The Universal Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter lanman87
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lenten_ashes said:
James does not contradict his position.
Click to expand...
What was Peters position? As to the question on the floor he only poses the question, “why tempt ye God by putting a yolk on the neck of the disciples, which we nor our forefathers were able to bear?..we are saved by grace”

I agree Peter speaks volumes here but still is a question, not a ruling.

Indeed saved by grace and not being yoked to Jewish law for justification.
 
mcq72 said:
Amos does not say the Gentiles will become Jews (circumcised and yoked to the law)…
Click to expand...
He did not say they wouldn’t either, right? You said what Scripture does not say, but it does not say what you imply either. If you disregard Acts of Apostles which did not exist at the time, interpreting that verse in such way is stretch at best. Based on wording, I am more inclined that James meant “let us make it easier for them because they are destined to be followers of Christ” rather than “wait Scripture says they should not be circumcised”. After all, Jews DID circumcise Gentiles who converted to their faith even after having received Amos and this verse.
mcq72 said:
I am not citing SS, but certainly what God alone was saying thru His writ, thru His actions and signs and wonders (amongst uncircumcised gentiles), and thru His apostles (Peter and Paul) was graciously received and made bound on earth thru and by council’s obedience to the Shepherd’s voice.
Click to expand...
Yes. God was not using only Scripture to speak, but also his ordained followers.
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
After all, Jews DID circumcise Gentiles who converted to their faith even after having received Amos and this verse
Click to expand...
This is a mixed bag. It was debated. For sure most advocated their form of baptism (immersion) but need for circumcision was debated. A few argued one could only be born a Jew (thru Jewish mother or father).

I mean Paul was not dogmatic on circumcision before the council, and was representative of the pre Christain, Jewish dialogue on the matter. The bigger matter that the gospel brought was the matter of the role beyond ceremony of circumcision but of keeping the Law and breaking that yoke as means of justification.
 
Last edited:
mcq72 said:
This is a mixed bag. It was debated. For sure all advocated their form of baptism( immersion) but need for circumcision was debated.
Click to expand...
Oh, I meant before NT age, before Incarnation etc.
 
He does question…but as also stated, he sorta pulls rank by telling them who THE voice to the gentiles was.
 
Last edited:
Lenten_ashes said:
He does question…but as also stated, he sorta pulls rank by telling them who THE voice to the gentiles was.
Click to expand...
Ok, but I would not consider that pulling rank as far as office or previous disposition . But would agree that he leveraged the true reality that God chose him to receive dream and go to Cornelius etc… That was the explicit previous disposition. . Considering why Peter would receive the dream etc is implicit. Again, I would not argue against he was first amongst equals in this., and does not “pull rank” in traditional sense.
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
I am more inclined that James meant “let us make it easier for them because they are destined to be followers of Christ”
Click to expand...
more than destined but were already disciples, speaking in present tense, as the text states.
 
Last edited:
mcq72 said:
more than destined but were already disciples, speaking in present tense, as the text states.
Click to expand...
Yes, I meant Gentiles that are to-be-converted as a large, but you are right it also includes those which did already convert.
 
Well, yes but it’s not just the dream…it’s Pedro who Jesus singles out in Matthew 16 and John 21 and Luke 22. And he is the guy who has his name changed, which is a big deal in biblical times. And the first 10 chapters of the book of ACTS, is Peter, Peter and more Peter.

I know this topic has been beaten to death, Ben(yes i remember you, lol) but i find it hard to buy he was just an honorary first among equals when you consider all the scriptural evidence, which is what you guys typically always demand to see.
 
Lenten_ashes said:
Well, yes but it’s not just the dream…it’s Pedro who Jesus singles out in Matthew 16 and John 21 and Luke 22. And he is the guy who has his name changed, which is a big deal in biblical times. And the first 10 chapters of the book of ACTS, is Peter, Peter and more Peter.

I know this topic has been beaten to death, Ben(yes i remember you, lol) but i find it hard to buy he was just an honorary first among equals when you consider all the scriptural evidence, which is what you guys typically always demand to see.
Click to expand...
Agree to his greatness. Being “first amongst equals” suggests much more than just in honor. He literally was first in many things, but still an apostle. It does not make an office out of his role of leadership, but leader he was.

PS do you know wherabouts of “Radical”, which goes back farther than 2016 ?..indeed lol
 
Last edited:
steve-b said:
This is analogous with the Jerusalem Council. James held the highest respect of the Jerusalem church
Click to expand...
I didn’t make that point, that was made by ianman87
40.png
mcq72:
I think Eusebius said James was the “bishop of the apostles” in this instance.
Click to expand...
this would be a good place to give the reference properly referenced
 
Last edited:
Nope, lol

Anyway, if the role of Bishop is an office(or Bishopric) as it states in ACTS 1:20, then why wouldn’t Peter’s place of primary also be carried on?
 
Lenten_ashes said:
Anyway, if the role of Bishop is an office(or Bishopric) as it states in ACTS 1:20, then why wouldn’t Peter’s place of primary also be carried on?
Click to expand...
Lol, i dont know why…how about this, an apostle lives forever with his reward , no need to replace them, as judas was replaced, even punished by losing honor and duty of his role, another taking that honor and duty, of being one of the 12 foundations of the church as mentioned in Revelation.
 
Last edited:
mcq72 said:
40.png
steve-b:
this would be a good place to give the reference properly referenced
Click to expand...
Read it in Calvins commentary on Acts 15:30 on " bible hub"… he says it is " at beginning of his Second Book"

Acts 15 Calvin's Commentaries
Click to expand...
From that reference (all emphasis mine)

"Moreover, we may gather out of this place, that they made no small account of James, ([Acts 21:18] forasmuch as he doth with his voice and consent so confirm the words of Peter, that they are all of his mind. And we shall see afterwards how great his authority was at Jerusalem. The old writers think that this was because he was bishop of the place; but it is not to be thought that the faithful did at their pleasure change the order which Christ had appointed. Wherefore, I do not doubt but that he was son to Alpheus, and Christ’s cousin, in which sense he is also called his brother. Whether he were bishop of Jerusalem or no, I leave it indifferent; neither doth it greatly make for the matter, save only because the impudency of the Pope is hereby refuted, because the decree of the Council is set down rather at the appointment, and according to the authority of James than of Peter. And assuredly Eusebius, in the beginning of his Second Book, is not afraid to call James, whosoever he were, the Bishop of the Apostles. Let the men of Rome go now and boast that their Pope is head of the Universal Church, because he is Peter’s successor, who suffered another to rule him, [120] if we believe Eusebius."

Now

Here is reference, from Book II, from Eusebius history translated by Philip Schaff a Protestant

" 2. Then [James], whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his [virtue], is recorded to have been the first to be made [bishop of the [church] of Jerusalem. This [James] was called the [brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin being [betrothed] to him, was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together, as the account of the holy Gospels shows."

SO

There is no mention of James being the bishop of the apostles. James is an apostle, and he is the 1st bishop of Jerusalem, but he is NOT what Calvin wrote Eusebius said he was… bishop of the apostles

And Calvin’s last comment is just the heretic Calvin letting off steam

Now

We have a problem

Either Calvin mistranslated Eusebius, or maybe Schaff mistranslated Eusebius, but either way we have a confl;ict.

AND

I’ll just say, Schaff is no pro Catholic Protestant.

BTW, This is why I ask for references properly referenced.
 
Last edited:
steve-b said:
BTW, This is why I ask for references properly referenced .
Click to expand...
…and followthrough in depth of all references gives Newman’s quote “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant” its substance.

Peace!!!
 
EO’s IMO hurt their own credibility by the “first among equals” claim and the resulting fragmentation based on nation and ethnicity. Doesn’t sound very ‘universal’ to me.

I can’t even begin to understand how anyone could take the LDS claim seriously unless they were raised LDS and had years of hardcore conditioning to attribute the belief to. The idea that the true church would just spring right up out of North America, in the early modern times, with a book ‘revealed’ under dubious circumstances by a guy with dubious character history is even less plausible than Reformed Protestantism.

Richard Dawkins once gawked that people of faith regard religions to be more likely to be true “merely based on the passage of time”, but that’s not an unreasonable reason to consider the truth of a religion when that passage of time dates back to a physical founding that took place at the most significant onset of that faith.

So you’re completely correct to say that the RCC going back to 33 A.D. is cause to treat its claims to legitimacy and truth as unique.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top