F
Fredricks
Guest
Nicene, I will look at the reference tonight and get it to you.
- Status
E
Eden
Guest
If you believe the papacy is a later “invention” then you *do *believe the gates of Hell prevailed against the Church.
F
Fredricks
Guest
You guys should debate mainstream, albeit very conservative, Protestants more. We have a very Orthodox view of the this primacy, which we would contend is because that was the original view.I look forward to your discussion of your belief in the primacy of Peter with great interest (in another thread, if you wish).
I will work on it.
F
Fredricks
Guest
Gates of Hell, I will clearly show ,refers to exactly what its clear meaning is, not the meaning you give to it.
D
djrakowski
Guest
Sorry, but I have to ask: what is a ‘mainstream, albeit very conservative’ Protestant? What beliefs distinguish such a Protestant from garden-variety conservative evangelicals (and fundamentalists), and mainstream, not-very-conservative Protestants?
E
Eden
Guest
It’s clear what that means. It means the Church built on Peter will not be defeated by the forces of hell. The “deposit of faith” will remain protected within that Church by the Holy Spirit until His return. It does not mean that sinful men like Martin Luther and the founder of your church won’t *try *to corrupt it with their own theologies.
M
Mickey
Guest
And that is the crux of the entire debate.
Peter was bishop of Rome.
[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples… (Clement of Rome)
The prime apostle was succeeded by bishops through apostolic succession to guide the universal Church.
Boy, it’s really quite simple an obvious.
How did this thread get so long?
N
Nicene
Guest
Sure as soon as you answer these:
*Now I will challenge you as an elder to show your decention from any of the below through laying on of hands (actual power and authority, not theologic wishful thinking) Peter, John, Thomas, Andrew, James the Less, James the greater, Philip, Simon, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thaddaeus, Matthias, Paul, Timothy, Clement, Epaphras, Apollos, Damas, Polybius, Onesimus, Luke, Mark, Barnabas, etc. *
also from post 140, prove EXACTLY when:
the apostles did not pass on that authority by filling vacant offices:
20: For it is written in the book of Psalms,
Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it'; and His office let another take.’21: So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22: beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us – one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection."
23: And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsab’bas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthi’as.
24: And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen
25: to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.”
26: And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi’as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.
prove it scripturally. The burden of proof in on you to show that the apostolic offices ceased to exist.
Were you ordained through the authority of the bible?
What did Christ say about light and darkness? Until you can prove BEYOND DOUBT your apostolic succession through laying on of hands from the apostles the authority you claim as an elder is in question.
If you assumed authority, then you convict yourself, because by claiming we assumed authority (the popes) and it was wrong you convict yourself by the same reasoning.
(p.s. By the way I can do it for my bishop, Charles Chaput)
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
M
Mickey
Guest
Shhhhhh. He won’t tell you his denomination. It’s a secret.
F
Fredricks
Guest
Well, obviously garden-variety conservative evangelicals and a mainstream, albeit very conservative, Protestant would agree on the essentials, and a mainstream, albeit very conservative, Protestant would also agree with mainstream, not-very-conservative Protestants on essentials as well but would hold views that could contradict non-essential doctrines that could conflict with Orthodox, Catholics, and conservative Protestants as well. As far as mainstream, not very conservative protestants agreeing with not mainstream liberal Protestants, I would say that is a different thread entirely.
Thanks for asking
D
djrakowski
Guest
OHHHH, that’s right! Only *we *have the burden of proof regarding what we believeShhhhhh. He won’t tell you his denomination. It’s a secret.
Seriously though, it would help tremendously if we knew what type of Protestant perspective we were debating…
M
Mickey
Guest
Thanks for clearing that up.
D
djrakowski
Guest
Okeydokey, then what are the ‘essentials,’ and where in the Bible do I find such a list? It would be most helpful considering the plurality of Protestant belief systems regarded as ‘conservative.’
F
Fredricks
Guest
Why is this about me? I understand a common psychological defense mechanism is to attack another person when you feel that your presuppositions are being challenged. I will address all of these in a new post. Between you, me, and this board, you know you cannot prove when John died exactly and when Clement was written exactly. It is bad apologetics to use John as an example of Clements authority. Just like it is bad Protestant apologetics to use petros/petra. Just admit it. You guys cannot prove when it was written we have a range. 95 CE? Could be.
92 CE? Could be. 99 CE? Could be. Use good Catholic apologetic arguments, not that one.
F
Fredricks
Guest
Ask a silly question…Thanks for clearing that up.
F
Fredricks
Guest
It is right next to the list of all mortal and all venial sins of course.
T
Thal59
Guest
Fredrick:
You are asking us to prove that the papacy was in the same form in the first century as it was four centuries later. This argument is pointless. They didn’t even have a Bible in the first century. Or are we to decide that the Bible is merely an invention of man and to be discarded?
It is sheer nonsense to imply that by the time Peter and Paul died, there was an established world-wide organization that was set in stone and unchanging from that point on. We have shown that Peter was the first Head of the church. We have shown his successors. If you take the time to read Stephen K. Ray’s book “Upon this Rock,” which has already been recommended to you thrice now, you will get the answers you are looking for.
I would also like top point out that you conveniently skipped my posts # 104 and 105.
Thal59
You are asking us to prove that the papacy was in the same form in the first century as it was four centuries later. This argument is pointless. They didn’t even have a Bible in the first century. Or are we to decide that the Bible is merely an invention of man and to be discarded?
It is sheer nonsense to imply that by the time Peter and Paul died, there was an established world-wide organization that was set in stone and unchanging from that point on. We have shown that Peter was the first Head of the church. We have shown his successors. If you take the time to read Stephen K. Ray’s book “Upon this Rock,” which has already been recommended to you thrice now, you will get the answers you are looking for.
I would also like top point out that you conveniently skipped my posts # 104 and 105.
Thal59
F
Fredricks
Guest
Thal, I will abandon my family to answer all 79 posts which have been directed at me and see if I can get your answer. I have followed the Ray and Webster debate over the net. I do not need to buy the book, I believe I am aware of all of his contentions. If the library ever has a copy, I would check it out.
Now if you guys would kindly quit directing questions at me, I could work on the post I told Eden I would work on.
E
Eden
Guest
You sound like you are talking about political parties in a democracy. The Church Christ left is not meant to be a political process or a democracy - there is only One Truth.
F
Fredricks
Guest
Eden, I cannot work on my post if people keep responding.
- Status