Where in the Canon Bible does RCC get their doctrines from?

[Martin Marprelate]

They are not.

I think you'll find they are. Just as Christ is self-authenticating. "Even if I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going" (John 8:14).

Someone, some group of people had to decide which of the writings that were circulating would be included in the Canon of Scripture that all Christians would accept - and that would be the leaders of the One Universal Christian Church, and the Holy Spirit directed them in that task.

No. I can point out to you that men like Eirenaeus and Polycarp who quoted from all over the Bible and only from the Bible, years before the various councils and synods, but those men have no authority to bind my conscience any more than the councils do. The fact is that the churches accepted the canon as they received it. The acceptance of the canon by the Council of Carthage was simply a bunch of guys approving what was already common practice.

I accept the decisions of councils and synods just as far as they approved the truth, which they sometimes did. But I deny their authority. Many of them were called by Emperors rather than the churches, and some of them were renegade like the 'robber' second synod of Ephesus in 445. Likewise popes have no authority except insofar as they uphold the truth, which they cannot do because there is no such position in the Church. 'Apostolic succession' is a joke. In 1046, the Holy Roman Emperor Henry III came to Rome to be crowned. He found no fewer than three popes (Benedict IX, Sylvester III and Gregory VI) squabbling about who was the real one! So he sacked them all and appointed his own pope, Clement II. So where's your apostolic succession there?

 

[Yeshua1]

So there were no leaders (Bishop's) of the new Christian Chuch, none that were to continue on after the crucifixion and the death's of the Apostles? Yeah right. The historical record my friend tells us otherwise. You can keep your blinders on and continue living in self imposed ignorance, the only one you are fooling is yourself.

The Apostles had NONE to follow them who were inspired as they were by jesus Himself , as the first centurt Church would have been set and organized and taught pretty much as we Bapotists see it!

 

[Yeshua1]

Agreed,

It was Catholic.

Actual, would have been MUCH closer to baptist!

 

[Yeshua1]

I think you'll find they are. Just as Christ is self-authenticating. "Even if I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going" (John 8:14).

No. I can point out to you that men like Eirenaeus and Polycarp who quoted from all over the Bible and only from the Bible, years before the various councils and synods, but those men have no authority to bind my conscience any more than the councils do. The fact is that the churches accepted the canon as they received it. The acceptance of the canon by the Council of Carthage was simply a bunch of guys approving what was already common practice.

I accept the decisions of councils and synods just as far as they approved the truth, which they sometimes did. But I deny their authority. Many of them were called by Emperors rather than the churches, and some of them were renegade like the 'robber' second synod of Ephesus in 445. Likewise popes have no authority except insofar as they uphold the truth, which they cannot do because there is no such position in the Church. 'Apostolic succession' is a joke. In 1046, the Holy Roman Emperor Henry III came to Rome to be crowned. He found no fewer than three popes (Benedict IX, Sylvester III and Gregory VI) squabbling about who was the real one! So he sacked them all and appointed his own pope, Clement II. So where's your apostolic succession there?

There cannot be such thing, as Jesus ONLY promised to have the inspiration for his own Apostles!

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 2:45 PM Pacific.