Succession of Bishops

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

I can understand why you would not want to be considered Protestant, but as a Baptist, history is not with you. You are Protestant.

You are lost in total historocity, and you don’t seem to have any concept of spiritual truths.

I am not using historical proof of Apostolic succession being invalid… neither am I using history to prove my beliefs as valid. I am only using history to bolster my claim that others have seen the truth as I see it.

Those historical proofs do nothing to damage or bolster my argument, they only repudiate your claim that I am alone in my interpretation of the scripture.

If the myriad Baptists religions are the true church, it shouldn’t be necessary to be intellectually dishonest in order to support their existence.

I’m sure there are some Catholic members who are part of the true Church, and some Protestants, and I’m sure there are many who being discouraged with religion are not a member of any local congregation. But, I believe the majority of those who are truly regenerated have migrated toward the Baptist Churches where the truth is being preached… where they find like-minded Christians.

BTW - show me where I have been intellectually dishonest.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

You know what? I’ll just make this easier than a yes or no answer. Since we both agree that the Catholic Church has a Pope today, who was the first Catholic Pope?

Eden, I don’t believe in Apostolic Succesion. So I don’t believe there has ever been a Pope. Cardinal Ratzinger is not a Pope, he is the elected leader of an organization that makes the false claim of being the “true church”.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Odell]

jimmny,
Your statement quoted above demonstrates a common misconception concerning the “church”. Jesus only claimed to have founded “one” church… not many churches. But in the New Testament we see that the Apostles were active in starting many “churches”. So where is the discrepancy? There is none, because those “churches” are the physical local congregations (or assemblies) of Christians who are part of the larger whole who consist of the “church”. As a Catholic you should understand that. What we are debating is not whether local churches are scriptural, but what the “all inclusive” church is.

Those many Churchs were they not in union with the apostles or not? Did they all believe the same things? These many Churchs where in union with the one Jesus founded which happends to be the catholic church. The Catholic Church across the country, is in union with mine we believe all the same things. Its really amazen John. But the baptist Chruch down the road from you can teach somthing different than you.

You are right, the churches are physical, but the “church” that Jesus founded is spiritual.

spiritual and physical.

A true Christian… and one who is part of the “true church”, is one who hasn’t just conformed to moral conservatism, but has has had the Righteousness of Christ imputed to them… Christ is the standard!

Are you saying that Christ is not my standard

Nowhere in the bible will you find that the primary distinctive of the “true church” is that it is perfect. The only way a person can be “unchanging” and be righteous is for that person or organization to be perfect.

Nowhere in the bible will you find that the True Church is not perfect. It is the body of Christ John come on. The Church is perfect but the members are not.

The bible does say that Christians would be led into the fulness of the knowledge of the truth, which is of course a process, and would require change. We are also told that the Saints (us) are in a process of being prefected (Eph. 4:12). But we are not perfect only because we are saved.

But we would not change what we teach to be sin we may add things such as artificial insimination. duh.

But you said that a characteristic of the true Chruch does not change in what it teaches to be sin, did you not? But you also admit to have changed in what you believe, you are falible remeber.

would the apostles say at one moment no its not a sin but then later say it is? of course not because they are the true church.

We will not reach perfection until we are gathered together in heaven…

John
www.gideonsword.net

Jimmy,

I don’t think it is funny at all; nor is it ironic. Whatever the Catholic Church canonized 312AD, they canonized for themselves. That version had other books that are not considered “canonized” by me or those I associate with, so how can you claim that the Catholic Church gave me my Bible? The truth is, the Catholic Church, by the order of Constantine gave itself a bible and used Jerome to do it.

Please see my answer to this in the top of post 210. Thanks.

As I have been saying… the Earliest of Church fathers and thier writings can be found in the New Testament scripture. If a quote by another Church father is contradictory to the New Testament scripture, they should be deemed a heretic, and divergent from Apostolic teaching.

When the Apostles did that, they were circumventing the work of Jesus to appoint Apostles. You can read my article on that here.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Odell]

Eden,
Eden, I don’t believe in Apostolic Succesion. So I don’t believe there has ever been a Pope. Cardinal Ratzinger is not a Pope, he is the elected leader of an organization that makes the false claim of being the “true church”.

John

And you are not a Preacher you are a man who is full of it, who decided to pick up the bible one day and makes a false claim to be part of the True Church simply because he interprits scripture the right way. Get of your self. Christ should be your standard remember not you.

 

[Eden]

Eden,

Eden, I don’t believe in Apostolic Succesion. So I don’t believe there has ever been a Pope. Cardinal Ratzinger is not a Pope, he is the elected leader of an organization that makes the false claim of being the “true church”.

John
www.gideonsword.net

Your response makes absolutely no sense. This is classic Orwellian doublethink. You can’t claim that the Papacy is both an invention of the Catholic Church and at the same time has never existed.

The question is not whether or not you believe the Pope has a valid claim as successor to Peter. The question is, who was the first Catholic Pope?

So I will ask you again, who was the first Catholic Pope?

 

[bibleapologist]

jimmy,

You do not have one source for what the books of the bible are outside the Catholic Church. It is the Catholic Church which gave you the bible whether you like it or not. The only sources of the books of the bible are all Catholics. They include Melito, the councils of Laoudicea, Rome, Hippo, and Carthage. Please show me one source that is not from within the Catholic Church.

What you are attempting to do is propagate the same apathetic acceptance of Catholic teaching that you have been taught.

It is easy to say that the Christians as a whole were distinctly Catholic before the 4th century, but you only have a few ECF’s that even vaguely mention anything that alludes to “Catholic Institution”. Namely; Philo, Clement and Origen. Other than these three, can you give me any proof that the majority of the hundreds of thousands of Christians in the 2nd and 3rd centuries believed differently than what I am claiming.

I don’t make those kind of statements because they cannot be absolutely proven. But, I can, and I have made statements that there were certain groups throughout history that have believed the same way Baptists today do. Which also does not prove that the majority of Christians during those two centuries were in agreement with me; but it does nullify your claim for the Catholic Church on the same grounds.

So, the only ground for argument we have on this subject is what the early Church of the first century believed… we have writings concerning this (the New Testament). Let’s focus our debate on things that can be validated, not flagrant statements with no substantiation.

However none of them do contradict the apostles so they are deemed to be great saints.

That is still to be determined.

This is the typical thought process of protestants. They place their own authority above that of the apostles. You have denied the authority of the apostles and you have made yourself a heretic. You might as well say that they cirmumvented Christ by writing epistles when Christ never told them to write epistles.

Now, if you had read the article, you would know that I didn’t say the Apostles were out of order by ordaining Mathias an Apostle outside the direct command by Christ. I said that they were out of order by ordaining Mathias at all… that wasn’t their place. Before you comment on my thought processes, you should really find out what my statements are, and how I came to those conclusions.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Jimmy

There is no distinction between the churches which you keep as individual local churches and that one which is universal. The act by Peter, Paul, and James to write epistles to the local churches to correct them is an act making them subject to the universal church. James is writing as bishop of Jerusalem and he is correcting the diaspora(those outside Jerusalem). He is correcting those in other churches. It is one universal Church and it is perfectly visible as can be seen from the scriptures.

You only gave illustrations of physical church(es). You failed to explain why Jesus, and Paul, referred to the “church”, and the tie that binds that “church” as being the Holy Spirit.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

jimmy,

I wouldn’t call it heretical. They do live a very good life and it is an attempt to conform to the will of God. It is not simply an attempt to conform to the will of their community.

You can’t make that statement for the Amish community as a whole. Some Amish I’m sure do conform to the will of their community, and some live a good life to conform to the will of God… but either way, it is filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6). We need the righteousness of Christ… to attempt to “be good” without the righteousness of Christ is falling short of perfection, and justification for eternal damnation.

Of course Christ is the standard. However Christ has given the faith to the Church through the apostles. You have rejected the faith.

So, are you saying that faith is only for the Church heirarchy? Then is conformity the only option for parishioners?

If that is the faith of the Catholic church, then yes, I reject that faith because according to the Apostles I am called to faith…

Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Eden]

You are lost in total historocity

I don’t have many requirements of non-Catholics with whom I dialogue, but one of them is that they use words that are actually in the dictionary.

and you don’t seem to have any concept of spiritual truths.

This is a vague and unsupported claim. If you could provide concrete examples of my conceptual lack of spiritual truths, then we can work from there.

I am not using historical proof of Apostolic succession being invalid… neither am I using history to prove my beliefs as valid.

Your list of historical sects and historical Catholic figures who later rejected the Church was provided on the second thread with the intention of validating your claim that the Baptist-like people have existed since Apostolic times outside of the Catholic Church.

Those historical proofs do nothing to damage or bolster my argument, they only repudiate your claim that I am alone in my interpretation of the scripture.

I appreciate that you admit that the interpretation of scripture that you are using is, in fact, your interpretation and not that which would originate from the Holy Spirit.

Bibleapologist:

I am only using history to bolster my claim that others have seen the truth as I see it.

Again, this is confusing. You are both using history to bolster your claims and at the same time you are not using history to prove your claims.

Those historical proofs do nothing to damage or bolster my argument, they only repudiate your claim that I am alone in my interpretation of the scripture.

It is your interpretation of scripture, yet it is not yours? I’m not getting it.

Bibleapologist:

I’m sure there are some Catholic members who are part of the true Church, and some Protestants, and I’m sure there are many who being discouraged with religion are not a member of any local congregation. But, I believe the majority of those who are truly regenerated have migrated toward the Baptist Churches where the truth is being preached… where they find like-minded Christians.

This is called an “opinion”, and not a very surprising one considering that you are Baptist.

BTW - show me where I have been intellectually dishonest.

The most blatant example is in your denial that Baptists are Protestants.

Protestant families of denominations

Please note that only general families are listed here (tens of thousands of individual denominations exist); some of these groups do not consider themselves as part of the Protestant movement, but are generally viewed as such by scholars and the public at large:

• Anabaptist
• Anglican / Episcopal
• Baptist
• Calvinist / Reformed / Congregational (See also United Church of Christ) and Presbyterian
• Church of Newfoundland & Labrador
• Evangelicalism
• Lutheran
• Methodist / Wesleyan and the Holiness movement
• Pentecostal and Charismatic
• Quakerism
• Restoration movement
• Seventh-Day Adventists
  reference.com/browse/wiki/Protestantism

 

[bibleapologist]

Odell,

Those many Churchs were they not in union with the apostles or not? Did they all believe the same things? These many Churchs where in union with the one Jesus founded which happends to be the catholic church. The Catholic Church across the country, is in union with mine we believe all the same things. Its really amazen John. But the baptist Chruch down the road from you can teach somthing different than you.

Those “many churches” were in some cases divergent from the Apostles’ teaching, that’s why Paul wrote so many letters rebuking them. That’s why Jesus rebuked them in Rev. 2-3

But, they were for the most part in agreement that the “true church” was spiritual and not a physical heirarchy.

Are you saying that Christ is not my standard

You be the judge of that. If you are only conforming to the moral standards of the heirarchy, then yes, Christ is not your standard… the Catholic institution is.

Nowhere in the bible will you find that the True Church is not perfect. It is the body of Christ John come on. The Church is perfect but the members are not.

What binds the “true church” together is the Holy Spirit… that Holy Spirit is perfect. Yes, it is the body of Christ, and Christ who is God (the Holy Spirit) is what that Church consists of.

But you said that a characteristic of the true Chruch does not change in what it teaches to be sin, did you not? But you also admit to have changed in what you believe, you are falible remeber.

I am not the church, and I have never claimed to be the church, I am part of the Church, which is IN CHRIST. Jesus said He is the truth, so no, the truth does not change and what is sin does not change. But some of the members of the “true church” do not understand what that truth is, and none of us understand the truth completely.

How can the Catholic Church claim to be the origin of truth by claiming infallibility, if they refuse to take a position of certain things? The REAL, PERFECT, origin of truth does take a position of everything, He is God. The Catholic Church does not have the fullness of truth or they would have no problem taking a position on every point presented to them.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

The most blatant example is in your denial that Baptists are Protestants.

Protestant families of denominations

Please note that only general families are listed here (tens of thousands of individual denominations exist); some of these groups do not consider themselves as part of the Protestant movement, but are generally viewed as such by scholars and the public at large:

You substantiate your claim that I am a blatant liar, on the fact that the groups I have claimed had Baptist distictives are “generally” viewed as protestants by scholars and the public at large…

The public at large hasn’t even heard of most of these groups, and if they have, they most likely havn’t researched them extensively. And there are many scholars who only understand history as they have learned it from others. Wikipedia is the confluence of public knowledge, I wouldn’t necessarily use it as a reference… especially on a topic like this.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Eden]

How can the Catholic Church claim to be the origin of truth by claiming infallibility, if they refuse to take a position of certain things? The REAL, PERFECT, origin of truth does take a position of everything, He is God. The Catholic Church does not have the fullness of truth or they would have no problem taking a position on every point presented to them.

On everything? Everything? Really? Like, “everything” everything? Or are you exaggerating for effect?

You really mean to claim that God has a position on say, whether hamburgers are better than hot dogs? Does God have a position on that? Or that blue is prettier than green?
Does He have a position on that, too? Did you really mean to claim that God takes a position on the minutia of life?

If that’s not what you mean, can you please provide an example in which the Catholic Church has not taken a position and you feel it should have.

 

[Eden]

Eden,

You substantiate your claim that I am a blatant liar, on the fact that the groups I have claimed had Baptist distictives are “generally” viewed as protestants by scholars and the public at large…

Scholars and the public at large recognize the Baptist churches for what they are, off-shoots of the Reformation - “protesting” churches which broke away from the Catholic Church in the 16th and 17th century. By definition that makes the Baptist churches “Protestant”. Making vague references to older heretical groups who held one belief out of ten that is similar to Baptist “distinctives” today does not refute the fact that Baptist churches originated with 16-17th century “protesting” Catholics.

The public at large hasn’t even heard of most of these groups, and if they have, they most likely havn’t researched them extensively. And there are many scholars who only understand history as they have learned it from others.

Wikipedia is the confluence of public knowledge, I wouldn’t necessarily use it as a reference… especially on a topic like this.

From the National Council of Churches Data, Baptists are again categorized as “Protestant”:

Many of the Protestant churches in decline are probably no surprise: United Methodist, 3rd largest, down 0.79% to 8.186 million; Evangelical Lutheran, 7th largest, down 1.09% to 4.93 million; Presbyterian Church (USA), 9th largest, down 1.6% to 3.19 million; Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, 14th, down 1.01% to 2.464 million; Episcopal, 15th, down 1.55% to 2.28 million*; American Baptist, down 0.57% to 1.433 million; and, with the fastest collapse of them all, the United Church of Christ, which has made a strong push to present itself as gay-friendly, dropped 2.48% to only 1.266 million.

freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1606634/posts

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

On everything? Everything? Really? Like, “everything” everything? Or are you exaggerating for effect?

You really mean to claim that God has a position on say, whether hamburgers are better than hot dogs? Does God have a position on that? Or that blue is prettier than green?
Does He have a position on that, too? Did you really mean to claim that God takes a position on the minutia of life?

What I mean is, since the Catholic Church claims to have the fulness of truth, why does the Pope make statements concerning morals? When the subject of abortion became an issue, did the Pope need to contemplate the issue to arrive at a moral position, or did he consult some repository of truth?

If he did contemplate the issue, or consult some repository of truth, how can the Catholic church claim to be the origin of truth?

If the Catholic Church is the origin of truth… and the Pope is infallible on moral issues, then he could have said that abortion is good, and it would automatically BE truth. Since that is not the case, what source does the Pope resort to for truth?

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

Many of the Protestant churches in decline are probably no surprise: United Methodist, 3rd largest, down 0.79% to 8.186 million; Evangelical Lutheran, 7th largest, down 1.09% to 4.93 million; Presbyterian Church (USA), 9th largest, down 1.6% to 3.19 million; Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, 14th, down 1.01% to 2.464 million; Episcopal, 15th, down 1.55% to 2.28 million*; American Baptist, down 0.57% to 1.433 million; and, with the fastest collapse of them all, the United Church of Christ, which has made a strong push to present itself as gay-friendly, dropped 2.48% to only 1.266 million.

Since I am an “Independent Baptist”, I guess those statistics don’t apply to me. These statistics only cover ecumenical organizations, not independents. Which is no surprise since the “National Council of Churches” is an ecumenical organization.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[HailMary]

Eden,

What I mean is, since the Catholic Church claims to have the fulness of truth, why does the Pope make statements concerning morals? When the subject of abortion became an issue, did the Pope need to contemplate the issue to arrive at a moral position, or did he consult some repository of truth?

If he did contemplate the issue, or consult some repository of truth, how can the Catholic church claim to be the origin of truth?

If the Catholic Church is the origin of truth… and the Pope is infallible on moral issues, then he could have said that abortion is good, and it would automatically BE truth. Since that is not the case, what source does the Pope resort to for truth?

John
www.gideonsword.net

But the Supreme Pontiff didn’t.

The Holy Fathers source is the promise of Christ in the Gospel.

 

[jimmy]

jimmy,

You can’t make that statement for the Amish community as a whole. Some Amish I’m sure do conform to the will of their community, and some live a good life to conform to the will of God… but either way, it is filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6). We need the righteousness of Christ… to attempt to “be good” without the righteousness of Christ is falling short of perfection, and justification for eternal damnation.

I don’t think they would deny that. I think they accept that you need Grace from Christ to live a good life.

So, are you saying that faith is only for the Church heirarchy? Then is conformity the only option for parishioners?

If that is the faith of the Catholic church, then yes, I reject that faith because according to the Apostles I am called to faith…

John
www.gideonsword.net

I am not sure what you mean by this. Faith does not necessitate having apostolic succession or being in a leadership rule. A bishop has to conform to the truth just as much as any person. Yes, you must conform to the truth which has been handed down from the apostles through the bishops. The bishops also must conform to that truth which is handed on as well. All accept this truth by faith. It is faith in Christ that He will not let His people fall. It is faith in Him that when He said the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church He was 100% correct. It is all about faith.

Faith is not about reading and figuring out what you believe. It is hearing what has been given to us and accepting it based on Christ’s commission of the apostles. Christ gave the apostles the authority to go out and convert the world. They went out and converted the world. They handed this same authority on through the bishops. The bishops have an authority and responsibility to preach the gospel and to convert the world. They have been given assurance that they would not fail as long as they hold to the faith which has been given to them.

 

[Eden]

What I mean is, since the Catholic Church claims to have the fulness of truth, why does the Pope make statements concerning morals? When the subject of abortion became an issue, did the Pope need to contemplate the issue to arrive at a moral position, or did he consult some repository of truth?

Are you posting this in response to this previous post?

Bibleapologist:

How can the Catholic Church claim to be the origin of truth by claiming infallibility, if they refuse to take a position of certain things? The REAL, PERFECT, origin of truth does take a position of everything, He is God. The Catholic Church does not have the fullness of truth or they would have no problem taking a position on every point presented to them.

We’ve gone from “The Church cannot be teaching truth since the Pope does not state a position on everything” to “Why does the Pope make statements concerning morals?”

I have to admit you’ve lost me here. The Pope is our visible shepherd. Of course as a religious figure he will teach us on morality.

As far as abortion, abortion has always been anti-Christian. Abortion is not a new invention that became a moral issue for the Church when the American courts ruled in favor of legalizing abortion in 1973. American Catholics are actually a small percentage of the universal Church, so the Pope’s moral teachings do not revolve around American politics. That being said, the pagans practiced abortion and infanticide and early Christians distinguished themselves by objecting to these practices. Abortion has always been anti-Christian.

But maybe you have another example for me to go into the process of defining moral theology. I could suggest cloning, IVF and the use of stem-cell research which are all moral issues that were not present in Jesus’ time on earth.

We could start a new thread, if you want to.

If he did contemplate the issue, or consult some repository of truth, how can the Catholic church claim to be the origin of truth?

If the Catholic Church is the origin of truth… and the Pope is infallible on moral issues, then he could have said that abortion is good, and it would automatically BE truth. Since that is not the case, what source does the Pope resort to for truth?

Please see my answer above. By the way, the Catholic Church is the only Christian church which has consistently taught that all abortion is morally wrong.

 

[jimmy]

Jimmy

You only gave illustrations of physical church(es). You failed to explain why Jesus, and Paul, referred to the “church”, and the tie that binds that “church” as being the Holy Spirit.

John
www.gideonsword.net

Why did Christ refer to the Church? The Church is the great gathering of all the Jews and of all Gods people that the Jews prayed for before the coming of Christ. The Jews in the post exilic Judaism prayed for a new gathering(a qahal) like occured on Sinai in Exodus. Through the exile in babylon they had become scattered. It is the great qahal as they hoped for. This gathering is the founding of the Church as the gathering on Sinai was the founding of Israel.

This also explains the unity of the Church. By giving the apostles the prayer in the Sermon on the mount Christ was creating a new community distinct from the rest of the Jewish community. As many theologians have said a distinct prayer marks the community.

When Christ instituted the last supper He was declaring the Church to be seperate from Judaism. In this supper He makes reference to both Sinai and the passover as was mentioned above. These are the founding events of Israel. As mentioned above, the Jews hoped for a new gathering. This Eucharistic meal acts as a central aspect of the new gathering(the Church). It is where the Church is founded and renewed. And this communion is effected by the Holy Spirit who confects the Eucharist.

The Holy Spirit is the tie that binds the Church because the Holy Spirit is bringing the people of the Church into the relationship of the Trinity. The Trinity is a communion of persons. The Holy Spirit brings the Church into communion with the Trinity. It is a communion in charity and it finds its greatest place in the Eucharistic celebration.

 

[jimmy]

jimmy,

What you are attempting to do is propagate the same apathetic acceptance of Catholic teaching that you have been taught.

It is easy to say that the Christians as a whole were distinctly Catholic before the 4th century, but you only have a few ECF’s that even vaguely mention anything that alludes to “Catholic Institution”. Namely; Philo, Clement and Origen. Other than these three, can you give me any proof that the majority of the hundreds of thousands of Christians in the 2nd and 3rd centuries believed differently than what I am claiming.

I don’t make those kind of statements because they cannot be absolutely proven. But, I can, and I have made statements that there were certain groups throughout history that have believed the same way Baptists today do. Which also does not prove that the majority of Christians during those two centuries were in agreement with me; but it does nullify your claim for the Catholic Church on the same grounds.

So, the only ground for argument we have on this subject is what the early Church of the first century believed… we have writings concerning this (the New Testament). Let’s focus our debate on things that can be validated, not flagrant statements with no substantiation.

I could also show you Ignatius(shows that the bishop is to be obeyed), Irenaeus(gives first thirteen bishops of Rome and specifically says that all must agree with this church), Polycarp(His martyrdom specifically mentions the community taking his bones and using them in an anual celebration of his martyrdom-specifically Catholic) and several others. These authors were very Catholic along with all other church fathers. Not one of the early Christians can be said to be baptist.

You say that the only ground we have for arguement is the NT but that necessitates that we argue about the ECF’s because those NT books are not self canonized. They are not self supporting. They need someone to declare that they are scripture and that the gospel of Judas is not scripture nor that of Thomas.