In Christ Alone (Happy reformation day)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExnTlIM5QgE ^ | Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;

[RnMomof7]

In Christ Alone lyrics

Songwriters: Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;

In Christ alone my hope is found He is my light, my strength, my song This Cornerstone, this solid ground Firm through the fiercest drought and storm

What heights of love, what depths of peace When fears are stilled, when strivings cease My Comforter, my All in All Here in the love of Christ I stand

In Christ alone, who took on flesh Fullness of God in helpless Babe This gift of love and righteousness Scorned by the ones He came to save

?Til on that cross as Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied For every sin on Him was laid Here in the death of Christ I live, I live

There in the ground His body lay Light of the world by darkness slain Then bursting forth in glorious Day Up from the grave He rose again

And as He stands in victory Sin?s curse has lost its grip on me For I am His and He is mine Bought with the precious blood of Christ

[RnMomof7]

I will answer only under protest since we cannot establish a shared historical framework for evaluating basic reality. Hence we are doomed to forever squabble over comparisons of apples with oranges.
Anyway, apostolic succession was defined at the end of Acts 1 when Peter led the eleven Apostles to choose Matthias as the successor to Judas. One of the many scriptural demonstrations of Church infallibility is the Holy Spirit inspired First Church Council in Jerusalem where Peter chaired a meeting to establish rules for Gentile converts.

Jesus tells us in John 6 that He knows that he will be betrayed by one of the apostles.. yet He gave no directions to replace that fallen apostle, he gave no permission or instructions regarding that. He taught many things..but never that

Peter was known for his rushing off on his own ... In Acts one there was no church, the Holy Spirit did not indwell those gathered ..

So we see the apostles ..prior to receiving the Holy Spirit make a decision to replace Judas . The "drew lots"..when did Christ ever give that as a spiritual method?

So they select Matthias ..who is NEVER HEARD FROM AGAIN in the inspired word of God

This was a decision of men not God just as the doctrine of apostolic succession is . God had ordained a replacement for Judas , He had prepared Hm for the role of catechist of the new church, God called him and gave him authority ..

BTW the word apostle is one sent forth with a message.. In scripture we see other men, not selected by Peter called apostles.. Barnabas, Timothy and Silvanus

The idea of apostolic succession is made up out of whole cloth

[mas cerveza por favor]

I mean the Bible that, in the formation of the NT Canon, 20 of the 27 books were UNIVERSALLY accepted IMMEDIATELY as genuine.

When, historically?

[RnMomof7]

Unfortunately, if you consider yourself unbound to any historical framework, you could spin these strait-forward scriptural references a thousand different ways.

All I ask is for an infallible source.. it is apparent that you do not have one ... Think about it.. Catholics trust the men telling them they are infallible to really be infallible ...

Sola Ecclesia Romanus
Only the Church of Rome is the Rule of Faith

[metmom]

Anyway, apostolic succession was defined at the end of Acts 1 when Peter led the eleven Apostles to choose Matthias as the successor to Judas.

Acts 1:15-26 15In those days Peter stood up among the brothers (the company of persons was in all about 120) and said, 16"Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17For he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry." 18(Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. 19And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their own language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) 20"For it is written in the Book of Psalms,

"'May his camp become desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in it';

and

"'Let another take his office.'

21So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection." 23And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, and Matthias. 24And they prayed and said, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen 25to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place." 26And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Is that how the Catholic church picks its popes these days? Casting lots like Peter suggested?

The church followed the leading of Peter in this and look what happened. Peter's first act as the new *pope* and he blows it. Matthias just drops off the face of the earth, or at least the pages of the Bible after that. This is the ONLY mention of him in the NT.

If that's an example of scriptural demonstrations of Church infallibility, the church is in big trouble.

One of the many scriptural demonstrations of Church infallibility is the Holy Spirit inspired First Church Council in Jerusalem where Peter chaired a meeting to establish rules for Gentile converts.

Acts 15:13-2313After they finished speaking, James replied, "Brothers, listen to me. 14 Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. 15And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,

16 "'After this I will return,and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen;I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, 17that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things 18 known from of old.'

19Therefore my [that is James] judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. 21For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues."

22Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, 23with the following letter:

Peter played a very small role in this discussion. He only related his experience and there's NO indication that he chaired it. That's only a presumption because Scripture doesn't say otherwise.

[Natural Law]

Do you pay royalties to Quix for copying his material and lack of intellectual content?

[RnMomof7]

One of the many scriptural demonstrations of Church infallibility is the Holy Spirit inspired First Church Council in Jerusalem where Peter chaired a meeting to establish rules for Gentile converts.

Peters actions were the CAUSE of that council, James was the leader in that council

AS the 1st church met in Jerusalem it was presided over by James not Peter.

It is clear here that James was in charge of that council and that it was James that made the final ruling.

Peter was part of the problem not the solution

Please READ the words of James

Act 15:13 And after they had held their peace,James answered, saying, Men [and] brethren, hearken unto me:
Not to Peter, listen" to ME"

Act 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

Act 15:15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

Act 15:16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

Act 15:17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

Act 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

Act 15:19 Wherefore MY sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

That is James making the decision NOT PETER

Can the Pope be OVERRULED in matters of faith? That should be your first clue that he was not in charge and that he was not infallible . For he was in error on this serious matter and was taken to task by Paul

Peter never claimed headship for himself. He was a humble man that would rebuke what is said of him today

Peter was the apostle to the Jews ..not the Roman gentiles

"The gospel of the CIRCUMCISION was unto Peter; (For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)" (Gal. 2:7-8).

It was Paul not Peter that wrote doctrinal letters to the Romans and Ephesian Church

PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles! This would have kept him from going to Rome to become the head of a Gentile church. He would have been in rebellion to the call of God on him if he had gone to the gentiles

It is Paul that wanted to build the church at Rome. That fact proved that Peter was not the "bishop " of Rome. As Paul told us he would not build on another foundation.

"Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, LEST I SHOULD BUILD UPON ANOTHER MAN’S FOUNDATION" (Rom. 15:20).

When Paul wrote to the church at Rome Peters name is no where listed

Around 45 A.D., we find Peter being cast into prison at Jerusalem (Acts 12:3, 4). In 49 A.D., he was still in Jerusalem, this time attending the Jerusalem Council. About 51 A.D., he was in Antioch of Syria where he got into differences with Paul because he wouldn't sit or eat with Gentiles.

66 A.D., we find him in the city of Babylon among the Jews (I Pet. 5:13). Peter was the Apostle to the CIRCUMCISED.History shows that there were as many Jews in the Mesopotamian areas in Christ’s time as there were in Palestine.

Peter was an obedient apostle Of Christ and he carried out with honor the work the Lord had ordained for him to do , and that work never included being a bishop to a gentile church

[mas cerveza por favor]

I think it is quite easy to determine if an INFALLIBLE teaching came from Christ and not fallible men... is it a directive found in the scriptures
On what do you base this assertion? Did any Christian prior to the Sixteenth Century share the same viewpoint?

How about "church Fathers?" Will that do?

Which Church Father said that infallible teachings are directives found only in the scriptures?

If there are two conflicting interpretations of a scriptural directive, how do you determine which is the infallible one?

[RnMomof7]

I will and you can do some research to the corruption and theft by the Catholic church

[mas cerveza por favor]

WRONG, as has been pointed out a hundred times. James presided over the council, not Peter. Acts 15:19, AGAIN. Not so infallible, that Church "fact".

Acts 15: "7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. 12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul..."

Peter refereed the dispute between Paul and James, supporting Paul in his position against Judaizing. Peter quieted the crowd and gave Paul the floor. James made the final pronouncement at in the end because he was leader of the party capitulating to Paul.

[smvoice]

No, mas. Pope I did not referee a throw down between Paul and James. And wait a minute, if he did, why did they not capitulate to him? He would have been considered infallible, right?

[RnMomof7]

Interesting how God confirms His word in His children

[RnMomof7]

Do you mean the Bible in history or the bible that fell from the sky in the Sixteenth Century like Mormon gold plates?

I believe we share a NT..we can stick to that

[metmom]

Peter refereed the dispute between Paul and James, supporting Paul in his position against Judaizing.

That's reading more into it than the passage states.

Peter quieted the crowd and gave Paul the floor.

It doesn't say that either.

James made the final pronouncement at in the end because he was leader of the party capitulating to Paul.

Nor that.

In order to get that reading out of the passage, many assumptions need to be made which have no basis.

It's disingenuous to portray something as having happened when there's no facts to back it up.

[RnMomof7]

I mean the Bible that, in the formation of the NT Canon, 20 of the 27 books were UNIVERSALLY accepted IMMEDIATELY as genuine.
When, historically?

Are we trying to change the subject? If we are correct and there is no apostolic succession, no infallibile pope ..then the question on the OT scriptures is answered ..so lets stick to one topic

[RnMomof7]

In which (the two Testaments) every word that appertains to God may be required and discussed; and all knowledge may be understood out of them. But if anything remain which the Holy Scripture does not determine, no other third Scripture ought to be received for authorizing any knowledge or doctrine; but that which remains we must commit to the fire, that is, we will reserve it for God. For in this present world God would not have us to know all things. (Orig. in Lev., hom. 5, 9:6)

We know Jesus Christ is God, and we seek to expound the words which are spoken, according to the dignity of the person. Wherefore it is necessary for us to call the Scriptures into testimony; for our meanings and enarrations, without these witnesses, have no credibility. ( ORIGEN (Tractatus 5 in Matt.) 


No man ought, for the confirmation of doctrines, to use books which are not canonized Scriptures. ( ORIGEN Tract. 26 in Matt.)


Whence comes this tradition? Does it descend from the Lord’s authority, or from the commands and epistles of the apostles? For those things are to be done which are there written. ... If it be commanded in the gospels or the epistles and Acts of the Apostles, then let this holy tradition be observed. ( ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE Ep. 74 ad Pompeium)

The Catholic Christians will neither speak nor endure to hear any thing in religion that is a stranger to Scripture; it being an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written. ( 
ST. ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIAExhort. ad Monachas)

Not even the least of the divine and holy mysteries of the faith ought to be handed down without the divine Scriptures. Do not simply give faith to me speaking these things to you except you have the proof of what I say from the divine Scriptures. For the security and preservation of our faith are not supported by ingenuity of speech, but by the proofs of the divine Scriptures. (ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM Cat. 4)

The early church fathers are clear that the scriptures are the final authority

[RnMomof7]

If there are two conflicting interpretations of a scriptural directive, how do you determine which is the infallible one

There are essentials and non essentials ..the essentials deal with who God is, His attributes, who Christ is and the things necessary for salvation .

In non essential matters agreement is not necessary .

Scripture confirms scripture, it there is a question..usually a study on what God says on that topic, or how a specific word is used in other scriptures will bring clarity

The posters you are talking with are of various religious faiths.. yet in the essentials we have complete agreement ..

[smvoice]

good catch! I did not even realize how easily the subject was changed...:)

[presently no screen name]

Is that how the Catholic church picks its popes these days? Casting lots like Peter suggested?

Excellent point, metmom.

[Quix]

IIRC,

NONE of the RC’s have ever dealt with the fact that

IF

[as irrational as it is considering the ample vocabulary, context etc. cues]

it meant as the revisionist

Vatican Alice In Wonderland School of Theology and Reality Mangling would have that verse mean

THERE WOULD BE NO POINT IN THAT CULTURE.

THE EMPHASIS

OF THE VERSE MAKES SENSE

ONLY

IF SIBLINGS ARE MEANT.

cousins were as plentiful as the man on the street.

However, in true rabbit hole fashion, they just ignore such facts as they ignore most facts of history, logic, linguistics, Scripture, etc.

[metmom]

THERE WOULD BE NO POINT IN THAT CULTURE. THE EMPHASIS OF THE VERSE MAKES SENSE ONLY IF SIBLINGS ARE MEANT. cousins were as plentiful as the man on the street.

Excellent point.