| St. Peter and Rome |
 |
| 11/15/04 |
Posted on 10/27/2006 8:14:39 PM PDT by Salvation
| St. Peter and Rome |
|
| 11/15/04 |
Then why, when we go to monergism.com, do we see that there are 16 monergistic denominations?
-A8
The issue is infallibility, not boo-boos. The infallibly defined aspects of the offering of indulgences stand to this day, and will, till the Second Coming, as Stfassisi explained.
The Teaching Magisterium only teaches. It does not have any political powers.
The teaching authority of the Church is proclaimed in Matthew 18.
Magus is not the same word as Magister, and certainly Simon Magus cannot be likened to Magisterium, unless you are playing word alliterations. It is to be noted, however, that his contest with St. Peter is described in the same apocryphal document I already showed you, the Acts of Peter and Paul, which also is evidence of St. Peter's presence in Rome for a substantial amount of time.
The Magisterium does not have a rigid sctructure with meetings etc, that you imagine. It is simply defined as the community of bishops acting in one accord, just like the Apostles were.
"Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Phillip spoke, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did, for unclean spirits, crying with a loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them; and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed. And there was great joy in that city.
"But there was a certain man called Simon, who previously in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that he himself was some great one [Greek word "megas" from which comes the word:"megalomaniac"], to whom all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying,'This man is the great power of God'. And to him they had regard, because that for a long time he had bewitched them with sorceries.[Is Simon Magus here a Pope of Samaria?]
"But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also, and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and was amazed, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. [He was "baptized" --- If baptism makes one a Christian, why didn't baptism do so for Simon Magus?]
"Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John [What are these apostles doing telling the "head" of the apostles where to go?]
"Who, when they came down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for he was fallen on none of them, only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. And when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles hands, the Holy Spirit was given, he offered money, saying 'Give me also this power, that upon whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Spirit. [Is there any sacred tradition of the Church of Rome named after Simon? Is it still there today?]
"But Peter said unto him, 'Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent, therefore, of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee, for I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity'. Then answered Simon and said:'Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me'".[Acts 8:5-25]
That's it. This was Simon Peter and Simon Magus's only known encounter with each other. Did Simon Magus learn something from this encounter that he took to Rome with him? Did he go from being the Pope of Samaria to being the Pope of a magisterial religion in Rome?
Scripture says that he "believed" and was "baptized" --- so how come his Baptism didn't save him? Maybe that this is another tradition that Simon brought into the church --- Baptisms that don't save anybody.
Perhaps you can tell us what Justin Martyr has to say about Simon Magus and his cult there in Rome? He is one of your sacred Ante-Nicene Fathers, isn't he? Cite his words. Surely you will believe him, won't you?
But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them; (2 Tim 3:14)
Ah, this verse further proves the Bible is the sole authority of God's word. The things that Timothy has learned came from the teaching of Jesus, which was not very far in the past. "Apostolic tradition" is a nice phrase, but means, especially at that time, the passing on of the Gospels.
And Who is Whom "thou hast learned them"? Why, Christ, of course, Whose words are written in four Gospels.
No, authority for extracurricular church policies there.
2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul's teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.
And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. (2 Tim 3:15)
One comes to faith is Jesus Christ by hearing His word and believing. His words are clearly renedered in the New Testament.
What would the Old Testament scriptures have to do with the New Testament not being the word of God? Jesus Himself used the law of Moses quite frequently. Would not Timothy have been a child when Jesus walked the Earth, and would not Timothy have family that embraced the teachings of Jesus?
What does this have to do with church policies that are not found in scripture, or cast doubt that the scriptures are the word of God, or lend credence to some council of men?
2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is "profitable" for every good work, but not exclusive. The word "profitable" is "ophelimos" in Greek. "Ophelimos" only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.
So the scripture is not mandatory? Then why is there a church? The church depends on scriptures for it authority. Does that mean that the scripture on which it depends for authority we can discount and make up our own?
Notice that nowhere in the Bible is there any other authority cited, except the law of Moses and God's word from the prophets? This is "tradition", and the church ain't following it.
2 Tim. 3:16 - also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.
All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, (2 Tim 3:16)
The books that were removed had dubious authorship and dubious inspiration from God. And, just (oddly, don't you think?) help the Catholic corporation's rap.
This is altogether separate from the commonsense truth that men are corruptible, fallible and fall to temptation. All it takes is one on a council that determines policy from thing not found in scripture, and that policy is corrupt. "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump", which was said applying precisely to this situation to the churches abroad.
Assure me that all those who hammered out this non-Biblical based custom were free of such men.
2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul's reference to the "man of God" who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although Protestants use it to prove their case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.
2 Tim. 3:17 - further, Paul's use of the word "complete" for every good work is "artios" which simply means the clergy is "suitable" or "fit." Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.
That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work. (2 Tim 3:17)
Oh, you can say this is not relevant, but you would err. The Lord said the Kingdom of God is within, as I cited in a previous post.
Individuals are sons of God, individuals with a mustard seed of faith can move mountains to the sea, individuals pray, only two are needed to call Christ's presence, God spoke to individuals, individuals choose to follow God's law or stray, individuals go to Heaven or Hell.
In the Bible as a whole we focus on individuals, and only on groups as they are composed of individuals.
No corporations or artificial persons, like any, but especially, the Catholic church.
What is a "layman" in terms related to the faith and belief in Jesus Christ and the Gospels? They are there to learn by anyone who can read. Are "priests" the only one who professional God-things? I don't think so.
How arrogant such a notion that an individual is a "layman" with respect to Christ.
The man of God is any individual that has brought Christ into his heart and proceeds on faith and belief. An individual , not an artificial entity.
James 1:4 - steadfastness also makes a man "perfect (teleioi) and complete (holoklepoi), lacking nothing." This verse is important because "teleioi"and "holoklepoi" are much stronger words than "artios," but Protestants do not argue that steadfastness is all one needs to be a Christian. [stfassisi should have said "holokleroi"]
And patience hath a perfect work; that you may be perfect and entire, failing in nothing. (James 1:4)
Of course they don't. Faith and belief are all that one need to be a Christian, and the church has nothing to do with that. The tools to have faith and belief are found in their entirety in the Gospels, acts and letters. For each individual", this wherein lies the Catholic church's problem.
It wants to channel the blessings of the new covenant through a corruptible organization exclusively. Kind of like a trade union. Christ did not bless and teach to trade unions.
"Layman", LOL.
Titus 3:8 - good deeds are also "profitable" to men. For Protestants especially, profitable cannot mean "exclusive" here.
It is a faithful saying: and these things I will have thee affirm constantly: that they, who believe in God, may be careful to excel in good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. (Titus 3:8)
Good works not exclusive? So it can include bad works? What is the ratio of bad works to good works necessary?
Nonsense.
Col. 4:12 - prayer also makes men "fully assured." No where does Scripture say the Christian faith is based solely on a book.
Epaphras saluteth you, who is one of you, a servant of Christ Jesus, who is always solicitous for you in prayers, that you may stand perfect, and full in all the will of God.
As discussed above, prayer in as individual thing, not a church thing. What is found in the scriptures regarding prayer isn not amendable by human agency. Prayer to dead human being is not scriptural.
But, what has that cite of scripture to do with anything?
2 Tim. 3:16-17 - Finally, if these verses really mean that Paul was teaching sola Scriptura to the early Church, then why in 1 Thess. 2:13 does Paul teach that he is giving Revelation from God orally? Either Paul is contradicting his own teaching on sola Scriptura, or Paul was not teaching sola Scriptura in 2 Tim. 3:16-17. This is a critical point which Protestants cannot reconcile with their sola Scriptura position.
Therefore, we also give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God, who worketh in you that have believed.
Each of the personages that preached and taught in the early churches and differing groups of believers did so in close proximity to the time Jesus taugth on Earth.
We 2000 years from that. Holy scripture is the only thing that can assure us we are not straying.
1Timothy 1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
1Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: [so do].
1Timothy 1:5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and [of] a good conscience, and [of] faith unfeigned:
1Timothy 1:6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
He's my bishop. We thank God for him and pray for him every day. What a blessing he is.
-A8
What does Simon Magus have to do with the Teaching Magisterium of the Church? -- notihng, besides the alliteration.
Baptism does not save from future sins. For example, Luther was baptized, yet preached damnable heresies.
Simon was not a pope of anything. However, a link between him and Peter, established in Acts, and his popularity in Rome are circumstantial evidence of Peter sojourning in Rome also, just like The Acts of Peter and Paul describe.
Yes, the author of that book is not known.
2 Tim. 3:14
The things that Timothy has learned came from the teaching of Jesus, which was not very far in the past [...] [no] authority for extracurricular [sic] church policies there
But the immediate transmission of the teaching of Christ was from Paul. There is nothing here to suggest that Timothy had any other teacher than St. Paul, who describes his personal role at length in both letters. No one claims this passage speaks directly for church authority (Mt 18 does). The challenge to you is to show that Timothy 3 validates Sola Scriptura. This passage, at least, validates personal oral teaching.
2 Tim. 3:15
What would the Old Testament scriptures have to do with the New Testament not being the word of God?
Who said the New Teatament is not the word of God? The Catohlics do not teach that. The point you need to address is that the scripture in view in 2 Tim. 2:6 is the Old Testament alone. The New Testament had not been written, and Paul taught Timothy orally, yet Timothy turned out Christian.
would not Timothy have family that embraced the teachings of Jesus?
I don't know. The scripture does not say either way about Timothy's parents.
What does this have to do with church policies that are not found in scripture
Repeating myself: No one claims this passage speaks directly for Church authority (Mt 18 does). The challenge to you is to show that Timothy 3 validates Sola Scriptura. Part of the superstition of Sola Scriptura is that it is sufficient for a Christian. But if 2 Tim. 3:16 teaches sufficiency of the scripture, and from verse 15 it is clear that the scripture verse 16 is talking about is the Old Testament, then 2. Tim 3:16 really teaches that the Old Testament is sufficient without the new.
2 Tim. 3:16
Let me first address several falsehoods that you said.
The church depends on scriptures for it authority [...] that nowhere in the Bible is there any other authority cited, except the law of Moses and God's word from the prophets?
No it is the other way around. The Church determined what the inspired scriptures are, so historically at least the scripture had to wait for the Church to gain authority. It is not true that the scripture does not cite the Church's authority, Mt. 18 does that, along with some other verses.
Assure me that all those who hammered out this non-Biblical based custom were free of such men
The argument here is 2 Timothy and Sola Scriptura. But since you ask, and I repeat myself, St. Peter himself was not free from corruption, yet Christ founded His Church on him (Mt 16). Peter's successors were likewise not free from sin. Apparently that was God's will.
But our argument is scriptural. Let us see what Tim 3:16 says. You can speculate what you think about authority later.
So the scripture is not mandatory? [...] Does that mean that the scripture on which it depends for authority we can discount and make up our own?
It means, like every inspired scripture, what is says: that the scripture is profitable. The word "profit" means adding on to something else. This verse does not say the scripture is sufficient, or exclusive of tradition, or exclusive of the teaching authority of the Church, just like Catholicism explains.
The books that were removed had dubious authorship and dubious inspiration from God
... Luther said. So? Is Luther's authority in the Bible? If 2 Tim 3:16 affirms Sola Scriptura, than it affirms that the Deuterocanon is part of the Sacred Writ, because 2 Tim. 3:16 sayd "all scripture", and the Deuterocanon as part of the Septuagint, was what Timothy knew "from his infancy".
2 Tim. 3:17
How arrogant such a notion that an individual is a "layman" with respect to Christ
What you tell us is "Man of God" hurts your feelings. How about addressing the argument? Timothy was consecrated as bishop and the letter contains instructions on what kind of priests, and deacons Timothy is to ordain. The letter is addressed personally to Timothy. The reference to the profitability of the scripture is qualified by this "man of God". Deal with it. That's scripture.
You do not address the rest of the commentary on 3:17. I assume you agree then that 3:17 "cannot [be used] to argue the Scriptures are complete".
James 1:4
Faith and belief are all that one need to be a Christian
Your task is to show how Sola Scriptura is supported by the Scripture. If the Sola Scriptura suprstition were true, then James 1:4 would be sufficient for us to prove that patience is all that one needs to be a Christian; or conversely, that Tim 3:17 does not teach that the knowledge of the scripture is all that one needs to be a Christian. Your pick. You cannot follow Sola Scriptura when you feel like it and not follow it when you don't feel like it.
Titus 3:8
Good works not exclusive?
Correct, good works are not exclusively profitable for Christian perfection. Titus 3:8 says that good works are profitable and Timothy 3:16 says the knowledge of the scripture is profitable. From these two verses together we learn that both good works and the knowledge of scripture are profitable, and the knowledge os scripture is not exclusive to Christian formation. (The irony here is that Protestants are more accustomed to the erroneous thinking that faith -- not works -- is exclusively necessary for salvation).
Col 4:12
what has that cite of scripture to do with anything?
This scripture makes a reference to prayer -- not scirpture -- having to do with man's perfection, while 2 Tim 3:17 speaks of the scripture in the same way. This shows, scripturally, that while the scripture contributes to the perfection of man (man of God, anyway), so does prayer of others.
Holy scripture is the only thing that can assure us we are not straying
Where does the scripture say so? The challenge to you is to prove Sola Scriptura from scripture, because Sola Scripture says that everything we need to know for the formatin of the faith is written down in the scripture (less Luter's redactions). You are failing the challenge.
Nicely done,I don,t see how anyone could argue against this,but I,m sure they will! Bravo!
So then shouldn't we set those myths of that anonymous author aside for now, and post instead what Justin Martyr has to say about Simon Magus? We are genuine truthseekers here, aren't we? Let's post what Justin Martur says about Simon Magus's time in Rome. We might just learn something that will help us in our search for the truth.
In the case with paying for indulgence, we are not talking about "priests and bishops". We are talking about a formal decree from Pope Leo himself, from the Chair of Peter, with the full weight of the Catholic Church. This wasn't simply an "error" by some wayward bishop.
Aren't you glad there aren't 20,000? The reason is that there are differences in the interpretation of baptism, the meaning of communion, etc. To me, as I'm sure with all Reformed believers, these are secondary issues when compared against the five major points (TULIP) of Reformed belief (I'll even allow for 4 points).
Bishops are successors of the apostles in the direct, personal, sacramental way. For example, the scripture describes Timothy and Titus as consecrated by Apostle Paul.
A bishop receives the ability to teach. That, and ordination and overseeing of priests is his primary function ("Bishop" derives form "episcopos", -- overseer). He may fall into heresy, but the Church as a whole then, sooner or later, pulls him back in line, or else excommunicates him and he only speaks for himself from then on.
The first extant record of a bishop's (other than an apostle's) teachings are writings of St. Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna. He was a disciple of St. John the Evangelist, and he taught Irenaeus, bishop of Lugdunum (Lyon). Even older is Ignatius of Antioch, possibly consecrated by St. Peter himself.
The collection of patristic writers on the Catohlic Encyclopedia site is a good library of the teachings of the early Magisterium: The Fathers of the Church
Please do. Is it in Trypho? Since I am not sure why it is relevant, I'd rather you post and comment, and we'll take it from there.
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.