re: If there was ever a Vatican III. What changes should be made to the Church?

Reverse Vatican II

If it was

quote:

---

a theological issue

---

There wouldn’t be any

quote:

---

exceptions

---

quote:

---

remove idol worship.

---

can you describe this "idol worship"?

PAY TAXES

quote:

---

That said, there are quotes speaking of the unique authority of scripture from many of the church fathers, including Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Hippolytus, just to name a few

---

Of course they speak of the authority of scripture. But I’d love to see you quote from the church fathers that say only scripture and not the church has the authority.

Secondly, we don’t disagree about the authority of the scripture, we disagree about who has the authority to define dogma and doctrine. You will find the church fathers are on our side with that one.

quote:

---

Also, as I stated in the last response, the authority of the Church didn't determine what the scriptures were; the authority of the scriptures were accepted by the Church.

---

How do you know which of the books are to be considered scripture? Not even the old testament was accepted as it is now at the time of Jesus.

quote:

---

The apostles were fellow elders (1 Pet. 5:1) along side of those who were chosen/elected in the churches (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). While the apostles had special authority in terms of revelation being given to them that they wrote down as scripture, they did not "rule" the Church like the Pope as a head, but as part of the broader Church.

---

If the apostles didn’t have any authority or any more than any common man. Why did Jesus give Peter the keys and later the disciples the authority to bind and loose. Clearly Jesus intended for them to have some authority.

quote:

---

Of course they speak of the authority of scripture. But I’d love to see you quote from the church fathers that say only scripture and not the church has the authority.

---

The questions isn't about authority generally, but about the highest authority. Sola scriptura teaches that God's word in the holy scriptures is the highest authority for the Christian and the only authority that can bind the conscience of a Christian, and therefore if a tradition or teaching or dogma comes from a source other than the scriptures, they are to be subservient to the scriptures. Sacred tradition, therefore, is not equal in authority the scriptures but under the authority of the scriptures.

For example: as a Reformed, Protestant Christian, I subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith as an accurate summary of what the scriptures principally teach. I refer to it often in matters of doctrine, yet I understand that it is only good for use in as far as it accurately and faithfully describes or represents biblical truth. If there is any matter that the WCF addresses unbiblically or if it describes or commands anything that is not in accordance with the Bible, I must disregard it for the truth of scripture. That is what sola scriptura is about.

That said, I actually found a site that has several examples if you want to peruse it, but here are a couple:

Irenaeus (175)
“They [heretics] gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

For they [the Apostles] were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon to the Church, but if they should fall away, the direst calamity. Proofs of the things which are contained in the Scriptures cannot be shown except from the Scriptures themselves.” (Against Heresies, 1:8:1, 3:1:1, 3:3:1, 3:12:9)


Augustine (354–430)
“In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind. In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself.” – Augustine (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 11:5)

quote:

---

Secondly, we don’t disagree about the authority of the scripture, we disagree about who has the authority to define dogma and doctrine. You will find the church fathers are on our side with that one.

---

Yet again, the scriptures alone bind the conscience of the Christian, and no one--not any Council, Pope, Bishop, Priest, Pastor, Elder, Deacon, street preacher, or lay person--has the authority to go against sacred scripture. If any of those contradict the scriptures, their authority must be disregarded in favor of the authority of the scriptures. Just as the civil magistrate has the authority to command what he will to the Christian civilian, yet he cannot command the Christian to disobey God, and if he attempts it, the Christian has the responsibility to defy such a command. The Christian must study the scriptures to ensure that those placed in authority over him in the Church is not commanding or teaching anything that contradicts the scriptures.

quote:

---

How do you know which of the books are to be considered scripture? Not even the old testament was accepted as it is now at the time of Jesus.

---

Roman/Jewish historian Josephus (37-100 AD) provided a list of the books of the Old Testament, and they are the same as the books we recognize in Protestant Bibles. The Jews at the time had fewer numbers of total books because they lumped several of them together into one writing, but the contents are there.

In regards to how do we know what is and isn't scripture, there are some tests that are generally used to help us accept what is inspired vs. what isn't:

1) Was the author of the material one of the apostles or one of their associates?
2) Was the material accepted as Scripture by the Church generally or broadly?
3) Were the material's teachings consistent in doctrine and teaching, especially in relation to that which was already considered scripture?
4) Did the material appear to reflect the inspirational work of the Spirit by the moral and spiritual values it presented?

ETA: I might add that these tests are not used to determine or to create an authority of a writing as scripture, but they are used for the Church to help them receive that which already is scripture and has inherent authority over the Christian due to its inspiration from God. In other words, the authority of scripture comes from God, not by a designation from man.

quote:

---

If the apostles didn’t have any authority or any more than any common man. Why did Jesus give Peter the keys and later the disciples the authority to bind and loose. Clearly Jesus intended for them to have some authority.

---

The leaders within the Church do have authority. The elders/overseers especially have been given the gospel (the "keys") to preach and to ensure the members of the Church are showing fruits of the Spirit of Christ according to the scriptures. If a professing Christian is unrepentant, the leaders have the authority to discipline (excommunicate) the individual and seek his repentance and restoration, and these represent the binding and loosing. The authority, however, is derived from Christ, and therefore no leader in the Church has the authority to usurp Christ's authority and to add to or take away from what Christ has given to His Church in the scriptures.

We are supposed to submit ourselves to our leaders. I, personally, took a vow of church membership that I would submit to the authority and correction of the elders/session of my church, yet those men are bound to govern and lead as under-shepherds of Jesus Christ, not to be shepherds in their own authority but to shepherd the flock of Christ in obedience to Him, as those who will have to given an account for their actions to the Good Shepherd.

So yes, the apostles did have authority above the "common man", but their authority was not of themselves, but of God. They were sent out to build up Christ's Church and to teach the flock those things which are necessary for salvation and to show how that plays out in the life of a Christian. They were fellow elders or overseers of the flock of Christ in terms of ruling and shepherding, and that's the paradigm that I believe has been set in the scriptures for church government. No one man is the "head" of the Church but Christ Himself, but He has established offices within His Church for stewardship over the people and the ministry of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

quote:

---

No one is doubting the authority of Scripture.

---

This whole division in terms of Catholic vs. Protestant falls down to the authority of scripture. If scripture can be contradicted, it isn't authoritative.

quote:

---

What we doubt is the ability of individual anti-Catholics to give us the final word on the interpretation of Scripture and to convince us that they are a better authority than 2,000 years of Church doctrinal development

---

You miss the point. Us "anti-Catholics" aren't (or shouldn't be) telling you to take our word for it. We're saying that all Christians have the responsibility to be like the Bereans and test all doctrine by the word of God.

If 2,000 years of Church doctrinal development started early on with accepting things that were not biblical but then added to that unbiblical doctrine, why would we continue to support such things due to the ancientness of the error? That's precisely why the Reformation went back to the scriptures, because the Reformers believed that the word of God was a better and higher authority than even the wisest fallible humans.

As a wise man once said (paraphrased), "all Christians have the right to interpret scripture, but no one has the right to misinterpret scripture". We should always use scripture to interpret scripture, and the leaders and theologians of the Church can and are helpful in pointing out where scripture interprets itself. It's why each Christian should value tradition, leadership and authority, and those men who God has blessed with insight into the scriptures to help them understand the word of God. But even so, I believe in the perspicuity of the scriptures, whereby it is clear enough for the lay person to read and know all that is required for salvation.

quote:

---

The stance on divorce could be looked at. Let's say someone loses their spouse to cancer after 40. Their choices for a new relationship are severely limited, and the annulment process is a joke.

---

Too much to quote and respond to as I would have to break it into two posts, and I don’t want to do that.

It seems the question of who has the authority to interpret the scripture. We agree that scripture has authority and, as you put it, the highest authority. Scripture is the ultimate litmus test, so to speak because if something directly contradicts scripture, it cannot possibly be the truth.

The problem I outlined earlier is the problem of heresies and scriptural interpretation. Take a heresy like Arianism, they claim that Jesus Christ is not God but a creature. They use scripture such as Mark 10:18 (and related passages) to argue that Jesus denies he is divine. If we are to rely only on the scripture to refute what Arias claims, we will never win an argument or be able to settle the dispute. Only the authority of a living teaching authority can settle that dispute. The Council of Nicea was brought together to address this heresy, and its creed still is in use today.

I believe that Christian denominations exist because of the work of the early Church. Things we take for granted today were highly debated in the early church, without the living teaching office these disputes may have never been resolved and we may still be arguing about the divinity of Jesus.

Dei Verbum from Vatican II describes it nicely

quote:

---

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

---

The question of the authority of Peter and the Apostles is best understood by Matthew 16 and Peter's declaration that Jesus is the Christ. Not only does he say that he is Peter and on this Rock I will build my Church (Rock and Peter are the same in Aremeic) Secondly he gives the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter in Matthew 16. It's key to understand Matthew 16 in light of Isaiah 22:22. When the King is absent he gives his keys (authority) to someone else to rule in his name. He gives Peter the Authority to rule in his name in Matthew 16:19. Jesus is the ultimate authority in Heaven and Earth, he is the cornerstone of the Church. However before he comes again Jesus gave the keys to Peter and his successors. Jesus gives authority to the 12 in John 20:23 when he gives the the power to forgive sins, and giving them the Holy Spirit.

Scripture is clear about the authority of St. Peter and the body of Apostles, which has continued through their successors the Bishops and the Pope.

BTW we don't disagree that the shepherds of the Church must follow Jesus alone, the true shepherd of the Sheep.

Yes Jesus is the head of the Church, but the visible Church on earth has a visible head on earth and that is St. Peter's successor Pope Francis.