Sola Scriptura and Canon

[tosca1]

Look at the disagreements that we have, Tosca, to see what St. Peter was talking about. This is what happens when you leave scriptural interpretation up to individuals and not the Church.

We're having disagreements because the Roman Catholic Church veered away from the Scriptures.

Its doctrine that includes numerous practices that are not only unbiblical (because they're nowhere to be found in the Bible), but also some are quite contradictory to what is written.

2 Tim 3
The Man of God and the Word of God

10 But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance, 11 persecutions, afflictions, which happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra—what persecutions I endured. And out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.


The Roman Catholic Church - by straying away from the Scriptures - had caused the original Christian Church to become split into so many factions.

The analogy I visualize is that of a wolf that entered the chicken house - and all chickens fled in various directions from sheer panic.



I am not pointing fingers and condemning the various Popes who sat on the papal throne. After all, they're all mere men and were/are not infallible. I'm saying that Satan had somehow deviously managed to lead those that ended up straying from the Scriptures. Power is a great incentive for corruption.

I think that to really come to believe that one is indeed infallible, is either being naïve, or blinded. Just look how Satan was able to influence Peter DURING THE TIME OF CHRIST, that Jesus recognized who was behind the speech of Peter!


Mark 8:33
But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. "Get behind me, Satan!" he said. "You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns."


"You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns."

That statement is quite loaded and very much relevant.




Going back to the Book of Enoch.

Not all writings or sayings of the Apostles and Prophets were God-inspired AT ALL TIMES.

But you can be sure that everything that ends up in the Scriptures is DESIGNED BY GOD TO BE IN THE SCRIPTURES - because those are what are God-inspired!

If Jesus had indeed quoted from the Book of Enoch - then have faith and trust in Him that what He specifically quoted were which are truly
GOD-INSPIRED.

 

[tosca1]

My time for editing ran out so let me elaborate on this part about Enoch:

But you can be sure that everything that ends up in the Scriptures is DESIGNED BY GOD TO BE IN THE SCRIPTURES - because those are what are God-inspired!

If Jesus had indeed quoted from the Book of Enoch - then have faith and trust in Him that what He specifically quoted were which are truly GOD-INSPIRED.


I have to correct what I've stated above.

Not all things quoted by Jesus were necessarily God-inspired either.

He could've quoted from an old saying, using it to prove a point or as His teaching tool.

But for that saying to have been used by Jesus to prove His point, or as a teaching tool, is what is, God-inspired.

 

[phattonez]

My time for editing ran out so let me elaborate on this part about Enoch:

But you can be sure that everything that ends up in the Scriptures is DESIGNED BY GOD TO BE IN THE SCRIPTURES - because those are what are God-inspired!

If Jesus had indeed quoted from the Book of Enoch - then have faith and trust in Him that what He specifically quoted were which are truly GOD-INSPIRED.


I have to correct what I've stated above.

Not all things quoted by Jesus were necessarily God-inspired either.

He could've quoted from an old saying, using it to prove a point or as His teaching tool.

But for that saying to have been used by Jesus to prove His point, or as a teaching tool, is what is, God-inspired.

I'll get to your other points later, but you're still avoiding the issue. If what Jesus quotes is evidence that the book that he quotes from are inspired, then why is the Book of Enoch not considered inspired? Further, which you still have not answered, how do we know which Gospel accounts are inspired? Why is the Gospel of Matthew considered inspired while the Gospel of Peter is not? How can we tell which is inspired and which is not and how do we declare it authoritatively?

 

[phattonez]

We're having disagreements because the Roman Catholic Church veered away from the Scriptures.

Its doctrine that includes numerous practices that are not only unbiblical (because they're nowhere to be found in the Bible), but also some are quite contradictory to what is written.

2 Tim 3
The Man of God and the Word of God

10 But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance, 11 persecutions, afflictions, which happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra—what persecutions I endured. And out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.


The Roman Catholic Church - by straying away from the Scriptures - had caused the original Christian Church to become split into so many factions.

The analogy I visualize is that of a wolf that entered the chicken house - and all chickens fled in various directions from sheer panic.



I am not pointing fingers and condemning the various Popes who sat on the papal throne. After all, they're all mere men and were/are not infallible. I'm saying that Satan had somehow deviously managed to lead those that ended up straying from the Scriptures. Power is a great incentive for corruption.

I think that to really come to believe that one is indeed infallible, is either being naïve, or blinded. Just look how Satan was able to influence Peter DURING THE TIME OF CHRIST, that Jesus recognized who was behind the speech of Peter!


Mark 8:33
But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. "Get behind me, Satan!" he said. "You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns."


"You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns."

That statement is quite loaded and very much relevant.

The popes can do the will of the evil one? I agree, there have been terrible popes. Nevertheless, they remain infallible when speaking authoritatively on matters of faith and morals.

So tell me how the Church has strayed from the teachings of the Bible? You have only pointed to one example of calling people "fathers" which we see the apostles doing mere decades after the death of resurrection of Christ in the Bible. Any other examples?

 

[Monserrat]

You're still missing the point.

Assuming Peter was indeed the "rock"....the fact still stands that the Roman Catholic Church - the church that claims to have come about by apostolic succession - had clearly veered away from the Christian Church! The Roman Catholic Church did not, and still does not do as the original Apostles did.

The Catholic Church is THE christian Church and they do exactly as the apostles did. Church doctrine remains the same but if you expect every single aspect of the Church to remain exactly as it was 2000 years ago then you're going to be disappointed because of course it won't look exactly the same, for one we have a bible now....they didn't. The Catholic Church now has over 1 billion members, 2000 years ago, it didn't. Most apostles walked to where they needed to go or rode on animals, now we have cars and jets. Change is consistent in the bible, we are no longer under the mosaic code you see that change clearly within the bible itself. In the bible it never says that everything must remain the same in fact we see the exact opposite, doctrine remains the same but other things change. So your argument that any little difference is wrong and proves that the Church is not God's Church is not only wrong but completely inconsistent with the bible. Paul changes himself in order to reach other people, he says:

"20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. "

Furthermore, the Roman Catholic Church did atrocious things which are contrary to the Scriptures (and what the Apostles preached) that resulted in the breaking of the true Christian Church, and had given cause for so many believers to doubt and/or lose their faith! The devil's agenda is clearly achieved.

Yes, we are to rely upon the Church - the Church that was established by the Apostles. The Apostles relied on the Scriptures, and in the Holy Spirit to pass down the teachings to us. Somewhere along the way, the Roman Catholic Church had ceased to be that Church, since it follows not what the Apostles preached.

Church doctrine has never changed. Certain individuals have done atrocious things, why are you throwing every single person in God's Church in the same boat, when one or two or three people do something atrocious that doesn't mean every single person of that group is at fault. You already know that among God's chosen people were individuals who have done some shady things, does that mean that God is wrong in choosing them? Why are you trying to hold the Catholic Church to higher standard then God does?

Let me address your previous post:


You didn't show anything. Your explanation was out of context. Here's the WHOLE CHAPTER!


Matthew 23

A Warning Against Hypocrisy

[14]


The whole chapter refers to the Pharisees or teachers of the law!
The verse that forbids the calling of Father was meant for preachers!

I didn't say the worshippers believe preachers to be God. I said, the preachers who want to be addressed as "fathers" are USURPING the position or title that's reserved for GOD!

Come to think of it....

WHY DID THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH DEVELOP SO MANY PRACTICES THAT DILUTES THE GLORIFICATION OF GOD?

When it's clearly stated - and portrayed all throughout the OT - how God would want us to focus on Him (since He is a jealous God), why can't this church follow that simple directive? Why does this church find it so difficult to do what's clearly stated in the Scriptures?

It is legitimate to ask those questions since we've been repeatedly warned about false teachings, and the craftiness of Satan - especially when one truly seeks God and salvation.

I've read those passages multiple times and all you have to do is read the title given to understand what it was about "A Warning against Hypocrisy". Those versus also said that none of those preachers should be called teacher or instructor either yet they were all of those things. What Jesus did was specifically pick out the Pharisees and please keep in mind that Catholic priests are not pharisees we are talking about a completely different time, place and religion here. Jesus was specifically mentioning the pharisees you in your post acknowledged this when you said: "The whole chapter refers to the Pharisees or teachers of the law! " You acknowledge that it was about the Pharisees, Catholic priests are NOT the pharisees, again we are talking about an entirely different time period, culture, and religion. Why are you trying to impose a warning against hypocrisy given in lieu of the actions of the pharisees onto an entirely different group of people?

Jesus says "9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father," knowing later on based on other passages in the bible we can deduce that it is okay to call other people on earth father so based on that deduction alone something should click in your brain and make you realize that Jesus didn't mean that literally under no circumstance is anyone to be called father, he meant it solely in conjunction with those passages regarding the hypocrisy and pride of the Pharisees at the time. If anything your qualm should be with the use of the word teacher, since Jesus specifically says to them that they are not to be called Teacher, when it comes to father though no such thing is said, he says do not call anyone on earth father which he himself has done, so again, that should make something in your brain click telling you that this isn't about the use of the word it's about the sin of pride and the hypocrisy of the pharisees.

Did you ever ask the priests if they wanted to be called father? You just made that claim that that's what they want, did you ask them? Father has traditionally been used as a word for one to show respect to another Abraham is called father, does that automatically mean that he wanted to be called father? God calls him that, it's the name God gave to him.

If you actually understood the Catholic Church instead of coming in here with all of your personal biases against the Church than you may be able to understand how God's Church enhances the glorification of God, it doesn't take away from it it adds to it. So instead of relying on apologetic sites like CARM if you wanted to learn something REAL about the Catholic Church one day instead of spreading falsehoods about the Church then you would go to the Catholic Church for information about the Church instead of relying on hearsay and falsehoods.

 

[ChezC3]

The popes can do the will of the evil one? I agree, there have been terrible popes. Nevertheless, they remain infallible when speaking authoritatively on matters of faith and morals.

The interesting thing that they can never seem to point out to is as terrible as some popes have been, they've never corrupted that...

So tell me how the Church has strayed from the teachings of the Bible? You have only pointed to one example of calling people "fathers" which we see the apostles doing mere decades after the death of resurrection of Christ in the Bible. Any other examples?

www.cuf.org/FileDownloads/callnoman.pdf

 

[tosca1]

The scriptura in sola scriptura was created and compiled by the Church. the Church made the Bible, the Bible didn't make the Church.

The Church COMPILED the Books that make up the Bible. The compiliation process - determining what book was inspired by God - was inspired by God.

 

[ChezC3]

The Church COMPILED the Books that make up the Bible. The compiliation process - determining what book was inspired by God - was inspired by God.

and who created it? put pen to parchment? Hindus?

 

[tosca1]

Trust me, Catholics have no problem with rebuking popes. They are not impeccable. That you keep bringing this up shows that you still do not understand the difference between infallibility and impeccability.

Explain the difference between impeccability and infallibility.

Yet only St. Peter was given the Keys to the Kingdom. Which of the apostles was given the Keys to the Kingdom, tosca?

It was not "the key to the kingdom of heaven." It was "the key of the kingdom of heaven."

So what? Clearly, being given the key does not mean that he is supreme above all the Apostles.

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,.... By the kingdom of heaven is meant the Gospel, which comes from heaven, declares the king Messiah to be come, speaks of things concerning his kingdom, is the means of setting it up, and enlarging it, displays the riches of his grace, and gives an account of the kingdom of heaven, and of persons' right unto it, and meetness for it. "The keys" of it are abilities to open and explain the Gospel truths, and a mission and commission from Christ to make use of them; and being said to be given to Peter particularly, denotes his after qualifications, commission, work, and usefulness in opening the door of faith, or preaching the Gospel first to the Jews, Acts 2:1 and then to the Gentiles, Acts 10:1 and who was the first that made use of the keys of evangelical knowledge with respect to both, after he, with the rest of the apostles, had received an enlarged commission to preach the Gospel to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Otherwise these keys belonged to them all alike; for to the same persons the keys, and the use of them, appertained, on whom the power of binding and loosing was bestowed; and this latter all the disciples had, as is manifest from Matthew 18:18 wherefore this does not serve to establish the primacy and power of Peter over the rest of the apostles; nor do keys design any lordly domination or authority; nor did Christ allow of any such among his apostles; nor is it his will that the ministers of his word should lord it over his heritage: he only is king of saints, and head of his church; he has the key of David, with which he opens, and no man shuts, and shuts, and no man opens; and this he keeps in his own hand, and gives it to none.

Matthew 16 Gill's Exposition


Peter may've been given the key of Heaven however, the other verses had made it clear that Peter was not officially anointed to be the greatest, or the supreme among the Apostles. Here is another verse supporting my position:


Matthew 20

A Mother’s Request

20 Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him.

21 “What is it you want?” he asked.
She said, “Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.”

22 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said to them. “Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?”
“We can,” they answered.

23 Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.”

24 When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers.

25 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.

26 Not so with you.

Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant,

27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—

28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”


Therefore, there is no "high priest" or "Supreme Disciple" who will exercise authority over the Apostles!

Just like in the two other occasions when the disciples disputed who was the greatest among them, Jesus did not name anyone in that position of authority.

Furthermore, the same authority to bind and loose was also given to the other Apostles.

This is baseless. He absolutely would have. St. Peter is infallible, not impeccable.

Infallible means incapable of making mistakes. Peter clearly made a mistake, thus he was rebuked by Paul.

Selling indulgences (and sacraments) is a crime in the Church known as simony.

After 1534
Lutheranism spreads, becoming the dominant faith in Scandinavia and, much later, gaining an extensive following in the United States.

The Catholic Church, shocked by the Reformation, undertakes a series of reforms of its own practices and institutions.

The Trial of Martin Luther: A Chronology

Are your thoughts not lifted to the eternal when you hear inspiring music or see beautiful works of Christian art? I know mine are.

My heart sings over the beauty of nature....but I really do not need anything to provide any "ambiance" to get me "in the mood."

Imagine yourself as the pope. If someone starts a movement that you believe is leading people to put their souls in danger, then do you have a problem with arresting that man?

Yes, I do have a problem with that. If I - as the pope - will resort to having people arrested, tortured and killed, how does that reflect on Christianity?

Look at the lasting effect of that. Up to now, atheists and non-believers still use the Inquisition to mock our God and point to the hypocrisy of Christianity. What about the atrocities of the Residential Schools? I've come upon very angry First Nations who'd lost their faith in God.....because of terrible mistakes committed by those who sanctioned such practices.

We ought to recognize when something is not only hurting the Church of Christ, but also making non-believers of those who used to believe!

Just like in any murder mystery - who stands to gain from all that? Isn't it Satan?

 

[phattonez]

Explain the difference between impeccability and infallibility.

Jesus is impeccable. Everything that He says is correct and everything that He does is correct. With infallibility, only everything that you say is correct. In the Church this is narrowly defined. The pope, only when speaking authoritatively on matters of morals or doctrine, is infallible.

It was not the key to the kingdom of heaven. It was the key of the kingdom of heaven.

So what? Clearly, being given the key does not mean that he is supreme above all the Apostles.

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,.... By the kingdom of heaven is meant the Gospel, which comes from heaven, declares the king Messiah to be come, speaks of things concerning his kingdom, is the means of setting it up, and enlarging it, displays the riches of his grace, and gives an account of the kingdom of heaven, and of persons' right unto it, and meetness for it. "The keys" of it are abilities to open and explain the Gospel truths, and a mission and commission from Christ to make use of them; and being said to be given to Peter particularly, denotes his after qualifications, commission, work, and usefulness in opening the door of faith, or preaching the Gospel first to the Jews, Acts 2:1 and then to the Gentiles, Acts 10:1 and who was the first that made use of the keys of evangelical knowledge with respect to both, after he, with the rest of the apostles, had received an enlarged commission to preach the Gospel to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Otherwise these keys belonged to them all alike; for to the same persons the keys, and the use of them, appertained, on whom the power of binding and loosing was bestowed; and this latter all the disciples had, as is manifest from Matthew 18:18 wherefore this does not serve to establish the primacy and power of Peter over the rest of the apostles; nor do keys design any lordly domination or authority; nor did Christ allow of any such among his apostles; nor is it his will that the ministers of his word should lord it over his heritage: he only is king of saints, and head of his church; he has the key of David, with which he opens, and no man shuts, and shuts, and no man opens; and this he keeps in his own hand, and gives it to none.

Matthew 16 Gill's Exposition

Allow me to say this since you are not John Gill and I find this interpretation terrible: John Gill is an idiot. He has completely fabricated the interpretation to avoid the obvious implications. As I've told you before, the "keys to the kingdom" is a reference to Isaiah 22.

"20 In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, 21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open."

The answer again lies in the keys. Isaiah 22 tells how Eliakim was replacing the previous master of the palace, a man named Shebna. To symbolize the transfer of the office from Shebna to Eliakim, Eliakim was given the key to the house of David (cf. Is. 22:22). It’s important to note that Eliakim was assuming an office that continued from generation to generation. And it was the handing on of the keys which symbolized the transfer of the prime minister’s office to the following successor. Thus, the notion of succession was built right into the image of the keys.

So when Jesus gave Peter the keys, He was entrusting His authority not only to Peter, but also to all his successors. Jesus was saying something like, “I give this authority not only to you, Peter, but also to all those who come after you in this office.” Therefore, the keys weren’t meant only for Peter, but were intended to be passed on to Peter’s successors, just as they were passed on from prime minister to prime minister in the Davidic kingdom of old.

This is why the Catholic Church has always taught that Peter’s successor—the pope—serves as the “Vicar of Christ” and preeminent shepherd of God’s people
(cf. Catechism, no. 882). As the modern day successor of Peter and bearer of “the keys,” Pope John Paul II stands as the current prime minister in Christ’s kingdom. Sharing in all the prerogatives of this royal office, the pope is the King’s representative. As the prime minister, he is vested with Jesus’ authority and leads God’s people in Christ’s name. And like the prime minister Eliakim, who was a father figure in the kingdom of David (cf. Is. 22:21), the pope leads us as our “Holy Father” in the New Covenant kingdom of Jesus, the Church.

Peter may've been given the key of Heaven however, the other verses had made it clear that Peter was not officially anointed to be the greatest, or the supreme among the Apostles. Here is another:


Matthew 20
A Mother’s Request
20 Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him.
21 “What is it you want?” he asked.
She said, “Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.”
22 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said to them. “Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?”
“We can,” they answered.
23 Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.”
24 When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers.

25 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you.

Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

There is no "high priest" or "Supreme Disciple" who will exercise authority over the Apostles. Just like in the two other occasions when the disciples disputed who was the greatest among them, Jesus did not name anyone in that position of authority.

Furthermore, the same authority to bind and loose was also given to the other Apostles.

Obviously this verse is about humility. The reference to the Keys to the Kingdom are unambiguous. The authority to bind and loose was indeed given to the other Apostles, but only Peter was given the Keys to the Kingdom.

Infallible means incapable of making mistakes. Peter clearly made a mistake, thus he was rebuked by Paul.

See above.

After 1534
Lutheranism spreads, becoming the dominant faith in Scandinavia and, much later, gaining an extensive following in the United States. The Catholic Church, shocked by the Reformation, undertakes a series of reforms of its own practices and institutions.

The Trial of Martin Luther: A Chronology

Simony was a crime before Martin Luther.

 

[phattonez]

My heart sings over the beauty of nature....but I really do not need anything to provide any "ambiance" to get me "in the mood."

It's not a matter of need, but it is an aid.

Yes, I do have a problem with that. If I - as the pope - will resort to having people arrested, tortured and killed, how does that reflect on Christianity?

Look at the lasting effect of that. Up to now, atheists and non-believers still use the Inquisition to mock our God and point to the hypocrisy of Christianity. What about the atrocities of the Residential Schools? I've come upon very angry First Nations who'd lost their faith in God.....because of terrible mistakes committed by those who sanctioned such practices.

We ought to recognize when something is not only hurting the Church of Christ, but also making non-believers of those who used to believe!
Just like in any murder mystery - who stands to gain from all that? Isn't it Satan?

We can argue about the effectiveness of such practices, but the point is that heresy needs to be contested from the start lest it get out of hand. Do you not take every opportunity possible to debunk atheism when it's presented?

 

[tosca1]

and who created it? put pen to parchment? Hindus?

God created it.

Those who compiled were merely tools of God.

 

[phattonez]

God created it.

Those who compiled were merely tools of God.

And why do we trust them? How did they know which gospel accounts to accept and which to throw out? Why is the Gospel of Peter not considered inspired? If you can't find an answer it's because there isn't one outside of Church authority.

 

[tosca1]

The Catholic Church is THE christian Church and they do exactly as the apostles did.

I hope you don't mean the Catholic Church as we know it today.

In those days, the catholic church meant ALL CHRISTIANS!

I've already explained about the term, "catholic." It didn't mean the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[tosca1]

Jesus is impeccable. Everything that He says is correct and everything that He does is correct. With infallibility, only everything that you say is correct. In the Church this is narrowly defined. The pope, only when speaking authoritatively on matters of morals or doctrine, is infallible.

4) While the Roman Catholic Church sees apostolic succession and the infallible Magisterium of the church as logically necessary in order for God to unerringly guide the Church, Scripture states that God has provided for His church through:

(a) infallible Scripture, (Acts 20:32; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Matthew 5:18; John 10:35; Acts 17:10-12; Isaiah 8:20; 40:8; etc.)

(b) Christ’s unending high-priesthood in heaven (Hebrews 7:22-28),

(c) the provision of the Holy Spirit Who guided the apostles into truth after Christ’s death (John 16:12-14), Who gifts believers for the work of the ministry, including teaching (Romans 12:3-8; Ephesians 4:11-16), and Who uses the written word as His chief tool (Hebrews 4:12; Ephesians 6:17).


In summary, the Bible speaks of only one abiding, "tangible," infallible guide left by God for His church.
It is the written word of God , not an infallible leader (2 Timothy 3:15-17).

And, as He gave the Holy Spirit to bear holy men along in the writing of those Scriptures (2 Peter 1:19-21), so He has given His Holy Spirit to indwell, fill, guide, and gift members of His church today for the purpose of directing His church through the proper interpretation of that written word (1 Corinthians 12 and 14; Ephesians 4:11-16).

That there are schisms and false teachings today should be no surprise, for the Bible also warns us that there would be false teachers who would twist the written word (2 Peter 3:16) and that these false teachers would arise from within the churches (Acts 20:30).

Therefore, the believers were to turn to God and the "word of His grace" for their guidance (Acts 20:32), determining the truth not by who said it, but by comparing it with the gospel already received by the early church, the gospel recorded for us in Scripture (Galatians 1:8-9; see also Acts 17:11).

Read more: Is papal infallibility biblical?

 

[tosca1]

And why do we trust them? How did they know which gospel accounts to accept and which to throw out? Why is the Gospel of Peter not considered inspired? If you can't find an answer it's because there isn't one outside of Church authority.

The Gospel of Peter was rejected because it was falsely attributed to Peter!


The canon of the New Testament was reserved only for those writings that were either written by an apostle or an associate of an apostle. Since the Gospel of Peter was written in the mid second century, it is not a candidate for inclusion in the New Testament. The numerous embellishments in the Gospel of Peter clearly indicate that it was composed in the second century and was not written by the apostle Peter. This second-century date of authorship is in conformity with modern New Testament scholarship's appraisal of the Gospel of Peter. Therefore, the early church rightfully rejected this Gospel which was falsely attributed to Peter.

Do any ancient writers talk about the Gospel of Peter?

Prior to the discovery of the Akhmîm fragment in 1886-87, scholars knew very little about the Gospel of Peter. Their first main source was Eusebius of Caesarea (c. A.D. 260-340), the well-known early church historian, who noted that the Gospel of Peter was among the church’s rejected writings and had heretical roots.5 The second main source for the Gospel of Peter is a letter by Serapion, a bishop in Antioch (in office A.D. 199-211), titled “Concerning What is Known as the Gospel of Peter.”6 Bishop Serapion notes that the Gospel of Peter had docetic overtones and advised that church leaders not read it to their congregations.

When was the Gospel of Peter written?

Though this work was attributed to the apostle Peter (Par. 14), contemporary New Testament scholars rightfully note that the Gospel of Peter is a second century A.D. work. Most scholars would not date this Gospel before 130-150 A.D because of: (1) the numerous historical errors including a preponderance of legendary embellishments and lack of first century historical knowledge, and (2) the likely dependence which the Gospel of Peter has on the New Testament Gospels. For these reasons among many, most scholars today reject the Gospel of Peter as giving us as accurate of a portrait of Jesus as the standard New Testament Gospels and regard it as a late composition from the second century A.D.

Historical Errors

More....


Does the Gospel of Peter belong in the New Testament?|Is the Gospel of Peter, Scripture? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

 

[tosca1]

And why do we trust them? How did they know which gospel accounts to accept and which to throw out? Why is the Gospel of Peter not considered inspired? If you can't find an answer it's because there isn't one outside of Church authority.

Why do you find it so easy to believe that everything the pope say is God-inspired and yet you doubt what's written in the Scriptures?

Trust in God. He will protect HIS BOOK!

Nothing will be in the Scriptures that's not meant by God to be in there.

 

[phattonez]

4) While the Roman Catholic Church sees apostolic succession and the infallible Magisterium of the church as logically necessary in order for God to unerringly guide the Church, Scripture states that God has provided for His church through:

(a) infallible Scripture, (Acts 20:32; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Matthew 5:18; John 10:35; Acts 17:10-12; Isaiah 8:20; 40:8; etc.)

(b) Christ’s unending high-priesthood in heaven (Hebrews 7:22-28),

(c) the provision of the Holy Spirit Who guided the apostles into truth after Christ’s death (John 16:12-14), Who gifts believers for the work of the ministry, including teaching (Romans 12:3-8; Ephesians 4:11-16), and Who uses the written word as His chief tool (Hebrews 4:12; Ephesians 6:17).


In summary, the Bible speaks of only one abiding, "tangible," infallible guide left by God for His church.
It is the written word of God , not an infallible leader (2 Timothy 3:15-17).

And, as He gave the Holy Spirit to bear holy men along in the writing of those Scriptures (2 Peter 1:19-21), so He has given His Holy Spirit to indwell, fill, guide, and gift members of His church today for the purpose of directing His church through the proper interpretation of that written word (1 Corinthians 12 and 14; Ephesians 4:11-16).

That there are schisms and false teachings today should be no surprise, for the Bible also warns us that there would be false teachers who would twist the written word (2 Peter 3:16) and that these false teachers would arise from within the churches (Acts 20:30).

Therefore, the believers were to turn to God and the "word of His grace" for their guidance (Acts 20:32), determining the truth not by who said it, but by comparing it with the gospel already received by the early church, the gospel recorded for us in Scripture (Galatians 1:8-9; see also Acts 17:11).

Read more: Is papal infallibility biblical?

Scripture also states:
1) The interpretation of scripture is not up to individual prophecy.
2) Apostolic succession by the laying on of hands
3) Only Peter is given the Keys to the Kingdom

 

[phattonez]

Why do you find it so easy to believe that everything the pope say is God-inspired and yet you doubt what's written in the Scriptures?

Trust in God. He will protect HIS BOOK!

Nothing will be in the Scriptures that's not meant by God to be in there.

You're dodging the question so that you can avoid the inconvenient truth. How do we, as fallible humans, declare which books of the Bible are inspired and which are not? We don't all have this imprinted in our hearts, so there must be a definitive way of declaring without error which books are inspired and which are not. The vehicle for this proclamation is the authority of the Church. There is NO OTHER ANSWER.

 

[phattonez]

The Gospel of Peter was rejected because it was falsely attributed to Peter!


The canon of the New Testament was reserved only for those writings that were either written by an apostle or an associate of an apostle. Since the Gospel of Peter was written in the mid second century, it is not a candidate for inclusion in the New Testament. The numerous embellishments in the Gospel of Peter clearly indicate that it was composed in the second century and was not written by the apostle Peter. This second-century date of authorship is in conformity with modern New Testament scholarship's appraisal of the Gospel of Peter. Therefore, the early church rightfully rejected this Gospel which was falsely attributed to Peter.

Do any ancient writers talk about the Gospel of Peter?

Prior to the discovery of the Akhmîm fragment in 1886-87, scholars knew very little about the Gospel of Peter. Their first main source was Eusebius of Caesarea (c. A.D. 260-340), the well-known early church historian, who noted that the Gospel of Peter was among the church’s rejected writings and had heretical roots.5 The second main source for the Gospel of Peter is a letter by Serapion, a bishop in Antioch (in office A.D. 199-211), titled “Concerning What is Known as the Gospel of Peter.”6 Bishop Serapion notes that the Gospel of Peter had docetic overtones and advised that church leaders not read it to their congregations.

When was the Gospel of Peter written?

Though this work was attributed to the apostle Peter (Par. 14), contemporary New Testament scholars rightfully note that the Gospel of Peter is a second century A.D. work. Most scholars would not date this Gospel before 130-150 A.D because of: (1) the numerous historical errors including a preponderance of legendary embellishments and lack of first century historical knowledge, and (2) the likely dependence which the Gospel of Peter has on the New Testament Gospels. For these reasons among many, most scholars today reject the Gospel of Peter as giving us as accurate of a portrait of Jesus as the standard New Testament Gospels and regard it as a late composition from the second century A.D.

Historical Errors

More....


Does the Gospel of Peter belong in the New Testament?|Is the Gospel of Peter, Scripture? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

You're not trying to convince me that the Gospel of Peter should be rejected; I agree on that point. I want to know by what authority we can declare it. See how you're noting quotes of early Church fathers? That is tradition!

 

[ChezC3]

God created it.

Those who compiled were merely tools of God.

God created all, so yes, but he also created the devil too, and what was the devil essentially? A Protester.

 

[tosca1]

God created all, so yes, but he also created the devil too, and what was the devil essentially? A Protester.

Jesus was a "protester." He protested, and condemned the practices of the Pharisees.

Being labelled a heretic, that's basically what the Pharisees told of Jesus.

You speak with your emotion.

 

[tosca1]

Allow me to say this since you are not John Gill and I find this interpretation terrible: John Gill is an idiot. He has completely fabricated the interpretation to avoid the obvious implications. As I've told you before, the "keys to the kingdom" is a reference to Isaiah 22.

Obviously this verse is about humility. The reference to the Keys to the Kingdom are unambiguous. The authority to bind and loose was indeed given to the other Apostles, but only Peter was given the Keys to the Kingdom


"20 In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, 21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open."

Question: "What is the Key of David?"

Answer: The Key of David is a term found in Revelation and Isaiah. A key indicates control or authority; therefore, having the Key of David would give one control of David’s domain, i.e., Jerusalem, the City of David, and the kingdom of Israel.

The fact that, in Revelation 3:7, Jesus holds this key shows that He is the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant, the ruler of the New Jerusalem, and the Lord of the kingdom of heaven.

However, the passage in Revelation has been used inappropriately by a number of cults that ultimately descend from the Christian Identity Movement via Armstrongism. The Philadelphia Church of God, a splinter group from the Worldwide Church of God, produces a television program called Key of David.

Conclusion
Paul told Timothy to avoid “myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God’s work - which is by faith” (1 Timothy 1:4). There is no “special knowledge” beyond the gospel itself that will aid salvation. Any claim beyond faith in the work of Jesus tears out the heart of the good news: that the just will live by faith (Romans 1:17). There is no great vision, special knowledge, or Jewish lineage needed, only faith in Christ.

Read more: What is the Key of David?



Again, it's called the keys of the kingdom, not keys to the kingdom.

Matthew 16
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven;

KEYS. Not one key....but many. GOSPEL TRUTHS.

I'm not going to keep arguing with you about Papal Supremacy, Phattonez. Your interpretation of the verse that you claim supports your position, is not in harmony with the rest of the verses throughout the Bible. I've clearly given those verses.

Peter was indeed given the keys but obviously, as shown in various verses, those keys did not mean SUPREME AUTHORITY over all Apostles.

For all you know, he could've been given those "keys" as an "incentive" reward for answering correctly the question of Jesus - since there were several indications that Peter was prone to be saying things that earned him rebukes from Jesus.


You asked how do we know which interpretation is right: we know it is right when it supports or goes along with the Scriptures. In other words, there shouldn't be any conflict with the rest of the Scriptures. Your interpretation is loaded with conflicts, as shown.

Simony was a crime before Martin Luther.

Is paedophilia considered a crime?

Furthermore, that the Catholic Church had to make reforms indicate that indeed, there were things that needed to be corrected and reformed.

 

[ChezC3]

Jesus was a "protester." He protested, and condemned the practices of the Pharisees.

Being labelled a heretic, that's basically what the Pharisees told of Jesus.

You speak with your emotion.

Nope. He was a reformer. He didn't protest the Law, he fulfilled it. He was reforming Judaism, not protesting against it.

He was not labelled a heretic he was labelled a blasphemer, big difference.

No, I speak Truth.

 

[phattonez]

Question: "What is the Key of David?"

Answer: The Key of David is a term found in Revelation and Isaiah. A key indicates control or authority; therefore, having the Key of David would give one control of David’s domain, i.e., Jerusalem, the City of David, and the kingdom of Israel.

The fact that, in Revelation 3:7, Jesus holds this key shows that He is the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant, the ruler of the New Jerusalem, and the Lord of the kingdom of heaven.

However, the passage in Revelation has been used inappropriately by a number of cults that ultimately descend from the Christian Identity Movement via Armstrongism. The Philadelphia Church of God, a splinter group from the Worldwide Church of God, produces a television program called Key of David.

Conclusion
Paul told Timothy to avoid “myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God’s work - which is by faith” (1 Timothy 1:4). There is no “special knowledge” beyond the gospel itself that will aid salvation. Any claim beyond faith in the work of Jesus tears out the heart of the good news: that the just will live by faith (Romans 1:17). There is no great vision, special knowledge, or Jewish lineage needed, only faith in Christ.

Read more: What is the Key of David?

Because ultimately Christ owns them, but there is no doubting that Jesus gave them to Peter to act like a prime minister.

Again, it's called the keys of the kingdom, not keys to the kingdom.

Please, explain to me what the significance of that difference is. Right now it's a distinction without a difference.

KEYS. Not one key....but many. GOSPEL TRUTHS.

I'm not going to keep arguing with you about Papal Supremacy, Phattonez. Your interpretation of the verse that you claim supports your position, is not in harmony with the rest of the verses throughout the Bible. I've clearly given those verses.

Peter was indeed given the keys but obviously, as shown in various verses, those keys did not mean SUPREME AUTHORITY over all Apostles.

For all you know, he could've been given those "keys" as an "incentive" reward for answering correctly the question of Jesus - since there were several indications that Peter was prone to be saying things that earned him rebukes from Jesus.

The other apostles attested to Christ's divinity, and they were not given the keys. They were not the first to speak at Pentecost. They were not mentioned by far the most among the apostles. They were not prayed for specifically as Peter was.

You asked how do we know which interpretation is right: we know it is right when it supports or goes along with the Scriptures. In other words, there shouldn't be any conflict with the rest of the Scriptures. Your interpretation is loaded with conflicts, as shown.

Yet you hold to sola scriptura despite the many conflicts. That's a hypocritical argument. Further, there is no conflict with papal supremacy. Instances of Peter acting badly do not negate the fact that he was given authority. You still confuse impeccability and infallibility.

Is paedophilia considered a crime?

Wow. Are you just looking for any cheap shot available? By the way, the issue was not pedophilia, but ephebophilia among homosexuals who entered the priesthood.

Furthermore, that the Catholic Church had to make reforms indicate that indeed, there were things that needed to be corrected and reformed.

Who ever claimed that the Church is perfect?! All I ever claimed was that it has authority! Quit arguing a straw man!