Defining the authority of the "church"....

[praise_yeshua]

Sam Shamoun is a former Protestant that in recent years (several years now) begun to embrace Roman Catholicism. I include him here that he might "weigh in" here on this topic. I've tried to engage Sam from "time to time" recently with no success. Not that he has to respond to me. He doesn't.

So I will begin this argument that I don't believe most people understand..... Please join in... (Anyone and everyone)

If you're going to appeal to Polycarp, Eusebius, Justin Martyr, Augustine, Jerome and etc..... then you must deal with the "authority" of their positions in the Church. (The Church Universal/Catholic)

I'll begin to define authority as seen in the practice of Christianity in the "early church" assembly and relative teachings.

My position is that the apostle Paul left the keeping of the "church" to Timothy and Titus. We do not know what happened to Timothy and Titus. They basically "disappeared" in the surviving narrative of the early church assembly. There is a reason for this.

The Church at Jerusalem was destroyed when the Temple was destroyed in the conclusion of the 70 weeks of Daniel before 100 AD. In that destruction, there as very wide impact to Christianity that was centered in Jerusalem. It is why we have so few primary sources of information from that very time period.

It took over 200 years after these events to even begin to find primary sources of information now being used by "Roman Catholics/Protestants" alike to defend their positions. Even though I'm "Prima Scriptura" in my position, none of you have ever seen me appeal to these sources as evidence. I don't appeal to them as evidence because I don't believe they're authoritative.

So how do YOU establish the authority by which you teach, preach and etc to others?

Please detail. Thanks

 

[GodsGrace]

Sam Shamoun is a former Protestant that in recent years (several years now) begun to embrace Roman Catholicism. I include him here that he might "weigh in" here on this topic. I've tried to engage Sam from "time to time" recently with no success. Not that he has to respond to me. He doesn't.

Sam Shamoun, an extremely knowledgeable person without even one initial after his name...
He's not Catholic (Roman rite) but I can't remember which denomination he chose right now.

So I will begin this argument that I don't believe most people understand..... Please join in... (Anyone and everyone)

If you're going to appeal to Polycarp, Eusebius, Justin Martyr, Augustine, Jerome and etc..... then you must deal with the "authority" of their positions in the Church. (The Church Universal/Catholic)

I'll begin to define authority as seen in the practice of Christianity in the "early church" assembly and relative teachings.

My position is that the apostle Paul left the keeping of the "church" to Timothy and Titus. We do not know what happened to Timothy and Titus. They basically "disappeared" in the surviving narrative of the early church assembly. There is a reason for this.

The Church at Jerusalem was destroyed when the Temple was destroyed in the conclusion of the 70 weeks of Daniel before 100 AD. In that destruction, there as very wide impact to Christianity that was centered in Jerusalem. It is why we have so few primary sources of information from that very time period.

It took over 200 years after these events to even begin to find primary sources of information now being used by "Roman Catholics/Protestants" alike to defend their positions. Even though I'm "Prima Scriptura" in my position, none of you have ever seen me appeal to these sources as evidence. I don't appeal to them as evidence because I don't believe they're authoritative.

So how do YOU establish the authority by which you teach, preach and etc to others?

Please detail. Thanks

For me it's easy.
I started reading the ECFs some years ago...maybe 7 or 8 maybe more - time flies.
This is how I understand church authority:
Jesus gave the APOSTLES the authority to go to all nations and teach all that He had told them...and to baptize.
In fact, baptism is for our elders, unless there's an emergency involved.
Jesus also gave the Apostles the authority to forgive sins.
John 20:23
He also gave them the authority to loose and to bind.
Jesus gave to Peter the keys of the Kingdom...making Peter the head of the Apostles.

So the church did not end in Acts.
History continued.
The ECFs, on important matters, all taught the same doctrine.
They all believed that salvation could be lost...
that we needed to be baptized,
that we had to confess our sins (the method has never been clear to me)
that we had to do good works
and some other doctrine that is not coming to mind right now.

ALL of the above is supported by scripture.
The early church just kept passing on these teachings which were authorized by Jesus, Who gave them to the Apostles.

I have found that I like turning to these men when there's any question.
I like to stop at about the year 300AD because the church became involved in earthly governments and things began
to change.

So, basically, I believe the authority came from Jesus and it h as just been passed on.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Sam Shamoun, an extremely knowledgeable person without even one initial after his name...
He's not Catholic (Roman rite) but I can't remember which denomination he chose right now.

He is slowly changing. He will recommend any early "Orthodox" early church "authority". However, he is beginning to support the authority of the Pope.

For me it's easy.
I started reading the ECFs some years ago...maybe 7 or 8 maybe more - time flies.
This is how I understand church authority:
Jesus gave the APOSTLES the authority to go to all nations and teach all that He had told them...and to baptize.
In fact, baptism is for our elders, unless there's an emergency involved.
Jesus also gave the Apostles the authority to forgive sins.
John 20:23
He also gave them the authority to loose and to bind.
Jesus gave to Peter the keys of the Kingdom...making Peter the head of the Apostles.

I say this now. Authority doesn't give someone the right to be wrong. Peter was very wrong throughout his life. The authority of the church of God didn't come through Peter.

So the church did not end in Acts.
History continued.

It did. However. Where is the history of Timothy and Titus?

Good men like Timothy and Titus did not continue. If you prefer to establish this "continuation" in Peter. Can you provide that "unbroken chain"?

The ECFs, on important matters, all taught the same doctrine.

I disagree. I'll start by rightfully recognizing that Augustine and Jerome disagreed in the Greek OT.

Who won?

They all believed that salvation could be lost...
that we needed to be baptized,
that we had to confess our sins (the method has never been clear to me)
that we had to do good works
and some other doctrine that is not coming to mind right now.

ALL of the above is supported by scripture.
The early church just kept passing on these teachings which were authorized by Jesus, Who gave them to the Apostles.

This is where I begin with the Scriptures. I can read what the Scriptures taught. I am a disciple of the apostle Paul. The chief apostle that never sinned like Peter. Paul converted me. He is birthed me into the family of God.

1Co 4:14 I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.
1Co 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
1Co 4:16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

I'm the son (in faith) of the apostle Paul. Not that I say this very often. I am a child of Jesus Christ first and foremost.

I have found that I like turning to these men when there's any question.
I like to stop at about the year 300AD because the church became involved in earthly governments and things began
to change.

So, basically, I believe the authority came from Jesus and it h as just been passed on.

Would you authority in "Justin Martyr"?

 

[GodsGrace]

He is slowly changing. He will recommend any early "Orthodox" early church "authority". However, he is beginning to support the authority of the Pope.

I find this alarming because I'm aware of the failings of this Pope..but we'll wait and see.

I say this now. Authority doesn't give someone the right to be wrong. Peter was very wrong throughout his life. The authority of the church of God didn't come through Peter.

Those in authority are wrong at times.
Jesus went back to heaven.
It was MEN that carried on the work of building Jesus' church.
1 Corinthians 3:15.....

If you study some history you'll find out that there were 5 important regions in the area of Israel....
each one had its own Bishop...they were actually called Pope.
ROME
JERUSALEM
ALEXANDRIA
CONTANTINOPLE
ANTIOCH

When there was a question regarding doctrine,,,the other 4 popes looked to Peter for guidance. After all, he had been with Jesus.

Peter was the Bishop of Rome.

I didn't say the authority came from Peter..
I said it came from Jesus and then it passed on to the other Apostles...and so forth.

It did. However. Where is the history of Timothy and Titus?

We don't know the history of each person of that time.
We're not even sure how the Apostles died. Not 100% sure.

Good men like Timothy and Titus did not continue. If you prefer to establish this "continuation" in Peter. Can you provide that "unbroken chain"?

Explained above.

I disagree. I'll start by rightfully recognizing that Augustine and Jerome disagreed in the Greek OT.

Who won?

Who cares?
I'm talking about doctrine...not scripture.
Anyway, I have no respect for Augustine...
and Jerome did the best he could in trying to translate the bible.

This is where I begin with the Scriptures. I can read what the Scriptures taught. I am a disciple of the apostle Paul. The chief apostle that never sinned like Peter. Paul converted me. He is birthed me into the family of God.

If Paul converted you...then praises to Paul.
But to say that he never sinned is not really correct.
Paul MURDERED many persons...Peter never murdered anyone.

Plus, Paul himself said that we should not say I AM OF PAUL.
1 Corinthians 3:3-7
3 for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?
4 For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not mere men?
5 What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one.
6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth.
7 So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth.

The very Paul that you so honor would not want this honor that you bestow on him.
Jesus went to the cross, not Paul, not Peter.
Let's remember that.

1Co 4:14 I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.
1Co 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
1Co 4:16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

Paul was trying to teach formerly pagan persons about God.
They could see Paul with their eyes. He was using himself as an example.
but
In 1 Co 4:1 Paul states that they are nothing special....they are just guides.
Paul was trying to make them understand that they needed to mature and not follow men, but Jesus.

I'm the son (in faith) of the apostle Paul. Not that I say this very often. I am a child of Jesus Christ first and foremost.



Would you authority in "Justin Martyr"?

Justin Martyr learned from Irenaeus who learned from Polycarp.
Polycarp was a student of John.
So, yes, I would read what Justin Martyr believed.

But let's get this straight...
The ECFs are not my authority....

You asked HOW the church gets or does not get its authority.

Our authority should be the scriptures that were made into the NT.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Those in authority are wrong at times.
Jesus went back to heaven.
It was MEN that carried on the work of building Jesus' church.
1 Corinthians 3:15.....

I don't know what 1 Cor 3;15 has to do with it....

If you study some history you'll find out that there were 5 important regions in the area of Israel....
each one had its own Bishop...they were actually called Pope.
ROME
JERUSALEM
ALEXANDRIA
CONTANTINOPLE
ANTIOCH

According to who? I know the history. I don't need to study it. When anyone provides evidence, they must use the manuscripts themselves. Don't tell me what someone else said about it. I want to see the actual words themselves from those referenced. I also want to know how those words came to be available and when they're dated. Please don't tell me or ignore how late those witness are. Don't use a very late surviving manuscript to show what was said in the 1st or 2nd century.

When there was a question regarding doctrine,,,the other 4 popes looked to Peter for guidance. After all, he had been with Jesus.

Judas was with Jesus. Peter denied Christ. Peter was to blame for not embracing Gentiles converts. Peter had many issues. Paul did not. Paul was better.

Peter was the Bishop of Rome.

Not true at all. Prove it.

I didn't say the authority came from Peter..
I said it came from Jesus and then it passed on to the other Apostles...and so forth.

Again. Authority does NOT grant anyone to be followed when they are wrong. Jesus never made a mistake. I will follow Him. He is with me today. I don't need this "authority" others say existed. I believe we agree.

We don't know the history of each person of that time.
We're not even sure how the Apostles died. Not 100% sure..

Correct. Which means that we don't know. There is no need to pretend that authority exists for what we don't know. That is ultimately my position. However, there are plenty of people that claim authority that have none. Ergo.... no authority exists.

Who cares?
I'm talking about doctrine...not scripture.
Anyway, I have no respect for Augustine...
and Jerome did the best he could in trying to translate the bible..

I didn't ultimately care for either one of them. At least Augustine talked about his own sin. Jerome butchered the Scriptures.

Either way, we have no doctrine without first starting the Scriptures. THEN... we can fall back to tradition if the Scriptures do not accurately detail the doctrine. That is a very reasonable and ethical position. Prima Scriptura.

If Paul converted you...then praises to Paul.
But to say that he never sinned is not really correct.
Paul MURDERED many persons...Peter never murdered anyone..

Do you know what Peter did before Christ? Paul's enemies used these same arguments. Whom the Son sets free is FREE......

Peter continued to disobey God throughout his life. Don't get me wrong. I'm worse than Peter but there really is no comparison between Peter and the life of Paul after his conversion.

Plus, Paul himself said that we should not say I AM OF PAUL.
1 Corinthians 3:3-7
3 for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?
4 For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not mere men?
5 What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one.
6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth.
7 So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth.

I preached from those words when I was teenager. I know them well. If anyone is going to promote Peter then I'm going to promote Paul.

The very Paul that you so honor would not want this honor that you bestow on him.
Jesus went to the cross, not Paul, not Peter.
Let's remember that.

We should stop this "Peter" priority. Peter by transgression fell. Realize that I'm making an argument here. Paul is logically the better choice to have continued the authority of the church. Timothy and Titus did what Paul told them. Yet, they're narrative disappeared. This "Peter" priority is rather weak.....

Paul was trying to teach formerly pagan persons about God.
They could see Paul with their eyes. He was using himself as an example.
but
In 1 Co 4:1 Paul states that they are nothing special....they are just guides.
Paul was trying to make them understand that they needed to mature and not follow men, but Jesus.

I'm simply saying the Paul got it right when Peter got it wrong. If anyone continued church authority, it was PAUL. In fact, Paul was THE apostles to the Gentiles. Which is the church of the "time of the Gentiles"......

Justin Martyr learned from Irenaeus who learned from Polycarp.
Polycarp was a student of John.
So, yes, I would read what Justin Martyr believed.

But let's get this straight...
The ECFs are not my authority....

You asked HOW the church gets or does not get its authority.

Our authority should be the scriptures that were made into the NT.

We can agree on this. I'm arguing the various points so we can accurately defend this position. I appreciate your response.

 

[GodsGrace]

I don't know what 1 Cor 3;15 has to do with it....

It has to do with our convo because 1 Cor 3 about 11 and on speaks of building the church of Jesus and about those that are building it.

According to who? I know the history. I don't need to study it. When anyone provides evidence, they must use the manuscripts themselves. Don't tell me what someone else said about it. I want to see the actual words themselves from those referenced. I also want to know how those words came to be available and when they're dated. Please don't tell me or ignore how late those witness are. Don't use a very late surviving manuscript to show what was said in the 1st or 2nd century.

Well PY,,,,I'm not going by a manuscript.
I'm going by history.
You say you know church history and yet I have to prove to you a known fact?
You don't know about the 5 Bishops and yet you've studied history??

Here's some info,,,but you'll have to do some hunting on your own because history is not neatly placed in one paragraph.


Pentarchy, after the Greek for “five leaders,” refers to the five patriarchates in the early church. Originally, these patriarchates were located in important Roman cities that were significant for Christians for several reasons. First, the Christian community in each city was founded by one of the Twelve Apostles. Second, the cities contained large Christian communities led by a prominent bishop. The five patriarchates and their founders are: Rome, founded by Peter; Constantinople, founded by Andrew; Alexandria, founded by Mark; Antioch, founded by Peter; and Jerusalem, founded by James.
source: https://cnewa.org/pentarchy-50899/

The greater authority of these sees in relation to others was tied to their political and ecclesiastical prominence; all were located in important cities and regions of the Roman Empire and were important centers of the Christian Church. Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were prominent from the time of early Christianity, while Constantinople came to the fore upon becoming the imperial residence in the 4th century. Thereafter it was consistently ranked just after Rome. Jerusalem received a ceremonial place due to the city's importance in the early days of Christianity. Justinian and the Quinisext Council excluded from their pentarchical arrangement churches outside the empire, such as the then-flourishing Church of the East in Sassanid Persia, which they saw as heretical. Within the empire they recognized only the Chalcedonian (or Melkite) incumbents, regarding as illegitimate the non-Chalcedonian claimants of Alexandria and Antioch.

Infighting among the sees, and particularly the rivalry between Rome (which considered itself preeminent over all the church) and Constantinople (which came to hold sway over the other Eastern sees and which saw itself as equal to Rome, with Rome "first among equals"), prevented the pentarchy from ever becoming a functioning administrative reality. The Islamic conquests of Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch in the 7th century left Constantinople the only practical authority in the East, and afterward the concept of a "pentarchy" retained little more than symbolic significance.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentarchy
An apostolic see is an episcopal see whose foundation is attributed to one or more of the apostles of Jesus or to one of their close associates. In Catholicism, the phrase "The Apostolic See" when capitalized refers specifically to the See of Rome.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_see#cite_note-1"><span>[</span>1<span>]</span></a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_see#cite_note-2"><span>[</span>2<span>]</span></a>
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_see
In the early Christian Church, the primary organizational structure was the “diocese” – an area under the jurisdiction of a single bishop. However, certain dioceses were more important than others. The First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in 325 gave special recognition to the Churches of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch as having certain powers extending beyond the geographical area of their own diocese. Each of these three dioceses had apostolic roots. The Churches of Rome and Antioch were founded by St. Peter, and the Church of Alexandria was founded by St. Mark, Peter’s disciple.

At the Second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in 381, the Council fathers recognized Constantinople as the see which is second in honor after Rome, because Constantinople was the “New Rome” and the capital of the Empire. In 451 the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon recognized a fifth church, Jerusalem, as having powers beyond its own diocese. In 531 Emperor Justinian used the term “patriarch” to describe the heads of the Churches of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.
source: https://insidethevatican.com/magazine/the-ancient-patriarchates/
But for the first one thousand years of her history, the Church was essentially one. Five Patriarchal centers, each of them similar to a modern day diocese, were founded by the Apostles forming a cohesive whole; and since there was complete theological communion and equal authority between each of the Apostles, there was also complete theological communion and equal authority between each of the Patriarchates. The five original Patriarchates were altogether called The Pentarchy.

The Five Original Apostolic Patriarchates ("The Pentarchy")

1. Antioch (the Apostles Peter and Paul)

2. Jerusalem (the Apostle James)

3. Constantinople (the Apostle Andrew)

4. Alexandria (the Apostle Mark)

5. Rome (the Apostle Peter)

All of the apostles worked together to found and establish The Pentarchy, but the above listed apostles played especially prominent roles.
source: https://www.rochesterorthodoxchurch.org/resources/texts-and-articles/a-word-about-church-history/

Judas was with Jesus. Peter denied Christ. Peter was to blame for not embracing Gentiles converts. Peter had many issues. Paul did not. Paul was better.

Could you please post support for your idea that Peter was to blame for not embracing gentile converts.

Again. Authority does NOT grant anyone to be followed when they are wrong. Jesus never made a mistake. I will follow Him. He is with me today. I don't need this "authority" others say existed. I believe we agree.

Agreed.

Correct. Which means that we don't know. There is no need to pretend that authority exists for what we don't know. That is ultimately my position. However, there are plenty of people that claim authority that have none. Ergo.... no authority exists.

I don't think you mean AUTHORITY.
I think you mean INFORMATION.
We don't have all the information about those of the early church.

I didn't ultimately care for either one of them. At least Augustine talked about his own sin. Jerome butchered the Scriptures.

How did Jerome butcher the scriptures?
Please post some proof.

Was the world supposed to learn Greek so they could read the bible?

Either way, we have no doctrine without first starting the Scriptures. THEN... we can fall back to tradition if the Scriptures do not accurately detail the doctrine. That is a very reasonable and ethical position. Prima Scriptura.

Scripture first.
Early writers when doubts.
I agree.

Do you know what Peter did before Christ? Paul's enemies used these same arguments. Whom the Son sets free is FREE......

Peter continued to disobey God throughout his life. Don't get me wrong. I'm worse than Peter but there really is no comparison between Peter and the life of Paul after his conversion.

HOW did Peter continue to disobey Christ?
You're saying things I've never heard before.
You're going to have to provide some proof....just like I did for my statement.

I preached from those words when I was teenager. I know them well. If anyone is going to promote Peter then I'm going to promote Paul.

See again
1 Corinthians 3:3-7
3 You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans?
4 For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere human beings?
5 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task.
6 I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow.
7 So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow.

We should stop this "Peter" priority. Peter by transgression fell. Realize that I'm making an argument here. Paul is logically the better choice to have continued the authority of the church. Timothy and Titus did what Paul told them. Yet, they're narrative disappeared. This "Peter" priority is rather weak.....

I'm not prioritizing Peter.
YOU made statements about him that need to be proved.

I'm simply saying the Paul got it right when Peter got it wrong. If anyone continued church authority, it was PAUL. In fact, Paul was THE apostles to the Gentiles. Which is the church of the "time of the Gentiles"......

OK

We can agree on this. I'm arguing the various points so we can accurately defend this position. I appreciate your response.

We're just talking here.
No problem.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Well PY,,,,I'm not going by a manuscript.
I'm going by history.
You say you know church history and yet I have to prove to you a known fact?
You don't know about the 5 Bishops and yet you've studied history??

1. I know the claim of 5 bishops. It is nothing but conjecture.
2. Manuscripts exist for various historical writings. I'm not reference "scripture" when I appeal to manuscripts. For example. I don't consider what Eusebius said that Justin Martyr said.... I want the words of Justin Martyr "himself". For example, Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History isn't evidence at all. It is conjecture. Self serving conjecture. It is nothing more than the same nonsense that came from the Jews in the Midrash and Talmud. I'm surprised that Sam doesn't understand this. He once knew it. He is ignoring it. Sure. There might a few "nuggets" somewhere but it can not be accurately used as evidence for anything.

"In the mouth of two or three witnesses....." doesn't include witnesses that are spread out over 4 centuries.

Here's some info,,,but you'll have to do some hunting on your own because history is not neatly placed in one paragraph.

To be clear, I already know church history. I did what you're doing here...... 25 years ago. I actually took the extra step of examining the evidence itself. Again. Not what someone said about what someone said.... about someone said.

Now. You can have the faith to believe such commentary. That is your choice. I wouldn't. I don't. I do take time to argue about this but it really doesn't matter to me at all. I got past this a very long time ago. I moved on.

I'm going to split your post to make it manageable for me. I hate trying to read through very long posts. (Not your fault. I started it... )

 

[GodsGrace]

1. I know the claim of 5 bishops. It is nothing but conjecture.
2. Manuscripts exist for various historical writings. I'm not reference "scripture" when I appeal to manuscripts. For example. I don't consider what Eusebius said that Justin Martyr said.... I want the words of Justin Martyr "himself". For example, Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History isn't evidence at all. It is conjecture. Self serving conjecture. It is nothing more than the same nonsense that came from the Jews in the Midrash and Talmud. I'm surprised that Sam doesn't understand this. He once knew it. He is ignoring it. Sure. There might a few "nuggets" somewhere but it can not be accurately used as evidence for anything.

How is something conjecture if there's more than one source?
Then the killing of Kennedy is conjecture.

I also like the actual words of the actual person...
but sometimes we know about persons only through others.
For instance Pontius Pilate ..... we know about him from the writings of others.

IF you're talking about doctrine,,,then I have to agree.

"In the mouth of two or three witnesses....." doesn't include witnesses that are spread out over 4 centuries.

If they all said the same it would !

To be clear, I already know church history. I did what you're doing here...... 25 years ago. I actually took the extra step of examining the evidence itself. Again. Not what someone said about what someone said.... about someone said.

OK

Now. You can have the faith to believe such commentary.

I don't read commentary. Please don't put words in my mouth.
If you consider the writings of the Early Church Fathers to be commentary,
then I'll just have to disagree and explain what a commentary is.
They learned from the Apostles...they aren't commenting.

I'm going to split your post to make it manageable for me. I hate trying to read through very long posts. (Not your fault. I started it... )

I hate long posts too.
No problem.

 

[civic]

All truth is contained in Scripture which is inspired and its all we need to defend the True God who is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. All doctrine is contained within the N.T. for the church today. Its only the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles that are authoritative with the exception of Mark and Luke who were under Peter and Paul.

 

[praise_yeshua]

How is something conjecture if there's more than one source?
Then the killing of Kennedy is conjecture.

I don't accept your analogy as being accurate to my comments.

Kennedy's death had first hand witnesses. Many first hand witnesses. We saw the footage. Waiting 3 to 4 centuries later till 2 witnesses to say the same thing is rather poor methodology.

A more accurate example would be.....

Saying Genghis Khan died of the plaque..........

I also like the actual words of the actual person...
but sometimes we know about persons only through others.
For instance Pontius Pilate ..... we know about him from the writings of others.

I'll start with what the Scriptures detail and forget about the rest.

If they all said the same it would !

I don't know you but I know Sam a little. He was around among Independent Baptist when he was younger. I know them well. I was too. I'm a little older than Sam. I never literally meet him before but I know them.

In this case, this is what King James Only uses to defend their choice in the Byzantine text..... I reject this methodology.

Repeat an error is simply repeating an error. It doesn't matter how many times someone agrees with it.

I don't read commentary. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I wasn't trying to. It was simply a comment relative to how most people do. You are right. I don't know you and you don't know me.

If you consider the writings of the Early Church Fathers to be commentary,
then I'll just have to disagree and explain what a commentary is.
They learned from the Apostles...they aren't commenting.

They didn't learn from the apostles. Make that connection for me. What is the evidence for it. Don't quote a 4th century source that said they did.

I hate long posts too.
No problem.

I'm going to drop the Peter vs Paul continuation of the church argument for now. Lets get through this part...

If that is okay. Just let me know.

 

[civic]

I remember back in the old days on carm dealing with milton the uni who thought he was so smart. I would tell him I can defend the Plurality of God from the Bible and do not need any outside source other than the Scripture. He would get ticked off then I would correct him on orthodoxy in church history. Either way I would get him on stating I can defend God as a biblical Trinitarian or as an orthodox Trinitarian. I would beat him at his own game and adventually he would get mad and get banned. Back then they had a couple astute uni's in robr and elpis.

 

[GodsGrace]

I remember back in the old days on carm dealing with milton the uni who thought he was so smart. I would tell him I can defend the Plurality of God from the Bible and do not need any outside source other than the Scripture. He would get ticked off then I would correct him on orthodoxy in church history. Either way I would get him on stating I can defend God as a biblical Trinitarian or as an orthodox Trinitarian. I would beat him at his own game and adventually he would get mad and get banned. Back then they had a couple astute uni's in robr and elpis.

Any doctrine has to be defended using the bible.
There is some doctrine that is disputed, however, that each side can make a case using only scripture.
Baptismal regeneration would be one.
It seems we could be saved even without baptism.
But it also seems that baptism is necessary for salvation/regeneration.
So which is it?
I checked the Early Fathers...those taught by the Apostles.
They believed in baptismal regeneration.
So what should WE believe?
I don't even understand this regeneration concept to be in regards to baptism...
I see an actual change in persons that are born again BEFORE they ever get baptized.
I just think referring to them is a good tool....and then a person can still believe what is
in their conscience.

 

[GodsGrace]

I don't accept your analogy as being accurate to my comments.

Kennedy's death had first hand witnesses. Many first hand witnesses. We saw the footage. Waiting 3 to 4 centuries later till 2 witnesses to say the same thing is rather poor methodology.

A more accurate example would be.....

Saying Genghis Khan died of the plaque..........



I'll start with what the Scriptures detail and forget about the rest.

This is good if the findings are sufficient for you.
I came to a point where they weren't for some topics.
I found that some scripture was not 100% clear.

I don't know you but I know Sam a little. He was around among Independent Baptist when he was younger. I know them well. I was too. I'm a little older than Sam. I never literally meet him before but I know them.

In this case, this is what King James Only uses to defend their choice in the Byzantine text..... I reject this methodology.

Repeat an error is simply repeating an error. It doesn't matter how many times someone agrees with it.



I wasn't trying to. It was simply a comment relative to how most people do. You are right. I don't know you and you don't know me.



They didn't learn from the apostles. Make that connection for me. What is the evidence for it. Don't quote a 4th century source that said they did.

I only read those that were taught by the Apostles.
I don't go up to the 4th century...it's too late and the church started making changes and adding things to scripture.
Here...I'll give you a few:

Clement of Rome learned from Paul and Peter.
Ignatius of Antioch learned from Peter and John.
Polycarp learned from John

Then we start to get a little away from the original source:
Irenaeus learned from Polycarp
and others....

I'm going to drop the Peter vs Paul continuation of the church argument for now. Lets get through this part...

If that is okay. Just let me know.

Thank you. I do believe that Peter and Paul agreed.
All the writers agreed.
They just had different writing styles and emphasized different doctrine.

 

[civic]

Any doctrine has to be defended using the bible.
There is some doctrine that is disputed, however, that each side can make a case using only scripture.
Baptismal regeneration would be one.
It seems we could be saved even without baptism.
But it also seems that baptism is necessary for salvation/regeneration.
So which is it?
I checked the Early Fathers...those taught by the Apostles.
They believed in baptismal regeneration.
So what should WE believe?
I don't even understand this regeneration concept to be in regards to baptism...
I see an actual change in persons that are born again BEFORE they ever get baptized.
I just think referring to them is a good tool....and then a person can still believe what is
in their conscience.

Baptismal regeneration by water cannot be proven from scripture

 

[praise_yeshua]

Any doctrine has to be defended using the bible.
There is some doctrine that is disputed, however, that each side can make a case using only scripture.
Baptismal regeneration would be one.
It seems we could be saved even without baptism.
But it also seems that baptism is necessary for salvation/regeneration.

There are Scriptures that make this impossible to believe.

1Co 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
1Co 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
1Co 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

It wasn't the baptism in the cloud and sea that saved them. It was that "drink" that saves.

Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

All of these references are metaphorical/allegorical but they are contradictory if one believes in baptismal regeneration.

I am sympathetic to the concept of infant baptism because of the faith of the parents. It might even "infer" grace to some degree. The answered prayers of the faithful. However, it can never fully redeem. It is a good beginning that is completed in repentance once a person comes to really know about God. Repentance requires knowledge that must be learned. It can not be gifted. It must be learned.

Which is part of the necessity of freewill within the image of God within humanity. (I can elaborate on this and I really want to.... but I know many people will reject this). My rant is off here. Just wanted to share this.

So which is it?
I checked the Early Fathers...those taught by the Apostles.
They believed in baptismal regeneration.
So what should WE believe?
I don't even understand this regeneration concept to be in regards to baptism...
I see an actual change in persons that are born again BEFORE they ever get baptized.
I just think referring to them is a good tool....and then a person can still believe what is
in their conscience.

Salvation is a process. For some, it happens very fast. For others, it takes years. Relative to the passing of faith from one generation to the next, it often takes time. The smallest of faith begins the journey. Confession and repentance often come close together but not always. It is why Israel had to face the baptism of John. They came forth from the faithfulness of Abraham but they had lost it. They had the witness of God's promises throughout their lives but they didn't even recognize who was standing right in front of them. Traditions had be replaced with a faith that had to grow beyond their "tradition" to know how they had all failed God... "repentance".

 

[praise_yeshua]

This is good if the findings are sufficient for you.
I came to a point where they weren't for some topics.
I found that some scripture was not 100% clear.

Agreed. The Scriptures are ambiguous at times for a reason. Such ambiguity forces us to seek God for answers. It forces us to study.

I thank God for these problems. It isn't His problem but He is wise beyond measure. We need this problems so we can learn of Him. When we learn of Him.... we cherish what we learn. If it was easy, we wouldn't care one thing about it. Its our nature. It is our limitations. It the necessity of freedom.

I only read those that were taught by the Apostles.
I don't go up to the 4th century...it's too late and the church started making changes and adding things to scripture.
Here...I'll give you a few:

So who first recorded Clement of Rome? If you go to find the written witness of this.... what will you read to confirm this?

Polycarp learned from John

I determined many years ago that Polycarps claims where just claims. I can't confirm them at all. Sure someone said Polycarp learned from John but finding that "connection" is impossible. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Thank you. I do believe that Peter and Paul agreed.
All the writers agreed.
They just had different writing styles and emphasized different doctrine.

Got it. Most people believe they agreed. I don't but it doesn't matter at this point....

 

[civic]

There are Scriptures that make this impossible to believe.

1Co 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
1Co 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
1Co 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

It wasn't the baptism in the cloud and sea that saved them. It was that "drink" that saves.

Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

All of these references are metaphorical/allegorical but they are contradictory if one believes in baptismal regeneration.

I am sympathetic to the concept of infant baptism because of the faith of the parents. It might even "infer" grace to some degree. The answered prayers of the faithful. However, it can never fully redeem. It is a good beginning that is completed in repentance once a person comes to really know about God. Repentance requires knowledge that must be learned. It can not be gifted. It must be learned.

Which is part of the necessity of freewill within the image of God within humanity. (I can elaborate on this and I really want to.... but I know many people will reject this). My rant is off here. Just wanted to share this.



Salvation is a process. For some, it happens very fast. For others, it takes years. Relative to the passing of faith from one generation to the next, it often takes time. The smallest of faith begins the journey. Confession and repentance often come close together but not always. It is why Israel had to face the baptism of John. They came forth from the faithfulness of Abraham but they had lost it. They had the witness of God's promises throughout their lives but they didn't even recognize who was standing right in front of them. Traditions had be replaced with a faith that had to grow beyond their "tradition" to know how they had all failed God... "repentance".

Salvation has a past, present and future aspect to is so in that sense there is a process. But we are born again at a moment in time spiritually where we become new creations in Christ similar to a moment in time we are physically born into this world. Both are miracles of God

 

[praise_yeshua]

Salvation has a past, present and future aspect to is so in that sense there is a process. But we are born again at a moment in time spiritually where we become new creations in Christ similar to a moment in time we are physically born into this world. Both are miracles of God

Nicodemus had faith in Messiah his entire life. He was taught by Abraham thru the Torah. He also was taught by Midrash and Talmud. He was confused. He had faith. He had the smallest faith in God, he also had faith in his father.... Which he should have had. It the same situation now among Christians. All these traditions have replaced the voice of God in our lives. It happened to me. It happened to you. It happens to everyone.

It happened with the apostles......

Gal 4:19 My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,
Gal 4:20 I desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice; for I stand in doubt of you.

There is a process that often takes much longer than most people understand. I do agree that "birth" is a moment in time. Just like we are born naturally. Some people are still in the "womb" of faith.....

I've found that many people think they've been "born again" when they haven't been born at all. Even a infant learns in the womb. They learn the voice of their mother and father....

Repentance is essential to the birthing process. It is where the "water breaks". It is where the time has come. It is where we go from conception to birth. It is traumatic. It is the time where the mother and the baby gets to the very point of death versus life. We go from "faith" to "experience" in this time. The glorious awaking to life Eternal.

 

[GodsGrace]

Baptismal regeneration by water cannot be proven from scripture

Won't get into it here, but what about 1 Corinthians 6:11 YOU HAVE BEEN WASHED....
Acts 2:38 REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS
??

 

[praise_yeshua]

Won't get into it here, but what about 1 Corinthians 6:11 YOU HAVE BEEN WASHED....
Acts 2:38 REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS
??

Acts 2:38 was to Israel. A people of faith. (at least they should have been)

Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;