The Rule of faith and practice is not scripture "alone"

[Valletta]

They were types. Till Christ came. Who now has the key of David. (Rev. 3:7). Go ahead, argue with Scripture.

There is no mention of these men having the "key of David". They were all succeeded by the FOREVER Christ, who again, has the "key of David" in Rev. 3:7. No mere sinner men have this role. Sorry.

It's an office, the office of prime minister/chief steward. When the office is vacant a new prime minister is chose. The key represents authority. The king does not lose the authority. For an analogy, when Jesus gave the Apostles the power to heal, Jesus did not lose that power. So Jesus can still be spoken of or seen in Revelation as having the keys and also his servant on earth has the keys. The prime minister only has the authority when the king is not present.

 

[The Liturgist]

I guess the truth can hurt and even be offensive. Further, this is a site of debate made of varying opinions by many. Otherwise, take it down.

Well the problem here is that the attack on the agency of Roman Catholics is plainly untrue, and what is more, it is alienating, and it does nothing to advance your cause, if your goal is to persuade them to convert from Roman Catholicism.

And yes, Christianity is a site made by the varying opinions of many, but not all of these opinions are of equal merit. For example, we have a handful of members who consistently and tirelessly, against all evidence, argue for the existence of a Flat Earth and other related conspiracy theories, like the idea the Lunar landing was a hoax, and these arguments are, needless to say, patently absurd.

Thus, I propose that it is counter productive for anyone seeking to persuade Roman Catholics of anything, or any other group of Christians or for that matter, on a more urgent note, groups of semi-Christians such as Mormons who we want to convert to Christianity proper (I don’t get why anyone would want to “evangelize” Catholics when there are millions of Mormons and J/Ws who are members of destructive cults on the fringes of Christianity, who are not, unlike Roman Catholics, adherents of the Nicene Creed, and thus are in real spiritual danger from the false teachings of their cult as well as secular danger from the extreme control said cults exert), to attack the agency of the people we are trying to reach out to, since such an argument is so patently offensive it will embolden anyone it is used upon.

What I don’t think you realize is that when you attack the agency of Roman Catholics, you are basically saying “You were bamboozled into believing in this faith by someone more cunning and clever than you,” which is so far removed from the spiritual experience of Roman Catholics as to be absurd, and which is also lacking in charity, the importance of which is stressed by the Holy Apostle Paul, particularly considering that Roman Catholics are fellow Christians who follow the Nicene Creed and who doctrinally agree with normative Christianity on all key issues, despite the inane arguments of people like Jack Chick to the contrary.

Indeed I wish I had one tenth of the piety of my traditional Roman Catholic friends @chevyontheriver and @Michie ; I don’t agree with them on all points of doctrine, but naturally as a liturgical Christian, specifically an Eastern Orthodox with a background in four liturgical Protestant denominations, namely Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Methodism and especially traditional Congregationalism, I have much more in common with them than I have in common with most Baptist or Pentecostal or Adventist members of the forum. And I would note that I have never seen a Roman Catholic member attack the agency of a non-Catholic when it comes to how they became a member of whatever denomination they adhere to.

 

[The Liturgist]

It's an office, the office of prime minister/chief steward. When the office is vacant a new prime minister is chose. The key represents authority. The king does not lose the authority. For an analogy, when Jesus gave the Apostles the power to heal, Jesus did not lose that power. So Jesus can still be spoken of or seen in Revelation as having the keys and also his servant on earth has the keys. The prime minister only has the authority when the king is not present.

The primary difference between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism on this point is that we believe that this authority is held by all of our bishops, who received it from St. Peter.

 

[LoveofTruth]

You keep avoiding Acts 1:20, which specifically says that there was an office (specifically an "episcopate") which Judas held that then passed on to another man.

To call a man an overseer or bishop or elder defines the function and who they are. An Ekder is a older mature person in the faith in the context , overseer is what they do they watch over not lord over. They have been recognized and known in the ministry they constantly do. This is only as they abide in Christ in the spirit and speak and live in the word of God. They have no authority outside of spiritual authority. All believers have spiritual authority from Christ. But more mature full of age believers are more skillful in the word of righteousness than a babe.

I would be interested to see you back this up with Scripture instead of just asserting it.

Because you're using the KJV, which uses "office" in multiple contexts. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as we understand that much like the word "minister" can mean one who helps/ministers in the general sense or can denote a specific ordained man, the word "office" can mean function or position. In this context, the original Greek word is πρᾶξιν, meaning "function." But the Greek word in Acts 1:20 and 1 Tim. 3:1 is ἐπισκοπή, meaning "bishopric" or "office (position) of a bishop."

Like when we may call a more mature brother an elder.

It never says that Christ appointed apostles other than Paul after His resurrection.

Yes it does in Ephesians 4 and we see them come into the body all through scripture. Timotheus and Silvanus and Titus and Barnabas were all apostles after Christmas death. And nowhere does it say the apostles have ceased, nowhere.

The original twelve apostles are different than the apostles after Christ rise because the. Original ones had to see Christ ministry from John till he rose again. They were special eyewitnesses and in the ministry of Ephesians 4 as well. But the apostles after Christ rose are for the edification of the body for the perfecting of the saints go tv the work of the ministry and other functions. These are gifts in the church.

The Twelve were given the gift of tongues at Pentecost - that's a gift given to them in their capacity as apostles after the Resurrection.

The gifts were given to many more than the apostles only

Nobody is trying to "eliminate gifts." These gifts were given, and they continue to edify, just as Scripture says.

Maybe you could elaborate on what you conceive of as a modern apostle or prophet. What most people think of when they hear those phrases are the Mormon men in white suits and ties who claim to be able to provide new revelation from God.

This, again, doesn't mean that He is appointing new apostles.

Oh, but it is an assumption. If you can dismiss the possibility of Barnabas being one of the seventy based on it being absent from the text, then I can dismiss the possibility of Barnabas having received a spiritual gift which made him an apostle, because that's not in the text either. It's not as simple as saying, "he was sent by the Holy Ghost, therefore he's a 'sent one,' therefore he's an apostle" because your argument is not that "apostle" is being used to indicate a messenger or a "man on a mission" in the general sense, it's that "apostle" is a specific spiritual gift.

This is completely compatible with what I've said. God did set up apostles, prophets, teachers, miracles, and spiritual gifts in the Church.

Again, completely compatible with what I've said in post #1151.

Again, I don't deny the existence of spiritual gifts in general, but I think a lot of people today have unfortunately as a result of the recent Pentecostal movement taken a "cargo cult" mentality toward 1 Cor. 14 and try to reproduce the first century Church based on artifacts it left behind without understanding how it actually functioned, leading them to fall into prelest.

I didn't say they were in the Twelve only. I said that they were the Twelve, including Matthias who replaced Judas, the seventy, and Paul.

Ah, the old "if you were reading Scripture correctly you would agree with me, because I am infallible" argument. It's one that never considers the implication that your exotic interpretation of Scripture, which is not shared by any denomination that existed prior to 1906, requires that all Christians prior to that time were wrong.

I would be extremely careful about my previously-unheard-of reading of Scripture if I were you. It may not be me (and all non-charismatic Christians) who is reading this incorrectly.

“Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,” (Acts 14:14)

ἀπόστολος apóstolos, ap-os'-tol-os; from G649; a delegate; specially, an ambassador of the Gospel; officially a commissioner of Christ ("apostle") (with miraculous powers):—apostle, messenger, he that is sent.

it is so clear. In Acts 14 Barnabas was either a prophet or teacher. Then he was a sent one (apostle) by God and called an apostle in Acts 14.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Well the problem here is that the attack on the agency of Roman Catholics is plainly untrue, and what is more, it is alienating, and it does nothing to advance your cause, if your goal is to persuade them to convert from Roman Catholicism.

And yes, Christianity is a site made by the varying opinions of many, but not all of these opinions are of equal merit. For example, we have a handful of members who consistently and tirelessly, against all evidence, argue for the existence of a Flat Earth and other related conspiracy theories, like the idea the Lunar landing was a hoax, and these arguments are, needless to say, patently absurd.

Thus, I propose that it is counter productive for anyone seeking to persuade Roman Catholics of anything, or any other group of Christians or for that matter, on a more urgent note, groups of semi-Christians such as Mormons who we want to convert to Christianity proper (I don’t get why anyone would want to “evangelize” Catholics when there are millions of Mormons and J/Ws who are members of destructive cults on the fringes of Christianity, who are not, unlike Roman Catholics, adherents of the Nicene Creed, and thus are in real spiritual danger from the false teachings of their cult as well as secular danger from the extreme control said cults exert), to attack the agency of the people we are trying to reach out to, since such an argument is so patently offensive it will embolden anyone it is used upon.

What I don’t think you realize is that when you attack the agency of Roman Catholics, you are basically saying “You were bamboozled into believing in this faith by someone more cunning and clever than you,” which is so far removed from the spiritual experience of Roman Catholics as to be absurd, and which is also lacking in charity, the importance of which is stressed by the Holy Apostle Paul, particularly considering that Roman Catholics are fellow Christians who follow the Nicene Creed and who doctrinally agree with normative Christianity on all key issues, despite the inane arguments of people like Jack Chick to the contrary.

Indeed I wish I had one tenth of the piety of my traditional Roman Catholic friends @chevyontheriver and @Michie ; I don’t agree with them on all points of doctrine, but naturally as a liturgical Christian, specifically an Eastern Orthodox with a background in four liturgical Protestant denominations, namely Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Methodism and especially traditional Congregationalism, I have much more in common with them than I have in common with most Baptist or Pentecostal or Adventist members of the forum. And I would note that I have never seen a Roman Catholic member attack the agency of a non-Catholic when it comes to how they became a member of whatever denomination they adhere to.

Such postings are a major turn off for me. I hesitate to even engage with people who post that kind of stuff. It’s all so ‘Chick Tract’. I pray instead and move on. This thread started out with a good premise and maybe it will end up having some small good effect somehow. But I don’t even want to enter into the squabbling now. You called it right that telling us Catholics we’re all hoodwinked is not at all compelling. It is counter-compelling in a big way.

 

[The Liturgist]

Such postings are a major turn off for me. I hesitate to even engage with people who post that kind of stuff. It’s all so ‘Chick Tract’. I pray instead and move on. This thread started out with a good premise and maybe it will end up having some small good effect somehow. But I don’t even want to enter into the squabbling now. You called it right that telling us Catholics we’re all hoodwinked is not at all compelling. It is counter-compelling in a big way.

Indeed, its a toxic statement, one personally offensive, and I have also encountered it on occasion thrown in my face either as an Orthodox Christian or as a liturgical Christian more generally, the idea that I became a member of this denomination and this category of churches through no will of my own, but rather as a result of manipulation by others.

Now, the worst part in all of this is there are actually cults which engage in such manipulation, for example, Scientology, and that group which used “Flirty fishing” to try to rope men into joining via romantic liaisons. But the Roman Catholic Church and the other liturgical churches are entirely innocent of such activity.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Indeed, its a toxic statement, one personally offensive, and I have also encountered it on occasion thrown in my face either as an Orthodox Christian or as a liturgical Christian more generally, the idea that I became a member of this denomination and this category of churches through no will of my own, but rather as a result of manipulation by others.

Now, the worst part in all of this is there are actually cults which engage in such manipulation, for example, Scientology, and that group which used “Flirty fishing” to try to rope men into joining via romantic liaisons. But the Roman Catholic Church and the other liturgical churches are entirely innocent of such activity.

A friend in college deliberately went to a Unification Church (Moonie) weekend just to see and he needed hours of gentle reset afterwards because they definitely programmed him in all the classic ways, with sleep deprivation and ‘love bombing’. He thought he might really join. So that kind of stuff DOES happen.

It’s hard to become a Catholic, with the commonest way (RCIA) taking more than half a year. There are several bail-out points along the way. Nobody gets hoodwinked. Lots of people leave the Catholic Church year by year but lots join too, and they are well informed, as opposed to those who leave, many of whom really never did figure out what they were leaving. We failed to reach those people. Not very good for a Church accused of hoodwinking members.

I’m done with this thread now, mostly so I don’t lose my charity explosively.

 

[The Liturgist]

A friend in college deliberately went to a Unification Church (Moonie) weekend just to see and he needed hours of gentle reset afterwards because they definitely programmed him in all the classic ways, with sleep deprivation and ‘love bombing’. He thought he might really join. So that kind of stuff DOES happen.

It’s hard to become a Catholic, with the commonest way (RCIA) taking more than half a year. There are several bail-out points along the way. Nobody gets hoodwinked. Lots of people leave the Catholic Church year by year but lots join too, and they are well informed, as opposed to those who leave, many of whom really never did figure out what they were leaving. We failed to reach those people. Not very good for a Church accused of hoodwinking members.

I’m done with this thread now, mostly so I don’t lose my charity explosively.

Indeed, you make excellent points, and I too am done with this thread as I too am upset.

 

[jas3]

Acts 1:20 quote is taken from Psalms 109:8, which interprets pequddah (office) as goods, office, charge, overseer. The word bishopric or episcopate is not referenced. In fact, the whole chapter is a prayer for the punishment of the wicked.
Further, it does not say in chapter 1 that God appointed any position, but that the disciples appointed two, and cast lots for the position. I believe the disciples misunderstood Ps. 109:8, as it was a chapter for the wicked.

If we're going down the road of "maybe the apostles were just wrong," you might as well throw out Christianity altogether, because you're two steps away from denying the divinity of the Son and the Holy Ghost.

The Disciples to not Lord over or control others in Scripture? Sure.

I'm sure you don't actually think that's what I was asking for.

All believers have gifts, no different than the apostles.

Irrelevant to @LoveofTruth's concept of a modern apostle.

Is it? Here's what you said... "you could say that the gift is also working in the Church through the apostolic succession of bishops". Yet, the Scriptures are silent on such a statement? All believers get spiritual gifts, including being apostles... not by apostolic succession of bishops either. You argue with Scripture.

Nope, Paul tells Timothy, bishop of Ephesus, that he was given a spiritual gift by the laying on of hands - his consecration.
But we don't need to get sidetracked on a debate about apostolic succession. In the portion you quoted I was saying that in the past there were apostles, therefore "God did set up apostles."

Still sticking with the RCC huh? Your ilk private interpret as well, and not very good either.

No, I'm not and have never been a member of the RCC. Maybe if you spent five minutes reading about church history you'd understand that having bishops instead of "modern apostles" isn't unique to Catholicism.

 

[The Liturgist]

If we're going down the road of "maybe the apostles were just wrong," you might as well throw out Christianity altogether, because you're two steps away from denying the divinity of the Son and the Holy Ghost.

Amen to that. The idea that the Holy Apostles were in error, which denies the inspiration of the New Testament, is literally preposterous.

 

[The Liturgist]

No, I'm not and have never been a member of the RCC. Maybe if you spent five minutes reading about church history you'd understand that having bishops instead of "modern apostles" isn't unique to Catholicism.

Indeed, although some people in their ignorance try to claim that the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East et cetera, are somehow “RCC” despite the fact that we have never been subordinate to the Pope of Rome in our entire history.

One of the principle reasons why I reject the SDA claims that Ellen G White is an inspired prophet is because her book, The Great Controversy, is built around the narrative of a false dichotomy between Roman Catholics and “real Christians” and within it it becomes quite clear that she either had never heard of the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox or other churches of the East, or did not understand the extremely pivotal role they played in Church History, since the Council of Nicaea, for example, was principally an Orthodox church council conducted in the Greek language by 318 Greek bishops with only two legates present representing the Bishop of Rome, who made only a minimal contribution to the council (although I have heard one story that they attempted, without any success at all, to persuade the Orthodox present to include in the canons of Nicaea a canon requiring clerical celibacy as is the custom in the Roman church, an idea which was not well received by the Greek bishops since the Orthodox have always had married presbyters and even a very small number of married bishops, mostly Chorepiscopi (choir bishops, who have limited episcopal authority but specifically lack the ability to ordain people to the major orders).

 

[jas3]

To call a man an overseer or bishop or elder defines the function and who they are.

This doesn't interact with Acts 1:20 at all. Do you know the difference between a bishop and an episcopate?

 

[WilliamC]

It's an office, the office of prime minister/chief steward. When the office is vacant a new prime minister is chose. The key represents authority. The king does not lose the authority. For an analogy, when Jesus gave the Apostles the power to heal, Jesus did not lose that power. So Jesus can still be spoken of or seen in Revelation as having the keys and also his servant on earth has the keys. The prime minister only has the authority when the king is not present.

But the King is forever present.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It's an office, the office of prime minister/chief steward. When the office is vacant a new prime minister is chose. The key represents authority. The king does not lose the authority. For an analogy, when Jesus gave the Apostles the power to heal, Jesus did not lose that power. So Jesus can still be spoken of or seen in Revelation as having the keys and also his servant on earth has the keys. The prime minister only has the authority when the king is not present.

The keys of the kingdom of God are in the hands that God intended. When CF posters interpret holy scripture contrary to Catholic Church teaching presenting what the Catholic Church teaches is always a good answer.

 

[Valletta]

But the King is forever present.

Present as in orally speaking to the people. Jesus is a more than a routine king going away on a trip. Realize the God often works through people. Jesus did not need to sent the Apostles out but He chose to do so. Isaiah prefigured what was to come.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Nope, Paul tells Timothy, bishop of Ephesus,

Timothy was an apostle sent to help the churches there and he would meet up with Paul at different times. Also the laying on of hands for him was by a group of elders and he received spiritual gifts as we read other had as well.

that he was given a spiritual gift by the laying on of hands -

Yes abd also they can pray and recognize others for certain work.

No, I'm not and have never been a member of the RCC. Maybe if you spent five minutes reading about church history you'd understand that having bishops instead of "modern apostles" isn't unique to Catholicism.

An overseer (bishop) same word, are the elders who the Holy Ghost made overseers, which is always as group of elders never do we read of one man over all controlling all but “elders (plural) in every church (singular . But they must willingly desire such a function to watch over not Lord over or control others.

Acts 20: 28. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”

And Paul didn’t commend them to a man over all like a pope or priest or pastor over them . No he commended them to God directly and the word of His grace. Fir God works in every believer directly through Christ to make them perfect unto every good work (Hebrews 23:20, 21).

Acts 20: 32. And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.”

And he did not set up a paid salary for any he gave them an example to wirk not to take others money

Acts 20: 33. I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel. 34. Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. 35. I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.”

Paul also said at one time

2 Corinthians 1: 24. Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.”

The word Have dominion over mean

from 2962; to rule:--have dominion over, lord, be lord of, exercise lordship over.
…from kuros (supremacy); supreme in authority, i.e. (as noun) controller; by implication, Master (as a respectful title):-- God, Lord, master, Sir

So they are not controllers or lords over them or called “Master (of divinity) for one is our master even Jesus Christ. They are not in sone title.

 

[LoveofTruth]

It's an office, the office of prime minister/chief steward. When the office is vacant a new prime minister is chose. The key represents authority. The king does not lose the authority. For an analogy, when Jesus gave the Apostles the power to heal, Jesus did not lose that power. So Jesus can still be spoken of or seen in Revelation as having the keys and also his servant on earth has the keys. The prime minister only has the authority when the king is not present.

Matthew 20: 25. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. 26. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; 27. And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:”

1 Samuel 8: 6,7 “But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. 7. And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.”

 

[LoveofTruth]

Amen to that. The idea that the Holy Apostles were in error, which denies the inspiration of the New Testament, is literally preposterous.

Galatians 2: 11,14 “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed…14. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”

 

[The Liturgist]

Galatians 2: 11,14 “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed…14. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”

That situation was resolved, as is made clear. The entire issue there is expressly stated as having been resolved at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. But to say that the decisions made by the Apostles as a whole at any point in Acts were incorrect, is totally unwarranted, and has the effect of undermining the authority of the inspired Epistles of the New Testament, including the one you just eisegetically quoted out of context.

I can understand why some Protestants object to Patristic authority, although I disagree as do the more sophisticated Protestant churches, the traditional Anglicans, confessional Lutherans, etc, but to deny the authority of the Apostles, whose writings are recognized by most Protestant theologians as well as the theologians of the Orthodox Church and the Assyrian Church and the Roman Catholic Church, and even the Seventh Day Adventists, to be divinely inspired, is absurd. Whatever happened to the belief that the Bible is infallible?

I would note that @WilliamC appears to have declared Acts 1:20 as erroneous.

 

[jas3]

So they are not controllers or lords over them or called “Master (of divinity) for one is our master even Jesus Christ. They are not in sone title.

You still have not addressed Acts 1:20. I'll ask again, do you know the difference between a bishop and an episcopate?