Known for all ages?? NOT

[Rick Otto]

Trusting authority... risky business .
So the glitch is between Irenaeus &... who is the OP source?

 

[ivebeenshown]

Trusting authority... risky business .
So the glitch is between Irenaeus &... who is the OP source?

It was especially risky when the people of Israel trusted Moses when crossing the Red Sea...

 

[simonthezealot]

Trusting authority... risky business .
So the glitch is between Irenaeus &... who is the OP source?

FIRST Vatican Council.

 

[simonthezealot]

Did God cause the bible to fall from the sky into your lap? If no, then you are trusting humans when they told you what Scripture is.

Nope, it's called trusting the Holy Spirit.

 

[sunlover1]

Yeah, as in, don't trust that Dave is going to personally save you from hellfire. But if God meant that we can have ABSOUTELY no trust in ANY other human being, then you can't really believe anything I say, or anything anyone else says, you can't trust your husband is not going to murder you, etc. There is a certain level of 'trust' you can have in humans that doesn't compare to a 'trust' in God, I trust my fiance is not going to poison my dinner but my heart has not departed from God in doing so...

Come on...

Actually it was a 'system' they were putting their trust in.
I see many correlations.
But then again, some things I see, you wont see...
due to perspective.


But for all of us to consider:

Clarke's Commentary on the BibleCursed be the man that trusteth in man - This reprehends their vain confidence in trusting in Egypt, which was too feeble itself to help, and, had it been otherwise, too ill disposed towards them to help them heartily. An arm of flesh is put here for a weak and ineffectual support. And he who, in reference to the salvation of his soul, trusts in an arm of flesh - in himself or others, or in any thing he has done or suffered, will inherit a curse instead of a blessing.

(I added the emphasis)

 

[sunlover1]

It was especially risky when the people of Israel trusted Moses when crossing the Red Sea...

They trusted in the man ? Or perhaps not.
Pity Moses missed the promised land

 

[Rick Otto]

Did God cause the bible to fall from the sky into your lap?

Practicaly yes, but literaly no.

Can any spiritual truth be apprehended personaly?
I'm thinking Romans 1:20 is enough of a precept to build on.

 

[simonthezealot]

Practicaly yes, but literaly no.

Can any spiritual truth be apprehended personaly?
I'm thinking Romans 1:20 is enough of a precept to build on.

Leaving us without excuse.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Nope, it's called trusting the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit tells me that the book of Tobit is to be reckoned as Scripture. But the Spirit isn't the author of confusion now, is he?

 

[simonthezealot]

The Holy Spirit tells me that the book of Tobit is to be reckoned as Scripture. But the Spirit isn't the author of confusion now, is he?

Doubt it's the HS, rather another spirit...

 

[ivebeenshown]

Doubt it's the HS, rather another spirit...

Every Spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, right?

 

[Rick Otto]

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in theflesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

more than one!

 

[ivebeenshown]

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in theflesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

more than one!

How is this relevant? Everyone in this thread acknowledges that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=ivebeenshown;How is this relevant?

You asked.
Every Spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, right?

Every Spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, right?

Just thought I'd throw the next verse in there and broaden the context a little. Sorry if I muddied the water.

 

[simonthezealot]

You asked.
Every Spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, right?
Just thought I'd throw the next verse in there and broaden the context a little. Sorry if I muddied the water.

Context makes things relevant.

 

[simonthezealot]

So we are 78 posts into this thread and no one is even putting up an argument to support the vaticans claim that the Petrine primacy was known for all ages.
Yet people are willing to follow blindly this institution? You can't trace your own claims and yet you'll trust they have had this loyal to the LORD succession for 2000 years...
This should be very disconcerning.

What we are seeing is the most fundamental of your beliefs do not have a shred, a shred of historical proof for hundreds of years. Thats not good guys.

Still nothing after 175 posts.

 

[ivebeenshown]

You asked.
Every Spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, right?
Just thought I'd throw the next verse in there and broaden the context a little. Sorry if I muddied the water.

Oh ok. No problem!

 

[ivebeenshown]

My challenge! seeing it is determined so detrimental to the faith...

Show ECF's prior to the 3rd century 200 AD(seeing as it was known in every age) that recognized that Peter HIMSELF passed the keys directly to another bishop... (we know it happened in Antioch) prove it happened in Rome... this is integral to the institution we know as the Catholic Church .

If this is specifically your challenge, off the top of my head we have Irenaeus from the second century who acknowledges that Peter was succeeded in his bishoprick.

It doesn't appear that in your OP you asked for any real evidence of primacy, just that someone succeeded Peter's own office. Well here ya go.

 

[simonthezealot]

If this is specifically your challenge, off the top of my head we have Irenaeus from the second century who acknowledges that Peter was succeeded in his bishoprick.

It doesn't appear that in your OP you asked for any real evidence of primacy, just that someone succeeded Peter's own office. Well here ya go.

You should go back and read the OP, Ireneaus was addressed as well...

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 3:

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,(3) that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric.

(Note: this does not explicitly claim any primacy of Peter in itself as far as I can see, but does claim primacy of the Roman See.)

This is particularly important. Notice that Irenaues said that Rome has authority, undoubtedly a controversial view but he certainly felt that way as did others at that time, but look at the reason why. Not because Peter had a specific successor but their adherence to the Apostles teachings(which we also believe as well, this is preserved in the Bible). Notice also Peter and Paul

 

[simonthezealot]

Papal Primacy, Known For All Ages? Papal primacy is integral to Catholicism...
HERE

from there I found this...
For "no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives" and presides and "exercises judgment in his successors" the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood

"Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church.
So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted,
and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received "
First Vatican Council

There is no room for development. According to this the first person to succeed Peter would have primacy over the whole church.

My challenge! seeing it is determined so detrimental to the faith...

Show ECF's prior to the 3rd century 200 AD(seeing as it was known in every age) that recognized that Peter HIMSELF passed the keys directly to another bishop... (we know it happened in Antioch) prove it happened in Rome... this is integral to the institution we know as the Catholic Church .

For your reading pleasure...