Is Protestantism , in it's nature, a heresy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wandile
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
highrigger1 said:
pat,

Apostolic succesion as it has traditionally been taught has been rejected by the historians. I am happy to agree with this definition by Raymond Brown

"Apostolic Succession concerns the fact that the bishops eventually took over
the pastoral tasks of the apostles;It does not involve HOW the early bishops
were chosen or appointed. We know little about that, not even being certain
that there was a formal action designating them…That does not mean of course
that all the presbtyer-bishops of the early church were appointed by apostles,
but there is a good chance that somewere that occurred…Eventually, of course,
the church developed a regularized pattern of selection and ordination of bishops,
and from the third century on that was universally followed.
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers On The Bible. page 120.
Approved for publication with the Imprimatur.

Irenaeus was a bishop but not a priest.

Protestants are entirely within the succession as defined above. Our bishops and pastors have take on the tasks of the apostles.

Peace, JohnR
Click to expand...
Oh really? and when was your Church founded that it received apostolic succession?
 
Patavium said:
Yes indeed. Our friend highrigger1 cites what is adequate for him such Irenaeus citation of his famous book. However, He forgets that Irenaeus did believe in Apostolic succession.

highrigger1, please approach your arguments as a whole rather than buying pieces at a supermarket.
Click to expand...
pat,

I never said Irenaeus did not believe in a succession of bishops. He of course accepted the myths even though today we know they have been debunked.

How about some civil discourse? I do not ridicule you. Peace, JohnR
 
highrigger1 said:
Our bishops and pastors have take on the tasks of the apostles.
Click to expand...
That’s the problem in a nutshell. I would encourage you to read By What Authority? In it, you will find the following (emphases mine):
God the Father (the superior authority) sends Jesus Christ “…these very works which I am doing, bear me witness that the Father has sent me.” (John 5:36)

Jesus, in turn, sends the Apostles “…As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” (John 20:21)

Jesus sends these Apostles “as the Father has sent me,” that is, in the same manner, with the same authority: “all authority.”

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Matt. 28:18)

The Apostles, then, did not take their office and authority upon themselves, but were appointed by a Superior Authority, Jesus Christ. The Scriptures attest to the unique authoritative status of the Apostles in several ways, which we will examine now.

Scripture shows that only the Apostles are “entrusted” with the care of the Gospel message:

• St. Paul

“…they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised.”(Gal. 2:7)

“…in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.” (2 Cor. 5:19)

“…in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.” (1 Tim. 1:11)

• St. Timothy

“Paul, Silvanus [Silas], and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians… we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel.” (1 Thess. 1:1, 2:4)

“O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you.” (1 Tim. 6:20)

“…guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.” (2 Tim. 1:14)

You may object at this point that St. Timothy was not an apostle. I will concede that he was not an “Apostle,” with a capital “A,” but you must concede that Scripture clearly calls St. Timothy an apostle, thereby attesting to his apostolic authority:

“Paul, Silvanus [Silas], and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians… nor did we seek glory from men, whether from you or from others, though we might have made demands as apostles of Christ.” (1 Thess. 1:1, 2:6)

It is not only St. Timothy who is called an apostle by Sacred Scripture, but also St. Barnabus, Apollos, and St. Titus:

St. Barnabus - “But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out among the multitude…” (Acts 14:14)

Apollos - “I planted, Apollos watered… He who plants and he who waters are equal.” (1 Cor. 3:6, 8)

“I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren… For I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men sentenced to death.” (1 Cor. 4:6,9)

The objection will be raised: Titus is nowhere in Scripture explicitly called an apostle. I reply, it is implicit in what kind of authority is accorded to the apostles. Scripture testifies that only apostles are given full authority. Compare what is said of St. Paul and St. Timothy (both of whom are called “apostles”) with what is said of St. Titus:

St. Paul - “…nor did we seek glory from men, whether from you or from others, though we might have made demands as apostles of Christ.” (1 Thess. 2:6)

St. Timothy - “As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine…” (1 Tim. 1:3)

“Command and teach these things.” (1 Tim. 4:11)

“Remind them of this, and charge them before the Lord to avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.” (2 Tim. 2:14)

St. Titus - “This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you.” (Tit.1:5)

“Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.” (Tit. 2:15)

“…our boasting before Titus has proved true. And his heart goes out all the more to you, as he remembers the obedience of you all, and the fear and trembling with which you received him.” (2 Cor. 7:14-15)
Click to expand...
Scripture also shows that only the Apostles refer to the Gospel message as their own personal possession:

“…when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.” (Rom. 2:16)

“Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ…” (Rom. 16:25)

“Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descended from David, as preached in my gospel.” (2 Tim. 2:8)

“Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians… for our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction.” (1 Thess. 1:1 & 5)

“Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians… God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. To this he called you through our gospel…” (2 Thess. 1:1 & 2:13-14)

The Apostles possess the Gospel message precisely because it was (as the above passages demonstrated) “entrusted” to them, i.e., given to them, and not taken by them on their own initiative. This is completely in keeping with the restriction imposed by Heb. 5:4.
Click to expand...
Your bishops and pastors have taken on the tasks of the apostles of their own initiative.
 
highrigger1 said:
pat,

I never said Irenaeus did not believe in a succession of bishops. He of course accepted the myths even though today we know they have been debunked.

How about some civil discourse? I do not ridicule you. Peace, JohnR
Click to expand...
Why are you on CA sir?
 
highrigger1 said:
pat,

I never said Irenaeus did not believe in a succession of bishops. He of course accepted the myths even though today we know they have been debunked.

How about some civil discourse? I do not ridicule you. Peace, JohnR
Click to expand...
I apologize highrigger1

I was not trying to ridicule you, but remember the argument is not to discard scripture, but to discard SOLA scriptura. Irenaeus is saying that the traditions passed to us. The bible is written tradition, but also there are other traditions that will be passed by the Church as the pillar of truth. The bible itself says the Church is the pillar of truth able to bind and loose.
 
highrigger1 said:
He of course accepted the **myths **even though today we know they have been debunked.
Click to expand...
“Myths?” “We know?” “Debunked?” How is any of this in keeping with the forum rules, specifically:
Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.
 
Patavium said:
Oh really? and when was your Church founded that it received apostolic succession?
Click to expand...
pat,

Definition does not give a time frame. It says eventually. The Catholic church was also eventually. No difference. Peace, JohnR
 
BenedictFTW said:
Yes. Protestantism in its nature is a heresy. It contradicts the teaching of the Catholic Church and distorts the bible by the removal of certain books declared valid by the Catholic Church. They never had any right or authority to do this. Their heresies have spread errors and evils throughout the world. We must pray for them to see their errors and return to the Catholic Apostolic Church of our Founder and Lord, Jesus Christ.

Only God can decide whether Protestants have never heard the teachings of the True Church. It is simply not for us to decide. Most Protestants I know have heard what we Catholics have to say and quite simply reject it. This has very serious repercussions for their immortal souls.
Click to expand...
yes i agree with you. unfortunately though what many Protestants have heard about what the Catholic Church is and teaches is misinformation and distorted so they may be rejecting what they think the Catholic Church is or teaches based on misinformation and not the truth. Generally when any Protestant really and truly studies they do come home. Some reject the one true Church based on bad behavior by Catholics. They may want to come home but don’t do to bad Catholic examples. I agree 100% with what you say.
 
=Erich;9222190]That’s the problem in a nutshell. I would encourage you to read By What Authority? In it, you will find the following (emphases mine):.
Click to expand...
Erich,

I dont go to websites. If there is somethng there I need to know why dont you tell me?
Your bishops and pastors have taken on the tasks of the apostles of their own initiative
Click to expand...
No. They say they were called. In fact our pastor was discussing it the other day and explained that becoming a pastor was the last thing he wanted to do. He said he was called by God and after going through a time of avoidance he finally responded to that call. Whats wrong with that?

Peace, JohnR
 
Patavium said:
Ok highrigger1,

Point to me in the bible where it says that SOLA SCRIPTURA is sufficient?

and also Point to me in the bible where it says that the Church is the authority, and that its members in the body of Christ have the ability to bind and loose?

See which one you can find in the bible.
Click to expand...
pat,

Sola Scriptura seems obvious and common sense to me. What other advice and direction do we absolutely need? I realize we need a church but scripture says that. So what does it not say that we need to be said? It is the Word of God.Why is the Word of God not sufficient? What else is better or equal to the Word of God?

It does not say the church is the authority over others. It says we all should work with the church on issues. But WE are the church, the body of Christ accordiing to Peter and Paul so what is your point?

Peace, JohnR
 
highrigger1 said:
pat,

Definition does not give a time frame. It says eventually. The Catholic church was also eventually. No difference. Peace, JohnR
Click to expand...
So, for many years there was.no Church until your Church picked up the line of apostolic succession? Explain
 
highrigger1 said:
pat,

It seems obvious and common sense to me. What other advice and direction do we absolutely need? I realize we need a church but scripture says that. So what does it not say that we need to be said? It is the Word of God.Why is the Word of God not sufficient?

Peace, JohnR
Click to expand...
I don’t understand your argument. You say we need a Church, and that this Church is the pillar of truth. You say that bible is written tradition. You say that there are oral traditios that were passed down generations. You say that the Church has authority as the bible indicates(bind and loose). However, we must only follow the scripture… :confused:

You even claim apostolic succession. Am I missing something ? . How about you said that the early fathers wrote the bible and had no bible as guide?
 
Patavium said:
So, for many years there was.no Church until your Church picked up the line of apostolic succession? Explain
Click to expand...
pat,

We are all the church. Our church has existed since Christ. But of course there was no specific denomination as we see them today. The RCC took time to develop. I realize your church is older than mine but I dont think older has to be better. There were many varieties of christianity from the beginning. .Peace, JohnR
 
Patavium said:
I don’t understand your argument. You say we need a Church, and that this Church is the pillar of truth. You say that bible is written tradition. You say that there are oral traditios that were passed down generations. You say that the Church has authority as the bible indicates(bind and loose). However, we must only follow the scripture… :confused:

You even claim apostolic succession. Am I missing something ? . How about you said that the early fathers wrote the bible and had no bible as guide?
Click to expand...
pat,

The church (us) have the authority to preach the gospel message but not to make up doctrines and tell people they must believe it. That is not the kind of authority Jesus taught. If you think so, show me where he said it. Since scripture is the Word of God why is it not sufficient? What is better or even equal to the Word of God?

Yes of course my church claims apostolic succession as our pastors and bishops have taken on the tasks of the apostles. Whats wrong with that?

The apostles and their disciples wrote the bible. It is the Word of God. What are you getting at?

Peace, JohnR
 
highrigger1 said:
pat,

The church (us) have the authority to preach the gospel message but not to make up doctrines and tell people they must believe it. That is not the kind of authority Jesus taught. If you think so, show me where he said it. Since scripture is the Word of God why is it not sufficient? What is better or even equal to the Word of God?

Yes of course my church claims apostolic succession as our pastors and bishops have taken on the tasks of the apostles. Whats wrong with that?

The apostles and their disciples wrote the bible. It is the Word of God. What are you getting at?

Peace, JohnR
Click to expand...
Is the bible fallible?

Which doctrines in the bible come from the apostles, and which directly from Jesus?

Thanks,
 
Patavium said:
I apologize highrigger1

I was not trying to ridicule you, but remember the argument is not to discard scripture, but to discard SOLA scriptura. Irenaeus is saying that the traditions passed to us. The bible is written tradition, but also there are other traditions that will be passed by the Church as the pillar of truth. The bible itself says the Church is the pillar of truth able to bind and loose.
Click to expand...
pat,

No problem.Sometimes I get snarky and have to catch myself.

I see no reason to discard sola scriptura which siimply means that scripture alone contains what we need to know to achieve salvation and we should judge theories by it. Why should I discard that viewpoint?. It seems to me that Irenaeus agrees with me.

Yes the church (us) is the pillar of truth beause the gospel message is the truth and we have the authority to teach it, but I dont think people should start adding dogma that is not taught by the apostles.That sounds dangerous to me. It does not say that we have the right to deviate from the apostels and tell others what to believe. Where does it say that?

Peace, JohnR
 
highrigger1 said:
pat,

The church (us) have the authority to preach the gospel message but not to make up doctrines and tell people they must believe it. That is not the kind of authority Jesus taught. If you think so, show me where he said it. Since scripture is the Word of God why is it not sufficient? What is better or even equal to the Word of God?

Yes of course my church claims apostolic succession as our pastors and bishops have taken on the tasks of the apostles. Whats wrong with that?

The apostles and their disciples wrote the bible. It is the Word of God. What are you getting at?

Peace, JohnR
Click to expand...
Scripture is the inspired word of God. It was also writen for and by people that lived about 2000 years ago and now every Tom Rick and Harry can pick it up and think smashing babies againsts rocks is “biblical” that’s what Sola Scriptura does. Oh and not just that, it also allows Christ church (us) to be deeply divided. Sola Scriptura fertilized the 20,000+ denominations of pastors, who disagree with ine another and claim to have the “Holy Spirit” guiding them towards the correct bible interpritation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top