₦airaland Forum

chukwudi44: You don't go to an orthodox website to quote lies for me.The orthodox church did not exist during the canonisation of the canon.The bishops themselves who compiled these canons described themselves as catholics.
canons 22,36,57,68,69 and so many other canons of the council of carthage explicitly stated that these bisops are catholics.it is too late for you to change history.They did not reason along with you that Methodists,orthodox,Anglicans,JWs donatists etc are also members of these catholic church

Canon 57. (Greek lxi.)

That persons baptized when children by the Donatists may be ordained clergymen in the Catholic Church

Since in the former council it was decreed, as your unanimity remembers as well as I do, that those who as children were baptized by the Donatists, and not yet being able to know the pernicious character of their error, and afterward when they had come to the use of reason, had received the knowledge of the truth, abhorred their former error, and were received, (in accordance with the ancient order) by the imposition of the hand, into the Catholic Church of God spread throughout the world, that to such the remembrance of the error ought to be no impediment to the reception of the clerical office. For in coming to faith they thought the true Church to be their own and there they believed in Christ, and received the sacraments of the Trinity. And that all these sacraments are altogether true and holy and divine is most certain, and in them the whole hope of the soul is placed, although the presumptuous audacity of heretics, taking to itself the name of the truth, dares to administer them. They are but one after all, as the blessed Apostle tells us, saying: “One God, one faith, one baptism,” and it is not lawful to reiterate what once only ought to be administered. [Those therefore who have been so baptized] having anathematized their error may be received by the imposition of the hand into the one Church, the pillar as it is called, and the one mother of all Christians, where all these Sacraments are received unto salvation and everlasting life; even the same sacraments which obtain for those persevering in heresy the heavy penalty of damnation. So that which to those who are in the truth lightens to the obtaining of eternal life, the same to them who are in error tends but to darkness and damnation. With regard then to those who, having fled from error, acknowledge the breasts of their mother the Catholic Church, who believe and receive all these holy mysteries with the love of the truth, and besides the Sacraments have the testimony of a good life, there is no one who would not grant that without doubt such persons may be raised to the clerical office, especially in such necessity as the present. But there are others of this sect, who being already clergymen, desire to pass to us with their peoples and also with their honours, such as for the sake of office are converts to life, and that they may retain them seek for salvation [i.e., enter the Church]. I think that the question concerning such may be left to the graver consideration of our aforesaid brothers, and that when they have considered by their more prudent counsel the matter referred to them, they may vouchsafe to advise us what approves itself to them with regard to this question. Only concerning those who as children were baptized by heretics we decree that they consent, if it seems good, to our decision concerning the ordination of the same. All things, therefore, which we have set forth above with the holy bishops, let your honourable fraternity with me adjudge to be done.

Canon 22. (Greek xxv.)

That bishops or other clergymen shall give nothing to those who are not Catholics

And that to those who are not Catholic Christians, even if they be blood relations, neither bishops nor clergymen shall give anything at all by way of donation of their possessions.


Canon 36. (Greek xxxix.)

That bishops or clergymen are not to be ordained unless they have made all their family Christians

None shall be ordained bishop, presbyters, or deacons before all the inmates of their houses shall have become Catholic Christians.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm

The orthodox church came into existence after the east-west schism.oriental orthodoxy came into existence after the council of chalcedon while the major orthodox churches became schismatic with the catholic church in 1054AD.The canon been used by some orthodoz churches use are at variance with the canons agreed at the synod of hippo and council of carthages which you claim they were part of.

The orthodox wasn't existing as part of the Catholic Church when the canon was made??

I leave you in your ignorance.

italo: From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

No, your reference points back to you.

You know I won't take references from the Roman Catholic Church.

italo: So does the Catholic Church see all those "churches" you mentioned.

Hope you don't mean Roman Catholic Church.....

italo: That is exactly what you preach when you say that those people who preached compulsory circumcision had fallen out of Christ's Church. They didn't submit to Peter, the leader of the apostles. A man/men like them. That is what Jesus preached when he gave the keys to the kingdom to God to a man/leader/pope/peter/his successors/francis (just like you and I), and Christ said whatever that man binds/looses in heaven/on earth is effected.

No, that's off our discussion, don't divert our point of discussion.

These men did not preach submission to Peter to be saved [they preached an unnecessary process for salvation (circumcision)]....neither did the Apostles preach 'submission to Peter' to be saved.....

.....and that's what the RCC preach today (submission to the Pope to be saved).

In the Apostles' messages (including Peter), submission to Peter wasn't necessary for salvation.

italo: A question for you: do/did you really think that only people who confess Jesus as personal Lord and saviour will go to heaven?...those who dont for whatever reason have no chance of heaven?

Do I really think?
Of course not.

God may save others too (perhaps, those who never heard the Gospel) in ways known to Him alone.

chukwudi44: The catholic church does not depend on the
orthodox church or anyother church for its
canon.It remains faithful to the original
canon of the christian scriptures as
enunciated by the synod of hippo in 393CE
and ratified by the councils of carthage and
trent.
The orthodox canon was set in 1672 @ the
synod of jerusalem .Even the protestants do
not share the same canon with the orthodox
church.

Now concerning the above statements.

The 'orthodox bishops' were part of the synod of hippo that first met however, the bold statement, here are some orthodox links saying the fact about their canon....and not what you typed above.

www.orthodoxanswers.org/orthodoxbibles

symeon-anthony.info/BibleCanon/CanonicalBibleBooks.htm

italo: @ adsonstone,

You'll agree with me that its about time you answered my question:

Can you ever teach or interpret scripture wrongly...

...or are you always right when you teach and interpret scripture?

The bold is correct because I have (and will always have) the Holy Spirit who guides me.

italo: What matters to me for now in this discussion is that it was the Church that declared them inspired. Tradition!

italo: The koko is that the it was Catholic Church that declared the 2 books inspired.

italo: Find out wetin? It was the Catholic Church that rendered Barnabas' book invalid...no matter the reason or method thet used. Tradition!

italo: Church tradition created the Bible. We must then look at the Bible through the eyes of Tradition

I agree that Christians/The Church compiled the Bible.
The same Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, Baptists... etc you strictly said are not part of Christ's Church were all in one Church when these canons were made and accepted as inspired by the Church.

If these people use and put faith/interpret what they have compiled, that's no 'gross hypocrisy' as you declared earlier, they are using what they made.

I don't see why you should give all the credit to the Roman Catholic Church and say others are hypocrites afterall, these Churches were all one when the canon was agreed on and accepted.

italo: It's not enough to say "lies," "flawed." Prove it!

I'll attend to that in a separate post quoting Chukwudi.

italo: "us" and "our" could mean "apostles" "church" "bishops"... I dont know why you choose apostles and say it isnt church.

No, "us" and "our" cannot mean church there....the letter is being written to the Church by an Apostle and that's exactly why I said "Apostle"

italo: Now do you know that unknown christians were referred to as apostles in the Bible?

Is Paul then saying we should follow traditions of unknown Christians?

Who/What do you mean by 'unknown Christians'?
Is it the same people the Bible refer to as Apostles?

If the Bible refers to them as Apostles then, they are and yes, Paul tells the Church to follow the tradition(s) of these 'unknown Christians'.

italo: I can say so because I dont believe in scripture alone. I believe in the interpretation tradition gives the bible. Its you who believes in scripture alone meaning scripture must state it. You have nothing to refute my argument. Scripture doesn't mention that we should not follow Catholic tradition.

No, the bible does not say we should follow 'Catholic tradition'.

Instead, it says we should 'Study' and 'we may understand' it also makes us (Christians, not only the pope) know that we have the Holy Spirit who will surely guide us into 'All Truth'

italo: which particular claim?

Those who know that the catholic church is true yet, reject it, cannot be saved. While those who don't know can be. (Re-phrased) .

Where/How can this claim be affirmed?

italo: In a strict sense, no.

Were those who refused to follow the dictates of the Jerusalem council in acts 15, but still followed christ, yet preaching and demanding circumcision as contained in the sacred books, as pre-requisite for God's people....a part of Christ's Church?

Going by your standard, we conclude that these people have fallen out of Christ's Church because they have preached contrary to the Apostles.

Now, let's consider those preaching that you have to submit to a man leader/pope (just like You and I) to be saved and saying that some people can be saved outside Christ/somewhere outside the Church when the bible has confirmed that salvation is only by one name/from one source?

Have these ones not fallen out of Christ's Church also?

Going by your standard (and in a strict sense also)....definitely, these people have also deviated from Christ's Church.

Or do you wanna/will you defend that honestly?

Syncan: @Italo, weldone bro. @ Adsonstone,bro I must confess that your manner of discuss in this thread has been impressive. One may not agree with another's belief, but asking for explanation without ridicule, making your own submission with less ambiguity is just the way to acquire knowledge. No knowledge is a waste after all. You did not open the thread, but you've been more honest to the seeming aim of the thread.

Still following.

Thanks bro.

I really do appreciate the replies here so far.
They've really been impressive.

chukwudi44: The catholic church does not depend on the orthodox church or anyother church for its canon.It remains faithful to the original canon of the christian scriptures as enunciated by the synod of hippo in 393CE and ratified by the councils of carthage and trent.

The orthodox canon was set in 1672 @ the synod of jerusalem.Even the protestants do not share the same canon with the orthodox church.

Now concerning the above statements.

The 'orthodox bishops' were part of the synod of hippo that first met however, the bold statement, here are some orthodox links saying the fact about their canon....and not what you typed above.

www.orthodoxanswers.org/orthodoxbibles

symeon-anthony.info/BibleCanon/CanonicalBibleBooks.htm

italo: But you were trying to downplay the role the Church played in Canonizing the NT...as if to say, because they were written by Apostles and inspired men, the Canon was already settled.

I have shown you that you dont even know the author of Hebrews yet the Church declared it "inspired." While some 'apostolic' books were declared "not inspired" by the Church. It is clear that the Church decided the Canon.

Have you ever for once tried to find out why these books were declared 'uninspired' as you have said?

When you know the reason, you'll be 'more open' in our discussion.

italo: Chukwudi has answered this for me. He spoke my mind even better than I'd put it.

I deliberately ignored Chukwudi's responses because they were very much flawed and also has elements of 'lies' in it.

Anyway, I'll attend to it since that also what your response would also be (and even a better one)....as you have indicated.

italo: "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

Where is "apostles" in that verse?

Then who are the people being referred to with the words in bold?


Don't be ignorant of simple things.

italo: So you can not say the Holy Spirit did not say we should follow Catholic Tradition.

....and you can neither say He asked us to follow 'catholic tradition'.

italo: That was talking about the old testament. Mark and Luke were declared inspired by the Catholic Church.

You say its Old Testament, Chukwudi says the books were not listed.
How did you arrive at your conclusion and what made Chukwudi conclude his?

Sort yourselves out.

italo: Barnabas was also called Apostle yet you dont read his book...because the Catholic Church makes it invalid.

As I said I my first reply in this post, you don't know why the books were rendered 'invalid' yet, you say it was rendered invalid.

Find out how the NT canon/books were selected and compiled and also why some 'epistles' are left out.

italo: No tradirion (doctrine) is totally extrabiblical if "extrabiblical" means not having any hint or even the principle of the doctrine.

So, can we agree that tradition is guided/having its principles by/in scripture?

Now following this thread.

Its so obvious that some people have started spreading lies and being hypocritical on issues even on this thread.

I have seen one that was condemning Luther for exactly the same offence they are guilty of.
what level of hypocrisy!

Do you have HTC One X+ new or used...and price pls

Dear Italo,
I hope you have gotten my answers and if you haven't seen them, kindly check page 4.

I'm waiting for your response so we can keep flying.

italo: Bros, you will agree with me that it is unfair to have me answer all your questions only for you to return mine with a question. Can you tell me why all the 'apostolic' books I listed are not in the NT...or you dont know?

I have stated reasons for replying with questions a in previous post in response to Syncan.
I hope you read that earlier.
However, if you want plain answers, thats fine. I'll give plain answers.

The books you listed are not part of the NT because they were 'somewhat' debated upon thus, not agreed upon and included in the NT.

I hope thats clear enough.

Hope you'll now attend to mine.

Why does the RCC have fewer books in the bible than the orthodox and fewer ot books than the septuagint compiled....having some deuterocanonicals and rejecting others?

italo: So on what grounds is it in the NT since you said something like 'the NT is the work of the Apostles so the Church could not ignore the books?'

we have agreed that the NT is written by the apostles and other inspired men and it is meant for the church.

I have also said in my above post that other 'debated' books are not included most likely because their authenticity cannot be ascertained.

italo: You know that I asked where the Holy Spirit asked you to follow the "Apostle's" tradition. Please answer...or say you dont know if you dont know.

2 Thess 2:15

You say you obey these traditions yet, you have not named any that originates from the Apostles that have no root in the bible.

italo: At least wait until I make that claim in bold. For now you are the one making the claim. Please tell me where the Holy Spirit said we shouldn't follow "Catholic tradition" and "canon tradition."

I know of no scripture that rejects this neither do I know any that supports it.

The one I gave earlier mentions "apostles' tradition"

italo: Again, please answer my question. Where did the Holy Spirit tell you Mark and Luke were written by Mark and Luke and they were inspired?

2 Timothy 3:16 says they're inspired, it doesnt leave out the books of Mark and Luke.

italo: Who do you mean by "Apostles" - the bold. Simple!

I mean all those reffered to in the Bible as apostles!
Period!

italo: Then I cant think of any Tradition (which is a doctrine) which doesnt even have any sort of hint in the Bible.

so, which extra-biblical tradition (traditition not included in scripture) do you claim you practice?

You have declared many times that not all 'relevant' truths are in the bible and some are in tradition. (relevant there is included by me)

....and you mentioned something about misinterpreting at least, one part of the scripture.

Well, As long as I have the Holy Spirit guiding me whenever I study them, I cant misinterprete even one.

italo: Just as is the case with the necessity of belief in Jesus, belief in his Church, so it is with reception of the Eucharist.

regarding the bold, I have a question.

Are the Orthodox, Methodist, Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran etc also part of the church of Christ?

italo: God wont punish one who truly doesn't know it to be what the Catholic Church says it is. The one who knows...and rejects it "will have no life in him."

is there anywhere/reference this claim can be affirmed?

italo: Perhaps this question will clarify some of these things:

Will everybody who doesn't "believe in Jesus as his/her personal Lord and saviour" go ti hell?

The question of going to hell or not, I don't know.

What I know and perfectly sure of is that salvation is only from one source/by one name and that is affirmed by Acts 4:12.

Syncan: I mean when you see a virtue exhibited, eg He said something like, I am sorry, you are right. Its such a rare virtue among Christians in NL. I expected an acknowledgement. You did refer to it in a way later, and that's why i said your post seems to have a balance now. More so, you left some of his expose and commented on those you find faulty. The ones you left, are they wrong or right?

alright, I got that. Thanks.

If I have left any post untouched/unanswered, It most likely means its not contrary to what I believe.

....and any post I reply with a question is either not verifiable or does not not have a direct answer from/by me but most likely, the (honest) answer to the question (by the poster) is exactly the answer.

Ubenedictus: the rebirth of water nd d holy spirit isn't for judaism or any other sect, it belongs to the church as established by christ on the apostles. What part do you not understand. Another quote will be, 'unless u eat my body and drink my blood you shall have no life in you' it is the church that is given e power to make bread and wine the body and blood of christ.

you have said well.

The birth of water and the spirit is for christians.....Jesus told Nicodemus when he was explaining 'being born again'.

And regarding the eucharist, does your statement mean that any christian that doesnt take it is unsaved (and perhaps, will go to hell)?

italo: We also have the following books:
Gospel of Thomas
Gospel of Truth
Gospel of the Twelve
Gospel of Peter
Gospel of Basilides
Gospel of the Egyptians
Gospel of the Hebrews
Gospel of Matthias
Traditions of Matthias
Preaching of Peter
Acts of Andrew
Acts of Paul
Acts of John
Epistle to the Laodiceans
I Clement
Epistle of Barnabas
Didache
Shepherd of Hermas
Apocalypse of Peter

Why are these 'apostolic' books not in the NT with the 27?
Who wrote Hebrews? Which Apostle?

why dont we have the all the apocryphal books in your bible?


The author of the epistle to the hebrews is not identified in the epistle.

italo: Apostolic Tradition=Catholic Church Tradition and I have shown why in my reply to truthislight.

But if you reject it, then tell me the following:

1. Where the Holy Spirit mentioned that we must follow the "apostles's" tradition.
2. We must "not follow Catholic tradition."
3. We must "not follow canon tradition."
4. Where the Holy Spirit told you that Mark wrote "Mark" and Luke wrote "Luke" and that those books were inspired by him.
5. Who is an apostle and where did the Holy Spirit tell you that?

1. Is this not the same you have been saying over and over 'the Holy spirit tell us to hold fast to traditions' or has it been changed?

2, 3. I'll show you if you'll also show me where the Holy Spirit commands us to follow 'catholic traditions', 'canon traditions'.

4. Where did the Holy Spirit indicate that the book of Job was inspired by Him and why did you guys adopt it if wasnt indicated?

5. As far as the bible is concerned, Apostles refer to themselves as Apostles and other too refer to them as Apostles.

italo: It depends on what you mean by "silent." That the Bible is silent about something or not can be a very vague expression. E.g there are people who believe the Bible is silent on Trinity simply because they dont find the word there.

what I mean by 'silent' ; the bible doesnt mention it explicitly neither does it give any hint on the subject matter.

italo: Also, you have previously stated more than once that you are infallible.

Does this mean that you are always correct with whatever you say or teach on faith and morals; and whenever you interpret scripture?

Or could you possibly be wrong on at least one of your teachings and interpretations of scripture?

Infallible following the Holy Spirit's guidance.....

Ubenedictus: the place they taught that 'unless you are born of water and the holy spirit you cant enter d kingdom of God' the birth of water and spirit is of the church.

If I may ask, what exactly does the bold mean and how is it of the church?

Ubenedictus: the neccesity of the church didn't start from florence, cyprian, augustine, Jesus and paul are just a few who taught that the church was necessary for salvation. I taught you knew that from your readings of the church father or did you simply pass over it wen reading?

regarding the bold

sorry, where did they teach this?

If its in the bible, can you please, give the references.

Syncan: I believe you know, for your later posts suggest a balance.

I asked because I dont wanna make a wrong conclusion of your statement.

Positive and negative.....do u mean right teachings (from the catholic church) and wrong/questionable teachings from other churches outside the catholic church?

I'm open to corrections.

Ubenedictus: in a sense they follow tradition, atleast in using 27 books, but using 27 books isn't the only tradition. Accepting one and throwing away the rest is hypocrisy.

but Italo stated that other traditions have their principles in the bible...and my post mentions 'christians following all principles found in the bible' (re-phrased)....

....and on the other hand, what are these other traditions that they don't follow.

I often visit this thread to check out interesting conversations of teens (like me) ....it really helps boredom caused by....you know

italo: My earlier statement regarding this is not a categorical statement meaning the principle for the Canon of the NT is not in the Bible. I said, 'if I must give you one tradition that isnt in the Bible.' I deliberately pointed that out because you Protestants expect everything "scriptural" to be explicitly spelt out in Scripture. So based on your Protestant belief, none of you can tell me that the Canon of the New Testament is scriptural, rather, it is Tradition, yet you adhere to it.

lets examine the 'NT canon tradition' or catholic tradition or whatever you may call it..... did not originate from the Apostles.

What we have ie: the Gospels and the Epistles are works of the apostles and other insipired men meant for the church. I guess you dont expect these to be ignored by the church.

The Holy Spirit instructs that traditions that are learnt from the Apostles should be adhered to...not the roman catholic tradition or 'canon tradition'

To make things easier,
What exactly are these traditions of the apostles?
Just name at least one of these traditions that the Bible is silent about (that was what I requested in the first place).

italo: That's the point I was trying to drive home.But indeed, the Principle for every Tradition can be found in scripture, to one degree or another, even the Canon of the NT.That's the contradiction in their theology we have been pointing out for ages.In sticking to the 27 books (not explicitly listed in the Bible), they put their faith in Catholic Tradition.In even accepting the authorship and authenticity of the books of the NT, they put their faith in Catholic Tradition. But in the usage and interpretation of the same books, they reject and then demonize Catholic Tradition.That is the gross contradiction and hypocrisy that we complain about.

Thank God you admitted re-affirmed the bold.


....and you mentioned something about 'accepting the books and disregarding the explanation' (re-phrased) as hypocrisy.
Thats no hypocrisy, those epistles are from the apostles and they state that they can be self-understood though there are some 'uneasy' parts which can as well be understood with a comprehensive study...all these with the Holy Spirit's guidance.

italo: Both.

alright then.
We're moving fine so far.

If all traditions' principles are found in the bible and the only one left out is the NT itself, now, those who use the bible (applying its principles) and make use of the NT (having exactly 27 books), can it be concluded that they follow tradition?

Abu Mikey:

And Fuel just got finished on the generator!!!

perfect completion.
Kudos!!

That awkward moment when you plug in your fone for 3hrs only to discover that you did not switch on the socket.

italo: The Bible might not explicitly name each oral tradition but the principle of all them can be found in scripture.

However, if you must have one that the Bible is silent on, I'd say the canon of the New Testament.

The New Testament contains 27 books. No more, no less.

Nowhere does the Bible mention this.

If the principles for applying the oral traditions are taught in the scripture, then the scripture is still a reference source for oral tradition.

Then, I have this question for you concerning your reply.

Is the new testament canon a doctrine/tradition?

Syncan: The thread is moving fine so far, @adstone I wish you could be able to see both positive and negative, for now it seems you are blind to one.

just an observation

kindly explain your observation.

What do you mean by 'positive and negative'?

On this thread, I'd like to make my opinion/questions known to catholic members (without criticism) and I'll like to receive polite answers/opinions in line with my posts.

I'll quote others and expect to receive responses from them. However, the post is also open to others who have answers (in line with the questions) too.

Thanks

Ubenedictus: do you read revelation alone?

my answer: NO

Kindly re-read Italo's post that prompted that reply.

By the way, He has replied and his respose is quite satisfactory.