E
Eden
Guest
Agreed. Oh, wait. Sorry. I thought you were still talking about when Peter became the first Pope.
- Status
E
Eden
Guest
In the Word of God, Jesus founded a Church, not a Bible - 2,000 years ago. Yet, in the Baptist history that I posted above, they claim that all they need is the Bible to start a church. And that’s what they did, 400 years ago.
So, it follows that a church that denies the foundation of a Church will need also to deny apostolic succession, oral tradition and the Real Presence in the Eucharist (which is only made possible through someone ordained by the laying on of hands through apostolic succession).
But the important question is, is any of this Baptist theology biblical? The answer is: NO.
So, it follows that a church that denies the foundation of a Church will need also to deny apostolic succession, oral tradition and the Real Presence in the Eucharist (which is only made possible through someone ordained by the laying on of hands through apostolic succession).
But the important question is, is any of this Baptist theology biblical? The answer is: NO.
B
BlestOne
Guest
Quote:
5. John (bibleapologist) also says that it was God’s will that Paul is the replacement of Judas, and man (the apostles) named Matthias in error. To prove this he mentions a verse from psalms but doesn’t quote or expound upon it.
I did quote and expound on it, in the very first paragraph of the article I referenced… that I wrote. Sorry you referenced Psalms 109:8 on your blog and there is no 109:8, I later found it in 108:8
Quote:
6. He also backs his claim by using 1 Cor 15:7 to claim that Matthias was not an apostle since he is not named here.
I never said that 1 Cor. 15:7 disproved Matthias’ apostleship. I simply used that portion of scripture to prove that one of the qualifications of an Apostle was to have “seen” Jesus. How do you get that out of that passage? He is telling the people of Corinth that their faith is in vain if they do not believe they can be raised from the dead as he saw Christ arisen.
Quote:
7. All of these things he uses to dispute the idea of apostolic succession. He even goes so far as to say not only is it false teaching, but it is a perversion of the will of God! John seems to forget that the Holy Spirit had descended upon the apostles and was guiding them.
To claim that because the Apostles had the Holy Spirit they were infallible…Did I mention infallibility? I happen to believe that the Holy Spirit guided them because they asked to be guided. Is this wrong? How can you say that you know that they made a bad decision? Paul was ordained to the bishopric for a very specific reason, as I have stated many times. There had to be an expansion of the number of apostles to minister to the gentiles when they expanded the ministry beyond the Jews to the gentiles. If there was no expansion of the bishopric to minister to the gentiles then we would only have 12 bishops today, and I know that isn’t right.
Quote:
8. I also mentioned the key to the kingdom of heaven given to Peter gave him the authority of Gods Church on earth. The actual expression “giving the keys” is actually from the OT, it refered not only to passing on the responsibility, but the authority as well. Peter had the authority and responsibility to call for the casting of lots to replace Judas.
Peter had the liberty to command lots to be cast… but he did not have license to act on God’s behalf. The giving of the keys to heaven was symbolic of the charge to evangelism, and the confirmation that whatever they bound or loosed on earth would be bound or loosed in heaven. Since the charge by Christ to evangelize did not end with the apostles… and was not exclusive to the apostles, we can deduce that the “keys” were not given exclusively to Peter. Hmmm, you are really making some assumptions here. What good are the keys without the authority (not liberty) to use them? What was Peter’s role then? Matt 16:18-20: 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. 20 Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ. This doesn’t sound like he is talking to everyone, he specifically says Peter here in v. 18. Verse 19 gives the keys and does show the naming of the successor as Peter, and the apostles were the only ones in the room when Jesus says that, we know this because of verse 20. We know that the intended audience was the disciples. I think this does show how Christ wanted the authority on one man in his absence and I also believe that it shows the beginning of Apostolic Succession. The hard part of apostolic succession is to submit your will and be obedient since we have free will and a rebellious nature. It is so much easier to deny the authority rather than be obedient. I for one, submit to the authority that Jesus established in man on earth.
Quote:
On a personal note John, if a lowly servant of our Lord with no biblical or apologetic training can see the error of your interpretation, just think of the great things God could accomplish by you, if you stopped rebelling and started submitting to the authority Jesus himself established in his Church.
Thank you for that compliment. I would never guess that you havn’t had any Apologetics or biblical training… you have very good arguments, but I think I have proven them to be in error.
Thank you John, I do not believe you have proven your case at all. Rather, I see a man who loves God but has not submitted to the authority God established on earth.
Blessings,
Mary
5. John (bibleapologist) also says that it was God’s will that Paul is the replacement of Judas, and man (the apostles) named Matthias in error. To prove this he mentions a verse from psalms but doesn’t quote or expound upon it.
I did quote and expound on it, in the very first paragraph of the article I referenced… that I wrote. Sorry you referenced Psalms 109:8 on your blog and there is no 109:8, I later found it in 108:8
Quote:
6. He also backs his claim by using 1 Cor 15:7 to claim that Matthias was not an apostle since he is not named here.
I never said that 1 Cor. 15:7 disproved Matthias’ apostleship. I simply used that portion of scripture to prove that one of the qualifications of an Apostle was to have “seen” Jesus. How do you get that out of that passage? He is telling the people of Corinth that their faith is in vain if they do not believe they can be raised from the dead as he saw Christ arisen.
Quote:
7. All of these things he uses to dispute the idea of apostolic succession. He even goes so far as to say not only is it false teaching, but it is a perversion of the will of God! John seems to forget that the Holy Spirit had descended upon the apostles and was guiding them.
To claim that because the Apostles had the Holy Spirit they were infallible…Did I mention infallibility? I happen to believe that the Holy Spirit guided them because they asked to be guided. Is this wrong? How can you say that you know that they made a bad decision? Paul was ordained to the bishopric for a very specific reason, as I have stated many times. There had to be an expansion of the number of apostles to minister to the gentiles when they expanded the ministry beyond the Jews to the gentiles. If there was no expansion of the bishopric to minister to the gentiles then we would only have 12 bishops today, and I know that isn’t right.
Quote:
8. I also mentioned the key to the kingdom of heaven given to Peter gave him the authority of Gods Church on earth. The actual expression “giving the keys” is actually from the OT, it refered not only to passing on the responsibility, but the authority as well. Peter had the authority and responsibility to call for the casting of lots to replace Judas.
Peter had the liberty to command lots to be cast… but he did not have license to act on God’s behalf. The giving of the keys to heaven was symbolic of the charge to evangelism, and the confirmation that whatever they bound or loosed on earth would be bound or loosed in heaven. Since the charge by Christ to evangelize did not end with the apostles… and was not exclusive to the apostles, we can deduce that the “keys” were not given exclusively to Peter. Hmmm, you are really making some assumptions here. What good are the keys without the authority (not liberty) to use them? What was Peter’s role then? Matt 16:18-20: 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. 20 Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ. This doesn’t sound like he is talking to everyone, he specifically says Peter here in v. 18. Verse 19 gives the keys and does show the naming of the successor as Peter, and the apostles were the only ones in the room when Jesus says that, we know this because of verse 20. We know that the intended audience was the disciples. I think this does show how Christ wanted the authority on one man in his absence and I also believe that it shows the beginning of Apostolic Succession. The hard part of apostolic succession is to submit your will and be obedient since we have free will and a rebellious nature. It is so much easier to deny the authority rather than be obedient. I for one, submit to the authority that Jesus established in man on earth.
Quote:
On a personal note John, if a lowly servant of our Lord with no biblical or apologetic training can see the error of your interpretation, just think of the great things God could accomplish by you, if you stopped rebelling and started submitting to the authority Jesus himself established in his Church.
Thank you for that compliment. I would never guess that you havn’t had any Apologetics or biblical training… you have very good arguments, but I think I have proven them to be in error.
Thank you John, I do not believe you have proven your case at all. Rather, I see a man who loves God but has not submitted to the authority God established on earth.
Blessings,
Mary
B
bibleapologist
Guest
Eden,
John
www.gideonsword.net
The quote you used actually disproved your own argument. The Bible never implicates that the “true church” is an Apostolic Church (by the Catholic definition)… The Bible never implicates the "true church’ as Catholic (universal) for that matter.
And we won’t be until we are gathered together by Christ, united with the saints who have died, and can call ourselves the “general assembly of the firstborn” (Hebrews 12:23).
John
www.gideonsword.net
E
Eden
Guest
So, Baptists don’t even say the Nicene Creed? Good heavens.
B
bibleapologist
Guest
Eden,
John Smythe left Amsterdam with his congregation and re-settled in England once religious tolerance was in effect, and that Church was the first one with the name “Baptist”. Before that time John Smythe with Thomas Hellwys were part of an “anabaptist” congregation, which had been influenced by other anabaptists well before the year 1608. John Smythe led his congregation away from Amsterdam to England because of the immoral, and philosophical effect Amsterdam was having on his congregation… this act of leaving Holland would testify to the fact that this particular congregation held to a certain set of moral, and spiritual beliefs before they went to Amsterdam, strove to keep those same convictions while they were there in Holland, and took action to retain their stance by moving to England… Therefore, the Baptist church that John Smythe pastored was “baptist” in distinctive well before they called themselves “Baptist” in England
John
www.gideonsword.net
What you are referring to is the “first Baptist church in England”… which was only the first church of that kind to be NAMED “Baptist”…
John Smythe left Amsterdam with his congregation and re-settled in England once religious tolerance was in effect, and that Church was the first one with the name “Baptist”. Before that time John Smythe with Thomas Hellwys were part of an “anabaptist” congregation, which had been influenced by other anabaptists well before the year 1608. John Smythe led his congregation away from Amsterdam to England because of the immoral, and philosophical effect Amsterdam was having on his congregation… this act of leaving Holland would testify to the fact that this particular congregation held to a certain set of moral, and spiritual beliefs before they went to Amsterdam, strove to keep those same convictions while they were there in Holland, and took action to retain their stance by moving to England… Therefore, the Baptist church that John Smythe pastored was “baptist” in distinctive well before they called themselves “Baptist” in England
John
www.gideonsword.net
B
bibleapologist
Guest
E
Eden
Guest
Just as with the Bible, Protestants took a few other things with them, the Nicene Creed being another example.
But according to this Baptist site, Baptists do recite the Nicene Creed, as it is listed under “Creeds and Confessions”:
baptiststart.com/doctrine.htm#creeds
So, do you or do you not profess in church that you believe in “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”?
E
Eden
Guest
You have that backwards. John Smyth was a part of a movement that was exiled *from *England and settled in Amsterdam. His new religion was an off-shoot of Anglicanism. I was being generous in giving the American Baptist denominations a 400-year-old pedigree, as the American versions are much younger.
christianitytoday.com/history/special/131christians/smyth.html
E
Eden
Guest
The Christianity Today article leads off with the title:
**Denominational Founders
**John Smyth
The “Se-Baptist”
How does any Protestant not look at that and say, “Why do I want a denomination founded by a man, when I can have the Church founded by Jesus?”
**Denominational Founders
**John Smyth
The “Se-Baptist”
How does any Protestant not look at that and say, “Why do I want a denomination founded by a man, when I can have the Church founded by Jesus?”
B
bibleapologist
Guest
BlestOne,
The implication is, that Jesus was speaking directly to Peter… but was implying that everyone who receives this revelation would also receive those same keys… and that same power to “bind and loose”.
This is what it means to be a witness. Peter, by receiving the revelation from God… could then go out, and be a witness of that truth…
John
www.gideonsword.net
Your replies to mine are all based on assumptions, and not on truth… the only statement you made that I feel needs to be answered is…
The answer I gave previous to your rebuttal, was that the keys represented evangelism, and with that charge to evangelism came the ability to “bind and loose” on earth (speaking of sins and the bondage of it). Jesus was specifically speaking to Peter in verses 18 and 19… but at this particular time, Peter was the only one who received a revelation of who Jesus was.
The implication is, that Jesus was speaking directly to Peter… but was implying that everyone who receives this revelation would also receive those same keys… and that same power to “bind and loose”.
This is what it means to be a witness. Peter, by receiving the revelation from God… could then go out, and be a witness of that truth…
Peter and John were direct “witnesses” of the teachings of Jesus, His death, and His resurrection…
We who have the Holy Spirit, are now witnesses to the same truth that Peter received… that Jesus Christ is the son of God. Since we have received that revelation… we are charged to tell others… and with that charge, and armed with the witness of the truth we, by our obedience have the keys to the kingdom of heaven (to allow others to enter in), and to bind (if we so chose not to be obedient to evangelize) or to loose (if we are obedient).
John
www.gideonsword.net
E
Eden
Guest
Bibleapologist, did you say you are using the King James Version?
From the same Christianity Today webpage:
After a few years of practicing medicine, Smyth joined a group of like-minded Separatists who wanted to create a church of believers unbound by parochial or diocesan boundaries. Together they would “walk in all his [Christ’s] ways, make known or to be made known among them … whatever it might cost them.”
What it cost them was their homeland. When James I ascended the throne in 1603, he began persecuting the Separatists. “I will make them conform themselves,” he swore, "or I will have them out of the land."
Smyth’s group of 50 or so fled to Amsterdam, which was known for its religious toleration and its already-sizable community of Separatist exiles. Still, Smyth did not see them as completely kindred spirits. He fought with them over the use of Scripture in worship (Smyth opposed using English translations), psalm singing, sermon reading, and the collection of offerings—all practices he condemned.
How is that for irony? The founder of the Baptist movement was persecuted and exiled by King James. The very bible you said you use was commissioned by the very person who persecuted and exiled the early Baptists to Amsterdam.
From the same Christianity Today webpage:
After a few years of practicing medicine, Smyth joined a group of like-minded Separatists who wanted to create a church of believers unbound by parochial or diocesan boundaries. Together they would “walk in all his [Christ’s] ways, make known or to be made known among them … whatever it might cost them.”
What it cost them was their homeland. When James I ascended the throne in 1603, he began persecuting the Separatists. “I will make them conform themselves,” he swore, "or I will have them out of the land."
Smyth’s group of 50 or so fled to Amsterdam, which was known for its religious toleration and its already-sizable community of Separatist exiles. Still, Smyth did not see them as completely kindred spirits. He fought with them over the use of Scripture in worship (Smyth opposed using English translations), psalm singing, sermon reading, and the collection of offerings—all practices he condemned.
How is that for irony? The founder of the Baptist movement was persecuted and exiled by King James. The very bible you said you use was commissioned by the very person who persecuted and exiled the early Baptists to Amsterdam.
B
bibleapologist
Guest
Eden,
I think any Baptist who recites the Nicene creed is naive of thier heritage
Since you seem to have missed my previous post regarding this matter I will quote it for you…
www.gideonsword.net
That is deceptive… It is listed under “HISTORIC Creeds and confessions”. Do you really think Baptists recite 16 different creeds as they are listed on that site? This site is only giving a historical reference to creeds and confessions… They are not, nor can they make a blanket statement for all Baptists.
I think any Baptist who recites the Nicene creed is naive of thier heritage
What does it matter what we profess in Church. If you are asking me personally… As a preacher who speaks the truth I have stated in Church that I believe there “will be” One, Holy, Catholic (universal) Church… At the marriage supper of the Lamb. As recorded in Hebrews 12:23.
Since you seem to have missed my previous post regarding this matter I will quote it for you…
John
www.gideonsword.net
E
Eden
Guest
The Church Is One (Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, 12:13)
The Church Is Holy (Eph. 5:25–27, Rev. 19:7–8)
The Church Is Catholic (Matt. 28:19–20, Rev. 5:9–10)
The Church Is Apostolic (Eph. 2:19–20)
catholic.com/library/Pillar.asp
The Church Is Holy (Eph. 5:25–27, Rev. 19:7–8)
The Church Is Catholic (Matt. 28:19–20, Rev. 5:9–10)
The Church Is Apostolic (Eph. 2:19–20)
catholic.com/library/Pillar.asp
B
bibleapologist
Guest
Eden,
The fact that Smyth opposed the English translations only further proves that he was likeminded with others who deny faulty English translations today. Are you historically ready to prove that Smythe encouraged his congregation to study the Latin Vulgate? Actually, they used the Textus Receptus (received text), as it was not influenced by the Alexandrian Stoic and Neo-Platonic philosophies.
Remember, God used Pharaoh to proclaim His name throughout all the earth. God raised up Pharoah to his exalted position, and hardened his already hard heart to fulfil God’s will.
Will you also mock the irony that the very Pharaoh that persecuted Israel was used by God to fulfil His perfect will?
John
www.gideonsword.net
Which wasn’t any different than other seperatist, or “anabaptist” sects when they staunchly held to their convictions when forced to conform to the Catholic Church.
Thank you for verifying my point concerning the beliefs of that church BEFORE they named themselves “Baptist”.
The fact that Smyth opposed the English translations only further proves that he was likeminded with others who deny faulty English translations today. Are you historically ready to prove that Smythe encouraged his congregation to study the Latin Vulgate? Actually, they used the Textus Receptus (received text), as it was not influenced by the Alexandrian Stoic and Neo-Platonic philosophies.
That is ironic. It is also ironic that we use a King James Bible that Chapter and verse numbering was designated by a Catholic. But I don’t think that makes Baptist’s invalid as part of Christ’s true church if that is what you are saying.
Remember, God used Pharaoh to proclaim His name throughout all the earth. God raised up Pharoah to his exalted position, and hardened his already hard heart to fulfil God’s will.
Will you also mock the irony that the very Pharaoh that persecuted Israel was used by God to fulfil His perfect will?
John
www.gideonsword.net
B
bibleapologist
Guest
Eden,
The passage you referenced in Revelation is an account that happens in heaven… not on earth… which further bolsters my argument that we “will” eventually be united as a “universal” Church.
John
www.gideonsword.net
You’re beating a dead horse with these verses…
OK, you are going to have to show me that the Church that Jesus Christ founded is Catholic by these verses in Matthew… I don’t see it.
The passage you referenced in Revelation is an account that happens in heaven… not on earth… which further bolsters my argument that we “will” eventually be united as a “universal” Church.
John
www.gideonsword.net
E
Eden
Guest
How do you define obedience?
Why are you following a man? A man and his oppositions? A man and his oppositions and his disobedience to the Church Christ founded?
I can guarantee you that his Bible had its roots in the Canon set by Catholic Bishops in the late 4th and early 5th centuries.
And a New Testament Canon set by Catholic Bishops.
I am saying that it is ironic that you hold up the KJV as* the* Bible, when the man who commissioned it did not recognize the Baptist movement as a legitimate Christian sect and chased them out of his country.
Are you saying God ordained John Smyth as His prophet to create a new religion 1600 years after Christ because the first one didn’t “take”?
E
Eden
Guest
The fact that these verses illustrate apostolic succession exists outside your denials. If I say that Washington, D.C. is the capitol of the United States, you can say, “No, it isn’t”. Your denial does not negate the fact that the capitol *is *Washington, D.C. So, as many times as you would like to deny the fact of apostolic succession, it still remains a fact.
E
Eden
Guest
I understood that you knew “catholic” means “universal”.
Thinking of all of the Protestants who recite the Nicene Creed each Sunday, I enjoy this quote from St. Augustine:
In the Catholic Church . . . a few spiritual men attain [wisdom] in this life, in such a way that . . . they know it without any doubting, while the rest of the multitude finds [its] greatest safety not in lively understanding but in the simplicity of believing. . . . [T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in her bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" (*Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” *4:5 [A.D. 397]).
Again: Catholic=universal
The Church is universal (a “Catholic Church”), now and always
S
Sean_Boyle
Guest
So let me get this straight…
The Baptist tradition was started by a fallable man, John Smyth, right? Was he a prophet or something special in the eyes of God? Was he something more than a man just like all of us?
- Status