| 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 |
The general rule is that if God didn't say something one way or another then we can't speak for God. Our Lord Jesus wouldn't even speak for God the Father. It's a tad persumptious for us to think we can.
Of course they do.
Did or did not Pope Leo issue a decree allowing for the sale of indulgences?
No, I am saying that the head of an "atheist" and hunted group, Christians, were not about to declare where their leader was located. Again, I ask have you ever been hunted before?
But we do know something for certain from the writings of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Eusebius, and Jerome: That Simon the Magician went to Rome during the reign of Claudius [possibly 42 AD] and founded a religious system whose followers were called Christians.
Clearly, you are mistaken, trying to associate Simon the Magician with Christian followers, as these Christian writers certainly didn't:
CHAP. XXVI.--MAGICIANS NOT TRUSTED BY CHRISTIANS.
And, thirdly, because after Christ's ascension into heaven the devils put forward certain men who said that they themselves were gods; and they were not only not persecuted by you, but even deemed worthy of honours. There was a Samaritan, Simon, a native of the village called Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius Caesar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic, by virtue of the art of the devils operating in him..."
JUSTIN MARTYR: THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN
Clearly, the TITLE OF THE CHAPTER proves you wrong...
Next:
CHAP. VI.--DO NOT ACCEPT JUDAISM.
If any one confesses Christ Jesus the Lord, but denies the God of the law and of the prophets, saying that the Father of Christ is not the Maker of heaven and earth, he has not continued in the truth any more than his father the devil, and is a disciple of Simon Magus, not of the Holy Spirit.
THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE PHILADELPHIANS
Again, Christians are the disciples of the Holy Spirit, thus placing a distinction between Christians and Simon Magus...
CHAP. XXXII.--FURTHER EXPOSURE OF THE WICKED AND BLASPHEMOUS DOCTRINES OF THE HERETICS.
...And if they have in truth accomplished anything [remarkable] by means of magic, they strive [in this way] deceitfully to lead foolish people astray, since they confer no real benefit or blessing on those over whom they declare that they exert] supernatural] power; but, bringing forward mere boys [as the subjects on whom they practise], and deceiving their sight, while they exhibit phantasms that instantly cease, and do not endure even a moment of time, they are proved to be like, not Jesus our Lord, but Simon the magician.
IRENAEUS AGAINST HERESIES -- BOOK II
Again, the TITLE proves you wrong. Note again the distinction between those who follow Simon are NOT the same as those who follow Jesus (these disciples are known as "Christians", not followers of Simon the Magician)
Clearly, your idea that Simon the Magician founded a Christian group is false and NOT documented by the above writings. Justin and Irenaeus witness are accurate - the problem is your reading of the primary writings. I don't see how you misconstrue the obvious - that Christians and Simon the Magician were opposed - just as in Sacred Scriptures - AND - Simon was OPPOSED BY PETER SPECIFICALLY in Acts of the Apostles...
I am pretty busy. Let me know if you have some REAL evidence, not your invented interpretations, as I don't have time to deal with such childish games. The above clearly proves how your "idea" has no historical backing whatsoever - no, it completely contradicts history...
Regards
Please tell us Iscool, which of "us" are going to hell?
The original question to which this part is about is "Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures, and Protestants generally ignore this fact".
So what if an appeal was made to remember older parts of God's word? How exactly is this a weakening of the use of scripture only in matters pertaining to the direction of numbers of fellow believers.
It does indeed validate it. For, who would have made religious policies which were not based on the the law of Moses and the customs of the Israelites. The Jewish scribes, lawyers? Not hardly.
If you want to talk tradition, the tradition was against making up scriptural directives.
So, this should take care of the "apostolic tradition" objection to 2Timothy 3:16.
An additional note here: As regarding the use of the word "profitable". I don't think the writers of these letters parsed each word like a lawyer to put precisely the right technical term in the right place.
If you were able to ask Paul about it, he would "Yes, profitable. Ah, meanest thou exclusive? Of certain, else how cometh thou upon sound doctrine, each able to put and remove as they list?
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.
Then, if Catholics teach the New testament is the word of God, how do they consider councils of men the word of God, equal with the scriptures, and must be presumed to write scripture? And what sins were upon these men, such that they leaveneth the whole lump?
Are you seriously saying that the Gospels of Jesus had not be written down at this time? And so what if the teaching was oral? How does oral teaching be presumed to depart from the Gospels as written now? Does that mean that anyone who has a "revelation" can proclaim it and make it the word of God?
I think I dealt with the Old Testament point above.
I don't know. The scripture does not say either way about Timothy's parents.
Neither does the Scripture say that one is to pray to dead people, saints according to that same council of men or not.
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
It is up to you to show that, scripturally, that the scripture can be supplemented by concepts that are found therein. For yours is the action, and it must be validated for those customs that relate to man's relationship with God, which prayer certainly is.
If the scriptures are silent, so should you be.
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.
And if the church is wrong on inspired scriptures, but retained questionable scripture for it's own purposes? There is no church, but many churches according to grouping in diverse places, travel being slow in those days.
I see nothing in Matthew that cites authority to a central church, of which the other churches are satellites.
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.
The argument here is the trustworthiness of mere men ,centuries after the teaching of Christ, to enact customs for the practice of the worldwide body of Christ that are not found well, or even at all, grounded int he scriptures.
I explained this misinterpretation of the "rock" imagination here
As was mentioned several time when talking about bad people in the good congregation, Paul said, "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump."
t 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.
I keep dealing with this over and over. If you are going to make extra-scriptual practices, especially those that concern the relationship of the individual with God, you had better have scripture that clearly allow you that latitude.
You do not.
... 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".
The Catholic church councils said. So? All men. I'd say the less scripture, limited to what was sure and true and clearly agrees with the Gospels as taught, is the way. All other ways are suspect. Paul said this a number of times in different ways.
The Septuagint dealt with the Old Testament. Find me an Israelite that would condone extra-scriptual demands on the Israelite people. We deal with the writing after the teaching of Christ and His walk on the Earth.
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.
I don't understand you. Hurts my feelings? Here is what I said.
"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. "
That Timothy was made a bishop of a church. So what? This has nothing to do with the authority of the Catholic church to make practices, like prayers to dead people, that are found nowhere in the scriptures.
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.
I said faith and belief are all that one needs to be a Christian. Faith and belief in the Christ come from the Gospels, which are clearly written. It is up to you to show how departure from the scriptures is permitted, when there are numerous admonitions against such departures.
If you are going to say that the scriptures can departed from, then you must condone any departure by anyone. This is dangerous, and arrogant.
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).
I said, which you edited,"Good works not exclusive? So it can include bad works? What is the ratio of bad works to good works necessary?"
James said that faith without works are dead. There's that word "profitable" again. I discussed lawyerlike parsing the scriptures above.
I'm sure Tabitha would disagree with you.
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.
The point of this part was that prayer, and the rest of the teachings, are for individuals and each one's salvation. There is nothing to do with a all powerful Catholic church, which has the power the edit scripture and command the faith of millions of those individuals.
Therefore, all we have for trustworthy truth is the written scriptures. The rest come from men, and men are full of error by nature.
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.
This, in answer to, "Holy scripture is the only thing that can assure us we are not straying."
Where does the scripture say that it prevents us from straying? 2000 years after the fact, it is commonsense.
Actually, the challenge to you is to point out, where does the scripture explicitly, or implicitly, give a corporation permission to make it up? The reverse is understood. All excerpt Catholics, of course, who will follow a leader to perdition without question.
BTW-I don't believe the fathers simply sat around saying, "Why Jerome, you have a spiffy idea on that thar view of the Eucharist". They went to the scripture to see what the scripture stated. I'm alway impressed by how much the fathers quote scripture considering the written text was probably rare and they didn't have high speed Internet connections. They got most of it right. A whole lot more than most of us I might add.
The whole issue IS monergism verses synergism. If God saves you than you can trust Him to reveal His truth to you as long as you are truly leaning upon Him. The Son has set you free; free to depend upon the living God. Under your synergistic view of "free will", what you are saying is that man has a will but you must give up your "free will" and submit yourself to the Church. Talk about robots!
Augustine recognized the error right away after being approach, so much so that he was willing to destroy some of his life's work for the error it represented. So who would I submit to in my understanding, the Bishop Augustine or some local Bishop here? If the Church told me that Augustine's views on predestination is not the "official" teachings of the Church, so what? Does that make it wrong? Apparently at one time Augustine and Cyprian believed it.
Submitting to the "authority of a bishop" is simply a lame excuse to kowtow to the Church dating back to medieval times. It does not forgive our individual responsibilities before God for any erroneous doctrines we might hold. If the Church tells you tomorrow to drink from the cyanide-laced kool-aid, I would hope you would have enough common sense not to do it even though it goes again the teachings of the Church.
The Encyclopedia is being cautious and states that thechronological notices in Eusebius and Jerome are calculations rather than direct evidence. It does not say that the hypothesis is without foundation, but merely that the notices offer no ground for the hypothesis.
there is evidence in the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers [Justin Martyr . . . ] for a 25 year Roman Bishopric of Simon the Magician whose followers were called Christians
There is, more accurately, evidence of an influential blasphemous teacher by that name, in Rome about that time, with whom St. Peter had earlier had a dispute in Samaria.
So did Calvin and Luther. I believe they were wrong as well. It illustrates bias.
The fact is that nearly all of the early reformers held what could best be described as traditional Catholic Marian beliefs and these beliefs stayed for a long time (Lutherans still maintain them). My question would be to the Protestants, how did these reformers miss something so important?
My personal theory is that anti-Catholics began to realize in the mid 19th Century that anti-Catholic sentiment in Europe and America was waning. To "reignite" anti-Catholicism, they began to focus on Marian teachings, especially the newly defined Immaculate Conception by calling these "new" teachings.
If you want to post your personal testimony on your salvation experience, I'll give you MY opinion...
Assuming you acknowledge that the Protestant Reformation began as the result of Luther, Calvin and others leaving the Catholic Church, is it your contention that all Catholics prior to the Reformation are in hell? Are your distant ancestors in hell? Was there a period of almost fifteen centuries during which time everyone went to hell?
There are millions of Christians who study the bible that will disagree with you...Do you prayerfully study the bible, or do you rely on what your church tells you the bible says and means??? How many Catholics actually STUDY the bible as opposed to those who just repeat what they hear from their church???
whereas all Catholic dogma can.
If you've been following the thread, you have seen where it was pointed out that some of things your church call dogma have been shown to add words or take words away from the scripture to prove your church's dogma...That makes some of your dogma unbiblical...
One of your famous church fathers, Origen, along about 350 A.D. or so, determined that a good share of the scripture, especially Revelation was not to be taken literally...And what was this determination based on??? I'd say it was too incriminating for your church to accept it the way it is...
Many if not most of your church fathers prior to Origen believed the scriptures to be literal...
The main theme of the bible from one cover to the next is God's government - the Kingdom...You have thrown out the keys to the Kingdom and made your church the Kingdom...
I'd suggest you spend more time listening to people that study the bible and rightly divide it and far less time listening to the people that tell you otherwise...Your eternity depends on it...
Seems as tho there were numerous groups outside of the Catholic church that called themselves Christians during the time period you posted...Of course to you, they are known as heretics...The Catholic church wasn't the only game in town...
Assuming you acknowledge that the Protestant Reformation began as the result of Luther, Calvin and others leaving the Catholic Church,
I'm convinced that the first Christians out of Antioch for the first few hundred years, had someone stuck another name on them, would have been called Protestants...I believe as well that the roots of Catholic 'Christianity' was mentioned by Paul...And since your church seems to avoid the apostle Paul like he has the plague, I suspect Paul was referring to your early church here:
2Co 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
is it your contention that all Catholics prior to the Reformation are in hell?
I don't believe all Catholics in any time frame go to Hell...Many I'm sure, accept salvation without works as the 'free' gift from Jesus Christ in spite of your church...I fear that your church's teaching will send millions to Hell...
So you don't even acknowledge that the Protestant Reformation originated when men such as Luther and Calvin broke from the Catholic Church?
They didn't "miss" something; it was a non-issue. They simply believed that Mary remained a virgin. However, you will not find Protestants running to pray to Mary because there is no original Church teaching on this. I would suggest that all this devotion to Mary is a new teaching after the Reformation that has spun totally out of control. Now we see images of Mary on grilled cheese sandwiches, moldy tunnels and corn flakes even though no one knows what she looks like. Sorry if this sounds like anti-Catholic hate speech.
And, thirdly, because after Christ's ascension into heaven the devils put forward certain men who said that they themselves were gods; and they were not only not persecuted by you, but even deemed worthy of honours. There was a Samaritan, Simon, a native of the village called Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius Caesar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic, by virtue of the art of the devils operating in him. He was considered a god, and as a god was honoured by you with a statue, which statue was erected on the river Tiber, between the two bridges, and bore this inscription, in the language of Rome:-- "Simoni Deo Sancto," "To Simon the holy God." And almost all the Samaritans, and a few even of other nations, worship him, and acknowledge him as the first god; and a woman, Helena, who went about with him at that time, and had formerly been a prostitute, they say is the first idea generated by him. And a man, Meander, also a Samaritan, of the town Capparetaea, a disciple of Simon, and inspired by devils, we know to have deceived many while he was in Antioch by his magical art. He persuaded those who adhered to him that they should never die, and even now there are some living who hold this opinion of his. And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians . . .
I will agree with you that the title is a little misleading but in the statement that Justin makes here he says that the followers of Simon Magus were called Christians. He isn't saying that they were "Christians", only that they went by the name "Christians" and were called "Christians". True Christians did not trust magicians like Simon the Magician and his disciples, but those who were not true Christians did trust him. Isn't that what Justin Martyr is saying here?
CHAP. VI.--DO NOT ACCEPT JUDAISM. If any one confesses Christ Jesus the Lord, but denies the God of the law and of the prophets, saying that the Father of Christ is not the Maker of heaven and earth, he has not continued in the truth any more than his father the devil, and is a disciple of Simon Magus, not of the Holy Spirit.
Once again the title here is misleading, because he is saying that the God of the New Testament is the God of the Old Testament. Apparently the disciples of Simon Magus were teaching some form of Replacement Theology, trying to separate Christians from their Jewish heritage and the Law and the Prophets, and making them think that God was finished with the nation of Israel.
THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE PHILADELPHIANS Again, Christians are the disciples of the Holy Spirit, thus placing a distinction between Christians and Simon Magus...
Thank you for pointing this out. Remember Simon Magus's encounter with Peter in Acts. He wanted the Holy Spirit but the apostle Peter refused and rebuked him, because his heart was not right with God. He and his followers are of a different spirit, even though they may call the spirit they have "the Holy Spirit".
CHAP. XXXII.--FURTHER EXPOSURE OF THE WICKED AND BLASPHEMOUS DOCTRINES OF THE HERETICS. ...And if they have in truth accomplished anything [remarkable] by means of magic, they strive [in this way] deceitfully to lead foolish people astray, since they confer no real benefit or blessing on those over whom they declare that they exert] supernatural] power; but, bringing forward mere boys [as the subjects on whom they practise], and deceiving their sight, while they exhibit phantasms that instantly cease, and do not endure even a moment of time, they are proved to be like, not Jesus our Lord, but Simon the magician.
IRENAEUS AGAINST HERESIES -- BOOK II
Again, the TITLE proves you wrong. Note again the distinction between those who follow Simon are NOT the same as those who follow Jesus (these disciples are known as "Christians", not followers of Simon the Magician)
The Title proves nothing. The substance of the writing is what is important and it is evidence that Simon Magus started a religious sect in Rome circa 42 AD that went by the name "Christians" and it grew and evolved to encompass a lot of Christian heresies that Irenaeus traces back Simon Magus and his disciples. The substance of his writings prove my assertion once again.
Clearly, your idea that Simon the Magician founded a Christian group is false
What were his followers called???? I highlighted it for you.
and NOT documented by the above writings.
Their statements on this matter are right in front of you --- they can't be more clear.
the problem is your reading of the primary writings.
My eyes are just fine, thank you --- and yours?
I don't see how you misconstrue the obvious - that Christians and Simon the Magician were opposed - just as in Sacred Scriptures - AND - Simon was OPPOSED BY PETER SPECIFICALLY in Acts of the Apostles...
Justin Martyr and Irenaeus tell us that Simon Magus started a counterfeit Christian religion there in Rome whose followers were "called" Christians. They were counterfeit Christians. He was the Bishop of this counterfeit Christian religiom from 42 AD? to 67 AD?
Does the Roman Catholic Church trace its magisterial doctrines, practices and authority to a Roman Bishop who sat in a sacerdotal chair for 25 years from 42 AD? to 67 AD? Yes or No.
Since we know it wasn't Simon Peter in that chair, then could it have been Simon Magus who was that Bishop in that sacerdotal chair upon which the Roman Catholic Church was founded????????? Yes or No.
I believe that the images of Mary on grilled cheese sandwiches and whatever are nonsense, the whole issue reminds me of an old Johnny Carson episode when he interviewed a woman who saw people like Abraham Lincoln in potato chips.
Marian apparitions, however, have been noted throughout Church history and they often seem to be to people who have no preconceived notion or bias.
In other words, our salvation depends on accepting the fallible interpretations of men. Not men like the Pope, but men like you.
Thanks for admitting that this isn't about "the Bible versus the Pope," but about "Iscool versus the Pope". It always ends up being that way.
We don't know that. You think you know that. Of course, the same Irenaeus you quote also says that the Roman see is to be obeyed and that the episcopate at Rome goes back to Peter.
WE know no such thing. Anti-Catholic bigots seem to have stumbled upon it rather recently. But lets look at it another way -- almost all Christians in Europe were Catholic until just under 500 years ago, so how is it that your "pure" form of Christianity survived? Because I have to say that the nonsense you're coming up with is more laughable than all of the "Da Vinci Code" garbage.
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.