I don’t know.
Ah, very good, then! So you are in agreement with the Catholic Church on this particular issue?
Slow down .Before we get to Eusebius Iraneus nowhere says the church was built on Peter alone etc .It is built on the Apostles -(12-me and Revelations)), and in Rome by Peter and Paul alike. Yes, now Eusebius has much stronger words in that regard and is 150 years later.He also tried to undo some of findings of Nicene council, and was a “flattereer” as he did to Constantineat the council.
Agree with the order being spoken then written.
Now you have tradition, of doctrine, not just practices ( meeting on sunday, celebrating Easter , communion reading of scripture etc -simple things). Beyond that,( what the apostles spoke and wrote), is dangerous territory, and whether right or wrong, can become tradtion ( 2-7 sacraments or ordinances, or transubstantiation or consubstantiation or symbolic ? or etc. ,etc.)
I am confused by this comment, poco. Could you please re-phrase what you’re trying to say?
And I just enjoyed my Keurig cup of coffee. Maybe it reads as you suggest that Peter founded and Paul organized. See, English writing comprehension is tricky when not exact . You could read it both ways -they both founded and organized, or one founded one organized. I take it futher and say maybe the “ancient” Church is the one to be listened to, and it’s branch in Rome founded by P&P.It is readable that way .(I thought earlier text by others had "ancient church-don’t see it in yours) .Anyways ,not sure they were there at same time.
Yes, quite universal-I hope ( don’t know about all the 30,000 d’s).
Now, don’t be coy.
Thanks for asking. See, when one is not explicit - quick, not long, it may not be clear to the reader, though it is to the writer. I wonder if Iraneus, though very gifted with writing, anxious to write one thing only brings up need for more writing, as is our occasion here… Hopefully you understood the order of conveyed truth, that first it was the oral gospel preached by the apostles and disciples, and later it was their writings that we rest upon. The thread I responded said “written and spoken”. It was my way of agreeing, just switched the order for historical precision sake… Just after this came his word of “Tradition” and truth which I know plays an equal part for you-the 'Tradition"- that is not necessarily explicit in Holy Scripture or is an interpretation of Scripture. I am reminded by Catholics of scripture saying to hold on to tradition given you, as do a few early fathers also. I was trying to differentiate, describe what is meant by tradition by some of the earliest fathers. When it is used, and rarely before Iraneus, it means simpler things like I posted, that we meet on Sunday, sing, read, communion, perhaps celebrate Easter, that kind of tradition. I do not refer to tradition as “doctrinal” -or interpretations that lead to doctrine and practices. That is, I do not think Paul and early fathers had in mind things they taught doctrinally but just didn’t get into Holy Scripture. For instance, I do not think they meant praying the rosary, or to saints or the confessional, l or even Petrine doctrine, and effectual sacraments, or at least the number of them…You know I do not deny these things/traditions exist today and have for centuries, and that at some point fathers were very,very explicit about them. I also understand you say they are from the beginning, and are not contrary to scripture. Tradition can be good, and I like the first tradition of all- " It is well, that he who is learned of the judgements of the Lord, as many as have been written, should walk in them." Barnabus ( 98 A.D. ?). Hope you understand our differences.Thanks
Sorry, I think I said in one of the threads that if you are “righteous” you are regenerated, though not indwelt by HS. Again this is in lands where Gospel has not reached.Now, don’t be coy.
You are in agreement with the Roman Catholic Church, then, regarding being righteous before being regenerated, yes?
Yes, but what if YOU were to discover that all the first Christians were really Catholic?
Yes, I remember that too, but not sure where. It gives the impression that another person had already “built” or laid a foundation. Some have speculated that this is a reference to Peter being there, but it seems likely Paul greeted personally everyone he knew.
Paul sure seemed to think it was incumbent upon him to do so, specifically as the “Apostle to the Gentiles”. One has to wonder what it was like for Peter and Paul to be there together, if they labored together, or if they ministered to Jews and Gentiles respectively. It is also curious that there is no line of bishops going back to Paul, as there is in all the other parts of the world he visited.
I think not. But clearly a community of believers existed prior to there arrival. I have always understood Irenaeus to mean that they build a strong Apostolic Foundation beneath that church.
The evidence seems to indicate he remained in Palestine for at least 20 years.
We have little evidence to support this. On the contrary, if Peter had been in Rome, Paul would have likely included him in the greetings to those he knew (last chapter).
Ironic then that the best I could do with all Adam’s “good” bestowments was to realize I was “bad” and had no righteousness- I was naked as Adam after the fall, hiding. And even that realization was a pure, gracious gift.
forget calvin
He was born again before he was born again ? He was regenerate as much as you can outside of hearing the gospel. Maybe he was about to become a Jew, certainly Jews were capable of regeneration before Jesus. They did have the Court of the Gentiles in the temple-a place for "catechumen’ of sorts maybe .Don’t know really.
Need yes, desire no.
Absolutely
“You are of the elect” , “I have chosen you ,you have not chosen me”, “Predestined since before the foundations of the world”
That’s a shame, pocohombre, to rest upon only their writings. That leaves you at a great deficit, does it not, to not be privy to ALL of the apostles’ teachings?
So how does one become righteous without being regenerated? Is not one either joined to the first Adam, or the Second?
