E
elvisman
Guest
Great description.
Unfortunately - it doesn’t include you, by your choice. It only includes those in his Church.
We in his Church pray for the conversion of ALL to come home - and that includes you . . .
MERGED: Protestant Church Planting - Where is it in the Bible?
- Status
Unfortunately - it doesn’t include you, by your choice. It only includes those in his Church.
We in his Church pray for the conversion of ALL to come home - and that includes you . . .
T
tester
Guest
now that is funny: are you asking for the Bible to be a Greek to English dictionary?Do me a favor - show me where the Bible claims that “Church” (ekklēsia) is merely a gropup of “believers”.
I eagerly await your reply . . .
Breaking news: If I am a Believer; (my heart has been chaged) then I am in Christ’s one true church
M
manualman
Guest
Rightly Divide, surely you’ve read the ENTIRE book of Acts, not just portions like that that your pastor may have preached on?
Try these:
Acts 9:26-30 Tells the story of how Paul was initially feared by the apostles and they sent him home to Tarsus to cool his heels until they had a mission for him.
Acts 11:19-30 Tells of the first limited mission the apostles sent Paul on (which he performed obediently).
Acts 13:1-4 Describes the LATER commissioning of Paul as a missionary sent to establish new local churches.
Just as I initially described, Paul isn’t a freelance evangelist. He’s part of the Church, and he received his calling from the Holy Spirit THROUGH the apostolic leadership of that Church.
Try these:
Acts 9:26-30 Tells the story of how Paul was initially feared by the apostles and they sent him home to Tarsus to cool his heels until they had a mission for him.
Acts 11:19-30 Tells of the first limited mission the apostles sent Paul on (which he performed obediently).
Acts 13:1-4 Describes the LATER commissioning of Paul as a missionary sent to establish new local churches.
Just as I initially described, Paul isn’t a freelance evangelist. He’s part of the Church, and he received his calling from the Holy Spirit THROUGH the apostolic leadership of that Church.
P
pablope
Guest
Even Paul went to the Apostles, particularly to see St Peter in Jerusalem, to spend time with them to see that what he was going to preach met their approval. I believe this is in Acts but forget where it is. Perhaps, some can here can point out the particual verse and chapter.
E
Erobill1
Guest
Amen!
P
pablope
Guest
blog.adw.org/2010/10/what-st-paul-can-teach-us-about-respect-for-church-authority/
Excerpts:
- On Paul’s submission to authority – We can see therefore, that Paul was not a lone ranger. He did submit what he taught to Peter and later to others apostles and leaders (Acts 11 & 15). He states that to have preached something other than what the Church proposed would be to run “in vain” (Gal 2:2). Here was a man who was formed by the community of the Church and who submitted his teachings to scrutiny by lawful authority. Here was man who went forth on his missions only after he was ordained and sent. Further, Paul and Barnabas, as they went through the towns and villages on their missionary journeys, also established authority in each church community they founded by appointing presbyters in each town (Acts 14:23). Upon completion of their first missionary journey they reported back to the leaders at Antioch who had sent them (Acts 14:27) and later to the apostles in Jerusalem (Acts 15). Hence we have an accountability structure in the early Church and a line of authority. Paul was no. He both respected authority and established authority in the churches he established. He also makes it clear to the Galatians and others that he has authority and that he expects them to respect it.
E
elvisman
Guest
Nope**. It’s just that I believe in God’s definition of Church and not the most rudimentary use of the word as you do.**
As I stated before – your definition is not even in the same category as God’s.
Ummm - not necessarily.Breaking news: If I am a Believer; (my heart has been chaged) then I am in Christ’s one true church
Do you believe ALL of his truth – or just the truth YOU find palatable?
Do you believe in the Authority of his Church over ALL believers (Matt. 16:16-19, 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 20:21-23)?
Do you believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist? (Matt. 26-28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20, John 6:31-71, 1 Cor. 11:27-30)
Do you believe in the Ministerial Priesthood? (John 20:21-23, Acts 20:17-28, 1 Tim. 4:14, Titus 1:5, 7, James 5:14, 2 John 1, 3 John 1, 1 Pet. 5:1-2). ****
There are many entities who call themselves believers who only believe in bits and pieces of His truth such as Unitarians, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Protestants.**
If you are outside of the fullness of truth – you are separated from his Church and in need of coming home.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
An interesting comment. It is like saying that a Catholic only believes what his priest told them etc. Of course, I would not make that comment because I prefer to discuss the content.
I am fortunately skilled at avoiding personal comments and polemics though.
Since you seem to be asking a personal question, I did read the entire book of Acts for the courses I have taken at the undergraduate and graduate level. Prior to that I read it several times before that. First, was shortly after I converted to Christianity after being an atheist for most of my adult life.
As far as my pastor, as an elder in my church, I assume some of the duties for the congregation. However, other elders have preached on Acts however I have not. I hope this answers your question and we can stick to the content of the passages in the future.
I will also assume that you likewise are an intelligent well read person who has also read it. I think for conversations like this, it is always best to assume positive intentions and the educational level of the person we are discussing with means that while we may disagree, we are not disagreeable.
That is an interesting take. What time frame do you believe that 9:26 is occuring? How long after his conversion etc? It of course will reconcile with Galatians so I am curious.
The local church sent Paul in Antioch. Please elaborate on what appears to be a conflation of prophets and apostles and once again the time frame this occured in light of what we know Paul wrote in Galatians.
Same question, what time frame are you advocating for? There are several theories on the time frame of Galatians and Acts and since Rome does not have an official stance on these dates, I am curious as to your interpretation of these passages and what exactly you believe.
No, actually that is not what occured in terms of his calling.
The relationship between Acts and Galatians is an interesting one.
B
Barbkw
Guest
We can argue this forever, however Catholics and people of protestant denominations initially come at this question from two different perspectives.
Catholics believe that Holy Orders is a blessed Sacrament and that it was passed down through the laying on of hands by the Apostles to each Bishop and priest.
Since the Reformation, protestant denominations don’t acknowledge that teaching magisterium.
Each person of a protestant denomination is under their free will to decide what to teach, how to teach it, how to interpret it, and where to teach it.
Catholics believe that Holy Orders is a blessed Sacrament and that it was passed down through the laying on of hands by the Apostles to each Bishop and priest.
Since the Reformation, protestant denominations don’t acknowledge that teaching magisterium.
Each person of a protestant denomination is under their free will to decide what to teach, how to teach it, how to interpret it, and where to teach it.
T
tester
Guest
** You need to get a different playbook**
Nope**. It’s just that I believe in God’s** definition of Church and not the most rudimentary use of the word as you do.
As I stated before – your definition is not even in the same category as God’s.
Ummm - not necessarily.
Do you believe ALL of his truth – or just the truth YOU find palatable?
Do you believe in the Authority of his Church over ALL believers (Matt. 16:16-19, 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 20:21-23)?
Do you believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist? (Matt. 26-28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20, John 6:31-71, 1 Cor. 11:27-30)
Do you believe in the Ministerial Priesthood? (John 20:21-23, Acts 20:17-28, 1 Tim. 4:14, Titus 1:5, 7, James 5:14, 2 John 1, 3 John 1, 1 Pet. 5:1-2**). **
There are many** entities who call themselves believers who only believe in bits and pieces of His truth such as Unitarians, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Protestants.
If you are outside of the fullness of truth – you are separated from his Church and in need of coming home.
**
Why not these questions too?**
- *Do you baptise? (See Mt 28:19)
- Do you accept a visible Church? (See Eph 1:22-23; Acts 16:5; 18:22; 1 Tim 3:15)
- Do you accept the primacy of Peter? (See Mt 16:18ff; John 21:15ff)
- Do you accept the Virgin Birth? (Lk 1:26ff)
- Do you reverence Mary? (See Lk 1:48)
- Do you believe Jesus to be both God and Man? (See 2 Cor 4:4; 2 Peter 1:16; Phil 2:9ff; John 1:1, 14; Col 2:9)
- Do you believe in the Sacrifice of the Mass? (See 1 Cor 11:23-26; 1 Cor 5:7; Heb 9:26)
- Do you believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist? (See Mt 26:26-29; John 6:52ff)
- Do you believe in the immortality of the soul? (See John 5:28, 29; 2 Cor 5:1-5)
- Do you believe in resurrection of the body? (See Mk 12:18ff)
- Do you pray for the dead? (See 2 Macc 12:45; 1 Cor 15:29)
- Do you reverence the saints? (See Apoc 14:4, 5; Mk 9:4)
- Do you observe Sunday as the Lord’s Day? (See Col 2:16)
- Do you accept the power of the Church to forgive sin? (See John 20:23)
- Do you believe in the Unity of the Church? (See Galatians 5:21, where St Paul says of those who provoke dissension that they ‘will never inherit the Kingdom of God.’)
answers in the next post
T
tester
Guest
Answer: The clever Catholic apologist attempts to impale Bible-believing Christians on the horns of a dilemma. He gives us two unpleasant options: either we accept every Roman Catholic dogma or else we deny the Bible. We are rather reluctant to do either one!
The whole thing turns out to be a false dilemma. There is a mixture of true biblical doctrines (which we readily accept) and a few distinctive Roman dogmas which we reject. We do not reject them because we disregard the Bible, but in fact, because we believe the Bible, and because we realize that the “proof texts” do not really prove that Roman position at all.
So, for example, to the first question (Do you baptise?), we readily answer “Yes” because baptism is a rite commanded by our Lord in the Holy Scriptures. Similarly we affirm the virgin birth of Christ, His Deity and humanity, the immortality of the soul and the bodily resurrection.
But to the question, “Do you pray for the dead?” we answer with an emphatic “No.” The Bible verses proposed in support for this practice are not proofs at all. Second Maccabees is an apocryphal book, it not part of the canon of Scripture; whereas 1 Corinthians 15:29 says nothing about praying for the dead. (We are not sure what ‘baptism for the dead’ means, even Catholic commentators disagree on its meaning, so how can this verse become the sure foundation of praying for the dead?) To learn whether we should pray for the dead or not, when we examine the hundreds of prayers recorded in Scripture, we find no precedent for this pagan practice.
We’re also asked whether we reverence Mary and the saints. Of course we do! We love and respect the saints, both the living and the departed. We meet the living saints every week in our church meetings, and we long to meet those who are already with the Lord, though for the time being we are separated by death and cannot communicate with them. On the other hand Catholics do not ‘reverence’ Mary or the saints. They dishonour them by making and bowing down before their idols, and attributing to them titles (e.g. “Mary our life, our hope”) and functions (“mediatrix of our salvation”) which belong to the Lord alone.
Further, we’re asked whether we accept the visible Church. Yes, we recognize both the visible and invisible aspects of the church of Jesus Christ. Even the Catechism of the Catholic Church makes a similar distinction: “The Church is both visible and spiritual, a hierarchical society and the Mystical Body of Christ” (paragraph 779). However, by accepting the “visible” church, we do not have to accept the hierarchical structure of the Rome institution. The church was “visible” well before the bishops of Rome ururped their proud and unbiblical claim to universal authority over the entire Church.
Do we believe in the sacrifice of the Mass? No! The Mass is an insult to Christ. Christ was offered once for all, and he is now sitting on the right hand of the Majesty on high. His sacrifice is not being “carried on,” “perpetuated,” “renewed,” and “re-presented” as claimed by the Catholic Church. The Bible texts simply do not teach any of that. On the contrary, the Bible is emphatic that the sacrifice of Christ was done once for all; it is complete and finished; the Lord’s Supper is the memorial and proclamation of the Cross, and not a propitiatory sacrifice.
Do we accept the power of the Church to forgive sin? Yes we do. The church has the power to forgive through the preaching of the Gospel. The church is also called to discipline obstinate members and to forgive the repentant. But that does not mean that we agree to the late invention of private confession to the priest, absolution, penance or indulgences.
Do we accept the primacy of Peter? No we don’t. Though prominent among the apostles, the apostle Peter never took upon himself the right of supreme authority, universal jurisdiction and infallibility, contrary to what is claimed by the modern bishops of Rome. Peter was a married man; the Pope is celibate. Peter said, “Silver or gold I do not have, but what I have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.” The Pope says, “Silver and gold, I have plenty, but apostolic power I have none.” Peter preached salvation in Jesus name alone, the modern Popes gives hope of salvation to all religionists, whether they believe in Jesus or not!
One final example, “Do we believe in the unity of the Church?” Yes, we do. That’s why we receive all true believers, irrespective of their denominational affiliation, as dear brothers and sisters, and members of the one church, the body of Christ. Rome cannot discover the church beyond the confines of its boundaries: “The Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church.” By excluding non-Roman Catholic Christians from the church, the Roman magisterium injures the body of Christ to uphold its sectarian prejudice.
In conclusion, Bible-believing Christians answer “No” to some of the questions listed by the Catholic apologist because the Bible does not teach those specific Catholic doctrines. Indeed we appeal to our Catholic friends to examine their faith in the light of Scripture; hold on to what is good, and do not be afraid to discard those doctrines which are not biblical.
– just for catholcs website
B
Barbkw
Guest
“Do we believe in the sacrifice of the Mass? No! The Mass is an insult to Christ.”
You’ve never read Justin Martyr’s Apology (165 A.D.) have you?
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.ii.lxvii.html
Catholics celebrate Mass in the same way that the early Christians celebrated theirs; Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of the Eucharist.
You’ve never read Justin Martyr’s Apology (165 A.D.) have you?
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.ii.lxvii.html
Catholics celebrate Mass in the same way that the early Christians celebrated theirs; Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of the Eucharist.
B
Barbkw
Guest
Tester,
Please realize that you have a generational bias against Catholicism. What you believe to be true about the Church, isn’t correct.
I’m sorry, but it isn’t.
Not to be demeaning to you, you probably have had 20 plus years of this negative indoctrination about Catholics.
Please realize that you have a generational bias against Catholicism. What you believe to be true about the Church, isn’t correct.
I’m sorry, but it isn’t.
Not to be demeaning to you, you probably have had 20 plus years of this negative indoctrination about Catholics.
T
tester
Guest
my post was in direct response to elvisman’s list of often repeated off topic machine gun questions: all that was missing was that 50 gazzilion protestant denonminations proves protestants are wrong,
elvisman won’t even accept a defintion of a word if it comes from a protestant. or greek to english dictionary.
elvisman won’t even accept a defintion of a word if it comes from a protestant. or greek to english dictionary.
M
manualman
Guest
RightlyDivide,
Your second post sure is a better one than your first and deserves a considered response (not a hasty one). Please continue the LATTER approach rather than the former (a couple of toss-out verses plucked from their context) and we’ll have a much more pleasant and constructive exchange.
And by the way, you’re right about my snide comment. I was irked at the lack of explanation, attempts at providing context, or even ANY personal (name removed by moderator)ut on your original post and proceeded with a juvenile attempt to try to provoke you into giving a more complete response. Rebuke deserved…
I spent 4 years in college listening to instruction from a protestant group called the Navigators, so I have a weakness for assuming that protestants I meet all share the theological shortcomings I observed during that time.
Your second post sure is a better one than your first and deserves a considered response (not a hasty one). Please continue the LATTER approach rather than the former (a couple of toss-out verses plucked from their context) and we’ll have a much more pleasant and constructive exchange.
And by the way, you’re right about my snide comment. I was irked at the lack of explanation, attempts at providing context, or even ANY personal (name removed by moderator)ut on your original post and proceeded with a juvenile attempt to try to provoke you into giving a more complete response. Rebuke deserved…
I spent 4 years in college listening to instruction from a protestant group called the Navigators, so I have a weakness for assuming that protestants I meet all share the theological shortcomings I observed during that time.
E
elvisman
Guest
Text removed to fit my response . . .
Well – that’s quite an answer - your decision to copy and paste an enormous amount of text from an anti-Catholic website notwithstanding . . .
Do yourself a favor next time – do some homework and come up with your own “valid” reasons for rejecting the truths of the Church instead of slapping and pasting the usual anti-Catholic rubbish. This is the same, old tired that is so easily debunked.
I especially like the phony rubbish about us Catholics practicing idolatry with Mary and the saints in heaven.
So, let’s see – by your pasted diatribe I gather the following:
You believe in Baptism (but not baptismal regeneration?)
You believe in the Church’s power to forgive sin – but not really.**
You rejectprayers for the dead in Christ.
You accept a visible Church, but reject the way Christ and the apostles set up its hierarchy.
You reject the Sacrifice of the Mass because you have no idea what it means and have completely misunderstood the ETERNAL sacrifice of Jesus before the Father on our behalf (2 Pet. 3:8, Rev. 13:8, Revelation 5:6).
You believe in the UNITY of the church, yet you advocate its constant splintering as evidenced by the tens of thousands of bickering, differing “denominations”.
Finally** – you refer to Protestants as “Bible-believing Christians”, all the while, rejecting so much of the Bible with your heavily-flawed belief systems. **
This is one contradiction after another. By this, it is abundantly clear that Catholics are the TRUE Bible-believing Christians because we accept ALL of God’s truth instead of cherry-picking through those truths we like while ejecting the others we don’t.
E
elvisman
Guest
M
manualman
Guest
I am not a scholar. Not by a long shot. Just a guy who likes to read. This link should provide you with the generally accepted catholic scholarship on the timeline relationship between Pauline aspects of Acts and Galatians. Looks to me like Paul had to cool his heels and learn holiness the hard way for quite a while before setting the world on fire. usccb.org/nab/bible/galatians/intro.htm (keep in mind that catholic scholarship does NOT claim infallibility. SOME of the things between the lines of Scripture and Tradition are things that can only be surmised and deduced.)
The first rule of public speaking (even in letter form) is to speak to your audience. Acts is a recounting of the early Church by Luke. Luke, the physician, is the closest thing we have in NT scripture to what could be called a conventional historian by modern standards. He is simply trying to tell an account of what happened. Paul, in Galatians, by contrast is writing an epistle. He is writing TO his specific audience and his goal is not to write a generic catechism, but to address specific problems he knows to be occuring there.
On first reading, there appears to be a contradictory message between the two. Luke (Acts) appears to be emphasizing that Paul is NOT a freelancer commissioned separately by the Holy Spirit, but rather part and parcel of the ONE Church. Paul (in Galatians) seems to take pains to emphasize his separation from the other apostles. Contradiction? Nope. Not when you comprehend the audience. In Galatians, Paul is working hard to argue against divisive Jewish converts to christianity that are attempting to impose Mosaic Law on gentile converts to christianity. Paul seems to be trying hard to point out that it is no longer relevant if one is culturally/ritually JEWISH. It is not the apostolic identity of the other apostles Paul is denigrating but the idea that their Jewish background is the source of their authority (or “reputableness” - is that a word?
)On the topic of conflating prophet and apostle, the issue gets even more dense when one recognizes the differences in protestant and catholic definitions! To the catholic understanding, the Church is STILL apostolic. This doesn’t mean that we consider the pope to be equal to St. Peter and the Patriarch of Constantinople (Istanbul) to St. Andrew. This means that they hold their positions of authority based on the unbroken line of delegated authority that goes all the way back to the original apostles. So when Paul undertakes a mission at the behest of “prophets who came down from Jerusalem” I am NOT mistaking them for apostles. The fact that they came from Jerusalem indicates that they were holding delegated authority from the apostles, so Paul WAS acting under apostolic authority.
Hope that helps clarify things.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
I appreciate the distinctions you are making in terms of history versus epistle.
However, I think the more specific timeline is in Galatians and it is the basis for establishing the timeline.
Acts does not make any, and I hesitated to use that word but I went ahead and did so, real specific time distinctions in the passages you cited especially compared to Galatians.
I actually disagree with saying that Luke was a conventional historian in Acts, at least in these particular passages. I believe we are looking more at what some scholars have called theological history. There is a distinction that may or may not be relevent. That does not mean, obviously I am a literalist fundamentalist, that I believe Acts is in error. I am versed enough in scholarship to understand the view that Acts is not written by Luke but is a late first century account from 80 to 95 AD ( I am not saying this is your particular view but more for anyone reading). I reject that view for many reasons but I understand that someone entering the conversation would not attempt to “reconcile” the two based upon one possibly being 40 years later.
Lets look at Galatains again because the most specific timeline is established in Galatians, not Acts:
However, I think the more specific timeline is in Galatians and it is the basis for establishing the timeline.
Acts does not make any, and I hesitated to use that word but I went ahead and did so, real specific time distinctions in the passages you cited especially compared to Galatians.
I actually disagree with saying that Luke was a conventional historian in Acts, at least in these particular passages. I believe we are looking more at what some scholars have called theological history. There is a distinction that may or may not be relevent. That does not mean, obviously I am a literalist fundamentalist, that I believe Acts is in error. I am versed enough in scholarship to understand the view that Acts is not written by Luke but is a late first century account from 80 to 95 AD ( I am not saying this is your particular view but more for anyone reading). I reject that view for many reasons but I understand that someone entering the conversation would not attempt to “reconcile” the two based upon one possibly being 40 years later.
Lets look at Galatains again because the most specific timeline is established in Galatians, not Acts:
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
I did not mean for that to post! Let me finish
Lets specifically see where the Apostles, and not the local church at Antioch, told Paul what to do.
If that seems simplistic, I understand but once again, are there some specific passages regarding Peter or the apostles that you would like to use?
Lets specifically see where the Apostles, and not the local church at Antioch, told Paul what to do.
If that seems simplistic, I understand but once again, are there some specific passages regarding Peter or the apostles that you would like to use?
- Status