The Office of the Papacy in Scripture

[Daniel_Keeran]

What does this mean to you? That whatever feels right to you is the word of God?

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword,** it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit**, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Then you of all people should be able to see the clear leadership role played by the bishops of Rome throughout the first three hundred years of church history. To claim they are silent is to be dishonest. To reject all secondary sources is academically dishonest. I hope you didn’t try to pull that stunt in your MA studies.

God bless,
Ut

I am looking for a book that brings all the papal statements together for the first 300 years. Can you give me any leads?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

**1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Eph 3:10 That the manifold wisdom of God may be made
known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church**

Why does the inspired, written, word of God tell us that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, instead of scriptures? Why does the inspired, written, word of God tell us that the manifold wisdom of God may be made known through the Church, instead of scriptures?

Now, one last time, since you have avoided it multiple times, who does one believe when there are thousands of denominations preaching “truth” as revealed to them through Holy Spirit guided interpretations of sacred scriptures?

Where did Jesus say, "it is received by **honest and sincere **hearts, referencing reading scriptures?

Luke 8:11"This is the meaning of the parable: The seed is the word of God. …15But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop."

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The inscription are very useful for establishing the fact that infant baptism began as a result of parents’ fearing their child would die. They show that it was NOT the custom to baptize children after birth but before death.

Whether after birth or before death, children were baptized by the early Christians. You prefer to spin it to fit your view.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Luke 8:11"This is the meaning of the parable: The seed is the word of God. …15But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop."

That doesn’t reference a written word Daniel…

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Whether after birth or before death, children were baptized by the early Christians. You prefer to spin it to fit your view.

The Catholic claim is that infants were baptized after birth in the many household baptisms that occurred during the life of the apostles. Correct??

If so, we need inscriptions that say something like: “And my infant son, Paolo, baptized after birth, died at the age of 10 months.” But there is nothing like this anywhere among the inscriptions until the time of Cyprian? Please correct me.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Catholic claim is that infants were baptized after birth in the many household baptisms that occurred during the life of the apostles. Correct??

If so, we need inscriptions that say something like: “And my infant son, Paolo, baptized after birth, died at the age of 10 months.” But there is nothing like this anywhere among the inscriptions until the time of Cyprian? Please correct me.

Catholics say that children of the household were baptized. I don’t recall anyone saying it was after birth. But let’s discuss baptism after birth a minute. With the old covenant, at what age did male children receive the sign of the covenant? At the age of 8 days old.

 

[PRmerger]

Luke 8:11"This is the meaning of the parable: The seed is the word of God. …15But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop."

Amen!

Can you deny all the “crops” produced by the Catholic Church? Hospitals, universities, orphanages, priests, nuns and laity who are martyrs, evangelizers, saints…

Of course, Catholics don’t have the market on producing a crop, but I doubt there’s any church that comes to a close second. :extrahappy:

If producing a crop is a testament to good soil, then there is none so good as the Catholic Church.

This is another peculiar verse to use in arguments against Catholicism.

 

[pipper]

I can see you are struggling with this, but no single person or congregation or any authority other than Christ, can speak for or represent the church of Christ. There is no earthly central or official office for the church of Christ. You can check with pipper if you think I lie. He says he was raised in churches of Christ and seems fairly well-versed.

Prodigal Son1, it is very true that there is no central authority, or bishops in the “churches of Christ”, they are the most stict congregationalists within Protestantism. There is no one web site that speaks for them all. But OTOH, many CofC congregations have individual web-sites, perhaps Dan’s congregation has one, but he will not reveal it to us.

I keep giving a site that is representative of the basic doctrine, that all CofC’s share, that also makes it very clear the derision that they have for the Catholic church, but as well for all other churches but their own.

It is:

www.bible.ca

that is not com but ca, it is a Canadian site.

For some reason that I am unable to fathom, everyone here continues to ignore me, and I am certian that Dan finds that delightful, but I am telling the truth. It’s odd but people here respond to Catholic former Mormons and former SDA’s, but I am ignored.

Please go to www.bible.ca I swear I am telling the truth.

 

[PRmerger]

We do have the writings of Julius Caesar and others. But aside from that, there is a MAJOR difference between mere human leaders and the leaders who claim to be “God on earth.” Am I overstating the title here? Where is the paper trail of these divinely led and appointed individuals for the first 300 years?

The leaders claim to be the guardians of God’s Revelation on earth.

 

[PRmerger]

For some reason that I am unable to fathom, everyone here continues to ignore me, and I am certian that Dan finds that delightful, but I am telling the truth. It’s odd but people here respond to Catholic former Mormons and former SDA’s, but I am ignored.

Dearest pipper, no one here is ignoring you! I read each and every one of your posts and usually nod in agreement. That no one comments is probably because there’s nothing to disagree with!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If so, we need inscriptions that say something like: “And my infant son, Paolo, baptized after birth, died at the age of 10 months.” But there is nothing like this anywhere among the inscriptions until the time of Cyprian? Please correct me.

Cyprian died in 258.

Now look closely at the inscriptions again.

Archeological discoveries in the Roman catacombs have long-ago proven that infant baptism was common in the primitive Roman Churches. Two clear examples, among dozens of similar inscriptions, are all that we really need to support this claim. A man with the resounding Roman/Latin name of Murtius Verinus placed on the tomb of his children the inscription: “Verina received Baptism at the age of ten months, Florina at the age of twelve months.” The date of this tomb has been firmly established by radio-carbon dating of the children’s bones as being 105 AD +/- 4 years. Another tomb, not far away from this one, has the inscription: “Here rests Achillia, a newly-baptized infant; she was one year and five months old, died February 23rd…” and then follows the year of the reigning emperor, which dates her death to 91 AD. [see W. Wall, “History of Infant Baptism”, 2 Vols., London, 1900. and other related articles in various archeological journals from early this century.]

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Prodigal Son1, it is very true that there is no central authority, or bishops in the “churches of Christ”, they are the most stict congregationalists within Protestantism. There is no one web site that speaks for them all. But OTOH, many CofC congregations have individual web-sites, perhaps Dan’s congregation has one, but he will not reveal it to us.

I keep giving a site that is representative of the basic doctrine, that all CofC’s share, that also makes it very clear the derision that they have for the Catholic church, but as well for all other churches but their own.

It is:

www.bible.ca

that is not com but ca, it is a Canadian site.

For some reason that I am unable to fathom, everyone here continues to ignore me, and I am certian that Dan finds that delightful, but I am telling the truth. It’s odd but people here respond to Catholic former Mormons and former SDA’s, but I am ignored.

Please go to www.bible.ca I swear I am telling the truth.

Hello pipper,

I apologize I have not acknowledged your posts. I have read them, but I felt it was important for Daniel to respond, or continue avoiding to respond. Either way it speaks volumes to anyone that maybe following this thread.

I have been to the link you provided before and know the feelings of our separated brethren. Getting one to own up to it is another story.

 

[PRmerger]

Jesus said, “you shall know the truth…”
John, “hereby do we know that we know him…”

**Truth is knowable **by the individual reading the word of God. Jesus said it is received by **honest and sincere **hearts.

Amen!

But you still haven’t answered what do 2 individuals do who read Scripture and come up with completely different interpretations? Did God not leave us with a solution to this problem?

Doesn’t Scripture tell us to take it to the Church? Doesn’t Scripture tell us that there is a final authority? Doesn’t Scripture tell us how to discern the spirit of truth from the spirit of error–by listening to the apostles, the Magisterium? See 1 John 4:6

 

[tukfryer]

Amen!

But you still haven’t answered what do 2 individuals do who read Scripture and come up with completely different interpretations? Did God not leave us with a solution to this problem?

Doesn’t Scripture tell us to take it to the Church? Doesn’t Scripture tell us that there is a final authority? Doesn’t Scripture tell us how to discern the spirit of truth from the spirit of error–by listening to the apostles, the Magisterium? See 1 John 4:6

Maybe if you provide some examples it would provide some topic. with 33,000 differences it should be an easy task.

 

[PRmerger]

Maybe if you provide some examples it would provide some topic. with 33,000 differences it should be an easy task.

Ok.

Let’s say someone who believes he’s inspired by the Holy Spirit reads Deut 12 and teaches that receiving blood transfusions is an abomination.

He’s read the verse and come up with an interpretation that disagrees with yours. Now what do you do, tuk?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Maybe if you provide some examples it would provide some topic. with 33,000 differences it should be an easy task.

There are many different doctrines.

Baptism
Rapture
Tongues (some believe others are not saved if they don’t speak in tongues)
Divorce
Abortion
Once saved, always saved
Music or no music (Singing or no singing)
Women pastors, no women pastors
Hell, or no hell
The Eucharist (Communion)
Sola scriptura/private interpretation
Ordination
Trinity vs. unitarianism
Church leadership, or no leadership
Head coverings or no head coverings
Health and wealth gospel
Drinking allowed, drinking not allowed
Attend weekly services, don’t have to go to Church
Judge others, don’t judge others
What’s a sin, what is not a sin
Charity or no charity (help one another or let them help themselves)

These are just a few examples. If you mix them up and take into consideration some denominations accept some of these, according to their interpretation, vs. another denomination that doesn’t accept the same list, you can come up with thousands of different teachings. The different combination of lists separate many denominations.

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by pete 29
Prove to me that you have the Holy Spirit and can infallibly interpret scripture.

**Dear friend, there have been some very good, deeply profound answers to you’re question.

I’m going to take a different approach.**

Can we agree that all humanity is “gifted” with a mind, intellect and freewill?"

Cn we agree futher that each of these gifts can be shown [proved] but cannot be seen, smelt, or touched, and thus "must be "spiritual THINGS?"

If these two statements are true. and they are, is it reasonable to assume that humanity has posession of these atributes for a specific reason?

That reason being, to use and apply them in understanding, to various degrees, lives many questions?

So friend, perhaps it is possbile to answer you’re question with simple applied logic?

For the moment, lets think about Jesus as CEO of a start up Corporation. His President and CFO is St. Peter.

Jesus, the CEO announces his intention to found this particular corporation under very specific rules, regulations, fully expecting GREAT success and therefore GREAT growth. He goes out of his way to make preperations for these things to happen.

Jesus the CEO has literally dedicated his very life to the formation and founding of the corporate enity. He has made plans for its continuence after his demise, by granting total and complete authority to Peterwho has demonistrated leadership skills, to carry on his efforts.

He shares with Peter his vision, and verbally and by personal example, leads Peter to formulate a written vison of the corporations goals, standards, and purpose; in other words, the Corporations Mission Statement. [What we now call the Bible.]

Sadly, before it is completed in written for the CEO, Jesus dies, and Peter assumes full control. Working for Peter are ten other individuals who too worked closely with the CEO Jesus, and had a solid understanding of his vision, and his Mission. They are COMMITTED to seeing it fully implemented as wich to insre its success and continuence.

It is from and through this base that the Mission is put into written form, with great specificity, based on the life of the CEO, and his personal expectations and directives.

These men, who finalized the Mission Statement, knew first hand the CEO, heard the instructions, understood the Mission and put it into written form. Not as a guess, but from first hand knowledge, in love, respect, and complete obedience, to the now deceased CEO Jesus.

The proof friend is the consistancy of the message which matches the lifes examole of Jesus. It is no mere accident. And the corporation (The RCC) has been in continual existence for about 2,000 consecutive years. you want “proof” what greater proof could their be? The Bible must be based on The Truth in order to have not only survived, but actually has florished!

Love and prayers,

 

[PRmerger]

[The proof friend is the consistancy of the message which matches the lifes examole of Jesus. It is no mere accident. And the corporation (The RCC) has been in continual existence for about 2,000 consecutive years. you want “proof” what greater proof could their be? The Bible must be based on **The Truth

in order to have not only survived, but actually has florished!

Love and prayers,

PJM, this question from Pete was addressed to a non-Catholic poster who was claiming that his interpretation of Scripture was correct. Pete was asking, essentially, how do you know that yours is correct and not the Catholic Church’s?

 

[PJM]

There are many different doctrines.

Baptism
Rapture
Tongues (some believe others are not saved if they don’t speak in tongues)
Divorce
Abortion
Once saved, always saved
Music or no music (Singing or no singing)
Women pastors, no women pastors
Hell, or no hell
The Eucharist (Communion)
Sola scriptura/private interpretation
Ordination
Trinity vs. unitarianism
Church leadership, or no leadership
Head coverings or no head coverings
Health and wealth gospel
Drinking allowed, drinking not allowed
Attend weekly services, don’t have to go to Church
Judge others, don’t judge others
What’s a sin, what is not a sin
Charity or no charity (help one another or let them help themselves)

These are just a few examples. If you mix them up and take into consideration some denominations accept some of these, according to their interpretation, vs. another denomination that doesn’t accept the same list, you can come up with thousands of different teachings. The different combination of lists separate many denominations.

Very well done.

Thank you!