'Tradition'

[utilyan]

You are still dancing around the point, Utilyan: there has been corruption in the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church has addressed that corruption.

Unlike the scenario you try to portray of the Catholic Church being justified in all of her doctrines and practices.

Secondly, you yourself would likely come under judgment of the Church, because your teachings often depart from a traditional and official position of the Church (i.e., the Church never sold indulgences, there has never been corruption on the part of Church officials). You would be considered a heretic if you were hauled before those who hold authority to determine whether your teachings are Catholic or heretical.

Now, when you can apply the realities of the involvement of man in leadership, from whence Doctrine and Practice flow, then you might teach a realistic view of the corruptions that have taken place. While you might never admit the error of Indulgences themselves, at the very least you could admit the fallibility of men, and the Infallibility of what is written in God's Word.


God bless.

If we were to say indulgences are wrong, the first one is READING THE BIBLE.

You practice and indulgence you just don't know it.
Convince me reading the bible is not good for me and you have a solid case against indulgence.


There was corruption under Jesus' administration, One of his apostles Judas Iscariot was stealing and then betrayed Jesus. Under your own logic Jesus can't be justified in all doctrines and practices.

The apostle Judas Iscariot "from whence doctrine and practice flow".

Jesus authorized indulgences in fact he authorized a greater scope called "WHATEVER".
WHATEVER you bind and lose on earth.

Maybe you should focus the exegesis of :

Matthew 18
18“Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.


Obviously your going to have to make a case that WHATEVER does not mean WHATEVER.

The church exercises partial use of binding a particular "whatever" in eliminating punishments by penance.

For example you may have been forgiven and still have remorse which is a type of punishment not God inflicted. The remorse is temporal. God forgave you that doesn't mean well he sticks you guilt for eternity.

Reading the bible is a indulgence. The Church has declared BINDING that reading the bible will have an effect on temporal punishment like guilt and remorse.

You ever see some one sell a bible? OH MY GOD, Literally selling indulgences!

 

[utilyan]

(ESV) Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,
(ISV) Therefore, I have decided that we should not trouble these gentiles who are turning to God.

James was the pastor of the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem where this meeting took place. As the pastor, he had more authority than any of the apostles, and he was the one that made the final decision as verse 19 clearly indicates.

That is unacceptable in a SOLA SCRIPTURA model. Only the holy scriptures can decide. At the time of acts 15 there is no scriptural support for getting rid of the Jewish Law.

 

[utilyan]

Now I ask you, is the authority of the Church lost when corrupt men teach and practice that which is not according to Christ's will for the Church?


God bless.

Not even if the entirety of the clergy is corrupt. Example the Pharisees held control of Moses Seat. Had the authority been lost Jesus could have easily declared they are a false religion and don't do what they say.

The Pharisees teachings were TRUE but they were not practicing what the preach.

An example:

Luke 10

25And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” 27And he answered, “YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” 28And He said to him, “You have answered correctly; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE.”

Jesus didn't say Love God,, Love Neighbor. The lawyer was stating it as per Pharisee teaching.

Jesus tells him he is correct.


How is this Pharisee correct? he's not a Baptist has not accepted Jesus Christ as personal lord and savior.


Jesus would tell Pharisees they are children of the devil one line and then children of Abraham another. They were not doing what they preach.


Matthew 23

2saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them



Had Jesus been a Baptist ALL these encounters would have played out differently. First there would have been a xenophobic stance condemning everyone who wasn't Baptist and a demand of worship from Jesus.

The sermon on the mount rather then being the first sermon and encounter with Christian teaching would have Jesus walk up the hill and say Worship me, kneel before me accept me as your Lord and Savior.

 

[DHK]

That is unacceptable in a SOLA SCRIPTURA model. Only the holy scriptures can decide. At the time of acts 15 there is no scriptural support for getting rid of the Jewish Law.

As was quoted:

(ESV) Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,
(ISV) Therefore, I have decided that we should not trouble these gentiles who are turning to God.

James was the pastor of the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem where this meeting took place. As the pastor, he had more authority than any of the apostles, and he was the one that made the final decision as verse 19 clearly indicates.

Then take your argument up with God the Holy Spirit who was or is the ultimate author of the Scriptures. That is who you are arguing with.

BTW, do you realize who James was, the pastor of the church of Jerusalem who made this decision?
Every non-Catholic who has studied this book knows this. I will quote you another commentary to demonstrate I am not making things up. The Bible Knowledge Commentary, commenting on Acts 15:13 states:

James, evidently the head of the church at Jerusalem, then took the floor and issued a summary statement. He was Jesus’ half brother and wrote the Epistle of James.

--This convenient little fact destroys some other RCC myth and doctrine doesn't it?

Is it so hard to believe the Bible?

 

[utilyan]

As was quoted:

Then take your argument up with God the Holy Spirit who was or is the ultimate author of the Scriptures. That is who you are arguing with.

BTW, do you realize who James was, the pastor of the church of Jerusalem who made this decision?
Every non-Catholic who has studied this book knows this. I will quote you another commentary to demonstrate I am not making things up. The Bible Knowledge Commentary, commenting on Acts 15:13 states:

--This convenient little fact destroys some other RCC myth and doctrine doesn't it?

Is it so hard to believe the Bible?

The hierarchy doesn't matter to me, Mary Magdalene could be running the church. The focus is AUTHORITY, THE FINAL AUTHORITY.

It doesn't matter if JAMES was Jesus' own mother! SOLA SCRIPTURA IS SOLA SCRIPTURA.

They have NO AUTHORITY, NONE, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA!

James can't make ANY CALLS. SOLA SCRIPTURA does not allow it.

The point being the decision fell on church authority. Had it been scripture the case for Jewish Law would have won in a Landslide.

 

[DHK]

The hierarchy doesn't matter to me, Mary Magdalene could be running the church. The focus is AUTHORITY, THE FINAL AUTHORITY.

It doesn't matter if JAMES was Jesus' own mother! SOLA SCRIPTURA IS SOLA SCRIPTURA.

They have NO AUTHORITY, NONE, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA!

James can't make ANY CALLS. SOLA SCRIPTURA does not allow it.

The point being the decision fell on church authority. Had it been scripture the case for Jewish Law would have won in a Landslide.

You just don't get it, do you?
First, there was no "The Church" in existence.
By Acts 15 there were many churches in existence all independent of each other. The church at Antioch for example had nothing to do with the church at Jerusalem. Paul was a member of the church at Antioch and came down from Antioch to attend this meeting because he had encountered these heretical Judaizers. They were trouble makers for him especially.
Peter also became hypocritical at one point in his life by siding with them. In Galatians chapter two Paul rebukes Peter for taking sides with these legalistic ones who perverted the grace of God.

This was a local church at Jerusalem. There is no such thing as "The Church," and the RCC was not in existence. Many members of this local church had already been scattered because of a great persecution, but the apostles were still here. They wanted a decision, not with this church's authority, but rather with apostolic authority, for the canon of scripture had not yet been finished.

The same thing happened in Acts chapter eight.
Philip was in Samaria. People were getting saved. There was great joy in the city. But Philip was a servant (or deacon) chosen in Acts 6. To provide authenticity they had some of the apostles come and put their hand of approval upon the work:

Acts 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

--Now no one could argue against it for it had the approval of the apostles.
The same was true in Acts 15. Remember that the apostles were the authors of our NT Scriptures.

 

[utilyan]

If there was "NO CHURCH" then James can't make a decision. NNE CAN.

No one can decide anything because you would just look at scripture.

If they believed in Scripture Alone then the Judaizers WIN.

Because there is a TON of scripture supporting the Judaizers belief, AND ZERO supporting against it.


"--Now no one could argue against it for it had the approval of the apostles."
This is an absurdity the bishops had approval of the apostles and you call them heretics.

And besides SO WHAT? Only SCRIPTURE has authority. If you say apostles have authority you are snapping your own neck.

Your thinking some fantasy land where the apostles take a time machine or say WELL...10 years from now I'm gonna write scripture that will be the foundation of our decision.'

That doesn't fly. ALL eyes are on the authority at that moment.

If it scripture was the authority there is no way Judaizers could lose, because there was no NEW scripture or Divine event to say otherwise. ALL the scripture they did have pointed to keeping the whole Jewish Law.


Had a BAPTIST been present in the discussion:
Acts 15
10“Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

And then BAPTIST BUFORD stands up, "That's a nice idea n' all, Peter, but can you show this in the bible?"

No Peter cannot.

There is NO SCRIPTURAL support for Peter.

Had Scripture been the FINAL AUTHORITY to them the Judaizers win.

 

[Adonia]

You just don't get it, do you?
First, there was no "The Church" in existence.
By Acts 15 there were many churches in existence all independent of each other. The church at Antioch for example had nothing to do with the church at Jerusalem. Paul was a member of the church at Antioch and came down from Antioch to attend this meeting because he had encountered these heretical Judaizers. They were trouble makers for him especially.
Peter also became hypocritical at one point in his life by siding with them. In Galatians chapter two Paul rebukes Peter for taking sides with these legalistic ones who perverted the grace of God.

This was a local church at Jerusalem. There is no such thing as "The Church," and the RCC was not in existence. Many members of this local church had already been scattered because of a great persecution, but the apostles were still here. They wanted a decision, not with this church's authority, but rather with apostolic authority, for the canon of scripture had not yet been finished.

The same thing happened in Acts chapter eight.
Philip was in Samaria. People were getting saved. There was great joy in the city. But Philip was a servant (or deacon) chosen in Acts 6. To provide authenticity they had some of the apostles come and put their hand of approval upon the work:

Acts 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

--Now no one could argue against it for it had the approval of the apostles.
The same was true in Acts 15. Remember that the apostles were the authors of our NT Scriptures.

And then what happened? As time went on, the new Christian Church evolved - it did not stop with the end of the Apostles! New Bishops were ordained into the One Universal (Catholic) Christian Church, doctrine was formed and 99.8% of Christendom followed this Church, the Church here on earth started by Jesus Christ himself. There were no Episcopalians, no Lutherans, no Church of Christ, no Pentecostals, no Jehovah's Witnesses, no Mormons, and there certainly were no Baptists.

Just the One Universal (Catholic) Christian Church! You just don't get it.

 

[DHK]

If there was "NO CHURCH" then James can't make a decision. NNE CAN. [/quote
There was no "The Church," as defined by the RCC, that is, a universal church, an invisible church, a denominational church, one large organization connected through an hierarchy, etc. It didn't exist. The Greek word for church is ekklesia which is always translated assembly or congregation. It has no other meaning. James was the pastor of the local assembly at Jerusalem, that is, the First Baptist Church at Jerusalem, and of no other church. The pastor of the church at Corinth was first Paul, and then Apollos. The pastor of the church at Ephesus was Timothy. All of these were independent of each other. They were local churches. They didn't compose "The Church." The were local churches each having their own pastor.
James could and did make the decision, because he was the pastor of the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem. It was that local church and only that church that could give him the authority to do so.

No one can decide anything because you would just look at scripture.

Scripture was still in the process of being formed. They had the entire OT, plus whatever the Apostles said. The Apostles had the teachings of Jesus which became scripture.

Now consider:
Jesus taught that salvation was by faith without works: John 3:16; 5:24; 3:36; 8:12; 11:25,26; etc. There are many more verses where Jesus taught salvation by faith w/o works. The apostles knew this very well and taught the same message at:
Pentecost Acts 2, by Stephen Acts 7, by Philip in Samara Acts 8, by Philip to the Ethiopian Eunuch Acts 8, by Paul Acts 9ff, by Peter to Cornelius Acts 10, by Paul on his first missionary journey in chapters 13 and 14 when he established dozens of churches by preaching a message of salvation is by grace through faith and not of works which he again expounds on in Eph.2:8-10 and in 1Cor.15:1-4. Works is never a part of salvation. This is what the Apostles taught and demonstrated as they gave their own testimonies.

If they believed in Scripture Alone then the Judaizers WIN.

The J.W.'s use Scripture too. Does that mean they win. Using scripture they preached heresy.

Because there is a TON of scripture supporting the Judaizers belief, AND ZERO supporting against it.[/qute]
There is not one single verse of Scripture that supports their view. not one! And you can't show one. The Bible doesn't contradict itself. Here is what Hab.2:4, from the OT says:
Habakkuk 2:4 Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.
--The verse is quoted or repeated 3 times in the NT. Why? Not only is a person justified by faith (Rom.5), he also lives by faith, not of works, but by faith. The teaching is both OT and NT.

"--Now no one could argue against it for it had the approval of the apostles."
This is an absurdity the bishops had approval of the apostles and you call them heretics.

There is no "bishop" as per definition of the RCC, in the Bible. Show me one. The word bishop is the same word for overseer, the duty of the pastor. I already explained this to you.

And besides SO WHAT? Only SCRIPTURE has authority. If you say apostles have authority you are snapping your own neck.

Who wrote the OT? the prophets!
Who wrote the NT? the apostles!
What did Peter say?
2 Peter 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
--They were to obey the words of the Prophets of the OT.
and of the Apostles of the NT. These were the authors of the Bible. He is speaking of Scripture. It is Scripture that has authority. It is God that gave the Bible to the churches, not the other way around.

Your thinking some fantasy land where the apostles take a time machine or say WELL...10 years from now I'm gonna write scripture that will be the foundation of our decision.'

The apostles are the authors of the NT as Peter declares. Write what you will. It will not be inspired. It will be as you say: fantasy--just like Bel and the Dragon. Have you read it? It is just fantasy, not inspired of God.

If it scripture was the authority there is no way Judaizers could lose, because there was no NEW scripture or Divine event to say otherwise. ALL the scripture they did have pointed to keeping the whole Jewish Law.

What scripture did the Judaizers have. Abuse of scripture doesn't not mean they had scriptural support. Paul refutes their position thoroughly in the Book of Galatians, calling their message "another gospel," and the teachers of it "accursed."
Paul also taught that the "law" had been nailed to the tree. It is only our school-master or tutor to lead us to Christ. The law said you must wear all of one kind of clothing, and that none of your clothing could be mixed: like cotton and polyester, etc. Do you follow this command. Are you dressed in 100% linen, or 100% cotton from head to foot? If you are not you are not keeping the law, as the Judaizers insisted.

Had a BAPTIST been present in the discussion:

Don't you know that the Apostles were Baptists, and even the Bible tells us who the first Baptist was: "John the Baptist!

Acts 15
10“Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

And then BAPTIST BUFORD stands up, "That's a nice idea n' all, Peter, but can you show this in the bible?"

The "yoke" referred to is another word for "law."

Had Scripture been the FINAL AUTHORITY to them the Judaizers win.

Prove it!

 

[DHK]

And then what happened? As time went on, the new Christian Church evolved - it did not stop with the end of the Apostles! New Bishops were ordained into the One Universal (Catholic) Christian Church, doctrine was formed and 99.8% of Christendom followed this Church, the Church here on earth started by Jesus Christ himself. There were no Episcopalians, no Lutherans, no Church of Christ, no Pentecostals, no Jehovah's Witnesses, no Mormons, and there certainly were no Baptists.

Just the One Universal (Catholic) Christian Church! You just don't get it.

Here is what Paul said. Keep in mind that Paul met death a year or two before Peter, and definitely before Jude, Thomas and John, and possibly a couple of others.

Now consider the policy of Paul:
Acts 14:21 And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch,
22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.
Acts 14:23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.
--Paul went on three missionary journeys. In those three missionary journeys he established over 100 churches. Above was his policy. After staying with them and teaching them for some time, he did not leave without choosing for them a pastor. This would be a joint decision between them and him, but always guided by the Holy Spirit and prayer, just as he was guided to be a missionary sent out with Barnabas in Acts 13:1-4.
Elders, pastors, overseers, bishops, were one and the same. They were different words defining the various functions of the same office--the pastor. There were only local churches. There was no "The Church." It was non-existent. The Greek word "ekklesia" does not allow for such a monstrosity.

Thus there was no "new Christian Church" that evolved. Only churches, local churches were started.

When the apostles died others carried on. There was no apostolic succession. For example, we find Priscilla and Aquilla in Rome having started their own church in their house. Paul is still alive. Who appointed them. No one. They went to Rome and started a church there in their house. It was a local church, as the word ekklesia indicates. There was no "new Christian Church." The word doesn't even make sense from a NT point of view.
Romans 16:3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:
4 Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.
5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.

"Followed what "Church." Paul established over 100 churches. Which church did the follow? There is no "The Church," only churches. The RCC didn't start until the fourth century with the advent of Constantine.

You say:
"There were no Episcopalians, no Lutherans, no Church of Christ, no Pentecostals, no Jehovah's Witnesses, no Mormons, and there certainly were no Baptists."
Baptists follow NT teaching. Therefore, as the Apostles were Baptist, so are we.
The RCC, as noted did not exist until the fourth century when Constantine began to paganize Christianity.

 

[Adonia]

Here is what Paul said. Keep in mind that Paul met death a year or two before Peter, and definitely before Jude, Thomas and John, and possibly a couple of others.

Now consider the policy of Paul:
Acts 14:21 And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch,
22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.
Acts 14:23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.
--Paul went on three missionary journeys. In those three missionary journeys he established over 100 churches. Above was his policy. After staying with them and teaching them for some time, he did not leave without choosing for them a pastor. This would be a joint decision between them and him, but always guided by the Holy Spirit and prayer, just as he was guided to be a missionary sent out with Barnabas in Acts 13:1-4.
Elders, pastors, overseers, bishops, were one and the same. They were different words defining the various functions of the same office--the pastor. There were only local churches. There was no "The Church." It was non-existent. The Greek word "ekklesia" does not allow for such a monstrosity.

Thus there was no "new Christian Church" that evolved. Only churches, local churches were started.

When the apostles died others carried on. There was no apostolic succession. For example, we find Priscilla and Aquilla in Rome having started their own church in their house. Paul is still alive. Who appointed them. No one. They went to Rome and started a church there in their house. It was a local church, as the word ekklesia indicates. There was no "new Christian Church." The word doesn't even make sense from a NT point of view.
Romans 16:3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:
4 Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.
5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.

"Followed what "Church." Paul established over 100 churches. Which church did the follow? There is no "The Church," only churches. The RCC didn't start until the fourth century with the advent of Constantine.

You say:
"There were no Episcopalians, no Lutherans, no Church of Christ, no Pentecostals, no Jehovah's Witnesses, no Mormons, and there certainly were no Baptists."
Baptists follow NT teaching. Therefore, as the Apostles were Baptist, so are we.
The RCC, as noted did not exist until the fourth century when Constantine began to paganize Christianity.

Nothing like disregarding the historical record - you do it well. You have to ignore everything to justify your sect and what you believe. The Early Church Fathers? No problem they were all in error. Nothing they did was right. (Yeah, if you include that nothing being forming the basic Christian doctrines and compiling the New Testament Scriptures and fighting the various heresies that sprang up from time to time).

St. Paul telling the other "Church's" (really parishes) of the ONE CHRISTIAN CHURCH what to believe and how to behave was leadership from one source, the hierarchy of the Church, and that continued on and that is the truth.

Constantine? Oh, he just paganized the Church! (No, not really - what he did was stopping most of the persecutions of Christians and the faith then became an accepted part of society)

All one Church, the Church that taught orthodoxy, you know things like the sacramental way of Christianity and so on. Things that all Christians believed until the 16th century no less and not the kind of half truth's and downright falsehoods that you spout forth.

 

[DHK]

Nothing like disregarding the historical record - you do it well. You have to ignore everything to justify your sect and what you believe. The Early Church Fathers? No problem they were all in error. Nothing they did was right. (Yeah, if you include that nothing being forming the basic Christian doctrines and compiling the New Testament Scriptures and fighting the various heresies that sprang up from time to time).

Historical records? What do you know about history?
Have you read the Book of Mormon? There is history in that book. Do you believe it to be true and reliable?
What about the history recorded in the Koran? Do you believe Islam's view of history?
Sadly, it is evident that you don't believe the inspired Word of God--"His-Story", where all true history comes from. You have demonstrated that.
You are here simply to advertise and propagate the biased view of the revised RCC history--thoroughly sanitized of its crimes and misdeeds and not at all accurate to the truth.

St. Paul telling the other "Church's" (really parishes) of the ONE CHRISTIAN CHURCH what to believe and how to behave was leadership from one source, the hierarchy of the Church, and that continued on and that is the truth.

You are blind to the truth. First quote the scripture where Paul says anything of the sort.
Second, Paul always addresses either ONE local church at a time, or the pastor of one local church. So did Jesus in the Book of Revelation. There are seven local churches each having seven pastors. Jesus addressed each pastor separately. They did not all fall under one "Church."
The only time there will be one "Church" is in heaven when all believers will be gathered together in one great assembly. The Greek word means "assembly" and thus cannot mean "universal" church. The Bible knows no such thing as a church with a hierarchy. You can't find it in the Bible either, can you?

Constantine? Oh, he just paganized the Church! (No, not really - what he did was stopping most of the persecutions of Christians and the faith then became an accepted part of society)

Yes, he used Christianity for his own political ends. He faked his conversion, pretended to be a Christian, made it a state-religion which then became the RCC with all its glorified idolatry.
What kind of man was he?

The accession of Constantine was a turning point for early Christianity. After his victory, Constantine took over the role of patron of the Christian faith. ...Just before his death in May 337, Constantine was baptised into Christianity. Up until this time he had been a catechuman for most of his adult life. He believed that if he waited to get baptized on his death bed he was in less danger of polluting his soul with sin and not getting to heaven. He was baptized by an Arian sympathizer, but this was a result of attempting to create reconciliation in the Church, not acceptance of Arianism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great_and_Christianity

Though despite this turn toward Christianity, Constantine remained for some years still very tolerant of the old pagan religions. Particularly the worship of the sun god was still closely related with him for some time to come. A fact which can be seen on the carvings of his triumphal Arch in Rome and on coins minted during his reign.

(Is this the life of a Christian??)
Constantine's reign was that of a hard, utterly determined and ruthless man. Nowhere did this show more than when in AD 326, on suspicion of adultery or treason, he had his own eldest son Crispus executed.
One account of the events tells of Constantine's wife Fausta falling in love with Crispus, who was her stepson, and made an accusation of him committing adultery only once she had been rejected by him, or because she simply wanted Crispus out of the way, in order to let her sons acceed to the throne unhindered. Then again, Constantine had only a month ago passed a strict law against adultery and might have felt obliged to act. And so Crispus was executed at Pola in Istria.
Though after this execution Constantine's mother Helena convinced the emperor of Crispus' innocence and that Fausta's accusation had been false. Escaping the vengeance of her husband, Fausta killed herself at Treviri.
He was a politician, a murderer, an idolater and the head of the state-church, the RCC.

All one Church, the Church that taught orthodoxy, you know things like the sacramental way of Christianity and so on. Things that all Christians believed until the 16th century no less and not the kind of half truth's and downright falsehoods that you spout forth.

Again you don't know your history or your Bible.
I really don't care what heresies the ECF believed.
The sacraments and/or Eucharist is not found in the Bible. And until you can demonstrate that they are I will simply conclude that you believe in grievous error, error that needs to be repented of.

 

[utilyan]

Now consider:
Jesus taught that salvation was by faith without works: John 3:16; 5:24; 3:36; 8:12; 11:25,26; etc. There are many more verses where Jesus taught salvation by faith w/o works. The apostles knew this very well and taught the same message at:
Pentecost Acts 2, by Stephen Acts 7, by Philip in Samara Acts 8, by Philip to the Ethiopian Eunuch Acts 8, by Paul Acts 9ff, by Peter to Cornelius Acts 10, by Paul on his first missionary journey in chapters 13 and 14 when he established dozens of churches by preaching a message of salvation is by grace through faith and not of works which he again expounds on in Eph.2:8-10 and in 1Cor.15:1-4. Works is never a part of salvation. This is what the Apostles taught and demonstrated as they gave their own testimonies.

The J.W.'s use Scripture too. Does that mean they win. Using scripture they preached heresy.

I have a logical answer THOSE taught by Christ THE CHURCH, has authority.

You have a illogical problem and are fumbling around that is that Sola Scriptura is the authority.

None of the apostles opened up a king james bible then asked....OK what does the bible say we will do next?

Where is the final authority of scripture explaining their own decision in acts 15, its not in other new testament scripture, that stuff has not been written yet.

All your theologians are reluctant to tell you the truth.


When you guys started this thread you mention James White. I love James White. I love his ancient greek/Hebrew knowledge he gets real deep in the meaning of bible.
But right here, he hit a brick wall, Got knocked out.

Gerry Matatics (M): Did the people in Jesus' day practice sola scriptura? The hearers of our Lord?
James White (W): I have said over, and over, and over again that sola scriptura is a doctrine that speaks to the normative condition of the Church, not to times of inscripturation.
M: So your answer is "no"?
W: That is exactly what my answer is--it is "no"
M: Did the apostles practice sola scriptura, Mr. White? Yes or no
W: No
M: Thank you; did the successors to the apostles practice sola scriptura; only believing that Timothy [in 2 Tim 3:16-17] only believed what Paul had written him?
W: Eh, what do you mean? The first generations who were alive during the time of inscripturation?
M: Titus . . .
W: Again, as you should know as a graduate of Westminster theological seminary, you are asking every question of a straw-man--it [sola scriptura] after the inscripturation of Scripture.
M: Thank you Mr. White
W: So I am glad to affirm everything you said.
M: So, Mr. White; you admit then that Jesus didn't practice sola scriptura . . .
W: I asserted it
M: . . . His hearers do not; the apostles do not and their successors do not; and yet you want to persuade this audience that they should depart from this pattern for reasons you believe are sufficient and now adopt a different methodology . . .

 

[DHK]

I have a logical answer THOSE taught by Christ THE CHURCH, has authority.

You have a illogical problem and are fumbling around that is that Sola Scriptura is the authority.

None of the apostles opened up a king james bible then asked....OK what does the bible say we will do next?

Where is the final authority of scripture explaining their own decision in acts 15, its not in other new testament scripture, that stuff has not been written yet.

And because the NT was not written yet, the words of the Apostles stood just as authoritative as the NT.
However, the Word of God was used contrary to your assertions. Let's consider what Pastor James had to say. He was the one that made the decision.

Act 15:13-19
(13) And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
(14) Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
--Simeon is Simon or Peter. Peter declared what God did. God took out a people for his name. This is what God did.

(15) And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
--What God did, through Peter, agree with what the words of the OT prophets. Now James begins to quote the OT prophets.

(16) After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
(17) That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
--These two verses are from the OT, quoted from Amos 9:11-12.
James certainly is using the Word of God convincingly.
(18) Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
(19) Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
He concludes after referencing the Word (sola scriptura), and gives his decision.

 

[utilyan]

And because the NT was not written yet, the words of the Apostles stood just as authoritative as the NT.
However, the Word of God was used contrary to your assertions. Let's consider what Pastor James had to say. He was the one that made the decision.

Act 15:13-19
(13) And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
(14) Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
--Simeon is Simon or Peter. Peter declared what God did. God took out a people for his name. This is what God did.

(15) And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
--What God did, through Peter, agree with what the words of the OT prophets. Now James begins to quote the OT prophets.

(16) After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
(17) That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
--These two verses are from the OT, quoted from Amos 9:11-12.
James certainly is using the Word of God convincingly.
(18) Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
(19) Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
He concludes after referencing the Word (sola scriptura), and gives his decision.

You are incorrect. If we were to stack up scripture I would find more ground for having to keep the Law.

On scripture alone there is NO CHANCE to conclude Law doesn't need to be kept.

Even if they had written gospels, the scripture would still back keeping the law.

The scripture they cited only says Gentiles are to be included it never said they are excluded from works of the law.

Scripture is not why they decide Gentiles don't have to keep Jewish Law.

The reason is this:
acts 15
11“But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”

This statement of Faith at the time Peter says it, IS NOT SCRIPTURE. Paul nor Peter have written this, It is all however, taught by the church

Had the council believed in Sola Scriptura his statement would have been ignored.

YOU SAID:" the words of the Apostles stood just as authoritative as the NT"

That's backpedaling from sola scriptura. So for one who insists on Sola Scriptura the appropriate question is.......

Show me in scripture where teaches that "the words of the Apostles stood just as authoritive as the new testament"

Show me scripture in old testament that says WELL if you are an apostle of Jesus then you have authority on par as New Testament.


I hope you realize what is happening here. I am fighting FOR Sola Scriptura and you are fighting for CHURCH AUTHORITY and don't even know it.

 

[DHK]

You are incorrect. If we were to stack up scripture I would find more ground for having to keep the Law.

Scripture? Let's limit scripture to the NT, particularly those after the cross, after Christ paid the penalty for sin. We are not Israel who was under the law. Thus concerning believing Gentiles, Paul says:
Colossians 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and ,the uncircumcision of your flesh hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
--Circumcision (part of the OT law) has been nailed to the cross. It is contrary to the "us," that is, the NT believer, meaning it is no longer relevant. It has been taken out of the way. This is Paul's teaching.

Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Romans 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
--We are justified by his grace not by the law.
According to Rom.5:1 we are justified by faith, not by the law.

On scripture alone there is NO CHANCE to conclude Law doesn't need to be kept.

The problem here is that no man can keep the law; only Christ kept the law. Everyone else failed. It is Christ that saves; not the law.
Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
--If you do not continue in all things that are written in the law from birth to death you are cursed. One simply has to fail one time. But we don't fail one time in our lives. We fail many times; every day in fact. Thus you are cursed under the law, unless you go to Christ and accept Him by grace and through faith alone.

Even if they had written gospels, the scripture would still back keeping the law.

Salvation is by faith alone. The Bible does not teach keeping the law as a requirement for salvation. Neither do you keep the law. I already gave you an example that you never replied to.

Deuteronomy 22:11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.
--Do you keep this law? I don't think so.
I don't even think you keep the Sabbath do you?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning

Some time after 2am Pacific, this thread will be closed.

 

[utilyan]

Scripture? Let's limit scripture to the NT, particularly those after the cross, after Christ paid the penalty for sin. We are not Israel who was under the law. Thus concerning believing Gentiles, Paul says:
Colossians 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and ,the uncircumcision of your flesh hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
--Circumcision (part of the OT law) has been nailed to the cross. It is contrary to the "us," that is, the NT believer, meaning it is no longer relevant. It has been taken out of the way. This is Paul's teaching.

Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Romans 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
--We are justified by his grace not by the law.
According to Rom.5:1 we are justified by faith, not by the law.


The problem here is that no man can keep the law; only Christ kept the law. Everyone else failed. It is Christ that saves; not the law.
Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
--If you do not continue in all things that are written in the law from birth to death you are cursed. One simply has to fail one time. But we don't fail one time in our lives. We fail many times; every day in fact. Thus you are cursed under the law, unless you go to Christ and accept Him by grace and through faith alone.


Salvation is by faith alone. The Bible does not teach keeping the law as a requirement for salvation. Neither do you keep the law. I already gave you an example that you never replied to.

Deuteronomy 22:11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.
--Do you keep this law? I don't think so.
I don't even think you keep the Sabbath do you?

I'm not contesting the logic that is by grace of Jesus they are saved. I'm saying that particular information was not scripture when Acts 15 is happening.

The scripture you quoted gets written AFTER events of Acts 15. That's why they didn't quote any of it.

If they were subject to scripture alone any spoken or on the spot philosophy would not be valid.

You want to take your SOLA SCRIPTURA theology and force it on scripture. Its not working.

Someone without bias reading scripture for what it is, is going to conclude that this council had the authority to make a new ruling. Even if we look at the grounds of objection, the reason the gentiles would complain in the first place. Its not because scripture says they did not have to uphold Jewish law. Its because scripture already said they had to uphold Jewish law.

But they already had the holy spirit and it made no sense for them to adhere to something the Jews themselves were incapable of accomplishment.

We are not seeing the authority of scripture changing this for their favor. We are seeing the church in action exercising its authority overriding old testament scripture.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.

Six Hour Warning

Some time after 2am Pacific, this thread will be closed.

 

[DHK]

I'm not contesting the logic that is by grace of Jesus they are saved. I'm saying that particular information was not scripture when Acts 15 is happening.

The scripture you quoted gets written AFTER events of Acts 15. That's why they didn't quote any of it.

How do you know that? Are you sure?
The Bible Knowledge Commentary, commenting on Acts 14:27,28, says:
Acts 14:27 And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles.
28 And there they abode long time with the disciples.

Probably Paul wrote the Book of Galatians from Antioch shortly after his first missionary journey and before the Jerusalem Council (Act_15:1-41).

Barnes states:
Long time - How long is not intimated; but we hear no more of them until the council at Jerusalem, mentioned in the next chapter. If the transactions recorded in this chapter occurred, as is supposed, about 45 a.d. or 46 a.d., and the council at Jerusalem assembled 51 a.d. or 53 a.d., as is supposed, then here is an interval of from five to eight years in which we have no account of them. Where they were, or what was their employment in this interval, the sacred historian has not informed us. It is certain, however, that Paul made several journeys of which we have no particular record in the New Testament, and it is possible that some of those journeys occurred during this interval.
--A good number of years had passed. Some of his epistles were written. Churches were started.
In fact, his very testimony refers back to what happened in chapter 14. In chapter 15, he testifies:

Acts 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
--What miracles and wonders wrought among the Gentiles?
Act 14:3 Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands.
--It is evident that signs (miracles) and wonders accompanied the preaching of the Word, as the Scripture testifies. Paul expounded the Word--always.

If they were subject to scripture alone any spoken or on the spot philosophy would not be valid.

Paul testified of the Scripture he preached and the souls that were saved. What did he preach.
What does Acts 14:3 say? He preached "the gospel of his grace," not the law.

You want to take your SOLA SCRIPTURA theology and force it on scripture. Its not working.

The atheist doesn't accept the resurrection, not because it isn't true, but because he doesn't want to accept the evidence set before him. It is a matter of the will. You simply don't want to accept the evidence set before you. It is a matter of the will.

Someone without bias reading scripture for what it is, is going to conclude that this council had the authority to make a new ruling. Even if we look at the grounds of objection, the reason the gentiles would complain in the first place. Its not because scripture says they did not have to uphold Jewish law. Its because scripture already said they had to uphold Jewish law.

They were told to uphold the Jewish law by those who:
1. were heretics and perverted the gospel.
2. Paul said they preached "another gospel," and were accursed.
3. Every apostle and authority at the Jerusalem condemned their message.
4. It was unanimously agreed that their message was heretical, and the pastor of the church, James, also made the right decision stating that no such burden (as keeping the law) should be put on our Gentile believers.
--Therefore your position is so far out to sea that it drowned in the depths of the ocean so that it is impossible to be resurrected. Give it up.

But they already had the holy spirit and it made no sense for them to adhere to something the Jews themselves were incapable of accomplishment.

1. Heretics don't have the Spirit of God.
2. Those that are accursed don't have the Spirit of God.
3. Those that are divisive don't have the Spirit of God.
4. Those that are condemned by the Jerusalem Council don't have the Spirit.
--What do you mean "they have the Spirit of God?" What is your evidence?

We are not seeing the authority of scripture changing this for their favor. We are seeing the church in action exercising its authority overriding old testament scripture.

There was a local church where representatives from two sides gathered.
The local church did not make this decision. It was a decision made that needed apostolic authority, just like what happened in Acts chapter 8. Now with apostolic authority missionaries could be sent forth and tell others that the apostles themselves had made this decision. Simply coming from the local church at Jerusalem would made no difference to the church at Rome or a local church in Spain, for example. What do those churches have to do with decisions made in Jerusalem? Nothing. But the decisions made by the apostles are of great importance.