Catholics CAN'T Answer This Question!!!

[Darrel Slugoski]

The bottom line truth is.....There is NO defense at all for the Church of Rome!

The issue concerning any church and its practices should be “Is this biblical?”
If the teachings and doctrines of any Christian church are not Biblical then it can not be a Christian church.

If a teaching is Biblical, it should be embraced. If it is not, it should be rejected. God is more interested in whether a church is doing His will and obeying His Word than whether it can trace a line of succession back to Jesus’ apostles.

I must first show that the early church did believe in Apostolic Succession Acts 1:15-26 the Apostials intended that the office and teaching authority would be perpetuated through the ages in the office of Bishop
"..........concerning Judas who was guid to those who arrested Jesus for he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry...for it is written in the book of Psalms " let his habitation become desolate and let there be no one live in it";"his office let another take'....Barsabbas who was named Justus and Matthias. And then they prayed and said lord who knowest the hears of all men show which one of these two thuo has chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside ogo to his own place.And they cast lots for them and fell on Matthias and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles "

Eusebius the first historian of the Church in his History of the Church (c325)begins by saying that one of the " chief matters " to be dealt with in his work is " the Lines of Succession from the Holy Apostles" You can read numerous early Church Fathers who will state their beliefs in Apostolic Succession and that the believe that thei authority was passed on by the laying on of hands to ordain future shepards (bishops ) of the Church .

In 1 Thess 2:6,7 Paul identifies two other men as 'apostles"-Silvanus and Timothy who were ordained as bishops and having apostolic authority .In 1 Thess 2:7 Paul is speaking in the plural form (we,our)as he teaches the Thessalonians . While it is true that all Christians ( including yourself) are literally "apostles " ( Greek;one who is sent ) by virtue of their Baptism this passage implies the office in a particular sense .This plural implies St Paul ment his audience to understand that Timothy and Silvanus also exercised apostical authority in a special way 2 Tim 1:6

The early Church Fathers believed in Apostolic succession Just as the Oriental Anglican, Eastern Orthodox sill do to this day .

On a side note, The word Catholic was first used by St Ignatius 107 ad bishop of Antioch while he was being escorted under guard to Rome where he was martyred . "see that you follow the bishops even as Jesus Christ follows the Father and the Presbytery as you would the apostles;and reverence the deacons as being the institution of God.Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let there be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is celebrated either the bishop or by oe whom he entrusted it .Where ever the Bishop shall appear there let the multitude (faithful) also be;even as wherever Jesus Christ is the is the Catholic Church " 9 Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8)

The apostles appointed others to their office. The Apostials also had the power to" bind and loose .( Mat 16:19,18:18;John 20:23

Eph 2:20 church is build upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets
Eph 4:11 God gave some as apostles ,others as prophets
1 Cor 12:28-29 God designated in church apostles,..
Acts 1:20- let another take his office
Acts 1:25-26-Matthias takes Judas apostolic ministry
1 Tim 3:1,8;5:17 -refers to qualifications for Bishops,priests and deacons
1 Tim 4:14 gift of the office of apostle conferred with the laying on of hands which has been practiced by the Orthodox and Catholic Church till this very day . The Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox office of bishops and their Apostolic Succession ( we do not recognize the office of bishop in the Anglican Church )
1 Tim-5:22 do not lay hands too readily on any one .
Acts 14:23-they appointed presbyters in each church.
2 Tim 2:2 What you have heard from me entrust to faithful teachers .
TiTus 1:5-appoint presbyters in every town as i directed

These bishops also had the authority
1 Jurisdiction over priests and local churches, and the power to ordain Acts 14:22;1 Tim 5:22;2 Tim1:6;Titis 1:5
2 special responsibility to rebuke false doctrine and to excommunicate others who were teaching falsely:Acts 8:14-24;1 Cor 16:22;Tim 5:20;Tim 4:2;Titis 1:10-11
3 Power to bestow Confirmation ( receiving of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit)Acts 8:14-17;19:5-6
4 Management of Church finances: 1 Tim 3:3-4;1 Peter 5:2


There peculiar Catholic doctrines , many of which are held by the Eastern Orthodox ( through history = 2000 years ). The majority of beliefs are held by us such as : Confession,Mother of God,Eucharist,Baptism,Holy Orders,Apostolic Succession,Use of Councils, Role of the bishop, Sacred Tradition ,Prayer to the saints ....................I say this because the Oriental, Eastern Orthodox also hold to many but not all doctrines with the Catholic Church .It is important to show this was the majority view in the early Church . Because , the further away you go from the Protestant Reformation the more the protestant churches contradict each other. The further a church goes from the catholic Church the more they contradict each other and have to defend their existence as opposed to The Catholic Church . The Catholic Church is opposed by Protestants, Islam ,Satanists ,mansions ,secular culture,atheists.... And each defines itself in contradiction to this Church , claiming their understanding is the only true way . ( and rightfully so,if you believe in something you should stand up for it ) .But Rome has the courage to state there are other true Christians outside of ours who are saved . I don't always get that same respect. ( John 10:16 ) " I have other sheep that don't belong to this fold.These also i must lead and they will hear my voice and there will be one flock,one shepherd "

I am still not done I have only shown That Rome was seen to have the presidency and the earl Church held to Apostolic succession . I must still say more about this Church and the papacy . Which I will do .Now no where in scripture does Christ say his church should be divided and teach different things ." is Christ divided" 2Tim1:14 .Peter warns us about false teachers among Christians who would " secretly bring in destructive heresies" which go against the way of truth " Pet 2:1-2. Paul warns of dissension, quarreling ,divisions,factions,party affiliations;

1 Tim 6:3-5
Titus 3:9-11

As a result there must be one truth , one teaching and one Church . Sounds arrogant , but truth demands it . Christ call his Church 1 Tim 3:15 - Church called " the pillar and ground ( foundation ) of truth. " ( Orthodox Claim this for themselves being also one of the original Churches ) Christ did not say there should be multiple truths and churches who contradict each other .

Now of course you will deny all I have written to defend your churches existence . Or deny any Catholic defense . Which you are compelled to do . Just maybe you may see some logic to it.

 

[Darrel Slugoski]

I do not accept the idea that what is being said to you about the RCC is out of hate or ignorance.

Most of the people here that are talking to you were in fact Catholic believers at one time so the thought of ignorance is not valid at all.

There are several Catholic believers who in fact act angry most of the time and always make personal comments, the Protestant believers who post information to you are doing it out of a heart of love in that they want you to know the truth of the Scriptures so that you might grow in faith and knowledge of God's Word.

I can say AMEN to that. I am defending what i believe . You are a Christian first to me ! I see you have a good heart and I love you . I am just challenging beliefs against the CC . Not out of arrogance or to hurt others .

 

[Major1]

I must first show that the early church did believe in Apostolic Succession Acts 1:15-26 the Apostials intended that the office and teaching authority would be perpetuated through the ages in the office of Bishop
"..........concerning Judas who was guid to those who arrested Jesus for he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry...for it is written in the book of Psalms " let his habitation become desolate and let there be no one live in it";"his office let another take'....Barsabbas who was named Justus and Matthias. And then they prayed and said lord who knowest the hears of all men show which one of these two thuo has chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside ogo to his own place.And they cast lots for them and fell on Matthias and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles "

Eusebius the first historian of the Church in his History of the Church (c325)begins by saying that one of the " chief matters " to be dealt with in his work is " the Lines of Succession from the Holy Apostles" You can read numerous early Church Fathers who will state their beliefs in Apostolic Succession and that the believe that thei authority was passed on by the laying on of hands to ordain future shepards (bishops ) of the Church .

In 1 Thess 2:6,7 Paul identifies two other men as 'apostles"-Silvanus and Timothy who were ordained as bishops and having apostolic authority .In 1 Thess 2:7 Paul is speaking in the plural form (we,our)as he teaches the Thessalonians . While it is true that all Christians ( including yourself) are literally "apostles " ( Greek;one who is sent ) by virtue of their Baptism this passage implies the office in a particular sense .This plural implies St Paul ment his audience to understand that Timothy and Silvanus also exercised apostical authority in a special way 2 Tim 1:6

The early Church Fathers believed in Apostolic succession Just as the Oriental Anglican, Eastern Orthodox sill do to this day .

On a side note, The word Catholic was first used by St Ignatius 107 ad bishop of Antioch while he was being escorted under guard to Rome where he was martyred . "see that you follow the bishops even as Jesus Christ follows the Father and the Presbytery as you would the apostles;and reverence the deacons as being the institution of God.Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let there be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is celebrated either the bishop or by oe whom he entrusted it .Where ever the Bishop shall appear there let the multitude (faithful) also be;even as wherever Jesus Christ is the is the Catholic Church " 9 Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8)

The apostles appointed others to their office. The Apostials also had the power to" bind and loose .( Mat 16:19,18:18;John 20:23

Eph 2:20 church is build upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets
Eph 4:11 God gave some as apostles ,others as prophets
1 Cor 12:28-29 God designated in church apostles,..
Acts 1:20- let another take his office
Acts 1:25-26-Matthias takes Judas apostolic ministry
1 Tim 3:1,8;5:17 -refers to qualifications for Bishops,priests and deacons
1 Tim 4:14 gift of the office of apostle conferred with the laying on of hands which has been practiced by the Orthodox and Catholic Church till this very day . The Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox office of bishops and their Apostolic Succession ( we do not recognize the office of bishop in the Anglican Church )
1 Tim-5:22 do not lay hands too readily on any one .
Acts 14:23-they appointed presbyters in each church.
2 Tim 2:2 What you have heard from me entrust to faithful teachers .
TiTus 1:5-appoint presbyters in every town as i directed

These bishops also had the authority
1 Jurisdiction over priests and local churches, and the power to ordain Acts 14:22;1 Tim 5:22;2 Tim1:6;Titis 1:5
2 special responsibility to rebuke false doctrine and to excommunicate others who were teaching falsely:Acts 8:14-24;1 Cor 16:22;Tim 5:20;Tim 4:2;Titis 1:10-11
3 Power to bestow Confirmation ( receiving of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit)Acts 8:14-17;19:5-6
4 Management of Church finances: 1 Tim 3:3-4;1 Peter 5:2


There peculiar Catholic doctrines , many of which are held by the Eastern Orthodox ( through history = 2000 years ). The majority of beliefs are held by us such as : Confession,Mother of God,Eucharist,Baptism,Holy Orders,Apostolic Succession,Use of Councils, Role of the bishop, Sacred Tradition ,Prayer to the saints ....................I say this because the Oriental, Eastern Orthodox also hold to many but not all doctrines with the Catholic Church .It is important to show this was the majority view in the early Church . Because , the further away you go from the Protestant Reformation the more the protestant churches contradict each other. The further a church goes from the catholic Church the more they contradict each other and have to defend their existence as opposed to The Catholic Church . The Catholic Church is opposed by Protestants, Islam ,Satanists ,mansions ,secular culture,atheists.... And each defines itself in contradiction to this Church , claiming their understanding is the only true way . ( and rightfully so,if you believe in something you should stand up for it ) .But Rome has the courage to state there are other true Christians outside of ours who are saved . I don't always get that same respect. ( John 10:16 ) " I have other sheep that don't belong to this fold.These also i must lead and they will hear my voice and there will be one flock,one shepherd "

I am still not done I have only shown That Rome was seen to have the presidency and the earl Church held to Apostolic succession . I must still say more about this Church and the papacy . Which I will do .Now no where in scripture does Christ say his church should be divided and teach different things ." is Christ divided" 2Tim1:14 .Peter warns us about false teachers among Christians who would " secretly bring in destructive heresies" which go against the way of truth " Pet 2:1-2. Paul warns of dissension, quarreling ,divisions,factions,party affiliations;

1 Tim 6:3-5
Titus 3:9-11

As a result there must be one truth , one teaching and one Church . Sounds arrogant , but truth demands it . Christ call his Church 1 Tim 3:15 - Church called " the pillar and ground ( foundation ) of truth. " ( Orthodox Claim this for themselves being also one of the original Churches ) Christ did not say there should be multiple truths and churches who contradict each other .

Now of course you will deny all I have written to defend your churches existence . Or deny any Catholic defense . Which you are compelled to do . Just maybe you may see some logic to it.

I must speak to your assumption that the Apostles suggested Apostolic succession.

That is not true my friend. There is NO Bible Scriptures that suggest that there would be an Apostolic succession.

Now if your foundation is cracked, the roof will leak and I am telling you there are absolutely NO mention in the Bible of succession of the apostles.

Every single person on this web site knows what you are trying to say and that The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the leader of the apostles, with the greatest authority, and therefore his successors carry on the greatest authority.

You are promoting what you have been told that The Roman Catholic Church combines this belief with the concept that Peter later became the first bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishops that followed Peter were accepted by the early church as the central authority among all of the churches. Apostolic succession, combined with Peter’s supremacy among the apostles, results in the Roman bishop being the supreme authority of the Catholic Church – the Pope.

We all know that. Again, most here that are debating with you are x-Catholics for a reason.

However, nowhere in Scripture did Jesus, the apostles, or any other New Testament writer set forth the idea of “apostolic succession.”
I know that it is important for you to prove that and believe that but there is just NOTHING to prove what you want to believe.

Further, neither is Peter presented as “supreme” over the other apostles. The apostle Paul, in fact, rebukes Peter when Peter was leading others astray as seen in Gal. 2:11-14. Yes, the apostle Peter had a prominent role. Yes, perhaps the apostle Peter was the leader of the apostles (although the book of Acts records the apostle Paul and Jesus’ brother James as also having prominent leadership roles).

Whatever the case, Peter was not the “commander” or supreme authority over the other apostles. Even if apostolic succession could be demonstrated from Scripture, which it cannot, apostolic succession would not result in Peter’s successors being absolutely supreme over the other apostles’ successors.

In short, apostolic succession is not biblical. The concept of apostolic succession is never found in Scripture. What is found in Scripture is that the true church will teach what the Scriptures teach and will compare all doctrines and practices to Scripture in order to determine what is true and right.
Is apostolic succession biblical?

 

[Major1]

t NOTHIN

ooops!

 

[Darrel Slugoski]

ooops!

no worries ,I will respond to your last post latter this week. May God bless you and fight for what you believe in . May God bless you family . Thanks for engaging me ,please do not take offense to what i am saying . If we end up agreeing to disagree you will have my respect, sincerely .

 

[Arsenios]

The issue concerning any church and its practices should be “Is this biblical?”

What is your Biblical proof for this doctrine?

I do know that the Bible does say that the Ground and the Pillar of the Truth is the Ekklesia of God, which is the Body of our Lord, which is tHis Holy Church...

I am unaware of any doctrine that states that the Scripture which the Church gave to us should be the standard by which the Body of our Lord is to be judged... Indeed it clearly states that it is that very Body of Christ that judges the interpretation of the meaning of Scripture because that very Body is the Ground and the Pillar of the Truth, and not the Holy Book we read and reverence in our Services...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Thank you, brother . I am back to defend the Church of Rome. I believe God will unite our Churches , but you must defend you Orthodox faith here . I will not take offence .You may win over some to your Orthodox faith and if so I would be happy .

May God bless your efforts and continue to bless you...
So the instructions helped?
I happen to believe as you do, that God will unite the Western Church with the Eastern Communions...
You take good care!

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

And make sure that any quotes are from the first century or else you cannot claim that "these men were around in the beginning of the founding of the Church."

Some day we will have to discuss the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church"...
I suppose you agree that it has had some Covenants?
And that the last is the Covenant of the Body and Blood of Christ?

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

The Protestant believers who post information to you
are doing it out of a heart of love in that
they want you to know the truth of the Scriptures
so that you might grow in faith
and knowledge of God's Word.

I absolutely LOVE your unbridled optimism above...

The issue, of course, is not Scripture, but its interpretation...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

I must speak to your assumption that the Apostles suggested Apostolic succession.

Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms,
"Let his habitation be desolate,
and let no man dwell therein:
and his episcopacy let another take.

So tell me, is the EPISCOPATE [eg the Order of Bishops] Biblical?
Was Judas once given an Episcopacy?
Did he betray it?
Did he repent?
Did Peter betray his Episcopacy?
Did HE repent?

There is NO Bible Scriptures that suggest that there would be an Apostolic succession.

Act 1:22-23
Beginning from the baptism of John,
unto that same day that he was taken up from us,
one must be ordained to be a witness with us of His Resurrection.
And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas,
who were surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

So who must be ordained?

Peter was not the “commander” or supreme authority over the other apostles.

Well, certainly not Iakovos, John and Paul of Tarsus...

Even if apostolic succession could be demonstrated from Scripture, which it cannot,

To WHOM then did Christ give the command to GO, and DISCIPLE ALL THE NATIONS? It sure as straight shootin' was NOT commanded to Bible readers who wanted to be Missionaries! Because Christ gave that Command to the Apostles ALONE - To disciple, to teach, to Baptize - ONLY to the Apostles did He give that command...

apostolic succession would not result in Peter’s successors being absolutely supreme over the other apostles’ successors.

Well, it is good to see you entertaining this fall-back understanding...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

No,m i said Rome, but since you stated that Scripture was intended for public reading to the laity, and "NOT for their reading" which also was Rome's attitude, then as said, "what you need to show is that this reading was on purpose and even prevented by the NT church, since [under the premise]they held as you hold, that Scripture was intended for public reading to the laity, and 'NOT for their reading.'"

You still seem a little thick here, because, you see, the Laity, and indeed very often the clergy, were, in the early Ekklesia, ILLITERATE...

May I repeat: ILLITERATE...

So that the Sacred Art of the Church is a veritable Bible is images of form and color depicting its personages and events, and those of the Holy Ones of God who became pillars of the Church... These are the Iconagraphy of the Church... Likewise, the reading of the Holy Texts in the Services of the Church, gave to those who could not read or write, the Holy Images carved by the words and descriptions of events recorded in words by the Church at God's behest... So that the illiterate can attain to God's Word, eg to Jesus Christ...

And in this context, you come along and accuse us of discouraging people from having their own Bibles and reading them... I mean, that is disingenuous, my Brother... I mean, God did not originate His Gospel with the Literatti of the Greek intellectual Intelligentia in the Agora of Athens, but came to simple fishermen in a country ruled by evil leadership... So please refrain from charging the Orthodox Faith with depriving people of their own Bibles and reading them... That charge is the exact opposite of the Truth...

Once again this is closer to Gnosticism than Christianity, not that God cannot provide supernatural encounters, but you effectively make this the standard for Truth, elevating subjective personal encounters, while marginalizing the objective, Scripture, as a mere MEANS and a HELP to encounter God, but not as the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims which it is abundantly evidenced to be. but after the Power of an endless life.

Christ did not come into His creation as a Creature in order to write a Holy Book...

He came instead to establish a Holy People...

The Holy Ones of God are not worldly people...

Yes they do walk on the earth, but they are not OF the earth...

Look to how Ananias, who Baptized Saul into Christ's Body, and healed Saul's blindness, and gave to Saul the Holy Spirit, spoke with Christ as with a familiar Friend... THAT relationship with God is the Norm for those who are One with God in the Marriage of the Lamb in this life here and now on earth...

You can call that Gnosticism as a way of not dealing with the Biblical texts that show this relationship clearly, but that will not erase them from the Bible... The Ancient Faith of Christ has been discipling this relationship of Union with God from the beginnings... And the Gnostics found no home with us, because they scorned the narrow and straited path of repentance that attains to that Union...

Arsenios

 

[Major1]

Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms,
"Let his habitation be desolate,
and let no man dwell therein:
and his episcopacy let another take.

So tell me, is the EPISCOPATE [eg the Order of Bishops] Biblical?
Was Judas once given an Episcopacy?
Did he betray it?
Did he repent?
Did Peter betray his Episcopacy?
Did HE repent?



Act 1:22-23
Beginning from the baptism of John,
unto that same day that he was taken up from us,
one must be ordained to be a witness with us of His Resurrection.
And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas,
who were surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

So who must be ordained?



Well, certainly not Iakovos, John and Paul of Tarsus...



To WHOM then did Christ give the command to GO, and DISCIPLE ALL THE NATIONS? It sure as straight shootin' was NOT commanded to Bible readers who wanted to be Missionaries! Because Christ gave that Command to the Apostles ALONE - To disciple, to teach, to Baptize - ONLY to the Apostles did He give that command...



Well, it is good to see you entertaining this fall-back understanding...

Arsenios

Without a doubt, I am sure that you mean well. But in all seriousness you can not think that the verses you used are speaking about Apostolic succession my dear brother.

YOU are using Psalms 69:25???? Acts 1:20 is not about succession of the Apostolic office no more that Pslams 69 is.

The correct CONTEXT and exegesis of Psalms 69 is that David is crying to God about what he thinks is undeserved suffering.

The psalm, out of which these words are cited, is a psalm concerning the Messiah, and there are many passages cited out of it in the New Testament, and applied to him, or referred unto Him.

Consider Jn. 2:17 to Psalms 69:4 and what the psalmist says of the enemies of the Messiah in general, is applied by the apostle to Judas in particular. In the Hebrew text, in Psalms 69:25 are the words are in the plural number......
"let their habitation be desolate, and let none dwell in their tents".

This would then refer to all the enemies of Christ, the chief priests, elders of the people, Scribes and Pharisees, who covenanted with Judas to give him so much money to betray Christ into their hands; and who delivered him to the Roman governor, by whom, at their instigation, he was crucified and does not validate or even suggest a continuation of the office of an Apostle.

There could NEVER be a continuation of the Apostles as the requirement of an Apostle was one who had ben with Jesus from the beginning of His ministry and SEEN what He had accomplished. John was the last and when he died the office ended as there was no one left that qualified.

“His episcopacy let another take.”

For proper CONTEXT of what you are trying to say, Consider Acts 1:18.............
"NOW THIS MAN purchased a field with the reward of iniquity............."

In the Greek originals and you will see the correct exegesis I think which is..........

The ἔπαυλις is not that χωρίον which had become desolate by the death of Judas, (Scholars, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Strauss, Hofmann, de Wette, Schneckenburger), but it corresponds to the parallel ἐπισκοπή, and as the χωρίον is not to be considered as belonging to Judas which what is seen see in Acts 1:18...so that the meaning is: ......“Let his farm, i.e. in the antitypical fulfilment of the saying in the Psalm, the apostolic office of Judas, become desolate, forsaken by its possessor, and non-existent, i.e. let him be gone, who has his dwelling therein.”
(Acts 1 Meyer's NT Commentary)

 

[Major1]

I absolutely LOVE your unbridled optimism above...

The issue, of course, is not Scripture, but its interpretation...

Arsenios

Thank you brother for the flowers. I would only add to that "The correct interpretation".

 

[Major1]

Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms,
"Let his habitation be desolate,
and let no man dwell therein:
and his episcopacy let another take.

So tell me, is the EPISCOPATE [eg the Order of Bishops] Biblical?
Was Judas once given an Episcopacy?
Did he betray it?
Did he repent?
Did Peter betray his Episcopacy?
Did HE repent?



Act 1:22-23
Beginning from the baptism of John,
unto that same day that he was taken up from us,
one must be ordained to be a witness with us of His Resurrection.
And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas,
who were surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

So who must be ordained?



Well, certainly not Iakovos, John and Paul of Tarsus...



To WHOM then did Christ give the command to GO, and DISCIPLE ALL THE NATIONS? It sure as straight shootin' was NOT commanded to Bible readers who wanted to be Missionaries! Because Christ gave that Command to the Apostles ALONE - To disciple, to teach, to Baptize - ONLY to the Apostles did He give that command...



Well, it is good to see you entertaining this fall-back understanding...

Arsenios

You asked me.............
"To WHOM then did Christ give the command to GO, and DISCIPLE ALL THE NATIONS? It sure as straight shootin' was NOT commanded to Bible readers who wanted to be Missionaries! Because Christ gave that Command to the Apostles ALONE - To disciple, to teach, to Baptize - ONLY to the Apostles did He give that command...".

Lets answer a Bible question with a Bible answer.

Mark 16:14-15.............
"Later He appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen. AND HE SAID UNTO THEM, go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.

Matthew 28:16-19.........
"Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted.
And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

Lets VERIFY that THEM means the Disciples. Hebrews 2:1-4..............
"Therefore we must give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard, lest we drift away. For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just reward, how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?"

Those in Hebrews are the ELEVEN seen in Matthew and Mark and THEY were the disciples who became the Apostles when Jesus died. 'TO US WHO HEARD HIM".

THEY had the sign gifts. THEY HEARD Jesus which means THEY SAW Him which is a requirement of being an Apostle and which means that there CAN NOT BE AN APOSTLE TODAY, unless of course that man is about 2000 years old.

 

[Major1]

no worries ,I will respond to your last post latter this week. May God bless you and fight for what you believe in . May God bless you family . Thanks for engaging me ,please do not take offense to what i am saying . If we end up agreeing to disagree you will have my respect, sincerely .

Darrel. Thank you for those kind words.

I am speaking for myself here and not for all the other Protestant believers who are on this forum, and I hope that you realize that I actually only have one agenda in mind.

That agenda is not religion.
That agenda is not to convert you to the Protestant understanding of the Scriptures.
That agenda is not to anger you or disrespect you in any way.

It IS only to expose you to the truth of God's Word.

John 17:17.............
"Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth."

John 8:32...............
"And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

The rest is all up to Him.

 

[Arsenios]

Thank you brother for the flowers. I would only add to that "The correct interpretation".

Well, I did regard your words of "benevolence toward catholics" as being ascribed to most Protestant posters here as far more true of you, via this "confession", than of the others... SoI did reject what you said about others, and attributed it instead to you yourself, you dog! Thereby I accuse you here and now in full view of all who read this of having a good and God-loving heart! So get over it!

So that, IF "The Correct Interpretation" of Scripture" is the point at issue, then HOW does one derive that correctness...

It is one thing to say that a person is flat out contradicting Scripture, should they say, for instance, that Christ did NOT rise from the dead and ascend into heaven... But when it comes to a difficult to interpret passage, or passages where interpretation is being subject to diverse opinions - Like the lack of the term Trinity or Homoousios in the Bible - then you are facing choices of interpretation, and so the question becomes: "Where can I find the Truth?" (of that issue, whatever it might be)... Is it a matter of personal interpretation being normative? Or do we look to the Ground and Pillar of the Truth, the Ekklesia of God? And then if you take this tack, in denial of self, as Christ commands, then HOW do you determine the "Mind of Christ" Whose Body IS the Church? And for that, we look to what has been accepted by all the Church at all times, for the Faith was given ONCE for ALL to the Apostles... And if you do that, you will reject "development of doctrine" in favor of the Church that has kept this one Faith without change from the beginnings...

OR, of course, you can turn interpretation issues oveer to private interpretation...

A hard call, which disintegrates the unity of the Faith of the one Body of our Lord...

Arsenios - Another dog!

 

[Arsenios]

You asked me.............
"To WHOM then did Christ give the command to GO, and DISCIPLE ALL THE NATIONS? It sure as straight shootin' was NOT commanded to Bible readers who wanted to be Missionaries! Because Christ gave that Command to the Apostles ALONE - To disciple, to teach, to Baptize - ONLY to the Apostles did He give that command...".

Lets answer a Bible question with a Bible answer.

Mark 16:14-15.............
"Later He appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen. AND HE SAID UNTO THEM, go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.

Matthew 28:16-19.........
"Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted.
And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

Lets VERIFY that THEM means the Disciples. Hebrews 2:1-4..............
"Therefore we must give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard, lest we drift away. For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just reward, how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?"

Those in Hebrews are the ELEVEN seen in Matthew and Mark and THEY were the disciples who became the Apostles when Jesus died. 'TO US WHO HEARD HIM".

THEY had the sign gifts. THEY HEARD Jesus which means THEY SAW Him which is a requirement of being an Apostle and which means that there CAN NOT BE AN APOSTLE TODAY, unless of course that man is about 2000 years old.

They were all APOSTLES...

And Paul came AFTER them, God-direct appointed, who wrote:

1Co 4:9-16
For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as upon death:
for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.
We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ;
we are weak, but ye are strong;
ye are honourable, but we are despised.
Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked,
and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace;
And labour, working with our own hands:
being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:
Being defamed, we intreat:
we are made as the filth of the world,
and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.
I write not these things to shame you,
but as my beloved sons I warn you.
For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ,
yet have ye not many fathers:
for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

Arsenios

 

[Albion]

OR, of course, you can turn interpretation issues oveer to private interpretation...

FWIW, this may be the most mysterious of the arguments/insults that get directed at Protestants. At least it seems so to me, since it is clear that whether one adheres to Sola Scriptura or to Tradition, either nobody is subscribing to the idea of "private interpretation" or else both sides are doing so.

 

[Major1]

They were all APOSTLES...

And Paul came AFTER them, God-direct appointed, who wrote:

1Co 4:9-16
For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as upon death:
for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.
We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ;
we are weak, but ye are strong;
ye are honourable, but we are despised.
Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked,
and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace;
And labour, working with our own hands:
being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:
Being defamed, we intreat:
we are made as the filth of the world,
and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.
I write not these things to shame you,
but as my beloved sons I warn you.
For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ,
yet have ye not many fathers:
for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

Arsenios

Exactly! We are agreed.

 

[Major1]

Well, I did regard your words of "benevolence toward catholics" as being ascribed to most Protestant posters here as far more true of you, via this "confession", than of the others... SoI did reject what you said about others, and attributed it instead to you yourself, you dog! Thereby I accuse you here and now in full view of all who read this of having a good and God-loving heart! So get over it!

So that, IF "The Correct Interpretation" of Scripture" is the point at issue, then HOW does one derive that correctness...

It is one thing to say that a person is flat out contradicting Scripture, should they say, for instance, that Christ did NOT rise from the dead and ascend into heaven... But when it comes to a difficult to interpret passage, or passages where interpretation is being subject to diverse opinions - Like the lack of the term Trinity or Homoousios in the Bible - then you are facing choices of interpretation, and so the question becomes: "Where can I find the Truth?" (of that issue, whatever it might be)... Is it a matter of personal interpretation being normative? Or do we look to the Ground and Pillar of the Truth, the Ekklesia of God? And then if you take this tack, in denial of self, as Christ commands, then HOW do you determine the "Mind of Christ" Whose Body IS the Church? And for that, we look to what has been accepted by all the Church at all times, for the Faith was given ONCE for ALL to the Apostles... And if you do that, you will reject "development of doctrine" in favor of the Church that has kept this one Faith without change from the beginnings...

OR, of course, you can turn interpretation issues oveer to private interpretation...

A hard call, which disintegrates the unity of the Faith of the one Body of our Lord...

Arsenios - Another dog!

I think that was a compliment. Then you said........
"you can turn interpretation issues oveer to private interpretation..."

But you see, that has always been the problem. That is what lead to schism of Reformation.
Is the Church right or is the Bible right.

The "RCC Church" is made up of MEN. MEN ARE SINNERS! So when we say the "Church is the AUTHORITY" and it gives proper interpretation, what we are really saying is that "SINFUL MAN gives the correct interpretation.

I my friend am just an old fashioned country boy from the Promised land of N.A. You referred to me as a "dog" which I take as a compliment, but you actually do not know how apropos that is for me.

Picture yourself driving down an old dusty road in the South. You look over to an old house and there on the porch is a bull dog chewing on a ham bone......That is me. The point is, do you think that that bulldog will ever let go of that bone? Do you think anyone can walk up onto that porch and take that bone away?

My old fashioned learning came from old men who taught us that the Bible is God's word. God said what He wanted to say and had men write it down for us to learn from.

That Word in history revealed to people in history, means that each passage has an historical context, a particular author, audience, purpose and occasion. On the other hand, since the Bible is also the word of God, its contents are also eternally relevant for us today.

May I say to you that I came to the conclusion a very long time ago on this subject of Bible interpretation that No-one is ever completely unbiased. MOST ALL people approach Scriptures with a pre-conceived agenda looking for a way to validate that agenda in the Scriptures. Then if they do not find what they want, they MAKE the Scriptures say what they want them to say.

That IMHO is the reason we see so much bickering and arguing over things that seem to be clear to some and not so clear to others.

IMO the best interpretation of Scripture is to allow Scripture to interpret themselves.

Therefore, the goal of interpretation is not to come up with the most unique interpretation which by the way are usually wrong, but to discover the original intended meaning of a passage the way the original audience understood it. The task of discovering the original intended meaning is called exegesis and I am sure you already know that.

The key to doing good exegesis is reading the text very carefully, paying close attention to the details it describes, and asking the text the right questions. This is critical to finding the correct interpretation. Bad interpretation results directly from bad exegesis.