Quote from signature line

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

First time I browsed through this thread - very superficially.

... ironic.

Not long ago I received a thrashing with regard to this very 'signature line' ... not only from AD, but from non-RCs in chorus!

 

[Gold Dragon]

To say the church produced the bible would be like you posting a post on here, and then saying...Look, my computer just composed and posted this message!"

No it didnt. YOU composed the post, using the computer as the instrument to get your thoughts onto the web-site.

I think a better analogy would be ghostwritting. When a celebrity wants to write his/her autobiography, they often hire a professional writer to do the actual writing. For instance, David Beckham's My Side lists Beckham as the author but his ghost writer Tom Watt probably did all the actual writing. Did Beckham write the book or Watt or both?

 

[LeBuick]

Christ built the church on the apostles and the existed several decades before most of the NT was written.

Are you using the word built to describe the original membership?

One is not the same as the other, to say built on is to describe the foundation. The foundation of the Church is the confession of faith, "Thou are the Christ ..." In addition to the Apostles were approx 120 believers who had also followed Christ earthly life. There were also 3K who joined when the Doors to the Church were first opened. That might be considered the building of the Church as in adding to or building upon the foundation but it is not the foundation which the church is "built" on. I think that's where we differ.

When you read Peters sermon, he quotes scripture. More notably he specifically quotes Joel in saying the prophesy has been fulfilled. This was a bridging which gave the NT being spoken history in the form of the OT. To say the Bible began at when Mark first wrote his Gospel or when Paul sent letters to Churches is to say North America began when the pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock or when Christopher Columbus landed down south.

The specific books of the bible were also canonized by the Church under God\'s direction..

This is an interesting discussion, as with any story being told word of mouth, many variations began to form as others went forth carrying the word. Some of these fellas also began writing their versions of what they heard. Most of what was excluded during canonization were the books between what we call the OT and the coming of Christ which had nothing to do with the Gospel. We believe there was a period of time between the OT and John the Baptist/Christ when God didn't speak to man via prophesy.

If I'm not mistaken, the only so called NT book that came close to being canonized was the Gospel of Thomas. It's been a while since I studied this area but I believe he endorsed a works based salvation.

Someone please correct me where I went wrong, it is early here and I am writing from memory. I don't want to be careless with the truth.

Bible did not produce the church

Christ produced the Church then added sinners as members. The Bible is only the written record and didn't produce anything except maybe faith.

 

[LeBuick]

Not long ago I received a thrashing with regard to this very 'signature line' ... not only from AD, but from non-RCs in chorus!

Where did this statement originate?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Where did this statement originate?

GE:
I'll need some time to search for the thread. A Roman Catholic poster used it, and it became a RC vs. Protestant issue between us.

If you look at this signature, it says, I am Roman Catholic; The Church is of higher authority than the Scriptures.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

This qoute is from the signature line on Agnus_Dei's posts - "The Bible did not produce the Church, the Church produced the Bible. The Church is not built upon the Bible, it is built upon the apostles and prophets. Christ did not leave a written book to guide his Church, he left living men empowered by the Holy Spirit."

Do you really believe that Agnus?

I'm pretty sure Angus is Eastern Orthodox.

 

[tinytim]

I'm pretty sure Angus is Eastern Orthodox.

I always though Angus made good hamburgers... :laugh: Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Now Agnus may be EO...

 

[tinytim]

Instead we read Christ instructing His Apostles to go out into the world baptizing and making disciples and lo, Christ will be with them until the end of the world.
-

There is something very omniously missing from your interpretation of the Great Commission...

Matthew 28:19-20
(19) Go you therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit:
(20) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

"Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:"

That is just what they did by writing it down....

 

[Agnus_Dei]

If you look at this signature, it says, I am Roman Catholic; The Church is of higher authority than the Scriptures.

No it doesn’t…I’m not Roman Catholic; we Orthodox derive our Authority from the Church, not a Pope or any one man.

The soul of Holy Orthodoxy is prayer, and it is also the Holy Scripture since the Christian Church is a Scriptural Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church follows the beliefs of the Old Testament and the New Testament including several books of the Apocrypha.

The Orthodox Church looks to Holy Scripture as the supreme expression of God’s revelation to man, but it must not be regarded as something set up over the Church, but as something that lives and is understood within the Church (that is why we Orthodox never separate Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, both go hand-in-hand).

It is from the Church that Holy Scripture ultimately derives its authority, for it was the Church, which originally decided which books form a part of Holy Scripture; and it is the Church alone which can interpret Holy Scripture with authority.

You see, Christ established a CHURCH, His Authority is in the Church and as promised by Christ Himself, it is the Holy Spirit the guides, teaches and reminds His Church of ALL things. If you have issue with that…hit your knees and take it up with God.

In XC
-

 

[Agnus_Dei]

"Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:"

That is just what they did by writing it down....

Teaching doesn’t just involve “writing it down”. St. Paul commanded his audience to not only hold fast to what he had written down in letter, but also what he had passed on to them orally…meaning what he had preached to them.

In XC
-

 

[Gold Dragon]

Are you using the word built to describe the original membership?

One is not the same as the other, to say built on is to describe the foundation.

I was using the word build as Christ used it in Matthew 16:18.

"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it."

I think this verse has nothing to do with successionism as the RCC, EOC and Landmark Baptist believe. But it is pretty clear from the authority of his scriptures that Christ built the church on the apostles and not on the Bible.

This is an interesting discussion, as with any story being told word of mouth, many variations began to form as others went forth carrying the word. Some of these fellas also began writing their versions of what they heard. Most of what was excluded during canonization were the books between what we call the OT and the coming of Christ which had nothing to do with the Gospel. We believe there was a period of time between the OT and John the Baptist/Christ when God didn't speak to man via prophesy.

If I'm not mistaken, the only so called NT book that came close to being canonized was the Gospel of Thomas. It's been a while since I studied this area but I believe he endorsed a works based salvation.

Someone please correct me where I went wrong, it is early here and I am writing from memory. I don't want to be careless with the truth.

I think you are confusing a few things here.

The exclusion of canonization of OT books called the Deuterocanon or what protestants call the Apocrypha, was thought to be conducted by a Jewish council called Jamnia in 90AD when they were trying to formally canonize the Hebrew Bible. It is commonly cited as evidence that the Apocrypha is not on par with the rest of scripture but the evidence that canonization was a primary aim of Jamnia and its actual existence is weak at best.

The process of canonization of the NT books was not thought to be as clean a process with no record of an exact date or council when we can say the Christian church as a whole agreed on the books of the canon. Over the process of the first two hundred years of the Christian church, the books of the NT canon were being written, copied and read in churches and accepted as canon. There are were many other Christian writings being written and read in churches and some were rejected from inclusion in the canon like the Gospel of Thomas. But there is good evidence that there was a general consensus of the 27 NT books by around 300AD at the latest. The consensus may have been reached earlier but there were still some disagreements with the books between Hebrews and Revelation.

The oldest complete list of the 27 books that we have was in a letter Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in 367. This site has a good table outlining the historical lists that we have preserved from known Christian writings.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No it doesn’t…I’m not Roman Catholic; we Orthodox derive our Authority from the Church, not a Pope or any one man.

The soul of Holy Orthodoxy is prayer, and it is also the Holy Scripture since the Christian Church is a Scriptural Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church follows the beliefs of the Old Testament and the New Testament including several books of the Apocrypha.

The Orthodox Church looks to Holy Scripture as the supreme expression of God’s revelation to man, but it must not be regarded as something set up over the Church, but as something that lives and is understood within the Church (that is why we Orthodox never separate Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, both go hand-in-hand).

It is from the Church that Holy Scripture ultimately derives its authority, for it was the Church, which originally decided which books form a part of Holy Scripture; and it is the Church alone which can interpret Holy Scripture with authority.

You see, Christ established a CHURCH, His Authority is in the Church and as promised by Christ Himself, it is the Holy Spirit the guides, teaches and reminds His Church of ALL things. If you have issue with that…hit your knees and take it up with God.

In XC
-

Now that is an interesting discussion. What came first the Church or the Scripture? Scripture tells us that God made a Covenant with Abraham. This covenant was lived without scripture for at least 400 years. God made a covenant with the entire nation of Isreal and gave them the 10 commandments himself. If we art to believe Jewish Tradition. Moses wrote the 1st 5 books and possibly let Joshua finish the second giving of the Law as well as the book of Joshua. After that point the prophets and scribes wrote as the circumstances permitted. (of course with God's inspiration) By the time of Jesus and his apostles many books were added to the original 5 as scripture. Jesus establishes his apostles who only afterwards write down their letters and gospels. Paul says to pay heed to what he himself taught the new converts. So, according to scripture the church came first. Interestingly, the Jews have always had oral tradition even at the time of Christ. The Jews also had their liturgy at the time of Christ. Christianity is an off shoot of Judaism and took aspects of that culture. So Paul taught orally (as did the other apostles) which afterwards was writen down. Did by nature of being originally Jewish did the earliest christians have their liturgy? Well, we have the Didache writen around the same time as Mark. So........

 

[Marcia]

If I'm not mistaken, the only so called NT book that came close to being canonized was the Gospel of Thomas. It's been a while since I studied this area but I believe he endorsed a works based salvation.

Someone please correct me where I went wrong, it is early here and I am writing from memory. I don't want to be careless with the truth.

I doubt that it was the Gospel of Thomas that came close to being canonized. The Gospel of Thomas is a Gnostic gospel. I think, in fact, it was partly because of the Gnostic writings that the Christians chose to say which books were scripture and which weren't - in order to defend the faith against the counterfeit Gnostics (and others).

So God used the false writings to get the Bible canonized.

 

[Marcia]

The Orthodox Church looks to Holy Scripture as the supreme expression of God’s revelation to man, but it must not be regarded as something set up over the Church, but as something that lives and is understood within the Church (that is why we Orthodox never separate Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, both go hand-in-hand).

It is from the Church that Holy Scripture ultimately derives its authority, for it was the Church, which originally decided which books form a part of Holy Scripture; and it is the Church alone which can interpret Holy Scripture with authority.

This view downgrades scripture as the final authority; it's ultimately a low view of scripture.

Scripture was given by God, and the canon was discovered by Christians. They were defending God's word against false gospels. This does not put the church over the scripture. Scripture is God's word and should be over man.

 

[Marcia]

Teaching doesn’t just involve “writing it down”. St. Paul commanded his audience to not only hold fast to what he had written down in letter, but also what he had passed on to them orally…meaning what he had preached to them.

In XC
-

But what was passed orally that God wanted us to know did get written eventually. I think when Paul said this, the NT had not been finished yet. Why would God leave something out of his word that He wanted us to know?

It's ironic that you say this because you are quoting scripture!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

No it doesn’t…I’m not Roman Catholic; we Orthodox derive our Authority from the Church, not a Pope or any one man.

The soul of Holy Orthodoxy is prayer, and it is also the Holy Scripture since the Christian Church is a Scriptural Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church follows the beliefs of the Old Testament and the New Testament including several books of the Apocrypha.

The Orthodox Church looks to Holy Scripture as the supreme expression of God’s revelation to man, but it must not be regarded as something set up over the Church, but as something that lives and is understood within the Church (that is why we Orthodox never separate Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, both go hand-in-hand).

It is from the Church that Holy Scripture ultimately derives its authority, for it was the Church, which originally decided which books form a part of Holy Scripture; and it is the Church alone which can interpret Holy Scripture with authority.

You see, Christ established a CHURCH, His Authority is in the Church and as promised by Christ Himself, it is the Holy Spirit the guides, teaches and reminds His Church of ALL things. If you have issue with that…hit your knees and take it up with God.

In XC
-

GE:
Your whole remonstrance here in so many ways is so self-contradictory it is self destructive. If I have the energy to, I shall compose a proper answer. This is a serious matter, and deserves one's best attention (which I now simply don't have.) For now, just look at your first statement. You say you are 'Orthodox' and not RC, but give us this for your reason why : which is nothing but plain old Roman Catholic dogma.

Anyway, I have made a copy of this post and shall attend to it as the opportunity may arise. But I feel that this 'subject' has been debated over so many years and ages by the very best brains from the opposing sides, I am not up to standards against any. Why not go read the classic books : they number in their millions, But I would say you won't find better than Calvin's Institutes easily.

 

[LeBuick]

If you look at this signature, it says, I am Roman Catholic; The Church is of higher authority than the Scriptures.

I see, so is this what gives the Pope authority to determines the Churches view?

Mt 10:24 The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.

If the Apostles were disciples of their Lord Jesus Christ, and scriptures is the word of the Lord, how can the Apostle have authority over the Lord's Word?

I still see a pretense alleging the Bible is the word of the Apostles instead of the Word of God.

 

[LeBuick]

"Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:"

That is just what they did by writing it down....

Great catch, I missed that completely... :thumbs:

 

[LeBuick]

You see, Christ established a CHURCH, His Authority is in the Church and as promised by Christ Himself, it is the Holy Spirit the guides, teaches and reminds His Church of ALL things. If you have issue with that…hit your knees and take it up with God.

In XC
-

It seems you are giving too much credit to the Church instead of the Head of the Church. Same with the Word instead of the giver of the Word. You seem to imply Christ left the Church after establishing it leaving us only his Word as spoken by the Apostles. You also seem to imply the Holy Spirit and Scripture are the same.

Am I close?

 

[LeBuick]

I think this verse has nothing to do with successionism as the RCC, EOC and Landmark Baptist believe. But it is pretty clear from the authority of his scriptures that Christ built the church on the apostles and not on the Bible. I think you are confusing a few things here..

So if I understand, you say the rock is the apostles? I believe the rock was the confession of faith "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." I believe this because of Jesus response, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."

Peter was blessed not because he was an Apostle, but because he had come to know the Truth of who Jesus was. The entrance into the Church and the Church itself is founded on this truth, if Christ be not the son of God then all we do is in vein.

We know from Judas that hades can prevail against man but that revelation, the confession, it is faith Christ that can't be prevailed against. Who Jesus is was the significance of this verse and not that fact the Peter would be an Apostle. I disagree with you.

Mt 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 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.
20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.