Protestant view on christ's sacrifice.

[pablope]

Pablope,

He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.

 

[pablope]

I’ve been asked for a source the ‘thousands of denominations’ number. Can you provide your source for this?
Yet the Orthodox would state that Rome has in several rather important ways departed from the Tradition, with Rome also claiming the same of them…

Under the Forum search…search for Protestant denoms…there have been past threads dealing with this issue.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:Nicea
And just because you cannot see it does not make you correct. Jehovah Witnesses claim not to see the Trinity anywhere and therefore they believe they are correct-are they? Modern Catholic dogmas? Name one modern Catholic dogma?

Lincoln:
No it does not, but I base my views on the evidence I see, which is pretty clear in many places.

And so do I and the CC has done it long before you or I or any Protestant church existed. You mean for nearly 1500 everyone had it all wrong until Protestants got it right? Pipe dream! By the way, show me the evidence you see of the so-called modern Catholic dogmas? You presented none.

Lincoln:
By ‘modern catholic dogma’ I mean views held now by The Catholic Church I see either no evidence of in the early church or even direct contradiction of. See my last post on the papacy for example; modern claims of universal jurisdiction appear unheard of in the early church.

Sorry but you are dead wrong! Evidently you have not read enough history or have studied the countless of writings from the early church fathers totally contradicting your “modern” belief. Universal jurisdiction is not modern belief as you have convinced yourself. Second, if universal jurisdiction is “modern” or wrong, I find it very odd Jesus never once attacks the Roman emperor’s universal jurisdiction? On the contrary, he says to render to Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar. So what is the problem?

Quote:Nicea
Sorry but Luther was more concerned with his own positions,agendas and will over the will of the Church,sorry but true.

If by this you mean he thought the Roman hierarchy in error, then yes, naturally he was not really to concerned by their will…

Yeah and he still pushed for his own fabricated doctrines,thus he was still concerned with his own will and not for the better of the church. The questioning of and removal of NT books is pretty much sums up his ego.

Quote:Nicea
Do our views have any bearing on the factual outcome? Lincoln was elected regardless of views.

Yes they do, the factual outcome may be one or another dogma. The reason it became dogma is rather essential; is it down to scriptural exegesis and biblical proof, or not and does it contradict it?

And at the end facts will remain facts…right? Therefore…show me one early church father clearly expressing papal primacy was to be: rejected,false,heretical,schismatic, or a great usurpation of Christ, then we can weigh-in the views.

 

[Lincoln7]

The passage in Luke is addressed to the Apostles. Hear it from the Apostles…and their successors…their appointed successors.

It’s addressed to the 72 that are sent out by Jesus Christ to proclaim the coming of the Kingdom of God. I’m wary of reading back the current notion of apostolic succession into this… As I’ve already said, I view being in accord with apostolic teaching more important than a physical line…

If you read futher…Paul mentions Peter, James, John…the apostles.

Paul met privately with Cephas too…who do you think Cephas is? By calling him Cephas…it is an acknowledgement of Cephas’s authority. In the culture of the time, everytime one’s name is changed…it also meant a change in authority and stature.

Calling Cephas/Peter by that name, and not Simon, is an acknowledgment of authority…in that culture and time.

In 1:18 Paul goes up to meet with Peter and James yes. On the name ‘Cephas’, I’m happy to admit Peter has a special role, but one of honour only, not of authority over the others. Paul also presents the message again in Chapter 2 to ‘them who seemed influential’ (note the plurality) to ensure the relationship between Gentile and Jew does not divide the church. After all he was Apostle to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews…

Paul does not decide on his own to preach…he submits himself…and is followed in the CC, even to this day

Paul actually told no one of the Gospel he received immidiatley according to vs 16. He states in 17 he did not go to the Apostles before him. Only after 3 years he goes to visit Cephas and James. He returns 14 years later to ensure what he preaches will not divide the church. This context of Gentile and Jewish relations is everything here, Paul is not so much ensuring he submits to a supreme Peter, for he does not view him this way, hence his rebuke of Peter in chapter 2. Instead he goes to ensure church unity.

It means that anybody wanting to preach…has to have obeyed and submitted oneself to the Apostles…same as what Paul did…so we know that what one is preaching is from God.

Notice also the warnings in the NT about false prophets. And is one factor in discerning claims of visions, apparitions on their authencity…obedience to the Church…the bishop.

And St. Ignatius of Antioch… (d. 107 AD) wrote:

As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do ye anything without the bishop and presbyters. Neither endeavor that anything appear reasonable and proper to yourselves apart; but being come together into the same place, let there be one prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope, in love and in joy undefiled.41

In context the chapter is on testing the spirits, John tells his hearers to submit to apostolic teaching. The letter is written against gnosticism and clearly John is telling his hearers to test preachers by whether or not they confess Jesus as having come in the flesh…

On loyalty to the bishop on matters such as this, did not Augustine famously say: “Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.” (De unitate ecclesiae, chp. 10)… In context Ignatius is a beloved figure trying to maintain unity under persecution, no wonder he would tell people to stay loyal to their bishops and elders!

The bolded part is unbiblical…where does the Bible say to preach only to selected few and somebody is predestined? (Topic for another thread)

I think you may misunderstand me, I mean that those who are elect will respond with faith upon hearing the gospel… “And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.” Acts 13:48. Those appointed to life believed. Just as John says here, that’s what I meant.

Where does it say plurarity of elders? It is known at the Epistle of Clement of Rome…not the epistle from Rome to Corinth.

Read the letter, it does not say its from Clement, but that it’s from the church at Rome. Which has a plurality of elders leading it at this time. It’s identified as coming from clement because of Hermas’ comment on clement having a role in the Roman church of being involved in correspondence…

What happens before that…they are laid hands on…ordained. They did not send themselves…they are “sent”…is the point I am trying to make.

My church ordains men to eldership, it also sends both them and others out for mission with the laying on of hands and prayer…

Go back to Acts 13…do you know who founded the Church at Antioch? From that founder…to the elders (presbuteros)…to Paul and Barnabas…there is your apostolic succession.

I’d say it shows the church praying for Barnabas and Saul as they go out to do the Lords will… Paul is already in command of disciples by this point and thus already recognised as an Apostle…

Well, how did the Holy Scripture tell Calvin he is correct? Did Calvin decide for himself that he is correct? Who did Calvin submit his gospel too, same as St. Paul?

No he let scripture speak for itself, I don’t know who he first submitted his teachings too, he was 23 when he first published the institutes, I will try and find out for you who was over him at the time

Thomas Aquinas…or Ratzinger, they are theologians too…what makes Calvin greater than them? Why do you believe Calvin more than others?

Indeed both vastly intelligent men. But in certain areas they are not in accord with scripture… It’s the rule to which things are tested.

Best regards

Lincs.

 

[KathleenGee]

Christ alone is the High Priest.

But He instituted His priesthood at the Last Supper…we now have the Covenant of the Blood given us by Christ’s death, resurrection and ascension into heaven…

The sacraments are concrete realities…Holy Orders a sacrament in which Christ Himself ministers to us through the priest.

Physical sacraments free us from symbolism and conflicting interpretations.

Christ instituted the sacrament of penance on the evening of the Resurrection, giving the apostles to forgive sins…to bind and loose…even though it took some time to formalize the sacrament…

The papacy is the seat of Peter; it does not mean the person having the seat is perfect or a man god. He represents Christ as our head. The papacy is the universal sign of unity of the communion we share in the Holy Spirit…the priest is a living sacrament…and also the reason why there are difficulties in dealing with ministers who have committed crimes, recognized by the civil state…

We do not look at the person. We look to Christ working through the Church through His representatives.

We had bishops and presbyters already working before 100 ad…proof alone in the Acts of the Apostles…this is tradition…how the faith given us by the apostles was put into practice as Church…the universal church…the liturgy…the sacred banquet…

So many times, individual men who come into reform, are more severe than the ones they condemned…Calvin condemned, of all things, the Liturgy of the Hours…the psalms, etc…prayed in commune…considering so many things superstition…

 

[Lincoln7]

Nicae325, thanks for the reply!

And so do I and the CC has done it long before you or I or any Protestant church existed. You mean for nearly 1500 everyone had it all wrong until Protestants got it right? Pipe dream! By the way, show me the evidence you see of the so-called modern Catholic dogmas? You presented none.

No. Many had some great and rather good things to say, but also there were some rather wrong things said too. The reformation clarifies the essential truth of the gospel.

Sorry but you are dead wrong! Evidently you have not read enough history or have studied the countless of writings from the early church fathers totally contradicting your “modern” belief. Universal jurisdiction is not modern belief as you have convinced yourself. Second, if universal jurisdiction is “modern” or wrong, I find it very odd Jesus never once attacks the Roman emperor’s universal jurisdiction? On the contrary, he says to render to Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar. So what is the problem?

I read history a fair bit… In a previous post I gave a small paragraph detailing the rather clear evidence of a lack of a modern papacy in the early church… What does my post have to do with the Roman emperors? I’m talking about the papacies claims to universal jurisdiction over all churches as being something not seen in the earliest church.

Yeah and he still pushed for his own fabricated doctrines,thus he was still concerned with his own will and not for the better of the church. The questioning of and removal of NT books is pretty much sums up his ego.

Well I see him as pushing for clarification of the heart of the Gospel. As for the popular ‘Luther chucked books about and removed them’ myth, may I recommend here:
tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_%20canon.htm

Best regards

Lincs

 

[Lincoln7]

And at the end facts will remain facts…right? Therefore…show me one early church father clearly expressing papal primacy was to be: rejected,false,heretical,schismatic, or a great usurpation of Christ, then we can weigh-in the views.

See my second post on this page

Lincs

 

[Nicea325]

See my second post on this page

Lincs

First of all, your premise of the papacy of today not resembling the one of the early church is rather illogical. Does our government resemble the government of 1787? 1799? 1865?

Let’s examine this list: Firstly to be noted is the assumption that even if this list is accurate (will get to that), is that all these men possessed the exact same powers of the modern papacy, and were viewed as such in the church. It’s hard to even begin engaging this list as the site gives no references as to where it gets its info from. Phillip Schaff notes in his History of the Christian Church, vol II, commenting on the possibility of Peter appointing a successor in Rome; quote:

Sorry,but ONE SECONDARY source does not debunk 2,000 years of history. Mr. Schaff is not the voice of 2,000 years of church history nor is he an early church father.

"(of which there is not the slightest historical evidence);

Apparently he never reads.

and (5) that the bishops of Rome, as successors of Peter, have always enjoyed and exercised an universal jurisdiction over the Christian church (which is not the case as a matter of fact, and still less as a matter of conceded right)." end quote

And where are Mr. Schaff’s primary sources debunking the primacy of Rome?

(1). Thus reading a modern papacy into this period won’t hold up. If one is saying “there is a line of men in Rome” yes, but with none of what we see of as exemplifying a papacy. Indeed when we see one early bishop of Rome; Victor, attempting to excommunicate certain Asian churches over Easter dating, Irenaus strongly rebukes him.

Not a logic argument. Is the computer giant Microsoft the same today as it was in 1981? WRONG! Irenaus was not rebuking Victor’s PRIMACY,but moreover his decision to cut them off. Show me one word from that quote from Irenaus where he questions Victor’s primacy?

(

2). Thus it’s clear whatever form the episcopacy in Rome had, it was held no where near as powerful as the modern papacy. This lack of acknowledgment by other churches of any sort of jurisdictional primacy on the part or Rome is amply seen in many other places; Tertullian for example and his mocking of the roman bishop as “pontifex maximus”(3). Cyprian of Carthage, who calls the bishop of Rome ‘colleague’ instead of father and who in the controversy over baptism, rebukes the bishop of Rome for attempting to exert a form of power and jurisdiction over other churches he has no right to. (4).

Nothing but mere opinions by the author and “proof-texting” Again, your author apparently never reads any of the ECF writings in their entirety-does he? I can provide words from those very men saying quite the opposite your one secondary source.

I think this demonstrates enough that producing this list does not prove at all a papacy resembling the modern one.

I think it demonstrates your author has lots of opinions and not ONE ECF clearly teaching the primacy of Rome is to be rejected,false or heretical.

Sorry,but I have read this stuff for years and has debunked nothing of the sort.

 

[Lincoln7]

First of all, your premise of the papacy of today not resembling the one of the early church is rather illogical. Does our government resemble the government of 1787? 1799? 1865?

Can something ‘develop’ too much? To a point where it has no resemblance of an earlier model?

Sorry,but ONE SECONDARY source does not debunk 2,000 years of history. Mr. Schaff is not the voice of 2,000 years of church history nor is he an early church father.

No need for the shouting, I’m just posting what I see I dont really have time to post more than 1, and we’re both well aware these comment boxes are generally not suitable for discussing the history of something for a few thousand years… I posted enough to make my point.

Apparently he never reads.

Naturally I think Schaff is incredibly well read…

And where are Mr. Schaff’s primary sources debunking the primacy of Rome?

Notin the bits I chose to post. I will read on some more…

Not a logic argument. Is the computer giant Microsoft the same today as it was in 1981? WRONG! Irenaus was not rebuking Victor’s PRIMACY,but moreover his decision to cut them off. Show me one word from that quote from Irenaus where he questions Victor’s primacy?

Differing interpretations between us here… This is what I meant by my comment that history is all about interpretation, facts mean nout, it’s discerning why’s that matter.

I think it demonstrates your author has lots of opinions and not ONE ECF clearly teaching the primacy of Rome is to be rejected,false or heretical.

All authors have opinions and intentions…

Anyways, as I’ve said, a few thousand years of historical debate in this box doesn’t really work. I’ve chosen my ground, here I stand…

Regards

Lincs

 

[KathleenGee]

People have a hard time understanding the nature and mission of the Church.

Christ gave us the Apostles…not one, but twelve…witnesses to Our Lord.

To deny apostolic succession is in essence denying the life giving presence and direction of the Holy Spirit, always calling us to be one, holy, universal, apostolic.

If you cannot recognize the Holy Spirit at work in the Church and His work in ecclesiastics, then it is just mano a’ mano, man made work…which then ends up being like creatures…all based on different men with different opinions.

Who you chose to be your founder…you will be like your founder. You go down the street and see all sorts of denominations, each one claiming to ‘get it right’ about what the Bible says…and the Bible, nevertheless God as its author Who speaks through it…is likewise, written by men.

It is the Holy Spirit Who you must seek, not man and man made denominations…all based on one man, born about 1500 years after the life of Christ…to think that such a person has it right now…denies the experience and reality of knowing those before him…who suffered and died for Him…and always recognized the visible Church at work.

If your founder is Christ, you will be Christ like…oneness with believers…with humanity…with creation…and it is holy, and it is universal…it is the message given us by the apostles…who died for our faith.

Every Catholic parish has just as many opinions of how things should be done as there are members. But there are the 4 marks of the Church, stated above through the Holy Spirit…and fidelity to the sacred tradition of how we understand Christ, how we worship Christ – our greatest work here on earth, how we live out Christ…that is pretty much the same as it was 2,000 years ago.

But the Church was a seed…and grew as bride to the Tree of Life…all the works written in the name of Christ…are still being written…there will never be enough books written about Christ…our Vatican Library is testament to the understanding of Christ that we have gained down through the ages, as well as our manner of relating to God – not in book form, but as the Word Made Flesh.

If you are truly looking for God…you will see that the Church truly brings us to Him. If you are seeking the spirit of man…then you will find

To deny authenticity of Church or errors going on from one generation to the next is denying the reality of the work of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church, not just consecrated men.

How many founders of the Reformation were martyred by their blood vs the apostles…almost every single one except John.

Christ said the wheat would always be with the chaff…

 

[Nicea325]

Can something ‘develop’ too much? To a point where it has no resemblance of an earlier model?

No need for the shouting, I’m just posting what I see I dont really have time to post more than 1, and we’re both well aware these comment boxes are generally not suitable for discussing the history of something for a few thousand years… I posted enough to make my point.

Naturally I think Schaff is incredibly well read…

Notin the bits I chose to post. I will read on some more…

Differing interpretations between us here… This is what I meant by my comment that history is all about interpretation, facts mean nout, it’s discerning why’s that matter.

All authors have opinions and intentions…

Anyways, as I’ve said, a few thousand years of historical debate in this box doesn’t really work. I’ve chosen my ground, here I stand…

Regards

Lincs

Develop to much? Did the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation develop over the centuries to much that it did not resemble what the early church taught? Yes you posted enough to make your point,but not to debunk 2,000 years of history. Schaff is incredibly well read,but sure is lacking in the comprehension department.

Different interpretations? Seriously? We have scores of church fathers words about the primacy of Rome where it is evident what they said and believed. It is called revisionism by many today because it conflicts with their novel beliefs,plain and simple.

All authors have opinions,but to bad opinions are merely that…opinions. An opinion with no sound evidence is nothing.

Well you’re fine to choose your ground,but your ground is very shakey supporting your position.

Again…present to me one ECF clearly teaching the primacy of Rome is: heretical,false, to be rejected,schismatic or a usurpation of Christ in the first 500 years?

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve been asked for a source the ‘thousands of denominations’ number. Can you provide your source for this?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations#cite_note-1
and
christianity.about.com/od/denominations/p/christiantoday.htm

Now, you believe this is incorrect.

What is your number, and please cite your source.

(Incidentally, while it is an interesting question, in an academic way–and 38,000 is an obscenity, really and truly. It speaks to the chaos and confusion that has been wrought by those who feel at liberty to splinter from the faith which gave them the *kergyma *–really, isn’t more than 1 just wrong, when we listen to what Christ had envisioned for His Church?

 

[PRmerger]

easily. Why was lincoln president, for example? You will find a fair many views on that… It’s the ‘why’ that matters a great deal of the time.

Best regards

Lincs.

Okay. I can see your point here. There* can *be different interpretations of history.

But in the end, the facts are laid out for all to see. Either President Lincoln was president or he wasn’t. We can discuss why he got elected over (whom?? Johnson? Stonewall Jackson? I have no idea.)

And as we apply it to the Catholic analogy, we are certainly permitted to discuss and dialogue on All Things Catholic (hence, the existence of this very medium you and I have become buddies on , the wonderful Catholic Answers Forum), but in the end, the facts (here, read dogma/doctrines) are laid out for all to see.

 

[PRmerger]

I think this demonstrates enough that producing this list does not prove at all a papacy resembling the modern one

Now, Lincs, this is a bit different from your original argument, which was, “I don’t see a papacy” in history.

Clearly, it’s there for all to see. And it’s another brick in the fortress of “Why the Catholic Church is the One True Church”.

Now, the fact that it doesn’t resemble the modern one (arguable, but I’ll concede here)…that is an indictment on Catholicism, how exactly?

 

[PRmerger]

No it does not, but I base my views on the evidence I see, which is pretty clear in many places…

No, it’s not.

The JWs love to pointedly ask, “If a bible were dropped into the middle of a desert and someone picked it up and read it, would they conclude that God was a Trinity?”

I think they’re correct–nope, you can’t glean the dogma of the Trinity from the passages of the Bible.

Now, to a Catholic this question about dropping the Bible into a desert and having someone glean a doctrine from it is quite absurd. Why would someone be expected to use only the Bible to come up with some really difficult concepts such as the Trinity, the hypostatic union, the 2 natures of Christ, etc etc etc. We don’t claim that this is the way Scripture should be read. Or doctrine extracted. We have the kerygma, and from it the Scriptures developed.

But to a Bible-only Christian, the JW’s question is a pointed one, and one that cannot be refuted. They* are *right: if a bible were dropped into the middle of a desert and someone picked it up and read it, there’s NO WAY he would conclude that God was a Trinity.

 

[pablope]

It’s addressed to the 72 . I’m wary of reading back the current notion of apostolic succession into this… As I’ve already said, I view being in accord with apostolic teaching more important than a physical line…

Aside from them, he also sent the Apostles. Don’t you think this passage applies today? Is the word of God limited only to that time and place?

But keeping the apostolic line is important to keep the apostolic teaching…and was believed and practiced by the Apostles and their successors.

From paul…St. Paul told St. Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2)

And Clement of Rome…
44:2 and on this account, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the above-mentioned as bishops and deacons: and then gave a rule of succession, in order that, when they had fallen asleep, other men, who had been approved, might succeed to their ministry.
.
And…St. Irenaeus (d. AD 200) writes:

But, again, when we refer [the heretics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters,

Looks to me, your disregard for the apostolic line is out of sync with the the original Christianity.

Tell me…when did this disregard for apostolic succession start and come about?

In 1:18 Paul goes up to meet with Peter and James yes. On the name ‘Cephas’, I’m happy to admit Peter has a special role, but one of honour only, not of authority over the others.

**The revelation to Paul did not say start your own church…but submit your gospel to the Apostles…Peter, James and John. **

Have you asked yourself…why did the revelation to Paul said go to the Apostles?

May I repeat…Humility, Lincoln…submission to apostolic authority…1john4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us.

May I ask again…those leaders of protestantism that you follow…have they followed the example of Paul? Or did they take authority on their own?

, Paul is not so much ensuring he submits to a supreme Peter, for he does not view him this way, hence his rebuke of Peter in chapter 2. Instead he goes to ensure church unity.

Ah…the famous rebuke of Peter in Gal 2. Again…tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation

Remember the account of the tension between the Gentiles and the Jews. Paul could not ease the tension…but recognizes somebody with the right stature who could…Peter. And he sees Peter’s moral failing. As a leader, Peter is the one who could ease the tension between the two groups. It is precisely because of Peter’s stature as leader…that could bring this about.

What this also shows in that a leader should not be beyond reproach. This is a fraternal correction of Paul to Peter…this shows that having authority does not mean one is above reproof…he acknowledges Peter’s authority as we have seen but also respects Peter enough as a man to speak with him directly and clearly, to his face, and not behind his back.

Does Peter lash out at Paul after this incident? Paul is silent…most obviously is that Peter sees his failing and corrects his behaviour.

Humility of a leader, Linc…to accept correction.

Your tradition is to deny the leadership of Peter…that is why you saw it differently. Remember…tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation

Best regards

Lincs

Best regards too…I will deal with the rest of your post later…

 

[CopticChristian]

I’ve been asked for a source the ‘thousands of denominations’ number. Can you provide your source for this?
Yet the Orthodox would state that Rome has in several rather important ways departed from the Tradition, with Rome also claiming the same of them…

Linc,

Consider that the Orthodox consider Rome the first among equals. How does that fit with your understanding. Does Schaff take into account the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and then Rome first among equals?

What about the Nestorians that are now the Chaldean Catholics?

 

[pablope]

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

 

[pablope]

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

Part three…

Read the letter, it does not say its from Clement, but that it’s from the church at Rome. Which has a plurality of elders leading it at this time. It’s identified as coming from clement because of Hermas’ comment on a role in the Roman church of being involved in correspondence…

Yeah…and who was the head of the Church at Rome? Who was its head bishop at that time?

Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3)

newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

1. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace,

Let me ask you…so you think your sources of information know better than Ireneus?

My church ordains men to eldership, it also sends both them and others out for mission with the laying on of hands and prayer…

And who sent them? Who gave them authority to ordain? And who sent those who sent them?

How would they know what they are preaching is the right gospel? Where did your church originate from? Who gave authority to establish your church? Can you trace it to any apostle?

May I add also…Paul’s further instructions to Timothry…2Tim3…14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it

Remember the example of Paul in Acts 13…as I asked…if you do not know…the founder of the Church at Antioch…to the holy spirit moving Simeon, Lucius and Manaen…to ordain Paul and Barnabas.

Elders and leaders in a christian community were appointed by the Apostles by the laying of hands.

I’d say it shows the church praying for Barnabas and Saul as they go out to do the Lords will… Paul is already in command of disciples by this point and thus already recognised as an Apostle…

Actually, Paul does not become an apostle prior to Acts 13. He spends about 10 yrs forming his self and his gospel…conferring with Peter and submitting himself…he was not a self appointed missionary and his conversion required completion before the Church sent him forth. This going-forth he undertook only after being sent.

It is only after his ordination does he undergo on his famous missionary journey…his first one of three.

May I reiterate…prior to being sent…obedience and humility…demonstrated by Paul in his account of submission to Peter.

*Well, how did the Holy Scripture tell Calvin he is correct? Did Calvin decide for himself that he is correct? Who did Calvin submit his gospel too, same as St. Paul? *

No he let scripture speak for itself, I don’t know who he first submitted his teachings too, he was 23 when he first published the institutes, I will try and find out for you who was over him at the time

Well, how did the Scripture speak? Does it have a voice?
Well…this might help you…calledtocommunion.com/2010/06/how-john-calvin-made-me-a-catholic/
*
While he rejected Rome’s claim to authority, he made striking claims for his own authority…Calvin took very seriously the obligation of the laity to submit and obey. “Contradicting the ministers” was one of the most common reasons to be called before the Consistory and penalties could be severe…Church history taught me that this attitude was a recent development. John Calvin had high expectations for the unity and catholicity of the faith, and for the centrality of Church and sacrament. But Calvinism couldn’t deliver it. Outside of Geneva, without the force of the state to impose one version, Calvinism itself splintered into factions. In her book Orthodoxies in Massachusetts: Rereading American Puritanism, historian Janice Knight details how the process unfolded very early in American Calvinism. 8*

Well…indeed without the proper Apostolic line, without a bishop sent via the Apostles…there you can see the start of splitting.

I reiterate again…to belabor the point…1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

*Thomas Aquinas…or Ratzinger, they are theologians too…what makes Calvin greater than them? Why do you believe Calvin more than others? *

Indeed both vastly intelligent men. But in certain areas they are not in accord with scripture… It’s the rule to which things are tested.

And how would you know that Aquinas and Ratzinger which areas they are not in accord with Scripture? What would be your basis?

It is …tradition does not authoritatively guide -]his/-] Lincoln7’s interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation

Isn’t it akin to shooting an arrow into a wall…and then you build your target around it…is it not?

Best regards

Lincs.

And to you too…

 

[Lincoln7]

Hi all,

I’m travelling today, so won’t be able to put my responses up until later this afternoon.

Also: You’re lucky it’s a long journey! I just added up the 2000 or so words I’ve got to reply to

Regards

Lincs.