How do protestants explain the time between Christ and the reformation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eark
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
hope said:
Who belongs to the Catholic Church?

836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God… and to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation.

837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter. Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.
Click to expand...
You do know the response I’m sure.

Shortened up, If all this is of no consequence, everyone is OK, then so what? What’s the big deal?
 
Last edited:
hope said:
You tend to twist our beliefs in order to promote your anti-Catholicism
Click to expand...
hope said:
You also fail to understand that the Church did not come out of Scripture but that Scripture came out of the Church.
Click to expand...
That’s simply not true. I have stated in this thread the church came before scripture. I don’t think anyone can deny that. Catholicism states she was said church and this is where we disagree. I have yet to twist anything about Catholicism. The only source I have quoted from concerning what Catholicism is Catholicism itself. How can I twist their own words when that is the source? I’m not misquoting or fabricating anything…
hope said:
I am still waiting for those historians that have a different history that are non-bias. Are you sure that you just didn’t make a mistake when you wrote that?
Click to expand...
The word of God is truth so I would hope you would agree it’s unbiased.

The entire claim by Catholicism of apostolic succession is false and it’s scripture that proves so. All 12 apostles received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. All 12 worked miracles and could see the heart of man. Surely if the Pope’s have been the succession of the apostles, or just Peter as Catholicism claims, show me proof of the Pope’s power. Surely if they have the same power as Peter and the apostles this won’t be hard to accomplish. After all Catholicism claims almost 2000 years of Pope’s so the miracles they have performed through that time must reach an indescribable amount.
 
There isn’t one scripture even hinted at where the apostles ever claimed they would leave successors. When the apostles were closing in on death they never talked about leaving a successor. Why not? It was the perfect time to do so you would think. 2 Peter 1-2

1.This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour

Peter plainly declared that the things of Christ would be recalled through his writing.
Paul is writing in 2 Timothy 4 about his death close at hand. Again, there’s no mention of a successor anywhere.
The words of Jesus was spoken to the apostles only. All 12 were given the power through the Holy Spirit. We know the apostles in some cases chose men to assist them from Acts 14:22. Those men were in two classes, deacons & priests. What were the qualifications again of the priests?
1 Timothy 2-5
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
A bishop must be the husband of one wife? It’s a prerequisite according to Paul.

The 2nd main point about Bishops. They were not to have control over an entire state, country, or the world. They were to be overseers of the local congregations. What did Peter say to the Bishops? 1 Peter 5
2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind.

The Bishops oversaw one church. Paul knew a great apostasy would begin after his departure. He said so in scripture both in 2 Thessalonians 2:7 and Acts 20:28-31. Where does Paul say the apostasy will arise? From within the Church and he’s talking to the Elders here, not the entirety of the Church.
 
TULIPed said:
40.png
steve-b:
now now, :roll_eyes:
Click to expand...
See - I knew there was a (sort of) softy in there somewhere 😉
Click to expand...
🤣…
 
Thirdly, concerning Bishops or the overseers of the church, further instructions are given in Acts 14:23 from the Catholic bible

23 In each of these churches they appointed elders, and with prayer and they commended them to the Lord in whom they had come to believe.

Multiple elders, bishops in each church?? That’s in stark contrast to the Council of Nicia which forbade more than one bishop in a city.
 
You’re simply wrong. Jesus said it’s not what goes into your mouth that defiles you, it’s what comes out.
 
Gingersnaps4 said:
Your post reads like a Seventh Day Adventist tract. It is inaccurate though. In Acts Paul celebrates the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week and we have preserved actual early Christian writings from well before Constantine that detail the Lords day being the day of worship for Christians.
Click to expand...
I would consider Ellen White a false prophet and am not a 7th day adventist.

I’ve already stated breaking bread and preaching doesn’t make a day holy. Look at Acts 2

46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Is everyday Holy now because they were breaking bread? No they were eating. In Acts 27
33 And while the day was coming on, Paul besought them all to take meat, saying, This day is the fourteenth day that ye have tarried and continued fasting, having taken nothing.
34 Wherefore I pray you to take some meat: for this is for your health: for there shall not an hair fall from the head of any of you.
35 And when he had thus spoken, he took bread, and gave thanks to God in presence of them all: and when he had broken it, he began to eat.

He’s eating with the sinners. That’s it.

Acts 20: 7-11.
This event actually takes place on Saturday night and not Sunday morning as many suppose. Notice Paul preached until midnight, there were many lights (it was dark outside), Eutychus fell asleep (it was late at night), and Paul preached until the break of day and then went on a trip. Paul preached Saturday night and left Sunday morning on a journey. He didn’t go to church on Sunday morning.

What is the biblical day? The evening and the morning were the 1st day. This is how the Jews, Paul included, considered days.

Jesus kept the Sabbath. The apostles likewise. Again, there is no command to change the Sabbath in scripture. Jesus said nothing would change from the law, which were the 10 commandments, until Heaven and earth passed away. Keeping the Sabbath and remembering it’s holiness is part of the law Jesus is talking about. Jesus has all the authority and not a man made organization.
 
In other words, your initial statement was false.
Catholicism claims its own history but unbiased historians have written the truths.
Click to expand...
IF you cannot see Peter as leader of the Apostles you are not paying attention. Jesus changed his name. Look at scripture that God changed other named. It only happens to three other people. Each time was a significant event and it changed the person and gave them a new role. It was no different with Peter he is the rock upon which Jesus built His Church.
 
It is not a command to have a wife but that they can only be married one time.

Paul is not talking of an apostasy. In one he talking of the anti-Christ in the other he is talking of false teachers and heresies.
 
hope said:
In other words, your initial statement was false.
Click to expand...
Catholicism claims apostolic succession. There were once 3 men all claiming to be the Pope. Which one was the correct one? Finally all 3 were voided out by the church and a 4th was instituted as the Pope. But who was the pope during those 3?
hope said:
IF you cannot see Peter as leader of the Apostles you are not paying attention. Jesus changed his name. Look at scripture that God changed other named. It only happens to three other people. Each time was a significant event and it changed the person and gave them a new role. It was no different with Peter he is the rock upon which Jesus built His Church.
Click to expand...
 
hope said:
It is not a command to have a wife but that they can only be married one time.
Click to expand...
A bishop then must be, then lists each attribute including being married. He expounds even more to the point of saying this

4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

Yet you claim it’s not a direct instruction.
 
I don’t except Peter was given any authority greater than any other apostle. I’ve given my reasons which are all founded in scripture, not the traditions.

All 12 apostles have thrones in Heaven. None are mentioned to be of higher stature. All 12 are given the same job in Heaven of judging the tribes of Israel.

Look at Peter’s own words. What did Peter say concerning the Church and Christians? If you really think he is the leader of the apostles why not take Peter at his own word?

Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,

2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

Every single Christian, from the time of Peter, unto the end of this world are all lively stones that build up Christ’s Church. Jesus is the cornerstone. Peter affirms this. All Christians are saints not people deemed so by man.

If ever in all of scripture Peter could claim to be the head of the body of Christ that was the time to do so. What does he say instead? We’re all the same. He also doesn’t take the time to say anything about leaving 1 line of successors.
 
Not my claim. I am saying you are misreading it as a command to have a wife and that is not what it says. You are misinterpreting the number one which indicates how many times he can be married not that he has to marry. If he meant that he had to have wife he would have said he must have wife not limiting it by a number. Yep it is not a direct instruction to marry.
Must Bishop’s Be the Husband of one wife?
 
I’m not misreading the passage and I explained why. Paul doesn’t stop when saying a bishop must be married. He expounds that he must rule over his house and children because if he can’t rule his own house, he surely can’t take care of a church (house of God).
 
You ignore that Jesus gave Peter a new name, The Keys to the Kingdom, and said He was building His Church on Peter. Do you know what a corner stone is? Of course Jesus is the cornerstone. Peter is not denying he is leader nor does he say Jesus didn’t give me the Keys. Scripture also says Ephesians 2:20
So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the holy ones and members of the household of God,built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
Again you do not acknowledge that Jesus gave the Keys to Peter and Peter alone. That there anti-popes does not mean there was no pope. The list of popes are easily available. Your attempt to say that there was not an unbroken line is historically untrue
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top