I respectfully ask evangelical, protestant and sola scriptura proponents...

[Portrait]

First, the NT provides no office of “priest”. Second, Mal 2 is a very strong indictment against the priesthood. ”1And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you…2 If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith Jehovah of hosts, then will I send the curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings; yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart.” This chapter is actually indicating that God is abrogating the Levitical priesthood for its evils – notice the “past” tense used in verse 5. Verse 6 is a reiteration of Levi’s obligation under the covenant - one which he faithfully kept. However now, it is an obligation continually violated by Israel’s priests. Verse 7 can now be understood in its context that it is the statement of an ideal violated and not the indication of any reliability of human priests. As biblical scholar George Buttrick puts it: “The institution of sacerdotal man has been demonstrated throughout five thousand years of human history as a shamefully incompetent and ineffective device.” Israel’s priesthood succeeded little better than the pagans in the communication of God’s will to humanity.

We see no evidence of a NT office of priest and besides as we just saw in the entire chapter of Mal 2 God essentially condemned and abrogated the priesthood, although, it would find its total physical destruction when the Temple was destroyed in 70AD.

Hello again, dear friend.

There is indeed an “indictment” against the priesthood in Malachi chapter two and they are sharply reproved for their neglect of the covenant. However, this in no wise undercuts the truth expressed in verse 7, namely that it is the duty and privilege of the laity to seek from Catholic priests and the Church the true and authentic interpretation of Sacred Scripture, for they alone are the messengers of the Lord God. Again, even Protestant exegetes would not entirely disagree with this. Let us hear what good old Matthew Henry says on this text: “They should seek the law at his mouth”; they should consult the priests as God’s messengers, and not only hear the message, but ask questions upon it, that they may the better understand it and that mistakes concerning it may be prevented and rectified" (Matthew Henry’s Commentary, Isaiah - Malachi vol. 4, Hendrickson Publishers 2000, p. 1170, emphasis mine). The Catholic would heartly concur with this, with the proviso that a man consult the rightful priests of the New Covenant who stand in the Apostolical Succession. If Protestants apply this to their own clergy, then we are bound to ask to which clergy is a man supposed to repair for a true and authentic understanding of Sacred Scripture. Since there are multitudes of denominations, this is very daunting task indeed and all boils downs to personal opinion and temperament in the final analysis. Most reasonable men will agree that this is not how Christ intended it when He established the one true Church.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[pablope]

The term “Moses’ seat” most likely refers to the chair from which the Scriptures were read

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
First, the NT provides no office of “priest”.

Really?

The first, presbyteros (πρεσβυτερος), Latin presbyter, is traditionally translated priest and the English word priest is indeed etymologically derived from this word; literally, it means elder, and is used in neutral and non-religious contexts in Greek to refer to seniority or relative age. The second, hiereus ('ιερευς), Latin sacerdos, refers to priests who offer sacrifice, such as the priesthood of the Jewish Temple, or the priests of pagan gods

 

[Portrait]

We see no evidence of a NT office of priest and besides as we just saw in the entire chapter of Mal 2 God essentially condemned and abrogated the priesthood, although, it would find its total physical destruction when the Temple was destroyed in 70AD.

These verses have nothing to do with whether or not Scripture is perspicuous. It should be no secret that the NT illuminates the OT which is simply what Philip was doing here - he preached the Gospel which was later written down so that we would always have truth… In addition, we see that God gave us teachers to help guide us, noticeably though, God does not say He has given us either a pope or magisterium.

Dear kelman,

Whether or not the word priest is used to denote the Christian ministry in the N.T. depends on which translation you happen to be using, so that is inconclusive. In any case, the Catholic argument does not stand or fall upon the occurence of any particualr word or translation, but on the meaning or content of those words. In the N.T., certain men were ceremoniously empowered to teach the faithful, administer the sacraments and lead the Church. Such men would be called priests in our use of the word. The word used for those men in Greek were ‘presbyteros’, which can be translated as priest, elder or presbyter. Presbyteros became ‘presbyter’ and ‘priest’ in English, whilst in Latin, the word, ‘sacerdos’ was also used for priest, from the words meaning, ‘to give the sacred’. St. Paul speaks of himself as “a minister of Christ Jesus…in the priestly service of the Gospel”.

You say that “God gave us teachers to help guide us”, but the questions remains, dear friend, which teachers? Who do I as a potential convert to the Christian religion repair to for an authoritative and true interpretation of Sacred Scripture? Which ecclesial communion among the Protestants will faithfully instruct me unerringly in the truth,? You see this is the problem with Protestantism, there is a total absence of any interpretative authority and hence all these denominations, who decide the meaning of Scripture and what is to be believed. To your average thinking man this is not the model for His Church that Christ intended. Moreover, it is evidence that something has gone seriously wrong somewhere - the Reformation with its undergirding principle of sola scriptura!

Indeed, St. Philip was illuminating the O.T., but as an official teacher of the one Church. The Ethiopian, living a great distance from the received expounders of Sacred Scripture, feels that a dark passage such as he was reading required trained instruction. Thus he uses the word which is employed for the guidance given by a teacher to a pupil.

It is true that there is much in the bible which at once commends itself even to the unsophisticated, such as, for example, a large part of the moral precepts, but when it comes to the many of the fundamental and disputed doctrines a guide is essential, otherwise men are wont to fall into error. Thankfully God has given us this guide in the magisterium of the Church. Now a man who says, “I have no need of some official guide, for I am quite sufficient of myself; I trust to my own private judgement”, takes a very different view of his spiritual capacities and discernment from what the holy, truth-seeking Ethiopian did. As to which is likely to be right, I will let you judge. If it be said that the Holy Spirit is given to guide us into all truth, we agree that this is so as far as the Church is concerned. Moreover, we observe here that this guidance was not given to the learner but to the teacher, the official agent of the Church and rightful expounder of Sacred Scripture.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[jlhargus]

KELMAN: First, the NT provides no office of “priest”. Second, Mal 2 is a very strong indictment against the priesthood. ”1And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you…2 If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith Jehovah of hosts, then will I send the curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings; yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart.” This chapter is actually indicating that God is abrogating the Levitical priesthood for its evils – notice the “past” tense used in verse 5. Verse 6 is a reiteration of Levi’s obligation under the covenant - one which he faithfully kept. However now, it is an obligation continually violated by Israel’s priests. Verse 7 can now be understood in its context that it is the statement of an ideal violated and not the indication of any reliability of human priests. As biblical scholar George Buttrick puts it: “The institution of sacerdotal man has been demonstrated throughout five thousand years of human history as a shamefully incompetent and ineffective device.” Israel’s priesthood succeeded little better than the pagans in the communication of God’s will to humanity.

JL: First the NT does provide an office of “priest”. KING, PRIEST and PROPHET. AS king to rule the congregations in his jurisdiction, that they all maybe ONE, so the world may believe the Father SENT Christ. As priest to santify those congregations, through the Word and sacraments. As prophet to teach and proclaim the Word of God. Second Mal2 is a very strong indictment against the Levitical priesthood. Mal1:11 prophecies a new priesthood of Gentiles.

[Malachi 1:11 For FROM THE RISING OF THE SUN even UNTO the GOING DOWN of the same my name shall be great among THE GENTILES; and IN EVERY PLACE INCENSE shall be OFFERED unto my name, AND A PURE OFFERING: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts. [Only priests make offerings. That PURE OFFERING=sacrifice, this IS my body, this IS my blood, is our Eucharistic (Thank Offering, Todah in Hebrew) Lord Jesus Christ. Animal sacrifces had to be clean, but they could never be pure, only Christ our sacrifice is that PURE OFFERING from the rising to the setting of the sun.]

[Rv 5:6 And I beheld in the midst of the throne … stood a Lamb as it had been slain… Hb 7: 17 …Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. Hb 7:24 … THIS MAN … continues ever … an unchangeable priesthood 25 Wherefore he is able also to save … seeing he ever lives to make intercession for them. … Hb 8 … We have such an high priest… 2 A minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle … 3 … every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices wherefore IT IS OF NECESSITY THAT THIS MAN HAVE SOMEWHAT ALSO TO OFFER 4 … priests that offer gifts according to the law 5 … serve to the EXAMPLE and SHADOW OF HEAVENLY THINGS… … 6 But now has he obtained a more excellent ministry… MEDIATOR OF A BETTER COVENANT … Hb9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; BUT into HEAVEN itself, NOW TO APPEAR IN THE PRESENCE OF GOD FOR US:]

Malacahi 1:11 …from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles and IN EVERY PLACE INCENSE shall be offered to my name AND A PURE OFFERING] The prophecy of Malachi implies Gentile priest will offer incense and make a pure offering (sacrifice) to the Lord’s Name from the rising to setting of the sun in every place. That is fulfilled in the Catholic Church as that same once for all sacrifice of the cross is made present at Mass which is celebrated by priests in every parish daily in all places of the world. The Orthodox Church has this same pure offering also.

The fruit, of the the Tree of Life=Cross, our Passover Lamb is eaten at mass. [Hb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren THAT HE MIGHT BE a merciful and faithful HIGH PRIEST in things pertaining to God TO MAKE RECONCILIATION FOR THE SINS OF THE PEOPLE 1Jn 2:2 2 And HE IS THE PROPITIATION FOR OUR SINS: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. [Hb9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. 23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but **THE HEAVENLY THINGS themselves WITH BETTER SACRIFICES than these. 24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now TO APPEAR in the presence of God FOR US:] BETTER SACRIFICES, plural, because that once for all sacrifice of Christ is made sacramentally present to us every time mass is offered. This IS my body, this IS my blood, with these words the living memorial sacrifice is accomplished by the sacaramental separation of body and blood showing forth Christ’s death.

Hb7:25 Wherefore HE IS ABLE also TO SAVE THEM to the uttermost THAT COME UNTO GOD BY HIM, seeing HE EVER LIVETH TO MAKE INTERCESSION FOR THEM. Hb12:22 but YE ARE COME UNTO MOUNT SION, and unto THE CITY OF THE LIVING GOD, the HEAVENLY JERUSALEM, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and TO GOD THE JUDGE OF ALL, and TO THE SPIRITS OF JUST MEN MADE PERFECT, 24 And TO JESUS THE MEDIATOR of the new covenant, and TO THE BLOOD OF SPRINKLING, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

 

[Portrait]

Protestant clergy are more capable of guiding their flock than is the RCC if they restrict their instructions to the written Word of God-the only thing God calls inspired. True, they do not claim “infallibility”. This was a doctrine established by your church in modern times however a biblical basis is lacking.

Dear kelman,

Hello again.

The assumption that the truth can be discovered from the bible alone has actually eroded the Christian faith. The notion that the bible can be read alone is the underlying principle of modernist bible critics. Severing themselves from a traditional interpretation of Holy Writ, highly ‘qualified’ scholars dispute or undermine the fundamental tenets of Christian orthodoxy. Essential truths such as the Virginal Conception, the Incarnation and even the Resurrection have come to be “reinterpreted” in such a manner as to virtually to denude them of any historical reality in fact. Clergy in many Protestant denominations may say that they believe in the core doctrines of our most holy religion, but when pressed they admit that no one really knows what these doctrines mean, thus the “Incarnation” might mean that “in some way Jesus shows us what it means to be fully human and hence divine”.

Liberal bible scholars are at liberty to offer their ‘deconstructed’ version of the Christian faith because their underlying assumption is sola scriptura. In other words, they believe that there is no authority other than the bible. If they read the bible and discover that the Incarnation is a myth, the Virgin Conception a fairy tale and the Resurrection a piece of first-century wishful thinking, then there is no logical reason why their interpretation should be any more invalid than any other man’s. Now of course those Protestant conservatives who vehemently disagree with the modernists will fire off a volley of biblical references and adduce their own scholars to support their own evangelical position. Unfortunately the liberal scholar will do exactly the same. You see, my dear friend, without some larger authority it boils down to personal opinion and preference. Sola Scriptura leads to private interpretation, that admits of no doubt. Now if private interpretation is truly the correct principle, then the radical theologian’s conclusions are just as valid as the next man’s. If that is true, then we have ended up like Pontius Pilate, shrugging our shoulders and remarking cynically, “What is truth anyway?”.

Protestantism is declaring loudly that there is no way to ascertain the truth for certain and that is why it is an uncertain guide for the immortal souls of men. Is it really possible that we have a Gospel to proclaim, good news for men in all the earth, but that God has not provided a certain and sure way for us to understand and apply that Gospel? The Catholic and common sense reply with a resounding no. Jesus Christ did establish the one true Church upon St. Peter and this Church is visible in the world today and is called the Catholic Church and she does provide an infallible interpretative authority for all mankind, if only they will listen to Her voice. It is inconceivable that God should have left His Church bereft of a visible guide and a visible head. Moreover, this is not biased Catholic opinion, but a self-evident truth that emerges from the character of God. We may infer from God’s great love for His Church and His high purposes for it, that He would not have left it to fall into error and divide endlessly into a multitude of denominations, for such a view strains credulity. A visible guide is surely the inevitable consequence of the character and high purposes of God.

Goodbye and God bless for now, dear friend. Thankyou for your time and a charitable and jolly riveting debate.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

Pax

 

[kelman]

The substantiation comes in the form of the early church not teaching a papacy, infallibility and most of the Marian doctrines.

Since it is you who appear to be making a positive claim for the teaching of the above doctrines in the early church, the burden of proof is upon you.

You “actually believe” that sin is paid for in purgatory whereas the Bible says that the Lord Jesus paid for all sin. And since this is the claim of Scripture, evidence needs to be presented which somehow negates this claim.

Let me correct you false understanding of Catholic doctrine. Purgatory is a temporal punishment to pay for oursins. It is only possible because Jesus’ work of the Cross is full.

Did I say differently?..no, I did not. As you said above, you pay for your sins in purgatory, however, the Bible says that Christ did this - not you. Apparenty, Jesus’ work at the cross was not “full” or complete since you are still paying for your own sins as you just said.

So, with that said, now you can give reasons why that is not true based on the Catholic doctrine and not kelman’s version of a Catholic doctrine

I just did. The Bible says that Christ paid for all sin. RCC says man must also pay for his own sins…we just don’t find that in the Bible.

I’m sure you are not claiming infallibility for yourself, therefore, you use your fallible private judgment when you decide to agree with “whatever the Church believes”.

Nope. That is not a necessary inference. I don’t need to defense myself from somebody who acts like they know what I think.

I know what you think only insofar as you have decided(fallible private judgment) to believe the doctrines of the RCC thereby giving up any further use of your private judgment.

Sorry if I misunderstood, however, it does seem that you’re saying here that the “words of God” were passed down orally. If you mean anything other than the written Scriptures, then again I would have to ask where are these oral “words of God”?

Good question. Yes, I am saying that. In the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Curch

Well, then present the evidence for your claim. Present an authoritative word from the Lord Jesus or His Apostles not contained in the Bible.

Yes, Jesus and the Apostles preached and many believed. However, we can only know what Jesus and the Apostles taught by virtue of the written Scriptures left for us. We find that when Peter knew the end was in sight for him, his concern was to write down the truth so that we may have “these things always in remembrance” (2Peter 1:15).

“Only”? Now that needs proof.

The “proof” is in the fact that there are no authoritative or inspired words of Jesus or the Apostles that are not found in the Bible.

Question: how were people supposed to know the Truth of salvation before even the first book of the New Testament?

No one denies that the Apostles first preached the way of salvation before they penned Scripture. However, as Peter instructs us, he wrote(Scripture) so that we might have the truth because he would no longer be with the church.

 

[kelman]

I suggest that you provide here what your definiton of “paid for”…what do you mean by it. I think it boils down to how different your understanding is compared to that of the Catholic Church.

That’s a good point…what does the Bible mean by “paid for”?

The word redeem Lutroo as used in Titus 2:4 is defined as:

1. to release on receipt of ransom
2. to redeem, liberate by payment of ransom
   1. to liberate
   2. to cause to be released to one’s self by payment of a ransom
   3. to redeem
   4. to deliver: from evils of every kind, internal and external

To redeem * Exagorazo* as used in Gal 4:5 is defined as:

1. by payment of a price to recover from the power of another, to ransom, buy off
2. metaph. of Christ freeing the elect from the dominion of the Mosaic Law at the price of his vicarious death

Redemption Apolutrosis as used in Rom 3:24.
a releasing effected by payment of ransom

1. redemption, deliverance
2. liberation procured by the payment of a ransom

Therefore, we see that “paid for” means that the Lord paid the price so that we do not have to - He is the holy Substitute.

Sorry if I misunderstood, however, it does seem that you’re saying here that the “words of God” were passed down orally. If you mean anything other than the written Scriptures, then again I would have to ask where are these oral “words of God”?

Did Jesus command a book to be written? Can you cite a chapter and verse where this is commanded?

Are you suggesting that the Apostles woke up one day and decided to take it upon themselves to pen inspired Scripture?..that they were acting contrary to God’s wishes? In any event, there is more than sufficient Scriptures to tells us that God intended to write precisely as He did. In the following God tells John to “write in a book” and Peter attesting to the fact that the prophecies of Scripture came from God.

2 Peter 1:19-21 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Rev 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

Rev 1:19 **Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter; **

Rev 2:1 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;

Likewise, John is told by God to “write” to the next six churches which follows in Rev 2:1, 8, 12, 18 and Rev 3:1, 7, 12, 14, 18 and Rev 10:4; 14:13; 19:9; 21:5.

In chapter 36 we see God telling Jeremiah to write it in a book: 1And it came to pass in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, that this word came unto Jeremiah from the LORD, saying, 2 Take thee a roll of a book, and write therein all the words that I have spoken unto thee against Israel,…"

The Lord is called the “Word”. He tells us that He comes in the “volume of the book”. He tells us the Word of God is Theopneustos(God-breathed) and that He will judge this world by His “Word”.

Psalm 138:2 **I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. **

So yes, God commanded His Holy Book to be written and we see how important Scripture is to God - should it be less so for us?

The words of God were indeed passed down orally, some of which were later committed to writing, but not all. If you think all…then you will have to provide Bible chapter and verse where this is stated in the Bible.

Rather, the burden of proof is upon you, if you are asserting there are authoritative inspired words from God or His Apostles…you are going to have to supply them. Why should I accept what you say when no proof is ever offered?

Extracting of doctrines came only during the time of your Reformation grandfathers.

Well, we know that the ECFs would not agree with you because it was from Scripture that they derived their beliefs and in fact they use Scripture to defend against heretical doctrines. In the following words, we see Hilary extracting doctrines concerning the nature of God: *'I am that I am (Exod. 3: 14), in language best adapted to human understanding, an incomprehensible knowledge of the divine nature" *[FN20 [De Trinitate] I.5.7–9.]

“not measure God’s nature by the laws of his own nature but judge God’s assertions by the magnificence of God’s testimony about himself’.”[FN40 [De Trinitate] I.18.14–16.]

 

[PRmerger]

The substantiation comes in the form of the early church not teaching a papacy, infallibility and most of the Marian doctrines.

Since it is you who appear to be making a positive claim for the teaching of the above doctrines in the early church, the burden of proof is upon you.

Ask and you shall receive!

Peter’s Role as Vicar of Christ’s Church** Proved **from Scripture
Originally posted by Randy Carson

In John 21:15-19, the resurrected Christ, commands Simon Peter three times to “feed my lambs” and “tend my sheep.”

15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed (bosko) my lambs.” 16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of (poimanao) my sheep.” 17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, "Feed (bosko)my sheep.

In this passage, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Who feeds, tends and cares for sheep? A shepherd!

Unfortunately, many non-Catholics object to the Catholic understanding that Peter was given this unique leadership position, and they cite a passage from earlier in this same Gospel wherein Jesus presents Himself as the Good Shepherd, and says there is to be but “one flock and one Shepherd.” (John 10:11-16) Therefore, the immediate question springs to mind: If Christ is the Good Shepherd, why can’t He “feed” and “tend” His own sheep?

Of course, Jesus is God, and He is clearly capable of taking care of His own flock – even after He ascends to heaven. So, why does He appoint Peter to this role? Obviously, all sheep belong to Christ, and they do not cease to belong to Jesus after the ascension. Yet, Peter is told to “feed” and “tend” them. Jesus commissions Peter to act as His “stand-in” or “vicar” after the ascension. Jesus will remain the one Shepherd, yet Peter will “feed” and “tend” the sheep, in the sense that Jesus will not be physically present to do it. Thus, Peter will be the visible, vicarious shepherd of the flock.

Because of the implications of this earthly authority and the unique Catholic claims for the papacy, non-Catholics seek alternative explanations for Jesus’ words. One attempt is to claim that Peter simply has the same authority to care for the flock of Christ that all of the other apostles had. However, this argument fails for two reasons.

First, the extent of the authority Jesus gave to Peter can be seen quite clearly in the original Greek. For example, the word which is used for “feed” in John 21 is bosko – a word which the Jewish historian Philo of Alexandria, and other 1st Century writers, use to denote “spiritual nourishment.” Similarly, the word “tend” is poimanao – the same Greek word which is translated as “rule” in passages such as Matt 2:6, Rev 2:27, Rev. 12:5, and Rev. 19:15, where it is applied to Jesus Himself. Peter, like Jesus, is to “rule” over the sheep, and to “supply them with spiritual nourishment.” Thus, Peter is established as the vicarious shepherd (i.e., “supreme pastor”) of the Church in Christ’s physical absence.

While it may be argued that any shepherd would have similar responsibilities for his sheep and that the Bible is full of passages using the relationship between sheep and shepherd as a metaphor for our relationship with God, in the context of the New Testament, only Peter received this unique appointment directly from Christ Himself. Jesus took great care to identify Peter’s new responsibility as head of the Church with His own role as Head of the Body, the Church. No other Apostle received this focus.

Second, in Luke’s Last Supper account, we see quite clearly that Peter was singled out to play the role of a leader and unifier among the Apostles. The passage is as follows:

Luke 22:31-32
“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers. 33But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.” 34Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”

In Luke 22:31-32, Satan sought to destroy all of the Apostles, but Jesus prayed for Simon Peter alone that Peter might strengthen all of the other Apostles whose faith would be shaken, as well. Clearly, Peter is not merely “one Apostle among others.” Rather, he is also responsible for the welfare of all. That is a special ministry – the ministry of the vicarious shepherd. No other Apostle is given the responsibility for caring for the Twelve in this way, and this assignment is all the more significant when we consider that in the following verses (v. 33-34), Jesus predicts Peter’s three-fold denial. Despite Jesus’ foreknowledge of Peter’s denials, Jesus prays for and assigns to Peter the task of caring for the others.

to be continued…

 

[PRmerger]

continued…

taken from original post by Randy Carson:

In summary, we know that Jesus is the Good Shepherd and that there is one Shepherd and one flock (cf. John 10). Yet, in the passage from John 21, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Peter becomes the shepherd who will lead the flock after Jesus’ ascension. Therefore, while Jesus is forever our Good Shepherd reigning from heaven, He has made provision for us by naming someone else to stand in His place, to be His vicar, here on earth. The Vicar of Christ established by Jesus is the Pope of the Catholic Church.

Not only does Peter (and his successors, the Popes) hold the keys to the kingdom of God (cf. Mt 16:18, Is. 22:22), but he holds the shepherd’s crook or crozier, as well.

 

[Nicea325]

Extracting of doctrines came only during the time of your Reformation grandfathers.

kelman:

Well, we know that the ECFs would not agree with you because it was from Scripture that they derived their beliefs and in fact they use Scripture to defend against heretical doctrines. In the following words, we see Hilary extracting doctrines concerning the nature of God: 'I am that I am (Exod. 3: 14), in language best adapted to human understanding, an incomprehensible knowledge of the divine nature" [FN20 [De Trinitate] I.5.7–9.]

“not measure God’s nature by the laws of his own nature but judge God’s assertions by the magnificence of God’s testimony about himself’.”[FN40 [De Trinitate] I.18.14–16.]

Wrong! And the ECF’s would also correct you… You only gave a portion of the truth and ANY ECF would tell you the same. Tell me kelman,if the ECF’s derived and defended heretical teachings with Scripture,kindly point to us the Scripture which allowed to them to develop and defend the canon of the Bible?

BTW: You need to stop isolating passages from the ECF to prove your agendas. I am telling you, it is easily noticable to acknowledge what you are doing. That is the typical method many Protestants try to prove their man-made Protestant beliefs.

 

[jmcrae]

Then I ask again for an example of an authoritative word from the Lord or His Apostles that is not found in Scripture? You assume an “authentic voice” but have not offered any scriptural evidence for a universal authoritative interpretive body. The church did very well on its own without a pope or a magisterium for hundreds of years – so what changed?

St. Peter and the Apostles were the Pope and the Magisterium of the Early Church. Their successors were the Bishops of the second century - St. Ignatius, St. Clement, et al. Those guys weren’t just peasants hanging around on street corners. They were the authorities in charge of Christ’s Church, and the direct spiritual ancestors of our Catholic Pope and Bishops. The Church was never a rag-tag assembly of ne’er-do-wells just hanging around. Why would anybody have felt the need to listen to them and obey them, if they had been? The structure and the authority has always been there, right from the start.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Since it is you who appear to be making a positive claim for the teaching of the above doctrines in the early church, the burden of proof is upon you.

Actually, my response was to a watered-down version of your premise that “modern RCC doctrine” is contrary to what the early church believed.

So, the burden of proof is on you also.

As for me, our beliefs have been proven many times on this site. So, just seek and you shall find.

Did I say differently?..no, I did not. As you said above, you pay for your sins in purgatory, however, the Bible says that Christ did this - not you. Apparenty, Jesus’ work at the cross was not “full” or complete since you are still paying for your own sins as you just said.

So, tell me. Are you or are you not responsible for you sins?

Also, are you or are you not held accountable for those sins?

If yes to both, then Purgatory is necessary because Jesus did pay the full price. Purgatory is only there because of Christ’s work on the cross.

If not, then Jesus only paid the discounted price, the one where we are not responsible or accountable for our sins.

I just did. The Bible says that Christ paid for all sin. RCC says man must also pay for his own sins…we just don’t find that in the Bible.

See above

Well, then present the evidence for your claim. Present an authoritative word from the Lord Jesus or His Apostles not contained in the Bible.

Read the last few verses of John 20. And you will see why your request is not necessary.

But if you insist on your folly, I refer you to the Sacred Tradition of the Church.

The “proof” is in the fact that there are no authoritative or inspired words of Jesus or the Apostles that are not found in the Bible.

So, you have alleged already, Doubting Thomas.

No one denies that the Apostles first preached the way of salvation before they penned Scripture. However, as Peter instructs us, he wrote(Scripture) so that we might have the truth because he would no longer be with the church.

I agree. This is not what we are disputing.

Sola Scriptura assumes that all Christians had Scripture. If not, then they were unable to know the truth of salvation.

What I am wondering is this:

I will submit that not all Christians had Scripture. Writings were obviously not as quickly abundant as they are now. So, how was each individual supposed to know that what they heard was indeed true, not by the authority of Oral Tradition and the Church?

 

[GreggAlvarez]

I know what you think only insofar as you have decided(fallible private judgment) to believe the doctrines of the RCC thereby giving up any further use of your private judgment.

You just don’t get it. Do you, O Clairvoyant One? YOU CAN’T TELL PEOPLE WHAT THEY THINK, ESPECIALLY IF THEY KEEP TELLING YOU THAT YOU ARE WRONG! (This also applies to beliefs, but you have stopped doing that. You are not as incorrigible as I had previously thought.)

I may not be the most intellectual, or intelligent, or faithful of Christians (I am the farthest from it), but I do know what I think, and I also know what I don’t think.

So, I sincerely ask that you stop it. I don’t care if you think it is true. Your thoughts have no bearing on the reality of things. That should be needless to say, but apparently it isn’t.

Just like I can’t tell you or anybody what they think, the same goes for everybody else. Especially if the person corrects you. Why people insist on being wrong about others? I don’t know.

So, please. Stop being uncharitable (in the manner stated above). Again, I don’t care if you under the opinion that you are right. I am not here to change opinions. Just please, stop it.

Pretty please? With some Cool Whip on top? Like the pumpkin pies? No?

 

[Ryan_Love]

I gonna make it real simply for you Catholics. Jesus Christ our god IS JEWISH. Our God is The God of The JEWS. Jesus came to profile the prophecy of the old Testament. The Main Reason why I and other have resentment for the Catholic Church is for the following Reason.

1. The false claim that the Catholic church is the original Church. Romans Was originally Zeus worshipers who almost destroyed Christianity ,and later converted to Christianity, then merged pagan stuff with Christ to convert the pagan faster. Their religion was called The Roman Catholic Church. this is the root of all the anti Catholic Feeling.
2. One of your Pops claims that only Catholics will go to heaven, while in truth as long as you believe in Jesus Christ as lord your pretty much good.
3. Most importantly, where in the bible does it say we have to sing praises to Mary or do the Rosery? it all resembles ancient stuff of the past. Where I come from, if you sing songs of praises to a person its a form of worship.

Basically anybody who follows Jesus Teachings and the Ten commandments will be saved. The Only Reason all the other churches exist is because we view the Catholic church is wrong on many issue, so to correct the error we tried to mold our self as close to the Original church as possible.

Unfortunately, because Jesus birthday is celebrated on a pagan gods birthday, its even harder to untangle one self from the deception. dec 25 is Mithras B Day and guess who messed that up for us. “The Shocking Pagan Origin of CHRISTMAS!”

This Is Why I became Jewish/Christan because I hate merging God with pagan mess;Unfortanlty my family still pratices this holiday so I once again have to deal with the it .

The other churches are not perfect,but in truth they were all originally Catholic. We forgot our roots and some of the other churches even teach the Old Testament is obsolete what a horrific way some other sects are going. I used to be Baptist, but now I trust no Church because I can read I have two eyes God’s Message is clear.

can you Prove to us that you are the true church of god.that praying to marry is acceptable? prove to use with the Bible?

Now after sharing my Belief I want to make a closing statement. I bare no hatred for Catholics but this is the truth take it or leave it.

 

[Ryan_Love]

I forgot to Answer the Question in my first Response. Only Jesus Christ, God, and the Holy One Has the Authority to Start any church. If you were not giving the Divine thumbs up then you are an apostate church or infidel.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Most Protestants (and some Catholics) do not know that the New Testament consists of 27 of the Catholic Church’s own writings and that the Catholic Church formed the Bible at the end of the fourth century.

The NT was based on the Church, not vice versa. One criteria for selecting the canon was whether the writing in question mirrored the Catholic Church’s teachings. Those who claim the Church is “unbiblical” are totally misled.

 

[jmcrae]

Therefore, we see that “paid for” means that the Lord paid the price so that we do not have to - He is the holy Substitute.

So, if a murderer repents and asks Jesus for forgiveness, does he still have to go to jail, or not?

If he still has to go to jail, does this mean that Jesus’ death on the Cross cannot save him from his sins, or that the Judge is imposing an unnecessary penalty on him, since Jesus paid the price, and he should not have to pay any price?

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by kelman View Post
Therefore, we see that “paid for” means that the Lord paid the price so that we do not have to - He is the holy Substitute.

Makes one wonder why Jesus tells us to pick up our crosses and follow Him:

Then he said to them all: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me.

Or why scripture says:

Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church…

Now if we are children, then we are heirs–heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

So do not be ashamed to testify about our Lord, or ashamed of me his prisoner. But join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the power of God,

For just as the sufferings of Christ flow over into our lives, so also through Christ our comfort overflows.

 

[kelman]

Absolutely, the Apostle’s teaching authority came from God, however, nowhere do we see the Apostles handing-down their apostolic authority…

None of those verses suggest Paul was handing down his apostolic authority. The context of Titus 2:15 indicates that Paul was exhorting Titus to maintain and to teach the sound doctrine he had been taught.

Titus 1:5-9 also says nothing about handing down apostolic succession. These verses are giving the qualification for elders to be appointed in each city, no suggestion of Paul making Titus his successor. In fact, verse 1 demonstrates how the early churches were led by a plurality of elders - not by one bishop.

Titus 3:1 is speaking about being subject to “civil” powers. Christians are to obey their government in all things lawful. Iow, we are obliged to pay our taxes and follow the speed limit…no matter how much we’d prefer not to!

God made full provision for His church when He inspired the Bible and gave the Holy Spirit to enlighten those who come humbly and prayerfully to Scripture. Where do we find the light to instruct us?.. Ps 119:105 claims it is from God’s words. Where do we go to find faith?..Ro 10:17 say to the Word of God…

Ok, Romans 10:17 says nothing of “Scripture only” neither does that Psalm passage. They only mention the Word of God. (This is what Sacred Tradition is: the Word of God, both oral and written.)

There is no authoritative inspired “oral” tradition - at least no one has ever identified or offered any. No one has ever offered one authoritative inspired word from either the Lord or His Apostles that is not found in Scripture.

So, to say what you just said is to do exactly what Hilary had spoken against (which I imagine you trust and agree with his words), reading into the text what is not there and reading into the text what you believed prior to that specific reading. In other words, you are reading into the text that Word of God means and only means “Scripture Only”.

It depends upon the context, obviously the Apostles were preaching “the word of God” and, of course, the Lord Jesus is “the word of God”. The context determines how we are to understand the phrase. For example Col 1:5 can be understood to mean the written Scriptures. Still, it’s a mute point because today the only place we can go to find the inspired words of God is to the Bible.

As a side note, most people use the argument “in remembrance is symbolic” to prove that the bread and wine are not literally His Body and Blood. Do you agree with the use of “remembrance” in that argument?

No, I don’t see the phrase to be necessarily supportive of a symbolic view of the Lord’s Supper; only that we are to remember His death as we partake of the bread and wine.