How are we saved?

[twb1621]

Randy Randy Randy, Jesus is an expert builder of his church, it’s Peter who seems to get things mixed up.

Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him." *Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 (c. A.D. 96). *

“I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 4 (c. A.D. 110).

'You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth." Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter, fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, II:25 (c. A.D. 178).

“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.” *Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (c. A.D. 180). *

“As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out.” Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History, VI:14,6 (A.D. 190)

“It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the Church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid: ‘But I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian way, you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church.’” Gaius, fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, 2:25 (A.D. 198).

“[W]hat utterance also the Romans give, so very near (to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood.” Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4:5 (inter A.D. 207-212).

'We read the lives of the Caesars: At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising blood. Then is Peter girt by another (an allusion to John 21:18), when he is made fast to the cross." Tertullian, Scorpiace, 15:3 (A.D. 212).

“Peter…at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer this way.” *Origen, Third Commentary on Genesis, (A.D. 232). *

“Thus Peter, the first of the Apostles, having been often apprehended, and thrown into prison, and treated with igominy, was last of all crucified at Rome.” *Peter of Alexandria, The Canonical Epistle, Canon 9 (A.D. 306). *

“[W]hich Peter and Paul preached at Rome…” Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, 4:21 (A.D. 310).

“Peter…coming to the city of Rome, by the mighty cooperation of that power which was lying in wait there…” *Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, II:14,5 (A.D. 325). *

“This man [Simon Magus], after he had been cast out by the Apostles, came to Rome…Peter and Paul, a noble pair, chief rulers of the Church, arrived and set the error right…For Peter was there, who carrieth the keys of heaven…” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures ,6:14-15 (c. A.D. 350).

“And Peter, who had hid himself for fear of the Jews, and the Apostle Paul who was let down in a basket, and fled, when they were told, ‘Ye must bear witness at Rome,’ deferred not the journey; yea, rather, they departed rejoicing…” Athanasius, Defence of his Flight, 18 (c. A.D. 357).

“I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul…My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross.” *Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15 (A.D. 377). *

“For if when here he loved men so, that when he [Peter] had the choice of departing and being with Christ, he chose to be here, much more will he there display a warmer affection. I love Rome even for this, although indeed one has other grounds for praising it, both for its greatness, and its antiquity, and its beauty, and its populousness, and for its power, and its wealth, and for its successes in war. But I let all this pass, and esteem it blessed on this account, that both in his lifetime he wrote to them, and loved them so, and talked with them whiles he was with us, and brought his life to a close there.” *John Chrysostom, Epistle to the Romans, Homily 32 (c. A.D. 391). *

don’t be afraid to read the rest at the link.
Continued at;
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html#tradition_I

 

[twb1621]

Randy Randy Randy, Jesus is an expert builder of his church, it’s Peter who seems to get things mixed up.

“The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth … But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.” *Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96). *
“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love…” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).
"There is extant also another epistle written by Dionysius to the Romans, and addressed to Soter, who was bishop at that time. We cannot do better than to subjoin some passages from this epistle…In this same epistle he makes mention also of Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians, showing that it had been the custom from the beginning to read it in the church. His words are as follows: To-day we have passed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your epistle. From it, whenever we read it, we shall always be able to draw advice, as also from the former epistle, which was written to us through Clement.’ Dionysius of Corinth, To Pope Soter (A.D. 171).
“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).
"A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour’s Passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour…Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicated.” Pope Victor & Easter (c. A.D. 195). “And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.” *Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256). *

Continued at;
scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html#tradition_I

Now I could quote many supporting Biblical verses but they for a good part have been so far and the interpretations have been accurate unlike most of yours. You may someday recognize that Peter did not initially hold a Bishops position because He was traveling all over to proclaim the Word of Jesus as Instructed after being chosen the authoritative of the initial apostolic group. Paul became the Bishop of Antioch while in the presence of and in agreement with Peter . Peter after leaving Antioch went on to Rome and established the Bishop’s seat and recognized seat of authority there. Paul never accompanied Jesus and was NOT one of the original Apostles as they are referred to throughout scripture.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Yes, but not because the Bible says so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Keeran
Can one know what this means?
2 Timothy3:16-17 “All Scripture is God-breathed …so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Do you believe the NT to be the God-breathed scripture?

SteveGC: Yes, but not because the Bible says so.

Yet the NT as inspired scripture says it is inspired.

Quote:
Do you believe one can read and understand it?
Within the proper apostolic framework, yes. Outside of that proper human teaching and guidance, no. Notice that the verse above does NOT say “read”. It can be easily inferred that Scripture is ALL these things, under the tutelage and guidance of Spirit-led teachers.

Are the “Spirit-led teachers” inspired by the Spirit? Who are they after the NT?

Quote:
Do you believe the scripture thoroughly equips?
Sure, but not because this verse says so. Again, it’s only referring to the OT. Don’t you believe the NT thoroughly equips too? Why? Scripture doesn’t say it does.

NT scripture does say it is scripture because it is God-breathed.

Quote:
And this:
2 Peter 1:20-22 “Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

Does this mean: a) the reader cannot understand the Scripture? or b) that the Scripture did not originate with the prophet but with the Holy Spirit?

So you agree this passage is talking about the origin of the scriptures not the inability of the reader to understand it.

Quote:
Is this passage telling us: a) how the Scripture “came about”? or b) how the meaning of scripture is to be explained and taught to others?

C) both

What words tell us how scripture is to be explained and taught to others?

Quote:
Catholicism has always used the above passage to say: a) the reader cannot understand Scripture, and b) the Scripture must be explained and taught only by those “who have the transference of the Spirit of God to protect them from error …inspired, sent preachers.”

Correct, but change a) to say, the reader cannot fully understand Scripture by reading it on their own without first being exposed to, and remaining within the framework of, b)

Where does scripture say B?

Quote:
And this:
Acts 17:11 “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”

It is not only possible but it is indeed a noble thing for one to examine the Scriptures to see if a teaching or claim is true.

Why did the Bereans search the Scriptures? Because they were the sole source of revelation and authority? No, but to see if Paul was in line with what they already knew—to confirm additional revelation. They would not submit blindly to his apostolic teaching and oral tradition, but, once they accepted the credibility of Paul’s teaching as the oral word of God, they put it on a par with Scripture and recognized its binding authority. After that, like the converts who believed in Thessalonica, they espoused apostolic Tradition and the Old Testament equally as God’s word (see 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:16)…

So you agree that like the Bereans, it is a noble thing for anyone to examine scripture to see if the claims and pronouncements of a person are in line with known scripture.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Where does scripture say B?

Scriptures give examples of an authority needed to explain scriptures…

**Nehemiah 8

1And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that was before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded to Israel.

2And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month.

3And he read therein before the street that was before the water gate from the morning until midday, before the men and the women, and those that could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law.

4And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood, which they had made for the purpose; and beside him stood Mattithiah, and Shema, and Anaiah, and Urijah, and Hilkiah, and Maaseiah, on his right hand; and on his left hand, Pedaiah, and Mishael, and Malchiah, and Hashum, and Hashbadana, Zechariah, and Meshullam.

5And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people) and when he opened it, all the people stood up:

6And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the LORD with their faces to the ground.

7Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place.

8So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.**

**Act 8:30 And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?
Act 8:31 Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

Act 8:35 Then Philip, opening his mouth and beginning at this scripture, preached unto him Jesus.**

So you agree that like the Bereans, it is a noble thing for anyone to examine scripture to see if the claims and pronouncements of a person are in line with known scripture.

Acts 17:10 - 12
10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men. (KJV)

After searching the Scripture, MANY of them believed. That implies that MANY of them did not. They searched the same Scriptures, and yet disagreed. And, we can assume that the Greeks probably did not search the Scriptures at all, yet a “number of them” believed.

It was Paul’s preaching with authority that led them to believe…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So you agree this passage is talking about the origin of the scriptures not the inability of the reader to understand it.

Scriptures are the inerrant, inspired word of God. That means it’s infallible. Is man’s interpretation of scriptures infallible? Don’t forget, even satan knew scriptures…

What words tell us how scripture is to be explained and taught to others?

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Eph 3:10 That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church

2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Scriptures are the inerrant, inspired word of God. That means it’s infallible. Is man’s interpretation of scriptures infallible?

You want to believe that Peter was the first occupant of the office of pope with successors down to the present time.

1. In order for the papacy or an earthly head of the church with successors to be true as a protector of truth, it would logically have to be described from the beginning of the church in the apostolic period and not as a later development.
2. For the office of papacy to be true, it would need to be described with qualifications for successors, in the inspired writings among the gifts given by Christ when he ascended into heaven in Ephesians 4:7-16, yet the papacy is conspicuously absent.
3. Such a fundamentally important central role as the papacy, in order to be true, would be a central repeated theme of writings by the first Christians: Luke, James, John, Paul, and Peter himself, yet there is not a single mention.
4. Although “head of the church” is a phrase, office, and title in scripture, only Christ and never Peter was ever referred to as such.
5. Peter is not explicitly identified as the head of the church in the Jerusalem council in Acts.15; rather James makes the closing summary, although even James is not identified as sole head or bishop of the Jerusalem church.
6. Peter is never identified in scripture as the singular bishop of the Jerusalem diocese or of any diocese.
7. If there was an infallible head of the church and voice of Christ on earth with successors after Peter, there are no claims, writings, or pronouncements from them until Victor blunders onto the scene with his error, even though the entire NT was written when the apostles and church were persecuted from the beginning.

If the church was intended to be built on none other than the pope or person of Peter, why is he not mentioned at all by one of the most important first Christians in the following passage speaking of who the church is built on?

Ephesians 2:19-22 “Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You want to believe that Peter was the first occupant of the office of pope with successors down to the present time.

1. In order for the papacy or an earthly head of the church with successors to be true, it would have to be described from the beginning of the church in the apostolic period.
2. For the office of papacy to be true, it would need to be described with qualifications for successors, in the inspired writings among the gifts given by Christ when he ascended into heaven in Ephesians 4:7-16, yet the papacy is conspicuously absent.
3. Such a fundamentally important central role as the papacy, in order to be true, would be a central repeated theme of writings by the first Christians: Luke, James, John, Paul, and Peter himself, yet there is not a single mention.
4. Although “head of the church” is a phrase, office, and title in scripture, only Christ and never Peter was ever referred to as such.
5. Peter is not explicitly identified as the head of the church in the Jerusalem council in Acts.15; rather James makes the closing summary, although even James is not identified as sole head or bishop of the Jerusalem church.
6. Peter is never identified in scripture as the singular bishop of the Jerusalem diocese or of any diocese.
7. If there was an infallible head of the church and voice of Christ on earth with successors after Peter, there are no claims, writings, or pronouncements from them until Victor blunders onto the scene with his error, even though the entire NT was written when the apostles and church were persecuted from the beginning.

If the church was intended to be built on none other than the pope or person of Peter, why is he not mentioned at all by one of the most important first Christians in the following passage speaking of who the church is built on?

Ephesians 2:19-22 “Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.”

I’m sorry, I searched your post and cannot see where you answered my question.

Is man’s interpretation of scriptures infallible?

It seems we have a difference in interpretation and I have provided scriptures telling us the Church is the pillar and ground of truth and the manifold wisdom of God maybe made known through the Church, which is where I accept an interpretation. Please show me the scriptures that tell us that we should individually interpret scriptures for ourselves and that multiple interpretations are TRUTH.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

I’m sorry, I searched your post and cannot see where you answered my question.

Is man’s interpretation of scriptures infallible?

It seems we have a difference in interpretation and I have provided scriptures telling us the Church is the pillar and ground of truth and the manifold wisdom of God maybe made known through the Church, which is where I accept an interpretation. Please show me the scriptures that tell us that we should individually interpret scriptures for ourselves and that multiple interpretations are TRUTH.

We are told the scriptures are able to make one wise unto salvation, that it fully equips for every good work, that one should handle it properly, that we are to receive it with meekness because it is able to save our souls, and that it is a noble thing to examine the scriptures to see if claims about faith are true. Do you know the scripture references I am referring to?

What say you of my statements on the papacy?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

We are told the scriptures are able to make one wise unto salvation, that it fully equips for every good work, that one should handle it properly, that we are to receive it with meekness because it is able to save our souls, and that it is a noble thing to examine the scriptures to see if claims about faith are true. Do you know the scripture references I am referring to?

What say you of my statements on the papacy?

I apologize but I am not really interested in entering a dishonest discussion in nature. Answering questions with questions is not being honest, in my opinion.

Please provide the scriptures that specifically tell us it’s acceptable to accept private interpretations and how to know which interpretations are correct? It’s quite evident there are multiple interpretations of scriptures by the number of denominations, with different doctrines, all based on private interpretations.

I’ll be glad to address the primacy of Peter once you do.

 

[SHW]

Can one know what this means?
2 Timothy3:16-17 “**All Scripture **is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be **thoroughly equipped **for every good work.”

It actually says Scripture is “useful.” It does not say that Scripture is self-sufficient. Scripture is a useful tool of the Church for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, etc.

According to Scripture, the Church is the pillar/support and ground/foundation of the Truth, not Scripture. The Church is needed to interpret Scripture correctly because Scripture cannot interpret Itself. (1 Timothy 3:15) The Church came first. The Church authorized the Bible. The Bible did not authorize the Church! Jesus built a Church, not a Bible.

And this:
2 Peter 1:20-22 “Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never **had its origin **in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

Catholicism has always used the above passage to say: a) the reader cannot understand Scripture, and b) the Scripture must be explained and taught only by those “who have the transference of the Spirit of God to protect them from error …inspired, sent preachers.”

I prefer the RSV translation: 2 Peter 1:20-22 “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”

This means that Scripture must not be subjected to arbitrary interpretation based on a person’s feelings or vague mythical speculation. This Scripture is in regards to the truth of Jesus’ Second Coming. Look back to vs. 16. Peter is speaking of witnessing the Transfiguration as proof of Jesus’ Second Coming. The Church is the authority for the interpretation of Scripture, not individuals.

And this:
Acts 17:11 “Now the Bereans were of more **noble character **than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”

It is not only possible but it is indeed a noble thing for one to examine the Scriptures to see if a teaching or claim is true.

The Bereans were searching OT Scripture to see if what Paul was saying about Jesus being the Messiah was true, in order for them to consent to become Christians.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

I apologize but I am not really interested in entering a dishonest discussion in nature. Answering questions with questions is not being honest, in my opinion.

Please provide the scriptures that specifically tell us it’s acceptable to accept private interpretations and how to know which interpretations are correct? It’s quite evident there are multiple interpretations of scriptures by the number of denominations, with different doctrines, all based on private interpretations.

I’ll be glad to address the primacy of Peter once you do.

I think it is supremely illogical to say the scripture needs to be correctly interpreted or explained by some infallible person or hierarchy in order for the individual to know truth. If so, who then needs to interpret the interpretations, and then the interpretations of the interpretations of the interpretations? How many layers does one require between the scripture and the one seeking to understand it?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Daniel,

I wanted to explain how I see your responses are not being honest in a discussion.

You asked for examples of where scriptures must be explained and I responded with post #414. You did not address the scriptures provided. In the same post, #414, I addressed your point of the Bereans, which you did not respond too.

In my post, #415, I responded to your question of, “What words tell us how scripture is to be explained and taught to others?” Again, you did not respond. You did however, come back with questions on the primacy of Peter.

When you respond to the points and questions raised by your original questions and points, I will be more than happy to address the primacy of Peter with you. Answering questions with questions, or a change of subjects, is not being honest in a discussion. Most posters here know the faith, very well and are ready for any points or questions, but we require the courtesy of fully discussing subjects before jumping to something new.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I think it is supremely illogical to say the scripture needs to be correctly interpreted or explained by some infallible person or hierarchy in order for the individual to know truth. If so, who then needs to interpret the interpretations, and then the interpretations of the interpretations of the interpretations? How many layers does one require between the scripture and the one seeking to understand it?

See, you answered questions with questions again.

Christ built a Church. Christ chose and appointed, or ordained, Apostles. Christ gave them authority. Most private interpretations are under an assumption of authority, clearly not given when reading scriptures in context, of who was being spoken too, as well as within the passage a verse is written.

Now, we cannot add to scriptures, so please show us the scriptures that support the private interpretation of scriptures and who has the authority to say their interpretation is correct over any other interpretation, or else we’re stuck in a circular discussion. It appears you believe in sola scriptura, yet that teaching is not in, or implied in, scriptures.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

See, you answered questions with questions again.

Christ built a Church. Christ chose and appointed, or ordained, Apostles. Christ gave them authority. Most private interpretations are under an assumption of authority, clearly not given when reading scriptures in context, of who was being spoken too, as well as within the passage a verse is written.

Now, we cannot add to scriptures, so please show us the scriptures that support the private interpretation of scriptures and who has the authority to say their interpretation is correct over any other interpretation, or else we’re stuck in a circular discussion. It appears you believe in sola scriptura, yet that teaching is not in, or implied in, scriptures.

I think unless we address the subject of the papacy, there is no point in discussing whether or not the seed of the kingdom can be understood by a sincere and honest heart.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I think unless we address the subject of the papacy, there is no point in discussing whether or not the seed of the kingdom can be understood by a sincere and honest heart.

It appears you have an agenda you feel you must stick too. I have posted explanations, scriptures and early Church fathers supporting my view of the primacy of Peter on the thread you started to avoid the questions and points being raised in this thread. Since I provided that in your “new” thread, I would appreciate your comments on the responses to your questions and points on this thread. It is a courtesy expected on the apologetics forums…

 

[golfjack]

I believe Catholic’s believe in apostalic succession. But what does this mean? Is it a position of authority, where one may rule over God’s people?
Peace, Golfjack

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I believe Catholic’s believe in apostalic succession. But what does this mean? Is it a position of authority, where one may rule over God’s people?

    Peace,   Golfjack

The Apostles were chosen and ordained by Christ. Peter was set apart as a leader. Scriptures clearly tell us how that authority was shared among others.

**Eph 2:20 Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

Eph 4:11 And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors:

1Co 12:28 And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.
1Co 12:29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors?

Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.

Act 1:25 To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.
Act 1:26 And they gave them lot, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

1Ti 3:1 A faithful saying: If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth good work.

1Ti 3:8 Deacons in like manner: chaste, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre:

1Ti 5:17 Let the priests that rule well be esteemed worthy of double honour: especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

1Ti 4:14 Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.

1Ti 5:22 Impose not hands lightly upon any man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins. Keep thyself chaste.

Act 14:23 (14:22) And when they had ordained to them priests in every church and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed.

2Ti 2:2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men who shall be fit to teach others also.

Tit 1:5 For this cause I left thee in Crete: that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee:**

Please provide scriptures where men ordained themselves, or others, or assumed authority through themselves or others not chosen by Christ or the Apostles.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

It appears you have an agenda you feel you must stick too. I have posted explanations, scriptures and early Church fathers supporting my view of the primacy of Peter on the thread you started to avoid the questions and points being raised in this thread. Since I provided that in your “new” thread, I would appreciate your comments on the responses to your questions and points on this thread. It is a courtesy expected on the apologetics forums…

I did not start this thread and will discontinue for the moment. I think it is most courteous to respond to the points made in the OP, and so I have begun a new thread in hopes people will respond to points in my OP there.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I believe Catholic’s believe in apostalic succession. But what does this mean? Is it a position of authority, where one may rule over God’s people?

    Peace,   Golfjack

**Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have that are not of this fold: them also I must bring. And they shall hear my voice: And there shall be one fold and one shepherd.

Joh 21:15 When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.
Joh 21:16 He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.
Joh 21:17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.**

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I did not start this thread and will discontinue for the moment. I think it is most courteous to respond to the points made in the OP, and so I have begun a new thread in hopes people will respond to points in my OP there.

How convenient to decide to go back to the original topic of the thread when it’s clear you have avoided answering questions and points put forth in response to your questions and points.

Now we should respect the privacy of this thread and go to a thread you started so as we can stay with an agenda you have laid out. I’m sorry, but I’ll be honest and blunt, this is highly suspect, in my opinion. This is why I find your attempts at discussion to be less than honest.

Would you care to share your agenda with us?