible through is the lens of your tradition.  

And really that’s the conclusion of this discussion.  Your view is limited to what your tradition allows you to see, so there is no real purpose for any further discussion on the point.  I invite and encourage you to begin reading the bible prayerfully and deliberately and see what the Holy Spirit might reveal to you.  I will be praying for you to that end, that God free you from the blinders your wearing and show you the truth of who Jesus is, and what his gospel must mean in your life.  

Your opinions on protestant churches are ignorant and pejorative.  

“Wish I could have been enlightened on that one” – really?
I don’t believe that.  You already think you know what it means.  How could you want to be enlightened when you already think you are?  That  statement appears to me to be a lie.  

I’m not feeling like there is much point in continuing in this forum.  This discussion has become way too much about trying to score points (on both our parts).   

Tell ya what, if ever you are coming to the Dallas area again, let me know and I’d love to grab a beer some evening and actually have a conversation. 

same offer is on the table if you’re ever in Denver, for real