Christian, Mormon doctrinal differences

I'd say your premise starts with a logical fallacy. That of the argument from silence. It's the same sort of fallacy gay apologists make by trying to say homosexuality is permissible because the gospels are silent on the issue. We know that Jesus says in Matthew 19:14 "but Jesus said, g“Let the little children hcome to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” In Acts 16:32-33 the possibility of infant baptism is raised by the baptism of everyone in a particular household. And there isn't anything saying that only adults were baptized. "32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them zthe same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he awas baptized at once, he and all his family." And the Didache, which was a 1st century catechism written for converts around the same time as the canonical scriptures says the following about baptism: Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before." And St. Irenaeus of Lyon, author of the Against the Heresies, testifies. He was two generations removed from the apostle John, and his spiritual master St. Polycarp was evangelized by St. John the Apostle personally. "4. Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized, and then possessing the full age of a Master, He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly acknowledged by all as a Master. For He did not seem one thing while He was another, as those affirm who describe Him as being man only in appearance; but what He was, that He also appeared to be. Being a Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a Master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in Himself that law which He had appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to Himself. For He came to save all through means of Himself— all, I say, who through Him are born again to God — infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence, Colossians 1:18 the Prince of life, Acts 3:15 existing before all, and going before all." You say that infant baptism initiated apostasy, but aren't you saying that the gates of hell prevailed against the Church contrary to Matthew 16:19? If you want to identify with the Gnostics (the Paulicians, Albigensians be my guest because by doing so you are making my point about Baptists being a heterodox sect that has some sort of claim to hidden knowledge about the Bible.

I'd say your premise starts with a logical fallacy. That of the argument from silence. It's the same sort of fallacy gay apologists make by trying to say homosexuality is permissible because the gospels are silent on the issue.

We know that Jesus says in Matthew 19:14 "but Jesus said, g“Let the little children hcome to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”

In Acts 16:32-33 the possibility of infant baptism is raised by the baptism of everyone in a particular household. And there isn't anything saying that only adults were baptized.

"32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them zthe same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he awas baptized at once, he and all his family."

And the Didache, which was a 1st century catechism written for converts around the same time as the canonical scriptures says the following about baptism:

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before."

And St. Irenaeus of Lyon, author of the Against the Heresies, testifies. He was two generations removed from the apostle John, and his spiritual master St. Polycarp was evangelized by St. John the Apostle personally.

"4. Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized, and then possessing the full age of a Master, He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly acknowledged by all as a Master. For He did not seem one thing while He was another, as those affirm who describe Him as being man only in appearance; but what He was, that He also appeared to be. Being a Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a Master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in Himself that law which He had appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to Himself. For He came to save all through means of Himself— all, I say, who through Him are born again to God — infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence, Colossians 1:18 the Prince of life, Acts 3:15 existing before all, and going before all."

You say that infant baptism initiated apostasy, but aren't you saying that the gates of hell prevailed against the Church contrary to Matthew 16:19?

If you want to identify with the Gnostics (the Paulicians, Albigensians be my guest because by doing so you are making my point about Baptists being a heterodox sect that has some sort of claim to hidden knowledge about the Bible.

No, that is incorrect. I am clearly stating the command of The Christ without the revision which you presuppose. Please do not call what I stated in the note as my doctrine. It is the gospel of at least Levi and John and Paul. The one you propose is later, is deviant, and is a consequence of “Christianity” being adopted as the state religion, with an unregenerated emperor as its authority and decision-maker, and “infant baptism” being the significance of automatic citizenship by nativity and as a co-religionist imposed. >>As I already pointed out, infant baptism predated St. Constantine's acceptance of Christianity by some 300 years. Christianity didn't even become the state religion of the empire until Emperor Theodosius about 100 years later.

And contrary to the mythology surrounding St. Constantine's adoption of Christianity, it wasn't received well. Those who wanted to be true to Christ rather than imperial politics fled to start the monastic movement, which placed holiness and devotion to Christ over being accepted.

The monks in Byzantium became a headache for the Eastern Roman emperors for the next 1,000 years because they frequently revolted against his control.

The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America has an interesting article to this effect:

The establishment of Christianity as a legal religion of the roman Empire by Constantine the Great, with the edict of Milan (313), led to a new decline in the ethical life of Christians. In reaction to this decline, many refused to accept any compromises and fled the world to become monastics. Monasticism thrived, especially in Egypt, with two important monastic centers, one in the desert of Nitria, by the Western Bank of the Nile, with Abba Ammoun (d. 356) as its founder, and one in the desert of Skete, south of Nitria, with Saint Makarios of Egypt (d. ca. Egypt 330) as its founder. These monks were anchorites, following the monastic ideal of St. Anthony. They lived by themselves, gathering together for common worship on Saturdays and Sundays only." http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7103

Baptist Christianity has very little in common with how the Early Christians worshiped or believed. All early Christians continued the Jewish practice of liturgical worship. In fact the Greek text of Acts uses the word leitourgia (liturgy) several times. http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/ourlife/liturgical_worship_in_the_new_testament

On that note, Lutherans and Episcopalians have more in common with early Christians than Baptists do.

Baptism is NOT just a symbol, and I challenge you to provide a verse from scripture or from the ancient writers fo the Church that it was.

John Calvin was the first person to my knowledge who denied that God uses baptism as a physical means of conferring the Holy Spirit.

Apostolic succession is a myth not supported by Scripture, and is only a figment of very active political manipulation. There is no continuity. >>What do you call when the apostles chose Matthias to replace Judas?

Apostolic succession was the norm that the early Christians used to distinguish themselves from the Gnostic heretics who claimed apostolic authority. St. Clement of Rome, who St. Paul mentions in Phillipians 4:3 testifies around 80 A.D. in Chapter 42:Verses 1-3 that: ""Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry." And St. Irenaeus of Lyons writes the following against the Gnostic heretics a century later around 189 A.D.: "It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about".(Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]). "But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions 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, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2). "Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time" (ibid., 3:3:4). "Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. . . . For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant conversation, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?" (ibid., 3:4:1). "[I]t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession(Baptists?), and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth" (ibid., 4:26:2). "The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere" (ibid., 4:33:8). The line of Apostleship (the Twelve having seen The Christ personally, discipled by Him alone, and ordained by Him face to face as Apostles — the eleven plus Paul), ended with the death of the beloved John at about 100 AD, which was also the closure of the progressive revelation of Holy Scripture. >>Catholics and Orthodox likewise believe this. Pope St. Pius X writes in his Oath Against Modernism in 1907: "..., I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously." My understanding is that God’s special ordained servants now only include evangelists, pastors, and teachers. Offices in the local church also include qualified elders and appointed deacons (as defined in the pastoral missives). >>The only ministries mention explicitly in scripture are bishops (episkopoi), presbyters (presbyterium), and deacons (diakonoi). The early Church later instituted the ministries of subdeacon, lector, etc. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches alone have maintained these ministries in unbroken succession for over 2,000 years.

And the Anglicans, and some Lutherans, have retained these ministries at least materially.

Apostolic succession is a myth not supported by Scripture, and is only a figment of very active political manipulation. There is no continuity. >>What do you call when the apostles chose Matthias to replace Judas?

Apostolic succession was the norm that the early Christians used to distinguish themselves from the Gnostic heretics who claimed apostolic authority.
,
St. Clement of Rome, who St. Paul mentions in Phillipians 4:3 testifies around 80 A.D. in Chapter 42:Verses 1-3 that: ""Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry."

And St. Irenaeus of Lyons writes the following against the Gnostic heretics a century later around 189 A.D.: "It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about".(Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions 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, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2).

"Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time" (ibid., 3:3:4).

"Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. . . . For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant conversation, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?" (ibid., 3:4:1).
"[I]t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession(Baptists?), and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth" (ibid., 4:26:2).

"The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere" (ibid., 4:33:8).

The line of Apostleship (the Twelve having seen The Christ personally, discipled by Him alone, and ordained by Him face to face as Apostles — the eleven plus Paul), ended with the death of the beloved John at about 100 AD, which was also the closure of the progressive revelation of Holy Scripture.

>>Catholics and Orthodox likewise believe this. Pope St. Pius X writes in his Oath Against Modernism in 1907: "..., I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously."

My understanding is that God’s special ordained servants now only include evangelists, pastors, and teachers. Offices in the local church also include qualified elders and appointed deacons (as defined in the pastoral missives).

>>The only ministries mention explicitly in scripture are bishops (episkopoi), presbyters (presbyterium), and deacons (diakonoi). The early Church later instituted the ministries of subdeacon, lector, etc. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches alone have maintained these ministries in unbroken succession for over 2,000 years.

And the Anglicans, and some Lutherans, have retained these ministries at least materially.

Do you have any real idea why Matthias was chosen to replace Judas? Hint: it is NOT about Apostolic succession.

Wrong again. By such traditions one descends into the error of the scribes and Pharisees — “Why do ye also transgress the commandments of God by your traditions?” “Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own traditions.” That is why the Donatists, the Paulicians, the Albigensians, the Waldensians, the Anabaptists, the Baptists, the brethren out of Plymouth, kept appearing, rejected statist apostasy, were claimed to be heretics, and were persecuted and murdered (and their unadulterated Scriptures burned) by the traditionalists, when they only wished to adhere to the commandments of Christ uncorrupted.

You miss the point of Jesus's talk about the Pharisees. I might add that today's Jews are the descendants of the Pharisees. The Pharisees made observance of all 600+ Levitical commandments over the law of grace.

Orthodox Jews still do this today.

I might add that the Catholic Church applies these warnings against those who place cultural practices before the gospel, including bragging about the numbers of rosaries, fastings, etc. that people do.

The Church condemns anything that is done out of spiritual pride rather than in a spirit of humble service to our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Bible never says that everything that Jesus did or said is contained in Scripture. In fact, the Bible speaks to the contrary.

In John 20:30 attests: "30 uNow Jesus did many other signs vin the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;" And John 21:25 attests: "25 Now qthere are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that rthe world itself could not contain the books that would be written."

Hence the Catholic/Orthodox veneration of extra-scriptural accounts of the lives of Jesus and Mary, and the apostles inasmuch as they do not contradict canonical scripture.

Then we find in 2 Thessalonians 2:15: ἄρα οὖν, ἀδελφοί, στήκετε, καὶ κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις ἃς ἐδιδάχθητε εἴτε διὰ λόγου εἴτε δι' ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν. "15 So then, brothers, dstand firm and hold to ethe traditions that you were taught by us, either fby our spoken word or by four letter."

And in 2 Thessalonians 3:5: Παραγγέλλομεν δὲ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, ἐν ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου [ἡμῶν] Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, στέλλεσθαι ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ παντὸς ἀδελφοῦ ἀτάκτως περιπατοῦντος καὶ μὴ κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν ἣν παρελάβοσαν παρ' ἡμῶν. "6 Now we command you, brothers, sin the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, tthat you keep away from any ubrother vwho is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us." The Greek uses the word "paradosis", which means as follows according to a Protestant New Testament Greek lexicon: Paradosis giving up, giving over the act of giving up the surrender of cities a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing, i.e. tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc. objectively, that which is delivered, the substance of a teaching of the body of precepts, esp. ritual, which in the opinion of the later Jews were orally delivered by Moses and orally transmitted in unbroken succession to subsequent generations, which precepts, both illustrating and expanding the written law, as they did were to be obeyed with equal reverence."

I challenge you to show how your sect's practices stack up against what we know from outside of scripture about how early Christians believed and worshiped. How are you so sure that you stack up against 2 Thessalonians 3:6?

From what I have been able to see since just before I converted from Protestantism to Catholicism 20 years ago, Protestants don't conform with the verse.

Do you have any real idea why Matthias was chosen to replace Judas? Hint: it is NOT about Apostolic succession.

That's apostolic succession in a nutshell. Every Catholic or Orthodox bishop is what Matthias was.

I call your comment sectarian denial.

To admit apostolic succession would be to concede that you belong to a sect that has completely rewritten the norms of Christian faith.

Aren't you setting yourself up as your own infallible Pope?

To answer your first question, Melkite Catholics are descendants of Greek Orthodox Christians who entered into union with the Pope of Rome in 1724.

We retain a married priesthood, have our own autonomous chief bishop of Patriarch of Antioch who ranks 3rd in the entire Catholic Church after the Pope of Rome, and use the same rituals and customs as the Greek Orthodox.

Plus, we follow a more mystical and more monastic approach to our faith than the West. We don't teach purgatory in the classical Western sense, our bishops refrain from any discussions about indulgences, and our ways of doing things are a lot older than the West.

"And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also SHALL SIT UPON TWELVE THRONES, JUDGING THE TWELVE TRIBES OF ISRAEL." Mt. 19:28.

Get it? When Christ returns and sets up His kingdom, the twelve disciples will be sitting on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. When Judas went to his own, that left 11. Christ could not set up His kingdom with 11 disciples judging the twelve tribes. There is a disciple for each tribe of Israel. THAT is why Matthias was made the 12th disciple.

It has NOTHING to do with Apostolic succession. It has EVERYTHING to do with the PROMISE Christ made to His disciples.

No, I'm not setting myself up as my own Pope. I'm setting myself up as someone who can read the Bible and believe it says what it means and means what it says.

I’m not setting myself up as my own Pope. I’m setting myself up as someone who can read the Bible and believe it says what it means and means what it says.

>>But you are picking and choosing which scriptures to tie together, so in effect you are appointing yourself as your own Church, Pope and hierarchy.

But I’ll say you have a rather novel interpretation. Now show me any Church fathers who used your hermeneutic connecting the appointment of Matthias with this verse.

The Catholic/Orthodox interpretation predates the canon of scripture we have today.

I might add there were 70 apostles, not just the 12.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventy_disciples

I imagine that if a person sitting in the pew next to you has a different interpretation they are a heretic, right?

Read Eusbius’s Ecclesiastical History, which takes the Church’s history from the cross to the time of Constantine.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm

From what I am seeing the only difference from a Baptist and a Mormon is a matter of degrees. Both sects are implicitly Gnostic.

The year 2007. This is 2011 where folks are bored with all the anti Mormon stuff. Don’t you have anything better to do with your time?

P.S. If I wanted to - which I don’t - I could dig up all kinds of controversial stuff about every Christian sect and denomination on the earth - but why would I want to do that? I have better things to do with my time.

Enlightening people is never a waste of time. Do you fear enlightenment? Everything in this article is from Mormon sources. Do you fear the truth or do you fear others reading the truth? Refute the article, not the message bearer.

One corruption of all of those religionists was subscribing to the Roman-innnovated “baptism” of unqualified, irresponsible, unbelieving, unregenerated infants

You mean infants who haven't earned the right to salvation by working for it? Oh, perish the thought that God would save the unworthy and freely justify the unjust through grace ... appalling! Scandalous! For as Paul says somewhere, "If you haven't worked for it, it's not grace." /s

BTW, no matter what else you say about it, it's definitely not true that infant baptism is "Roman-innovated". Justin Martyr says that there were old women living in his day who had been baptized by the apostles -- he wrote around AD 150. Origen says that the church received the custom of baptizing infants from the Apostles.

The Armenian and Ethiopian churches, who were never obedient to Rome or Constantinople nor under the Roman yoke politically, both baptize infants.

### Do you have any real idea why Matthias was chosen to replace Judas? Hint: it is NOT about Apostolic succession. ###

Yes. My take is that in the period between the time Peter was converted (Jn 21 probably) I believe that he did obey the risen Christ and was engaged in strengthening the brethren (Lk 22:31-32) under the direction of the risen Christ (the Holy Ghost had not yet come). But in the 9 to 10 days between the Ascension and the Pentecost, neither Peter nor the other 10 disciples and core believers were under the direct personal control of The Christ or The Holy Ghost. So, without that restraint and guidance, Peter became restive, and under humanistic reasoning invented a misuse of the Scriptures to assert his sense of establishing himself as a(the?) dominant leader and influence-peddler through the gambit of forcing the fellow disciples to choose a replacement for Judas Iscariot.

Apparently he was able to obtain a consensus of agreement. Then taking the matter in hand, and without any authority to do so, they devised a method whereby a replacement would be selected by them from two of the camp-follower men. One supposes that the lottery method was one which they thought was suggested by Scripture (Lev 16:8, Prov 16:33, Jonah 1:7 for example). Hence they gave themselves the excuse that the choice was of the Lord by the time-honored of casting the lot. So they, instigated by Peter, all conspired against the Lord to execute their will and not His.

Matthias was chosen as the replacement, but was never again mentioned in the New Testament. They had no idea that one of their desperate enemies was to be chosen by God to supply the office of the twelfth and last Apostle, in His own time.

So we see the kind of evil that well-intentioned men can do without waiting on God and without walking in The Spirit. As a consequence Peter, though a great preacher, evangelist, pastor, and discipler, never again achieved the role of executive leadership in his own local church. Moreover, though he claimed the ministry to the Gentiles (Acts 15:7) that ministry to the uncircumcision was committed to Paul by God and the brethren; and Peter was charged with the ministry to the circumcision (mostly the diaspora?).

It would be well to note that Mary, the mother of Jesus, apparently had no authoritative voice in these deliberations, even in the 10 days before Pentecost when any Spirit-led person ought to have spoken up against the anthropocentric machinations of Peter and his cohorts. But the Holy Spirit had as yet had fallen on none. Though converted, there were none regenerated — none had the indwelling Holy Ghost, and none were speaking by inspiration.

Also note that later on her son James (Jacob) became the pastor of the First local church — that of Jerusalem. Another of her sons, Jude, wrote the definitive tract on apostasy. But she was not mentioned again after the commencement of the Church Age on Pentecost.

By Gnostic, I mean that Baptists and Mormons seem to think they have some sort of hidden knowledge that eluded all of their predecessors when they read the Bible.

Do you have some sort of hidden knowledge about how to properly interpret the Bible that people like St. Clement of Rome or St. Ignatius of Antioch, or St. Polycarp who actually knew the apostles weren’t given?

Protestants act like bitter children when it comes to their anti-Roman polemics, which causes them to forget what the separated Eastern Churches share in common with Rome doctrinally despite their separation.

It’s called 2 Tim 2:15. Not exactly a secret, but completely ignored by those who want to believe they are spiritual Israel, or are bringing in the Kingdom, or have some sort of Apostolic Succession, or believe that water baptism saves, or teaching that faith plus works save. Sound familiar?

2 Timothy 2:15 is what the Catholic Church adheres to unlike your own sect, which only dates from the 17th century.

My response is from Matthew 7:15 “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”

The following verses apply to Protestantism and the followers of your sect because you have not kept the traditions of the apostles and have created a new gospel.

Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

Acts 20:30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.

2 Peter 3:16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

A sacrament is an outward sign of inward grace, and it is not a human work. To think otherwise is to depart from scripture as well as tradition.