G
greggy53
Guest
Do you believe everything the Bible says ? Do you believe in a literal translation ?
- Status
J
Janet1983
Guest
I though the right answer would have been “What a coincidence - we do the same thing.”
J
Janet1983
Guest
Do you love Jesus?
He didn’t ask, do you love the Pope? Do you love Doctrine? Do you love your church? Do you love your parents? Do you love your wife, your husband, your children?
Do you love Jesus? That is more a question that we should ask ourselves. If we love the Lord with all our heart, mind and soul we are His. Those who are pastoring to others should do exactly that" Love the Lord. This does not have to be just Peter (or the pope by extension) it can be you and me.
We can minister to each other and lead each other and have iron sharpen iron.
R
RNRobert
Guest
Its just that fundamentalists don’t regard Catholics as Christians…
G
greggy53
Guest
You are dodging the issue. Jesus was speaking to Peter asking him to feed his sheep. It has nothing to do with doctrine or loving your spouse . It’s about stewardship. Would you not acknowledge that our lord was speaking to Peter about he (Peter) leading his flock?
R
Robbinson
Guest
Yes - this saddens me deeply and to me is an indication that something has gone terribly awry in fundamentalist doctrine. This is one of the factors that precipitated my looking into church history and Catholic doctrine a bit further.Its just that fundamentalists don’t regard Catholics as Christians…
God told us we would know one another by how we love oneanother - that seems to have been lost (or miminized) in the “debate” over doctrine
I’m still on the road of study and prayer (a work in progress), but we are clearly all brothers and sisters in Christ.
Blessings,
Brian
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
Yes. Severe anti-Catholicism can lead people in the opposite direction that the anti-Catholic had hoped. For instance, you looking into what the Church *actually *teaches as opposed to taking their word for it. This is not always the case though. Some times anti-Catholicism breeds anti-Catholicism.
If Fundamentalists don’t consider Catholics as “another” then they would really just
at this comment. Although the fundamentalists that I have dialog with don’t stop with excluding Catholics from Christianity but Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists and some Baptists.This is what the Catholic Church teaches, this is what I believe.
God bless you
E
erikd
Guest
Yes I love Jesus, I don’t think I indicated otherwise. I did show, however, that just as Jesus is a Shepherd to His flock, so St. Peter was put in the same position. Since we know this is an office which has to be upheld (Acts 1:20) we can infer that Jesus wants us to be led by His chosed Shepherds, just as He chose one for us 2000 years ago.
J
Janet1983
Guest
Jesus Christ is the Good Shepherd (John 10:11-15; Hebrews 13:20) and we are not supposed to follow any other.
Even Peter himself acknowledges that and writes it in his letter (1 Peter 5:4)… So why go ahead and call him a shepherd?
You may claim that the verse you quoted would indicate that Peter proves to be the shepherd, but it doesn’t and he isn’t. Jesus Christ is and there is no way to deny that. Jesus Christ is the head of His Church and He is the Good Shepherd.
All of the apostles were told to feed the flock in the sense that they taught them, cared for them and led them. (Mattew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15,16; 2 Cor. 11:28). The same goes for bishops and elders… they are told to feed the flock (1 Peter 5:1-3; Acts 20:28).
There is no supremacy of Peter in this. Those who are called to be elders are to feed the flock and teach them…
Peter is not the chief shepherd. Jesus did not exalt Peter in saying what He said… He simply restored Peter to his position among the apostles because this scene takes place just shortly after Peter did deny the Lord three (3) times (John 18:15-18,25-27). Through Jesus questions Peter had to confess his love three times and this restored him into the position the other apostles shared…
Jesus Christ the Good Shepherd is to be exalted, not Peter nor the popes. Jesus Christ is the head, foundation, and chief shepherd for the Church. To exalt a man into that position is short of blasphemy because this position is held by the Lord himself and not by a mere man.
G
greggy53
Guest
…Why call him a shepard? I didn’t, but Jesus did when he asked Peter to Feed his sheep. Jesus Christ is the undisputed head of the Catholic Church no-one who knows our faith would say otherwise. But you are seeing only the scriptures you want to believe, and disregarding others you don’t want to believe. The Church believes and professes what All of the scriptures say, ALL of it.
R
Robbinson
Guest
Hi Janet:
The apostles were clearly given express authority by Jesus and Peter, among the postles was alone given the “keys to the kingdom”. The authority was given to bind and lose, to forgive sins. The gospels further describe a Church of authority that could resolve disputes - this is more than the invisible body, but a recognizable Church institution where one would go. And who would that be? the Apostles, and after them, their successors.
The gospels speak of the annointing of teachers and successors with the laying of hands. The earliest writings of Christians demonstrates that the immediate disciples of the apostles understood this role, and respected authority based upon the line of succession from the apostles themselves.
In fact, the cannon itself was established through this recognized process of authority (it was the Catholic Church - apostolic authority) which was respected in establishing the cannon as were the creeds that we, as Protestants, still rely on (Nicene and Apostles Creeds).
This is the basis of Church authority (according to Catholic doctrine). I’m Protestant (though thinking seriously of Catholic Church doctrine because frankly the doctrine of Apostolic Succession is compelling).
The reformation has led to the division of the body into over 30,000 denominations with different doctrines, yet all claiming to be right based upon the Holy Spirit - this is not the “fruit” we would expect and if the idea was to return to the “original” church - which of the 30,000 denominations is it? Interestingly, the historical and oldest writings suggest it is the Catholic succession of bishops which flows from the earliest years of Christianity. That must make us pause and think.
One can still make arguments for the reformation and against Catholicism, but I don’t think suggesting that the apostles did not have special authority and/or that Peter did not play a special role (given scripture which clearly suggests they, and he did) will be the most effective arguments that can be made.
Blessings,
Brian
J
Janet1983
Guest
All of it??
What about John John 14:16; 14:26; John 16:13; 1 Cor. 2:11-13?
And what about Deut. 32:3; 1 Sam. 22:2; Psalm 18:31; Isaiah 44:8; Rom. 9:33?
Or simply Rom. 3:28-30; Rom. 4:5; Rom. 5:1; Rom. 9:30; Rom. 10:4; Rom. 11:6; Gal. 2:16; Gal. 2:21; Gal.3:5-6; Gal. 3:24; Eph. 2:8-9; Phil. 3:9?
Or maybe Matt. 1:24-25; Matt. 12:46-47; Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:2-3; John 2:12; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:4-5; Gal. 1:19?
Or maybe just the ones I mentioned earlier: Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15,16; Acts 20:28; 2 Cor. 11:28; 1 Pet. 5:1-3?
Staying on-topic… That does not change the fact that I will still call myself “Bible-believing”… It actually accentuates it.
N
Newbie2
Guest
Chief shepherd implies that there are other shepherds, no? OF COURSE, JC is to be exaulted, why do you think the popes worship him
Newsflash; Catholics to not hold the Pope to the position held by the Almighty. The one good thing about being Catholic is that we have the confidence in our faith where we don’t have to qualify or label ourselves by using “bible believing”. 
G
greggy53
Guest
Absolutely, I respect your right to say that, But myself and others on this forum can quote just as many if not more scriptures to back the Church’s beliefs, and we too consider ourselves Bible believing Christians. We differ in the respect that we acknowledge that the one true Church that Jesus established has the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the authority to interpret those scriptures. The Bible is not an oracle, and many a soul has lost their way leaning on their own understanding.
What the title of this thread implies, I think, is the idea that those who call themselves “Bible Believing” really mean “We are Christians because we believe that the Bible is more important than anything else and those who think otherwise are not really Christians.” If I am wrong (which my wife says is often the case) then I will repent.
H
Hisalone
Guest
Sorry to hear that, wish you would find a good Chosen People Org congregation.
chosenpeople.com/main/
Peter most certainly was a leader in the 1st century church. One could make a compeling arguement that Peter was first aomoung the apostles. It is impossible to make the leap from Peter as leader of a small group huddled before Pentacost to the modern day pope.
The scriptures that are used to justify this are indeed periously wanting.
Yes there was and still is a laying on of hands to commision for an office. Certainly you dont maintain that those many years that this was bought and sold for mammon that an apostolic succession was maintained?
The apostles were all taught by Christ. Present day apostles are taught by Christ. Christ is the same today as He was yesterday and will be tommorrow.
H
Hisalone
Guest
Im a fundamentalist and I regard many Catholics as Christian.Its just that fundamentalists don’t regard Catholics as Christians…
Maybe if you learned more about Fundamentalists you would know what we teach.
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
Sure. Lets qualify this statement a bit. Do you consider the Catholic Church Christian?
God bless you
G
greggy53
Guest
It doesn’t take any leap at all… The history of one Pope succeeding the next is well documented decade by decade, century by century for 2000 continuous years. It is indeed a compelling argument that can only be debunked (with any intellectual integrity) if one can demonstrate that our Lord did not intend for Peter to have a successor. On the contrary when he bestowed upon St Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven he bestowed upon him the authority and stewardship of His Church. Stewardship that was passed on from one generation to the next so that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.
What scriptures are you refering to?.
How or when specifically was it lost?..At what point in history, and what is your source, and evidence that it was lost.? Once Christ bestowed that authority under whose authority was it revoked? And where is the evidence??
R
Robbinson
Guest
Hi HisAlone.
Yes, I’m familiar with Chosen People (great organization) and I’ve participated in many events and one on ones with them. They are good friends to me.
As to apostolic succession, I do indeed believe that the apostles were given authority by Christ and that this authority was intended to continue/pass down through succession through laying of hands. I guess we can agree to disagree on the scriptural basis (I believe) or lack thereof (you believe) for that concept. To me, this is implied through the “office”, through the only other place “keys” is used in scripture (Isaiah) which refers to an office with succession and the explicit replacement of Judas with another apostle through succession.
Also significant is the teachings of the direct disciples of the apostles themselves, who either went immediately brain dead, or really were led to believe by the apostles themselves that their authority derived from their appointment by the apostles.
Then there is the empirical evidence of the consequence of breaking the line of succession, a fracture (not spintering, but severe fracture) in the unity of the body with the growth of thousands (whether its 30,000, 40,000 or 10,000 is not relevant) of protestant denominations.
As to papal infallibility - yes, I’m still studying and praying about it.
BTW - love your handle - we are all “HisAlone” in that our salvation comes from Christ - without that sacrifice, and the grace of our faith in Him, we have nothing.
There is much common ground that should be celebrated between Catholic doctrine and Protestant doctrine - and much too much made of difference (often misunderstanding).
Blessings,
Brian
J
Janet1983
Guest
Agreed. I do the same thing. I am sure that there are true Christians within the CC… not 100% of the CC, but there are true Christians in the CC…
There are also quite a few outside of the CC… Without and within there are true Christians and such who only act as if they were Christians.
- Status