The Office of the Papacy in Scripture

  • Thread starter Thread starter Daniel_Keeran
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Peter was the only one who denied Christ three times. The scripture is my authority and needs no interpretation. Where is Peter referred to as a singular head, pastor, shepherd, or anything else? The sole basis of unity? Where? Not in Ephesians 4.
Where is the God referred to as the Most Holy Trinity? We Christians know this to be implied in Scripture, yet because it was/is not explicitly stated, the Arians were able to deny the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. If Scripture needs no interpretation, how were the Arians able to do this? Surely they would have read and have acknowledged the divinity of Our Lord and the Paraclete.

Another example is that of the Gnostics (Manichaeans in particular). They denied that the God of the Old Testament was the God of the New Testament, even though Our Lord Jesus specifically stated this. Again, it’s clear to us Christians that the God of the New Covenant is the God of the Old Covenant, yet they **misinterpreted **Scripture. Of course, if Scripture needs no interpretation, how could this be?

Finally, you claim there is no description of universal shepherd. There is: it’s the description St. Paul gives of bishops. Remember, the pope is Bishop of Rome. The additional qualifications given by Our Lord are that of keeping the keys, having the Church built upon him, strengthening the brethren, and tending/ruling the flock (the verb poimainō also used in the New Testament to mean to rule, govern in Matt 2:6; Rev 2:27; 12:5; 14:15; and in the Old Testament in 2 Sam 5:2; Mic 5:6 (5); 7:14).
 
There is no reference to a “supreme pastor” on earth in the above passage or in any part of scripture.
Once again, you refuse to see the typological import of Scripture. Our Lord Jesus read Scripture typologically (we know this from His application of the Bronze Serpent in the Desert to Himself and His explanation of the suffering servant messiah to the two bound for Emmaus) and both Sts. Peter and Paul read typologically (describing the Flood as prefiguring baptism and the rock that followed the Israelites in the desert as Christ). Thus, if we read typologically (as did early Christians, e.g. Mary as the New Eve and Ark of the Covenant) we see that Jesus, as the reigning heir of the Davidic Kingdom, a kingdom which always had a prime minister and queen mother, appoints a majordomo/prime minister/steward in His giving to St. Peter the keys of the kingdom.
 
  1. **Nowhere in scripture **do we find Peter is called “supreme pastor” or “chief shepherd” or “head pastor” or by any similar phrase
Because that language was not used in the first century, those titles were not given yet in their explicit form because they had not yet developed. Both the titles and terms developed from scripture, but that does not mean those terms or titles go against scripture. And we also have the facts of history. Can you explain why Pope Clement was the universally recognized Pope when the Apostle John was still alive? Why wasn’t John the Pope? To answer this question you need to understand something about early church ecclesiology. “supreme pastor” or “chief shepherd” or “head pastor” is to wash the feet of his bishops, which he does on many levels. “supreme pastor” or “chief shepherd” or “head pastor” is also Servant of Servants. The Pope is not a dominating dictator and what he teaches is nothing to be afraid of.
  1. **Nowhere in scripture **do we find Peter is given singular “power of jurisdiction” or any singular responsibility to “maintain universal unity and orthodoxy within the Christian Church” ?
Catholic traditions predate the canon of the Bible and the proof is there for anybody who wants to see it. I have an idea where that leaves you.

Show me a scripture that explicitly states that all doctrines must be found in scripture in order to be trustworthy. Sorry, but without a chapter and verse supporting such a theory, it’s a man-made doctrine. If the Church says there are 27 books in the New Testament, which she did, then she is right and true to God’s purposes. If the Church says we have Popes, then she is right and true to God’s purposes on the same grounds.
Here is a nice list of scriptures on the Primacy of Peter:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html
His name and the reference to a “supreme pastor” are conspicuously absent in the very passage that tells us the basis of unity and orthodoxy in the church
:

Ephesians 4:3-13

Sorry Daniel, Ephesians 4:3-13 It talks about the Priesthood of All Believers, a doctrine you borrowed from Catholicism. You see, we had it first. Eph. 4:11 - the Church is hierarchical and includes apostles, prophets, pastors, and teachers, all charged to build up the Church. The Church is not an invisible entity with an invisible foundation.

John 14:26 - Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would teach the Church (the apostles and successors) all things regarding the faith. This means that the Church can teach us the right moral positions on such things as in vitro fertilization, cloning and other issues that are not addressed in the Bible. After all, these issues of morality are necessary for our salvation, and God would not leave such important issues to be decided by us sinners without His divine assistance.

Luke 22:32 - Jesus prays for Peter, that his faith may not fail. Jesus’ prayer for Peter’s faith is perfectly efficacious, and this allows Peter to teach the faith without error (which means infallibly).

Did the Father not hear Jesus’ prayer for Peter, Daniel? I would not submit that as absolute proof of Peter’s Primacy, but I would ask you how many sets of keys did Jesus hand out in Matthew 16?
 
By asking Daniel to prove something, Randy is disregarding scripture? Did you not understand the challenge? Randy is not disregarding scripture he is just asking Daniel where in scripture does it say that.

Did you know that…

Jesus never commanded anyone to write a book?

Only 3 out of 12 Apostles wrote.

The word “Bible” is not in the Bible. (Does that mean you can’t believe it?)

The word “Trinity” is not in the Bible.

The Bible did not exist until after almost 400 years after Jesus ascended.(What did Christians follow?)

King James VI & I ( King James version) wasn’t even born until after 1,166 years later.

(King James’ name isn’t in the Bible either:rolleyes:)

If there were no Protestants or non-denominational churches in 400 a.d. who decided which books and letters should be put into one book?
Daniel myself and others have demonstrated a case from scripture that the office of Peters chair “the Pope” is not evident. Randy as so may other Catholics do when faced down with scripture resort to questioning its validity. The debate from Catholics will loop back to Matthew 16:18, then interpretable authority leading to the RCC usurping scripture. Do you not see that?
 
Daniel myself and others have demonstrated a case from scripture that the office of Peters chair “the Pope” is not evident. Randy as so may other Catholics do when faced down with scripture resort to questioning its validity. The debate from Catholics will loop back to Matthew 16:18, then interpretable authority leading to the RCC usurping scripture. Do you not see that?
The only thing you have demonstrated to me is that you declared yourself an infallible interpreter of scripture. Based on that, I take most of what you say with a grain of salt.
 
Where is the God referred to as the Most Holy Trinity?
The NT is full of verses that support the Father, Son and HS. I could probably fill the whole 6000 word limit for a post If I tried to post them all. Not so with the Pope. The difference is not in the word or equivalent “Pope” “trinity” but in the demonstration of the fact that Daniel Keeran has presented both from scripture and catholic history archives.

Matthew 28:18-20
Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in(to) the name_ of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” –

1 Thessalonians 3:11
Now may our God and Father himself and our Lord Jesus clear the way for us to come to you. –

Look at this greeting:

Grace and peace
to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

This is the exact greeting in used in Romans 1:7, 1 Cor 1:3, 2 Cor 1:2, Gal 1:3, Eph. 1:2, Phil. 1:2, 2 Thess. 1:2, etc. [meaning: this was not a one time accident, but a normal/formal greeting]

1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one. ****
 
The sola scripture they used to support Jesus and the NT covenant was the Jewish Law, Prophets and Psalms as you so nicely provide the reference for in your quotes.
FryerTuck,

My quotes go to the point that highly educated Jews in the first century were trained to debate the scriptures. The were also trained in the formation of allegories. When St. Paul spoke of the OT being allegorical to Jesus - e.g. THAT ROCK WAS CHRIST – St. Paul is tapping on that tradition. Jews did not think scripture was the only rule of faith. Do do so would have been a DRAMATIC SHIFT in their theological world. NO ONE EVER before the Protestant Reformation ripped scripture out of its traditional position and pitted scripture AGAINST Church. This point cannot be over emphasized.

MonFrere (shortening response because of needing to do other things)
 
The NT is full of verses that support the Father, Son and HS. I could probably fill the whole 6000 word limit for a post If I tried to post them all. Not so with the Pope. The difference is not in the word or equivalent “Pope” “trinity” but in the demonstration of the fact that Daniel Keeran has presented both from scripture and catholic history archives.

Matthew 28:18-20
Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in(to) the name_ of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” –

1 Thessalonians 3:11
Now may our God and Father himself and our Lord Jesus clear the way for us to come to you. –

Look at this greeting:

Grace and peace
to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

This is the exact greeting in used in Romans 1:7, 1 Cor 1:3, 2 Cor 1:2, Gal 1:3, Eph. 1:2, Phil. 1:2, 2 Thess. 1:2, etc. [meaning: this was not a one time accident, but a normal/formal greeting]

1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one. ****

Again, we as Christians **KNOW **that Scripture reveals the Holy Trinity. Still, the Arians used Scripture (just as Satan used Scripture) to “prove” that Jesus was just a creation. Look at the Jehovah’s Witnesses. They argue that Jesus was actually St. Michael the Archangel based on Scripture. Holy Writ, therefore, needs an interpreter, and Jesus sent the Spirit to “lead [the Apostles] into all truth” so that “he who listens to [them] listens to Me.”

Further, Daniel has yet to prove anything from Catholic History archives. For example, The 1st Epistle of Clement does only say it is from “the Church of God which sojourns at Rome,” yet it is from correspondence of Bishop Dionysius of Corinth that we know Clement wrote and dispatched it. This is the same Clement presented in the list of successors of Peter. It is also necessary to note that use of plural ‘we’ does not necessarily place individual authority in question, as typified by St. Paul in 1 Cor 1:23; 4:10; 2 Cor 1:12; 8:1; Gal 1:8 and by God in Gen 1:26. Further, Bishop Dionysius says that the letter of Bishop Soter of Rome along with Clement’s was read in liturgy on Sunday (fl. ca. 170 AD), a thing not to be taken lightly.

Here’s something else: if the Bishop of Rome was not important, why did St. Polycarp, a man in his 80’s, travel to Rome in ca. 150 AD to consult with her bishop about the date of Easter? Why not Corinth or Antioch or Ephesus, apostolic churches founded by Paul and much closer to Polycarp’s parish in Smyrna?

Daniel also persists in mentioning Pope Victor’s “error” of mass (no pun intended) excommunication, yet not one of the contemporary witnesses denies Victor the ability to cut off entire churches from communion: they merely exhort him not to (St. Irenaeus being one). St. Irenaeus was from the East, heard St. Polycarp preach, and grew up with the Quartodeciman Paschal practice, yet he too stood by the decision of the Bishop of Rome. It is remarkable that the Quartodeciman practice faded and the practice of the Roman Church triumphed.

St. Ignatius’ letter to the Romans adds nothing to the debate because he unanimously addresses his letters to the entire churches. The only exception is the one specifically written to Polycarp, giving him instruction. Ignatius’ letters are full of hortatory orders, yet he refused to issue any to the Romans. Why? He was Bishop of the 2nd largest Church in the empire, a See St. Peter occupied as well.
 
Daniel myself and others have demonstrated a case from scripture that the office of Peters chair “the Pope” is not evident. Randy as so may other Catholics do when faced down with scripture resort to questioning its validity. The debate from Catholics will loop back to Matthew 16:18, then interpretable authority leading to the RCC usurping scripture. Do you not see that?
You haven’t demonstrated anything except that you interpret scripture in a different way than Catholics do. All your cute little snippets don’t alter that in any way. I will stick with the Church who has studied and prayed over scripture for 2000 years. If the Holy Spirit hasn’t heard 2000 years of praying over scripture by the Catholic Church, then It surely hasn’t heard the prayers over scripture of Churches that were founded by men instead of Jesus.
 
Daniel myself and others have demonstrated a case from scripture that the office of Peters chair “the Pope” is not evident. Randy as so may other Catholics do when faced down with scripture resort to questioning its validity. The debate from Catholics will loop back to Matthew 16:18, then interpretable authority leading to the RCC usurping scripture. Do you not see that?
No, tukfryer, that is not the situation at all.

I have been debating Daniel for months, and I have provided him with dozens if not 100+ responses. He ignores what he does not want to see.

Now, having been shown that the papacy is at least implicitly evident from scripture (and I would argue that it is explicitly established), Daniel is resorting to hiding behind the “show me in scripture” ploy.

Fine.

First, live up to your own standard by showing me why I am obligated to prove everything from scripture. You see, this is a standard of proof that scripture itself does not establish or require.

Jesus did not write a book nor did He command His disciples to do so. Instead, He established an authoritative, infallible Church - the Catholic Church. I belong to this Church, but you, ralphy, golfjack and Daniel do not.

As for Matthew 16:18, first you need to explain convincingly why Jesus is not establishing the position of Prime Minister of His kingdom when He is referencing Isaiah 22:22 when he gives the keys to Peter and Peter alone.

Daniel’s latest approach is a gradeschool playground tactic. He has no answers to our questions and evidence, and the best he can come up with amounts to saying, “I don’t see it in scripture”. Given the peculiar set of Protestant blinders that he’s wearing, is there any wonder he is unable to see what is obvious to the rest of us?

Do you not see that?
 
The NT is full of verses that support the Father, Son and HS. I could probably fill the whole 6000 word limit for a post If I tried to post them all. Not so with the Pope. The difference is not in the word or equivalent “Pope” “trinity” but in the demonstration of the fact that Daniel Keeran has presented both from scripture and catholic history archives.

Matthew 28:18-20
Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in(to) the name_ of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Sorry. This seems to suggest that baptisms are done in the name of three people. I don’t see “One God, Three Persons”, co-eternal, co-substantial, sharing one nature, etc. here.
1 Thessalonians 3:11
Now may our God and Father himself and our Lord Jesus clear the way for us to come to you. –
Sorry. Only a “twinity” not a trinity here.
Look at this greeting:

Grace and peace
to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

This is the exact greeting in used in Romans 1:7, 1 Cor 1:3, 2 Cor 1:2, Gal 1:3, Eph. 1:2, Phil. 1:2, 2 Thess. 1:2, etc. [meaning: this was not a one time accident, but a normal/formal greeting]
Sorry. This does not say that the Father and the son are one and the same God. Also, no mention of the Holy Spirit.
1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one. ****Sorry. This is a late addition. The earliest and most reliable transcripts do not have this verse. Ask Daniel about how the Didache was modified to support infant baptism.

I can see kinda, sorta, maybe how someone might get “one God, three persons” out of this, but it’s not all that clear.

Just like the papacy, right? :rolleyes:
 
[sign]It really is a telling SIGN when a professing christian has to resort to disregarding scripture[/sign]

Minimizing or disregarding the bible is most often used by non believers sad sad day.
Please explain how I have disregarded scripture.

If the Bible teaches the doctrine of sola scriptura, I would like to know this.

Please help me find this teaching within the pages of the Bible itself.

I’m counting on YOU, tukfryer. 👍
 
When Jesus said “whatsoever you bind…loose…” was he giving the Catholic church the right to define and change the terms of the gospel? Paul said, “If I or an angel…preach any other gospel…let him be accursed.”

Has not the Catholic church changed the gospel to a different gospel by the following?
  1. changing immersion to pouring for baptism
  2. baptizing infants who have not been taught nor repented
  3. teaching penance and purgatory as necessary for purification from sin, in addition to the blood of Christ
 
… Ask Daniel about how the Didache was modified to support infant baptism.
The striking thing about the Didache is that the prescription for baptism excludes infants, i.e. no infant baptism in the Didache. I DO believe the Didache was modified to include triple pouring as a substitute for immersion as there was no triple baptism in the earliest dating of the Didache, that we know of.
 
When Jesus said “whatsoever you bind…loose…” was he giving the Catholic church the right to define and change the terms of the gospel? Paul said, “If I or an angel…preach any other gospel…let him be accursed.”

Has not the Catholic church changed the gospel to a different gospel by the following?
  1. changing immersion to pouring for baptism
  2. baptizing infants who have not been taught nor repented
  3. teaching penance and purgatory as necessary for purification from sin, in addition to the blood of Christ
No.

Immersion, pouring and sprinkling are all considered efficacious. You have no iron-clad verse that REQUIRES immersion.

Baptism of infants was accepted in the days of the apostles as the scriptures suggest. You have no iron-clad verse that PROHIBITS baptism of infants.

Penance and purgatory are evident from scripture itself, but you misunderstand the verses and the purpose of purgatory. You have no iron-clad verse that PROVES that purgatory does not exist whereas I have many that suggest that it does.

Now, Daniel, I have a question for you.

DOES THE BIBLE TEACH SOLA SCRIPTURA?

C’mon, Daniel…this should be an easy one for you. Sola scriptura was one of the pillars of the Protestant Reformation along with sola fide, sola gratia, etc.

You should be able to knock this one out of the park without breaking a sweat.

I’m waiting.

Show me from the Bible why I have to prove anything to you from the Bible alone.
 
Has not the Catholic church changed the gospel to a different gospel by the following?
  1. changing immersion to pouring for baptism
  2. baptizing infants who have not been taught nor repented
  3. teaching penance and purgatory as necessary for purification from sin, in addition to the blood of Christ
Copying and pasting your arguments from thread to thread are unacceptable.

Are you going to answer the questions asked of you?

I trust the men that wrote the following writings over a private interpretation from today. Where you used the writings of the early Church fathers to deny the primacy of Peter because you can see it specifically written the way you want it to say, Peter was Pope, it appears the early Church fathers are clear on the subject of baptism.

The Didache
After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days (Didache 7:1 [ca. A.D. 70]).

Justin Martyr
As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father… and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus
He [Jesus] came to save all through himself – all, I say, who through him are reborn in God; infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian
[N]o one can attain salvation without baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, “Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life” (On Baptism 12:1 [A.D. 203]).
When we are about to enter the water — no, just a little before — In the church and under the hand of the bishop, we solemnly profess that we renounce the devil and his pomps and his angels. Thereupon we are immersed three times (The Crown 3:2 [A.D. 211]).

Hippolytus
Where there is no scarcity of water the stream shall flow through the baptismal font or pour into it from above; but if water is scarce, whether on a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available. Let them remove their clothing. Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D.215]).

Recognitions of Clement
But you will perhaps say, ‘What does the baptism of water contribute toward the worship of God?’ In the first place, because that which has pleased God is fulfilled. In the second place, because when you are regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so . . . you shall be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible. For thus has the true prophet [Jesus] testified to us with an oath: “Verily, I say to you, that unless a man is born again of water . . . he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Recognitions of Clement 6:9 [A.D. 221]).

Origen
The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine sacraments, knew there is in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Cornelius I
As [the heretic Novatian] seemed about to die, he received baptism in the bed where he lay, by pouring. . . . (Letter to Fabius of Antioch 6:43 [A.D. 251]).

Cyprian
[l]t behooves those to be baptized . . . so that they are prepared, in the lawful and true and only baptism of the holy Church, by divine regeneration, for the kingdom of God . . . because it is written “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (Epistles 72 [73]: 21 [A.D. 252]).
As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).
In the saving sacraments, when necessity compels and when God bestows his pardon, divine benefits are bestowed fully upon believers, nor ought anyone be disturbed because the sick are poured upon or sprinkled when they receive the Lord’s grace" (Letter to a Certain Magnus 69(76):12 [A.D. 254]).
 
Ambrose
The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed, he must circumcise himself from his sins [in baptism (Col. 2:11-12)] so that he can be saved . . . for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the sacrament of baptism… “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (On Abraham 2:11:79-84 [A.D. 387]).

Augustine
It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated . . . when that infant is brought to baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. For it is not written, “Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents” or “by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,” but, “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.” The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in Adam (Letters 98:2 [A.D. 408]).
 
When Jesus said “whatsoever you bind…loose…” was he giving the Catholic church the right to define and change the terms of the gospel? Paul said, “If I or an angel…preach any other gospel…let him be accursed.”

Has not the Catholic church changed the gospel to a different gospel by the following?
  1. changing immersion to pouring for baptism
  2. baptizing infants who have not been taught nor repented
  3. teaching penance and purgatory as necessary for purification from sin, in addition to the blood of Christ
Where in the Gospel is it mandated to baptize by immersion only (a discipline, by the way, not a doctrine)?

Why does St. Paul “chastise his body” and “fill up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions”? Why did warn others that they might fall away? Didn’t he know they were ‘saved’?

Why does St. James pray often on his knees (a posture in the East used for begging forgiveness and repentance)? Didn’t he know he was ‘saved’?
 
Oh it, the leadership of His Church, existed, but apparently you cannot see it from your private interpretation.

**Eph 4:11 And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors: **

1Co 12:28 And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.
1Co 12:29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors?


As you demand the Bible phrase something according to your standards, please show us an example of anyone ordaining themselves to any position within His Church.
There is no pope or anything similar in any NT passage and strikingly missing from the great unity passage of Ephesians 4. So you say the following:
You have been asked where your infallible authority comes from, since according to you only your interpretation is correct, but you produce nothing. That’s right, while you push aside the authority of the Catholic Church, you assume an authority upon yourself, but refuse to discuss it.
I accept the authority of scripture without interpretation. This acknowledges God as my authority: sola Deo.
Since the Bible does not phrase a leadership position to your satisfaction, I wondered last night if you believe in the Trinity? It’s a legimate question, as I’ve met some Pentecostals that reject the Trinity because it’s not expressed to their satisfaction. You stay on one subject, hammering away, but do not share your doctrines of truth as taught by your Church. Is there a reason for this?
I have already answered that I believe what the scripture teaches about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But I avoid use of the term Trinity as it is not in scripture. Maybe start a thread on this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top