Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If you know that your church teaches that the Church is the collection of baptized believers, then why do you repeatedly misquote scripture with your interpretation that scripture is referencing your religious institution when it says the church?I KNOW what the Catholic Church teaches. Don't know any "RCC". I believe, as my church teaches, that the Church is the collection of all (Trinitarian) baptized believers. I believe the Catholic Church is the only Church which has the full teachings of Christ, that all Protestant denominations have a subset of the full teachings of Christ, or a skewed understanding of said teachings.
Understand this is a forum where a diversity of points are argued. If you wish to just stand on a soap box and present your interpretation without listening to another interpretation than you should really just stand at a pulpit and preach. If you desire to post in my thread, then you need to be able to argue and defend your statements.I don't need you to interpret Scripture for me. Thanks, though.
It was the Holy Spirit which guided the council to a consensus, just as the Holy Spirit guided the apostles to chose Mattias to succeed Judas.
So how is this an indication of any special authority, let alone guarantee of perpetual Truth in one particular religious institution? It certainly does not exhibit your "Traditions" or Papal inerrancy.Actually,not. The Holy Spirit inspired the Church in the councils to adhere to the Truth.
I disagree. Satan believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and he is not part of the Church.
So how is this an indication of any special authority, let alone guarantee of perpetual Truth in one particular religious institution? It certainly does not exhibit your "Traditions" or Papal inerrancy.
If you hadn't mentioned that, I would've had to. Agreement with that Creed is a pre-requisite for posting.The fact that the Orthodox, the Anglicans, the Lutherans and Calvinists accept some of these councils demonstrates their broad applicability.
For example, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 is the Statement of Faith for this website. That creed was the fruit of the Second Ecumenical Council, which was opened by Emperor St. Theodosius and Patriarch St. Gregory the Theologian, Archbishop of Constantinople.
Acts 1:24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
Proverbs 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.
Read scripture and see that the Holy Spirit did not guide the apostles to choose Matthias. They cast lots, which put the decision in God's hand. This further refutes the ability of the apostles to choose successors.
AnticipateHisComing said in post 1443:
This further refutes the ability of the apostles to choose successors.
Which conclusion is just the problem.It was logical that, when Peter died, someone would step up to take his place. This is what we call, today, the Pope.
1. It is not logical to make a fundamental doctrine simply based on what seems logical, but what Scripture does not testify to, and it is absurd to presume the Holy Spirit would not make it manifest that Peter was going to have successors, which would be consistent with His characteristic providence for basic doctrines.
We see clear instructions to choose elders/overseers, and their qualifications, and of Paul personally disciplining men like pastor (not an apostle) Timothy to carry on his ministry, that "the things that thou hast heard of me [once again not mentioning Peter] among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also, (2 Timothy 2:2) but nothing on choosing a successor to Peter (though i am sure some RCs will try to pull one out of a hat). Meanwhile scholars find a plurality of elders ruling in the early post-apostolic church.
2. Under the new covenant, immoral men are disqualified from even being members, let alone being pastors, and much less head of the church, unlike with civil leaders or an aristocracy of blood. And Rome's sppsd successors to Peter included immoral men, as well as absences of any for years, besides competing popes, while the only successor to an apostle was by the non-political OT method of casting lots, which Rome has never used. Thus Romes "unbroken succession" is neither.
3. The premise that " someone would step up to take the place of Peter" does not translate into the Roman pontiffs in their doctrinal unhindered autocratic presumption, ruling over the church as their infallible supreme head in Rome. The fundamental contrasts btwn the Peter of Scripture and his sppsd successors and of the nature of the office itself invalidates the pope from being supreme head of the church.
But I wish that God would raise up a man like Peter and Paul and Stephen etc. today, and that I were more like them in purity, passion and power for Christ.
What you admit to is that your denial of adding to the word of God is based upon adding to the word of God.
Where?! Even by the very example at hand. Declaring the Assumption to be the word of God which one is cursed for not believing is adding to the word of God, as this specific past event is not taught nor prophesied of Mary, but it contrary to it, for the bodily resurrection of believers and their receiving crowns awaits the Lords return, as conclusively shown you!Where ha ve we ADDED TO the Word of God. PROVE it.
There simply is NO laying on of hands in Gal. 2! Unlike in Acts 9:17; 13:3 where the Spirit distinctly says believers laid hands on Paul, and in the 2nd case in commissioning him, thus showing the Spirit knows how to express such, yet Gal. 2:9 says (in the KJV; DRB, they gave to Paul and Barnabas the right hands of [cf. Mt. 6:3; 20:21; 22:24; 26:64; 27:29; Acts 3:7) fellowship
Refer to verse 9?! That is just what i did, and which simply confirms what i said, that There simply is NO laying on of hands in Gal. 2, and of Paul being made an apostle, but which he already was called, as shown.Refer to verse 9.
Stop trying to read into Scripture what you can only wish was there!
There is no conferring with James in Gal. 1:18
You referenced Gal. 1:18 as Paul conferring with James, and v. 19 only says he saw James, and what i said about v. 18 remains."Verse 19."
Well then since the Holy Spirit says that the Lord Jesus has "the keys of hell and of death" (Revelation 1:18) and "hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth," (Revelation 3:7) then once again we have a Catholic be correcting Him.Why would Christ need a key? He can walk through walls.
No He did not tell Peter that, or that he was his prime minister, for once again you are reading into the text what you want to see, which even Rome does not infallibly interpret it as saying. Again, there is nothing said in Scripture of this having any other fulfillment besides that of Eliakim, and while that itself does not negate its use, Peter fails of fulfilling it in its totality ("a glorious throne...all the glory of his father's house," etc.) except in RC imagination, but which only Christ can be said to have done.He gave Peter the key and told him what he shuts no one will open. Christ is the King, Peter is the prime minister.
Rather, the NT church is that which is Casting down [such] imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; (2 Corinthians 10:5)Just as in the Church today.
What? That is the offering up of prayer in memorial before the judgments of the end times, not a postal service, and does not even show or teach that the church or any believer in Scripture ever prayed to created beings in Heaven, which is what the charge was, nor that they even heard these prayers!
No, the point you were sppsd to be refuting was that the NT church did not "practice praying to created beings in Heaven," which Catholicism has them doing from day One, but which only pagans are shown doing in Scripture."Do you not know that we are currently before the judgements of the end times? But the point is that they aren't dead, they're alive, and bring our prayers to Christ. "
4. offered rote prayers to obtain early release from Purgatory
Once again you are engaging in obscurantism. The charge was that the NT church in Scripture did not offer rote prayers to obtain early release from Purgatory, which is true, but which you denied Catholicism as doing ("no such thing.")"Wrong again. Rote-Memorization by repetition (WordWeb)"
Where is there a Biblical ordinace against memorization or repetition?
the rosary is recited
So what? It confirms that rote prayers are offered to obtain early release from Purgatory, that's what.So what?
5. required clerical celibacy as the norm,
Once again you are engaging in sophistry, for the charge is not the contextual validity of being celibate, but that of this being anything even close the norm, and consistent with the requirements for pastors. (1Tim. 3:1-7)It is not contrary to the NT. In fact, Paul said it was better to remain celebate.
Paul qualifies his counsel by stating that "I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that." (1 Corinthians 7:7) To presume that virtually all who are called to be pastors have that gift is an unwarranted and even dangerous presumption, which Paul did not make.
And actually called for marital relations btwn those who were married, (1Co. 7:5) contrary to some so-called church fathers as concerns clergy.
meaning that neither Scripture nor history supports the pre-Constatian papacy, nor what came after it, but the latter defines the former, and enjoines docile submission to it. At least on paper.
Actually you are done, as the fingers that are pointing at you are those of Scripture for trying to defend what it does not manifestly teach.You know, I'm about done with you. When you point fingers at people, remember that you have several pointed back at yourself.
A vain unreasonable retort, but fitting since what is linked clearly refuted your absurd attempt to make 1Cor. 3 describe purgatory.If you wanted to save typing, should have stopped typing..
A fallacious argument against the fact that they did, for souls will not only die to protect what they see as a threat from foreigners to what they love, but will also incorporate things from foreigners which they see helping their faith..How can you ever say that the people who died because they protected the true faith would ever allow paganism in the Church???
Yes, i believe that you don't care, as evidenced, what even Catholic scholars say that do not support the fantasy you support." And I don't care who you say Le Goff is. He's not authoritative."
As meaning a perpetual infallible ability to choose, esp. generations of only Italians.They cast lots, which put the decision in God's hand. This further refutes the ability of the apostles to choose successors.
They are to be found all around the globe and in various churches that have retained bishops.Also, Acts 14:14 shows that eventually there were at least 14 apostles, including Paul and Barnabas, and the 12 apostles of Acts 1:26.
Also, if the pope today were the successor of Peter, then who today would be the successors of the at least 13 other apostles besides Peter?
Some of them are untraceable, it's true, but there are many lines. Some of them are like tracing your family tree.Did all the other lines of apostolic succession peter out?
AnticipateHisComing said:Read scripture and see that the Holy Spirit did not guide the apostles to choose Matthias. They cast lots, which put the decision in God's hand. This further refutes the ability of the apostles to choose successors.
People did not assume it. The false teachers and false prophets that Y'SHUA and the APOSTLES warned againstWhy then would anyone assume that the disciples would establish a hierarchical structure with a patriarch figure in place of Jesus Christ ?
All the APOSTLES refuted this so-called type chain,We see no evidence of the claim of succession from Peter and neither evidence that would identify Peter as a patriarchal figure.
I think that the original premise of the devil was that God was not singularly worthy of the worship, glory, and uniquely Divine prerogatives, and that one one lifted up in pride, he was.You know, on this point I have pondered strictly as a theolougoumemnon the extent to which Satan in his corruption may have acquired a grossly distorted idea of who God is, or lost an understanding of theology altogether.
Since theology is prayer, and Satan is anti-prayer, it seems to me quite possible that he has forgotten the knowledge he originally had about God and degenerated to the point where he has no knowledge or understanding of God whatosever, to the point where he might be an atheist.
This would explain his completely futile attempts to tempt our Lord Jesus Christ; either he did not know that in His assumed humanity Jesus was hypostatically united with the divine uncreated Son of God, the Logos, or he assumed that he could somehow divide the human will possessed by our Lord in His humanity from His divine will, which might suggest that he had forgotten or had come to reject the fundamental theological fact of divine perfection.
Just read this today which is pertinent:As usual, the Roman archbishop was absent and represented by his legates. Off the top of my head I cannot think of any major church council from the first millennium that was not a local council specific to the Roman church where the Roman Pope was personally present.
So wrong. There are APOSTLES and there are apostles. Understand the difference between the first 12+1 apostles and all others. What is unique about the 13 is the very way in which they were chosen. They were chosen by God. All the following ones were chosen by man. These first 13 had special authority from Jesus.No. Apostolic Succession refers to the fact of chosen successors. The precise way in which they are chosen doesn't define the principle..
So much for the Catholics never changing the one true doctrine traced to Peter.Just read this today which is pertinent:
As of last Thursday, the Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church announced that it had reached substantial agreement on the questions of primacy and synodality in the Church....
It should be said at once that the document has accepted a reading of the first Millennium which is more in tune with the way Orthodoxy has tended to see it than that favoured by Catholic apologetics until recent times. Until such confessional readings of history became unfashionable after Vatican II, Catholics would commonly urge Orthodox to return to the unity of the first centuries from which they were alleged to have gone into schism by rejecting the Roman Primacy which they previously accepted. In line with this view, every sign from the early Church of the East accepting a leading role for the bishop of Rome was interpreted as recognising for him the kind of role he came to play in the post-schism West.
The Chieti document unambiguously rejects this simplification of history. It recognises that even in the West the understanding of Roman primacy was the result of a development of doctrine, particularly from the fourth century, and that this development did not occur in the East: “The primacy of the bishop of Rome among the bishops was gradually interpreted as a prerogative that was his because he was successor of Peter, the first of the apostles. This understanding was not adopted in the East…” The East, in other words, rather than reneging on a common heritage, simply never accepted a development it had not been part of....
Recent scholarship, led by Catholic scholars who have freed themselves from the shackles of a one-sided apologetic no longer in favour with the Magisterium itself, have concluded that papal authority in the form it has taken in the Second Millennium West, can only be properly understood as a doctrinal development in which the East had no part...
The Chieti document, if it is ratified by the Holy See, becomes the official Catholic position. - http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/com...nt-is-a-landmark-but-theres-a-long-way-to-go/
You can say that, but it doesn't show any understanding of what Apostolic Succession means--whether one agrees with the idea or not.So wrong. There are APOSTLES and there are apostles. Understand the difference between the first 12+1 apostles and all others. What is unique about the 13 is the very way in which they were chosen. They were chosen by God. All the following ones were chosen by man. These first 13 had special authority from Jesus.
Apostolic Succession is not about the Roman Catholic Church in particular, it does require men to act, and it isn't solely about the successors of Peter (in case you have any interest in learning what it's all about).Now, realize that the Catholics base their right to truth and authority as being succeeded from Peter. Any scripture support for this is purely fabrication. So yes, it is most important how one is chosen; whether from God or from man makes a huge difference in the authority that one has.
This thread begs the question in point 4, for another source of incontrovertible truth. Catholics have argued in this thread that apostolic succession from Peter provides this. My response is to refute this; stating that scripture does not show Peter being inerrant or having the authority to pass his authority on to another.You can say that, but it doesn't show any understanding of what Apostolic Succession means--whether one agrees with the idea or not.
Apostolic Succession is not about the Roman Catholic Church in particular, it does require men to act, and it isn't solely about the successors of Peter (in case you have any interest in learning what it's all about).
AnticipateHisComing said:Now, realize that the Catholics base their right to truth and authority as being succeeded from Peter.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?