Catholic?

[Anthony Edgar]

I agree that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth, BUT not like YOU are wanting it to say because that verse is NOT speaking of Roman Catholic Church.

Which Church is the verse speaking of then, if not the Catholic Church? I asked you this before, but I didn't get an answer.

 

[Anthony Edgar]

That is simple a question that all Catholic believers are taught to use when talking about "Sola Scriptura".

You have some funny ideas about what Catholics are taught. I was never taught anything at all about Sola Scriptura, let alone arguments to use against it.

it is illogical to claim that since the word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible that its concept is not taught therein … So, to say that the Trinity isn't true because the word isn't in the Bible is an invalid argument. Furthermore, to say that if God wanted us to believe in the Trinity He would have clearly taught it in scripture, is also an invalid argument … Something does not have to be clearly formulated in the Bible to be valid. Not all things taught in the Bible are perfectly clear.

Exactly. Ditto for other Catholic doctrines that are implied in Scripture.

the person should look to God's word to see if it is taught or n

I agree - expect “God’s word” is not confined to the Bible.

 

[Anthony Edgar]

1 Corth. 4:6 says...……….
"Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other."

You’ve taken the words “what is written” out of context. Paul is referring to the OT warnings about boasting quoted earlier in the letter - 1:19, 31; 3:19-20. Furthermore, Paul writes elsewhere that the oral teachings of the apostles are on a par with the written word - 1Thess 2:13; 2Thess 2:15, 3:6.

works of righteousness

It seems there is more to salvation that merely faith:
“And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God AND have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” (Rev 12:14
”Here is the patience of the saints; those who keep the commandments of God AND the faith of Jesus.” (Rev 14:12)
”What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? … You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! … Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? … You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only … For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” (James 2:14-26)

Is it any wonder that Martin “faith alone” Luther wanted to remove the books of Revelation and James from the canon?

the Roman Catholic Church did not give us the Old Testament

The Catholic Church informed believers what constitutes the full canon of Scripture, which happens to include the OT. It that sense, the Catholic Church “gave” the OT to Christians. How would the Gentile Christians have become of the OT if the Catholic Church had not approved it and not included it in the Bible? Maybe a visiting rabbi taught them about it, but somehow I doubt it.

the Roman Catholic Church was not really around as an organization in the first couple hundred years of the Christian Church.

You really ought to study the early Church Fathers - the term “Catholic Church” has been used since at least AD107:
“Around the year A.D. 107, a bishop, St. Ignatius of Antioch in the Near East, was arrested, brought to Rome by armed guards and eventually martyred there in the arena. In a farewell letter which this early bishop and martyr wrote to his fellow Christians in Smyrna (today Izmir in modern Turkey), he made the first written mention in history of "the Catholic Church." He wrote, "Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2). Thus, the second century of Christianity had scarcely begun when the name of the Catholic Church was already in use.” How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?

 

[Anthony Edgar]

The official Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church teaches that a person can get to Heaven some OTHER WAY besides faith in Christ if they're sincere . . .

God will save whomsoever He wishes to save and no man knows who they will be, but I believe many non-Christians will receive salvation. Do you honestly think you can sit in God’s place, judge the hearts of men and determine the eternal fate of souls by reading a book?

Pope Francis says, "They are not punished, those who repent obtain the forgiveness of God and enter the rank of souls who contemplate him, but those who do not repent and cannot therefore be forgiven disappear. There is no hell, there is the disappearance of sinful souls."

A Pope’s personal opinion is not necessarily the same as the official teaching of the Catholic Church. I suspect that - like many non-Catholic Christians - you are confusing a Pope’s personal opinion with the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. In other words, you don’t understand what is meant by Papal Infallibility and ex cathedra declarations.

 

[Anthony Edgar]

You as a Catholic are on a Christian web site arguing for the Catholic position and you do not know what "Apostolic Succession" is?

No, I just wanted to know if you know what it means

 

[chevyontheriver]

Typical

The whole thread is typical.

 

[Anthony Edgar]

However, nowhere in Scripture did Jesus, the apostles, or any other New Testament writer set forth the idea of “apostolic succession.”

On top of that is the fact that NO WHERE in the Scriptures is there a command or a teaching or even a suggestion that the office of the Apostle would be passed on to anyone else. It is just not there.

So it doesn't make sense to you that the apostles would appoint trusted successors to lead the Church after they die? It makes perfect sense to me!

Further, neither is Peter presented as “supreme” over the other apostles. The apostle Paul, in fact, rebukes Peter when Peter was leading others astray (Galatians 2:11-14). Yes, the apostle Peter had a prominent role. Yes, perhaps the apostle Peter was the leader of the apostles (although the book of Acts records the apostle Paul and Jesus’ brother James as also having prominent leadership roles). Whatever the case, Peter was not the “commander” or supreme authority over the other apostles. Even if apostolic succession could be demonstrated from Scripture, which it cannot, apostolic succession would not result in Peter’s successors being absolutely supreme over the other apostles’ successors.
Is apostolic succession biblical?

The book of Acts - pre-Paul - makes it obvious Peter was the leader of the apostles.

What was the very first thing Jesus ever said to Simon? He changed Simon's name to "rock"! (John !:42) Why? (Here's a hint: Matt 16:18)

Whom did the resurrected Jesus ask to "feed my sheep" three times ?

The apostle Paul, in fact, rebukes Peter when Peter was leading others astray (Galatians 2:11-14).

All that proves is that Peter was corrected by Paul. A Pope can be corrected another Bishop or Bishops.

 

[Anthony Edgar]

1 Corinthians 4:6


Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.

You're reading it out of context. Paul is referring to the OT warnings about boasting quoted earlier in the letter - 1Cor 1:19, 31; 3:19-20. Furthermore, Paul writes elsewhere that the oral teachings of the apostles are on a par with the written word - 1Thess 2:13; 2Thess 2:15, 3:6.

 

[prodromos]

Whom did the resurrected Jesus ask to "feed my sheep" three times ?

This is after asking Peter if he loved Him more than the other disciples, which was in reference to Peter earlier claiming that even if all the other disciples abandoned Him, he never would. Jesus treats Peter with extra care because Peter alone denied Christ three times.
You speak of others reading out of context, yet you are guilty of the same here.

 

[concretecamper]

John Chrysostom's commentary on John 21:17

That which most of all attracts the Divine love is care and love for our neighbor. Our Lord passing by the rest, addresses this command to Peter: he being the chief of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, and head of the college. Our Lord remembers no more his sin in denying Him, or brings that as a charge against him, but commits to him at once the superintendence over his brethren. If you love Me, have rule over your brethren, show forth that love which you have evidenced throughout, and that life which you said you would lay down for Me, lay down for the sheep.

 

[Major1]

No, I just wanted to know if you know what it means

Typical.

I want to say this very slowly so that all can understand this......
"nowhere in Scripture did Jesus, the apostles, or any other New Testament writer set forth the idea of “apostolic succession."

Apostolic succession is not biblical. The concept of apostolic succession is never found in Scripture. What is found in Scripture is that the true church will teach what the Scriptures teach and will compare all doctrines and practices to Scripture in order to determine what is true and right. The Roman Catholic Church claims that a lack of ongoing apostolic authority results in doctrinal confusion and chaos.

If Scripture is studied in its entirety and in its proper context, the truth can be easily determined. Doctrinal differences and denominational conflicts are a result of some Christians refusing to agree with what Scripture says – not a result of there being no “supreme authority” to interpret Scripture.

 

[concretecamper]

Doctrinal differences and denominational conflicts are a result of some Christians refusing to agree with what Scripture says

So, abandon your interpretation of scripture and join.... say the LCMS.

Oh right, they dont agree with YOUR interpretation of scripture. I forgot, YOURS is the correct interpretation.

Everyone is their own authority....Popes all around I say!!!!!

 

[Major1]

You're reading it out of context. Paul is referring to the OT warnings about boasting quoted earlier in the letter - 1Cor 1:19, 31; 3:19-20. Furthermore, Paul writes elsewhere that the oral teachings of the apostles are on a par with the written word - 1Thess 2:13; 2Thess 2:15, 3:6.

That is correct.....WHEN those oral teachings are validated by the written word.

When we look at the examples of tradition in the Scripture we find its purpose does the very opposite of the word written. If the traditions the Catholics hold are suppose to be a body of teaching that was passed down by the apostles oral tradition, why are they written down? Why are they not included in the bible if they are written down. After all they are suppose to be apostolic teaching.

Catholics “Sacred Tradition” becomes invalid if in any point it contradicts the Bible. Catholic teachings of purgatory, penance, indulgences, Mass, praying the rosary, praying to saints and Mary, wearing scapulars, are not found in the Scripture and they contradict scriptures teachings. Any verses found to validate these by Catholics are always subject to being redefined or pulled from its actual context. The Catholic Church has used their Traditions to make them equal to word when. The fact is that God says nothing has this kind of authority except the word itself.
Traditions found in the Bible

 

[Major1]

So it doesn't make sense to you that the apostles would appoint trusted successors to lead the Church after they die? It makes perfect sense to me!


The book of Acts - pre-Paul - makes it obvious Peter was the leader of the apostles.

What was the very first thing Jesus ever said to Simon? He changed Simon's name to "rock"! (John !:42) Why? (Here's a hint: Matt 16:18)

Whom did the resurrected Jesus ask to "feed my sheep" three times ?


All that proves is that Peter was corrected by Paul. A Pope can be corrected another Bishop or Bishops.

"Making Sense" to me or you is not and has never been something that we should consider.

The Word of God gives NO direction whatsoever to Apostolic succession my dear friend. There is NO Bible direction for the practice. It was all done by the Catholic church.

Real history says that the concept of apostolic succession was formed by the Roman Catholic denomination in order to retain the "Monarchical Episcopate" system which was germinating in the Church.

 

[prodromos]

John Chrysostom's commentary on John 21:17

That which most of all attracts the Divine love is care and love for our neighbor. Our Lord passing by the rest, addresses this command to Peter: he being the chief of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, and head of the college. Our Lord remembers no more his sin in denying Him, or brings that as a charge against him, but commits to him at once the superintendence over his brethren. If you love Me, have rule over your brethren, show forth that love which you have evidenced throughout, and that life which you said you would lay down for Me, lay down for the sheep.

When then having been asked once and again, he called Him to witness who knoweth the secrets of the heart, and then was asked even a third time, he was troubled, fearing a repetition of what had happened before, (for then, having been strong in assertion, he was afterwards convicted,) and therefore he again betaketh himself to Him. For the saying, “Thou knowest all things,” meaneth, “things present, and things to come.” Seest thou how he had become better and more sober, being no more self-willed, or contradicting? For on this account he was troubled, “lest perchance I think that I love, and love not, as before when I thought and affirmed much, yet I was convicted at last.” But Jesus asketh him the third time, and the third time giveth him the same injunction, to show at what a price He setteth the care of His own sheep, and that this especially is a sign of love towards Him.

 

[Major1]

So, abandon your interpretation of scripture and join.... say the LCMS.

Oh right, they dont agree with YOUR interpretation of scripture. I forgot, YOURS is the correct interpretation.

Everyone is their own authority....Popes all around I say!!!!!

I have NO personal interpretation of the Scriptures.

2 Peter 1:20 is probably a Scripture that you are not familiar with but it says...……….
"But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation.”

Peter is saying that there is no such thing as “your interpretation” or “my interpretation” of the Bible, there’s just what the Bible says and that’s that. No one, the passage says, is allowed the comfort of a private, personal interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is not to be read in such a way that it is made to conform to our opinions and assumptions; instead, we must conform to what it says.

 

[Major1]

The whole thread is typical.

It is and always has been the question...……...what does a person accept--
The Bible as the Word of God which is to be followed or...…..
The Pope and the Church is to be followed.

I do not see a result of that question.

 

[Major1]

God will save whomsoever He wishes to save and no man knows who they will be, but I believe many non-Christians will receive salvation. Do you honestly think you can sit in God’s place, judge the hearts of men and determine the eternal fate of souls by reading a book?


A Pope’s personal opinion is not necessarily the same as the official teaching of the Catholic Church. I suspect that - like many non-Catholic Christians - you are confusing a Pope’s personal opinion with the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. In other words, you don’t understand what is meant by Papal Infallibility and ex cathedra declarations.

Here is the root of the difference between you and me and all the other Protestant Christians. We believe and accept the Word of God as it is.

You just said...…...
"but I believe many non-Christians will receive salvation."

Now I do not want to be mean spirited or disrespectful to you or anyone else, however that comment show me that you do not have a lot of Bible knowledge. You may have a lot of Catholic teachings but that my friend will not save you.

What you said is in direct opposition to the words of God Himself in John 14:6.....
"I AM THE WAY AND THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE AND NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER BUT BY ME".

Not by the church.
Not by the Pope.
Not by Mary.
Not by water baptism.
Not by works.
Not by sacraments.
Not by being sincere.

ONLY by the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Major1]

You’ve taken the words “what is written” out of context. Paul is referring to the OT warnings about boasting quoted earlier in the letter - 1:19, 31; 3:19-20. Furthermore, Paul writes elsewhere that the oral teachings of the apostles are on a par with the written word - 1Thess 2:13; 2Thess 2:15, 3:6.


It seems there is more to salvation that merely faith:
“And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God AND have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” (Rev 12:14
”Here is the patience of the saints; those who keep the commandments of God AND the faith of Jesus.” (Rev 14:12)
”What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? … You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! … Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? … You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only … For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” (James 2:14-26)

Is it any wonder that Martin “faith alone” Luther wanted to remove the books of Revelation and James from the canon?


The Catholic Church informed believers what constitutes the full canon of Scripture, which happens to include the OT. It that sense, the Catholic Church “gave” the OT to Christians. How would the Gentile Christians have become of the OT if the Catholic Church had not approved it and not included it in the Bible? Maybe a visiting rabbi taught them about it, but somehow I doubt it.


You really ought to study the early Church Fathers - the term “Catholic Church” has been used since at least AD107:
“Around the year A.D. 107, a bishop, St. Ignatius of Antioch in the Near East, was arrested, brought to Rome by armed guards and eventually martyred there in the arena. In a farewell letter which this early bishop and martyr wrote to his fellow Christians in Smyrna (today Izmir in modern Turkey), he made the first written mention in history of "the Catholic Church." He wrote, "Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2). Thus, the second century of Christianity had scarcely begun when the name of the Catholic Church was already in use.” How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?

You said...…….

"It seems there is more to salvation that merely faith".

You really need to read and study the Bible more. You comments are telling all of us that you really are not very understanding of the Scriptures.

There is NOTHING BUT FAITH to be saved. NOTHING!

Ephesians 2:8-9 ...….
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

John 3:16.....................
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have eternal life".

Romans 3:28 …………..

" For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law."

Rom. 3:22......
"even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction."

Gal. 2:16......
"nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."

How could God have written that so as to make it easier for you to understand?


​

 

[concretecamper]

instead, we must conform to what it says.

You mean confirms to what YOU say it says....or what Pastor Billy Bob says it means...if of course you agree with what Billy Bob says, if not, start your own denomination.