Authority in Catholicism and Protestantism..

[Nicea325]

Lincoln7:

Yes the church is in place, I don't debate this Gary. I'm not among the crowd who advocate that the church disappears in about 100 and never surfaces again until 1517.. Im in the camp tht during this period clarity on the essential truth of the gospel gradually became more obscured, hence the need for the reformation. Hence the Protestant call to return to scripture as the guide for the church.

Where does Jesus,the 12 or Scripture teach: Scripture is "the" guide for the church?

Who guided the church before anyone wrote a single word?

[Lincoln7]

Nicea,

Key word: asserts....not a concrete fact. No where does the text state the church is governed by multiple presbyters. It is merely a conjecture on your part.

Where does it state church structure and that multiple men govern her? Again,you are merely assuming it because the term "we" is used.

Im not basing any of this on the "we" used in the text, I'm talking about the church in Corinth at the time. Which 1 Clement 44:4 shows to us had a presbyterian style of government:
Blessed are those presbyters who have gone before, seeing that their departure was fruitful and ripe: for they have no fear lest any one should remove them from their appointed place.

Majority position? According to who?

I doubt the dating of the letter is a major bone between us, i simply favour the later date proposed for the letter.

Again, where in the text does it explicitly state the church is governed by the numerous presbyters? Once again, you automatically connect it to the plural usage of "we" and believe it is concrete evidence. If the monarchial bishop was not universal,then why would any bishop less than 100 years name Clement as a successor of Peter?

As I've shown above, Corinth was governed by a multiplicity of presbyters, not a monarchial bishop at this stage. Im not basing any of this on the "we". Perhaps you thought i was talking about Rome?

My point is to show that the monarchial episcopal model was not as yet a universal form of church government, but was one that developed gradually at a later date. Not a meg late one, its in places by the turn of the second century, but even still, at this point its not universal.

On why then was Clement named in the lists of Irenaeus you posted; Check the article by Louise Ambrowski, it is an excellent treatment of his works, and discusses this in depth.

those are secondary sources,why not go straight to the very men who more than likely knew and met the Apostles.

That is what Ambrowski is doing, reading the sources and formulating a position regarding them.

Yep! No different than ANY Diocese where more than one bishop runs and operates the local region. How does that negate the fact each Diocese still has ONE head bishop?

Well as I've already stated; the fact that monarchial episcopacy is not as yet a universal custom everywhere, the missing salutation to any bishop in the letter to Rome by Ignatius of antioch, (1) the plurality of the letter and its coming from the church of rome, not a bishop, hence it bears no name. The testimony of Hermas and his description of Clement presenting works to "the elders who preside over the city".. and his lack of meant ion of a single leader, rather always describing Roman leadership in the plural (2).

Meaning what? Everything written outside the Bible is to be second guessed? Written off as legends and myths?

No. I don't actually say that.. my post read that they are not inspired and i said i don't advocate them as utterly wrong, i simply think it possible they can make mistakes. I'm simply saying they are not infallible.

Where does Jesus,the 12 or Scripture teach: Scripture is "the" guide for the church?

Maybe, with respect my friend, you have a misunderstanding of what i mean by Sola Scriptura. The church is indeed a guide for people, and is authoritative. Tradition is a guide for the church, what i mean is that Scripture is the only infallible guide amongst these. SS is a hermeneutical principle, not a doctrine. If scripture is the word of God and Apostolic preaching in written form, it is naturally that to which teachings are held accountable for.

Lincs.

1 & 2 - Peter Lampe, from Paul to Valentius, on:http://beggarsallreformation.blogspo...luminated.html

[larrysarm27]

I do believe that the Catholic Church is the true church, for it has a central authority to resolve issues in the matters of faith and not individual/personal opinion or interpretation of the head/minister/pastor of each local individual church/sect. Authority is the central point that our Lord Jesus emphasize in the book Matthew. This is only my personal opinion and observation that I concluded that the Catholic is the true church for it has a traditions without much use of the Bible then when printing was not yet available for the first 1200 years when our Lord Jesus Christ founded the true church. Thank you for this space.:

[Skeptic92]

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

Nicea,

Im not basing any of this on the "we" used in the text, I'm talking about the church in Corinth at the time. Which 1 Clement 44:4 shows to us had a presbyterian style of government:
Blessed are those presbyters who have gone before, seeing that their departure was fruitful and ripe: for they have no fear lest any one should remove them from their appointed place.

I doubt the dating of the letter is a major bone between us, i simply favour the later date proposed for the letter.

As I've shown above, Corinth was governed by a multiplicity of presbyters, not a monarchial bishop at this stage. Im not basing any of this on the "we". Perhaps you thought i was talking about Rome?

My point is to show that the monarchial episcopal model was not as yet a universal form of church government, but was one that developed gradually at a later date. Not a meg late one, its in places by the turn of the second century, but even still, at this point its not universal.

On why then was Clement named in the lists of Irenaeus you posted; Check the article by Louise Ambrowski, it is an excellent treatment of his works, and discusses this in depth.

That is what Ambrowski is doing, reading the sources and formulating a position regarding them.

Well as I've already stated; the fact that monarchial episcopacy is not as yet a universal custom everywhere, the missing salutation to any bishop in the letter to Rome by Ignatius of antioch, (1) the plurality of the letter and its coming from the church of rome, not a bishop, hence it bears no name. The testimony of Hermas and his description of Clement presenting works to "the elders who preside over the city".. and his lack of meant ion of a single leader, rather always describing Roman leadership in the plural (2).

No. I don't actually say that.. my post read that they are not inspired and i said i don't advocate them as utterly wrong, i simply think it possible they can make mistakes. I'm simply saying they are not infallible.

Maybe, with respect my friend, you have a misunderstanding of what i mean by Sola Scriptura. The church is indeed a guide for people, and is authoritative. Tradition is a guide for the church, what i mean is that Scripture is the only infallible guide amongst these. SS is a hermeneutical principle, not a doctrine. If scripture is the word of God and Apostolic preaching in written form, it is naturally that to which teachings are held accountable for.

Lincs.

1 & 2 - Peter Lampe, from Paul to Valentius, on:http://beggarsallreformation.blogspo...luminated.html

I'm sorry that this is such a short reply, but I have seen academic works misquoted throughout that blog (beggarsallreformation), and conclusions taken out of context (we can not criticize a Theologians conclusion, if we don't know how s/he reached that conclusion). Do you have a possible link to Professor Peter Lampe's original thesis?

[Lincoln7]

Originally Posted by Skeptic92

I'm sorry that this is such a short reply, but I have seen academic works misquoted throughout that blog (beggarsallreformation), and conclusions taken out of context (we can not criticize a Theologians conclusion, if we don't know how s/he reached that conclusion). Do you have a possible link to Professor Peter Lampe's original thesis?

It's not up online I don't think, the work by Proffesor Lampe in question is this: http://www.amazon.com/From-Paul-Vale.../dp/0800627024

Lincs.

[anthony022071]

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

Hi Anthony,

Indeed, can you fulfil these commands? The Lord says this to show the young man his utter inability to ever fulfil the commands perfectly.. As such he must look for a righteousness that comes from elsewhere. "our Lord's drift, eternal life is never to be obtained by the works of the law." - Gills exposition of the bible, see it here: http://bible.cc/mark/10-19.htm

Or Calvin here: http://m.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom32.ii.lxx.html

No,Jesus did not teach that it was impossible to fulfil the commandments perfectly. On the contrary,he said "So be perfect,just as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matthew 5,48). But even if we do not fulfil the commandments perfectly,there is also God's love and mercy,and repentence,forgiveness of sins and purgation. The commandments were given by God for our salvation. Grace is given so that we might fulfill the commandments. The moral commandments are not the ritual works of the law that St. Paul wrote about,and which were given only to the Hebrews. It is true that we must look to the righteousness of Christ,but this righteousness is not imputed to us. We are conformed to it through the Spirit of Christ and obedience to him.

Free pass to heaven? I see God's grace in justifying the believer freely by grace alone through faith alone a wonderful and most comforting truth of scripture, which leads one to a profound love for God, leading to daily repentance; a new love for God and a hatred of sin.

Grace justifies the believer initially,but that is not eternal salvation. The believer must continue to believe and to obey. Grace is not a legal declaration that a person has inherited eternal life. It is not a declaration of anything. It is spiritual help which leads us toward salvation by strengthening us to fulfill the commandments.

Solus Christus means I put all my hope and trust for salvation in Christ alone, and not in any others, not in my own works done in righteousness, but in his mercy and love (Titus 3:5)

That's good,but the slogan is also wrongly used as a refutation of the Church and intercession by the mother of God and the saints. If you knew that Mary and the saints were alive in heaven with Christ,and that they intercede for us with their prayers,much more powerful than ours,would you refuse to pray to them for help?

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

Nicea,

Im not basing any of this on the "we" used in the text, I'm talking about the church in Corinth at the time. Which 1 Clement 44:4 shows to us had a presbyterian style of government:
Blessed are those presbyters who have gone before, seeing that their departure was fruitful and ripe: for they have no fear lest any one should remove them from their appointed place.

I doubt the dating of the letter is a major bone between us, i simply favour the later date proposed for the letter.

As I've shown above, Corinth was governed by a multiplicity of presbyters, not a monarchial bishop at this stage. Im not basing any of this on the "we". Perhaps you thought i was talking about Rome?

My point is to show that the monarchial episcopal model was not as yet a universal form of church government, but was one that developed gradually at a later date. Not a meg late one, its in places by the turn of the second century, but even still, at this point its not universal.

On why then was Clement named in the lists of Irenaeus you posted; Check the article by Louise Ambrowski, it is an excellent treatment of his works, and discusses this in depth.

That is what Ambrowski is doing, reading the sources and formulating a position regarding them.

Well as I've already stated; the fact that monarchial episcopacy is not as yet a universal custom everywhere, the missing salutation to any bishop in the letter to Rome by Ignatius of antioch, (1) the plurality of the letter and its coming from the church of rome, not a bishop, hence it bears no name. The testimony of Hermas and his description of Clement presenting works to "the elders who preside over the city".. and his lack of meant ion of a single leader, rather always describing Roman leadership in the plural (2).

No. I don't actually say that.. my post read that they are not inspired and i said i don't advocate them as utterly wrong, i simply think it possible they can make mistakes. I'm simply saying they are not infallible.

Maybe, with respect my friend, you have a misunderstanding of what i mean by Sola Scriptura. The church is indeed a guide for people, and is authoritative. Tradition is a guide for the church, what i mean is that Scripture is the only infallible guide amongst these. SS is a hermeneutical principle, not a doctrine. If scripture is the word of God and Apostolic preaching in written form, it is naturally that to which teachings are held accountable for.

Lincs.

1 & 2 - Peter Lampe, from Paul to Valentius, on:http://beggarsallreformation.blogspo...luminated.html

I believe we are going in circles here. However, I do not believe you answered my question clearly:


If the monarchial episcopate was NOT present until at least 150 AD.,then why the change from a "we" to "single" espicopal structure? When,where and why the change? Do you have writings from early church fathers making an affirmation of this structural change,if it did not exist before the mid-second century?

Im not basing any of this on the "we" used in the text, I'm talking about the church in Corinth at the time. Which 1 Clement 44:4 shows to us had a presbyterian style of government:
Blessed are those presbyters who have gone before, seeing that their departure was fruitful and ripe: for they have no fear lest any one should remove them from their appointed place.

Again, I already stated no where within those words does it strictly refer to the type of government...no where. Those words Clement said were not written in defense of the type of government the church of Corinth had set-up. I am sorry,but where within those words are you getting information that the church was governed by multiple elders?

Maybe, with respect my friend, you have a misunderstanding of what i mean by Sola Scriptura. The church is indeed a guide for people, and is authoritative. Tradition is a guide for the church, what i mean is that Scripture is the only infallible guide amongst these. SS is a hermeneutical principle, not a doctrine. If scripture is the word of God and Apostolic preaching in written form, it is naturally that to which teachings are held accountable for.

Where does Scripture teach it is the only infallible guide? You mean the Church Christ founded is fallible? How can a fallible guide (church) give us infallible doctrines: Trinity,Incarnation,etc? Second, who guided the church before anyone wrote a single word?

Peace my brother in Christ!

[Lincoln7]

Hi Anthony, hope you're well.

No,Jesus did not teach that it was impossible to fulfil the commandments perfectly. On the contrary,he said "So be perfect,just as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matthew 5,48). But even if we do not fulfil the commandments perfectly,there is also God's love and mercy,and repentence,forgiveness of sins and purgation. The commandments were given by God for our salvation. Grace is given so that we might fulfill the commandments. The moral commandments are not the ritual works of the law that St. Paul wrote about,and which were given only to the Hebrews. It is true that we must look to the righteousness of Christ,but this righteousness is not imputed to us. We are conformed to it through the Spirit of Christ and obedience to him.

Indeed we are called to be perfect, the position i hold however is that i will never by my own effort the perfect enough to merit eternal life, as such i must look to Christ alone and his work on my behalf for salvation. i strive for this perfection as a result of Gods freely given justification. Indeed Gods law is Holy and good (Romans 7:7), but what does it do; it makes to me known what sin is (Rom 3:20, 7:7), i can't perform the law perfectly, for i do not do the good i want, but the evil i do not want is what i keep on doing (Rom 7:18). By works of the law, no one will be justified (Rom 3:28), works of the law cannot be limited purely to the ceremonial laws of the old covenant; "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the Law, and do them." (Galatians 3:10). What does the law require of us? The sermon on the mount explains it for us.. We can't fulfil this perfectly. As such we are under curse, and deserving of wrath. Our own works could avail nothing; "We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment." (Isaiah 64:6).. We must look to Christ, and not our own works (Titus 3:5), and put all our hope in him, it is by this faith alone, gifted to us by grace, by which we are justified in Gods sight. Declared righteous in his sight, clothed with the righteousness of his son; "For our sake he made him to be sin, who knew no sin, so that in him, we might become the righteousness of God." (2 Corinthians 5:21). Our sins imputed to him, his righteousness imputed to us.

Grace justifies the believer initially,but that is not eternal salvation. The believer must continue to believe and to obey. Grace is not a legal declaration that a person has inherited eternal life. It is not a declaration of anything. It is spiritual help which leads us toward salvation by strengthening us to fulfill the commandments.

Indeed we must continue in obedience and faith, repentance is a daily thing.

That's good,but the slogan is also wrongly used as a refutation of the Church and intercession by the mother of God and the saints. If you knew that Mary and the saints were alive in heaven with Christ,and that they intercede for us with their prayers,much more powerful than ours,would you refuse to pray to them for help?

I don't really know what the saints do as they rest happily in heaven, if they pray for the saints on earth then they do.. but i don't offer up prayers to them.

kind regards

Lincs.

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

Indeed we are called to be perfect, the position i hold however is that i will never by my own effort the perfect enough to merit eternal life, as such i must look to Christ alone and his work on my behalf for salvation.

This is very Catholic, Lincs!

[Lincoln7]

Originally Posted by PRmerger

This is very Catholic, Lincs!

Indeed, we are both western Christians! But the Sola Fide bit is where we have a discussion point

Lincs

[JaKael02]

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

Indeed, we are both western Christians! But the Sola Fide bit is where we have a discussion point

Lincs

I've heard that the top theologians in the world do not prefer to debate faith alone vs faith, hope, & charity because according to the best theologians in the world, the differences are largely semantics and not enough to create a Church schism.

Have others heard the same?

However, the real issue between Protestants and Catholics is the issue of authority, the centeral theme of this thread.

Probably why this thread is so popular. Thanks to our brother in Christ - Lincs.

-James

[JaKael02]

Lincs,

Is your family linage/history Protestant?

Just curious. I'm in Indiana but trace my linage to Switzerland.

Regards,

James

[Lincoln7]

Originally Posted by JaKael02

I've heard that the top theologians in the world do not prefer to debate faith alone vs faith, hope, & charity because according to the best theologians in the world, the differences are largely semantics and not enough to create a Church schism.

Have others heard the same?

However, the real issue between Protestants and Catholics is the issue of authority, the centeral theme of this thread.

Probably why this thread is so popular. Thanks to our brother in Christ - Lincs.

-James

I understand where you are coming from. Obviously there is similarity to some extent between the CC and historic Protestant views on justification because we both stand in western Christianity. But the differences are in my view large enough, especially as I view justification as part of core of the gospel.. I stand with the reformers on it. But yes authority does comprise a big part of the debate...

Lincs,

Is your family linage/history Protestant?

Just curious. I'm in Indiana but trace my linage to Switzerland.

Regards,

James

One part of it is Catholic a few generations back, the other is Protestant, which is the tradition I was raised in, but I have only been living for the Lord for around 2 years now.

Kind regards

Lincs.

[anthony022071]

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

Hi Anthony, hope you're well.

Indeed we are called to be perfect, the position i hold however is that i will never by my own effort the perfect enough to merit eternal life, as such i must look to Christ alone and his work on my behalf for salvation.

You are detaching "efforts" from the moral commandments,which lead to salvation (Matthew 19,16-17). The fact is that our good works are meritorious for salvation,
because they are pleasing in the sight of God,and he requires us to obey his commandments,and scripture makes it clear that we will be judged according to our deeds. God will certainly save those who are pleasing to him because of their obedience. If your good works are done by the grace of the Spirit of Christ,then it is Christ working within you,as St. Paul said of himself. So there is no reason to act as if your obedience is useless for your salvation,or as if you have to deny their merit in order to avoid being proud of yourself. If you deny the merit of good works and obedience to God,then you denigrate what God wills.

i strive for this perfection as a result of Gods freely given justification. Indeed Gods law is Holy and good (Romans 7:7), but what does it do; it makes to me known what sin is (Rom 3:20, 7:7), i can't perform the law perfectly, for i do not do the good i want, but the evil i do not want is what i keep on doing (Rom 7:18).

The effect of the law upon conscience and the reality of human weakness does not say anything about whether obedience to the moral commandments leads to salvation. You are only looking at the human side of the question. But the commandments are God's will for us. To obey God is to draw near to him and to please him and thus to be going toward eternal life with him.

By works of the law, no one will be justified (Rom 3:28), works of the law cannot be limited purely to the ceremonial laws of the old covenant; "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the Law, and do them." (Galatians 3:10).

The works of the law that Paul means in the letter to the Romans are the ritual works,in particular circumcision. He was responding to the claim,made by some Jewish Christians,that it was necessary to be circumcised to be saved. The quote from the letter to the Galatians does not show that the moral commandments do not lead to salvation.

[Seus Peus]

Anthony,

Can you briefly explain to me Paul's purpose in writing Romans to the believers in Rome?