• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Featured Catholic vs. Protestant – why is there so much animosity?"

Discussion in 'Denomination Specific Theology' started by Major1, Dec 16, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. PeaceByJesus

    PeaceByJesus Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

    +2,033
    Christian
    Single
    Indeed. We have RCs who lack education in what their church believes, as well as "apologists" who (say) they cannot comprehend what refutes them, being ignorant of (or ignoring) much debt of debate.
     
  2. truefiction1

    truefiction1 Fool

    +1,578
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    Irenaeus affirmed the authority of the Church by deferring to Apostolic succession being carried on by the laying on of hands. He vehemently denounced the idea that the Holy Spirit gives knowledge outside of the Holy Tradition of the Church. His point being made is that the established Church is where the power of the Holy Spirit resides.
     
  3. Blood Bought 1953

    Blood Bought 1953 Ned Flander’s Buddy

    +1,323
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Hooray for Luther!
     
  4. PeaceByJesus

    PeaceByJesus Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

    +2,033
    Christian
    Single
    That is easy: basically any evangelical church from holiness Pentecostals to Calvary Chapels, to conservative Baptist and like non-denoms are ones I could fellowship with, though to a greater degree with some than others, while excluded are Catholic ones and liberal Prots, besides cults.
     
  5. PeaceByJesus

    PeaceByJesus Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

    +2,033
    Christian
    Single
    Then you must have bought them from modern day Arians, while the ones Luther used looked back to the pure vision of Scripture, though even they did not see as clearly as they should have.

    Development of the Roman papacy and related issues, from Catholic sources as well as others (bold emphasis of any works is mine)

    • Catholic theologian and a Jesuit priest Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops (New York: The Newman Press), examines possible mentions of “succession” from the first three centuries, and concludes from that study that,

    the episcopate [development of bishops] is a the fruit of a post New Testament development,” and cannot concur with those [interacting with Jones] who see little reason to doubt the notion that there was a single bishop in Rome through the middle of the second century:

    Hence I stand with the majority of scholars who agree that one does not find evidence in the New Testament to support the theory that the apostles or their coworkers left [just] one person as “bishop” in charge of each local church...

    As the reader will recall, I have expressed agreement with the consensus of scholars that available evidence indicates that the church of Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century...

    Hence I cannot agree with Jones's judgment that there seems little reason to doubt the presence of a bishop in Rome already in the first century.

    “...the evidence both from the New Testament and from such writings as I Clement, the Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians and The Shepherd of Hennas favors the view that initially the presbyters in each church, as a college, possessed all the powers needed for effective ministry. This would mean that the apostles handed on what was transmissible of their mandate as an undifferentiated whole, in which the powers that would eventually be seen as episcopal were not yet distinguished from the rest. Hence, the development of the episcopate would have meant the differentiation of ministerial powers that had previously existed in an undifferentiated state and the consequent reservation to the bishop of certain of the powers previously held collegially by the presbyters. — Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops , pp. 221,222,224

    Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] in his work, “Papal Primacy ,” pp. 1-4, finds:

    “New Testament scholars agree..., The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative.

    That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the authority of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably 'no.”

    “....that does not mean that the figure and the commission of the Peter of the New Testament did not encompass the possibility, if it is projected into a Church enduring for centuries and concerned in some way to to secure its ties to its apostolic origins and to Jesus himself.

    If we ask in addition whether the primitive church was aware, after Peter’s death, that his authority had passed to the next bishop of Rome, or in other words that the head of the community at Rome was now the successor of Peter, the Church’s rock and hence the subject of the promise in Matthew 16:18-19, the question, put in those terms, must certainly be given a negative answer.” (page 1-2)

    [Schatz goes on to express that he does not doubt Peter was martyred in Rome, and that Christians in the 2nd century were convinced that Vatican Hill had something to do with Peter's grave.]

    "Nevertheless, concrete claims of a primacy over the whole church cannot be inferred from this conviction. If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no." (page 3, top)

    [Lacking such support for the modern concept of the primacy of the church of Rome with its papal jurisdiction, Schatz concludes that, “Therefore we must set aside from the outset any question such as 'was there a primacy in our sense of the word at that time?” Schatz. therefore goes on to seek support for that as a development.]

    “We probably cannot say for certain that there was a bishop of Rome [in 95 AD]. It is likely that the Roman church was governed by a group of presbyters from whom there very quickly emerged a presider or ‘first among equals’ whose name was remembered and who was subsequently described as ‘bishop’ after the mid-second century.” (Schatz 4).

    Schatz additionally states,

    Cyprian regarded every bishop as the successor of Peter, holder of the keys to the kingdom of heaven and possessor of the power to bind and loose. For him, Peter embodied the original unity of the Church and the episcopal office, but in principle these were also present in every bishop. For Cyprian, responsibility for the whole Church and the solidarity of all bishops could also, if necessary, be turned against Rome." — Papal Primacy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996], p. 20)

    • Roman Catholic scholar William La Due (taught canon law at St. Francis Seminary and the Catholic University of America) on Cyprian:

    ....those who see in The Unity of the Catholic Church, in the light of his entire episcopal life, an articulation of the Roman primacy - as we have come to know it, or even as it has evolved especially from the latter fourth century on - are reading a meaning into Cyprian which is not there." (The Chair of Saint Peter: A History of the Papacy [Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1999], p. 39

    The research of esteemed historian Peter Lampe* (Lutheran) also weighs against Rome:

    The picture that finally emerges from Lampe’s analysis of surviving evidence is one he names ‘the fractionation of Roman Christianity’ (pp. 357–408). Not until the second half of the second century, under Anicetus, do we find compelling evidence for a monarchical episcopacy, and when it emerges, it is to manage relief shipments to dispersed Christians as well as social aid for the Roman poor (pp. 403–4). Before this period Roman Christians were ‘fractionated’ amongst dispersed house/tenement churches, each presided over by its own presbyter–bishop. This accounts for the evidence of social and theological diversity in second-century Roman Christianity, evidence of a degree of tolerance of theologically disparate groups without a single authority to regulate belief and practice, and the relatively late appearance of unambiguous representation of a single bishop over Rome. (Review of “Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries,” by Peter Lampe in Oxford’s Journal of Theological Studies, 2005)

    (*Peter Lampe is a German Lutheran minister and theologian and Professor of New Testament Studies at the University of Heidelberg, whose work, “From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries,” was written in 1987 and translated to English in 2003. The Catholic historian Eamon Duffy (Irish Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Cambridge, and former President of Magdalene College), said “all modern discussion of the issues must now start from the exhaustive and persuasive analysis by Peter Lampe” — Saints and Sinners,” “A History of the Popes,” Yale, 1997, 2001, pg. 421).

    But Cyprian helped provide foundation for the unScriptural papacy:

    Paul Johnson, educated at the Jesuit independent school Stonyhurst College, and at Magdalen College, Oxford, author of over 40 books and a conservative popular historian, finds,

    The Church was now a great and numerous force in the empire, attracting men of wealth and high education, inevitably, then, there occurred a change of emphasis from purely practical development in response to need, to the deliberate thinking out of policy. This expressed itself in two ways: the attempt to turn Christianity into a philosophical and political system, and the development of controlling devices to prevent this intellectualization of the faith from destroying it. The twin process began to operate in the early and middle decades of the third century, with Origen epitomizing the first element and Cyprian the second.

    The effect of Origen’s work was to create a new science, biblical theology, whereby every sentence in the scriptures was systematically explored for hidden [much prone to metaphorical] meanings, different layers of meanings, allegory and so forth.....

    Cyprian [c. 200 – September 14, 258] came from a wealthy family with a tradition of public service to the empire; within two years of his conversion he was made a bishop. He had to face the practical problems of persecution, survival and defence against attack. His solution was to gather together the developing threads of ecclesiastical order and authority and weave them into a tight system of absolute control...the confession of faith, even the Bible itself lost their meaning if used outside the Church.

    With Cyprian, then, the freedom preached by Paul and based on the power of Christian truth was removed from the ordinary members of the Church, it was retained only by the bishops, through whom the Holy Spirit still worked, who were collectively delegated to represent the totality of Church members...With Bishop Cyprian, the analogy with secular government came to seem very close. But of course it lacked one element: the ‘emperor figure’ or supreme priest...

    [Peter, according to Cyprian, was] the beneficiary of the famous ‘rock and keys’ text in Matthew. There is no evidence that Rome exploited this text to assert its primacy before about 250 - and then...Paul was eliminated from any connection with the Rome episcopate and the office was firmly attached to Peter alone...

    ...There was in consequence a loss of spirituality or, as Paul would have put it, of freedom... -(A History of Christianity, by Paul Johnson, pp. 51 -61,63. transcribed using OCR software)

    Roman Catholic [if liberal and critical] Garry Wills, Professor of History Emeritus, Northwestern U., author of “Why i am a Catholic,” states,

    "The idea that Peter was given some special power that could be handed on to a successor runs into the problem that he had no successor. The idea that there is an "apostolic succession" to Peter's fictional episcopacy did not arise for several centuries, at which time Peter and others were retrospectively called bishops of Rome, to create an imagined succession. Even so, there has not been an unbroken chain of popes. Two and three claimants existed at times, and when there were three of them each excommunicating the other two, they all had to be dethroned and the Council of Carthage started the whole thing over again in 1417." — WHAT JESUS MEANT, p. 81

    American Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar Raymond Brown (twice appointed to Pontifical Biblical Commission), finds,

    The claims of various sees to descend from particular members of the Twelve are highly dubious. It is interesting that the most serious of these is the claim of the bishops of Rome to descend from Peter, the one member of the Twelve who was almost a missionary apostle in the Pauline sense – a confirmation of our contention that whatever succession there was from apostleship to episcopate, it was primarily in reference to the Puauline type of apostleship, not that of the Twelve.” (“Priest and Bishop, Biblical Reflections,” Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur, 1970, pg 72.)

    Further deformation of the church was seen under Damasus 1 (366-384) who began his reign by employing a gang of thugs in seeking to secure his chair, which carried out a three-day massacre of his rivals supporters. Yet true to form, Rome made him a "saint."

    • Upon Pope Liberius's death September 24 A.D. 366, violent disorders broke out over the choice of a successor. A group who had remained consistently loyal to Liberius immediately elected his deacon Ursinus in the Julian basilica and had him consecrated Bishop, but the rival faction of Felix's adherence elected Damasus, who did not hesitate to consolidate his claim by hiring a gang of thugs, storming the Julian Basilica in carrying out a three-day massacre of the Ursinians.

    On Sunday, October 1 his partisans seized the Lateran Basilica, and he was there consecrated. He then sought the help of the city prefect (the first occasion of a Pope in enlisting the civil power against his adversaries), and he promptly expelled Ursinus and his followers from Rome. Mob violence continued until October 26, when Damasus's men attacked the Liberian Basilica, where the Ursinians had sought refuge; the pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus reports that they left 137 dead on the field. Damasus was now secure on his throne; but the bishops of Italy were shocked by the reports they received, and his moral authority was weakened for several years....

    Damasus was indefatigable in promoting the Roman primacy, frequently referring to Rome as 'the apostolic see' and ruling that the test of a creed's orthodoxy was its endorsement by the Pope.... This [false claim to] succession gave him a unique [presumptuous claim to] judicial power to bind and loose, and the assurance of this infused all his rulings on church discipline. — Kelly, J. N. D. (1989). The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. USA: Oxford University Press. pp. 32 ,34;

    • The Catholic Encyclopedia states:

    The primacy of the Apostolic See, variously favoured in the time of Damasus by imperial acts and edicts, was strenuously maintained by this pope... (Catholic Encyclopedia>Pope St. Damasus I)

    Eamon Duffy (Former president of Magdalene College and member of Pontifical Historical Commission, and current Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Cambridge) and provides more on the Roman church becoming more like the empire in which it was found as a result of state adoption of (an already deformed) Christianity:

    The conversion of Constantine had propelled the Bishops of Rome into the heart of the Roman establishment...They [bishops of Rome] set about [creating a Christian Rome] by building churches, converting the modest tituli (community church centres) into something grander, and creating new and more public foundations, though to begin with nothing that rivaled the great basilicas at the Lateran and St. Peter’s...

    These churches were a mark of the upbeat confidence of post-Constantinian Christianity in Rome. The popes were potentates, and began to behave like it. Damasus perfectly embodied this growing grandeur. An urbane career cleric like his predecessor Liberius, at home in the wealthy salons of the city, he was also a ruthless power-broker, and he did not he did not hesitate to mobilize both the city police and [a hired mob of gravediggers with pickaxes] to back up his rule…

    Self-consciously, the popes began to model their actions and their style as Christian leaders on the procedures of the Roman state. — Eamon Duffy “Saints and Sinners”, p. 37,38

    Moreover,

    The Bishop of Rome assumed [circa sixth century] the position of Ponlifex Maximus, priest and temporal ruler in one, and the workings of this so-called spiritual kingdom, with bishops as senators, and priests as leaders of the army, followed on much the same lines as the empire. The analogy was more complete when monasteries were founded and provinces were won and governed by the Church. - Welbore St. Clair Baddeley, Lina Duff Gordon, “Rome and its story” p. 176

    Even some esteemed Roman Catholic theologians today recognize that the Papacy as it now exists is of late origin. W. DeVries admits,

    ...throughout the first ten centuries Rome never claimed to have been granted its preferred position of jurisdiction as an explicit privilege” (Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism by Methodios Fouyas, p. 70).

    Avery Dulles considers the development of the Papacy to be an historical accident:

    The strong centralization in modern Catholicism is due to historical accident. It has been shaped in part by the homogeneous culture of medieval Europe and by the dominance of Rome, with its rich heritage of classical culture and legal organization” (Models of the Church by Avery Dulles, p. 200)

    • Pope Gregory was concerned that the Patriarch of Constantinople, St. John the Faster, had accepted the title of Ecumenical (or Universal) Patriarch. He condemned any such title for the following reasons:

    First, anyone who would use such a title would have fallen into pride, equal to the anti-Christ. He wrote: “I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride, the precursor of anti-Christ, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of anti-Christ; for as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others” (Ibid., 226).

    Second, St. Gregory believed that such a title would be perilous to the Church. “It cannot be denied that if any one bishop be called universal, all the Church crumbles if that universal one fall” (Ibid., p. 223).

    • Also, Archbishop Roland Minnerath, who was a contributor to the Vatican’s 1989 Historical and Theological Symposium, which was directed by the Vatican’s Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences, at the request of the then Cardinal Ratzinger’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the theme: “The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome in the First Millennium: Research and Evidence,” states,

    • At the heart of the estrangement that progressively arose between East and West, there may be a historical misunderstanding. The East never shared the Petrine theology as elaborated in the West. It never accepted that the protos in the universal church could claim to be the unique successor or vicar of Peter. So the East assumed that the synodal constitution of the church would be jeopardized by the very existence of a Petrine office with potentially universal competencies in the government of the church. (in How Can the Petrine Ministry Be a Service to the Unity of the Universal Church? James F. Puglisi, Editor, Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, ©2010, pgs. 34-48). Triablogue: The Roman Catholic Church was Never “Catholic”

    Eastern Orthodox scholarship (while maintaining her shared accretion of errors of "tradition" as the "one true church") also adds voice to this,

    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. Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman)..."

    All the stages are useful, all are resources; and the theologian may appeal to the Fathers, for example, but they may also be contradicted by something else, something higher or newer. 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

    • Some Catholics thus try to argue that the reason for now-exposed the "cloaking" of this Roman papacy is due to it not being contested, likening it to the doctrine of the Trinity, as Cardinal Newman argued, yet in so doing he admits what before would be considered heretical to state:

    While Apostles were on earth, there was the display neither of Bishop nor Pope; their power had no prominence, as being exercised by Apostles. In course of time, first the power of the Bishop displayed itself, and then the power of the Pope. . . . St. Peter’s prerogative would remain a mere letter, till the complication of ecclesiastical matters became the cause of ascertaining it. . . . When the Church, then, was thrown upon her own resources, first local disturbances gave exercise to Bishops, and next ecumenical disturbances gave exercise to Popes; and whether communion with the Pope was necessary for Catholicity would not and could not be debated till a suspension of that communion had actually occurred….there was no formal acknowledgment of the doctrine of the Trinity till the Fourth [century]. (John Henry Newman, Essay on the Development of Doctrine, Notre Dame edition, pp. 165-67).

    But which argument by analogy (to the Trinity) is specious. For it is clear that God is infallible, almighty and eternal by nature, and that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are explicitly and implicitly referred to as God in word and in deed, with Christ especially having uniquely Divine attributes, glory and titles ascribed to Him, even though the Trinity was only later precisely and formally formulated as a doctrine in the NT.

    In contrast, the manner of corporate leadership of the people of God in Scripture has always been made manifest, and while Peter is shown in Scripture as being the street-level leader among brethren, and the first to use the “keys” to the kingdom of God, that being the gospel, and who exercised a general pastoral role, but who could fail, yet nowhere is he presented as being the supreme exalted infallible head whom the church looked as such, much less in Rome.

    Nor is there any manifest successor for any apostle after Judas, or preparations for one, nor allowance for legitimate successors being men who would not even meet the qualifications for being a church member, let alone a supreme head. See here on The Peter of Scripture versus that of Rome.
     
  6. truefiction1

    truefiction1 Fool

    +1,578
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    If man is meant to Live by the Word of God alone, and not by both the Word of God and the Spirit of God, then why did our Lord not just stay here with us after His resurrection from death? Why did He ascend to the Father so that the Holy Spirit could come? Jesus is the Word of God, is He not?

    Of course He is. The Word of God, however, can only really be known by the work of the Holy Spirit within us.
     
  7. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +25,987
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Did you order them online?
     
  8. PeaceByJesus

    PeaceByJesus Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

    +2,033
    Christian
    Single
    Rather, in the beginning, the oral word of God was all there was of express Divine revelation, as God revealed His word personally to a very limited degree to a very limited amount of persons. Yet that was sufficient for what God required ("sola oral"), though it was not all that grace (or judgment) would provide.

    However, when choosing to to reveal His word more comprehensively to an entire nation, then God provided revelation to Moses and had Him commit to writing, which is evidenced to be God's chosen most-reliable means of preservation. ( Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3; 31:24; 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 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.
    As is abundantly evidenced

    And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)
     
  9. PeaceByJesus

    PeaceByJesus Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

    +2,033
    Christian
    Single
    Actually, the unparalleled (in ancient manuscripts) abundance of Scripture MSS makes the veracity of its transmission testable, and while showing some varied quality of manuscripts and overall minor variances btwn them, the mss evidence attests to the reliable transmission of the written word, while the veracity of what Catholicism says oral tradition is rests up on her unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which itself flows from her Tradition.

    Moreover, in contrast to the substantive written word of God, oral tradition, due to its amorphous nature, is supreme susceptible to undetectable corruption over long periods. And rather than oral tradition being the supreme transcendent standard, God's means of reliable preservation of His authoritative word is writing, in which form we see essential oral preaching being subsequently written, and tested by before it was.

    Want evidence?
     
  10. PeaceByJesus

    PeaceByJesus Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

    +2,033
    Christian
    Single
  11. seeking.IAM

    seeking.IAM Episcopalian Supporter

    +1,879
    Anglican
    Married
    Very interesting. So you rather like the Johnny-come-lately faith groups who come along nearly a couple thousand years after the groups you don't like have been shaping and preserving the faith. And, you tell them they've been doing it wrong. And by doing so, you can't call the largest Christian faith groups on the planet brother and sisters in Christ. I see.
     
  12. Original Happy Camper

    Original Happy Camper One of GODS Children I am a historicist

    +803
    United States
    SDA
    Married
    this is your statement that I responded to
    truefiction1 said:
    But it is found in Scriptures, in the Gospel of John, from our Lord's own Holy lips. What is not in Scripture is the teaching that Scripture is the highest authority.

    No where did you mention the Holy Spirit in it.

    I responed with a bible verse that says that we live by every word out of the mouth of GOD. Which is in the inspired word that we call the Bible cover to cover. Therefor the Highest Authority is the word of GOD The Scriptures
     
  13. PeaceByJesus

    PeaceByJesus Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

    +2,033
    Christian
    Single
    Made in Italy. They were very rose-colored also.
     
  14. truefiction1

    truefiction1 Fool

    +1,578
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    Without the Holy Spirit revealing it, the Word cannot be known, so God cannot be known. That is the point that is being made. So, even though God's Word is the highest authority, it is of little consequence if one cannot "hear" it. Hearing is the gift of the Holy Spirit.
     
  15. PeaceB

    PeaceB Well-Known Member

    +656
    United States
    Catholic
    Engaged
    Give it up already buddy. Just look at the parts of it that I underlined. Who are Linus, Anacletus, and Clement?

    You lose.
     
  16. PeaceByJesus

    PeaceByJesus Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

    +2,033
    Christian
    Single
    No, i am not like Johnny-come-lately faith groups who come along nearly a couple thousand years after the groups you don't like have been shaping and preserving the faith. Instead i want to be like the NT church which the largest Christian faith group (along with the Orthodox*) on the planet is the most manifest basic deformation of.

    In the first century a bunch of mostly common folk began following a itinerant holy man in the desert who are insects, and then an Itinerant Preacher and teacher who did miracles and referenced Scripture a lot. But the magisterial stewards of Scripture, who sat in the seat of Moses,(Mt. 23:2) and whose judgment the Law required them to submit to, (Dt. 17:8-13) rejected both of these men. They scoffed at some soldiers who were impressed with His teaching, saying, "Never man spake like this man" by answering "Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed." (John 7:47-49)

    They even demanded of this Itinerant Preacher who gave Him authority to preach, and in response He demanded of them where the itinerant holy man in the desert got his authority to baptize. But they would not answered him because the common people rightly held this holy man to be "prophet indeed," (as well as the Itinerant Preacher), in contrast to the judgment of those who sat in the seat of Moses, and they were afraid of them. (Mark 11:27-33)

    These men who sat in the historical magisterial seat over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (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) denigrated the followers of this Itinerant Preacher as members of "the sect of the Nazarene," (Acts 24:5) seeing them as innovators, while these magistrates presumed a level of veracity above that which was written.

    However, as their leader has done, His followers reproved them from Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established their Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (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.)

    Likewise Catholicism presumes a level of veracity above that which was written, and scoffs at those who find Scripture speaks like no other they heard, and basically respond to followers of what they deride as new faith, "Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the popes believed this? But this people who knoweth not The Church are cursed."

    I think we have some pretty substantial precedent for our dissent from Rome based upon what we see of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

    *Note that Protestantism at 920 million is a larger faith group than EOs at 270 million.
     
  17. Albion

    Albion Facilitator

    +19,220
    Anglican
    Married
    OK, but it's still the Scriptures that are to be 'heard,' not some substitute.
     
  18. EastCoastRemnant

    EastCoastRemnant I Must Decrease That He May Increase Supporter

    +1,439
    SDA
    Married
    The scriptures I cite speaks to which spirit... "To the law and the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."
     
  19. Albion

    Albion Facilitator

    +19,220
    Anglican
    Married
    Those are bishops of Rome. The idea of a pope and all that is associated with that position is still hundreds of years and more into the future.
     
  20. Tutorman

    Tutorman Charismatic Episcopalian

    +1,206
    United States
    Episcopalian
    Married
    US-Republican
    I don't twist like you do and I do not only rely on Scripture.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...