|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/25/2010 5:21:20 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5486
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
Clearly there is no connection between Mat 16 and Isa 22.
Then why is the language nearly identical? No. Read for yourself to see that the language of Isa 22 is identical to Rev 3:7 not to Mat 16. The fact remains that the Lord Jesus Christ lays claim to the key(singular and present tense) of the house of David. He gives it to no man and no man can take it from Him…regardless of how hard they try.
Isa 22:22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
Rev 3:7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;
quote:
quote:
Now, you show us from Scripture what church Corinth was subject to. Thank you for finally providing the name of a Church that you believe was outside the authority of the officers of the bishopric. You did notice did you not that you were unable to provide any church to which Corinth was subject? That Paul wrote epistles proves what?.... it was Paul who founded the Corinthinian church. While Paul definitely had the authority of an Apostle, still, trouble brewed in that church and there was contention even concerning Paul's apostleship and some of his doctrines. However, Paul clearly says in 2Cor 1:24 he would not "lord it over them"(which agrees with 1Peter 5:3 "Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock."
So please, if not even an Apostle has scriptural permission for a hierarchical domination or lordship, it’s all too obvious that RC can make no such claims - well, at least not legitimately. As we all know RC does, in fact, make such claims, however, God is quick to point out in His inspired Bible that He has never given permission for such claims…yet, still they continue in such unbiblical doctrines.
quote:
quote:
Yikes...I spent twelve years in both counterfeit RC schools and parishes?...wow, [followed by disparaging remarks] Make all the derogatory remarks you want… You continue to give evidence that you neither read the posts to which you reply nor do you even remember your own accusations. Is the following sentence at all familiar to you?...it should be since they are your own words: "If this was your experience, then you were not in a Catholic parish." I was replying “tongue-in-cheek” to your insinuation that I didn't attend RC schools. Btw, when I intend to be “disparaging”, you’ll know it.
quote:
quote:
quote:
Yep, because the Judaizes, whom Peter apparently feared, came from Jerusalem. What?...should they have gone to Corinth?... What - they were hunting down the Judaizers? Huh??? How did you ever come up with that one?
quote:
Why would they go to Corinth when the teaching authority was in Jerusalem? You continue to ask the same question over and over even after I've answered it…why do you always do this? And, then of course, you complain I haven’t answered your question. Deal with my answer or quit repeating it. It’s a waste of time. Again, Scripture tells us they went to Jerusalem because that's where the "troublemakers" were from. "And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved."
quote:
The only reason you refuse to admit that the teaching of the Apostles was God-inspired is because you know it refutes your protestant man made tradition (found nowhere in the bible) that Sola Scriptura is inspired. Nope, the only reason I "refuse to admit" is because God has not said what you claim. You’ve yet to demonstrate that anything other than the Bible is "theopnuestos". Therefore, according to the Bible, it’s RC which promulgates the “man-made” tradition. Even if the Apostles’ oral teaching was inspired, it has no application to RC since God teaches that apostolic authority was tied to direct revelations given them by the Lord Jesus Christ. The prophets and the Apostles laid the foundation which is the Gospel of the Lord Jesus. A foundation has no "successors" nor does it "develop" over time. Therefore, we can know for a surety that there is no such thing as "apostolic succession" in the RC sense.
In fact, God is so good, He tell in an overwhelming manner precisely what He intends to be “passed on” and that is the body of teaching originating from the Lord Jesus Himself. We find God’s teaching that very fact in many passages some of which follow below:
1 Tim. 1:3 As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus, in order that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines..
1 Tim. 1:18 This command I entrust to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you may fight the good fight.
1 Tim. 2:14-15 I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long; but in case I am delayed, I write so that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.
1 Tim. 4:6, 11 In pointing out these things [warnings about false teachers] to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the sound doctrine which you have been following...Prescribe and teach these things.
1 Tim. 4:16 Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things; for as you do this you will insure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you.
1 Tim. 5:21 I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His chosen angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing in a spirit of partiality.
1 Tim. 6:13-14 I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate, that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Tim. 6:20-21 O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called 'knowledge'--which some have professed and thus gone astray from the faith.
2 Tim. 1:13-14 Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. Guard through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you.
2 Tim. 2:1-2 You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also.
2 Tim. 3:14-17 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them; and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
Titus 1:5, 9 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set in order what remains, and appoint elders in every city as I directed you...[the elder must be] holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.
Titus 2:1, 15 But as for you, speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine...These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.
Sadly we know, however, that when another agenda is desired, that which is contrary to God’s own teaching, these passages must be either denied or ignored. Clearly from all the above, Timothy’s and Titus’ authority did not stand alone, was not inherent in their “office”; but, rather it was derived from faithfulness to Paul’s teachings. And also we see from all of the above that Paul commanded his teachings was what had been entrusted to them and was to be passed on to other faithful men. Ah, if men would only listen to the inspired Word of God, therein, lies all the answers.
quote:
And why on earth do you protest against your own WCF? Did it’s authors get infant baptism wrong? You are aware that the WCF declares it a great sin to refuse an infant the graces of baptism aren’t you? It declares that baptism is a necessary act of obedience, however, it does not say that it regenerates. "Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated."
Besides, when did I ever say it was wrong to baptize an infant?....nope, never did....we've been through this before...guess you "forgot" again.
quote:
(Ezekiel even prophesies about this[sprinkling/water baptism] ).
No Ezekiel does not prophesy concerning water batism. You continue to confuse the Baptism of the Holy Spirit with that of water. One saves, the other does not. One is the substance, the other is the shadow. God is telling us about regeneration, a true and lasting salvation which certainly cannot be said of most who are water baptized. The entirety of Scripture is clear - only the "sprinkling" of the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ can wash away sins – not water.
Eze 36:25-28 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. 26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. 28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.
quote:
The Jewish people were never accustomed to an infant not being allowed into the covenant family of God. Circumcision was commanded by God as a rite to be performed on infants for acceptance into this community. Likewise for infant baptism. Yep, and neither cut away or washes away even one sin, although, they certainly were pointing to the need to have sins cut away, and in the NT, washed away.
quote:
References please. And again, why would you speak out against infant baptism when your denomination proclaims it a great sin for a believing parent to withhold this from their infants? Seriously, how many times must I explain and how many times must you ignore my explanation?…do you even bother to read anything?...the evidence is that you do not! I have never spoken against infant baptism. Is that clear?...yeah, it probably is, at least, until the next time you repeat it.
quote:
quote:
In any case, there are many views including the symbolic view. Exactly why Jesus established the Church as the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. More RC contradiction of Scripture. God clearly tells the church what to do when the “grievous wolves” enter the church – go to Him and to His written inspired Word never to the “pillar”. We see this in Acts 20:29,32 ”For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them….32And 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 where in that do you seen authority for being the sole authoritative interpreter of Scripture?....you don't. Besides, the only way a church is the pillar(upholds) is if it teaches the Gospel as God gave in His inspired Word not a church which teaches it's own doctrines instead.
quote:
The symbolic view was invented by Anabaptists acting outside of the authority of the Church. It has no historical record in the 1500 preceding years of the execution of the Great Commission. Up until the 4th century, water baptism was not performed until there was evidence of conversion perhaps as long as two-three years. So, obviously, the water baptism which followed was symbolic, an act of obedience for a Christian.
"During the period of 100-311 A.D. it became the practice to place converts on a probationary period of teaching for approximately two years before baptism to make certain that their conversion was genuine" History of the Christian Church," Vol. II, pp. 256-57, by Philip Schaff
God tells us that Cornelius was saved, regenerated by the Holy Spirit before water ever touched his body, therefore Cornelius’ water baptism symbolized the washing away of all his sins when the Holy Spirit gave him a new resurrected soul eternally alive in Christ - when he became “born from above” – when he experienced the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. The water baptism which followed after he was “born from above” was the act of obedience.
The following describes the reality the substance of which water is the shadow - the Baptism of the Holy Spirit:
1Cor 12:12-13 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body -- Jews or Greeks, slaves or free -- and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
_____________________________
.... for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Psalm 138:2
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/25/2010 5:34:13 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5486
Status: offline
|
quote:
Their teaching[SBC] originates from self-proclaimed authority. In that case, no more so than RC's "authority" is self-proclaimed.
quote:
quote:
Actually, we see the very opposite from the beginning….false teaching abounded ….[followed by more derogatory remarks and false claims about the CC] The early heresies in the Church were a result of self-proclaimed authorities rejecting the authority of the Church "Derogatory"?...maybe; true?.. definitely, i.e., "false teaching abounded and continues to gather steam in RC so much so that now it is taught that the Lord’s death was not effective…He needs the help of Mary, priests must continue to “offer” the same sacrifice, man must pay for his own sins….".
Anyway, God made no provision for a universal church authority to interpret and certainly not a jurisdictional universal church. There was, however, the teaching of the Apostle Paul in Corinth which is what was being rejected. And guess what?....when you read, and believe, the Bible you find that it is the ordinary believers who are called “the church” not some universal jurisdictional authority. For example, “unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus.”(1Cor 1:2) and “And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans.”(Col 4:16). All the churches addressed by the Apostle in Rev 1:11 were local churches.
What was the unifying factor of all theses churches?....the Gospel – no popes, no RC. These local churches believed and taught the Gospel according to the Apostles’ teaching. Therefore, RC’s concept of “the church” is not God’s concept as found in His inspired written Word. God’s concept is “the assembly of believers” not the absolute power of a papal hierarchical system. The early church understood apostolic doctrine to be the written Word of God to which they exclusively appealed.
quote:
quote:
The water represented the Gospel. I actually like this – another sense of the scriptures. The water could also represent the Gospel. But in the very next verse it states “He was speaking of the Spirit which those who believed in him were to receive; for there was no Spirit as yet because Jesus had not yet been glorified.” You're correct in John 7 God is talking about the Holy Spirit. The better passage to have used wherein God declares that "water" is the Gospel is Eph 5:26 "That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word," In addition to water and the Gospel, we see oil used as a picture of the Holy Spirit in the parable of the ten virgins.
quote:
quote:
While a primacy of honor was recognized, ….. The ECFs never denied that Rome had a primacy, however, …. These are historical facts. Thank you for finally recognizing this. As for whether this was only an honorary primacy or one of authority as well, let us turn to some ECFs: Hopefully, we can do better than your somewhat truncated quotes. Augustine writes, which I have previously supplied, that the “keys” were given to ALL the Apostles and many other ECFs agreed with this position.
quote:
Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.): You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]). Huh???...what are you reading?....this says nothing about a Roman jurisdictional primacy of authority. In typical RC fashion, it reads back into ECFs its own modern doctrines…when clearly the ECF is not addresssing those doctrines.
quote:
Irenaeus: But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. A couple of things with this quote. First, already, Irenaeus is wrong since Scripture is clear that Paul did not found the church at Rome….so, the rest needs to be read with a grain of salt. When we read the preceding section, we find Irenaeus was not singling out Rome because Rome was the chief church, but because, for the sake of brevity, he used it as an example out of all the apostolic churches.
”It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves.”
Philip Schaff writes in the note for Against Heresies III, 3:2:
”A most extraordinary confession. It would be hard to find a worse; but take the following from a candid Roman Catholic, which is better and more literal: “For to this Church, on account of more potent principality, it is necessary that every Church (that is, those who are on every side faithful) resort; in which Church ever, by those who are on every side, has been preserved that tradition which is from the apostles.” Here it is obvious that the faith was kept at Rome, by those who resort there from all quarters. She was a mirror of the Catholic World, owing here orthodoxy to them; not the Sun, dispensing her own light to others, but the glass bringing their rays into a focus. (Berington and Kirk, vol. i. p. 252.)
Again, the faith was kept at the church in Rome, but only because it was kept in the churches across Christendom. The church at Rome had the same apostolic succession which was found in all the major churches which Irenaeus refers to in the previous section. Nowhere is "authority over other churches" nor "assertion of the primacy of the church of Rome" ever indicated.
Besides, simply because he believed that the apostolic sees of Rome and Ephesus of that day were faithful is no indication that he would agree that they were today. Would the EO agree that Rome was faithful in all things today? We have no evidence Irenaeus would agree that praying to the deceased, the veneration of images, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary and the papacy were accepted by all of the churches and known to the churches of that day.
No doubt your church wouldn't agree with Irenaeus' view that Christians should separate from bishops who don't meet moral and doctrinal standards. (Against Heresies 4:26:3-5) And do you agree, as did Irenaeus, that the Bible is the “pillar and ground of truth”?....somehow I doubt it. Again, why bother to trot out certain ECFs when you “think” they agree with you?..... they usually don’t as further investigation proves.
quote:
Cyprian: With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]). No, Cyprian is no defense for a Roman superiority – none whatsoever. In fact, he wrote that all bishops had equal authority – including himself.
"Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honor of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: 'I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers." Epistle XXVI
It is an irrefutable fact gleaned from Cyprian’s writings that he viewed all the Apostles as being equal with one another. Even RC scholars and historians, such as Robert Eno all agree. He states:
”It is clear that in Cyprian’s mind...one theological conclusion he does not draw is that the bishop of Rome has authority which is superior to that of the African bishops.” (Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1990), pp. 57-60).
Here’s another RC historian, Michael Winter who writes that Cyprian never wrote in a pro-papal sense:
”Cyprian used the Petrine text of Matthew to defend episcopal authority, but many later theologians, influenced by the papal connexions of the text, have interpreted Cyprian in a propapal sense which was alien to his thought...Cyprian would have used Matthew 16 to defend the authority of any bishop, but since he happened to employ it for the sake of the Bishop of Rome, it created the impression that he understood it as referring to papal authority...Catholics as well as Protestants are now generally agreed that Cyprian did not attribute a superior authority to Peter. (Michael Winter, St. Peter and the Popes (Baltimore: Helikon, 1960), pp. 47-48).
Or still another RC historian, Karlfried Froehlich states the following:
”Cyprian understood the biblical Peter as representative of the unified episcopate, not of the bishop of Rome...He understood him as symbolizing the unity of all bishops, the privileged officers of penance...For (Cyprian), the one Peter, the first to receive the penitential keys which all other bishops also exercise, was the biblical type of the one episcopate, which in turn guaranteed the unity of the church. The one Peter equaled the one body of bishops” Karlfried Froehlich, Saint Peter, Papal Primacy, and the Exegetical Tradition, 1150-1300, p. 36
The following is what Johann Dollinger, a very well known and highly respected church history professor has to say about the papacy:
”In the first three centuries, St. Irenaeus is the only writer who connects the superiority of the Roman Church with doctrine; but he places this superiority, rightly understood, only in its antiquity, its double apostolical origin, and in the circumstance of the pure tradition being guarded and maintained there through the constant concourse of the faithful from all countries….. Tertullian, Cyprian, Lactantius, know nothing of special Papal prerogative, or of any higher or supreme right of deciding in matter of doctrine. In the writings of the Greek doctors, Eusebius, St. Athanasius, St. Basil the Great, the two Gregories, and St. Epiphanius, there is not one word of any prerogatives of the Roman bishop. The most copious of the Greek Fathers, St. Chrysostom, is wholly silent on the subject, and so are the two Cyrils; equally silent are the Latins, Hilary, Pacian, Zeno, Lucifer, Sulpicius, and St. Ambrose…. We have a copious literature on the Christian sects and heresies of the first six centuries—Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, Philastrius, St. Augustine, and, later, Leontius and Timotheus—have left us accounts of them to the number of eighty, but not a single one is reproached with rejecting the Pope’s authority in matters of faith…. How many Fathers have busied themselves with these texts, yet not one of them whose commentaries we possess—Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, and those whose interpretations are collected in catenas—has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Rome is the consequence of the commission and promise to Peter! Not one of them has explained the rock or foundation on which Christ would build His Church of the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors, but they understood by it either Christ Himself, or Peter’s confession of faith in Christ; often both together. Or else they thought Peter was the foundation equally with all the other Apostles, the twelve being together the foundation–stones of the Church…. The Fathers could the less recognize in the power of the keys, and the power of binding and loosing, any special prerogative or lordship of the Roman bishop, inasmuch as—what is obvious to any one at first sight—they did not regard a power first given to Peter, and afterwards conferred in precisely the same words on all the Apostles, as anything peculiar to him, or hereditary in the line of Roman bishops, and they held the symbol of the keys as meaning just the same as the figurative expression of binding and loosing.” (Janus (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger), The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1869), pp. 70-74).
RC historian James McCue writes:
"According to Cyprian’s interpretation of Matthew 16:18, Jesus first conferred upon Peter the authority with which he subsequently endowed all the apostles. This, according to Cyprian, was to make clear the unity of the power that was being conferred and of the church that was being established. Cyprian frequently speaks of Peter as the foundation of the church, and his meaning seems to be that it was in Peter that Jesus first established all the church–building powers and responsibilities that would subsequently also be given to the other apostles and to the bishops.
Peter is the source of the church’s unity only in an exemplary or symbolic way...Peter himself seems, in Cyprian’s thought, to have had no authority over the other apostles, and consequently the church of Peter cannot reasonably claim to have any authority over the other churches." (Papal Primacy and the Universal Church, Edited by Paul Empie and Austin Murphy (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1974), Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue V, pp. 68-69).
So much for an early concept of a supremacy for the bishop of Rome...it just simply did not historically exist and of course it’s never existed in Scripture.
quote:
Augustine: Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear "I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]). It's a very selective use of quotes. Augustine says that Peter “represented” the church and “deserved to hear….”. He’s not saying only Peter deserved the “keys” unless, of course, you insist that Augustine was in the habit of contradicting himself…do you? Well, let me assure you Augustine does not contradict himself even though by “selective” use of his quotes you contradict him. As seen above, church historians write that Augustine and many other ECFs didn't have...."the faintest hint that the primacy of Rome is the consequence of the commission and promise to Peter! Not one of them has explained the rock or foundation on which Christ would build His Church of the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors,"
quote:
I have read every single one of your posts Kelman. They still don’t answer the questions so here they are I’ve told you any number of times that the Bible teaches and the early church attests to the fact that all the Apostles were given the keys. Now if you have anything to say in response to my answer, let me know. Until then, you get to play all by yourself and not waste anyone’s time but your own.
_____________________________
.... for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Psalm 138:2
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/25/2010 5:51:53 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5486
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
That's precisely "why we don't need a pope" because we want to conform our beliefs to that of Scripture. ...so you are in total agreement that I may hand a New Testament to a life-long Hindu, and he will immediately discern the same version faith as yours, and not that of the Roman Catholic Church? He doesn’t need to discern anyone’s “version” of faith. What he needs to “discern”, and can only do so through the work of the Holy Spirit, is his need to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of his sins. So, nope….he doesn’t need a “pope”. A pope would only confuse him with a bunch of his commandments and "dogmas" not found in the Bible. Not to mention some of which have very serious consequences...others less so.
quote:
quote:
Both make claims for "apostolic succession" and yet these denominations disagree on many many important principles. They agree on more principles than they disagree on...and both are superior to a version of Christianity invented in the 16th century and beyond. Both “one true churches” disagree on many many issues…and yet both make a claim for “apotolic succession”. Obviously, neither have what they think they have. And both disagree on many very important “principles”….you don't agree on the Bible, you don't agree on popes, you don't agree on the Eucharist, you don't agree on purgatory, you don't agree on the immaculate conception ...you don't agree on the Nicean Creed, you don't agree on "the church", you don't agree on icons/idols, you don't agree on celibacy, you don't agree on the sacraments nor do you even agree on God and the Lord Jesus Christ.
quote:
The point of Apostolic Succession is the Holy See - the Magisterium. Add one more “principle” the one true churches disagree upon.
quote:
This point is lost on Protestants who have dismissed this authority,… Of course, we would dismiss such an obviously unbiblical man-made tradition of a universal authority, an authority usurped by a church, an authority God has not given.
quote:
because they do not possess it and have abandoned it in favor of their own modern innovations and inventions. What we possess is what God has given – elders/deacons, evangelists, teachers, pastors and most importantly the true inspired Word of God – so, yep, we do indeed recognize authority, however, it is an authority God has clearly delineated in Scripture not one culled from imagination.
quote:
Better to gloss it over than admit that the baby has been thrown out with the bath water... Who glosses over anything? We’re right here explaining how RC has thrown out the baby(the Lord Jesus Christ) with their bath water of man-made doctrines.
_____________________________
.... for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Psalm 138:2
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/25/2010 9:31:39 AM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 665
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: online
|
Thanks for the reply Kelman. I’m going on a backpacking trip so won’t be around for a few days. I’ll respond more thoroughly when I get back but in the meantime….
quote:
No. Read for yourself to see that the language of Isa 22 is identical to Rev 3:7 not to Mat 16. ….
I didn’t ask what other verses are nearly identical to Is 22. I asked why is the language Jesus uses in Mt 16 nearly identical to Is 22. I agree with you 100% that Is 22:22 and Rev 3:7 are nearly identical …. They are both referencing the keys to the Kingdom. Now what about the keys to the Kingdom in Mt 16?
quote:
You did notice did you not that you were unable to provide any church to which Corinth was subject? That Paul wrote epistles proves what?.... it was Paul who founded the Corinthinian church. While Paul definitely had the authority of an Apostle, still, trouble brewed in that church and there was contention even concerning Paul's apostleship and some of his doctrines. However, Paul clearly says in 2Cor 1:24 he would not "lord it over them"(which agrees with 1Peter 5:3 "Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock."
The very fact that Paul wrote multiple letters to the Church in Corinth reveals his authority. He even sent them one of his representatives rather than allowing some board of elders to have the final authority. And of course Paul didn’t “lord over” anyone. Members of the office of the bishopric are authoritative servants of Lord Jesus Christ.
quote:
"If this was your experience, then you were not in a Catholic parish." I was replying “tongue-in-cheek” to your insinuation that I didn't attend RC schools. Btw, when I intend to be “disparaging”, you’ll know it. I did not insinuate that you didn’t attend an RC school. I’m pointing out that your recollection of the lack of presence of God’s Word in the CC is completely inconsistent with the Liturgy of the Mass and I’m sure with many of the rules established for RC schools. This is what I meant (tongue-in-cheek) by saying you must not have been in a Catholic parish. Regardless, and I speak from personal experience having attended several different Protestant services multiple times – The proclamation of the Word in Protestant denominations comes nowhere near that in the CC.
quote:
You continue to ask the same question over and over even after I've answered it…why do you always do this? And, then of course, you complain I haven’t answered your question. Deal with my answer or quit repeating it. It’s a waste of time. Again, Scripture tells us they went to Jerusalem because that's where the "troublemakers" were from. "And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved." Because you never really answer the question. You pick out a favored verse then apply either/or reasoning. This quote is a perfect example. Yet we know from the sacred and infallible scriptures that the purpose for going to Jerusalem at all was that the dispute be settled among the leadership in Jerusalem. I.O.W. The elders in Antioch did not have final authority over the church in Antioch. This is clear evidence from the sacred and infallible scriptures that any governing body of a church which appoints itself as the final authority is completely unbiblical. It is a post-post-Reformation invention of man, invented due to necessity of course.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/25/2010 10:01:57 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 1734
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
Kelman wrote:
quote:
Here’s another RC historian, Michael Winter who writes that Cyprian never wrote in a pro-papal sense:
”Cyprian used the Petrine text of Matthew to defend episcopal authority, but many later theologians, influenced by the papal connexions of the text, have interpreted Cyprian in a propapal sense which was alien to his thought...Cyprian would have used Matthew 16 to defend the authority of any bishop, but since he happened to employ it for the sake of the Bishop of Rome, it created the impression that he understood it as referring to papal authority...Catholics as well as Protestants are now generally agreed that Cyprian did not attribute a superior authority to Peter. (Michael Winter, St. Peter and the Popes (Baltimore: Helikon, 1960), pp. 47-48).
That's doubtful "history", since Eastern Orthodox scholars--as I showed on the bottom of the last page-- admit that Cyprian, like all the early fathers ands councils, saw the Roman Church as "the principal Church, from which the unity of the priesthood takes its source"
http://www.catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/26/2010 2:59:45 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5486
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
No, this was a personal apostolic authority given to the Twelve and to Judas' replacement to keep the number Twelve for a time and to fulfill prophecy. No Kelman. We’ve already agreed that scripture only records Jesus giving this authority to the original 12. You’re mistaken I’ve agree to no such thing. What I said was that the Lord Jesus gave the apostleship to Paul and by virtue of that direct appointment Paul lacked nothing the Twelve possessed, ergo, Paul received the same keys(binding and loosing).
quote:
The certain fact that both Matthias and Paul also had this authority is based on the fact that it was not “personal” and it was an authority given to the office. Of course it was personal, although, I agree it was an “office” in the church just as was the “prophet”, however, both have faded away with the completion of the Bible. Just as no man had the ability to "make" a prophet so too no man has the ability to "make" an Apostle or its equivalent.
With the inspired Bible, God has given us all that is necessary for salvation and for the perfection of the saints. At least, this is what God says in 2Tim 3:17.
We see how quickly the Apostles faded away, by the time they met in Acts 15, James, the Lord's brother, presided over the council, not one of the official Twelve or Paul. The church had already been founded. The design of God was for the Apostles to lay down the solid doctrine and the pattern for the church's founding, then turn over to the elders and deacons the actual running of the church while they faded away.
We see the Lord making Paul an Apostle with the same authority as the Twelve. The Twelve plus Paul were special Apostles called of the Lord Jesus Christ and uniquely set apart. We know it was not an “office” subject to succession, in the RC sense, one reason being the Apostle James was never replaced after he was martyred. We also know it was not an “office” subject to succession because we have absolutely no biblical evidence of any Apostle “passing on” his apostleship to another…as if he could. We do, however, have biblical evidence of what was to be passed. It was their faithful teaching of the Gospel.
Why was it God’s plan that the Apostles would fade away?... because we have the inspired scripture they penned, we have the entirety of God's message to man, the entirety of God's doctrine….and we do not need new doctrines and new “truths”. In fact, God is quick to tell us to beware and flee from those who bring additional "gospel" because the Apostles had given us the whole counsel of God and there was to be no "extras" from God, anyway.
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Obviously, the Reformers were acting in obedience to God as they fled a church which innovated doctrine after doctrine not found in the inspired Bible. Seems they took Gal 1:8 very much to heart as we all should.
quote:
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see why protestors would have to make up such a new teaching, one which immediately led to widespread division in the church. Gee, should I have deleted some of these “derogatory” and obviously anti-Protestant words?....nah, some of us just need a thicker skin. In any event, we know from the historical record that RC was solely responsible for splitting Christendom by its usurpation of authority with its unbiblical papal doctrine.
quote:
quote:
No, you're imposing external considerations into the text that are simply not supported by the passage. They most certainly are supported by the context of the passages. When King Jesus first grants this authority to Peter, he is establishing his new Kingdom. All of Jesus’ disciples weren’t quite getting who Jesus was. God revealed to Peter and the rest of the 12 the Truth. With this revelation came the authority to bind and loose, to faithfully and authoritatively proclaim the Word and interpret the scriptures. We know that Andrew “got it”. From the first day he met the Lord Andrew declared that He was the Messiah. In Mat 16 Peter was speaking for all the Apostles and the “keys”(the authority to bind and loose) was given to all the Apostles. RC disagrees with the considered opinion of many ECFs and church historians, even RC ones.
quote:
quote:
No where do we find God or the Apostles "passing on" their authority. We sure do! In fact, God even commands it of Moses! First, obviously Moses was not an Apostle and this is not a shadow concerning the NT. Moses complained to God that he couldn’t alone bear the weight of governing the nation. So, God gave him help.
If it can be considered a shadow, it would be the Twelve Tribes of Israel for the the Twelve Apostles. It wouldn't be the appointment of seventy elders to help with the administration of the Hebrew nation’s government. God often qualified men to perform His will from kings to heathens even to donkeys….hardly a reason to cry “apostolic succession”. And neither is there biblical evidence that this appointment(Moses) was permanent just as there is none for the Apostles “passing on” their apostleship.
quote:
And we see the fulfillment of this shadow exercised in one of the very first Acts of the Apostles as the office of the bishopric appoints Matthias to fill the office vacated by Judas. No, the Moses account has nothing to with “apostolic succession”. The most that could possibly be extrapolated from this appointment, beside keeping the mystical number Twelve, is that a leader who is a flagrant sinner should be replaced.
Another point, if Peter was the first “pope” why didn’t he simply select Judas’ replacement?...aferall he was the “vicar of Christ on earth”…wasn’t he? No, of course, God never indicates that Peter had any more authority than any other Apostle.
quote:
Kelman – this is all very straightforward from scripture. You’re correct it is very straightforward. In fact, so very straightforward that God has not revealed even the suggestion of Peter having any more authority than any other Apostle. In addition, it is indeed so very straightforward that God has not given us any evidence that even one apostleship was “passed on”. Apostle succession, in the RC sense, is purely a tradition straight from man having nothing to do with God.
quote:
quote:
quote:
Exactly. Those appointed to the office of the bishopric have a God-given authority. Nope, not "exactly" at all since I clearly didn't say anything of the sort nor did I even imply it. The Jews would recognize the number Twelve as having a symbolic significance, i.e., the Twelve Tribes of Israel Come on Kelman…. Here is exactly what you said:
“In the eyes of the Jew, the Apostles would be seen as having an authority which came from God.” This ranks right up there with your worst, kirsch, very distasteful. So, I can only ask you to please “come on” and stopping posting in this very disagreeable manner - it is deceptive.
You have attempted to make it appear that I said something other than what I did, in fact, say. You took my second sentence out of its context because you eliminated the FIRST sentence which agrees "exactly" with my reply to you.
My first sentence was: ”It was necessary to replace Judas to keep the number twelve at least for a time because Jerusalem would have recognized the Apostles as symbols of the Twelve Tribes of Israel.”
Followed directly by your truncated, out of context, "version" of my answer:
”In the eyes of the Jew, the Apostles would be seen as having an authority which came from God.”
What would be seen as having authority from God?...the symbolic number TWELVE!
The two sentences were TOGETHER and can be found at the bottom of post # 8380. So, it is patently clear what my answer was and also patently clear that you wished something else to “appear” to be true.…shame.
quote:
quote:
You forget one or two very important facts. Even Simon the sorcerer understood that Philip, who had been given "gifts", could not transfer them to him. He knew he had to go to the "source" in this case Peter. So no, Scripture is clear this authority/power was never transferable or heritary. I didn’t mean to imply that the gifts were transferable. You asserted that the charism of performing miracles was a sign of being an Apostle. I pointed out from the sacred and infallible scriptures that those upon whom the original Apostles laid their hands and were granted apostolic authority also performed miracles. This is biblical evidence of a succession of that authority. First, that is not biblical evidence of “succession of that authority” because the one to whom this was given could NOT give it to anyone else. Simon knew this and for that reason, he didn’t ask it of Philip but instead asked Peter since it was he who originally gave the “gift”.
Second, there is no biblical evidence that the Apostles “passed on” their apostolic authority – none whatsoever. And I didn’t mean to imply that the “gifts” were restricted to performing miracles. Being an Apostle, which is a unique position, and not one which can be “passed on”, is not subject to receiving an apostolic gift(miracles), but subject to receiving an apostolic commission from the Lord Himself.
quote:
This is yet another reason why King Jesus Christ established an authority in His Church. He prayed very earnestly for unity in His Church. .. …the rest deleted for “derogatory” anti-Protestant false accusations…must be contagious, my skin’s getting thinner You’re correct, the church has authority, that’s clear from Scripture. God gives us the leadership for the church and pope is not there nor is there any biblical or early historical evidence for a universal jurisdictional authority - it's just not there. But what is as equally as clear is the fact that the “church” is not RC. Since the Lord prayed for “unity”, why was RC the originator of “disunity”?
_____________________________
.... for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Psalm 138:2
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/26/2010 12:20:48 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 1734
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
Kelman wrote:
quote:
Another point, if Peter was the first “pope” why didn’t he simply select Judas’ replacement?...aferall he was the “vicar of Christ on earth”…
As Chrysostom points out, Peter could have, but like the Popes normally do, he listened (as in Acts 15:1-6) and humbly led.
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/web_chry.htm
quote:
wasn’t he? No, of course, God never indicates that Peter had any more authority than any other Apostle.
Well, that' not what Luther and the top Reformed and Protestant Evangelical scholars--such as DA Carson, RT. France, FF Bruce,etc-- say. And likewise the Eastern and Western fathers unanimously support the Catholic understanding.
Here is a good page related to these items:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/papacy-index-page.html
For example, here is the Presbyterian exegete Albert Barnes commening on whether Mt 16:8 teaches the protestant view of these verses:
Both these interpretations, though plausible, seem forced upon the passage to avoid the main difficulty in it. Another interpretation is, that the word rock refers to Peter himself. This is the obvious meaning of the passage; and had it not been that the church of Rome has abused it, and applied it to what was never intended, no other would have been sought for.
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/07/presbyterian-exegete-albert-barnes-1798.html
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 7/26/2010 1:16:04 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/29/2010 2:57:05 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5486
Status: offline
|
quote:
For example, here is the Presbyterian exegete Albert Barnes commening on whether Mt 16:8 teaches the protestant view of these verses: Both these interpretations, though plausible, seem forced upon the passage to avoid the main difficulty in it. Another interpretation is, that the word rock refers to Peter himself. This is the obvious meaning of the passage; and had it not been that the church of Rome has abused it, and applied it to what was never intended, no other would have been sought for. Unfortunately, Barnes disagrees with Augustine on this issue and Augustine's position was held before the Roman church's abuses.
Even so, Barnes obviously would never claim this, or anything, made Peter a pope....so, he offers no help for the Roman position.
_____________________________
.... for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Psalm 138:2
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/29/2010 4:09:17 AM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 665
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: online
|
Kelman – here is the rest of my response to your post
quote:
Nope, the only reason I "refuse to admit" is because God has not said what you claim. You’ve yet to demonstrate that anything other than the Bible is "theopnuestos". I don’t know what more to demonstrate than what scripture clearly shows us. The Breath of God is the Holy Spirit. God-With-Us breathed on the Apostles when he commissioned them to preach the Gospel to all nations. Some of what they preached was committed to the theopneustos scriptures. How you can say only the writings and not the preaching of the Apostles are not God-breathed is beyond me. The last word is yours…. I’m done.
quote:
A foundation has no "successors" …. The Kingdom is built upon the Cornerstone (Jesus) and the Foundation Stones (the Apostles). It would not be much of a Kingdom if it were left just a foundation.
quote:
… nor does it "develop" over time. It depends on what is meant by “develop”. Without doubt, our understanding of the richness of the Kingdom certainly does.
quote:
In fact, God is so good, He tell in an overwhelming manner precisely what He intends to be “passed on” and that is the body of teaching originating from the Lord Jesus Himself. Amen! Our only disagreement is whether or not the understanding of our faith is to be found only in our personal interpretation of the scriptures.
quote:
1 Tim. 1:3 As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus, in order that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines.. Amen! Paul was very clear that authoritative teaching was from the Apostles and those they appointed. The “strange doctrines” originated from those outside this authority and because of the promises of our Lord, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth quelled the early heresies in the Church.
quote:
1 Tim. 1:18 This command I entrust to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you may fight the good fight. Amen! Paul passed on his authority to Timothy.
quote:
1 Tim. 2:14-15 I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long; but in case I am delayed, I write so that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth. Amen! Paul describes the Church of the living God, not even his own letters, as the Pillar and Support of Truth. Perfect opportunity for the Holy Spirit to inspire Paul to proclaim that sola-scriptura is the Pillar and Support of Truth but instead, it is the Church of the living God.
quote:
1 Tim. 4:6, 11 In pointing out these things [warnings about false teachers] to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the sound doctrine which you have been following...Prescribe and teach these things. Amen! Paul exhorts Timothy to continue to follow the verbal instructions he received from Paul. Perfect time for the Holy Spirit to inspire Paul to tell Timoth to follow sola-scriptura. But instead, Paul exhorts Timothy to continue in the verbal instruction he receives from authoritative teaching of the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.
quote:
1 Tim. 4:16 Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things; for as you do this you will insure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you. Amen! Perfect opportunity for the Holy Spirit to inspire Paul to write “and for those who read sola-scriptura” but instead he wrote “and from those who hear you”.
quote:
1 Tim. 5:21 I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His chosen angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing in a spirit of partiality. Amen! Paul solemnly passing on his authority to Timothy.
quote:
1 Tim. 6:20-21 O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called 'knowledge'--which some have professed and thus gone astray from the faith. Amen! The Deposit of Faith entrusted to the authority of the officers of the bishopric of the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. If someone with “knowledge” comes along 1500 years later and tells you the Eucharist is only a symbol or that baptism is not regenerative, avoid this “worldly and empty chatter”.
quote:
2 Tim. 1:13-14 Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. Guard through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you. Amen! Retain what is heard through the authority of office of the bishopric: it is the standard of sound words. Amen! The Holy Spirit safeguards the treasure of the deposit of faith that has been entrusted to authoritative representatives of the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.
quote:
2 Tim. 2:1-2 You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also. Amen! The inspired oral teachings of the Apostles are safeguarded by the faithful men through the Grace of Christ Jesus who established the office of the bishopric. These will be able to authoritatively teach others also.
quote:
2 Tim. 3:14-17 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them; and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. Amen! Timothy learned from the authoritative teachings of Paul and the OT scriptures. Amen! All scripture (even that which was written after Paul sent this letter) truly is inspired and profitable. Still, the Holy Spirit doesn’t inspire Paul to write sola-scriptura.
quote:
Titus 1:5, 9 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set in order what remains, and appoint elders in every city as I directed you...[the elder must be] holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict. Amen! Paul gives authority to “set in order” and to ordain presbyters. Amen! The teachings of the ordained presbyters should be in accordance with the authoritative teachings of the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, not the whims of protestors of protestors of protestors– this is sound doctrine.
quote:
Titus 2:1, 15 But as for you, speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine...These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you. Amen! Speak the sound doctrines of the Pillar and Foundation of Truth and reprove with the authority of the office of the bishopric. Let no one disregard this authority with protests and self-proclaimed authority.
quote:
Sadly we know, however, that when another agenda is desired, that which is contrary to God’s own teaching, these passages must be either denied or ignored. Denied or ignored? Certainly not by the CC! The agenda of the Pillar and Foundation of Truth is to carry on the Great Commission. This agenda, because of the promises of the Cornerstone Himself, has been carried out since Pentecost.
quote:
Clearly from all the above, Timothy’s and Titus’ authority did not stand alone, … Of course it didn’t. They were authoritative representatives of the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. They were in unison with the Apostolic authority of the Church and specifically appointed to this authority through Paul. If you want to see examples of “authority that stands alone”, open up the yellow pages.
quote:
… but, rather it was derived from faithfulness to Paul’s teachings. Amen brother! Faithfulness to the authoritative teachings of the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, not personal interpretation of scriptures.
quote:
And also we see from all of the above that Paul commanded his teachings was what had been entrusted to them and was to be passed on to other faithful men. Amen brother! The authoritative teaching was to be passed on, not gleaned from personal interpretation of scripture outside the authority of the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.
quote:
Ah, if men would only listen to the inspired Word of God, therein, lies all the answers. Amen! And Amen!
quote:
Seriously, how many times must I explain and how many times must you ignore my explanation?…do you even bother to read anything?...the evidence is that you do not! I have never spoken against infant baptism. Is that clear?...yeah, it probably is, at least, until the next time you repeat it. I really wanted to stop talking about baptism but you leave me little choice…. If baptism is an act of obedience, and is not regenerative in any way (contrary to the unanimous consent of the Church even through the early years of the “reformation”) then what is the purpose of infant baptism? Is the infant showing obedience? Why would it be a sin for the parent to withhold an infant from baptism? Do you not see how your position (which appears to have Anabaptist/Southern U.S. Baptist influences) is contrary to the WCF? (And b.t.w. water baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, IS baptism in the Holy Spirit; don’t let the Pentecostals/Charismatics lead you astray.)
quote:
Up until the 4th century, water baptism was not performed until there was evidence of conversion perhaps as long as two-three years. So, obviously, the water baptism which followed was symbolic, an act of obedience for a Christian. Two things wrong with this statement: 1) This was for adult converts to the faith. It is still this way in the CC. 2) It presumes an instantaneous moment of conversion and an either/or viewpoint of faith and baptism.
quote:
1Cor 12:12-13 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body -- Jews or Greeks, slaves or free -- and all were made to drink of one Spirit. Amen! Among the many graces received in baptism, one is the gift of the Holy Spirit and another is initiation into God’s covenant family. And God’s Grace is so abundant, he even offers it to those infants the Anabaptists refuse to baptize. No wonder the ECF declares it a great sin to withhold God’s Grace from infants!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/29/2010 5:44:27 AM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 665
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: online
|
quote:
You’re mistaken I’ve agree to no such thing. Kelman, I asked for a specific verse where Jesus grants to either Matthias or Paul the authority to bind and loose. I assume you acknowledge that no such verse exists. Therefore, the only way we can assume that Matthias and Paul did have this same authority is by the virtue of the office they held. Are we not in agreement on this? Here is where we disagree: You claim this authority died of with the 12/13/14 Apostles. The pre-Reformation Church (and even some Protestants), believe this authority lives on in the office of the bishopric of the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. Nowhere does scripture indicate that this authority would die off. In fact, in one of your recent posts, we see the abundant quotes from Paul to Timothy and Titus that this authority would live on.
quote:
… no man has the ability to "make" an Apostle or its equivalent. We are in agreement that man cannot make an Apostle. The unique gifts of direct revelation and miracles have ceased. What continues, as the sacred and infallible scriptures declare, is the authority of the officers of the bishopric.
quote:
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Amen! If someone comes along and preaches that baptism is not regenerative (and it took over 1500 years for this to happen) or that Jesus Christ is not physically present in the Eucharist (1500 years for this one too!), let him be anathema!
quote:
In any event, we know from the historical record that RC was solely responsible for splitting Christendom by its usurpation of authority with its unbiblical papal doctrine. Kelman – It is the rejection of the God-appointed authority that is solely responsible for the splitting of Christendom. Why do you accuse the RC of this? Let’s again put your claims to the test: Please (for what I think is about the fifth time I’ve asked) :quote:
Where is the explanation of how the RC changed the original Presbyterian Church into the "Split P's"? Fore each "P", please explain how the RC caused it's formation. If you will kindly acknowledge that the RC has absolutely nothing to do with the never-ending division within Protestantism, I'll stop asking the question. Do you ever plan on answering this question? Why do you accuse the RC of causing division in the Church when the Presbyterian Church (just one of many examples) has so much division within itself that has absolutely nothing to do with the CC? No, history itself attests to the fact that division is solely the result of the rejection of the authority to bind and loose that Jesus Christ granted to the officers of the bishopric of the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.
quote:
In Mat 16 Peter was speaking for all the Apostles and the “keys”(the authority to bind and loose) was given to all the Apostles. Seriously Kelman. In Mt 16, Jesus is using the singular form of “you” and speaking directly to Rock.
quote:
First, obviously Moses was not an Apostle and this is not a shadow concerning the NT. Who says it isn’t a shadow? Here is another unanswered question: Where do you think your denomination got the practice of ordination?
quote:
Moses complained to God that he couldn’t alone bear the weight of governing the nation. So, God gave him help. I’m not sure what your point is. Are you saying that Joshua was appointed as a political rather than spiritual leader?
quote:
If it can be considered a shadow, it would be the Twelve Tribes of Israel for the the Twelve Apostles. I’m not getting this one. Can you explain?
quote:
And neither is there biblical evidence that this appointment(Moses) was permanent just as there is none for the Apostles “passing on” their apostleship. Scripture is very clear that God commanded Moses to transfer his authority to Joshua. It was Joshua who ultimately led God’s people into the Promised Land. This God-ordained appointment is what the Jewish people called “semicha”. The interpreter of the Torah (Moses) would teach his disciples (Joshua) and then appoint them to the teaching ministry by the imposition of hands. Those ordained as such were said to have the authority to “bind and loose” – to authoritatively interpret the scriptures. This was the Jewish practice prior to the Incarnation. This is the context of Jesus’ words “bind and loose”. It is an appointment to an authoritative teaching office to which there is an expectation of successors. This is the shadow of teaching authority in the OT, fulfilled by the New Moses as he transfers his authority to the 12 original officers of the bishopric. These officers later appoint Matthias who is granted the same authority. The authority is also implicitly (i.e. nowhere recorded in scripture) given to Paul. There is absolutely no indication from scripture, nor from the expectations of the Jewish culture at the time, that this authoritative office would cease. It carries on to this very day in the same office of the bishopric established originally by the New Moses. All of this is from scripture. All of this is consistent with the Jewish roots of our faith. All of this is consistent with the testimony of the church.
quote:
Another point, if Peter was the first “pope” why didn’t he simply select Judas’ replacement?...aferall he was the “vicar of Christ on earth”…wasn’t he? Because the appointment is through leader of and the consent of the office of the bishopric. In the very first Acts of the Apostles, it is in fact Peter who initiates the replacement of Judas. The leader of the Apostles quotes from scripture that “and his bishoprick let another take”
quote:
This ranks right up there with your worst, kirsch, very distasteful. ….. You have attempted to make it appear that I said something other than what I did, in fact, say. .. .So, it is patently clear what my answer was and also patently clear that you wished something else to “appear” to be true.…shame. I’m sorry that you feel I’m intentionally misleading. You and I both agree that the Apostles had God-given authority. Am I wrong about this? When I express this agreement, you accuse me of being misleading. To be quite honest, the fact that the Apostles had God-given authority makes a whole lot more sense than God authorizing a symbolic number of 12/13/14. I’m sorry for being confused about your statement. So does this mean I’m wrong to assert that you believe the Apostles each had God-given authority? Again, sorry for being confused.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/30/2010 5:19:24 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5486
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wkirscher
Kelman – here is the rest of my response to your post
quote:
Nope, the only reason I "refuse to admit" is because God has not said what you claim. You’ve yet to demonstrate that anything other than the Bible is "theopnuestos". I don’t know what more to demonstrate than what scripture clearly shows us. The Breath of God is the Holy Spirit. God-With-Us breathed on the Apostles when he commissioned them to preach the Gospel to all nations. Some of what they preached was committed to the theopneustos scriptures. How you can say only the writings and not the preaching of the Apostles are not God-breathed is beyond me. The last word is yours…. I’m done. When the Lord "breathed" on the Apostles, this was not the sending of the Holy Spirit. As I've said before, this was an allusion to the creation of Adam when God breathed into him to create a living soul. The act of breathing on them represented the nature and source of the influence that would soon come upon them.
The bestowing of the qualification for the commission to preach the Gospel to all nations happened in the upper room when the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. It was here that the Apostles were equipped to preach: "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost.".
However, the “when” does not address the “what”. We are not told anywhere that the writers of Scripture themselves were inspired. What is inspired is the Scripture. The penman themselves were not inspired as if they had some supernatural ability which they could use at any point to write inspired Scripture. They were inspired ONLY when God gave them His Word. The rest of the time they wrote and spoke independent of any inspiration.
The Bible knows only of inspired words, God-breathed words –”theopneustos”. No, there were only very certain times in their lives when they were given directly from God His word to write and and yes to speak. The rest of the time what they wrote and spoke was their own.
Peter was not inspired by the Holy Spirit when he drew away so many in the Antioch church by teaching a false salvation. You want to know “when” Peter's words were inspired?....on that first Pentecost Sunday when he preached: ”…. Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:..”.
As I've also said before, this inspiration has no bearing on any church, RC included, because those the Holy Spirit inspired to write Scripture are dead. And, according to Peter's own words he left the written Word so that we would always have truth with us. He did not say that he would appoint someone to take his place....as if he even could.... so that we might have truth. No, it is God's plan that the only "deposit of faith" is His inspired Holy Word. And if we ever expect to learn truth, we'd better go to it with an unbiased as possilbe mind praying always that God might open our eyes and hearts.
quote:
quote:
A foundation has no "successors" …. The Kingdom is built upon the Cornerstone (Jesus) and the Foundation Stones (the Apostles). It would not be much of a Kingdom if it were left just a foundation. Actually, it’s not much of a kingdom when built upon men. Rather, God assures us that His church is built only upon the Lord Jesus Christ. The Apostles are called foundations purely in the sense that they preached the one, the only foundation which was laid by God – the Lord Jesus Christ. 1Cor 3:11 ”For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” This then is the true message of Mat 16:15 – the Rock upon which the church was to be built – the Lord Jesus Himself.
quote:
quote:
… nor does it "develop" over time. It depends on what is meant by “develop”. Without doubt, our understanding of the richness of the Kingdom certainly does. What is “meant” is the development of additional foundational doctrines not laid down by the Apostles.
quote:
quote:
In fact, God is so good, He tell in an overwhelming manner precisely what He intends to be “passed on” and that is the body of teaching originating from the Lord Jesus Himself. Amen! Our only disagreement is whether or not the understanding of our faith is to be found only in our personal interpretation of the scriptures. No, actually our disagreement is “what” was passed on. You insist it was an apostolic office which Scripture clearly teaches faded away. While I insist God passed on the body of His teaching which is precisely what Paul wrote in many many passages.
quote:
quote:
1 Tim. 1:3 As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus, in order that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines.. Amen! Paul was very clear that authoritative teaching was from the Apostles and those they appointed. Nope, not exactly. Paul tells Timothy to preach only what Paul had taught him….that’s what was “passed on” – the body of teaching. And, of course, we see nothing here of “passing on” an apostolic office nor do we see that taught anywhere in Scripture.
quote:
quote:
1 Tim. 1:18 This command I entrust to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you may fight the good fight. Amen! Paul passed on his authority to Timothy. If you want to know what Paul was saying read the next verse also. He goes on to explain that Timothy should remain faithful to Paul’s teaching not in the manner of some: ”Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:” We read nothing here about Paul “passing on” his authority as an Apostle…as if he even could.
quote:
quote:
1 Tim. 2:14-15 I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long; but in case I am delayed, I write so that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth. Amen! Paul describes the Church of the living God, not even his own letters, as the Pillar and Support of Truth. Perfect opportunity for the Holy Spirit to inspire Paul to proclaim that sola-scriptura is the Pillar and Support of Truth but instead, it is the Church of the living God. They may be somebody’s words but they most definitely are not Paul’s words. The exact opposite in fact. Paul says that he wrote this letter, this –”theopneustos” letter: ”so that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God.”….Paul exhorts Timothy to follow the principles of Sola Scriptura. Paul never said find out from the “pillar” what to do. Nope, only from the inspired Scripture.
quote:
quote:
1 Tim. 4:6, 11 In pointing out these things [warnings about false teachers] to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the sound doctrine which you have been following...Prescribe and teach these things. Amen! Paul exhorts Timothy to continue to follow the verbal instructions he received from Paul. Yes, Paul was exhorting Timothy with warnings about false teachers. He was to continue in Paul's teachings. No hint of apostolic succession here or, in fact, anywhere in Scripture.
quote:
quote:
1 Tim. 4:16 Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things; for as you do this you will insure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you. Amen! Perfect opportunity for the Holy Spirit to inspire Paul to write “and for those who read sola-scriptura” but instead he wrote “and from those who hear you”. Anyplace in the Bible would have been a “perfect opportunity” for the Holy Spirit to have plainly taught the Trinity. He chose instead to permeate the entire body of Scripture with its teaching in the same manner as He did the principles of Sola Scriptura.
quote:
quote:
1 Tim. 5:21 I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His chosen angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing in a spirit of partiality. Amen! Paul solemnly passing on his authority to Timothy. Uh, nope….to what principles is Paul referring?....the principles he had just expounded upon in the prior verses…read the context. Paul appointed Timothy as an elder, however, there's nothing here indicating a "passing on" of apostolic authority. You're conflating the two, you shouldn't.
quote:
quote:
1 Tim. 6:20-21 O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called 'knowledge'--which some have professed and thus gone astray from the faith. Amen! The Deposit of Faith entrusted to the authority of the officers of the bishopric of the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. What was entrusted to Timothy?...Paul’s epistles and the Gospel he preached among many witnesses. Did Paul teach the RC “deposit of faith”, RC’s own addition to the Word of God?....with its immaculate conceptions, popes, assumptions, sinlessness, paying for one's own sins, the epitome of “empty chatter”? ....nope. We find Scripture alone to be the sole authoritative “deposit of faith”. Unless, of course, you can now supply us with the inspired words of the Apostles and the Lord Jesus Christ which are not found in Scripture....no?....then the following should be taken to heart:
"We do not have a single sentence that is authoritatively from the Lord, outside of what is in the written word of the New Testament. To appeal to a tradition for authority when Holy God did not give it is futile."
quote:
quote:
2 Tim. 1:13-14 Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. Guard through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you. Amen! Retain what is heard through the authority of office of the bishopric: It seems you missed something. It was the words of the Apostle that were to be retained not the retention of an “office”....so no apostolic succession here either.
_____________________________
.... for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Psalm 138:2
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/30/2010 5:27:21 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5486
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
2 Tim. 2:1-2 You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also. Amen! The inspired oral teachings of the Apostles are safeguarded by the faithful men through the Grace of Christ Jesus who established the office of the bishopric. These will be able to authoritatively teach others also. Yes, Timothy was to remain faithful to the doctrines of the Gospel Paul had publicly preached. These, of course, did not include any RC modern doctrines. However, Paul's doctrines are still preserved and holy men are charged with preaching them. Again, no where do these passages speak of "passing on" an office, however, they absolutely do speak about "passing on" the faithful doctrine. And where is the only place we can find those faithful doctrines today?....the Bible. So, we find no support for RC's doctrines here.
quote:
quote:
2 Tim. 3:14-17 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them; and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. Amen! Timothy learned from the authoritative teachings of Paul and the OT scriptures. Amen! All scripture (even that which was written after Paul sent this letter) truly is inspired and profitable. Still, the Holy Spirit doesn’t inspire Paul to write sola-scriptura. Actually it does teach Sola Scriptura, since Paul refers only to Scripture as being inspired. And yes, it is profitable, in fact, it is so profitable that it is able to make men perfect and is all that is needed to become saved. "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God"
In any case, we know Paul's faithful teaching contains nothing about popes, sinlessness, coredeemers, etc., etc,. Very clearly there is no evidence of apostolic succession here either.
quote:
quote:
Titus 1:5, 9 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set in order what remains, and appoint elders in every city as I directed you...[the elder must be] holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict. Amen! Paul gives authority to “set in order” and to ordain presbyters. Yes, this comports with church government found in 1Tim 3. As we've seen in 2 Tim. 2:1-2, Timothy was to retain faithful men to preach that which Paul had given him. However, they certainly weren't teaching RC doctrines - immaculate conceptions or popes or the ability to pay for one's own sins - all of which Paul wrote against. Noticeably, no popes or apostolic successors mentioned here either.
quote:
quote:
Titus 2:1, 15 But as for you, speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine...These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you. Amen! Speak the sound doctrines of the Pillar and Foundation of Truth... Perhaps you need to read the passages again, the prior ones would be a help. If you do, perhaps you would notice that Paul does not speak about the "pillar.." but about the manner believers should conduct themselves seeing that all their sins were paid for by such a magnificent Redeemer. Noticeably the Lord "redeems" alone just as Scripture teaches He must.
quote:
quote:
Sadly we know, however, that when another agenda is desired, that which is contrary to God’s own teaching, these passages must be either denied or ignored. Denied or ignored? Certainly not by the CC! The agenda of the Pillar and Foundation of Truth is to carry on the Great Commission. This agenda, because of the promises of the Cornerstone Himself, has been carried out since Pentecost. No. What is the Great Commission?....certainly not what RC teaches today. RC no longer preaches the Gospel that Paul and all the penmen of Scripture taught. It preaches its own gospel with all its innovations none of which can be found in Scripture and some of which are actually antithetical to it.
quote:
quote:
Clearly from all the above, Timothy’s and Titus’ authority did not stand alone, … Of course it didn’t. Exactly. Timothy's and Titus' authority did not stand alone, it was not inherent in their “office”. We see from all of the above that Paul commanded his faithful teachings to be entrusted not an apostolic office....not that its even possible to do. Again, neither Paul, or any penman of Scripture, ever so much as intimates the "passing on" of an apostolic office.....only the "passing on" of faithful apostolic teaching.
quote:
quote:
… but, rather it was derived from faithfulness to Paul’s teachings. Amen brother! Faithfulness to the authoritative teachings of the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, not personal interpretation of scriptures. It seems you confuse faithful doctrine with the church. The church is to uphold the faithful doctrine and if it does it is the "pillar...". However, as we've seen this no longer applies to RC.
quote:
quote:
And also we see from all of the above that Paul commanded his teachings was what had been entrusted to them and was to be passed on to other faithful men. Amen brother! The authoritative teaching was to be passed on, Yes, and this is what RC has failed so miserably in doing. Instead, it passes on its own man-made peculiar doctrines which are in opposition to what Paul taught.
quote:
quote:
Seriously, how many times must I explain and how many times must you ignore my explanation?…do you even bother to read anything?...the evidence is that you do not! I have never spoken against infant baptism. Is that clear?...yeah, it probably is, at least, until the next time you repeat it. I really wanted to stop talking about baptism but you leave me little choice…. Well, what I "really wanted" was for you to stop misrepresenting my position on infant baptism. It's evident I won't be getting what I "really want" from you. I've written sufficiently on both baptisms so this distortion of my views is totally inexcusable. This has become quite an unpleasant pattern.
quote:
If baptism is an act of obedience, and is not regenerative in any way (contrary to the unanimous consent of the Church even through the early years of the “reformation”) then what is the purpose of infant baptism? First, an appeal to antiquity proves nothing concerning the veracity of the issue at hand. So, perhaps you might posit an argument from some other source. Second, the purpose of infant water baptism is the same as in a believer's water baptism. The promises to the children of believing parents have not changed from the OT to the NT neither has the mandate for believing parents to teach their children the Gospel. The shadow of water baptism is a sign that points to the washing away of the sins of the one who became saved(believer's baptism); or it points to the hope that some time in the future the individual baptized may become saved(infant baptism).
quote:
Do you not see how your position (which appears to have Anabaptist/Southern U.S. Baptist influences) is contrary to the WCF? (And b.t.w. water baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, IS baptism in the Holy Spirit; don’t let the Pentecostals/Charismatics lead you astray.) Frankly, you don't know what you're talking about here. You misrepresent my position on infant baptism and now continue in the same vein concerning the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.
And, btw, no, the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is not water baptism...how silly. One saves and the other doesn't, never could and never will save.
quote:
quote:
1Cor 12:12-13 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body -- Jews or Greeks, slaves or free -- and all were made to drink of one Spirit. Amen! Among the many graces received in baptism, one is the gift of the Holy Spirit and another is initiation into God’s covenant family. Nope, you're reading your bias into the verse by assuming it refers to "water" - it does not. The command to be baptized in the Spirit is the command to become saved which is an action only God can take.
It is the "living water" of the Gospel(John 7:37-38) which we must "drink" as it is applied by the Holy Spirit to the life of the individual He is saving. In no way can it ever be countenanced that water baptism is in any way a condition for salvation. In Acts 10, we read of the conversion of Cornelius. After he had been converted he was water baptized.
Now, you may continue your only defense of water baptism by means of appealing to antiquity. But, frankly, it's no defense whatsoever. The only true defense is God's Holy Word and when the totality of it is investigated we see that what was true of Cornelius is true for everyone - water does not, cannot ever save.
_____________________________
.... for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Psalm 138:2
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/30/2010 12:24:53 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 1734
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
KELMAN WROTE:
quote:
Actually it does teach Sola Scriptura, since Paul refers only to Scripture as being inspired.
That doesn't follow, logically. And if the Scriptures can testify to themselves, then so can the oral Traditions which Paul refers to in 2 Thes 2:15.
Obviously these traditions must be inspired since our Lord's words will never pass away (Mt 23:35), and since the Lord promised that the Holy Spirit would help the apostles remember these words (Jn 14:26), and since this oral tradition is the "Word of God" (1 Thes 2:13), and since we will be judged by these oral words on judgment day (Jn 12:48)
And it is no more a leap to say this then it is to accept the N.T. Canon which is not in Scripture but comes infallibly from the Magisterium of Catholic Tradition.
And the fact remains that nobody between 100 and 1100 roughly approaches your interpretation of the N.T. as opposed to the Catholic interpretation.
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 7/30/2010 1:44:35 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/30/2010 4:32:23 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 1734
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
Kelman wrote:
quote:
No. What is the Great Commission?....certainly not what RC teaches today. RC no longer preaches the Gospel that Paul and all the penmen of Scripture taught. It preaches its own gospel with all its innovations none of which can be found in Scripture and some of which are actually antithetical to it.
Right. But your view is that all the Trinitarian fathers were wrong, since they accepted the Papacy and the Papist distinctives even in the Scriptures, 100s, 200s ,et
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/30/2010 7:40:08 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 1734
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
I just thought of a proof both for Peter's Primacy, Apostolic Succession, and Papal infallibility.
1 Tim 3:15 the Church is the Pilllar and Foundation of Truth.
Thus the Church must be infallible for the same reasons that the Apostles and Prophets, on which the Church is founded, are inerrant. Eph 2:20.
The Church is founded on Simon Rock, as the top protestant scholars like Carson as well as the Eastern and Western father testify.
Since the Church is founded on Peter, and since Christ is the only foundation (1 Cor 3:11), Peter's authority is identical to Christ's, as Mt 16:19 indicates.
Simon Rock must be infallible, then, or the Church would not be the foundation of the Truth, which is Jesus Christ.
And obviously Simon Rock must have had a Successor, since the Church's need for a uniquely authoritative, infallible (cf. Acts 15:28) Biblical interpeter--i.e. Magisterium--has not ended. (the need for a central disciplinary officer likewise remains)
This is proves by the doctrinal divisions--so anti-Biblical are they--which followed from those that rejected the Trinitarian fathers' teaching on Successsion and Roman Primacy from Peter.
Moreover, historically the Church has always taught Apostolic Succession and the Primacy of Peter's Successor, by which the Popes played pivotal roles in doctrinal disputes.
I ran out of time, but that is the basic gist of it.
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 7/30/2010 11:51:38 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 8/1/2010 5:44:20 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5486
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wkirscher
Nowhere does scripture indicate that this authority would die off. In fact, in one of your recent posts, we see the abundant quotes from Paul to Timothy and Titus that this authority would live on. Nope, not even remotely true. Clearly, was is “abundant” is Paul “passing on” the doctrines of the Gospel. No where did Paul, or any other Apostle, “pass on” their apostolic office. If you insist otherwise, then provide the verses which say the Apostles “passed on” their apostolic office.
quote:
quote:
… no man has the ability to "make" an Apostle or its equivalent. We are in agreement that man cannot make an Apostle. The unique gifts of direct revelation and miracles have ceased. Then why does RC never cease from its ever expanding portfolio of “new” revelations not found in the Bible ”which was once delivered unto the saints.”?
quote:
What continues, as the sacred and infallible scriptures declare, is the authority of the officers of the bishopric. Nope, no one has the authority of an Apostle, therefore, Scripture makes no provision for a “successor”. If you disagree, then show from the NT where the Apostles “passed on” their apostolic office? ...present the scriptural references for Peter having jurisdictional authority above the other Apostles…what verses teach Peter is a pope?...and please, no more about how many times his name is mentioned!
Paul, an Apostle, certainly did appoint Timothy and Titus, however, their authority over their respective churches was derived from their faithfulness to Paul's teachings. In no way did their authority stand alone, as something inherent in their "office". Finally, Paul's express command was that the teachings - not the office - that had been entrusted to them were to be passed on to other faithful men.
Paul says in 2Tim after exhorting him to be strong in the grace that is in the Lord Jesus, '”And the things which thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." The passage refers obviously to the instructing of teachers in the truths of the Gospel, for their work. There is neither word nor intimation in regard to ordination, or the power of ordination in it, much less as to any succession of such power. The course of the argument stops at teaching, not at ordaining.
No, the truth which we actually find in the Bible is that apostolic authority was directly given by the Lord Jesus Christ to only a select few, not to anyone who would come after them.
quote:
quote:
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Amen! If someone comes along and preaches that baptism is not regenerative (and it took over 1500 years for this to happen) or that Jesus Christ is not physically present in the Eucharist (1500 years for this one too!), let him be anathema! Hmm, did Paul ever teach that water saves people?...nope. Did Paul ever teach that the Lord’s bones and sinews were present in the bread?...nope. However, Paul did teach that the Lord Jesus paid for all the sins of those He came to save whereas RC teaches that man must pay for his own. So, obviously it is all these newfangled RC doctrines and those who teach them whom Paul cursed.
quote:
quote:
In any event, we know from the historical record that RC was solely responsible for splitting Christendom by its usurpation of authority with its unbiblical papal doctrine. Kelman – It is the rejection of the God-appointed authority that is solely responsible for the splitting of Christendom. You are assuming something which has as yet never been proven - that God appointed "popes".
quote:
Why do you accuse the RC of this? It’s not me who accuses, it is simply a historical fact notwithstanding what seems to be your attempt to rewrite history. RC is responsible for what is the first major schism in Christianity and all that subsequently flowed from it. While political and cultural factors contributed to this schism, essentially, Rome’s unwarranted, unprecedented, unbiblical claim to papal jurisdictional supremacy was the culprit in the 11th century and even the 16th.
quote:
quote:
First, obviously Moses was not an Apostle and this is not a shadow concerning the NT. Who says it isn’t a shadow? A shadow has no substance, it pictures the reality and is inferior to this reality. I sincerely doubt that Moses had no substance nor was he inferior to your pope.
quote:
Here is another unanswered question: Where do you think your denomination got the practice of ordination? Well, not from Moses, that’s for sure. And since the Apostles are no longer with us nor did they "pass on" their apostolic offices, not from them either. Possibly from when Paul exhorted Timothy to “pass on” faithful teaching of the Gospel. Ordination recognizes and confirms that the individual has been called by God to ministry, acknowledging that the individual went through a period of discernment and training related to this call, and authorized him to take on the office of ministry.
Obviously, these are NT instructions for church leadership which has nothing to do with the old covernant. We do not continue the practice of OT national laws. The Lord Jesus has brought with Himself the New Covenant. So, to live in the OT shadows is to reject the substance fulfilled by the Lord Jesus Christ.
Also of note, the nature of the NT church doesn't necessitate that we interpret its organizational structure in the "shadow" of the Israelite priestly system that had its focus in the Temple. Rather, the early church was structured along the lines of the diasporic synagogues with its localized organizations.
quote:
quote:
Moses complained to God that he couldn’t alone bear the weight of governing the nation. So, God gave him help. I’m not sure what your point is. Are you saying that Joshua was appointed as a political rather than spiritual leader? If I remember correctly we were speaking about the 70 elders chosen by Moses. These are OT laws governing the nation of Israel. God has made no provision for this type of NT church structure. He has clearly listed the offices of church leadership and the manner in which they were to be elected. It is the Lord Jesus who directs His church through the Scriptures.
There is no distinction between "elders" and "bishops" (Titus 1:5-7; Acts 20:17,28); these represent the same office and order.
Each congregation and center of leadership is to have a plurality of elders (Acts 14:23; 20:17; Phil. 1:1), not one-man rule.
These elders have oversight of the church (Acts 20:28; I Pet. 5:2-3) and are thus responsible to rule the congregation (1Tim 3:5; 5:17; 1Thes 5:12; Heb 13:7, 17, 24). They judge among the brothers (cf. 1Cor 6:5) and, in contrast to all the members, they do the rebuking (1Tim. 5:20). Christ calls them to use the "keys of the kingdom" to bind and loose (Mat 16:19; 18:18; John 20: 23) - these keys being the preaching of the gospel (1John 1:3), administering of the ordinances (Mat 28:19-20; 1Cor 11: 23ff.), and the exercise of discipline (Mat 18:17; 1Cor. 5:1-5).
The elders are assisted in their ministry by "deacons" who give attention to the ministry of mercy (Phil 1:1; Acts 6:1-6; cf. 1Tim 3:8-13).
The office-bearers in the church are nominated and elected by the members of the congregation (e.g. Acts 6:5-6), but must also be examined, confirmed and ordained by the present board of elders (Acts 6:6; 13:1-3; 1Tim 4:14).
Now, RC can continue to run its church according to the old covenant, indeed, run it anyway it pleases, however, it is not the biblical mandate prescribed by God. It is worthy of note and quite ironic that notwithstanding your love of “semicha”, according to tradition, it was these very OT “ordained” men who killed the Messiah.
quote:
quote:
If it can be considered a shadow, it would be the Twelve Tribes of Israel for the the Twelve Apostles. I’m not getting this one. Can you explain? If I'm not mistaken, you claimed that the 70 elders were a shadow of apostolic succession. However, if a “shadow” was intended for the Twelve Apostles it would obviously be the Twelve Tribes of Israel not the 70 elders as you suggested.
quote:
quote:
And neither is there biblical evidence that this appointment(Moses) was permanent just as there is none for the Apostles “passing on” their apostleship. Scripture is very clear that God commanded Moses to transfer his authority to Joshua. Scripture is also very clear that God has prescribed something different for the NT churches(see above for biblical NT church government).
quote:
It was Joshua who ultimately led God’s people into the Promised Land. This God-ordained appointment is what the Jewish people called “semicha”. Jewish tradtion is just that and very murky at that. God “appointed” many in the OT so your theory about “semicha” is irrelevant to the NT church government for which God gave very clear instructions. And no where in those instructions is there any apostolic succession or popes even hinted at.
quote:
All of this is from scripture. All of this is consistent with the Jewish roots of our faith. All of this is consistent with the testimony of the church. Actually, we find most of it is not consistent with the NT rather simply a church’s attempt to rewrite the NT church government in defense of itself. We see no successor to the office of Apostle – none. God very clearly gave us the church government, you just don’t want to follow it. Instead, you attempt a correlation between Moses and Peter which is not true and is obviously not derived from Scripture.
quote:
quote:
Another point, if Peter was the first “pope” why didn’t he simply select Judas’
replacement?...aferall he was the “vicar of Christ on earth”…wasn’t he? Because the appointment is through leader of and the consent of the office of the bishopric. No “ex-cathedra” for Peter, huh? Peter made no appointment because he had no authority to do so. Peter’s authority is never seen to exceed that of any other Apostle.
quote:
quote:
This ranks right up there with your worst, kirsch, very distasteful. ….. You have attempted to make it appear that I said something other than what I did, in fact, say. .. .So, it is patently clear what my answer was and also patently clear that you wished something else to “appear” to be true.…shame. I’m sorry that you feel I’m intentionally misleading. Nope, I don’t “feel” it, I know it. How do I know it?.... because you intentionally omitted an entire sentence attempting to make it appear I said something other than what I did, in fact, say. I proved the veracity of my original statement by giving the link wherein it could be found, so feel free to let the incident drop.
_____________________________
.... for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Psalm 138:2
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 8/1/2010 12:03:45 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 1734
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
It’s not me who accuses, it is simply a historical fact notwithstanding what seems to be your attempt to rewrite history. RC is responsible for what is the first major schism in Christianity and all that subsequently flowed from it. While political and cultural factors contributed to this schism, essentially, Rome’s unwarranted, unprecedented, unbiblical claim to papal jurisdictional supremacy was the culprit in the 11th century and even the 16th.
Then why do the Eastern fathers testify strongly to both Peter's authoritative Primacy and Apostolic Succession through Rome, and Roman Primacy?
just google: fisheaters peter's primacy
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 8/1/2010 6:20:20 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 1734
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
A few other notes:
here is St. John Chrysostom, the Patriarch of Constantinople
"And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren,' ...and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing at what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, 'How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,' this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world." (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. lxxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num18.htm
now, at least three of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils--including Chalcedon and 3rd Constantinople explicitly refer to the Pope as the "Head" of the Christian Church.
moreover, Chalcedon refers to the Pope as he who "is set as an interpreter to all of the voice of blessed Peter".
They also say to Leo:
For if where two or three are gathered together in His name He has said that there He is in the midst of them, must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him ...Of whom you were Chief, as Head to the members, showing your good will. -- Chalcedon to Pope Leo (Repletum est Gaudio), November 451
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a35.htm
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 8/1/2010 6:39:15 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 8/3/2010 2:41:36 AM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 665
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: online
|
quote:
Nope, not even remotely true. Clearly, was is “abundant” is Paul “passing on” the doctrines of the Gospel. No where did Paul, or any other Apostle, “pass on” their apostolic office. If you insist otherwise, then provide the verses which say the Apostles “passed on” their apostolic office. Kelman, I’ve already shown from the sacred and infallible scriptures the passing on of authoritative teaching. We are in agreement that Paul was an authority in the Church. We are in agreement that Timothy learned at the feet of Paul. We are in agreement that Paul ordained Timothy. We agree that Timothy also had authority. This is entirely consistent with the Jewish custom of authoritative ordination and a succession of this authority. This would be the exact biblical custom with which Paul, formerly a very well recognized Pharisee, would be accustomed to. Who better than Paul in this example to continue with this same custom while recognizing the very work of Jesus Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit to bring the shadow of ordination under the Jewish Torah into it’s fulfillment in Christ’s Church?
Kelman, this is all straight from the sacred and infallible scriptures. Yet still our biblical interpretations of authority in the Church differ. Here is where the orthodox Christian view stands superior to yours: the orthodox view is consistent with the customs and expectations of the Kingdom Jesus Christ came to restore and it is consistent with the historical testament of the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. Your view (with which not even all sola-scriptura Protestants agree) rejects the Jewish roots of “bind and loose”. Your view took over 1500 years to develop and not even all Protestants follow it. Your view shows no historical evidence whatsoever. This can be proven quite simply by the very fact that there is absolutely no known history of any local church being the final source of authority. I’ve asked you countless times to provide the writings of an elder of a local church who was not under the authority of the universal church. You’ve provided NONE and you have over 1300 years to work with! The only writings you will find (and perhaps this is the reason you’ve never posted any) are those of the wolves who proclaimed their own authority and introduced heretical teachings which the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, under authority and the power of the Holy Spirit, crushed.
quote:
Then why does RC never cease from its ever expanding portfolio of “new” revelations not found in the Bible ”which was once delivered unto the saints.”? There is not a single dogmatic proclamation of the Pillar and Foundation of Truth that is not either directly or indirectly from the sacred and infallible scriptures. What you call “new revelations” are simply deeper understandings of the old. And certainly many Protestants are in no position to reject development of doctrine. We need look no further than the “Rapture” craze and dispensationalism (developed in the 1800s) to see this. We could also turn to the development of non-regenerative baptism and non-Real Presence which did not develop until after the start of the Reformation.
quote:
Nope, no one has the authority of an Apostle, therefore, Scripture makes no provision for a “successor”. If you disagree, then show from the NT where the Apostles “passed on” their apostolic office? ...present the scriptural references for Peter having jurisdictional authority above the other Apostles…what verses teach Peter is a pope?...and please, no more about how many times his name is mentioned! Kelman, I’ve already shown this from scripture. It is proven even without counting the number of times Peter’s name is mentioned (that’s simply supporting evidence of his primacy). You fail to accept the Jewish roots of the idiom “bind and loose”. You assert a 16 th century European Protestant meaning to a 2,000+ year old Jewish idiom. You assert a 16 th century European Protestant meaning to a 2,000+ year old Jewish understanding of Keys to the Kingdom.
quote:
Paul, an Apostle, certainly did appoint Timothy and Titus, however, their authority over their respective churches was derived from their faithfulness to Paul's teachings. Exactly! Timothy and Titus were “appointed” (why not use the word ordained or it’s Jewish predecessor “semicha”?) after showing their acceptance of Paul’s teaching! Tell me where you get the notion of Timothy and Titus digging through sola-scriptura on their own and asserting their own authority? Or maybe that the members of Timothy of Titus’ local congregations would appoint them to their office.
quote:
Paul, an Apostle, certainly did appoint Timothy and Titus, however, their authority over their respective churches was derived from their faithfulness to Paul's teachings. Of course it was! This is the whole idea behind the practice of authoritative ordination. Their authority comes from the very fact that they learned from Paul and that Paul found them to be “faithful men”. Show me where they learned from sola-scriptura and were then appointed to authority by like-minded individuals.
quote:
In no way did their authority stand alone, as something inherent in their "office". Agreed. They were ordained to their office by Paul because Paul deemed them faithful to Paul’s teachings. The learning and acceptance proceeds the appointment to the authoritative office.
quote:
Finally, Paul's express command was that the teachings - not the office - that had been entrusted to them were to be passed on to other faithful men. Where in scripture does Paul tell anyone not to pass on the office of authoritative teaching? Scripture very clearly tells us that they are to appoint officers to the bishopric (or elders as you prefer to call them). The whole point is that authoritative teaching comes from the Apostles and their successors who are deemed faithful to Apostolic teaching as is evidenced by it’s acceptance among all of the officers of the bishopric of the Church. Authoritative teaching comes from this office. It does not come from an individual who asserts his self-appointed authority regardless of how many members of his local church agree with his teachings! The heretics of the early church followed the later model; the Pillar and Foundation of Truth the former.
quote:
Hmm, did Paul ever teach that water saves people?...nope. Did Paul ever teach that the Lord’s bones and sinews were present in the bread?...nope. What exactly do you mean by “saves”? Paul, along with the rest of the Apostles and the sacred scriptures, taught of many graces received in baptism (already provided countless verses), best described as “regenerative”. Your assertion is that he taught it was only a symbol or “act of obedience”. If Paul taught this and it was a teaching of those given the Great Commission (preach and baptize), why do we see not one single solitary shred of evidence in over 1500 years of the existence of the Pillar and Foundation of Truth? Will you ever answer this question? No you won’t. Instead you will assert that it was abandoned early on and that for 1400 years Jesus allowed his Bride to be wrong in this part of the Great Commission. Seriously Kelman, how preposterous is that?!
quote:
It’s not me who accuses, it is simply a historical fact notwithstanding what seems to be your attempt to rewrite history. RC is responsible for what is the first major schism in Christianity and all that subsequently flowed from it. While political and cultural factors contributed to this schism, essentially, Rome’s unwarranted, unprecedented, unbiblical claim to papal jurisdictional supremacy was the culprit in the 11th century and even the 16th. Very nice choice of what you choose to quote and what you choose to ignore. Kelman, the simple and historical fact is that it is man’s pride and unwillingness to accept authority that has led to division in the Church. You want to blame it on the Pope and the RC????? Then please, again, tell us how the RC or the Pope caused what was once a unified Presbyterian Church to become what is now known as the “split P’s”? How did the Popes or RC cause this division? Either answer this question or stop asserting that authority causes division.
quote:
A shadow has no substance, it pictures the reality and is inferior to this reality. I sincerely doubt that Moses had no substance nor was he inferior to your pope. Maybe it’s a bit too early in the morning but I have no idea what you are saying. Moses sat in the Cathedra (chair) of Moses and was granted by God and deemed by all of Israel to have the authority to interpret the Torah. The NT calls this the “Chair of Moses”. Moses prayed to God asking him for a helper. God commands Moses to lay his hands on Joshua and “transfer some of [Moses’] authority” to Joshua. Joshua, at the very command of God, now has Moses’ authority. After Moses dies, Joshua carries on this authority and leads God’s people into the Promised Land. Of course Moses had “substance” – everyone God chooses to lead His People into the Promised Land do.
quote:
Well, not from Moses, that’s for sure. And since the Apostles are no longer with us nor did they "pass on" their apostolic offices, not from them either. For sure???? What makes you say that? Was it something new invented by the first Jewish members of the Church? They were rejecting their Jewish roots and inventing something new? Hmmmmmm
quote:
Possibly from when Paul exhorted Timothy to “pass on” faithful teaching of the Gospel. I see …. So Paul, who would have been extremely well accustomed to the OT biblical notion of ordination and the authority to “bind and loose”, started something entirely new and different from what the Jewish people were accustomed to? Hmmmmmm
Surely you can offer a better explanation of the origins of ordination. There in the scriptures beginning with Moses. Why do you feel compelled to invent something new or suggest that it’s origins are uncertain?
quote:
Ordination recognizes and confirms that the individual has been called by God to ministry, acknowledging that the individual went through a period of discernment and training related to this call, and authorized him to take on the office of ministry. No disagreements here. I guess the only area we disagree is the source of the acknowledgment. Protestants (at least some) believe authoritative acknowledgment comes from like-minded believers breaking away from some other denomination (for example PCUSA from Presbyterianism). Orthodox Christianity (and even some Protestants) believes it comes from the universal church.
quote:
Obviously, these are NT instructions for church leadership which has nothing to do with the old covernant. We do not continue the practice of OT national laws. The Lord Jesus has brought with Himself the New Covenant. So, to live in the OT shadows is to reject the substance fulfilled by the Lord Jesus Christ. Do not confuse fulfillment with replacement. Rarely is it ever appropriate to say that something in the New Covenant has nothing to do with the Old Covenant. God always fulfills and never rejects his promises. Living in the New Covenant is a fulfillment of, not a rejection of, the Old Covenant. Every part of the Old Covenant is fulfilled in the New.
quote:
If I remember correctly we were speaking about the 70 elders chosen by Moses. These are OT laws governing the nation of Israel. I was speaking about the relationship between Moses and Joshua and that by the direct command of God, Moses laid his hands on Joshua and, in God’s own words, “transferred some of [Moses’] authority”. This OT practice is a shadow for God’s people of the Old Covenant that would see fulfillment in the New Covenant of God’s people. Nothing is revoked, only fulfilled.
quote:
God has made no provision for this type of NT church structure. Says who? A subset of protestors asserting their own authority 1500 years into the existence of the Church? Where are the pre-Reformation writings of the alleged countless elders of local assemblies who affirm this view?
quote:
These elders have oversight of the church (Acts 20:28; I Pet. 5:2-3) and are thus responsible to rule the congregation (1Tim 3:5; 5:17; 1Thes 5:12; Heb 13:7, 17, 24). Sure but where in the scriptures does it say they have final authority? Nowhere! The local churches were never intended to be independent of the universal church. This was a post-reformation invention of man. It is the principle cause for division in the church.
quote:
Christ calls them to use the "keys of the kingdom" to bind and loose (Mat 16:19; 18:18; John 20: 23) ….. An interpretation quite far removed from the Jewish understanding of these idioms.
quote:
The office-bearers in the church are nominated and elected by the members of the congregation (e.g. Acts 6:5-6), but must also be examined, confirmed and ordained by the present board of elders (Acts 6:6; 13:1-3; 1Tim 4:14).
Timothy was appointed to his office by Paul as we see earlier in Paul’s letter to Timothy.
Acts 13 is not an example of ordination, unless you believe the Church in Antioch appointed Paul to his Apostolic office.
Here is Acts 6:6 “Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid [their] hands on them.”
We see from scripture that it was necessary for the candidates to be set before the apostles for their approval and ordination.
Still not seeing any verses from scripture where the local congregation asserts final authority by rejecting the authority of the office of the bishopric of the universal church.
quote:
It is worthy of note and quite ironic that notwithstanding your love of “semicha”, according to tradition, it was these very OT “ordained” men who killed the Messiah. All according to God’s plan of salvation Kelman. And you may want to give a little deeper consideration into who exactly killed the Messiah.
quote:
If I'm not mistaken, you claimed that the 70 elders were a shadow of apostolic succession. However, if a “shadow” was intended for the Twelve Apostles it would obviously be the Twelve Tribes of Israel not the 70 elders as you suggested. No, I was only talking about Moses and Joshua. Moses, at God’s command, transferred his authority to Joshua. This is what Jesus was referring to when he spoke of the Chair of Moses and the authority to bind and loose.
quote:
Jewish tradtion is just that and very murky at that. God “appointed” many in the OT so your theory about “semicha” is irrelevant to the NT church government for which God gave very clear instructions. And no where in those instructions is there any apostolic succession or popes even hinted at. Jewish tradition should not be considered “murky” and “just that” simply because it is not understood or does not support Protestant traditions. There is nothing murky about the Jewish idiom “bind and loose”. It is very clearly an authority to interpret the scriptures. This is exactly what Jesus meant and what the Apostles understood. This authority was passed on to members of a very specific office who would spend years at the feet of their rabbi and when the disciple was ready, the rabbi would lay his hands upon them, and grant him the authority to bind and loose. Of those officers, the leader was said to sit in the Chair of Moses. It’s all right there in the scriptures and in the customs of our Jewish Messiah. You may see these Jewish biblical traditions as irrelevant but Jesus sure didn’t.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 8/3/2010 9:51:46 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 1734
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
well said, WKirsher.
for my part, I've seen too much in the Scriptures and the Trinitarian fathers to even consider denying Christ's gift.
here is a good link related to these issues.
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/apolog.htm#PAPACY
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 8/4/2010 6:06:59 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5486
Status: offline
|
quote:
Kelman, this is all straight from the sacred and infallible scriptures. Actually, it is, in fact, not “straight from the sacred and infallible scripture”….however, it is straight from RC tradition. Where do the Apostles “pass on” their apostleship to anyone?....no where.
quote:
[Yet still our biblical interpretations of authority in the Church differ. Here is where the orthodox Christian view stands superior to yours: the orthodox view is consistent with the customs and expectations of the Kingdom Jesus Christ came to restore and it is consistent with the historical testament of the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. What has been demonstrated in all its threads is that RC hasn’t a clue what the expectation of the Lord Jesus Christ actually is. One example, although there are many others, RC makes the same mistake as Ancient Israel, it expects an “earthly” kingdom – there isn’t any. What the Lord came to build is His spiritual house and yet RC rejects the one true church the Lord is building in favor of its own “earthly house”.
quote:
quote:
Then why does RC never cease from its ever expanding portfolio of “new” revelations not found in the Bible ”which was once delivered unto the saints.”? There is not a single dogmatic proclamation of the Pillar and Foundation of Truth that is not either directly or indirectly from the sacred and infallible scriptures. Did you mean to be funny?
RC has no scriptural basis for any of its modern doctrines. None can be found in or derived from the Bible...from the papacy to Mary’s “sinlessness”. In fact, the later is a blasphemous dogma….there are others which would also qualify.
quote:
quote:
Nope, no one has the authority of an Apostle, therefore, Scripture makes no provision for a “successor”. If you disagree, then show from the NT where the Apostles “passed on” their apostolic office? ...present the scriptural references for Peter having jurisdictional authority above the other Apostles…what verses teach Peter is a pope?...and please, no more about how many times his name is mentioned! Kelman, I’ve already shown this from scripture. It is proven even without counting the number of times Peter’s name is mentioned (that’s simply supporting evidence of his primacy). It's absurd to posit that the number of times Peter’s name is mentioned as “supporting evidence”?.... especially, in the biblical light of Paul’s name being mentioned equally as many times? This is precisely the weak “evidence” offered by RC for a papacy.
quote:
quote:
Paul, an Apostle, certainly did appoint Timothy and Titus, however, their authority over their respective churches was derived from their faithfulness to Paul's teachings. Exactly! Timothy and Titus were “appointed” (why not use the word ordained or it’s Jewish predecessor “semicha”?) after showing their acceptance of Paul’s teaching! Since the Bible uses both words, either suffices.
quote:
Tell me where you get the notion of Timothy and Titus digging through sola-scriptura on their own and asserting their own authority? Hmm, did I say they asserted their own authority?...nope, I did not. However, we do know that RC asserts its own authority, one it does not derive from Scripture. We also know that Timothy did indeed “dig” through the inspired Word which God tells us is all that is needed for salvation. Noticeably, God never tells us that the “pillar” is needed for salvation….although, obviously RC disagrees with God.
quote:
Or maybe that the members of Timothy of Titus’ local congregations would appoint them to their office. No, Paul appointed Timothy and Titus although as the churches grew in number, yes, the congregation elected its elders.
quote:
quote:
In no way did their authority stand alone, as something inherent in their "office". Agreed. They were ordained to their office by Paul because Paul deemed them faithful to Paul’s teachings. The learning and acceptance proceeds the appointment to the authoritative office. And it was this faithful teaching of the Gospel which they were charged by Paul to “pass on”….certainly not Paul’s office….just the glorious faithful Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.
quote:
quote:
Finally, Paul's express command was that the teachings - not the office - that had been entrusted to them were to be passed on to other faithful men. Where in scripture does Paul tell anyone not to pass on the office of authoritative teaching? The Bible is clear that Paul charged Timothy with the “passing on” of faithful teaching. He committed to Timothy the glorious Gospel and charged him with passing it on to other faithful men. Never is it intimated that Paul’s apostolship or office was to be “passed on”….as if it could. Since it is you who are making this assertion, present your evidence where we see Paul, or any Apostle for that matter, “passing on” his apostolic office.
quote:
quote:
Hmm, did Paul ever teach that water saves people?...nope. Did Paul ever teach that the Lord’s bones and sinews were present in the bread?...nope. What exactly do you mean by “saves”? Paul, along with the rest of the Apostles and the sacred scriptures, taught of many graces received in baptism (already provided countless verses), best described as “regenerative”. It seems you confuse ECFs with the inspired penman of Scripture – they are decidedly NOT the same. Paul never writes that water baptism saves. Incredibly, you don't know the meaning of the word "saves"....seems self-evident.
quote:
Your assertion is that he taught it was only a symbol or “act of obedience”. If Paul taught this and it was a teaching of those given the Great Commission (preach and baptize), why do we see not one single solitary shred of evidence in over 1500 years of the existence of the Pillar and Foundation of Truth? Will you ever answer this question? I’ve answered your question – over and over, in fact. However, you’ve yet to answer mine. Show from Scripture where Paul teaches that water saves?....last I looked Paul said faith does.
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
In fact, Paul compares the circumcision “made without hands” to baptism. However, this baptism is also one “made without hands”.meaning not water baptism. Rather it is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit which is described for us in John 3....nothing to do with water baptism. The Holy Spirit goes where and when He chooses and nobody knows – not when someone decides to water baptize a child or himself.
quote:
quote:
It’s not me who accuses, it is simply a historical fact notwithstanding what seems to be your attempt to rewrite history. RC is responsible for what is the first major schism in Christianity and all that subsequently flowed from it. While political and cultural factors contributed to this schism, essentially, Rome’s unwarranted, unprecedented, unbiblical claim to papal jurisdictional supremacy was the culprit in the 11th century and even the 16th. Very nice choice of what you choose to quote and what you choose to ignore. Hey, historical facts are just that - facts.
quote:
Kelman, the simple and historical fact is that it is man’s pride and unwillingness to accept authority that has led to division in the Church. That's true, however, it is RC who is unwilling and refuses to accept the authority of the Bible....and yes, that's due to its pride.
Since the papacy is not found in either the Bible or the early church, it is RC’s historic grab for power that led to the first major division in the Christian church. It is to this which I’ve repeatedly referred, therefore, the Presbyterian church didn't have a dog in that fight.
quote:
quote:
Possibly from when Paul exhorted Timothy to “pass on” faithful teaching of the Gospel. I see …. So Paul, who would have been extremely well accustomed to the OT biblical notion of ordination and the authority to “bind and loose”, started something entirely new and different from what the Jewish people were accustomed to? Hmmmmmm Hmmm, indeed. Why is it that you expect Paul to disregard the revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ? Do you have some secret RC evidence of the Lord teaching the Twelve and Paul to continue in all things Jewish? No, of course, not. The Lord appointed His Apostles and told them to bring the Gospel to the world and to elect elders, deacons and pastors to continue His work. Now, you can continue to dig deep into what you preceive as your Jewish “roots” – your “semicha”, however, we never find the Lord or His Apostles digging that hole you find yourself. It doesn’t pay to so glorify Moses’ law when the Lord Jesus fulfilled it. It's absurd to say that the OT ceremonial laws are to be followed today....selectively followed, of course.
At any rate, no matter how deep RC digs, it still has nothing to do with the OT “semicha” since these people were not priests and the practice fell into disuse during the Babylonian captivity. So RC’s use of this term is both inaccurate and disingenuous. In addition, God makes it clear that these attempts to “be” Jewish are not consistent with His Gospel:
Heb 8:13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
quote:
quote:
Ordination recognizes and confirms that the individual has been called by God to ministry, acknowledging that the individual went through a period of discernment and training related to this call, and authorized him to take on the office of ministry. No disagreements here. I guess the only area we disagree is the source of the acknowledgment. Protestants (at least some) believe authoritative acknowledgment comes from like-minded believers breaking away from some other denomination (for example PCUSA from Presbyterianism). Orthodox Christianity (and even some Protestants) believes it comes from the universal church. Well, for a surety the “even some Protestants” do not believe universality sits in Rome. In fact, the universal church is all those who teach the true Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.
quote:
quote:
Obviously, these are NT instructions for church leadership which has nothing to do with the old covernant. We do not continue the practice of OT national laws. The Lord Jesus has brought with Himself the New Covenant. So, to live in the OT shadows is to reject the substance fulfilled by the Lord Jesus Christ. Do not confuse fulfillment with replacement. I see no evidence that I confused the two, however, there is much evidence that you do.
quote:
Rarely is it ever appropriate to say that something in the New Covenant has nothing to do with the Old Covenant. God always fulfills and never rejects his promises. Living in the New Covenant is a fulfillment of, not a rejection of, the Old Covenant. Every part of the Old Covenant is fulfilled in the New. Nope, God never promised the RC ideas about the OT “semicha”. And yes, the New Covenant is, in many places, the fulfillment of the OT shadows so why then does RC insist on living in the shadows and rejecting the substance? The Lamb came to be the victim and sacrifice Himself once – that’s the reality. RC?...it lives in the shadow of the OT passover and continues to offer the victim over and over….it can’t seem to wrestle itself free from the shadow into the light of the victorious Redeemer.
quote:
quote:
If I remember correctly we were speaking about the 70 elders chosen by Moses. These are OT laws governing the nation of Israel. I was speaking about the relationship between Moses and Joshua and that by the direct command of God, Moses laid his hands on Joshua and, in God’s own words, “transferred some of [Moses’] authority”. This OT practice is a shadow for God’s people of the Old Covenant that would see fulfillment in the New Covenant of God’s people. Nothing is revoked, only fulfilled. “Nothing is revoked”?…you’re joking right?....picked up any stones lately?
quote:
quote:
God has made no provision for this type of NT church structure. Says who? Uh, that would be God saying it in: Acts 20:28; I Pet. 5:2-3; 1Tim 3:5; 5:17; 1Thes 5:12; Heb 13:7, 17, 24.
quote:
quote:
These elders have oversight of the church (Acts 20:28; I Pet. 5:2-3) and are thus responsible to rule the congregation (1Tim 3:5; 5:17; 1Thes 5:12; Heb 13:7, 17, 24). Sure but where in the scriptures does it say they have final authority? Nowhere! The “evidence” is seen in the fact that these are the only NT offices God has given to His church, anything else, is simply a man-made tradition which disregards the clear teaching of God in those verses.
quote:
The local churches were never intended to be independent of the universal church. There is no evidence of God giving us a jurisdictional authoritative “universal” church. You guys just made that up…along with a lot of other stuff.
quote:
quote:
Christ calls them to use the "keys of the kingdom" to bind and loose (Mat 16:19; 18:18; John 20: 23) ….. An interpretation quite far removed from the Jewish understanding of these idioms. Well, it certainly isn’t far removed from the teaching of God in the NT.
quote:
quote:
The office-bearers in the church are nominated and elected by the members of the congregation (e.g. Acts 6:5-6), but must also be examined, confirmed and ordained by the present board of elders (Acts 6:6; 13:1-3; 1Tim 4:14).
Timothy was appointed to his office by Paul as we see earlier in Paul’s letter to TimothyActs 13 is not an example of ordination, unless you believe the Church in Antioch appointed Paul to his Apostolic office. . However, it is an example of laying on of hands, iow, agreement. And it is also an example of electing or appointing deacons.
The disciples selected, with the approval of the entire church both Jew and Gentile, seven men who met the criteria set forth by the Apostles. The Apostles then prayed for these men that God would bless their work and appointed them by the laying on of hands – an act of agreement. This didn’t infuse the seven with any “grace”.
quote:
Here is Acts 6:6 “Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid [their] hands on them.”
We see from scripture that it was necessary for the candidates to be set before the apostles for their approval and ordination. Yep, very true since the Apostles were, in fact, the elders of the Jerusalem church. The point, however, is that they were appointed by what was essentially a “board of elders”….same as today.
quote:
quote:
It is worthy of note and quite ironic that notwithstanding your love of “semicha”, according to tradition, it was these very OT “ordained” men who killed the Messiah. All according to God’s plan of salvation Kelman. And you may want to give a little deeper consideration into who exactly killed the Messiah. Yep, the crucifixion was according to God’s plan, in fact, He determined it to happen. However, we have no evidence that God’s plans includes the RC “semicha”. Btw, I know precisely who killed the Lord Jesus…apparently you don’t , however, if you don’t think the “ordained” Jewish leadership wasn’t culpable.
quote:
quote:
Jewish tradtion is just that and very murky at that. God “appointed” many in the OT so your theory about “semicha” is irrelevant to the NT church government for which God gave very clear instructions. And no where in those instructions is there any apostolic succession or popes even hinted at. Jewish tradition should not be considered “murky” and “just that” simply because it is not understood or does not support Protestant traditions. Of course, Jewish tradition is murky just as RC’s is. Both are “understood” in various ways. In both traditions, later ones contradict the former. The Bible is much easier to understand and needs less interpreted than both “traditions”. Besides, God offers the Holy Spirit to enlighten with respect to Scripture. Tradition?...it means whatever the latest magisterium wants it to mean.
_____________________________
.... for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Psalm 138:2
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 8/5/2010 7:15:19 PM
|
|
|
cornergas
Posts: 563
Joined: 7/28/2009
Status: offline
|
Got to have a pope because his office says he is Vicar of Christ ...God's representative here on earth...without him obviously we would have nobody to represent us before God...Oh wait isn't that what Jesus is for?
Oh yes..and the pope wants to be called Holy Father...hmmmm Didn't Jesus say "call no man on earth Father" (let alone Holy)...wow these popes are a pesky lot not following the Messiah Jesus' teachings..Oh yes the priest and pope can forgive sins....wait I thought only God/Jesus can forgive sins..no worldly popes..the disciples, Jesus said could bind and loose....but the Roman church did not come around for another two hundred years after...so thats a stretch for them to claim those powers..the early early popes 300 AD even had the gall to change God's Holy day..the weekly 7th day Sabbath to their day of the sun god..sunday..first day of the week. They did this without Biblical authority but strictly on their own authority...Amazing how they suddenly got all this divine power..The book of Daniel and Revelation really have a lot to say on this matter...
Know the truth and it will set you free
Worship the Son of God-not the sun god
Remember the Sabbath day to keep it Holy!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 8/5/2010 8:41:07 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 1734
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
hmmmm Didn't Jesus say "call no man on earth Father"
why do you think the Apostles called themselves and other people "father"?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 8/5/2010 9:40:24 PM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 665
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: online
|
quote:
Where do the Apostles “pass on” their apostleship to anyone?....no where.
The unique gifts granted to the original Apostles are not passed on. What is passed on is authority. The sacred and infallible scriptures, in both the OT and the NT, show examples of authority being passed on. It begins as an OT shadow with Moses and Joshua when God literally commands Moses to lay his hands on Joshua and "transfer some of [his] authority". This continued on in the Jewish kingdom with those being identified as having the authority to "bind and loose". They specifically were appointed the authority to interpret the Law (that would be the scriptures as well as how they were lived out by the people). When Jesus grants the Apostles the authority to "bind and loose", this is exactly what he is doing, this time with the promises of the Holy Spirit.
We see plenty of examples of the Apostles passing on this authority to servants of Jesus Christ. In fact, it is one of the very first Acts of the Apostles as they appoint Matthias to the office of the bishopric. Paul, perhaps even more familiar with this authority as a former pharisee, does so with both Timothy and Titus. What a powerful testimony to the work of Jesus Christ that one who abused the authority to bind and loose under the OT would see this fulfilled through the grace and power of the Holy Spirit under the NT.
quote:
What has been demonstrated in all its threads is that RC hasn’t a clue what the expectation of the Lord Jesus Christ actually is. Sure Kelman ..... The RC has no clue ..... The EO has no clue .... many Protestants have no clue ..... it would take over 1500 years and a protest against the protestors for the Holy Spirit to reveal the expectations of Jesus Christ to his Bride, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.
quote:
One example, although there are many others, RC makes the same mistake as Ancient Israel, it expects an “earthly” kingdom – there isn’t any. What the Lord came to build is His spiritual house and yet RC rejects the one true church the Lord is building in favor of its own “earthly house”. More "spiritual only" theology? How very Protestant (well, subset at least). No, Jesus Christ, our tangible Incarnate Lord, came to build a tangible Kingdom. Spiritual only? Save that for the Buddhists.
quote:
Hmm, did I say they asserted their own authority?...nope, I did not. (followed by unsubstantiated gibberish) I guess you must be intentionally being vague. Did Timothy and Titus have a unique authority? Where did this authority come from?
quote:
No, Paul appointed Timothy and Titus although as the churches grew in number, yes, the congregation elected its elders. Perhaps you can provide some evidence for us of church leaders who were appointed outside of some line of authoritative succession from the Apostles. Where is an example of the Church in City X, separating from the rest of the universal church, having their members elect leaders, and then these leaders having final authority of the Church in City X, independent of the leaders of the churches in other cities? That is the model of congregationalism. That is the model we don't seem to find anywhere in scripture. That is the model for which there is absolutely no pre-Reformation historical evidence.
quote:
And it was this faithful teaching of the Gospel which they were charged by Paul to “pass on”… No arguments here. But the discussion is not about the message itself, but rather about authority. Timothy and Titus were specifically appointed by Paul to pass on what they'd learned from Paul, the glorious faithful Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.
quote:
It seems you confuse ECFs with the inspired penman of Scripture – they are decidedly NOT the same. Nah, never. I just use them as a source to better understand what the early church believed and what was handed down from the Apostles. quote:
Paul never writes that water baptism saves. Interesting that every single one of those ECFs understood baptism to be regenerative. Kind of makes you wonder what happened to all of the "faithful men" Paul handed on his "symbolic only" teachings to. What do you think? Oh that's right .... you are part of the "the evil RCC church burned all of the ECF letters supporting symbolic baptism" conspiracy camp.
quote:
I’ve answered your question – over and over, in fact. I sincerely don't remember you answering this question ..... unless you were really serious about the RCC/EO cover-up consipiracy theory. Would you mind quickly reiterating or maybe providing links to your previous posts that explain why there is not one single writing in the first 1500 years of God's people executing the Great Commission (preach and baptize) that supports a new doctrine that can be very easily traced to the Anabaptists?
quote:
It is to this which I’ve repeatedly referred, therefore, the Presbyterian church didn't have a dog in that fight. No Kelman. You proclaimed multiple times that the RCC and the Pope are responsible for all of the division in the Church. Quite obviously, the Presbyterian church was not yet invented by man when the RC and EO split, so no, they were not involved in the schism. Still doesn't address your claim. You said the RCC and Pope are responsible for all of the division including the division within Protestantism. My claim, backed up by historical evidence and by the testimony of the division within Protestantism, is that rejection of authority is what leads to division.
b.t.w. you are doing a fine job avoiding my challenge for you to explain how the RCC or the Pope has caused the once unified Presbyterian church to become known as the "split P's". (Can't say I blame you for trying to sweep it under the rug .... it's pretty conclusive evidence against your claims)
quote:
Why is it that you expect Paul to disregard the revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ? Do you have some secret RC evidence of the Lord teaching the Twelve and Paul to continue in all things Jewish? Are you asserting that the revelation of our Jewish Messiah would be to reject all things Jewish that foreshadowed His coming? It's no secret! These were the customs of ordination of the very first Christians. The practice is attested to in history. Do you have any other suggestions as to how ordination originated or do you merely assert that the biblical and historical is wrong because it doesn't support the traditions of a subset of protestors originating in the 1600s?
quote:
“Nothing is revoked”? .... you're joking right? .... God revokes his covenants????? Yikes!!!!!
quote:
The “evidence” is seen in the fact that these are the only NT offices God has given to His church, anything else, is simply a man-made tradition which disregards the clear teaching of God in those verses. Where does scripture say these are the sola NT offices? Is it near that same verse that says we are saved by sola faith? Or by the verse that says sola scripture is infallible? My Bible nowhere tells me that every office of the Church is recorded in scripture. My Bible tells me that Peter specifically was granted a set of keys and that these were the keys to the Kingdom. My Bible tells me that God's Kingdom always had a chief servant who was in charge of the Kingdom while the King was battling against the enemy of God's people.
quote:
There is no evidence of God giving us a jurisdictional authoritative “universal” church. You guys just made that up…along with a lot of other stuff. Okay Kelman ..... I get that you don't accept Mt 16 and the real meaning of the keys ..... But what about the crisis in Antioch and the Council of Jerusalem. If there was no jurisdictional authority, then there was absolutely no need for the Church in Antioch to send Paul back to Jerusalem was there? No .... what is made up entirely by man (and it took over 1500 years for this to happen) is the notion that self-appointed authorities of local churches are the final authority and that they can act outside of the authority of the universal church. Not surprisingly, once this novel invention of man was introduced into the Christian world, the division in the Church began to immediately grow exponentially.
quote:
Yep, very true since the Apostles were, in fact, the elders of the Jerusalem church. The point, however, is that they were appointed by what was essentially a “board of elders”….same as today. Nope. They were nominated by a board of elders. They were set before and ordained by the officers of the bishopric of the universal church. Still no signs of independent self-appointed authority ... keep searching.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 8/5/2010 9:59:24 PM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 665
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: online
|
Cornergas is this another "drive-by" or are you going to stick around and discuss?
quote:
Got to have a pope because his office says he is Vicar of Christ ...God's representative here on earth...without him obviously we would have nobody to represent us before God...Oh wait isn't that what Jesus is for? He is the earthly representative (vicar) and servant of our King Jesus. This is consistent with Mt 16:19 and Is 22:22. King Jesus represents us before God. And no, despite what your sources say, we don't have to go through the pope to get to Jesus to get to God.
quote:
Oh yes the priest and pope can forgive sins....wait I thought only God/Jesus can forgive sins.. You are correct that it is only through Jesus Christ that our sins are forgiven. This forgiveness is effected in a sacramental way by confessing our sin (which scripture commands us to do) to a presbyter of the church. We see this in scripture as Jesus grants the original leaders of his church the authority to forgive and retain sins in Jesus' name.
quote:
Jesus said could bind and loose....but the Roman church did not come around for another two hundred years after...so thats a stretch for them to claim those powers. See previous posts on the real meaning of "bind and loose". This understanding was in place from the very beginning of the Church. Regardless of when you or Boettner claim the RC was invented, the authority of the officers of the bishopric to bind and loose was already in place.
quote:
the early early popes 300 AD even had the gall to change God's Holy day..the weekly 7th day Sabbath to their day of the sun god..sunday..first day of the week. They did this without Biblical authority but strictly on their own authority... You really ought to read the scriptures and the early church history for yourself instead of from second hand sources. Worshiping on the Lord's day has it's origins well before the 300's. St. John even talks about it in Revelation. The early church leaders saw the Lord's Day as the 8th day of creation ... the day to celebrate the Resurrection of our Savior - absolutely nothing to do with any sort of sun god, despite what your obscure secondary sources might say.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
