C
Cinette
Guest
Not surprised at all - I have experienced Ginger before!
- Status
B
bobregan
Guest
From the Anglican (Episcopalean) web-site referenced before:you still haven’t supplied a shred of evidence? The only thing we have any reasonable degree of certainty about (though there is some level of dispute over this) is that Peter anointed Ignatius (bishop of Antioch). There’s also a reasonably good amount of evidence that Peter was martyred in Rome. However. that’s where it ends. The Roman Churches claim to rule over the Christian world is an internal claim with no apostolic basis … period!
not true exactly … but once again Catholics have no support for their claims of rule over Christendom, but then we won’t agree here (and frankly I’m not too worried about what you guys think of us).
Also, from JDN Kelly appealing to apostoloc authority, iral tradition, and not scripture alone:
profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics
merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with
which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to
reach any decisive conclusion in that field. (ibid., 41)
wow … buddy from now on, **just say NO **
It seems you don’t understand this issue enough to have an insightful discourse with me?
do really believe this stuff?
The early Church regularly appealed to Apostolic Succession as a test for whether
correct doctrine was being taught. Again, they did not even have recourse to the same
Holy Bible which we have. Even in those instances when Scripture was used, heretics
and other false teachers would place their own, sometimes bizarre, interpretations on the
Scripture. Clearly, true faith and the doctrine of the Church also had to be measured by another benchmark as well.
Also, from JDN Kelly appealing to apostoloc authority, oral tradition, and not scripture alone:
profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics
merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with
which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to
reach any decisive conclusion in that field. (ibid., 41)
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Cinette,
“I’m shocked!”
Mischief from Ginger2…?
How convenient.
Serioulsy, the issue is really straight forward: with Luther’s defection and fall from Faith, it was very difficult to keep everyone in line because there really were other political objectives and opportunities that the other ‘Reformers’ suddenly saw. Whoever was the political leader of the area determined the religion - and how money was paid and what property was held.
While there can be a strictly theological argument about the religious idea of the 16th and 17 century - it would not really address all of the obvious non-religious aspects that went hand-in-hand with the period known as the ‘Reformation’. Politics and economics were real and significant players in this game and contributed greatly to the outcomes for all of the countries involved.
One of the obvious fall-outs is that it was difficult for Luther to condemn the Pope if he wanted to be the Pope of his own religion. Naturally, while others quoted Luther, the issue was one of obedience - and the classic example was the split between Calvin and Luther. While doctrine was an obvious issue, it was not the only issue. I am reminded of the famous quote from the character “Deep Throat” in the book “All the President’s Men” - his advice was simple: “Follow the money.”
Not having a centralized leadership can easily explain there being no centralized doctrine in “Protestantism” (as if it were a monolithic unit). Layer “private interpretation” of scripture on top of that and you have all the making for anarchy, chaos … and the clear multiplicity of Protestant faiths that differ on so many points.
God bless,
“I’m shocked!”
Mischief from Ginger2…?Oh, well … you know, I was wondering why the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” and “…the Communion of Saints…” were omitted. Of course: brevity!You will never get an answer to your question. Ginger only talks to herself. If you do get a proper answer then I will be very surprised.
Let’s see…
How convenient.Serioulsy, the issue is really straight forward: with Luther’s defection and fall from Faith, it was very difficult to keep everyone in line because there really were other political objectives and opportunities that the other ‘Reformers’ suddenly saw. Whoever was the political leader of the area determined the religion - and how money was paid and what property was held.
While there can be a strictly theological argument about the religious idea of the 16th and 17 century - it would not really address all of the obvious non-religious aspects that went hand-in-hand with the period known as the ‘Reformation’. Politics and economics were real and significant players in this game and contributed greatly to the outcomes for all of the countries involved.
One of the obvious fall-outs is that it was difficult for Luther to condemn the Pope if he wanted to be the Pope of his own religion. Naturally, while others quoted Luther, the issue was one of obedience - and the classic example was the split between Calvin and Luther. While doctrine was an obvious issue, it was not the only issue. I am reminded of the famous quote from the character “Deep Throat” in the book “All the President’s Men” - his advice was simple: “Follow the money.”
Not having a centralized leadership can easily explain there being no centralized doctrine in “Protestantism” (as if it were a monolithic unit). Layer “private interpretation” of scripture on top of that and you have all the making for anarchy, chaos … and the clear multiplicity of Protestant faiths that differ on so many points.
God bless,
E
Eternaly_Secure
Guest
The problem is there were no protestants because they are people who have come out of the catholic church.
The thing is the early Church were neither catholic or protestant, the whole thing is silly and the devil is probably laughing.
B
bobregan
Guest
Further commentary from Protestant scholars J.N.D. Kelly and James White on Peter being Bishop of Rome until death:
Protestant scholar J. N. D. Kelly in the Oxford Dictionary of Popes says, “It seems certain that Peter spent his closing years in Rome…To early writers like Clement of Rome (c.95), Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107), and Irenaeus (c.180), it was common knowledge that he worked and died in Rome.”
Even anti-Catholic apologist James White of Alpha Omega Ministries, in a June 1995 debate with Joe Gallegos, conceded, “According to the Papal claims, Peter was the Bishop of Rome until his death. There is plenty of evidence of this from the writings of early fathers, but surprisingly little from the Biblical text itself.”
Protestant scholar J. N. D. Kelly in the Oxford Dictionary of Popes says, “It seems certain that Peter spent his closing years in Rome…To early writers like Clement of Rome (c.95), Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107), and Irenaeus (c.180), it was common knowledge that he worked and died in Rome.”
Even anti-Catholic apologist James White of Alpha Omega Ministries, in a June 1995 debate with Joe Gallegos, conceded, “According to the Papal claims, Peter was the Bishop of Rome until his death. There is plenty of evidence of this from the writings of early fathers, but surprisingly little from the Biblical text itself.”
B
bobregan
Guest
Commentary on former Evangelical Steve Ray’s book “Upon This Rock.” The book includes many commentaries and footnotes from Protestant scholars. Ray is a former Evangelical, that after investigating Peter, the early Church, and apostolic succession, converted to Catholicism:
Steve Ray, a former Evangelical Protestant and Bible teacher, goes through the Scriptures and the first five centuries of the Church to demonstrate that the early Christians had a clear understanding of the primacy of Peter in the see of Rome. He tackles the tough issues in an attempt to expose how the opposition is misunderstanding the Scriptures and history. He uses many Protestant scholars and historians to support the Catholic position. This book contains the most complete compilation of Scriptural and Patristic quotations on the primacy of Peter and the Papal office of any book available. It has over 500 footnotes with supporting evidence from Catholic, Orthodox, Evangelical, and non-Christian authorities.
Steve Ray, a former Evangelical Protestant and Bible teacher, goes through the Scriptures and the first five centuries of the Church to demonstrate that the early Christians had a clear understanding of the primacy of Peter in the see of Rome. He tackles the tough issues in an attempt to expose how the opposition is misunderstanding the Scriptures and history. He uses many Protestant scholars and historians to support the Catholic position. This book contains the most complete compilation of Scriptural and Patristic quotations on the primacy of Peter and the Papal office of any book available. It has over 500 footnotes with supporting evidence from Catholic, Orthodox, Evangelical, and non-Christian authorities.
G
Ginger2
Guest
Wow, I take a couple days away from forums and I’m chastised for not responding. Are you all retired that you can’t understand someone might not have every moment free to debate?
Or maybe you are doing it while your bosses are paying you to do something else? I certainly hope that not the case, that would be stealing.
Cinette? have you contributed anything of value to this thread, or are you just here to criticize me? Just wondering…
I assure you the whole Creed is!
Or maybe you are using it as an opportunity to claim I don’t believe the whole Creed? :tsktsk:
I didn’t omit it to deny, but because I was making a point to which there was no reason to write the whole thing out - unless someone would deny the creed is supported by Scriptures. You don’t deny that, do you?
But let’s talk about the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and the Communion of Saints”.
Do you realize that is not what the original creed actually said?
The Old Roman Creed, which was first quoted by Tertullian about A.D. 200, is the original creed believed to have been given us by the Apostles.
The Apostles Creed grew out of the old Roman creed, but you won’t find it in its present form until about A.D. 650.
Protestants use the later version of the creed, which includes the words, (9) “The Holy catholic Church, the communion of saints” Notice “catholic” with a small “c”?
I have to get back to work now, I have a heavy schedule this week and don’t have time for the nonsense being tossed around here.
Ginger
Or maybe you are doing it while your bosses are paying you to do something else? I certainly hope that not the case, that would be stealing.
Cinette? have you contributed anything of value to this thread, or are you just here to criticize me? Just wondering…
I was making a point that ALL of the Apostle’s Creed is supported by Scripture. Are you suggesting that because I only gave an example the omitted verse must not be?Hi, Cinette,
Oh, well … you know, I was wondering why the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” and “…the Communion of Saints…” were omitted. Of course: brevity!
I assure you the whole Creed is!Or maybe you are using it as an opportunity to claim I don’t believe the whole Creed? :tsktsk:
I didn’t omit it to deny, but because I was making a point to which there was no reason to write the whole thing out - unless someone would deny the creed is supported by Scriptures. You don’t deny that, do you?
But let’s talk about the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and the Communion of Saints”.
Do you realize that is not what the original creed actually said?
The Old Roman Creed, which was first quoted by Tertullian about A.D. 200, is the original creed believed to have been given us by the Apostles.
The Apostles Creed grew out of the old Roman creed, but you won’t find it in its present form until about A.D. 650.
Protestants use the later version of the creed, which includes the words, (9) “The Holy catholic Church, the communion of saints” Notice “catholic” with a small “c”?
I have to get back to work now, I have a heavy schedule this week and don’t have time for the nonsense being tossed around here.
Ginger
O
orange_man
Guest
you keep telling me all this proof exists … yet you neglect to provide even a shred of it??? Yes I’ll say it again … the RCC cannot prove apostolic succession (it’s a fallacious concept to begin with, at least the way the RCC & EOC frame it, but I guess that’s another topic).
we succeed in terms of adhering to apostolic teachings, whereas the RCC has long departed from them.
The only real significance to apostolic succession is adhering to their teachings (not some set of physical rituals). The rituals that were passed down (such as laying hands) are only efficacious when we follow the teachings as handed down (as expressed in apostolic writings i.e. the New Testament). These rituals are symbolic of a spiritual reality:
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life (John 6:63).
I refute the way the RCC has perverted Peter’s commission as head of the Apostles for its own purposes … yes indeed! There’s absolutely no evidence (outside the RCC’s own internal claims, which the church itself provides no evidence to support) that Peter annointed any bishop in Rome, let alone promulgated Roman primacy over the church.
B
bobregan
Guest
So, if I’m clear Orange Man, you’re looking for proof, possibly for a photo and article from the front page of the newspaper “The Roman Gazette” in the year 65 AD of Peter handing the keys to the Kingdom to Linus?? Or a signed letter from the first century from Peter that’s been notarized explaining the RCC’s belief of apostolic succession? Is that the kind of proof you need?
The RCC has departed from apostolic teachings?? Tell me…where do you get the authority to make that determination? Where do you, Orange Man, get the authority to interpret scripture? I’ll need proof of this, and not your own “internal” proof. You must have some kind of signed letter from Peter for example, that you, Orange Man, have authority and apostolic succession. Can you show me that proof? Can your denomination prove apostolic authority and the authority to interpret scripture correctly?
Here, I’ll challenge you, Orange Man. I’ll read Steve Ray’s book “Upon this Rock” and you read it to. We’ll discuss it 30 days from today. He claims many non-Catholic sources that the Catholic Church today is the one true Church founded through Peter, many Protestant sources. What d’ya say?
O
orange_man
Guest
My authority comes from scripture itself (and by extension, God), and its revelation that all believers are priests. In other words scripture is there for all to read, and its language is plain enough to be understood by all. The Catholic Churches horrendous attempts to monopolize even the word of God is so outlandish words cannot describe it (at least kindly).So, if I’m clear Orange Man, you’re looking for proof, possibly for a photo and article from the front page of the newspaper “The Roman Gazette” in the year 65 AD of Peter handing the keys to the Kingdom to Linus?? Or a signed letter from the first century from Peter that’s been notarized explaining the RCC’s belief of apostolic succession? Is that the kind of proof you need?
The RCC has departed from apostolic teachings?? Tell me…where do you get the authority to make that determination? Where do you, Orange Man, get the authority to interpret scripture? I’ll need proof of this, and not your own “internal” proof. You must have some kind of signed letter from Peter for example, that you, Orange Man, have authority and apostolic succession. Can you show me that proof? Can your denomination prove apostolic authority and the authority to interpret scripture correctly?
Here, I’ll challenge you, Orange Man. I’ll read Steve Ray’s book “Upon this Rock” and you read it to. We’ll discuss it 30 days from today. He claims many non-Catholic sources that the Catholic Church today is the one true Church founded through Peter, many Protestant sources. What d’ya say?
As for the book you request I read … I’m not going to read Catholic propoganda. If you would like to cite (in accordance with the forum guidelines obviously) excerpts out of the book, then by all means. I’ll deal with any facts you present, but again I’m not going to read an entire book with a Catholic bias (I have far too many good protestant books I’m reading).
B
bobregan
Guest
You say:
“we succeed in terms of adhering to apostolic teachings, whereas the RCC has long departed from them.”
OK…Christ taught at the Last Supper that the Eucharist is “My Body”. Obviously apostolic teaching that the Catholic Church believes that yes, it is His true Body and Blood (and I can of course go in to greater detail on this in John 6 when Christ taught the Apostles on the Eucharist.). Do you believe in this Apostolic teaching, or do you believe the opposite, that it’s only symbolic?
It seems you really have no Christian belief outside of “Whatever the Catholic Church teaches, I’ll believe the opposite.”
B
bobregan
Guest
So if my personal interpretation of a scriptural passage differs diametrically from yours, then we’re both right?? Or we’re both wrong, or one of us is right?? Christ wanted all this confusion over what He said?? There’s no teaching authority for Scripture?My authority comes from scripture itself (and by extension, God), and its revelation that all believers are priests. In other words scripture is there for all to read, and its language is plain enough to be understood by all. The Catholic Churches horrendous attempts to monopolize even the word of God is so outlandish words cannot describe it (at least kindly).
As for the book you request I read … I’m not going to read Catholic propoganda. If you would like to cite (in accordance with the forum guidelines obviously) excerpts out of the book, then by all means. I’ll deal with any facts you present, but again I’m not going to read an entire book with a Catholic bias (I have far too many good protestant books I’m reading).
C
Contarini
Guest
This makes no sense. You present this as if it were some kind of deal, when in fact you are foisting propaganda on OrangeMan.
How about you suggest reading an actual work of patristic scholarship that addresses these issues? One that people from differing religious perspectives can respect? Mr. Ray is an estimable Christian gentleman, but his work is not acclaimed across the religious spectrum as a fair and scholarly treatment of the subject. It’s a work of apologetics, which is by and large a dreary genre for anyone not already convinced or desperately longing to be.
Edwin
O
orange_man
Guest
There is teaching authority for Scripture, pastors and deacons (according to the rules set forth by Paul in Timothy). However, we are also expected to study the word of God for ourselves and gain a certain degree of mastery in understanding it (to the best of our abilities).
Tell me, where in scripture do you find support for practices such as invocation to saints, Marian veneration, use of icons, papal infallibility (or an earthly central governing institution for the church), and so on? I’ll save you the time … there is no support. None of these things were practiced by the earliest Pauline Christians. They all represent a conflation of pre-Christian Greco-Roman pagan ritual into Christianity.
O
orange_man
Guest
Unfortunately Catholics frequently cite John 6, but always ignore verse 63:
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life (John 6:63).
huh?
B
brkn1
Guest
I recall Jesus thanking His Father that these things (words of salvation) were hidden from the worldly “wise and prudent” self-righteous hypocrites. He spoke in parables to those hypocrites, so that they would not understand and be saved.
There is only one Truth, but it seems that God does not make it clear for eveyone.
The teaching Authority for Scripture is the Holy Spirit, Who might use other teachers to help us to understand (as Phillip did with the Eunuch), but the teaching of those must always be confirmed to the listener by the indwelling Holy Spirit’s Authority. “My sheep hear My voice.”
C
Contarini
Guest
If that was what Jesus meant, the Incarnation would make no sense. The bodily death and resurrection of Jesus would be meaningless.
Clearly Jesus was not saying that outward, physical things count for nothing. Zwingli was wrong on this one, and Luther was right.
Edwin
O
orange_man
Guest
well said.
O
orange_man
Guest
I don’t tend to agree much with Zwingli (and would almost always side with Luther over Zwingli). However, the statement Jesus makes at John 6:63 is a direct response to his disciples:
“This is a hard teaching, who can except it”? (v. 60).
The disciple was commenting on what Jesus states at v. 56:
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.
In other words the disciple is shocked by what Jesus states. We can easily see what’s going through the disciples mind … this sounds sort of cannibalistic right? Obviously shocking for anyone (especially a Jew during the Second Temple period).
Jesus responds by saying, I don’t literally mean eat flesh or drink blood, my words are spiritual (the flesh counts for nothing).
This isn’t related to the bodily resurrection (and subsequent ascention) of Christ, except that by the spirit our flesh comes into union with the flesh of Christ. In other words we can only begin to resemble (or be conformed into the image of) Christ through an indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
This is not to deny the real presence (I’m Presbyterian & we do affirm real presence in our doctrine as Calvin did). The Eucharist is a rememberance. In a spiritual way we partake in the body and blood of Christ when we consume the Eucharist. It is His flesh, it is His blood (but spiritually).
Catholic doctrine on this issue IMO is just bizarre. Can anyone say if we conducted an MRI while someone consumed the Eucharist we would observe the bread and wine actually being transformed into human flesh and blood? Of course not … because it doesn’t.
B
bobregan
Guest
Orange Man says:My authority comes from scripture itself (and by extension, God), and its revelation that all believers are priests. In other words scripture is there for all to read, and its language is plain enough to be understood by all. The Catholic Churches horrendous attempts to monopolize even the word of God is so outlandish words cannot describe it (at least kindly).
As for the book you request I read … I’m not going to read Catholic propoganda. If you would like to cite (in accordance with the forum guidelines obviously) excerpts out of the book, then by all means. I’ll deal with any facts you present, but again I’m not going to read an entire book with a Catholic bias (I have far too many good protestant books I’m reading).
“In other words scripture is there for all to read, and its language is plain enough to be understood by all.”
OK…let’s read Matt 25:31. I interpret that Christ in this passage is speaking of first century farming and livestock issues when he speaks of separating “sheep from goats.” Only barnyard issues here, nothing deeper than that. Just good farming to have sheeps and goats in separate pens, that’s all.
This is how I interpret it. I’m obviously right.
What say you?
- Status