debosky: As others have even said, other Council ‘canonised’ the OT long before the Catholics did so - my point is already made. the NT was purely compiled based on existing, widely accepted scripture in use. . . .

Enigma:

IIRC the then Roman Catholic "pope" approved the document. I referred to it obliquely in an old post https://www.nairaland.com/1101186/catholics-really-wants-make-heaven/2#12998393

italo:

What is it that you want me to clarify which I denounced as wrong, this man? Please show me.

As far as I am concerned, you have not said anything on this thread.

debosky:
What is the magisterium of the church? Abeg indulge those of us that are ‘simple’ folk.

debosky: Did I tell you it was the bible? You asked me for historical accounts, I give you an example historical account and you come back with this silly response?

debosky: The Holy Spirit moved through the early Church to compile the bible.

italo:

It seems that you protestants are now solely focused on the Catholic Church.

Do we take it Protestants have no way of knowing accurately God's teaching?

So we can fully concentrate on explaining how the Catholic Church has the authority to explain scripture to God's people.

Zikkyy:

there's no bullet-proof approach to interpreting the scriptures. they all have advantages and disadvantages. The idea of a council is not bad if the congregation is carried along. The council work even better in this age where people don't even want to interpret the scriptures for themselves. so they swallow the both the drug and poison provided by the church leaders. italo's position is that the council must be that of the RCC. and my position is that council's interpretation is acceptable if it aligns with my understanding of the scriptures, afterall council members are also bringing in their private interpretation on the matter under review.

The Church exercises teaching authority through various instruments and agencies at various levels (cf. Authority I, paras. 9 and 18-22). When matters of faith are at stake decisions may be made by the Church in universal councils; we are agreed that these are authoritative (cf. Authority I, para. 19). We have also recognized the need in a united Church for a universal primate who, presiding over the koinonia, can speak with authority in the name of the Church (cf. Authority I, para. 23). Through both these agencies the Church can make a decisive judgement in matters of faith, and so exclude error.

Ihedinobi:

Nna, I don't know what you're saying o. I just asked you to explain what "the Catholic Church" is so that I can underatand what you have been saying. I didn't ask you to explain how the Catholic Church does anything. Do you have an answer to what "the Catholic Church" is?

italo:
You lied when you said:

And I said "how do you know that? I dont find anything like that written in the Bible...and when did this early church compile the bible?"

That was when your lies intensified. You said you know through historical accounts.

And I said "which historical accounts show that the early church compiled THE BIBLE?"

You lied again, saying: 'memoirs of the apostles'

And I said is memoir of the apostles the bible? Now I add, where does it say that the early Church compiled the bible?

You havent told me...neither does your false historical account mention any date or period.

ITS JUST LIES, ISNT IT?

Ihedinobi:

Oga, weren't you saying that how Jesus saves is necessary to salvation or damnation in disagreement with my submission that it wasn't? I asked you to explain how.

italo: @ debosky,

when did ur early church finalize the 27book NT?

and what "historical accounts" do you have to support your answer?

debosky:

You aren't getting off that lightly - What lie have I told? If you cannot come out and show me what lie I have told, please refrain from asking me any further questions.

italo:

You said you found out from historical accounts that the Holy Spirit moved the early Church to compile the Bible.

Till now, you havent even shown any historical account that even links the word "bible" to the early church.

'Memoirs of the apostles' shows that some books were widely accepted as scriptural but those books are not THE BIBLE.

You havent shown any historical account that links the early church to a canon of 27-book NT.

italo:

You have slightly remixed what we said, but anyway let me answer you.

If the way we gain salvation is just by Jesus' death without anything else, all of humanity would be saved and no one would be damned.

But is that the case?

italo: @ ihedinobi, i think you should read the beginning of the thread, that way you'll know what i'm saying

Ihedinobi:

Nna, I don't know what you're saying o. I just asked you to explain what "the Catholic Church" is so that I can underatand what you have been saying. I didn't ask you to explain how the Catholic Church does anything. Do you have an answer to what "the Catholic Church" is?

Enigma:

And as some say that only "the Catholic Church" is supposed to be doing this interpretation, we are still waiting for the meaning of "the Catholic Church".

Bill Graham interprets the Bible: is he part of "the Catholic Church"?

The Archbishop of Canterbury interprets the Bible; is he part of "the Catholic Church"?

The patriarchs of the Orthodox Churches interpret the Bible: are they part of "the Catholic Church"?

Ihedinobi:

Nnaa ehn, you're complicating this matter even more. What does the second paragraph mean?

Ihedinobi: Why do you suppose that I didn't start from the beginning? I'm not sure if you are not saying that you have no answer to my question. All I want is to have some idea what you refer to when you say "the Church" or "the Catholic Church". Is it possible that you really don't know what you mean by it?

italo: Before that I had said

"You are lied. No historical account told you that the Bible was compiled by the early church (except you mean The Catholic Church in the 4th century). You have no proof of your lie."

And that was surely what I meant when I said "You lied when you said the Holy Spirit moved the early church to compile the Bible."

Sorry for the inaccuracy in my second statement.

...but how about the first?

“Why do we say that we believe in the Roman Catholic Church when we are Protestants?” they ask. The confusion arises because the word "catholic" is not in common usage in English today. Most people hear it used only in reference to the Roman Catholic Church. And so, when they read or hear the word "catholic" in another context, they assume it refers to the Church of Rome. But this is mistaken. "Catholic," in this context, means "universal" and is not a reference to the Church of Rome.

Syncan:

The (Catholic) church is that universal body of faithful, established by Jesus Christ,under the leadership of Peter.

italo:

Jesus died for all mankind, so why is all of manking not assured of salvation... If all that matters is his death, nothing else.

Because you dont seem to know what this thread is about.

debosky:

What does 'you are lied' mean? Are you here to play games? If, according to you, I have no proof, how does that constitute a lie? It seems you are no longer interested in a reasoned conversation.

debosky: So you want me to start 'interpreting' what you mean? Sorry I'm not into playing games here.

It was not an inaccuracy - you claimed I lied, when I did no such thing. In the interest of progressing the thread, if you are unable to retract your comments, I will refrain from further posting and simply observe. Thanks.

Ihedinobi:

I still don't understand what you're about here. What is salvation hinged upon if not Faith that Jesus's Death has made the believer right with God? Your answer to that was "how Jesus's Death saved us".

That is, you hold that we have to believe in how Jesus's Death saved us to be saved. And I asked you to explain how that works. I don't get where this stuff about everyone supposing to be saved and yet not in fact saved fits into the picture.

Ihedinobi: This reads an awful lot like a cop-out. I have explained sufdiciently how my inquiry fits into the purpose of the thread. I think that you are unwilling to venture an answer to my question.

If yoi have no answer, I will consider all your allusions to the Catholic Church and the Church to be meaningless in any discussion involving you.

Ihedinobi:

Ok. You define "the Church" as a body of believers. It is this body of the faithful that you say can guide believers aright in interpreting the Scriptures, right? Can we say then that this essentially means that it is believers who guide themselves aright in interpreting the Scriptures?

Enigma:

And as some say that only "the Catholic Church" is supposed to be doing this interpretation, we are still waiting for the meaning of "the Catholic Church".

Bill Graham interprets the Bible: is he part of "the Catholic Church"?

The Archbishop of Canterbury interprets the Bible; is he part of "the Catholic Church"?

The patriarchs of the Orthodox Churches interpret the Bible: are they part of "the Catholic Church"?