Posted on 07/23/2014 7:07:07 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
Sort of reminds me of Rome.
Do you have an alternative fellowship of churches that has an unbroken line of apostolic succession ? While new modern cars are a superior mode of transportation, new or “re-formed” religions are creations of men. I want you to name names if you know of genuine apostolic churches that have an unbroken chain from the Jewish apostles. Otherwise I’m not interested in another modern alternative no matter how one markets it.
Linus was the first Bishop of Rome. Peter was never a Bishop of Rome according to the earliest Catholic historian Eusebius. Yet the matter has no bearing on this discussion.
Yes the Holy Spirit indwells all believers but the passage AF Vet quoted has Jesus speaking to the Apostles. So what He was saying, and describing, was meant for them. Now, are we to believe (since all the apostles have passed on) that the Holy Spirit no longer teaches us all things?
Of course not. He still does today through the successors of the men Jesus originally spoke to in that passage. So as it was then, it is today.
It’s either that, or we have Jesus (and His Holy Spirit) teaching and guiding his church in different ways throughout time. It’s either as I describe above, or there is no way to truly have the same experience as the early church.
I chose to believe the former. I chose to believe God is consistent.
One thing I haven’t seen discussed on this thread (even though it’s mentioned in the OP) is the matter of the church handling disagreements in its ranks.
Sure, I guess some here have conceded that occurred (it must be conceded because it’s in Scripture) but apparently there isn’t any belief this type of action requires an authority above the “lay” members. But it’s obvious it does.
Why doesn’t someone explain to me (or to anyone) how the early church expelled believers and why? Why were early church members expelled (for what purpose) and how was it done? Was it an effectual “anathema” (excommunication) or did it have a loophole or holes?
That is (and this is the point, the main question to answer): if a member was cut off from the body (the church) back then, could he just go down the street to “another church” and be a member there? Without repenting of the thing (whatever it was) that got him kicked out in the first place?
Does anyone here honestly believe that was the case back then? That even back then, there were so many different “churches” that if you didn’t like the pastor of one, if you disagreed with his interpretation of Scripture, all you had to do was to down the road, or go to another town, and find another?
Does this really make sense, to anyone, that this is what happened even during the time the Scriptures were written, much less later?
Cuz if it DIDNT happen that way THEN, that kind of behavior is, by definition, a more modern invention of MAN.
Think about it, and explain to me how I’m wrong (if you can). Anyone.
No, it was meant for all Christians. Jesus knew the Gospels would be written and his words were intended for all believers who read them. Just as Paul's epistles were not just for the specific recipients of the letters.
"the Holy Spirit no longer teaches us all things? Of course not. He still does today through the successors of the men Jesus originally spoke to in that passage. So as it was then, it is today."
No the Holy Spirit teaches through those he indwells. There is absolutely no reason he just teaches "through the successors of the men Jesus originally spoke to".
"That is (and this is the point, the main question to answer): if a member was cut off from the body (the church) back then, could he just go down the street to “another church” and be a member there? Without repenting of the thing (whatever it was) that got him kicked out in the first place? Does anyone here honestly believe that was the case back then?"
Arius (father of Arianism) was excommunicated by Bishop Peter of Alexandria in 311, but under Peter's successor Achillas, Arius was re-admitted to Christian communion and in 313 made presbyter of the Baucalis district in Alexandria. It looks like sometimes in the early church the heretics could just wait for a new Bishop and be readmitted without repenting of their heresy. Arius didn't have to "find a new church down the road" - it looks like he could just wait for the Holy Spirit to change his mind and communicate it to the sole interpreters of scripture you are so fond of. /s
Do what Rome has done. Presumed to infallibly declare you are and will be perpetually infallible whenever you speak in accordance with your infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders your declaration that you are infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else you accordingly declare.
Once again, glory to God for what is good.
That's because thru the wildest stretch of an imagination, they claim that their Church is Jesus...(The church is the body of Christ and since the body of Christ IS Christ; ergo, the Catholic Church is Jesus...) If they are leading you to their religion, they are leading you to Jesus, or some unsensical ridiculousness like that...
Of course the Holy Spirit (a "he" by the way, not "it") was meant for all believers but as we know by even reading Scripture alone, he brings forth and gives different gifts (charisms)'to different people. Not all are "teachers" but that's what everyone has to be in the "invisible church"
Of course you will disagree here but I don't care. I don't care about your personal opinion of Scripture. So you already have the "last word" here, go ahead and post something more in response to the above if you want. Again, I don't care.
Arius (father of Arianism) was excommunicated by Bishop Peter of Alexandria in 311, but under Peter's successor Achillas, Arius was re-admitted to Christian communion and in 313 made presbyter of the Baucalis district in Alexandria. It looks like sometimes in the early church the heretics could just wait for a new Bishop and be readmitted without repenting of their heresy. Arius didn't have to "find a new church down the road" - it looks like he could just wait for the Holy Spirit to change his mind and communicate it to the sole interpreters of scripture you are so fond of. /s
As is typical for many Protestants/anti Catholic Christians around here you only give a partial account of what happened in Church history.
"In 306, Arius sided with Meletius, an Egyptian schismatic, against the Bishop of Alexandria, Peter. But their dispute was soon reconciled, and Peter ordained Arius a deacon. Having fallen out anew with Peter, Arius gained the friendship of Peter's successor, Achillas, who ordained Arius a priest in 313, thus giving him official status in the Church. Achillas was succeeded by Alexander of Alexandria; it was under this bishop that Arius first ignited the controversy now that bears his name. This argument centered upon the precise nature of the Son of God, and His relationship to God the Father, and it struck at the very heart of the Orthodox Christian faith.
...
"According to Church historian Socrates Scholasticus, Arius entered in 318 into a dispute with Bishop Alexander of Alexandria over his teachings about God's divine Sonship and substance. "
source: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Arius
If you don't like that source post another.
You'll note though the following: during the time period you're describing, Arius was going about spreading another heresy, another one he apparently DID repent of, and that's why he was re-admitted to the Church. It was only after he started the whole heresy that bears his name was he kicked out again, this (that?) time for good.
It's history and fact. So you haven't shown anything at all with your example of Arius other than to show exactly what happens to a man when he disagrees with Church teaching. He's out. Unless he repents.
Which is not found in Scripture so is not binding on believers.
Nobody is obligated to accept The Roman Catholic church's claims of being the sole authority who is able to correctly interpret Scripture, except those who choose to put themselves under its authority.
What difference does it make?
Who said that was a requirement for being the OTC? There's no Scripture that sets that as a standard.
The church is where believers are gathered and Jesus is in the midst of Him, even if it's as small a group as two or three. He promised He would be in the midst of them.
It's not a religion or denomination, nor in a church building. God is not confined by the dictates of men.
So you jump into an ongoing discussion, invite anyone to respond and when you don't like the first response you whine and snivel that you "don't care" and won't respond anymore. Classic.
You’re right I should have made it clear from the beginning that I don’t care about your personal opinion of Scripture, in my original post to you. That way you wouldn’t waste your time. That wasn’t fair and I do apologize for that.
As expected. For the weight of Scripture is not the basis for the veracity of RC teaching, but Scripture is a servant to be compelled to support traditions of men, and RCs have a great deal of liberty to adopt interpretations of Scripture to support Rome, resulting in such wresting as you engage in.
I also note scripture in the follow up epistle by the same author dealing with those who wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction.
And 2pt. 3:16 is a warning to you, who seeks to employ this text to support the premise that this forbids private interpretation, meaning that all beliefs must conform the infallible magisterium of Rome, and as long an RC holds to this than they cannot be persuaded otherwise no matter how strong the evidence is against RC teaching.
“All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.” “He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 )]
For neither 2Pt. 1:20 or 2Pt. 3:16 is censuring determination of Truth by individual interpretation or teaching reliance upon an infallible magisterium, but both are making Scripture the supreme authority by which both false prophets and teachers are exposed.
For indeed, you will always have misuse of authority in this world, and your error is in taking warnings of that as meaning relying on Scripture for assurance of Truth, and reading and understanding Scripture without an infallible magisterium. But while the office of the teacher is critical as is administration, yet the Scriptures were and are the supreme authority, and the church began in dissent from the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation.
And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
Thus it is not the word of the Roman magisterium that is set in contrast to false prophets and teachers, but Scripture, and thus Paul's writings are invoked for support, (2pt. 3:15) while it is the misuse of Scripture by the unlearned and unstable that is warned of, not that of reading and understanding without an infallible magisterium, or reliance upon it.
I compare and contrast this with the case if what heresies could infect the churches of the holy catholic apostolic church that Jesus build on the apostles and prophets, himself being the chief cornerstone.
But reliance upon an assuredly infallible magisterium is not Peter's answer, and instead you must read it into Scripture. Under the Roman model, how and why should the common people follow a couple of itinerant Preachers whom the magisterium rejected?
Moreover, as said, this takes the problem of wrong interpretation to a higher and wider level, as it means one individual can declare Truth by fiat, even without the consensus of the bishops, and with the magisterium being supreme, most all the flock can be led into error, as is the case with papal infallibility.
How could sheep follow a wolf in sheep's clothing unless said wolf was misinterpreting the scriptures to lead them astray.
Indeed, but which does not mean an assuredly infallible magisterium is what it set forth as the solution, and instead it is substantially a case of the wolf being over the chicken house.
And an infallible magisterium is needed so the flock will not be lead astray, then again, how did the people rightly judge John was a prophet indeed when the established magisterium rejected him?
With the thousands of denominations, sects, and even virtual websites that cloak the background and ordination of the teachers, I can see how sheep are led astray by false teachers who misinterpret the scripture, Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
Indeed, Rome has her schism and sects, and has engaged in much labor cloaking those who were exposed by the world, while you have joined the ranks of false teachers by making 2pt. 1:20 to be about interpreting Scripture, when it is about written prophecy, and which is judged by reading Scripture. Which also exposes those who misuse Scripture under the pretense of being infallible, as according to her interpretation/decree, only her judgment is correct in any conflict.
The divisions among those who hold Scripture as supreme do not disallow it as being so, as those who most strongly hold to it have the strongest unity, versus the fruit of Rome.
Meanwhile divisions are a judgment upon the church under the model in which Truth is established upon Scriptural; substantiation, as it requires establishing Truth upon that basis, not self declaration as under Rome and cults.
"But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power." "For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power." (1 Corinthians 4:19-20)
But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen
Indeed, and it was not the Eucharist that nourished them with graced, but
"If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained." (1 Timothy 4:6)
"And 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." (Acts 20:32)
Nothing; eh?
It’s a poor workman that blames his tools...
The ONLY Catholic churches mentioned in the Bible, are the ones in Revelation.
From which of them did ROME spring?
I wonder who the leaders were in the seven churches of Revelation???
Please nevermind responding to my silly question. Was thinking Armenian. Time to take another nap.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.