"All be one"

[geoformeo]

Examples of how not to be one: One follows Paul, another follows Apollos, and Jim Dandy follows Cephas. Let’s be honest with each other, people, the main barrier to following Christ as one is not doctrinal differences. It’s tribalism, and in this case, it answers primarily to the cult of personality. Doctrinal differences can be worked through, but the most trenchant problem is the attitude that out of all the Christians, you can only work and cooperate fully with the ones who join you in union to the chair of Cephas in Rome. As long as that is the case, you remain closed off to avenues toward unity apart from that unattainable goal. I’m not talking about a variety of ways you can cooperate, either. I’m talking about a sufficient level of cooperation that you can have with Christians outside your tribe.

There is definitely some truth to this, for sure, but I don’t think it encapsulates the problem in its entirety. Jesus’ prayer in John 17 is extremely powerful. This was the very last thing He did in front of His apostles prior to His crucifixion. This was His last “teaching moment”, so to speak. And what does He say? Two things which should cause us to pause: 1) “Holy Father, keep them in your name that you have given me, that they may be one just as we are.” (John 17:11); and 2) “I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.” (John 17:20-21).

Think about this for a moment: what does it truly mean to be “one” as Jesus and the Father are one? It means absolute, complete unison of thought, will, and being. It does not mean submission, but rather union, in every sense of the word. It means that Jesus and the Father totally agree on everything, from the small things to the big things. From fasting to prayer to Mary to contraception to abortion to the Eucharist. There are no doctrinal differences (nor differences in charitable works) between the Father and Son. That is what it means to be one as Jesus and the Father are one.

The second passage I cited gets to the heart of what you addressed above. Jesus here prays for those who hear the apostles and their successors (He is praying for you and I here) may have the same unity as the apostles, which is the same unity as Jesus and the Father. The same unity where there is no doctrinal (or any other) disagreement. So as a matter of fact here, Jesus is praying that we Christians living in the 21st century are to have the same unity of theological and doctrinal mind as the apostles and the Trinity.

And if you read Acts of the Apostles, the early Church was exactly of one heart and mind on everything (Acts 4:32-35), including doctrine. And this same early Church deferred to the first pope, Peter, in matters of doctrinal disagreement (the Council of Jerusalem, Acts 15), who was given this authority by Christ Himself (Matthew 16:18-19).

So you can argue tribalism as a hindrance to unity all you want, but as a matter of historical fact and taking the prayer of Jesus in its context, the early Church was Catholic through and through with Peter as its head. Thus those addressed in Jesus’ prayer as future believers are those who will adhere to the authority of the Church He set up through apostolic succession. Which requires, of course, that they be in union with the chair of Peter.

 

[jlhargus]

Examples of how not to be one: One follows Paul, another follows Apollos, and Jim Dandy follows Cephas. Let’s be honest with each other, people, the main barrier to following Christ as one is not doctrinal differences. It’s tribalism, and in this case, it answers primarily to the cult of personality. Doctrinal differences can be worked through,

Let’s do indeed be honest with each other Sixpence. If the MAIN barrier to being ONE, in following Christ, isn’t doctrinal. Then why don’t those thousands of SUBMISIVE denominations just throw their names in a hat and draw one? I come from Protestantism, and have family and friends who still are, your rosy picture isn’t close to reality in the U.S… Unless truth is irrelevant you must first work thru those thousands of trenchant denominational doctrinal differences.

but the most trenchant problem is the attitude that out of all the Christians, you can only work and cooperate fully with the ones who join you in union to the chair of Cephas in Rome.

Well Sixpence since your faith group, by the way what is your faith group, is so submissive and not doctrinally trenchant why doesn’t your faith group just submit to the Orthodox? Especially since that pesky apostolic chair of Cephas, that VISIBLE universal center of UNITY for the body of Christ, is such a trenchant hang up. Or just try the hat thing just to get the ball rolling. Tell me is your faith group also submissive to those denominations who support abortion and same sex marriage or is unity more important than gospel truth?

As long as that is the case, you remain closed off to avenues toward unity apart from that unattainable goal. I'm not talking about a variety of ways you can cooperate, either. I'm talking about a sufficient level of cooperation that you can have with Christians outside your tribe.

The Church is not closed off to avenues toward unity or cooperation but she will not preach another gospel, than that once delivered to the saints, Jude1:3 , for the sake of a false unity.

I think you have mistakenly hit the nail on the head with your remark, “apart from that unattainable goal.” the resut of some Protestant congregations federating, such as Congregationalist, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterians is nothing more than another denomination and more division. You still have Congregationalist, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterians. Now a new denomination called United Chruch of Christ. What’s the point? It never ceases to amaze me. As I see it, it’s, throwing out the gospel making truth of no concern producing yet another new denomination. They only add another division to the already thousands.

God doesn’t show favoritism but He is not indifferent to truth. [Jn8:32 ye shall know the truth, and THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE.] He doesn’t approve false teachers. According to scripture. 2Pt2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in DAMNABLE HERESIES, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; BY reason of WHOM THE WAY OF TRUTH shall be evil spoken of.]

To whom much is given much is required. With Catholics more is required because we have the fullness of the truth and no excuse. That’s why Paul calls the Church the PILLAR and GROUND of TRUTH, 1Tm3:15. Christ promised to lead His people INTO ALL TRUTH not guess work or INDIFFERENCE TO TRUTH. Jn1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

2Jn1: 9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in THE DOCTRINE of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST, he hath both the Father and the Son. 10 IF there come ANY unto you, and bring not THIS DOCTRINE, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

 

[Sixpence]

I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that you feel all Christians are currently “one” in Christ sense all these same Christians follow Christ and not Apollo? Do you consider all protestants currently “one” in Christ? Do you consider all Evangelicals currently “one” in Christ? I’m just trying to understand what this “all be one” would look like from outside my tribe.

I don’t, and I’m sure you don’t, consider JW’s to be Christians, but they do consider themselves Christians. After all, they do follow him – to a point. With this said, would you consider those that adhere to the Nicene creed are “one” in Christ?

Peace!!!

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are the three Abrahamic religions, and they are also grouped together in another way- although they are not the only monotheistic religions, they are the major ones and are therefore known as the three great monotheistic religions. What sets Christianity apart from the other two is the fact that it’s Trinitarian. You know the saying “two points make a line?” Those are the two points- monotheism and Trinitarian doctrine. Jehovah’s Witnesses will disagree, but this is on the basis of a disagreement on what the criteria of Christianity are. If you ask them, Trinitarian doctrine isn’t truly a true doctrine of true Christians (or something like that) and it’s actually a kind of apostasy. This clearly means the Christian claim to Christianity and the JW claim to Christianity are mutually exclusive. We are right, they are wrong, and I have no reason to be uncomfortable with that. Mormons give you the same scenario using the monotheism point on the line more than the Trinitarian one, but both of them are issues to a pretty serious extent. It leads to pretty much the same outcome.

Are Christians united, excluding those termed marginal Christians who tend to be non-Trinitarian and sometimes are something besides monotheistic? No they’re not all united. There aren’t that many who say they follow Paul or Apollos, but there’s plenty who say I follow Cephas. That’s not to say apostolic succession is necessarily bad or wrong, or that the apostles receive too much praise and recognition from some people. But I am saying this- when a person’s refusal to say “I follow Cephas” is sufficient grounds for disfellowshipping that person, and furthermore is met with the analysis that you know what the rules are and you chose to disfellowship yourself by refusing to recognize the necessity of being united to Christ through Cephas, that is disunity. Christians are all united to Christ, but this sort of practice is a description of how Christians can separate from one another and is the reason why Paul-based or Cephas-based tribalism was discouraged in the first place. It matters very little that Rome was able to settle on Peter rather than Paul for the basis of what it did- Rome wasn’t supposed to settle on either one of them.

There are only two points on the aforemebtioned line which describes who is truly a Christian. At some level, you know that submission to the chair of St.Peter is not a third point in that line. Rome knows this in theory, but it would be nice if that somehow caught up to its practice and with its relationships with other Christians. A Christian is one of you, or you could just as easily say one of us. Submission to the See of Rome should have no bearing on who belongs with the “one of us” descriptor. But it does make a difference to you, and you know how it is- on the basis of the first two points, you see me as one of you, but on the basis of your third point, I am not. Number one, your third point shouldn’t exist, and number two- assuming you fail to eliminate it, a high level of commitment to it is an awful thing as far as your unity with non-Catholics. However much that gets emphasized, that is exactly how much you separate yourself from Christians who are rightly regarded as family.

It’s an identity thing. A common identity thing. Petrine primacy brings certain people much closer together- all the people who specifically get with Rome. But it’s detrimental to your unity with all other Christians, and they shouldn’t be any less important to you.

 

[adf417]

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are the three Abrahamic religions, and they are also grouped together in another way- although they are not the only monotheistic religions, they are the major ones and are therefore known as the three great monotheistic religions. What sets Christianity apart from the other two is the fact that it’s Trinitarian. You know the saying “two points make a line?” Those are the two points- monotheism and Trinitarian doctrine. Jehovah’s Witnesses will disagree, but this is on the basis of a disagreement on what the criteria of Christianity are. If you ask them, Trinitarian doctrine isn’t truly a true doctrine of true Christians (or something like that) and it’s actually a kind of apostasy. This clearly means the Christian claim to Christianity and the JW claim to Christianity are mutually exclusive. We are right, they are wrong, and I have no reason to be uncomfortable with that. Mormons give you the same scenario using the monotheism point on the line more than the Trinitarian one, but both of them are issues to a pretty serious extent. It leads to pretty much the same outcome.

Are Christians united, excluding those termed marginal Christians who tend to be non-Trinitarian and sometimes are something besides monotheistic? No they’re not all united. There aren’t that many who say they follow Paul or Apollos, but there’s plenty who say I follow Cephas. That’s not to say apostolic succession is necessarily bad or wrong, or that the apostles receive too much praise and recognition from some people. But I am saying this- when a person’s refusal to say “I follow Cephas” is sufficient grounds for disfellowshipping that person, and furthermore is met with the analysis that you know what the rules are and you chose to disfellowship yourself by refusing to recognize the necessity of being united to Christ through Cephas, that is disunity. Christians are all united to Christ, but this sort of practice is a description of how Christians can separate from one another and is the reason why Paul-based or Cephas-based tribalism was discouraged in the first place. It matters very little that Rome was able to settle on Peter rather than Paul for the basis of what it did- Rome wasn’t supposed to settle on either one of them.

There are only two points on the aforemebtioned line which describes who is truly a Christian. At some level, you know that submission to the chair of St.Peter is not a third point in that line. Rome knows this in theory, but it would be nice if that somehow caught up to its practice and with its relationships with other Christians. A Christian is one of you, or you could just as easily say one of us. Submission to the See of Rome should have no bearing on who belongs with the “one of us” descriptor. But it does make a difference to you, and you know how it is- on the basis of the first two points, you see me as one of you, but on the basis of your third point, I am not. Number one, your third point shouldn’t exist, and number two- assuming you fail to eliminate it, a high level of commitment to it is an awful thing as far as your unity with non-Catholics. However much that gets emphasized, that is exactly how much you separate yourself from Christians who are rightly regarded as family.

It’s an identity thing. A common identity thing. Petrine primacy brings certain people much closer together- all the people who specifically get with Rome. But it’s detrimental to your unity with all other Christians, and they shouldn’t be any less important to you.

Six you must be speaking over my head. I’m not sure about all this math. What I am sure of is this – even if I were not a Catholic and decided to look for another home, I would never be able to understand the disunity among Christians. All I see in multiples as opposed to “one”.

If I were new to this planet and began looking for a Christian home that is “one in Christ” it seems like you are saying “it doesn’t matter”, “all the homes (Christian) out here are good and true”. The good part I can see but how can they all be true? How do I decide which denomination or sect is the “one”? Surly they can’t all be true. How can you justify where one denomination might teach that infant baptism is not only wrong but the opposite is the only truth? Or how can you say that teaching on homosexuality can be as open as it has become in one sect but totally opposed in another? How can these, among others, differences ever be seen as “one in Christ”? I assume this IS what you are saying.

Peace!!!

 

[Sixpence]

A knowledge of the history of Christianity and the history of the Bible written by accredited, university-trained, objective, peer-reviewed historians would serve all Christians well. I recommend Dr. Warren H. Carroll’s A History of Christendom in six volumes. Or, if you’d prefer something more concise, there is Diane Moczar’s little book,* What Every Catholic Wants to Know, Catholic History, From the Catacombs to the Reformation*.

I haven’t seen the second one, but I did explore the first one, primarily looking for anything of value in Roman history through the first two centuries of Christianity. In about one page worth of material, there was nothing. He stated that early secular historians compiled material from that time period and made scarcely any mention of a Christian community in Rome, so he surmises that it must have been under the radar at that time. He also makes a general description of what he imagines it would have been like for Peter, assumes that he must have “ruled” in some sense, and states that his belief in Petrine primacy/supremacy is as much based on faith as his belief in Jesus’ divinity, implying but stopping just short of stating that he, as a historian, has no particularly good reason to believe Peter really ruled in any sense or had some type of primacy.

The best historian on Rome during the first two centuries is actually a Lutheran guy. He brings a whole lot more to the table- more than anyone, actually- and he doesn’t have any reason to believe in PP either. So that’s why he’s still a Lutheran, despite being the leading authority on early Christianity in ancient Rome.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The best historian on Rome during the first two centuries is actually a Lutheran guy. He brings a whole lot more to the table- more than anyone, actually- and he doesn’t have any reason to believe in PP either. So that’s why he’s still a Lutheran, despite being the leading authority on early Christianity in ancient Rome.

Infallible statement or in your humble “opinion”? Did you mention his name somewhere? Perhaps I miissed it?

Peace:thumbsup:

 

[JonNC]

I haven’t seen the second one, but I did explore the first one, primarily looking for anything of value in Roman history through the first two centuries of Christianity. In about one page worth of material, there was nothing. He stated that early secular historians compiled material from that time period and made scarcely any mention of a Christian community in Rome, so he surmises that it must have been under the radar at that time. He also makes a general description of what he imagines it would have been like for Peter, assumes that he must have “ruled” in some sense, and states that his belief in Petrine primacy/supremacy is as much based on faith as his belief in Jesus’ divinity, implying but stopping just short of stating that he, as a historian, has no particularly good reason to believe Peter really ruled in any sense or had some type of primacy.

The best historian on Rome during the first two centuries is actually a Lutheran guy. He brings a whole lot more to the table- more than anyone, actually- and he doesn’t have any reason to believe in PP either.** So that’s why he’s still a Lutheran**, despite being the leading authority on early Christianity in ancient Rome.

Who is it? And may I ask why you are not a Lutheran as a result?

Jon

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Examples of how not to be one: One follows Paul, another follows Apollos, and Jim Dandy follows Cephas. Let’s be honest with each other, people, the main barrier to following Christ as one is not doctrinal differences. It’s tribalism, and in this case, it answers primarily to the cult of personality. Doctrinal differences can be worked through, but the most trenchant problem is the attitude that out of all the Christians, you can only work and cooperate fully with the ones who join you in union to the chair of Cephas in Rome. As long as that is the case, you remain closed off to avenues toward unity apart from that unattainable goal. I’m not talking about a variety of ways you can cooperate, either. I’m talking about a sufficient level of cooperation that you can have with Christians outside your tribe.

Hi Six,

I’m sorry brother, but if I am to be honest I am compelled to tell you that the driving force behind the Reformation is the Doctrine of Justification, it has been almost 500 years and it still hasn’t been worked out

Peace be with you,

Jose

 

[mtolympus]

Today’s reading in John 17: 20-26 reminds me of a question I have been thinking about for a while now. What does “may they all be one…” mean to you?

Jesus prayed to His Father that “they all be one,” “they” meaning all believers: “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word.” (John 17:20)

We as believers must be united and become one in Christ in the same way Jesus and the Father are united as one: “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” (John 17:21)

We must become one in perfect unity with each other and with Christ and the Father in the same way that Christ and the Father are united as one. Through perfect unity with the Father and the Son we may receive the glory that the Father gave to Jesus: “And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one.” (John 17:20-22)

 

[MartinJordan]

Jesus prayed to His Father that “they all be one,” “they” meaning all believers: “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word.” (John 17:20)

You seemed to either avoid or misunderstand in John 17:20 where Jesus prays “through their word”? Their means the Apostles. IE The Apostolic tradition passed down to the ages.

MJ

 

[Sixpence]

Who is it? And may I ask why you are not a Lutheran as a result?

Jon

Let me restate the point that I was making. A Lutheran is a historian, and a very good one at that. He actually becomes the leading authority on early Christianity in ancient Rome and publishes historically comprehensive, excellent work that is practically history-making in and of itself. In the process, he does not discover anything along the lines of Petrine primacy or anything akin to a papal role inside Rome’s city limits or just outside them, which is where most of the significant enclaves of Roman Christians were at the time. Upon becoming the most knowledgeable expert in matters concerning the first two centuries of Christianity in the city of Rome, he did not go running into the arms of holy mother church and start learning Latin.

So why does this not cause me to become a Lutheran? Because historical scholarship on the first two centuries of Christianity in ancient Rome doesn’t give me any reason to want to be Lutheran. There’s no Petrine primacy to be had there either, but a good Catholic probably would have expected him to find something upon closer inspection. I’m not sure what you would expect to find on Lutheranism in first- and second-century Rome, though.

 

[Sixpence]

You seemed to either avoid or misunderstand in John 17:20 where Jesus prays “through their word”? Their means the Apostles. IE The Apostolic tradition passed down to the ages.

MJ

How’s that apostolic tradition? Is it one?

 

[MartinJordan]

How’s that apostolic tradition? Is it one?

For you to be even reading this Biblical passage proves it. No tradition, no Bible.

MJ

 

[mtolympus]

You seemed to either avoid or misunderstand in John 17:20 where Jesus prays “through their word”? Their means the Apostles. IE The Apostolic tradition passed down to the ages.

MJ

I understand John 17:20 to mean that Jesus was praying not only for the Apostles “Neither pray I for these alone” but also for those who would believe in Jesus Christ through the words of the apostles. “but for them also which shall believe on me through their word.” (John 17:20) And that therefore, Jesus was praying that apostles and believers should be united as one as Christ and the Father are one. (John 17:21-22) I don’t think I avoided “Apostolic tradition passed down through the ages” I just couldn’t find that information in the text of John 17:20. It does make sense however, that Jesus’ prayer includes those in the future who believed through the writings of the Apostles.

 

[Cat]

My husband and I, along with our daughter, are converts to Catholicism from evangelical Protestantism.

To the evangelicals on this thread: I grew up in the same church that John Ortberg grew up in. My senior pastor was Harold Christenson, husband of Evelyn Christenson (RIP). One of our pastors was Gary Smalley. Steve Douglass was (and I believe still is?) a member of our church. Dr. Bill Bright, Leighton Ford, and Erwin Lutzer were regular guest speakers at our church. Otis Skillings was our music minister.

In other words, we were involved in top-notch “Christianity Today” evangelical Protestantism.

And my husband and I were evangelicals of evangelicals, involved in many different ministries, mainly with children and youth. It’s often said that in any church, 10% of the people do 90% of the work. We were in the 10%. In fact, I would say that we were in the 1% of the 10%.

And yet, a time came when we were thrown out of the evangelical Protestant church that we had been involved with for seven years. A woman pastor (children’s pastor–you know that true evangelicals don’t believe in woman pastors) accused us (falsely), a tribunal was convened, and men that we didn’t even know and who didn’t know us used the BIBLE to justify treating us with capriciousness and cruelty, and asking us to leave their church. Then they shunned us.

We had no recourse, because this particular church is an Evangelical Free Church in America, which means that it is autonomous, which means that there is no central authority, no “check and balance” to keep heresy out of the church, and no court of appeals for those who have been wronged by that church.

As we were running out of that church, I had a vision of a gigantic Bible crumbling and shearing into strips, like a huge block of mica. I KNEW in that moment that sola Scriptura was a creation of the devil.

My oldest daughter, who was in college at that time (Calvin College), stopped going to church after hearing about what had happened to us. She said, “Mom, if after all your years of service and devotion to the church, they could throw you and Daddy out, then what chance do I have?”

What indeed?

Evangelical Protestant churches are churches of men and women. They CLAIM that the Holy Spirit and the Bible are their authorities. I don’t believe it. I KNOW, after years of involvement in the evangelical Protestant churches, that MEN and WOMEN are the authorities, and that whenever they have different interpretations of the Bible, and different interpretations of the Holy Spirit’s leading, that conflict develops, and people/families get horribly hurt in the carnage of the conflict.

I don’t believe this is what Christ intended in His prayer.

If you read the New Testament, it’s in clear sight. The Early Church was organized, and the organization had a definite structure, with a “head” person (Peter), a group of bishops (James, Timothy, etc.), a group of priests, and the laypeople involved in various ministries. As more churches were added, they all came under the authority of the “Church.” When a church from afar had a question, the church authorities got together to call upon the Holy Spirit and answer the question.

Jesus intended for Christians to be united under One Church, not under myriads of churches. Now I don’t buy the “38,000 denominations”–I think that’s a twisting of numbers. Several hundred denominations, or perhaps several thousand, if you count each non-denominational fellowship as a denomination. But it doesn’t matter. Even two denominations is one too many.

We need to get together, and an honest study of Christian history makes it obvious that from the time of Christ’s ascension, it’s been the Catholic Church. We need to all get back to that.

 

[jlhargus]

Originally Posted by JonNC
Who is it? And may I ask why you are not a Lutheran as a result? Jon

Let me restate the point that I was making. A Lutheran is a historian, and a very good one at that. He actually becomes the leading authority on early Christianity in ancient Rome and publishes historically comprehensive, excellent work that is practically history-making in and of itself. In the process, he does not discover anything along the lines of Petrine primacy or anything akin to a papal role inside Rome’s city limits or just outside them, which is where most of the significant enclaves of Roman Christians were at the time. Upon becoming the most knowledgeable expert in matters concerning the first two centuries of Christianity in the city of Rome, he did not go running into the arms of holy mother church and start learning Latin.

So why does this not cause me to become a Lutheran? Because historical scholarship on the first two centuries of Christianity in ancient Rome doesn’t give me any reason to want to be Lutheran. There’s no Petrine primacy to be had there either, but a good Catholic probably would have expected him to find something upon closer inspection. I’m not sure what you would expect to find on Lutheranism in first- and second-century Rome, though.

You fail to answer Jon’s question who is this Lutheran who is an historian. Doesn’t he have a name.

 

[jlhargus]

How’s that apostolic tradition? Is it one?

Yes it is ONE, one deposit of faith delivered thru the Apostles by THEIR WORD. [Jude1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for **the FAITH which was ONCE DELIVERED unto the saints.

Our gospel delivered by the Apostles whether by WORD (oral Apostolic Tradition) or EPISTLE (written Apostolic Tradition). [2 THES 2:14 Whereunto he called you by **OUR GOSPEL, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and HOLD the TRADITIONS which ye have been TAUGHT, whether BY word, OR our epistle.]

[1Thes2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when **ye RECEIVED the WORD OF GOD which ye HEARD of US, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is IN TRUTH, the WORD OF GOD, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.]

Jn14: 26: But the Comforter, which is THE HOLY GHOST, whom the Father will send in my name, he SHALL TEACH YOU ALL THINGS, and bring all things to your remembrance, WHATSOEVER I have SAID UNTO YOU.

2Tim2:1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And THE THINGS that THOU HAST HEARD OF ME among many witnesses, THE SAME COMMIT thou TO FAITHFUL MEN, who shall be **ABLE TO TEACH OTHERS **also.

2Tim1:13 HOLD FAST the form of SOUND WORDS, which thou hast HEARD OF ME, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 THAT GOOD THING which was COMMITTED unto thee KEEP BY THE HOLY GHOST which dwelleth IN US.

[2Thes3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye **WITHDRAW yourselves FROM EVERY BROTHER THAT WALKETH disorderly, and NOT AFTER THE TRADITION which he RECEIVED OF US.] It seems Tradition is of such importance that one who does not follow them are to be shunned. Sounds like.

[Mt18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, **TELL IT UNTO THE CHURCH: but IF HE NEGLECT TO HEAR THE CHURCH, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

 

[jlhargus]

Originally Posted by JonNC
Who is it? And may I ask why you are not a Lutheran as a result? Jon

You fail to answer Jon’s question who is this Lutheran who is an historian? Doesn’t he have a name?

 

[Sixpence]

For you to be even reading this Biblical passage proves it. No tradition, no Bible.

MJ

I’ll be more specific. Which/how many sees bear the name of an apostle and claim apostolic succession from then till now, how many of them are in union with each other as you understand apostolic union, and how many of those apostolic seats are in union with Rome?

In other words, how is that apostolic unity- right now- today? Is it aight?

 

[Sixpence]

Originally Posted by JonNC
Who is it? And may I ask why you are not a Lutheran as a result? Jon

You fail to answer Jon’s question who is this Lutheran who is an historian. Doesn’t he have a name.

Sorry, I guess I overlooked that question. His name is Peter Lampe. Last I heard, he’s been working with a team on a new task- uncovering, compiling, and building on existing information concerning Montanism. Before too long, he will be the go-to guy on both early Roman Christianity and Montanism. He’s meeting a couple of needs that historians have had for quite some time.