Mormon Prophets, Seers, and Revelators

[zerinus]

I was acknowledging nothing. You made the statement, not me. The only thing I was acknowledging is your right to believe whatever you choose to believe. I don’t believe your church has receive any authority whatsoever, in any capacity whatsoever.

That is the question isn’t it? You have absolutely nothing to stand on here other than a claim of a man who lived about 150 years ago. As I said before, you have the right to believe anything you want to believe. I think your interpretation is absolutely flawed as to the meaning of Christ holding the keys of death and hell.

Sure you were.

It is easy to beat a dead horse, but not a smart thing to do.

 

[SteveVH]

Modern day Apostles are true Apostles like Paul, even though they hadn’t been one of Jesus’ followers during His mortal ministry.

Zerinus (got it right that time) saying it over and over again does not make it true.

So you are acting presumptuously by claiming, without evidence, that Paul was not ordained to the Apostleship by the existing Apostles.

Possibly. Scripture does not specify as to how he officially became an apostle.

No; God has given man the freedom to choose his actions, and suffer the consequences of them. If people want to apostatize and lose God’s blessings, He is not stop them. He will warn them of the consequences of their actions, but will not coerce them to do what is the right thing for them to do if they really don’t want to do it.

There have been many who have apostatized; the Gnostics, the Arians, the Nestorians, Martin Luther and the the various leaders of the Reformation, Ellen G. White, Charles Taze Russell and Joseph Smith, to mention a few. You keep forgetting something here and I keep bringing it up without any response. This is not a Church founded by man, but by God himself in the person of Jesus Christ. That is why the gates of hell will never prevail and why no amount of apostasy by individual members can change that. Christ is the head of the Church, not Peter or Paul or James or Pope Benedict, XVI. The holiness and integrity of the Church is based upon the holiness and integrity of Christ, through the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, not any man.

No, I don’t! I have already told you that the primary cause of the loss of the Twelve Apostles was the apostasy of the early church.

And yet there is zero historical evidence for your claim.

Without ever providing a credible explanation why. Not very encouraging.

No, zerinus, I just don’t feel like paging back through every post in an effort to find your comments. On top of that, it is a horse that we’ve already whipped to death.

I agree. In Catholicism, being a bishop is a profession. You go to college, study for it, get a job, work your way up until you get promoted to become a bishop. And you get paid for it. In Mormonism (and in the early Christian Church) it is not so.

They get paid for it? Do you mean that the members of the Church provide a place to live and give them money so that they can eat? Their pay is meager by any one’s standards as they take vows of poverty, zerinus. By the way, they don’t “work their way up”. It is not a profession, it is a vocation.

I was trying to explain to you what happens when a Mormon bishop gets released. He does not lose ordination to the office of bishop. He simply loses his appointment to be the bishop of a particular congregation.

Ok. Nevertheless, the duties of bishops in the Catholic Church and in the Mormon church are worlds apart. Based upon my experience, education in the Mormon faith certainly does not seem to be a requirement of the office of bishop. That is why I say that it is no wonder that you would not want Mormon bishops running the church.

Those evidences are flawed, because bishops simply cannot be successors to Apostles.

Based upon what? Your opinion? You approach the question with the presupposition that bishops simply can’t be successors to the Apostles. You have nothing on which to base that belief. It is simply a necessary belief in order to justify the existence of the Mormon faith, but a belief without basis nevertheless.

Okay, who was he? He was a bishop, not an Apostle. He had no authority to govern the whole Christian Church as a bishop.

Again, based upon what?

Okay, I know why you are do muddled up now; you have been debating with Parker for too long. Your brain has gone numb!

Truer words were never spoken. :hypno:

That is not what I meant. You were questioning the foundation of Mormonism because it is faith based. The truth is that the foundation of all religions is faith based, including yours. If you question the validity of another religion merely because it is faith based, you undermine your own.

I was not questioning the foundation of Mormonism “because it is faith based”. I simply disagree completely with the basis for its claims. The claim is that it is a restoration of the original Church. I find nothing historically or otherwise that supports such a claim and over the last year and a half that I have been conversing with Mormons I have not been provided with anything that would come close to changing my mind. It’s as simple as that. I have no problem with you believing what you wish to believe. I just find that there is a complete lack of evidence to support LDS claims. Therefore, they remain only claims.

 

[SteveVH]

It is easy to beat a dead horse, but not a smart thing to do.

I had a lot of help from the other side.

 

[ParkerD]

1. Possibly. Scripture does not specify as to how he officially became an apostle.
2. There have been many who have apostatized; You keep forgetting something here and I keep bringing it up without any response. This is not a Church founded by man, but by God himself in the person of Jesus Christ. That is why the gates of hell will never prevail and why no amount of apostasy by individual members can change that. Christ is the head of the Church, not Peter or Paul or James or Pope Benedict, XVI. The holiness and integrity of the Church is based upon the holiness and integrity of Christ, through the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, not any man.
3. And yet there is zero historical evidence for your claim.
4. Ok. Nevertheless, the duties of bishops in the Catholic Church and in the Mormon church are worlds apart. Based upon my experience, education in the Mormon faith certainly does not seem to be a requirement of the office of bishop…
5. You approach the question with the presupposition that bishops simply can’t be successors to the Apostles. You have nothing on which to base that belief. It is simply a necessary belief in order to justify the existence of the Mormon faith, but a belief without basis nevertheless.

SteveVH,
(If you happen back). Hi, Steve. I hope you are doing well.
I noticed you feel like you haven’t received a response (even though it appeared to me that Zerinus and others had responded to the verse you had brought up) about the “gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18).

Here is another response, so that there may be no question in your mind as to whether you have received a response (even though of course you won’t agree with it–but that’s just fine and is as it should be–you shouldn’t feel the slightest compulsion to agree.)

1. First, you are familiar that Paul doesn’t begin being described as an apostle right after he had the vision on the way to Damascus. He begins being described as an apostle after he had been “separated for the work whereunto I have called them.” (Acts 13:2) That calling he received at that point was done through fasting and prayer and the manifestation of the Holy Ghost, plus the “laying on of hands” (v. 3) which shows the precedent for how a calling is received. The verse in Acts 14:14 is the first time that Barnabas and Paul are referred to as “apostles”. So it is completely logical that they received the calling of being an “apostle” by the same method as described in Acts 13:2 (of course), which would be under the inspiration and direction of the Holy Ghost and by the laying on of hands.
2. You used the words “never prevail” and thus significantly changed the meaning of Matthew 16:18. The “gates of hell” do prevail against some people for a very long time, but ultimately those gates of hell “shall not prevail” against the congregation of believers, at whatever point those believers lay claim to the blessings of mercy made available to them through the atoning grace of Christ.

Christ suffered for more people than just Catholics, and has an interest in their being rescued from death and hell. He is the One who does that rescuing. He is the holder of the key of David (Revelation 3:7) and He is the One who holds the “keys of hell and of death” (Revelation 1:18). He opens the gates of hell using the keys that He holds, and rescues anyone who will believe in Him and claim His mercy, even from the place of torment where Satan had prevailed against them for a time (hell). Christ rescues the repentant from torment in hell.

The rescue is always going to be voluntary on the part of the person being rescued, of course. There is no forced rescue, nor is there forced belief at any point.

To think that Christ or the Holy Spirit would force belief and practices onto anyone or any group, however large, is completely contrary to the Bible. This would be contrary to all that the Savior taught. If He had wanted to force people to believe, then the Jews would have all followed Him and there would have been no need for a new “church” because the existing Jewish “church” would have believed in Him and brought their doctrines and practices into precisely what He taught was the new covenant gospel. If He or the Holy Spirit had wanted to force leaders to make or keep the doctrines and practices exactly as He wanted, He would have done so with the Jewish leaders and they would have changed their church to comply and conform with His will.

1. To think there is zero historical evidence for the possibility of leaders changing doctrines and practices, is to ignore the entire Old Testament.
2. Christ did not call the original apostles based on their education. He called them after He had fasted, prayed all night, known their hearts and known their desires. He called Peter (a fisherman) because He knew Peter’s heart, and knew he could lead people to Christ. Peter did know the scriptures, and showed that by how he responded and how he taught, but this does not mean Peter went through a formal educational process to become an apostle.
3. There is a stronger precedent for apostles being called as were Paul and Barnabas (through the manifestation of the Holy Ghost and through the laying on of hands) to continue the position of “apostles”, than for the position of “bishops” taking over apostleship authority–of which there is not the slightest precedent, at all, in the New Testament.

Peace to you and all. These responses are given so you may be aware that there are other, soundly scriptural and Biblical ways to look at the things you brought up. I am thoroughly aware that you won’t agree with any of them, and that’s OK. God bless you as you serve others and thus serve Him.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,
(If you happen back). Hi, Steve. I hope you are doing well.
I noticed you feel like you haven’t received a response (even though it appeared to me that Zerinus and others had responded to the verse you had brought up) about the “gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18).

Hey Parker. No, it is not that I haven’t received a response about “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”. It is the particular point that the head of the Church, the founder of the Church, is Jesus Christ. This is the point to which there has been no response and I believe it is all important when discussing this matter. It is He who makes her holy. It is He that dwells within her and will not leave her orphaned. It all has to do with Jesus Christ, not man. That is why “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”. Christ has overcome the powers of death. He has already defeated hell. Regardless of the numbers of individuals who may fall away from the truth, and there have been many, the gates of hell will never, can never, prevail against Christ and it is His Church to which we belong. That is why the apostasy is a fallacy. If it were dependent upon man, the notion of the apostasy would instantly gain credibility and probability. Instead, this Church is God’s own Church and that is why it can never be defeated. He always keeps His promises.

1. First, you are familiar that Paul doesn’t begin being described as an apostle right after he had the vision on the way to Damascus. He begins being described as an apostle after he had been “separated for the work whereunto I have called them.” (Acts 13:2) That calling he received at that point was done through fasting and prayer and the manifestation of the Holy Ghost, plus the “laying on of hands” (v. 3) which shows the precedent for how a calling is received. The verse in Acts 14:14 is the first time that Barnabas and Paul are referred to as “apostles”. So it is completely logical that they received the calling of being an “apostle” by the same method as described in Acts 13:2 (of course), which would be under the inspiration and direction of the Holy Ghost and by the laying on of hands.

I don’t think I disagree with you on this point. This is the same manner in which bishops are ordained. Given Paul’s prominence and unique mission, I still maintain that the term apostle may have very well been an honorary title. There was no mention of apostleship when they were ordained. Again, I maintain that the office of bishop would was the conduit of authority handed down from the Apostles.

1. You used the words “never prevail” and thus significantly changed the meaning of Matthew 16:18. The “gates of hell” do prevail against some people for a very long time, but ultimately those gates of hell “shall not prevail” against the congregation of believers, at whatever point those believers lay claim to the blessings of mercy made available to them through the atoning grace of Christ.

Christ suffered for more people than just Catholics, and has an interest in their being rescued from death and hell. He is the One who does that rescuing. He is the holder of the key of David (Revelation 3:7) and He is the One who holds the “keys of hell and of death” (Revelation 1:18). He opens the gates of hell using the keys that He holds, and rescues anyone who will believe in Him and claim His mercy, even from the place of torment where Satan had prevailed against them for a time (hell). Christ rescues the repentant from torment in hell.

Shall not prevail means shall not prevail. If it shall not prevail" then it never prevails. I think you are splitting hairs here. I am not trying to give that phrase any meaning other than what it says. Why is it that you seem to ignore the fact that the Church was given the “keys to the kingdom of heaven”? You seem to want to focus instead on the keys to hell. By the way, the place where Jesus preached and rescued the “dead” was not hell. Those in hell are there for eternity along with Lucifer and his followers. There is no rescue from hell.

Continued…

 

[catholic-rcia]

I was reading are local news paper here in Utah about Monson’s speech to the LDS on gratitude. The title is good “A divine gift” As I am reading I am trying to keep my prejudice out of it and just read. But when ever I do this I get broad sided, this is what did it this time. (The author of the article) After going on and on about having gratitude I read this

“Monson also urged the church to express gratitude for the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ too.”

Like it’s a passing good thought.

They do not know that even the gratitude we have comes from Jesus as He is Gratitude. Like love, it’s not ours to posses; it’s gifted to us from Christ just as having gratitude for all things is. It’s about giving Him all Gratitude, above all things including our families as it has to flow from Him first. We give all gratitude to God and then gratitude for all other things flow directly to us from Him. They are missing the understanding of the God Head, the Holy Trinity that is the problem we have trying to discuss these things with the LDS.
The quote above is from lds.org.

You see when Jesus said the gates of hell will not prevail against His church it was God saying this. The LDS will not see this like this so it does not carry that much weight.

Its like when we look at the Crucifix we know it was our Lord, God and Creator who died to ransom us. So different. They would see it as a weapon of death only. We would see it as the tree of life; they would see it as wood. We see the cross upon His back as us upon His back, they see a wooden cross. We see His arms stretched out to protect us as we are the lost lamb upon His back. They see his arms stretched out. We see God the eternal Son. They see another man just like them only further along in progression.

Three persons
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit…One God / all God. The true relationship of Love. We are created and gifted this same love. When Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against His church all you have to do is look at Christianity today to see he meant it. The biggest charitable organization on the face of the earth. The Mass taking place every two minutes, 24 hours a day all year long somewhere on the face of the earth for the salvation of the world. Pretty strong stuff.

You can not hide the city of God and get away with it. Just as one cannot sneak around the His Cross. The only way home is through it.

 

[SteveVH]

The rescue is always going to be voluntary on the part of the person being rescued, of course. There is no forced rescue, nor is there forced belief at any point.

To think that Christ or the Holy Spirit would force belief and practices onto anyone or any group, however large, is completely contrary to the Bible. This would be contrary to all that the Savior taught. If He had wanted to force people to believe, then the Jews would have all followed Him and there would have been no need for a new “church” because the existing Jewish “church” would have believed in Him and brought their doctrines and practices into precisely what He taught was the new covenant gospel. If He or the Holy Spirit had wanted to force leaders to make or keep the doctrines and practices exactly as He wanted, He would have done so with the Jewish leaders and they would have changed their church to comply and conform with His will.

Have I said something that would give you the idea that I believe anyone should be forced to believe something?

1. To think there is zero historical evidence for the possibility of leaders changing doctrines and practices, is to ignore the entire Old Testament.

I have never said there was zero historical evidence for the “possibility” of leaders changing doctrines and practices. Salvation history is the story of a loving and merciful God dealing with an unfaithful people. But God is always faithful. This is the reason that Christ did not say to Peter “I want you to start a Church”, but rather “You are Peter and upon this rock I build my Church”. Christ is faithful and He keeps His promises. He has changed everything in the New Covenant.

1. Christ did not call the original apostles based on their education. He called them after He had fasted, prayed all night, known their hearts and known their desires. He called Peter (a fisherman) because He knew Peter’s heart, and knew he could lead people to Christ. Peter did know the scriptures, and showed that by how he responded and how he taught, but this does not mean Peter went through a formal educational process to become an apostle.

They were called to baptize and to preach. It’s hard to preach if you don’t know what you are preaching. Peter had no formal education but he walked with Christ and was filled with the Holy Spirit. I think that probably qualifies.

1. There is a stronger precedent for apostles being called as were Paul and Barnabas (through the manifestation of the Holy Ghost and through the laying on of hands) to continue the position of “apostles”, than for the position of “bishops” taking over apostleship authority–of which there is not the slightest precedent, at all, in the New Testament.

Then why don’t we read about anyone other than Paul and Barnabas? It is not in scripture nor in the ECF’s nor in non-biblical historical accounts. And where do we find any indication that the authority handed down to the bishops would be any less than that of the Apostles?

Peace to you and all. These responses are given so you may be aware that there are other, soundly scriptural and Biblical ways to look at the things you brought up. I am thoroughly aware that you won’t agree with any of them, and that’s OK. God bless you as you serve others and thus serve Him.

Thanks Parker, and I wish God’s blessing upon you as well.

Steve

 

[mfbukowski]

That is the question isn’t it? You have absolutely nothing to stand on here other than a claim of a man who lived about 150 years ago. As I said before, you have the right to believe anything you want to believe. I think your interpretation is absolutely flawed as to the meaning of Christ holding the keys of death and hell.

So I suppose if you heard the gospel in 40 AD you would not believe it because it wasn’t even 100 years old?

I think you need to re-think that argument. Maybe you should be Hindu. That’s even older than Catholicism.

 

[catholic-rcia]

When Jesus said the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church along with we will not be left orphaned or I am with you always, the spirit will guide you to all truths, how could this be taken any other way, especially now, 2000 years later with the Church being so vibrant in Christ?

We here: No Jesus did not mean that, you are hearing it wrong, let me explain. What He really meant ……………………….

Here a great parallel:

God said do not eat from the tree in the middle of the garden.

We here: No God did not mean that, you see when you eat from the tree he told you not to eat from your eyes will be open and you………….

Same tone, same force.
I do not mean to be so strong, its just the way I am called on this day.
God Bless
Rich

 

[mfbukowski]

He still is with his church.

Y’all don’t realize you cannot argue your way in or out of this.

 

[LongJourney]

Y’all don’t realize you cannot argue your way in or out of this.

Very interesting sentence. I wonder what it means to you, MF? Perhaps you might want to abandon arguing about the “apostasy” issue. All it does is make enemies. http://static.mazdas247.com/smilies/beat-dead-horse.gif It is not getting you anywhere. Do you have a more effective argument for converting us? Why do you hate Catholicism so much, anyway?

Notice that I changed my sig, as promised.

 

[SteveVH]

Originally Posted by SteveVH

That is the question isn’t it? You have absolutely nothing to stand on here other than a claim of a man who lived about 150 years ago. As I said before, you have the right to believe anything you want to believe. I think your interpretation is absolutely flawed as to the meaning of Christ holding the keys of death and hell.

So I suppose if you heard the gospel in 40 AD you would not believe it because it wasn’t even 100 years old?

I think you need to re-think that argument. Maybe you should be Hindu. That’s even older than Catholicism.

Christ’s Church was founded over 2000 years ago. We have very reliable historical documents and writings of the early Church from which we derive our authenticity. A man, Joseph Smith, comes along 1850 years later claiming that we have lost all truth and the he possesses it, and the evidence for this claim is nothing but… a claim. When you restore an original, you must first know what the original looked like. We are the original and Joseph Smith’s attempt to “restore” it is nothing more than painting clown faces over a masterpiece and calling it a restoration of the original. Sorry, its not even close.

As for the Hindu comment, sorry, I like meat too much.

 

[zerinus]

Christ’s Church was founded over 2000 years ago. We have very reliable historical documents and writings of the early Church from which we derive our authenticity. A man, Joseph Smith, comes along 1850 years later claiming that we have lost all truth and the he possesses it, . . .

The Pharisees brought the same argument against Jesus. They said we have 2000 years (or more) of Moses to guide us, and this upstart comes from nowhere and starts telling us what to do! That is what essentially the following verses mean:

John 9:

28 Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses’ disciples.
29 We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is.

You are essentially saying the same kind of thing. What makes your argument any better than theirs?

. . . and the evidence for this claim is nothing but… a claim.

I assure you there is evidence for that claim.

 

[SteveVH]

The Pharisees brought the same argument against Jesus. They said we have 2000 years (or more) of Moses to guide us, and this upstart comes from nowhere and starts telling us what to do! That is what essentially the following verses mean:

John 9:

28 Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses’ disciples.
29 We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is.

You are essentially saying the same kind of thing. What makes your argument any better than theirs?

Hi Zerinus.

This entire conversation has been twisted into debating my supposed notion that the amount of time something has existed is somehow proportional to its legitimacy. That is not my argument. It just so happens that the Catholic Church began in 33 AD. If it had started last year it would have the same legitimacy. I will say, however, the fact that it still exists with numbers around 1.3 billion and still growing reflects what one would expect of a Church against which the gates of hell shall never prevail. There is no contradiction in that reality.

The fact that the Church is 2000+ years old is somewhat incidental in most other respects. The point I originally was making, several posts back, was that the Mormon Church is built on nothing more than the claim of a man who arrived on the scene very recently, relative to the history of Christianity. Without a shred of historical evidence, he claims that the Church, still in existence since the beginning, was rendered illegitimate upon the death of the last Apostle. Never mind the promises of Christ to the contrary and the utter lack of evidence, anywhere. I don’t care how old the Church is. The Church does not acquire its authority and legitimacy from its age, but from Christ Himself. It is His Church.

I assure you there is evidence for that claim.

Then you will be the first to show it to me. I will look forward to it.

God bless.

 

[SteveVH]

He still is with his church.

Y’all don’t realize you cannot argue your way in or out of this.

We don’t have to argue our way in or out of anything. It is you who make the claim and therefore you who must prove it. Give us some evidence. Anything. Otherwise your claims continue to ring hollow.

 

[LongJourney]

The fact that the Church is 2000+ years old is somewhat incidental in most other respects.

No, I don’t consider it to be incidental. The cumulative wisdom and tradition of 2000 years is exactly why I returned to the church. She is a living organism, and very wise.

Mormonism was illegitimately conceived by a bunch of con-artists. It is a speculative and foolish baby, proclaiming itself to be an adult.

 

[SteveVH]

No, I don’t consider it to be incidental. The cumulative wisdom and tradition of 2000 years is exactly why I returned to the church. She is a living organism, and very wise.

Point well taken.

 

[mfbukowski]

Very interesting sentence. I wonder what it means to you, MF? Perhaps you might want to abandon arguing about the “apostasy” issue. All it does is make enemies. http://static.mazdas247.com/smilies/beat-dead-horse.gif It is not getting you anywhere. Do you have a more effective argument for converting us? Why do you hate Catholicism so much, anyway?

Notice that I changed my sig, as promised.

Why would I hate my own family? I already said that no arguments work.

I don’t even remember who you are much less your signature.

And I cannot convert anyone- only the Spirit can. I am not even trying. Why would I ?

You are happy where you are, so good for you. You might change your mind in the afterlife- who knows? It’s none of my business!

 

[ParkerD]

Hey Parker. No, it is not that I haven’t received a response about “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”. It is the particular point that the head of the Church, the founder of the Church, is Jesus Christ. This is the point to which there has been no response and I believe it is all important when discussing this matter. It is He who makes her holy. It is He that dwells within her and will not leave her orphaned. It all has to do with Jesus Christ, not man.

Hi, again, SteveVH (sorry for interrupting other conversations by responding, but I guess that is the nature of this kind of forum),

I certainly agree that the Founder of the church is Jesus Christ.

But wasn’t He also the Founder of the “Jewish” religion–the one that began with the law of Moses–since I have recently been assured that Catholics believe Jesus is Jehovah?

Why didn’t He “make her holy” if He was also the Founder of the Jewish religion? Why didn’t He “dwell within her”? (By the way, the Old Testament speaks specifically as though the house of Israel will indeed feel “orphaned”. And of course, since the Savior’s atoning grace is offered for all mankind, no one need feel orphaned once they understand that concept of His atoning grace.)

That is why “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”. Christ has overcome the powers of death. He has already defeated hell.

So, let’s see–I agree that Christ has overcome the powers of death, but how do you arrive at the conclusion that “He has already defeated hell” (other than in the sense that He suffered the pains of hell and can thus rescue all those who claim His mercy)? What about the future conditions prophesied by John during the end times? There is yet to be a casting down to hell.

Regardless of the numbers of individuals who may fall away from the truth, and there have been many, the gates of hell will never, can never, prevail against Christ and it is His Church to which we belong. That is why the apostasy is a fallacy. If it were dependent upon man, the notion of the apostasy would instantly gain credibility and probability. Instead, this Church is God’s own Church and that is why it can never be defeated. He always keeps His promises.

So if you’re saying that the Jewish religion when it was revealed to Moses wasn’t “God’s own church”, then I disagree. If you’re saying you don’t believe the prophecy that indeed the beast who “opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven; And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.” (Revelation 13:6,7) and that beast was to be given power “over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations” , then your disbelief in that prophecy places you in a position of not understanding that John was given a vision of the history of the world and of the “church”, and though Christ ultimately does indeed prevail, this is not the case at every moment in time. The beast was seen as being given “power” temporarily–a predominant power “over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.” Yet that beast is ultimately defeated, thus bringing full fruition to the prophecy of Christ that the “gates of hell shall not prevail.”

I don’t think I disagree with you on this point. This is the same manner in which bishops are ordained. Given Paul’s prominence and unique mission, I still maintain that the term apostle may have very well been an honorary title. There was no mention of apostleship when they were ordained. Again, I maintain that the office of bishop would was the conduit of authority handed down from the Apostles.

Those are logical conclusions, but have no precedence nor basis from the Bible.

Shall not prevail means shall not prevail. If it shall not prevail" then it never prevails.

I guess we think differently about what the word “prevail” means. I think it means “triumph”. I think it is a conclusive term of finality.

I think you are splitting hairs here. I am not trying to give that phrase any meaning other than what it says.

“It’s not over until it’s over.” (Does that ring a bell?) “Never prevail” means quite a different meaning than “shall not prevail” if one thinks of ultimate triumph as compared with “the opposition will temporarily have power.”

Why is it that you seem to ignore the fact that the Church was given the “keys to the kingdom of heaven”? You seem to want to focus instead on the keys to hell. By the way, the place where Jesus preached and rescued the “dead” was not hell.

The church wasn’t given those keys. Peter was given those keys, as the chief apostle. Not one Biblical verse says he gave them to anyone else. (I do think Matthew 18 shows that those keys were given to the other apostles–but no verse ever says those keys were given to any bishop or to the bishops in general.)

Doesn’t Isaiah 61:1-3 have meaning for you in terms of a “spirit prison” from which Christ provides rescue? (It’s fine by me to not call that “spirit prison” “hell”.)

Those in hell are there for eternity along with Lucifer and his followers. There is no rescue from hell.

OK–if you mean the ultimate casting down to hell that is done after the final judgment. But before that final judgment, there is precedent in Peter’s epistles that Jesus provides teaching and rescue for spirits in spirit prison.

Continued…

 

[ParkerD]

Have I said something that would give you the idea that I believe anyone should be forced to believe something?

SteveVH,
The discussion had to do with leaders of the church, doing what they do–lead, as men. Either they can make decisions and take actions without being “forced”, or they make decisions and take actions under some condition of “force”. So it appeared to me that since you were saying the church could not possibly go “astray” in any sense at all, and would thus be kept completely “pure”–that the men doing the leading would of necessity be “forced” in their decisions and actions in order for that condition to be able to be guaranteed.

I have never said there was zero historical evidence for the “possibility” of leaders changing doctrines and practices. Salvation history is the story of a loving and merciful God dealing with an unfaithful people. But God is always faithful. This is the reason that Christ did not say to Peter “I want you to start a Church”, but rather "You are Peter and upon this rock I build my Church". Christ is faithful and He keeps His promises. He has changed everything in the New Covenant.

So with the New Covenant, my serious question is “does that mean He has started to keep His promise by giving leaders a blank check” to bring whatever changes into the nuances of doctrine that they feel they are “inspired” to make? (In other words, how does He keep His promise without forcing the leaders?)

They were called to baptize and to preach. It’s hard to preach if you don’t know what you are preaching. Peter had no formal education but he walked with Christ and was filled with the Holy Spirit. I think that probably qualifies.

Yes, and it would equally qualify today for someone who has the kind of continuing communication with Christ and is filled with the Holy Spirit so that there is two-way communication. “Education” would not do that. Only spiritual preparation, humility, and living the teachings of Jesus would provide the kind of necessary qualification to be a spiritual leader in the church.

Then why don’t we read about anyone other than Paul and Barnabas? It is not in scripture nor in the ECF’s nor in non-biblical historical accounts.

John saw that the church was going into the wilderness. New apostles weren’t called because of that situation.

And where do we find any indication that the authority handed down to the bishops would be any less than that of the Apostles?

That is a very significant question. If Christ, who we all agree was perfect, knew that bishops were going to need the exact, specific authority of the apostles, then one would certainly expect that He would very carefully establish that precedent for all to see and understand.

Thanks Parker, and I wish God’s blessing upon you as well.

Steve

Likewise, Steve. Peace always, and the deep joy of the gospel.