Did God institute High Priests, Baptism, Eucharist, Papacy?

[dreadnought]

All of this stuff has already been hashed out by the professionals and The Holy Spirit. Councils et al.
One of my retired Priests used to say. "It's not rocket science."

It's all history.

Forgive me...

I think it would be a mistake to let professionals and councils do our thinking for us. As for the Holy Spirit, he is our teacher.

 

[dreadnought]

Revealed Truth to mankind, from God the Son and from His Holy Spirit, is necessary. God has revealed much more than simply "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand"! Right? Our mission, from Him, includes this:

Mt 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Mt 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."​

I think we make things more complicated than they really are.

 

[fide]

I am an impatient, old man. I don't have the attention span to read long posts.

I am impatient, too. An imperfection that I battle daily. And I too am an old man - who ought to know better by now. Let's pray for one another...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I think it would be a mistake to let professionals and councils do our thinking for us. As for the Holy Spirit, he is our teacher.

The Holy Spirit is that final hurdle.
If a council's proclomation is accepted by all the Churches over time to have expressed "what has been believed by all, everwhere from the beginning", then it comes to be known as an ecumenical council. We believe that such acceptence is a sign of The Holy Spirit.

There are seven that are considered ecumenical by Eastern Orthodox Christians.

This is in contrast to Rome calling an ecumenical council, and labeling it such as dictated.

Forgive me...

 

[dreadnought]

The Holy Spirit is that final hurdle.
If a council's proclomation is accepted by all the Churches over time to have expressed "what has been believed by all, everwhere from the beginning", then it comes to be known as an ecumenical council. We believe that such acceptence is a sign of The Holy Spirit.

There are seven that are considered ecumenical by Eastern Orthodox Christians.

This is in contrast to Rome calling an ecumenical council, and labeling it such as dictated.

Forgive me...

I wouldn't let councils do my thinking for me.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I wouldn't let councils do my thinking for me.

Well lets see. They decided on the books that would be used in the services. You know, the bible.
They decided what days to have which commemorations on... Easter and Christmas.
They decided that Christ saying Christ was not God was not Christian.
They decided not to make you get circumcised.
Forgive me...

 

[dreadnought]

Well lets see. They decided on the books that would be used in the services. You know, the bible.
They decided what days to have which commemorations on... Easter and Christmas.
They decided that Christ saying Christ was not God was not Christian.
They decided not to make you get circumcised.
Forgive me...

Put your trust in the Lord, not in councils.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Put your trust in the Lord, not in councils.

Acts 15:28 KJV — For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

Forgive me...

 

[dreadnought]

Acts 15:28 KJV — For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

Forgive me...

Yes, the Lord wanted to keep things as simple as possible.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Yes, the Lord wanted to keep things as simple as possible.

Councils are called in response to a problem. Very few have made it to the stage of proving to the believers that The Holy Spirit approves. That is to say, everyone gives their AXIOS! (Approval)

The creed also comes from the councils, as a dogmatic statement used for baptism and Christian training.

We only have seven, the ones that everyone eventually argreed.

Forgive me...

 

[kepha31]

While Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew 16:18-19), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere declares that he was in authority over the other apostles or over the church (see Acts 15:1-23; Galatians 2:1-14; 1 Peter 5:1-5). Nor is it ever taught that the bishop of Rome was to have primacy over the church. Rather, there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome, found in 1 Peter 5:13. Primarily from this, and the historical rise of the influence of the bishop of Rome (due to the support of Constantine and the Roman emperors who followed him), come the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20) and that the “loosing and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11).

2) Nowhere does Scripture state that in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (the idea behind apostolic succession). Apostolic succession is “read into” those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2-5; Titus 1:5; 2:1; 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:19-22). What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is cited in the Bible as infallible. The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers. Paul does NOT commend them to “the apostles and those who would carry on their authority,” but rather to “God and to the word of His grace” (Acts 20:28-32).

Again, the Bible teaches that it is Scripture that is to be used as measuring stick to determine truth from error. In Galatians 1:8-9, Paul states that it is not WHO teaches but WHAT is being taught that is to be used to determine truth from error. While the Roman Catholic Church continues to pronounce a curse to hell, or “anathema,” upon those who would reject the authority of the pope, Scripture reserves that curse for those who would teach a different gospel (Galatians 1:8-9).

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

(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.) Note: Peter speaks of Paul’s writings in the same category as other Scripture (2 Peter 3:16),

(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).

While there have seemingly been good (humanly speaking) and moral men who have served as pope of the Roman Catholic Church—some point to Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis I as examples—the Roman Catholic teaching about the office of the pope should be rejected because it is not “in continuity” with the teachings of the New Testament. This comparison of any church’s teaching is essential, lest we miss the New Testament’s teaching concerning the gospel and not only miss eternal life in heaven ourselves but unwittingly lead others down the wrong path (Galatians 1:8-9).

It's too bad the Early Church Fathers (whom you have nothing to do with) didn't put a copy write on the canon of Scripture that wasn't fully realized until 397 AD at the Council of Carthage.
Since you are such an anti-Catholic you should delete all the chapter and verse numbers. The Bible was divided into chapters by Bishop Stephen Langton in the 13th century, and into verses in the 15th and 16th centuries.
It's obvious you don't know what infallibility means, no sola scripturist does. Your multi-topic rant is just the same old garden variety anti-Catholic gibberish.

 

[dreadnought]

Councils are called in response to a problem. Very few have made it to the stage of proving to the believers that The Holy Spirit approves. That is to say, everyone gives their AXIOS! (Approval)

The creed also comes from the councils, as a dogmatic statement used for baptism and Christian training.

We only have seven, the ones that everyone eventually argreed.

Forgive me...

The Lord's commandments are clear, aren't they?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

The Lord's commandments are clear, aren't they?

Not for some apparently. I mean, you have seen the vast number of arguments here...

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Weve all relied on councils, even if were not aware of it. Tis our history.

Forgive me...

 

[kepha31]

The Lord's commandments are clear, aren't they?

The Lord's commands were clear to the heretic Arius, who taught Jesus was created (refuted at the Council of Nicae)

The Lord's commands were clear to the heretic Nestorius, who claimed that Mary only bore Christ’s human nature in her womb. (like some Protestants today) Refuted at the Council of Ephesus.

The Lord's commands were clear to the heretic Pelagius who denied that we inherit original sin from Adam’s sin in the Garden and claimed that we become sinful only through the bad example of the sinful community into which we are born. Refuted at the Council of Orange.

The Lord's commands were clear to every heretic down through the centuries, and every one of them were sola scripturists.

The Divinity or Godhood of Christ was only finalized in 325 at the Council of Nicaea, and the full doctrine of the Trinity in 381 at the Council of Constantinople. The dogma of the Two Natures of Christ (God and Man) was proclaimed in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon. These decisions of General Councils of the Church were in response to challenging heresies. Why should Protestants accept these authoritative verdicts, but reject similar proclamations on Church government, the Eucharist, Mary, Purgatory, etc.?

The pick-and-choose doesn't make sense, and neither does railing against the authority of the Church that developed trinitarian theology, which is accepted by all 3 main branches of Christianity.

 

[dreadnought]

Not for some apparently. I mean, you have seen the vast number of arguments here...

Forgive me...

I'm sure some people here believe the sabbath should be Sunday and others, Saturday. We could elect a seven-member council to decided the matter, and they might decide on Saturday, by a vote of four to three. It really wouldn't change anything, though, would it?

 

[dreadnought]

The Lord's commands were clear to the heretic Arius, who taught Jesus was created (refuted at the Council of Nicae)

The Lord's commands were clear to the heretic Nestorius, who claimed that Mary only bore Christ’s human nature in her womb. (like some Protestants today)

The Lord's commands were clear to the heretic Pelagius who denied that we inherit original sin from Adam’s sin in the Garden and claimed that we become sinful only through the bad example of the sinful community into which we are born.

The Lord's commands were clear to every heretic down through the centuries, and every one of them were sola scripturists.

Satan can spin anything.

 

[dreadnought]

Weve all relied on councils, even if were not aware of it. Tis our history.

Forgive me...

We learn things as kids, but we need to revisit and verify those things when we get older.

 

[jaison jose]

It's too bad the Early Church Fathers (whom you have nothing to do with) didn't put a copy write on the canon of Scripture that wasn't fully realized until 397 AD at the Council of Carthage.
Since you are such an anti-Catholic you should delete all the chapter and verse numbers. The Bible was divided into chapters by Bishop Stephen Langton in the 13th century, and into verses in the 15th and 16th centuries.
It's obvious you don't know what infallibility means, no sola scripturist does. Your multi-topic rant is just the same old garden variety anti-Catholic gibberish.

o i am really sorry
really sorry it was copied from a site and took the wrong one
i am not anti catholic...it ws by mistake
pls forgive me...
after reading i to realise how what rubbish i have shown its illogical
pls forgive me....i ll try not to repeat

 

[Bible2+]

Monk Brendan said in post #205:

The distance between Rome and Jerusalem is 4,102.3 km. Jesus was crucified in one, and the other is the harlot of Babylon, correct?

No, for note that while the corrupt aspects of Rome (as of all other cities) are included in what Revelation's symbolic harlot "Babylon" (Revelation chapters 17-18) represents, it represents much more than just the corrupt aspects of Rome. For Rome just by itself doesn't reign over the kings of the earth (Revelation 17:18). Nor is Rome the only city which buys merchandise (Revelation 18:11). Nor has Rome killed all Christian martyrs who have ever been killed (Revelation 18:24). Nor has Rome just by itself corrupted the entire world (Revelation 18:3). Nor has Rome been continuously supported by the empires of fallen mankind throughout history (Revelation 17:9-10). Instead, Revelation's symbolic "Babylon" represents all of fallen mankind's corrupt political (Revelation 17:18), economic (Revelation 18:11) and religious (Revelation 18:24) systems throughout the earth (Revelation 18:3) and throughout history (Revelation 17:9-10).

Monk Brendan said in post #205:

In other words, there are two or more Jerusalems, and we have to listen to the Holy Spirit to know which one to use at the proper point in Scripture?

There are 2 Jerusalems, one on earth and the other in heaven (Hebrews 12:22). The latter is called New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:2).

New Jerusalem is a literal city, 1,500 miles cubed (Revelation 21:16), with literal pearly gates and literal streets of gold (Revelation 21:21). It's God the Father's house in the 3rd heaven (Revelation 21:2-3, cf. 2 Corinthians 12:2b,4, Revelation 2:7b, Revelation 22:2,14), in which house Jesus Christ left to prepare a place for the Church (John 14:2). All those in the Church, whether Jews or Gentiles, have figuratively come to New Jerusalem by coming under the New Covenant (Hebrews 12:22-24, Galatians 4:24-26), which is made only with Israel (Jeremiah 31:31-34), and which only the Church comes under by believing in Jesus' New Covenant suffering and death on the Cross for our sins (Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6, Hebrews 9:15), the very heart of the Gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).

The Church looks for Jesus Christ's future, Second Coming, from heaven (Philippians 3:20), and the setting up of the physical aspect of His Kingdom on the earth with the physically resurrected Church for 1,000 years (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29), a time period commonly called the Millennium. New Jerusalem won't descend from the 3rd heaven to the earth until after the future, New Earth (a new surface of the earth) has been created (Revelation 21:1-4), sometime after the future Millennium and subsequent events (Revelation 20:7-15). The Church will physically live and reign in New Jerusalem with God the Father and Jesus on the New Earth (Revelation 21:1 to 22:5). The Father and Jesus themselves will be the only temple in New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:22).