Posted on 07/26/2014 4:41:46 AM PDT by michaelwlf3
Don’t worry about these people on FR. They are mostly Catholic-promoters. Anything, then, that looks remotely like it impugns Catholicism is something they will attack.
That is the manifest reality.
Yes, that is an excellent video and historically accurate. The 4th Lateran Council of 1215AD was the beginning of the Catholic Church trying to eliminate people from leaving the Church due to the Crusades. Consequently the 4th Lateran Council established rules that only the priests could dispense God’s grace through the Eucharist and people had to go to Church to obtain God’s grace. Yet people still left and thus the Inquisition began.
Trying to justified flawed theology, the Church has all but abandoned the Word of God and replaced it with “tradition”. Yet they truly don’t even follow “tradition” since they have changed the rules over time. They justify this by saying they have become more enlightened.
People today have lost a sense of historical understanding. There were legitimate reasons Protestants left the Church. Now we’ve forgotten these differences and want to join with them.
You already conceded apostolic succession when Peter set the first election and the first group of disciples voted for Matthias. I pointed out that Peter had the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the power of binding and loosing so he had the authority to appoint other successors. Before the LORD Jesus ascended to heaven he left Peter and his fellow apostles with all the authority they required. They had the authority to choose other men (Matthias is the example) upon which to bestow that authority, and to set the rules by which they would choose them (Matthias is the example). The Scriptures need not list every man which they ordained to the ministry. There is a succession of men who have been ordained by the laying on of hands from the first apostles, generation to generation. Even if some were bad (Judas, for example) there were others who could be elected to replace them. One may think everything ended and changed with the deaths of Peter, Paul (who was not even counted with the Twelve and he was an Apostle) or John, but that is not written in Scripture either.
Though I had familiarity with the Inquisition Historically, and the atrocities the Papacy Instituted....I didn't realize people were tortured for refusing to believe catholic dogma about the so called Presence in their sacrament rituals.....so no wonder then that the topic can lead to utter rage on the threads...it's a leftover from that time...and comes from the same mindset at that time.
Acts 8:4 Therefore those who had been scattered went about preaching the word.
These were not any of the original twelve. They were simply believers. Recall that the church had at least 5,000 members (Acts 4:4)
Where did they go?
Acts 11:19-24
19So then those who were scattered because of the persecution that occurred in connection with Stephen made their way to Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except to Jews alone.
20But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who came to Antioch and began speaking to the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus.
21And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a large number who believed turned to the Lord.
22The news about them reached the ears of the church at Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas off to Antioch.
23Then when he arrived and witnessed the grace of God, he rejoiced and began to encourage them all with resolute heart to remain true to the Lord;
24for he was a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And considerable numbers were brought to the Lord.
25And he left for Tarsus to look for Saul;
26and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.
Sorry but there is nothing in scripture that supports your view.
Those who are truly born again with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit will not join them and those who God is calling will “come out of her”. It’s becoming clearer that it’s the Catholic Church that will lead the world into a one world religion. They are uniquely positioned to appeal to both Islam and apostate and weak Christians.
It's clear rome operates as an institution and continues to form political allies today just as they did at that time....as if they were ‘a country’ unto itself...though I recognize it calls itself a state. Still one would then assume joining the catholic system is as if joining another country and allegiance to it.....
Additionally, I don't see a lot of difference between how it was then, regarding it's beliefs on anyone outside their organization, and as much how it sees itself operating in the world today....torture chambers aside. ........ Many threads on line, and as much discourse in public, reveals the same insistence that only thru their religious system can one find redemption in full.....and much anger ensues when this is questioned by those outside their institution.
There is ample evidence.
1. When there is a gathering of the Apostles, he speaks for them (with only one exception that will only open a whole new can of worms).
2. The Matt 16 reference Catholic and Protestant go round and around on. Don't think you and I will cover any new ground in this area.
3. He is specifically pulled aside by Christ to build up his brethren and feed Christ's sheep.
4. When it comes to the followers of Christ, there is more written about St Peter in the Gospels and Epistles than anyone (with the possible exception of St Paul). A casual reader who picked up the text of the NT could be forgiven for thinking this was a story ABOUT St Peter and his being raised up by Christ!
Second is that there is no apostolic succession. We do not have any guidance in the NT about the apostles "passing on" their authority.
Then the Church died when the Apostles passed. You can't have it both ways. You could argue they left us the Scriptures... but then you would be putting your faith in St Guttenberg. Until the printing press, there was no way for Bibles to be produced than by the hard work of monks. If you read the NT carefully, you will clearly see that the Apostles left us the Church, not just the written Word. And this Church had authority for teaching, preaching, and discipline.
I wish this were true, but very sadly, the RCC has done just that. See...
indulgences (binding and loosing authority over temporal punishment due to sin. See 2 Sam 12)
mortal v venial sins (In Matt 5:19, Jesus says that whoever breaks one of the least of the commandments will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven--but clearly still in Heaven. In Matt 5:22, Jesus describes a sin that leads to the fire of Hell. He goes on to speak that there is even a sin [against the Holy Spirit] which will not be forgiven. Clearly, there are levels of sin. We can argue on the semantics).
loss of salvation (In James 1:12, we read that the man is blessed who endures temptation for, when his is proved, he will receive the crown of life promised him. Clearly, the opposite is true for the man who does not endure).
forgiveness only through a priest (2 Cor 5:18-20)
prayer/worship of to Mary etc. (We don't worship Mary or anyone but God. If we're going down that road, you and I will have irreconcilable differences and should simply part ways. As to prayer, we simply acknowledge her for who she is. She is the embodiment of Israel who has born Christ into the world. As the mother of the Body of Christ, she is mother of the Church and our mother. She is the new Eve to Christ's Adam joined at the Cross in the redemption of man. As the mother of Jesus, Who is God in the flesh, she is mother of God. She was bodily assumed into Heaven at her death and has taken her place as both queen mother and embodiment of the bride to the bridegroom. As the bearer of God's authority, the manna come down from Heaven, and the Word, she is the Ark of the New Covenant. I think she deserves some respect. She is not insignificant in the economy of God).
I'm out of time. Unfortunately, this is what tends to happen on here. Instead of sticking to main points, you guys tend to throw multiple things all at once and it essentially turns into a filibuster. I will try to get back to this another time.
God bless you.
If Peter had this "authority" you say he did....why does the text record that "they" put forward two names?....and "they" cast lots?
There were 120 people there, including the 12, Mary and the brothers of Jesus.
If Peter had the authority he should have simply said, "I appoint so and so to replace Judas."
That he didn't proves Peter recognized he did not have that authority you claim he did.
There was also a criteria placed on Judas' replacement. The new man had to "have accompanied ua all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us..."
Nobody, after about 120 AD, would have met that criteria.
That this requirement, ironically, as laid down by Peter, can no longer be fulfilled, shows the concept of apostolic succession is not found in the NT.
It is another made up concept by the RCC.
I agree. However, when error is being taught it is the duty of Christians to speak up and against error.
.....”They are uniquely positioned to appeal to both Islam and apostate and weak Christians”.....
It would seem so since both their teachings and dogma are very legalistic, which we knows bounds people to the law....and Islam operates much the same with their Koran and various other “laws” recorded in the Hadiths etc....lots of endless complex and disturbing, and lots of steps to reach to the top.
However I do see the organized churches fast becoming so secular and deceived that many within these will gladly march to that drummer when it sounds.....like sheep to the slaughter.
I hear nothing but whining out of you.
Why do idiots post leading questions?
The light of Christ shines through your posts so brilliantly...
They will know we are Christians by our loathing of each other.
Additionally, there is no record that Peter was working under the anointing of the Holy Spirit as he had not been given yet when he made the decision to appoint a successor to Judas.
This decision he made, he made in his own wisdom and strength, not under the guiding of the Holy Spirit.
Sorry, bible says that's not true, so, it's not true...Aren't you aware that the words of Christ in the scriptures condemns your religion???
Paul was different, as he attests here. The apostles did not select him. He was selected by the LORD, like they were, but out of season, as an original Apostle, as it were. He was not replacing anyone.
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 9For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
Then there is the first council, the Jerusalem Council, which was under the control of James-not Peter.
Peter was the overall chief servant apostle of the holy catholic apostolic church, ie., all its churches. And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. . James was an apostle and the bishop of the church at Jerusalem where the council was held. Simon Peter rose up and made the decision that halted the debate. In the silence that followed his pronouncement, James agreed and gave his judgement and sentence on how to implement it. The apostles were all in apostolic unity and the decision is binding on the Gentiles who believe today.
John, being the last apostle wasn't even named "Pope".
John did not succeed Peter as bishop of Rome, where the head of the holy apostolic church moved after the scattering of the church at Jerusalem and the destruction of Jerusalem. The title "Pope" only applied to the bishop of Rome.
And Paul stood up to the error of Peter in Galatians-not something one would think of doing if they were submitting to the Church.
I think we have a very different view as to what "submitting to the Church" means. There was a Jewish cardinal of France who stood up to blessed John Paul II as well; Paul did not deny any apostolic doctrine, he addressed appearance and behavior.
Finally, the churches of Revelation are addressed separately. If there was "one" church, there would be only one church addressed. Sorry but there is nothing in scripture that supports your view. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. 4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: 5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
Good and accurate post.
“You already conceded apostolic succession when Peter set the first election and the first group of disciples voted for Matthias.”
No I did not. It was not an “election.” No one voted. There was a casting of lots. It was choosing a twelfth Apostle to replace the traitor. There wasn’t succession.
“I pointed out that Peter had the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the power of binding and loosing so he had the authority to appoint other successors.”
Actually, all the Apostles were given this privelege. It had nothing to do with successors. That isn’t in the text.
“Before the LORD Jesus ascended to heaven he left Peter and his fellow apostles with all the authority they required. They had the authority to choose other men (Matthias is the example) upon which to bestow that authority, and to set the rules by which they would choose them (Matthias is the example).”
Casting lots was well established in the OT.
“The Scriptures need not list every man which they ordained to the ministry.”
Ordination is far different that Apostleship.
“There is a succession of men who have been ordained by the laying on of hands from the first apostles, generation to generation.”
Actually, historically it is broken, but the sanitized version of Romanism sweeps those details under the rug.
“Even if some were bad (Judas, for example) there were others who could be elected to replace them. One may think everything ended and changed with the deaths of Peter, Paul (who was not even counted with the Twelve and he was an Apostle) or John, but that is not written in Scripture either.”
What you’ve advocate isn’t written, commanded, demonstrated nor encouraged.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.