How about quoting from the Catechism of The Catholic Church (836,837,838 846,847,848) The Second Vatican Council , under the guidance of the "Holy Spirit into all truth" , and under development of doctrine has declared a more positive view of Christians outside the Church . scriptures encourage unity amongst us all . But the Catholic Church still believes that all are required to be under the authority of Rome and the Papacy . And salvation is at stake .
"There are others not of this sheepfold , I must bring them to "
"I pray the may be one as we are one "Jn 17:17-23
As I have read your past comments , which seem to be a self authoritative denunciation/condemnation of fellow Protestant Christians . I can't imagine how you view me . I am sure , according to you I am going to hell .
You should read some of the condemnations of the Protestant reformers against Catholics in the past vs present . You are outside the Church . We believe that you must follow your conscience and that is how you will be judged . If you believed the Catholic Church was the true Church and remained outside of it you would be held accountable by God .Stay true to yourself.
The question here was not what what i think but what you do, and your response is not much of a coherent answer to my question "how would you interpret the following in the age in which they were declared, and now."
I know of what V2 and thus the CCC says, and have provided a contrast here, but your response seems to say that in the 14th century as well as you would say souls such as myself must "be under the authority of Rome and the Papacy. And salvation is at stake."
Thus you need to be clearer. Do you think properly baptized Prots cannot be saved unless they covert to Catholic faith and assent to the authority of Rome and the Papacy? Or would that only be former RCs as myself who know of the claims to be the one true and essential church, but are convinced otherwise in the light of His wholly inspired word.
Certainly one is to obey his/her conscience, but that does not mean doing so will save them, or else Paul would not needed conversion. (Acts 23:1)
Yes, I was responding to a post that made Apostolic Succession that of men like Mathias, versus choosing episkopos like Timothy, which is the only Apostolic Succession by men choosing such we see after Mathias.
Hi, PBJ. There is so much amiss with that post that I thought I'd just recommend further investigation.
But, for example, Apostolic Succession doesn't refer to making new Apostles and it doesn't refer to the Papacy or to Italians or to the Church at Rome in particular. Presbyters and Bishops are of the same order but are not "the same." That's why the bishop is an overseer. They most definitely ordained new presbyters.
Hi, PBJ. There is so much amiss with that post that I thought I'd just recommend further investigation.
But, for example, Apostolic Succession doesn't refer to making new Apostles and it doesn't refer to the Papacy or to Italians or to the Church at Rome in particular. Presbyters and Bishops are of the same order but are not "the same." That's why the bishop is an overseer. They most definitely ordained new presbyters.
The better Episkopoi I know regard themselves as Diakonoi and Presbuteroi...
John in Revelation referred to the Episkopoi as Aggeloi:
Rev 2:1 Τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῆς ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ ἐκκλησίας γράψον·
"To the Angel of the in Ephesus Ekklesia write:"
This usage of the term "angel" is a great first century tell on the manner of bishop heading up the Church in a city, for it refers to his ascetic manner of life, with Christ as the Bridegroom of his soul, and no wife, little food, and less sleep - eg Angelic...
The Apostles established the Churches and appointed their Episkopoi [Bishops], who in turn established Presbuteroi [The wife of an Orthodox Priest is called Presbytera, and a Priest is a Presbyter, to this day and hour]... This is what "from generation to generation" means - eg the "Passing down" of the priesthood from the Bishop, and the appointing and annointing of new Bishops by the Church, in unbroken succession from their Apostolic founding...
PBJ likes to refer to them as uninspired... A step up from demonic, I suppose...
Here is a short article about Father Schema-Archimandrite Gabriel Bunge, who was a RC Priest and Monk, who became an Orthodox monk-priest... He had prayed for years and years for the two Churches to unite, and asked himself the telling question: Which Church Services would Gregory the Great recognize if he were to show up today... And he joined the Russian Church... He said the two Churches are two incompatible systems, like Microsoft and Apple... Not bad for an old guy who doesn't even read newspaperes...
He is a man living in profound Peace, and his former spiritual children still come to him from the Latin Church, and are still his spiritual children... He lives in his cell even when he is far from it - It is an invisible cell that surrounds him at all times... This is what maturity in the Faith looks like in the Orthodox Catholic Faith of Christ...
Father Gabriel said: "I did not change my Faith - I only returned to the early Church, which had always been a Mother to me..."
Yes, the Giver of Life! In His Ekklesia we have our Life from Him...
That Ekklesia is the Body of Christ our God...
We affirm this to be true...
We recorded it in the Bible...
"(The)Pillar/support and (the)Ground [hedraiōma: said to be unseen in the Hellenistic Jewish literature, or in the LXX or in secular Greek] (of) the Truth."
This means that IF you want the Truth, that THIS Ekklesia is its/His Grouind and and Pillar for us...
No rocket science... The Firm Foundation and the Elevation of the Truth...
It is the Body of Christ Who is the SOURCE of the Truth, and IS Himself the Truth...
And rather than the church being The Source or the sure supreme standard on Truth, instead a body of wholly inspired writings existed before the Church did,
Have you heard of Ecclesiastes? The OT Church, writing through Her Prophets, inspired by God, the Sacred OT Bible that spoke in words and figures and types of the coming of Christ? Do you remember how it began with Moses? And even before Moses? God's chosen People? And even before that with Noah? And Abel?
and which provided the foundation for its claims and its "gospel of God, which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures," (Romans 1:1-2) "But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith." (Romans 16:26)
You here affirm the supremacy of God in His Ekklesia foretelling by His Holy Ones, of whom the world is not worthy, and recorded in Scripture, His Incarnation...
God is supreme, not the Holy words as recorded in Holy Writ which He caused to be written...
God is the Cause... The Bible is the Effect... The Church, the Ekklesia, is His Body, and His Body is on earth the Foundation and Proclamation of Him Who IS Truth...
I was countering the Catholic use Matthias being chosen to replace Judas as the twelfth apostle as an example of continuity of that office as regards popes, in possession unique power. And which also means that the apostolic power flows from Peter to the rest of the bishops, versus Peter only being a presbuteros
And though laying on of hands is the proper ritual form of ordination, Rome's claim to unbroken succession itself is suspect, while apostolic faith is what makes valid presbyters and with God being able to raise up men from rocks to continue to build His church as living stones.
While men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God (and provide new public revelation thereby) - which i do not think men are doing by books today (though many old works and hymns have a level of Divine influence and anointing), much less the writings of so-called church fathers are -yet even Catholic teaching holds that popes do not speak as wholly inspired of God (nor providing new public revelation) as the writers of Scripture were, so that God is the actual author, unlike infallible papal statements.
and it doesn't refer to the Papacy or to Italians or to the Church at Rome in particular.
In context i was referring to the means by which Rome elects apostolic successors while invoking Acts 1 as support, and that casting lots was the non-political means, which (as an aside) could prevent all popes from 1523 till 1978 being Italian (unless only Italians were the possible choices).
Presbyters and Bishops are of the same order but are not "the same." That's why the bishop is an overseer. They most definitely ordained new presbyters
The distinction is bogus as far as Scripture is concerned, as showed, which as said, even Jerome confirms. Certainly there would be "head pastors," but the titles presbuteros and episkopos are used interchangeably.
Titus ordains presbuteros but which are called episkopos. (Titus 1:5,7) and Paul called the presbuteros of the church together in Acts 20:17 and said they were episkopos in Acts 20:28.
And said to Timothy "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbuterion [presumed derivative of presbuteros]." (1 Timothy 4:14)
I was countering the Catholic use Matthias being chosen to replace Judas as the twelfth apostle as an example of continuity of that office as regards popes, in possession unique power.
No, it doesn't. Not even in the thinking of the RCC. And, as you know, there are a dozen other denominations that have bishops in Apostolic Succession but nothing like a Pope figure.
While men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God (and provide new public revelation thereby) - which i do not think men are doing by books today (though many old works and hymns have a level of Divine influence and anointing), much less the writings of so-called church fathers are -yet even Catholic teaching holds that popes do not speak as wholly inspired of God (nor providing new public revelation) as the writers of Scripture were, so that God is the actual author, unlike infallible papal statements.
(The) laying on of hands is the proper ritual form of ordination... while apostolic faith is what makes valid presbyters ... with God being able to raise up men from rocks to continue to build His church as living stones.
Where oh where in the Bible does it say that the Laying-on of Hands is a ritual form of Ordination? And a corollary question then must ensue: Where oh where does the Bible speak of OTHER forms of Ordination? In terms of the Household of God, the Ekklesia, the laying on of hands is simply THE proper form of Ordination of the Diakonate at all levels. Until you can show any other form of Ordination in the Bible, you are ADDING TO the Bible what the Bible did not include.
And you are right, God can raise up any man... But even Paul was Baptized into Christ BY Ananias...
The distinction is bogus as far as Scripture is concerned, as showed, which as said, even Jerome confirms. Certainly there would be "head pastors," but the titles presbuteros and episkopos are used interchangeably.
They were indeed, at the very beginnings of the history of the Ekklesia, used interchangeably as terms, and later became differentiated as the Body of Christ matured in its Mission to evangellize the world... Yet even today, Orthodox Bishops see themselves as members of the Diaconate... The evolution was natural enough - The Elders with Oversight responsibilities became Bishops overseeing Elders... The rest of the Elders got to live in peace! I mean, the Apostles appointed Deacons, Presbyters and Bishops, that they themselves should not have these responsibilities, but instead had responsibilities over all the Churches they established...
And said to Timothy: Neglect not the Gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbuterion [presumed derivative of presbuteros]." (1 Timothy 4:14)
Forgive me, but I always prefer a literal translation:
1Ti 4:14
Be not neglectful of the Gift within you μη αμελει του εν σοι χαρισματος
Which was given to you... ο εδοθη σοι
Through (eg by means of) Prophesy δια προφητειας
WITH (a full conjunctive) μετα
Laying on of the Hands επιθεσεως των χειρων
of the Presbyters του πρεσβυτεριου
So it would appear that the most natural reading of this passage tells us that the Prophesy and the Laying-on of Hands co-occurred at the same event... One would assume from this abbreviation of narration that the Presbyters were themselves functioning as being the givers of the Prophesy, who gave the Prophesy WITH the Laying-on of Hands which THEREBY gave the Gift...
Any other reading is strained and would require contextual justification with nearby modifying texts...
Not a (mere?) ritual at all, but THE MEANS of the Giving of the Gift by God through His Hands of the Presbyters, as Ananias GAVE Saul the Filling with Holy Spirit at God's behest as His Servant, which Servants we all are as members of the Ekklesia...
The Ekonomia (Household) of God gives God's Gifts through the Ekklesia BY their Presbyters and Episkopoi to their members (that they in their turn can give to others)... You have established that premise as fully Biblical, so we can congradulate each other for our great concurrence of mental assent!
Are you no longer speaking to me? I have not seen you responding to my posts for awhile... Do you have me on ignore, mayhaps?? I hope not...
While the RCC doesn't itself add any such writings to the canon, by making the uninspired writings equal to Scripture it is essence adding to Scripture, with the magisterium being the supreme, if non-inspired, 100% Truthful authority above both.
There is also the reasoning that since sinners write Scripture then what Scripture says cannot be superior to others today who claim to be hearing from God. However, this premise can be used to validate everything from Quakers liberal theology to Mormonic doctrine, and thus the issue becomes that of the basis for the validity of the claim to be speaking the formal word of God, the false presumption of which was a capital crime in the OT, and which, as with misusing the name of God/Christ to validate something that is not actually done in His name, is taking the name of the Lord in vain, and which abounds today.
Backing up, we should consider while a Being can be said to be separate from His expression of himself, yet kind and of what value is a being that has no expression? And which expression would be revelatory of the attributes and character of that being. And if said expression was pure, then in a real sense that expression is that being, if not His person, and to believe in or attack that expression is to believe in or attack the one whose expression it is.
However, revelatory expression can be a matter of from and degrees and scope of the subjects to whom this revelation is provided. Thus theologically we have the terms "general revelation" and "express revelation." For God is seen to express Himself most universally thru His creation, manifesting His power, wisdom and glory,and which is described as "speech:"
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. (Psalms 19:1-3)
He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion. (Jeremiah 10:12)
Thus man has a basic revelation of as creator worthy of worship, for the knowledge of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them, (Romans 1:19)
God also gave man a basic innate sense of morality, whereby may "those which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law," (Romans 2:14) by which they are judged.
However, God giveth more grace, first by expressly providing a very limited scope of revelation of His character, power, will and ways (if not His glory) to a very limited scope of people such as Adam, Lamech, Enoch, Abraham etc. And then, when it was time to reveal Himself and His character, power, will and way far more fully to a nation, and preserve it, then He did so in writing.
The man of God chosen to do this was Moses, who represented the God of Abraham and Issac and Jacob and Joseph, with the evidence of this being his holy character and teaching along with profound over supernatural attestation.
And all of which we know, and history from creation, because God commanded the writing of His Law and such things as were to be held in memorial, this God's chosen most-reliable means of preservation of His authoritative word for remembrance. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Numbers 5:23; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3; 31:24-27; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19; Psalm 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; Acts 17:11)
And this as is abundantly evidenced , as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of oral preaching subject to testing by Scripture, and not vice versa.
And which word is not simply "about" God, but His word which He has exalted above His name (Psalms 138:2) are spirit, and are life, (John 6:63) and alive, "and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12)
And which Scripture is, as the established, assured word of God, with the Christ and the gospel and its foundation the church depends upon being grounded in the Scriptures, (1Corinthians 15:3,4; Luke 24:,27,44) being "promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures," and "now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith." (Romans 1:2; 16:26)
While it is because of God that His words are so powerful, one cannot minimized the revelation and power His word contrary to its own testimony of itself without minimizing God.
While it is abundantly evidenced that God established the written word as the supreme standard on earth for Truth, faith and obedience, yet there is the issue of how and on what basis that establishment took place.
Which is were conflation and complementarity and attestation comes in. The greater revelation of God to Moses could not contradict the very limited revelation of Abraham, and thus neither could the basic morals of Moses. But the revelation of God to Moses was far greater in scope and degrees, from the manifestation of His power and glory to His expansive laws. And which would not see its equal until Christ.
And while there were added further restrictions in universal morals, violations of which the Canaanite nations were to be exterminated for disobeying, (Leviticus 18:24-28; 20:22,23; Deuteronomy 18:12; 1 Kings 14:24) as well ordinances particular to Israel in the land, this profoundly greater revelation served to conflate with and complement with what had been provided before.
In addition, both the faith of Moses and attestation on His behalf served to attest to the veracity and authority of Moses as a profound instrument of righteousness, and the human author of the writing of the Torah (thus in substantiating His messiahship, the Lord opened the Scriptures, "beginning at Moses...that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [also] in the prophets, and in the psalms" - Luke 24:2,7,44).
As seen especially in Psalm 19 and Psalm119, not body of revelation had more impact and was more esteemed than the Law of God. Prophets condemned violations of it, and judicial courts judged cases by it, and the people of God were blessed or cursed depending upon whether they obeyed it or not, and the degrees thereof.
It was thus charged that when the king sat "upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites."(Deuteronomy 17:18) The law was to be read before all Israel in their hearing, (Deuteronomy 31:11) and thus we read how men "read in the book of the law of the Lord their God one fourth part of the day; and another fourth part they confessed, and worshipped the Lord their God." (Nehemiah 9:3)
Accordingly, it was not because oral tradition preserved the Word of God that resulted in needed national revival, but because of reading and hearing the wholly inspired-of-God written word:
And Hilkiah answered and said to Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord. And Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan. (2 Chronicles 34:15)
And the king went up into the house of the Lord, and all the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the priests, and the Levites, and all the people, great and small: and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant that was found in the house of the Lord. And the king stood in his place, and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments, and his testimonies, and his statutes, with all his heart, and with all his soul, to perform the words of the covenant which are written in this book. (2 Chronicles 34:30-31)
Scriptirre was the supreme transcendent standard for faith and obedience.
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. [or, "there is no morning for them"] (Isaiah 8:20)
And as prophets preached according to it and God inspired men to write their words as well as historical narratives and wisdom teachings, then these heavenly words progressively were also established as being of God.
And consistent with the prophecy that the Lord "will magnify the law, and make it honourable," (Isaiah 42:21) the Lord fully kept the law as intended, and required the fulfilling of the intent of the law, and in letter could even further restricted what Moses has been allowed to allow. (Matthew 19:8,9)
And like as revelation to Moses was followed by history of application and further expression of that revelation of God and His teaching, so the Lord promised He had more to give by way of His Spirit.
And as in the past, the Spirit of God inspired the writing of the Lords life and teachings and that of the NT church which He wanted recorded. And which writings are interpretive of the Lord's teachings on earth, and which with the gospels are interpretive of the O.T.
And as with O.T. writings, both men and writings of God were correctly recognized as being so, essentially due to their heavenly qualities and attestation.
Therefore we have a consistent pattern of teaching and history being reliably recorded (though most of the books written in the NT is direct teaching, not the recording of what was taught as with much of the gospels).
All of which conflate and complement what came before, with covenantal differences in fulfillment of Scripture written before. (Jeremiah 31:31-34; (Colossians 2:14-17; Hebrews 8:7-13; Hebrews 9:9,10)
And as in the past, which wholly inspired "living" writings of God are the standard for Truth, for faith and obedience, to which all Truth claims are subject to testing by.
And as said before, there is no "God versus His word" dichotomy: God is supreme as being, but His word is what He has made the living and effectual supreme standard, and which word Scripture most assuredly is. And if there were any more wholly inspired writings, then as in the past, I am sure they would have been overall established as so by now, by the non-compelled inclusion and reading of them.
I hope this is enough to settle this for now. I have little strength left to write.
But Jesus said to the disciples to "listen to the Pharisees" because they " hold the Chair of Moses ". The Pharisees were a interpretive body ( magisterium ) with a particular doctrine/interpretation/school of thought which differed from the Sadducees ( and other Jewish sects at the time ) which did not have the same authority to interpret scripture . So at that time there was a true organizational structure with the High Priest, which held God given authority, until the True High Priest ,Jesus Christ came and delegated his authority to the 12 Apostles and to Peter in which they past on this authority , through the laying on of hands ( Apostolic Succession ) to " bind and loose. " We have a structure similar to OT Judaism . Which Catholics and Orthodox believe . However the Orthodox balked at Papal authority to justify that they are the True Church, as do other Christians who also deny the Primacy of Rome ( the Charge of Peter ; as referred to by the early Church Fathers ) These statements can be back up through scripture and historical writings of the early Church Fathers .There is historical precedence that is varifiable .
When Christ died Judaism and the Pharisees lost all authority which was passed on to the NT Church .
A interesting side note Judaism became the harlot ( the Woman ) of Pagan Rome ( Babylon ). How do we know Judaism is the woman/harlot/a antichrist system ? First the Jerusalem/Pharisees were having Christians killed ( while Rome was doing the same ) and Paul was a active persecutor of the Christians . They denied Jesus was the Messiah and in Scripture , in Revelation , John said;
Rev 11-18 " and there dead bodies shall lye in in the great city which is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt ,were also our lord was crucified " Rev 17:18 " and the woman which thou sawest is that great city which rules over the kings of the earth "
Christ himself states to the Jews, who did not accept him, but would follow another ( the antichrist ) in the future John 5:43 " I come in my fathers name and you received me not. If another comes in his name, him you will receive."
In a previous post you have implied that the Catholic Church was the "woman". I can show that Revelation was fulfilled in the destruction of the second Temple. Revelation was a warning to the early Christians to withdraw from the Great City which was to be destroyed . This is a gigantic historical advent in Judaism and early Christianity . It is believed that not one Christian was killed in the City when Pagin Rome turned on her . ( refer to books; The Rapture Trap and Rapture:the end time error hat leaves the bible behind .) Revolution is also a book which describes the Heavenly worship of the Lamb and using symbols of incense, the altar ...which reflect the Mass . Revelation is also reflective of persecution of the Church thought out History . Revelation is one of the books that has been given a million different interpretations in which churched/individuals continue to do . The RC church has not given a interpretation to this book , but notes some of the factors I have described .
First, do not create 500+ word paragraphs if you want to expect many replies, and provide the quote you are responding to, which i told you how to do.
And i have told you over and over that the uninspired words of men are not determinitive of what the NT church believed, and to stop reiterating what was already refuted.
Actually i do not recall seeing that attempt, but i already provided findings of even Catholic researchers, among others, to the contrary, so you must deal with them. As well as the Orthodox who attest to Peter of a decidedly different status than the elevated Roman pope that developed.
Wrong again. NT presbuteros are not apostles, and [FONT=Arial, sans-serif] the NT church never manifestly saw apostolic successors being voted for after Matthias was chosen for Judas (even though James was martyred: Acts 12:1,2), which was in order to maintain the foundational number of apostles (cf. Rv. 21:14) and which was by the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots. (cf. Prov. 16:33) So much for the extended succession of Italians. [/FONT]
In addition, Rome's so-called apostolic successors fail of the qualifications and credentials of manifest Biblical apostles. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:1-0; 12:12)
Wrong again: There was no bishops ordaining "priests," since bishops and elders were one: the former (episkopos=superintendent or “overseer,”[from “epi” and “skopos” (“watch”) in the sense of “episkopeō,” to oversee, — Strong's) refers to function; the latter (presbuteros=senior) to seniority (in age, implying maturity, or position).
Titus was to “set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders [presbuteros] in every city, as I had appointed thee: “If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop [episkopos] must be blameless...” (Titus 1:5-7) Paul also "sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church," (Acts 20:17) who are said to be episkopos in v. 28. Elders are also what were ordained for every church in Acts 14:23, and bishops along with deacons are the only two classes of clergy whom Paul addresses in writing to the church in Phil. 1:1.
Nowhere does the NT teach a separate sacerdotal class of believers, corresponding to the Old Testament priesthood, kohen, for which the distinctive Greek word "hiereus" is uniquely used by the Holy Spirit in NT.
But who never uses that distinctive word for NT church pastors, and instead the words "episkopos" (superintendent or overseer, referring to function), and "presbuteros" (senior, in age, implying maturity, and or position) were used, with again, both referring to the same person in the pastoral office. (Titus 1:5,7; Acts 20:17,28) Which is contrary to Catholicism, which often calls translates presbuteros as well as hiereus as "priest," since in Catholicism presbyters are considered a distinctive sacerdotal class of believers
The English word "priest" is a etymological corruption of the Greek presbuteros, if with uncertainty, being referred to in Old English (around 700 to 1000 AD) as "preostas" or "preost," and finally resulting in the modern English "priest," which is also used for Old Testament ko^he^n, thereby losing the distinction the Holy Spirit provided by never using the distinctive term of hiereus for NT presbuteros, or describing as them as a distinctive sacerdotal class of believers
You will never even see presbuteros described as conducting the Lord's supper in the only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed (Acts - Revelation, including how they understood the gospels) of what the church did and how they understood the gospels. Though I am sure they did conduct this, yet they are not seen or charged with this in the epistles as being a unique and or primary function, nor preaching the Lord's supper as the means of regeneration, that of obtaining spiritual life.
Which is in contrast to presbuteros/episkopeos (same persons) being charged with and exampled as preaching the word as their primary active function, (2Tim. 4:2) feeding the flock thereby. (Acts 20:28) with believing the gospel being the means of regeneration, of obtaining spiritual life (Acts 10:43; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and being nourished (1Tim. 4:6) and built up (Acts 20:32) for the word, is what is called spiritual food, "milk" (1Co. 3:22; 1Pt. 1:22) and "meat," (Heb. 5:12-14)
All believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).
Which is that of apostles, presbuteros/episkoposas and deacons as far as formal pastoral care is concerned, and as shown, nowhere is presbuteros divided from episkopos, but the two tersm are used interchangeably, as Jerome even confirms.
The presbyter is the same as the bishop, and before parties had been raised up in religion by the provocations of Satan, the churches were governed by the Senate of the presbyters. But as each one sought to appropriate to himself those whom he had baptised, instead of leaving them to Christ, it was appointed that one of the presbyters, elected by his colleagues, should be set over all the others, and have chief supervision over the general well-being of the community. And this is not my private opinion, it is that of Scripture. If you doubt that bishop and presbyter are the same, that the first word is one of function, and the second one of age, read the epistle of the Apostle to the Philippians. Without doubt it is the duty of the presbyters to bear in mind that by the discipline of the Church they are subordinated to him who has been given them as their head, but it is fitting that the bishops, on their side, do not forget that if they are set over the presbyters, it is the result of tradition, and not by the fact of a particular institution of the Lord. (Commentary on Tit. 1.7, quoted. in “Religions of authority and the religion of the spirit," pp. 77,78. 1904, by AUGUSTE SABATIER. A similar translated version of this is provided by "Catholic World," Volume 32, by the Paulist Fathers, 1881, pp. 73,74).
Which argument leaves you guilty of your primary fallacy of making the uninspired words of men determinitive of what the NT church believed over the wholly inspired word of God in Scripture. What matters is what the latter reveals about Peter.
In which Peter was initially the humble street-level leader among brethren, and initially perhaps the lead pastor in the church at Jerusalem, (Acts 5) and the first to use the keys to the kingdom, the gospel, (Col 1:13) for both Jews and Gentiles, (Acts 2,10) and receives the vision from Christ to include the latter, and thus is the lead speaker in the council at Jerusalem, exhorting salvation by heart-purifying faith, (Acts 15) and with whom Paul abode with at one early time fifteen days, and who is mentioned named specifically among other apostles as one who was married. (1Co. 9:5)
However, nowhere do we see the NT church looking to him as the first of a line of infallible popes, nor reigning from Rome. Submission to Peter is never mentioned in any of the letters to the churches, including a lack it is being a cause for any problems in churches, or as a solution to them, nor are special regular prayers enjoined for him, or something like "remember the holy father."
Even the Spirit's words to the churches in Revelation 2,3 are not addressed to their supposed earthly corporate head, but to each church, with certain distinctive conditions and critiques.
And after Acts 15, Peter is actually only mentioned in two of the remaining 22 NT books besides his own, and is married in one (as said) and is listed second after James in Gal. 2 as just one of those who seemed to be pillars. And the overall holy Peter is the only one to be publicly rebuked for sinful duplicity. In addition, Peter himself only refers to himself as "an elder" and "an apostle."
Nor is there any manifest preparation for a successor for a Petrine papacy, nor for that of the martyred apostle James. (Acts 12:1,2) Instead, it is presbuteros/episkopos (one office: Titus 1:5-7) ) which are ordained as overseers over the flock, ( Acts 14:23; 1 Timothy 3:1-7) (and who were normally married, and whom the Holy Spirit never calls hiereus, the the distinctive term for a separate sacerdotal class of believers, nor is conducting the Lord's supper shown to be their unique sacerdotal function).
Peter comes into the picture after there had been much disputing and obtains silence to give his testimony with its evangelical gospel, and his exhortation to recognize this manifest grace of God with its basic implications regarding the keeping of the whole Law.
And to which Paul and Barnabas give their own confirmatory testimony, and which collectively enabled the matter to be settled by James, who, rather than simply giving assent, is the one who provides the conclusive Scripturally substantiated judgment, confirmatory of Peter, Paul and Barnabas, who is acting more like a pope would in declaring,
"Wherefore my sentence [krinō=judgment, conclusion] is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God..." (Acts 15:19)
Only after his words is the matter shown to be truly resolved by the church collectively then sending out their judgment of consensus, with no further mention of Peter but that "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things..." (Acts 15:28)
Note also that no one determined to go see Peter, much less in Rome, about this issue, but "they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question." (Acts 15:2) Nor did Peter call the council or any council together to meet, unlike Paul, who both called the Ephesian elders together and charged them what to do. (Acts 20) Which is one of the many things which are invoked in 51 Biblical Proofs Of A Pauline Papacy And Ephesian Primacy
The R.C. exaltation of Peter is foundationally based upon Mt. 16:13-19, wherein there is a play on the word "rock" by the Lord, in which the immovable "Rock" upon which Christ would build His church is the confession that Christ was the Son of God, and thus by implication it is Christ himself. The verse at issue, v.18, cannot be divorced from that which preceded it, in which the identity of Jesus Christ is the main subject. In the next verse (17) that is what Jesus refers to in telling blessed Peter that “flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,” and in v. 18 that truth is what the “this rock” refers to, with a distinction being made between the person of Peter and this rock.
This is the only interpretation that is confirmed, as it must be, in the rest of the New Testament. For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism affirms both, thus stating, “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the ancients concur with.
The Orthodox likewise claim to be the uniquely correct judges of what valid tradition is and means in any conflict, but Scripture began with common souls correctly discerning who and what was of God, in dissent from those who validly sat in the magisterial office, (Mark. 11:27-33; 12:37; Luke 19:35-40; John 7:45-49) and in the light of Scripture it is a historical fact that the development of the Roman papacy is contrary to Scripture and the Peter of it.
Once again that is not a valid argument, since the "validity based on unity" premise requires not simply a degree of unity, but full unity, and not simply as here, on a ritual level, but among the people. And since class of "Bible Protestants" do testify to degree of unity among the people then your argument is in vain. The issue is the basis and quality of unity, as explained, but per usual, you just ignore and reiterate your vain argument.
The problem is what you attempt to extrapolate out of (in Greek) "church living God pillar/support and ground [hedraiōma: said to be unseen in the Hellenistic Jewish literature, or in the LXX or in secular Greek] the truth." And rather than the church being The Source or the sure supreme standard on Truth, instead a body of wholly inspired writings existed before the church did, and which provided the foundation for its claims and its "gospel of God, which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures," (Romans 1:1-2) "But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith." (Romans 16:26)
Wrong again: I did not ignore them, or counter such assertions by claiming there the was no such unity at that time, but that the historical record of weight are the wholly inspired Scriptures. In addition, while there was no comprehensive doctrinal unity, the greatest unity was under manifest mighty men of God which stand in contrast to what we have today in the judgment of God. And your popes and prelates are not even in the running (nor am I) as such. Yet as former active RC, even after i became born again, i can attest the greatest living "fellowship of the Spirit" (Philippians 2:1) is found among evangelical types.
"Quite?" To the contrary your rhetorical rant has works to provide more of a burden to an already sinking Roman ship. You have yet to provide a single valid proof that Rome is overall a valid church let alone the one uniquely assuredly true church she claims to be, whose official teaching no one can dissent from and be right.
Eternity would not provide you time to proof what you can only imagine you have started to.
Your attempted proof from history, even when accurate is actually overall proof of progressive deformation of the NT church. By just the 4th century you has a pope (Damasus 1) who employed a murderous band of thugs in order to secure his papal office from his competitor, yet such a man would not even be qualified to be a church member in the NT church, let alone an "apostolic successor."
Moreover, the fact that you have a history or being an authoritative church simply does not equate to Rome being the one uniquely assuredly true church she claims to be any more than actual Scriptural proof that the Scribes and Pharisees sat in the seat of Moses meant they were uniquely assuredly true, to whom no one could validly dissent from.
Wrong, for 1.
The analogy to the Constitution does not mean the interpreters of it are necessarily doing so correctly, any more than those are of Scripture. The basis for veracity must rest upon the weight the evidence. In which the evidence of how the men who wrote the Constitution manifested they understood it would have the most weight, which certainly excludes everything from the exclusion of any official invocation of God for help or in gratitude, to the a sanction of men marrying men and punishing states that forbid it.
Even in the OT, in which dissent from the supreme court was a capital crime, (Dt. 17:8-13) yet authority simply does not equate to or require they can never err in major matters. Thus, while the form of government is valid, yet rather than supporting the Roman government which presumes ensured official veracity, at least in salvific matters, and forbids any dissent from possibly being correct, instead we this presumption to be invalid in both cases.
Wrong again, for we no more need to deny the existence of the church of Rome when it was the only known organized church in order to justify our existence and dissent than the NT church had to deny the existence of those who sat in the seat of Moses in order to justify their existence and dissent. In both cases dissent was justified by a critical culmination of unScriptural teaching and recalcitrant hardness of heart, which compelled separation. No Luther was hardly Christ, but Rome wanted him dead due to Scriptural reproof.
And there was also the prior separation of the EO's from Rome, as well as the royal mess a century before the Reformation which i documented, in which your one true church was much a mass of immorality and confusion.
Your argument is a strawman, since i never claimed to be incapable of error, nor that agreement with every other Christian, neither of which is needful, either for me or for a judge or jury. The basis for veracity must rest upon the weight evidential warrant. The church did not begin under the premise of believers presuming they could not err in their judgment, nor that they had to be in agreement with all others.
And it nowhere teaches ensured doctrinal infallibility of a pope, and while unity is always a goal and can be realized to a degree, especially in heart and core issues, yet the Truth means division from error, and in the next chapter the NT also states, For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies [sects] among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. (1 Corinthians 11:18-19)
Indeed, and which Rome has due to her presumptuous elitism, and damning those who cannot submit to her in the light of what Scripture says, while joining her would mean being brethren with a divided multitude of Ted Kennedy-type liberals versus conservatives, since your church manifestly treats both as members in life and in death.
Thus separation from Rome is compelled by those who want to obey Scripture, and in fact you should separate from her if you want to obey Scripture which says to "put away from among yourselves that wicked person, (1 Corinthians 5:13) "And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed." (2 Thessalonians 3:14) Instead, Rome typically even treats proabortion, prosodomite public figures as members without manifest discipline, which if any, usually is the result of a rare conservative prelate, not the Vatican (the pope even wrote a nice letter to Ted Kennedy before he did).
How can you be part of such a church? You can claim they are not members, but you are supposed to follow the judgment of your church, at least that is what you tell us, and yet you expect us to forsake evangelical fellowship and become brethren with such an unholy mixed multitude?
Which contextually is speaking of Christ, not Peter.
I am not part of a community of one, and am answerable to leadership in our community, and rather than rejecting any authority over me, for most of my 40 years of my born again Christian life I have been subject to the orders of others, by choice if I was to obey my call.
And with much experience i can say it is your members that are quite rebellious: Catholics broke with their Church's teachings more than most other groups, with just six out of 10 Catholics affirming that God is "a person with whom people can have a relationship", and three in 10 describing God as an "impersonal force." 2008The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Religious Landscape Study
Forum rules forbid saying a group that qualifies as Christian here are not, but I will say that anyone who has not had "day of salvation," (2Co. 6:2) in which they personally turned to the risen Lord Jesus in deeply penitent faith as spiritually destitute, guilty, needy sinners,
and with all their heart trusted Him to save them on His account, by His sinless shed blood, and not their merits or that of a church or someone else, including by proxy as in infant baptism,
but with a faith that effects obedience, and is shown first in baptism,
and has realized the profound basic changes in heart and life which true regeneration effects,
needs to do so.
This took up hours of my time and energy, and most it was replying again the same issues refuted before, thus it hardly warrants more.
I still haven't been able to figure out the technique until I do i will have to continue to do the 500 would thing, unfortunately . Scripture says "believe and be baptized" . Christ is my savior and I continue to acknowledge/believe this , repent and acknowledge my sinfulness and am in relationship with him . It is a process and it also could be a on time event which requires both continued "obedience" and "inderance to to the end ". I believe you are a Christian. Thank you for answering my posts with the effort you have made .
First, do not create 500+ word paragraphs if you want to expect many replies, and provide the quote you are responding to, which i told you how to do.
And i have told you over and over that the uninspired words of men are not determinitive of what the NT church believed, and to stop reiterating what was already refuted.
Actually i do not recall seeing that attempt, but i already provided findings of even Catholic researchers, among others, to the contrary, so you must deal with them. As well as the Orthodox who attest to Peter of a decidedly different status than the elevated Roman pope that developed.
Wrong again. NT presbuteros are not apostles, and [FONT=Arial, sans-serif] the NT church never manifestly saw apostolic successors being voted for after Matthias was chosen for Judas (even though James was martyred: Acts 12:1,2), which was in order to maintain the foundational number of apostles (cf. Rv. 21:14) and which was by the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots. (cf. Prov. 16:33) So much for the extended succession of Italians. [/FONT]
In addition, Rome's so-called apostolic successors fail of the qualifications and credentials of manifest Biblical apostles. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:1-0; 12:12)
Wrong again: There was no bishops ordaining "priests," since bishops and elders were one: the former (episkopos=superintendent or “overseer,”[from “epi” and “skopos” (“watch”) in the sense of “episkopeō,” to oversee, — Strong's) refers to function; the latter (presbuteros=senior) to seniority (in age, implying maturity, or position).
Titus was to “set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders [presbuteros] in every city, as I had appointed thee: “If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop [episkopos] must be blameless...” (Titus 1:5-7) Paul also "sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church," (Acts 20:17) who are said to be episkopos in v. 28. Elders are also what were ordained for every church in Acts 14:23, and bishops along with deacons are the only two classes of clergy whom Paul addresses in writing to the church in Phil. 1:1.
Nowhere does the NT teach a separate sacerdotal class of believers, corresponding to the Old Testament priesthood, kohen, for which the distinctive Greek word "hiereus" is uniquely used by the Holy Spirit in NT.
But who never uses that distinctive word for NT church pastors, and instead the words "episkopos" (superintendent or overseer, referring to function), and "presbuteros" (senior, in age, implying maturity, and or position) were used, with again, both referring to the same person in the pastoral office. (Titus 1:5,7; Acts 20:17,28) Which is contrary to Catholicism, which often calls translates presbuteros as well as hiereus as "priest," since in Catholicism presbyters are considered a distinctive sacerdotal class of believers
The English word "priest" is a etymological corruption of the Greek presbuteros, if with uncertainty, being referred to in Old English (around 700 to 1000 AD) as "preostas" or "preost," and finally resulting in the modern English "priest," which is also used for Old Testament ko^he^n, thereby losing the distinction the Holy Spirit provided by never using the distinctive term of hiereus for NT presbuteros, or describing as them as a distinctive sacerdotal class of believers
You will never even see presbuteros described as conducting the Lord's supper in the only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed (Acts - Revelation, including how they understood the gospels) of what the church did and how they understood the gospels. Though I am sure they did conduct this, yet they are not seen or charged with this in the epistles as being a unique and or primary function, nor preaching the Lord's supper as the means of regeneration, that of obtaining spiritual life.
Which is in contrast to presbuteros/episkopeos (same persons) being charged with and exampled as preaching the word as their primary active function, (2Tim. 4:2) feeding the flock thereby. (Acts 20:28) with believing the gospel being the means of regeneration, of obtaining spiritual life (Acts 10:43; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and being nourished (1Tim. 4:6) and built up (Acts 20:32) for the word, is what is called spiritual food, "milk" (1Co. 3:22; 1Pt. 1:22) and "meat," (Heb. 5:12-14)
All believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).
Which is that of apostles, presbuteros/episkoposas and deacons as far as formal pastoral care is concerned, and as shown, nowhere is presbuteros divided from episkopos, but the two tersm are used interchangeably, as Jerome even confirms.
The presbyter is the same as the bishop, and before parties had been raised up in religion by the provocations of Satan, the churches were governed by the Senate of the presbyters. But as each one sought to appropriate to himself those whom he had baptised, instead of leaving them to Christ, it was appointed that one of the presbyters, elected by his colleagues, should be set over all the others, and have chief supervision over the general well-being of the community. And this is not my private opinion, it is that of Scripture. If you doubt that bishop and presbyter are the same, that the first word is one of function, and the second one of age, read the epistle of the Apostle to the Philippians. Without doubt it is the duty of the presbyters to bear in mind that by the discipline of the Church they are subordinated to him who has been given them as their head, but it is fitting that the bishops, on their side, do not forget that if they are set over the presbyters, it is the result of tradition, and not by the fact of a particular institution of the Lord. (Commentary on Tit. 1.7, quoted. in “Religions of authority and the religion of the spirit," pp. 77,78. 1904, by AUGUSTE SABATIER. A similar translated version of this is provided by "Catholic World," Volume 32, by the Paulist Fathers, 1881, pp. 73,74).
Which argument leaves you guilty of your primary fallacy of making the uninspired words of men determinitive of what the NT church believed over the wholly inspired word of God in Scripture. What matters is what the latter reveals about Peter.
In which Peter was initially the humble street-level leader among brethren, and initially perhaps the lead pastor in the church at Jerusalem, (Acts 5) and the first to use the keys to the kingdom, the gospel, (Col 1:13) for both Jews and Gentiles, (Acts 2,10) and receives the vision from Christ to include the latter, and thus is the lead speaker in the council at Jerusalem, exhorting salvation by heart-purifying faith, (Acts 15) and with whom Paul abode with at one early time fifteen days, and who is mentioned named specifically among other apostles as one who was married. (1Co. 9:5)
However, nowhere do we see the NT church looking to him as the first of a line of infallible popes, nor reigning from Rome. Submission to Peter is never mentioned in any of the letters to the churches, including a lack it is being a cause for any problems in churches, or as a solution to them, nor are special regular prayers enjoined for him, or something like "remember the holy father."
Even the Spirit's words to the churches in Revelation 2,3 are not addressed to their supposed earthly corporate head, but to each church, with certain distinctive conditions and critiques.
And after Acts 15, Peter is actually only mentioned in two of the remaining 22 NT books besides his own, and is married in one (as said) and is listed second after James in Gal. 2 as just one of those who seemed to be pillars. And the overall holy Peter is the only one to be publicly rebuked for sinful duplicity. In addition, Peter himself only refers to himself as "an elder" and "an apostle."
Nor is there any manifest preparation for a successor for a Petrine papacy, nor for that of the martyred apostle James. (Acts 12:1,2) Instead, it is presbuteros/episkopos (one office: Titus 1:5-7) ) which are ordained as overseers over the flock, ( Acts 14:23; 1 Timothy 3:1-7) (and who were normally married, and whom the Holy Spirit never calls hiereus, the the distinctive term for a separate sacerdotal class of believers, nor is conducting the Lord's supper shown to be their unique sacerdotal function).
Peter comes into the picture after there had been much disputing and obtains silence to give his testimony with its evangelical gospel, and his exhortation to recognize this manifest grace of God with its basic implications regarding the keeping of the whole Law.
And to which Paul and Barnabas give their own confirmatory testimony, and which collectively enabled the matter to be settled by James, who, rather than simply giving assent, is the one who provides the conclusive Scripturally substantiated judgment, confirmatory of Peter, Paul and Barnabas, who is acting more like a pope would in declaring,
"Wherefore my sentence [krinō=judgment, conclusion] is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God..." (Acts 15:19)
Only after his words is the matter shown to be truly resolved by the church collectively then sending out their judgment of consensus, with no further mention of Peter but that "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things..." (Acts 15:28)
Note also that no one determined to go see Peter, much less in Rome, about this issue, but "they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question." (Acts 15:2) Nor did Peter call the council or any council together to meet, unlike Paul, who both called the Ephesian elders together and charged them what to do. (Acts 20) Which is one of the many things which are invoked in 51 Biblical Proofs Of A Pauline Papacy And Ephesian Primacy
The R.C. exaltation of Peter is foundationally based upon Mt. 16:13-19, wherein there is a play on the word "rock" by the Lord, in which the immovable "Rock" upon which Christ would build His church is the confession that Christ was the Son of God, and thus by implication it is Christ himself. The verse at issue, v.18, cannot be divorced from that which preceded it, in which the identity of Jesus Christ is the main subject. In the next verse (17) that is what Jesus refers to in telling blessed Peter that “flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,” and in v. 18 that truth is what the “this rock” refers to, with a distinction being made between the person of Peter and this rock.
This is the only interpretation that is confirmed, as it must be, in the rest of the New Testament. For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism affirms both, thus stating, “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the ancients concur with.
The Orthodox likewise claim to be the uniquely correct judges of what valid tradition is and means in any conflict, but Scripture began with common souls correctly discerning who and what was of God, in dissent from those who validly sat in the magisterial office, (Mark. 11:27-33; 12:37; Luke 19:35-40; John 7:45-49) and in the light of Scripture it is a historical fact that the development of the Roman papacy is contrary to Scripture and the Peter of it.
Once again that is not a valid argument, since the "validity based on unity" premise requires not simply a degree of unity, but full unity, and not simply as here, on a ritual level, but among the people. And since class of "Bible Protestants" do testify to degree of unity among the people then your argument is in vain. The issue is the basis and quality of unity, as explained, but per usual, you just ignore and reiterate your vain argument.
The problem is what you attempt to extrapolate out of (in Greek) "church living God pillar/support and ground [hedraiōma: said to be unseen in the Hellenistic Jewish literature, or in the LXX or in secular Greek] the truth." And rather than the church being The Source or the sure supreme standard on Truth, instead a body of wholly inspired writings existed before the church did, and which provided the foundation for its claims and its "gospel of God, which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures," (Romans 1:1-2) "But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith." (Romans 16:26)
Wrong again: I did not ignore them, or counter such assertions by claiming there the was no such unity at that time, but that the historical record of weight are the wholly inspired Scriptures. In addition, while there was no comprehensive doctrinal unity, the greatest unity was under manifest mighty men of God which stand in contrast to what we have today in the judgment of God. And your popes and prelates are not even in the running (nor am I) as such. Yet as former active RC, even after i became born again, i can attest the greatest living "fellowship of the Spirit" (Philippians 2:1) is found among evangelical types.
"Quite?" To the contrary your rhetorical rant has works to provide more of a burden to an already sinking Roman ship. You have yet to provide a single valid proof that Rome is overall a valid church let alone the one uniquely assuredly true church she claims to be, whose official teaching no one can dissent from and be right.
Eternity would not provide you time to proof what you can only imagine you have started to.
Your attempted proof from history, even when accurate is actually overall proof of progressive deformation of the NT church. By just the 4th century you has a pope (Damasus 1) who employed a murderous band of thugs in order to secure his papal office from his competitor, yet such a man would not even be qualified to be a church member in the NT church, let alone an "apostolic successor."
Moreover, the fact that you have a history or being an authoritative church simply does not equate to Rome being the one uniquely assuredly true church she claims to be any more than actual Scriptural proof that the Scribes and Pharisees sat in the seat of Moses meant they were uniquely assuredly true, to whom no one could validly dissent from.
Wrong, for 1.
The analogy to the Constitution does not mean the interpreters of it are necessarily doing so correctly, any more than those are of Scripture. The basis for veracity must rest upon the weight the evidence. In which the evidence of how the men who wrote the Constitution manifested they understood it would have the most weight, which certainly excludes everything from the exclusion of any official invocation of God for help or in gratitude, to the a sanction of men marrying men and punishing states that forbid it.
Even in the OT, in which dissent from the supreme court was a capital crime, (Dt. 17:8-13) yet authority simply does not equate to or require they can never err in major matters. Thus, while the form of government is valid, yet rather than supporting the Roman government which presumes ensured official veracity, at least in salvific matters, and forbids any dissent from possibly being correct, instead we this presumption to be invalid in both cases.
Wrong again, for we no more need to deny the existence of the church of Rome when it was the only known organized church in order to justify our existence and dissent than the NT church had to deny the existence of those who sat in the seat of Moses in order to justify their existence and dissent. In both cases dissent was justified by a critical culmination of unScriptural teaching and recalcitrant hardness of heart, which compelled separation. No Luther was hardly Christ, but Rome wanted him dead due to Scriptural reproof.
And there was also the prior separation of the EO's from Rome, as well as the royal mess a century before the Reformation which i documented, in which your one true church was much a mass of immorality and confusion.
Your argument is a strawman, since i never claimed to be incapable of error, nor that agreement with every other Christian, neither of which is needful, either for me or for a judge or jury. The basis for veracity must rest upon the weight evidential warrant. The church did not begin under the premise of believers presuming they could not err in their judgment, nor that they had to be in agreement with all others.
And it nowhere teaches ensured doctrinal infallibility of a pope, and while unity is always a goal and can be realized to a degree, especially in heart and core issues, yet the Truth means division from error, and in the next chapter the NT also states, For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies [sects] among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. (1 Corinthians 11:18-19)
Indeed, and which Rome has due to her presumptuous elitism, and damning those who cannot submit to her in the light of what Scripture says, while joining her would mean being brethren with a divided multitude of Ted Kennedy-type liberals versus conservatives, since your church manifestly treats both as members in life and in death.
Thus separation from Rome is compelled by those who want to obey Scripture, and in fact you should separate from her if you want to obey Scripture which says to "put away from among yourselves that wicked person, (1 Corinthians 5:13) "And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed." (2 Thessalonians 3:14) Instead, Rome typically even treats proabortion, prosodomite public figures as members without manifest discipline, which if any, usually is the result of a rare conservative prelate, not the Vatican (the pope even wrote a nice letter to Ted Kennedy before he did).
How can you be part of such a church? You can claim they are not members, but you are supposed to follow the judgment of your church, at least that is what you tell us, and yet you expect us to forsake evangelical fellowship and become brethren with such an unholy mixed multitude?
Which contextually is speaking of Christ, not Peter.
I am not part of a community of one, and am answerable to leadership in our community, and rather than rejecting any authority over me, for most of my 40 years of my born again Christian life I have been subject to the orders of others, by choice if I was to obey my call.
And with much experience i can say it is your members that are quite rebellious: Catholics broke with their Church's teachings more than most other groups, with just six out of 10 Catholics affirming that God is "a person with whom people can have a relationship", and three in 10 describing God as an "impersonal force." 2008The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Religious Landscape Study
Forum rules forbid saying a group that qualifies as Christian here are not, but I will say that anyone who has not had "day of salvation," (2Co. 6:2) in which they personally turned to the risen Lord Jesus in deeply penitent faith as spiritually destitute, guilty, needy sinners,
and with all their heart trusted Him to save them on His account, by His sinless shed blood, and not their merits or that of a church or someone else, including by proxy as in infant baptism,
but with a faith that effects obedience, and is shown first in baptism,
and has realized the profound basic changes in heart and life which true regeneration effects,
needs to do so.
This took up hours of my time and energy, and most it was replying again the same issues refuted before, thus it hardly warrants more.
The link you gave me is anti Catholic propaganda ( quoting a limited scope of individuals ) and there would be many more Catholic Scholars that would disagree with these scholars .
I need to really get this insertion thing figured out .
Christ said there would be weeds among the wheat , should not surprise anyone . The Catholic Church does not pluck out the "weeds" but allows them to grow together as suggested by scripture . until harvest time .
Where oh where in the Bible does it say that the Laying-on of Hands is a ritual form of Ordination? And a corollary question then must ensue: Where oh where does the Bible speak of OTHER forms of Ordination? In terms of the Household of God, the Ekklesia, the laying on of hands is simply THE proper form of Ordination of the Diakonate at all levels. Until you can show any other form of Ordination in the Bible, you are ADDING TO the Bible what the Bible did not include.
And you are right, God can raise up any man... But even Paul was Baptized into Christ BY Ananias...
They were indeed, at the very beginnings of the history of the Ekklesia, used interchangeably as terms, and later became differentiated as the Body of Christ matured in its Mission to evangellize the world... Yet even today, Orthodox Bishops see themselves as members of the Diaconate... The evolution was natural enough - The Elders with Oversight responsibilities became Bishops overseeing Elders... The rest of the Elders got to live in peace! I mean, the Apostles appointed Deacons, Presbyters and Bishops, that they themselves should not have these responsibilities, but instead had responsibilities over all the Churches they established...
Forgive me, but I always prefer a literal translation:
1Ti 4:14
Be not neglectful of the Gift within you μη αμελει του εν σοι χαρισματος
Which was given to you... ο εδοθη σοι
Through (eg by means of) Prophesy δια προφητειας
WITH (a full conjunctive) μετα
Laying on of the Hands επιθεσεως των χειρων
of the Presbyters του πρεσβυτεριου
So it would appear that the most natural reading of this passage tells us that the Prophesy and the Laying-on of Hands co-occurred at the same event... One would assume from this abbreviation of narration that the Presbyters were themselves functioning as being the givers of the Prophesy, who gave the Prophesy WITH the Laying-on of Hands which THEREBY gave the Gift...
Any other reading is strained and would require contextual justification with nearby modifying texts...
Not a (mere?) ritual at all, but THE MEANS of the Giving of the Gift by God through His Hands of the Presbyters, as Ananias GAVE Saul the Filling with Holy Spirit at God's behest as His Servant, which Servants we all are as members of the Ekklesia...
The Ekonomia (Household) of God gives God's Gifts through the Ekklesia BY their Presbyters and Episkopoi to their members (that they in their turn can give to others)... You have established that premise as fully Biblical, so we can congradulate each other for our great concurrence of mental assent!
Are you no longer speaking to me? I have not seen you responding to my posts for awhile... Do you have me on ignore, mayhaps?? I hope not...
Of course you - with your illogical non-dialectal polarized reasoning and reiterations of what has been refuted - have been purposely ignored (at least in direct responses) as warranted and forewarned. The latest example of your mentality (where in the Bible does it say that the Laying-on of Hands is a ritual form of Ordination?) is a protest as if the Bible does not say the laying on of hands is "the proper ritual form of ordination" - not simply "a ritual form" as in your reference - and is necessarily opposed to being the proper form of Ordination for presbuteros, while God can sovereignly ordain apostles and prophets as he did.
And that being the part of the imperfect body of the instruments through which God provided His pure word means that this corporate body is superior as the standard for Truth to what God effected and provided by this instrumentality of sinners.
Then we had the continued false dichotomies such as you have the Bible, I have God, as if they were mutually exclusive, in the context in which i spoke, and other like non-sense.
And before this we even had the blatant assertion that "conditional submission" to leadership was without ANY Biblical warrant, which assertion was what was exposed as being without warrant.
Yes, you are and will be directly ignored as one unworthy of much time and needed energy. Which you should consider an act of mercy.
There's a remote connection of course but, again, Apostolic Succession isn't first and foremost about the bishop of Rome.
No, it doesn't. Not even in the thinking of the RCC. And, as you know, there are a dozen other denominations that have bishops in Apostolic Succession but nothing like a Pope figure.
Again, I am arguing against what is taught in Catholicism, where you have such statements as,
"What had the Son of God in view when he promised the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter alone? Biblical usage and the unanimous teaching of the Fathers clearly show that supreme authority is designated in the passage by the word keys."
"We read that the Roman Pontiff has pronounced judgments on the prelates of all the churches; we do not read that anybody has pronounced sentence on him" (Hadrianus ii., in Allocutione iii., ad Synodum Romanum an. 869, Cf. Actionem vii., Conc. Constantinopolitani iv). The reason for which is stated thus: "there is no authority greater than that of the Apostolic See" (Nicholaus in Epist. lxxxvi. ad Michael. Imperat.)
"there is nothing to show that the Apostles received supreme power without Peter, and against Peter."
"From this it must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest. They are therefore outside the edifice itself...."— Leo XIII - Satis cognitum; Satis Cognitum (June 29, 1896) | LEO XIII
"you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged” (Pope Innocent I, Letters 29:1 [A.D. 408]
"the line of complete authority proceeds from Christ,215 the chief Shepherd and cornerstone, and to the Pope." (Edward Joseph Clemmer, Gospel (On the Road To) Emmaus: Volume One)
And in protest against PI, Ignaz von Dollinger summs up what has and is being granted:
The Pope’s authority is unlimited, incalculable; it can strike, as Innocent III says, wherever sin is; it can punish every one; it allows no appeal and is itself Sovereign Caprice; for the Pope carries, according to the expression of Boniface VIII, all rights in the Shrine of his breast. As he has now become infallible, he can by the use of the little word, 'orbi,' (which means that he turns himself round to the whole Church) make every rule, every doctrine, every demand, into a certain and incontestable article of Faith. No right can stand against him, no personal or corporate liberty; or as the Canonists put it -- 'The tribunal of God and of the pope is one and the same.'” - Ignaz von Dollinger, in “A Letter Addressed to the Archbishop of Munich”, 1871 (quoted in The Acton Newman Relations (Fordham University Press), by MacDougall, 119, 120
Which stands in contrast to Orthodoxy, even though some reason that being the part of the body of the instruments through which God provided His pure word means that this corporate body is superior to what God effected and provided by these sinners:
There is no power of infallibility in the office of any Orthodox bishop, even patriarchs, not even the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, the most senior of all bishops in Orthodoxy. As such, even when he is solemnly making declarations concerning faith and morality by virtue of his office, the Orthodox do not believe that God will necessarily prevent him from erring. We have, after all, seen patriarchs who are heretics, including a pope of Rome. - Two Chairs of Peter: Reform, Orthodoxy and the Papacy – Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy
In the Roman Catholic Church, Apostolic Succession itself resides in the person of the Pope, who is Christ’s Vicar on earth. While modern Latin theologians have tried to restate or even reject it, and while the ecumenical pronouncements of the Latin Church have tried to downplay the significance of Papocentrism, it is the fundamental dogma of Roman Catholicism and a principle repeatedly defended by the present Pope. Even collegiality and shared primacy with the Eastern Patriarchates are subject to the magisterium of the Papacy.
And herein lies one of the most important differences between the Latin and Orthodox Churches in general: the Latin Church’s appeal to the authority of the Roman See and the Orthodox Church’s dependence on the authority of the wholeness of ecclesiastical tradition, the very Body of the Church. - Orthodox Traditionalism vs. Roman Catholic Traditionalism
As I noted before, Apostolic Succession isn't a guarantee of infallibility (and isn't about the Pope specifically).
Yes, and which simply does not counter what I said. Those who ordained Timothy himself were a body of presbyters, which word is clearly shown to be used interchangeably with episcopos for the same people.
But Jesus said to the disciples to "listen to the Pharisees" because they " hold the Chair of Moses ". The Pharisees were a interpretive body ( magisterium ) with a particular doctrine/interpretation/school of thought which differed from the Sadducees ( and other Jewish sects at the time ) which did not have the same authority to interpret scripture . So at that time there was a true organizational structure with the High Priest, which held God given authority, until the True High Priest ,Jesus Christ came and delegated his authority to the 12 Apostles and to Peter in which they past on this authority , through the laying on of hands ( Apostolic Succession ) to " bind and loose. "....When Christ died Judaism and the Pharisees lost all authority which was passed on to the NT Church .
You fail to comprehend that this recourse of invalidating the authority of those who occupied the office of the historical valid magisterium and stewards of Divine revelation who sat in authority over the people to whom belonged the promises of God's presence and preservation and the Messiah (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23; Rm. 3:2; 94,5) is inconsistent with the Catholic premise that the historical valid magisterium is the sure authority on what is of God. And which thus excludes any dissent from being valid.
Under the Catholic model for assurance of Truth one cannot even know the contents of revelation (what they are) unless he is told by people who have received it from on high, and cannot believe in unless he has made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities between the word of God and his reading, and thus the sense of Holy Scripture can nowhere be found incorrupt outside of the Church, and the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors.
Thus the people are not to follow those whom the magisterium does not sanction, especially those it considers itinerant preachers who oppose her. And thus if 1st century souls acted consistent with Catholicism they would have followed the judgment of their historically valid magisterium.
Like Catholics, they asked an itinerant Preacher, "By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?" (Mark 11:28) And like Catholicism, they censored those who listened to one whom they rejected. "Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed." (John 7:48-49)
Either historical valid magisterium is to be followed without dissent, or the latter is allowed when they are shown to be in error based upon Scripture and its evidences, as was the case in the beginning of the NT church, which established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
We have a structure similar to OT Judaism . Which Catholics and Orthodox believe . However the Orthodox balked at Papal authority to justify that they are the True Church, as do other Christians who also deny the Primacy of Rome ( the Charge of Peter ; as referred to by the early Church Fathers ) These statements can be back up through scripture and historical writings of the early Church Fathers .There is historical precedence that is varifiable
Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development."..On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation. - ORTHODOXY AND ROMAN CATHOLICISM
Orthodoxy is not simply an alternative ecclesiastical structure to the Roman Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church presents a fundamentally different approach to theology, because She possesses a fundamentally different experience of Christ and life in Him. To put it bluntly, she knows a different Christ from that of the Roman Catholic Church.” — Clark Carlton, THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997; Paths & Polemics.
Then there are those who attempt to join together all Christian religions into one faith. They would be horrified at the idea of a service with Hindus and Christians celebrating together, yet they do not bat an eyelash at the idea of Orthodox celebrating with Roman Catholics, who with no authority broke off from the Church close to a thousand years ago. — Against Ecumenism
A interesting side note Judaism became the harlot ( the Woman ) of Pagan Rome ( Babylon ). How do we know Judaism is the woman/harlot/a antichrist system ? First the Jerusalem/Pharisees were having Christians killed ( while Rome was doing the same ) and Paul was a active persecutor of the Christians . They denied Jesus was the Messiah and in Scripture , in Revelation , John said;
Rev 11-18 " and there dead bodies shall lye in in the great city which is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt ,were also our lord was crucified " Rev 17:18 " and the woman which thou sawest is that great city which rules over the kings of the earth "
Christ himself states to the Jews, who did not accept him, but would follow another ( the antichrist ) in the future John 5:43 " I come in my fathers name and you received me not. If another comes in his name, him you will receive."
In a previous post you have implied that the Catholic Church was the "woman". I can show that Revelation was fulfilled in the destruction of the second Temple. Revelation was a warning to the early Christians to withdraw from the Great City which was to be destroyed . This is a gigantic historical advent in Judaism and early Christianity . It is believed that not one Christian was killed in the City when Pagin Rome turned on her . ( refer to books; The Rapture Trap and Rapture:the end time error hat leaves the bible behind .) Revolution is also a book which describes the Heavenly worship of the Lamb and using symbols of incense, the altar ...which reflect the Mass . Revelation is also reflective of persecution of the Church thought out History . Revelation is one of the books that has been given a million different interpretations in which churched/individuals continue to do . The RC church has not given a interpretation to this book , but notes some of the factors I have described .
I still haven't been able to figure out the technique until I do i will have to continue to do the 500 would thing, unfortunately . Scripture says "believe and be baptized" . Christ is my savior and I continue to acknowledge/believe this , repent and acknowledge my sinfulness and am in relationship with him . It is a process and it also could be a on time event which requires both continued "obedience" and "inderance to to the end ". I believe you are a Christian. Thank you for answering my posts with the effort you have made .
You just hit the Enter key twice whenever you want to start a new paragraph. Thank you for your appreciation, and think it would better for your to take time to digest what i have said, for I am tired.
The link you gave me is anti Catholic propaganda ( quoting a limited scope of individuals ) and there would be many more Catholic Scholars that would disagree with these scholars .
I need to really get this insertion thing figured out .
Christ said there would be weeds among the wheat , should not surprise anyone . The Catholic Church does not pluck out the "weeds" but allows them to grow together as suggested by scripture . until harvest time .
Rather, it is mainly from uncensored Catholic authors, and rejecting them as "weeds" and what they fin because they do not support the desired narrative you have swallowed is an argument against being a RC. Which means taking more time to reason with you and provide you with substantiation you do not want to hear is of questionable warrant, since you just dismiss it.
Again, I am arguing against what is taught in Catholicism, where you have such statements as,
"What had the Son of God in view when he promised the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter alone? Biblical usage and the unanimous teaching of the Fathers clearly show that supreme authority is designated in the passage by the word keys."
You kept talking about Apostolic Succession in those posts, however. That's a different matter and not something exclusive to Roman Catholicism anyway.
Yes, I was responding to a post that made Apostolic Succession that of men like Mathias, versus choosing episkopos like Timothy, which is the only Apostolic Succession by men choosing such we see after Mathias.
