M
mirandajb
Guest
Well said. The Urim and Thummim were no different from casting lots. It was a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ and requesting Divine intervention, of course, preceded by prayers and only used by priests (anointed ones)
- Status
B
Bran_Stark
Guest
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. I don’t deny that the Bible is inerrant. I’m just pointing out that the words of humans which the Bible inerrantly records can err. Psalm 14 says that "the fool has said in his heart, ‘there is no God’ ", but only a “fool” would interpret that as meaning the Bible condones atheism.
Sad to say, I think the arguing is over is most of the UCC. And the orthodox lost.Isn’t that what the UCC’ers do all the time, argue among themselves for fun?
What creed to use, if God is a he or a she, if same sex unions sould be supported or not…
Haha we certainly did not invent “In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas”. It may not come from St. Augustine as was once thought, but it’s hundreds of years old.
J
JRRTFAN
Guest
This is a self determined description of the book of Acts and essentially preaches the following:
Acts is a history book and is meaningless for use in the guidance to salvation.
The Catholic exegete would respond that the Church, divinely instituted by Christ, was and is constitued to act as a conduit for grace and to spread the message of salvation. Since it was so constituted in the 1st century, some method of proper and orderly continuation must also be divinely instituted.
The position that apostolic succession was not divinely instituted, and therefore theological, is simply incorrect.
I will readily admit it is the standard Protestant position. The standard Protestant position is wrong.
B
Bran_Stark
Guest
Well I never said I don’t believe in it.
J
JRRTFAN
Guest
If you believed in it you would be joining the one Church where it exists in its fullness, with Peter as its head.
E
E_Thrower_II
Guest
23And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
24And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
25That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
26And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
E
E_Thrower_II
Guest
Wasn’t Paul called to be an apostle by Christ himself (which he so states in his epistles) only after he had Stephen killed who was one of the twelve?The first time I’ve heard of it. I’m guessing this interpretation sprouted up to explain why Paul was called an ‘apostle’ even though he was not chosen to be one of the Twelve.
P
patrick457
Guest
What my point is, the term ‘apostle’ is originally not confined to the Twelve or even the Seventy. The author of Hebrews calls Jesus “the apostle and High Priest of our confession” (3:1); Luke once refers to Barnabas as one (14:14); and Paul himself talks of or implies Andronicus and Junia/Junias (Romans 16:7), Silas and Timothy (1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2:6-7; but cf. 2 Corinthians 1:1), and Apollos (1 Corinthians 4:9) as being ‘apostles’.
And no, Stephen ain’t one of the Twelve, if by that you mean the Twelve Apostles.
E
E_Thrower_II
Guest
I
Ignatius
Guest
According to The Word of God, it was The Lord who chose.
Act 1:24-25 And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.”
So they apparently think that The Lord made a mistake! I’d stay away from the Bible Study Fellowship Interrnational folks; it is they that made the mistake.
S
steve53
Guest
Stephen was one of the second group of disciples chosen, along with Philip. My question is that it sounds like from Acts that they were originally chosen to be stewards or servants of the original twelve (or eleven plus Mathias).
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
Z
Zenas
Guest
These seven men, named in Acts 6:5 were the first deacons.
I
inkaneer
Guest
I disagree. Matthias was not chosen to replace Judas as an apostle. Rather the pope called for someone to take the office vacated by Judas. There is no office in the church of Apostle. Never was and never will be. There are only three offices and they are bishop, priest and deacon. If you look at what Peter says in Acts 1:20 he calls for someone to take over the office that was Judas’. . In Acts 1:20 Peter says: “20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and ‘His office let another take.’” [Acts 1:20] RSV. The Greek word that is translated as ‘office’ is the word episkope. That word is translated elsewhere as ‘bishop’. Both the KJV and the DR translate the word episkope as ‘bishopric’. The habitation that Peter refers to is Judas’ apostolic lineage. No bishop will ever claim their line of Apostolic Succession goes back to Judas. Matthias is consecrated a bishop by the eleven remaing bishops. That is why scripture only says, depending on the translation, he was numbered with or he was enrolled with the eleven apostles. If he was an Apostle then why is there still only eleven apostles after his enrollment?
N
Nate13
Guest
I like the seven imagery. It hits home that God is establishing a New Covenant, which also reminds us why God established the 7 sacraments
7 avenues of God’s grace representing God’s New Covenant where in he “seven’s himself” which is the definition of covenant.
M
mentoraz
Guest
BSF’s mission is trying to bridge any denominational divisiveness and just study the God’s Word as written. I do not believe they intend to offend anyone and no one who is secure in their beliefs would find any reason to be offended. As to Matthias, we finished that section of Acts in September. The choosing of Matthias was neither taught as a mistake or as God’s absolute will to fill the 12th spot so much as a necessary and practical act of ministry. Every participant is encouraged to read and study the Bible and share insights and practical applications gained by watching the start of the early church. A spoken rule is that no one is to discuss what church they are members of. It is not meant to take the place of any church’s teaching, but as a beautiful addition to worship. It is definitely not a “baptist” Bible study. Host churches all volunteer their facilities around the world and are of many different denominations. Any Catholic should compare what is taught to Church doctrine and I believe this will strengthen faith.
J
JRRTFAN
Guest
The facts are, and I appreciate but diasagree with your comments, that Bible Study Fellowship was started by A. Wetherell Johnson, a Baptist missionary to China. Her founding principals and methodology were (and continue to this day to be) inductive in nature. That is, not relying on scholarship or historical analysis but on that which the Holy Spirit induces (or is alleged to induce) in the individual reader. For instance, you might come to a different conclusion on the includsion of Matthias as an apostle than I do. Both answers are acceptable, although only one is right.
The BSF program recognizes 66 books as the only and ultimate infallible source of faith and practice for the Christian. (that’s a BSF fact) Well, if you’re a Catholic or an Orthodox, that is not a fact, it is a heresy and denies the revealed truth of God via the entire scripture - all 73 books, not the Protestant truncation thereof.
Fact, Catholics and (presumambly Orthodox) are not permitted to be Discussion Group or Teaching leaders in BSF or hold any other leadership position. Leadership must affirm that they are members of an unconnected “local” Church, i.e., Protestant and preferabky Fundamental or Evangelical. One must hold to the Baptistic fundamentals.
Fact, if a BSF participant studied John 6 and decided to share insight into the Real Presence in the Eucahrist that would not be permitted. If s/he shared the necessity and efficacy of Baptism based on study results, that would not be permitted. If s/he shared the necessity of sacramental confession (confess your sins to one another) that would not be permitted. If s/he shared the necessity of a sacramental/sacrificial priesthood that would not be permitted, yet ALL these are in the Bible.
The Fact is the notes issued by BSF mentioned that the selection of Matthias was considered a mistake by some. That’s a fact. that’s the power of suggestion at work in a “Bible only” BSF note.
My wife has been a BSF discussion leader for 17 years and it is good for her and for her confreres. But it is NOT FOR CATHOLICS it is Fundamentalist Protestant heresy and NO CATHOLIC HAS ANY BUSINESS THERE.
It is also a FACT that I could take any of my own statements and respin them in BSFese. “Catholics aren;t permitted to be discussion leaders because the leaders are so concerned not to step on there toes by making them deny tenets of there religion which BSF honors very greatly.” Uh-huh.
I rest my case on Facts.
- Status