Trouble explaining Apostolic Succession

[Pete_Holter]

With all authority - whose authority for there is only one sovereign God revealed in 3 persons; that is the context like it or not.

Hi, Gift!

Yes, that is actually what I said: “they are exercising His authority (compare Matthew 28:18 and Titus 2:15). …] The authority of Christ’s Church is …] God’s own.”

It is a delegated authority.

“Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making His appeal through us” (2 Corinthians 5:20).

Welcome to the Forums! What is your faith background?

With love in Christ,
Pete

 

[johnnyjones]

Always difficult to pass along that which is not in Scripture. God alone can forgive sins as stated in Scripture just the same as there is only one intercessor between man and God, the God-Man Jesus Christ. Do you know of any other intercessors contained in the entire Word? No.

The Jews tried to stone Jesus for making Himself to be God - how? By the forgiving of sins. Find one instant in the entire Bible where an ordinary man, such as an Apostle, said I forgive your sins; it was always in the Name or by the authority of Jesus - GOD.

Very Very Protestant? What does that mean? Please do not answer I found the statement somewhat amusing/interesting. I am considered protestant, but Christian is what I am. I have been predestined before time to be adopted as a son by God to whom I cry out often as Father or dad. Read Ephesians chapter 1 and if it is not one of the most comforting and glorious things you have ever read, then I hope one day it will. God bless.

No not “only” one mediator. “One” mediator. The "only’ drifts in there because mentally it helps support a non Catholic view. I walked around for years with the outlook that I’m Christian and belong to no specific denomination. But when the interpretation of a passage was necessary I got 5 different answers from the many denominations. What practices were taught before the bible was compiled. Sacrad tradition.

 

[Cat_Herder]

As always in the epistles it is not the individual forgiving the sin; only God can forgive sins. Until you understand that basic principal you will not understand anything past that.

All of us understand that principle perfectly. The question is not whether only God can forgive sin, it is how He goes about doing it, and through whom. Look at James 5 again:

[BIBLEDRB]James 5:14-16[/BIBLEDRB]

Notice that the elders, or priests (same Greek root word), are the only ones who can perform the anointing. If anyone could do it there’d be no need to call for the elders, you’d just get the olive oil out of the closet and splatter it on.

The interpretation of scripture is an exacting science with gaps that must be filled such as historical, grammatical and cultural to name some. You see in what you quoted above is also told in Matthew 18 using “loosing and binding”; ask yourself - what is it that loose and what that binds? How is one loosed from their sins and why do most stay bound in their sins; when you figure that out you have been illuminated by God Himself through the Holy Spirit. - Good luck and God bless.

If interpreting Scripture is in fact an exacting science then there must be an exact result, not 33,000+ different results. Practice what you preach.

 

[graceandfaith]

First, look for Acts 1 or 2, when a successor to Judas is chosen…and Matthias is chosen. In Acts 13, Paul and Barnabas are ordained, or laid hands on…prior to going to their first missionary journey…so they are “sent”…with the HS acting through the “elders” of the Church at Antioch. By the way, as a side note, do you know who founded the Church at Antioch?

Also, look at the 1st epistle of clement of rome, where he writes…earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-roberts.html

And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.”

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.

And St. Ireneus…appealed to Apostolic succession…to defeat Gnosticism…(ask your friend if St. Ireneus was dreaming something up, in his writings against the heresy of Gnosticism)…

St. Irenaeus explains how the Apostolic Tradition was to be found, to whom it was entrusted, and how it was preserved:

calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

The Gnostics of the second century justified being separated from the Catholic Church by claiming that even the Apostles had perverted Christ’s teachings. St. Irenaeus (d. AD 200) writes:

But, again, when we refer [the heretics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; . . . It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.10

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.43

I do not know who founded the Church at Antioch. Who?

 

[pablope]

I do not know who founded the Church at Antioch. Who?

A guy named Cephas in Aramaic…

2.Evodius (ca. 53–ca. 69)
3.Ignatius (ca. 70–ca. 107), who was martyred in the reign of Trajan. His seven epistles are unique sources for the early Church.
4.Heron (107–127)
5.Cornelius (127–154)
6.Eros (154–169)
7.Theophilus (ca. 169–ca. 182)
8.Maximus I (182–191)

 

[A_Gift]

It IS God HImself who imputes inward graces, through the outward Sacraments…But, He Himself is not bound to them.

He works His graces to whom He will.

You won’t find that coming from God; read the word of God and you will understand what I just said. The second one puts saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, that person is sealed by the power of the Holy Spirit till the day of one’s full redemption, that of both the spirit and the body. That you will find all over Scripture. Also, that saving faith as compared to any other faith, which is called “dead faith” by James/Holy Spirit is a gift of God according to God. see Ephesians 2:3-13

God imputes saving grace according to His will and His “good pleasure”. As the wind blows, you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it is going - so it is also true to those whom God saves. Paraphrased from John 6:8, Titus 3:4-7, Romans 9:13-26, Romans 8 & many more 2 Peter 1:10-11 all speak to this a prophesied in the OT that “Salvation belongs to the LORD”-Psalm 3:8. The ordinances of Water Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are very important, but they cannot produce saving faith, that is a “gift” of God according to His will and His pleasure.

 

[A_Gift]

All of us understand that principle perfectly. The question is not whether only God can forgive sin, it is how He goes about doing it, and through whom. Look at James 5 again:

[BIBLEDRB]James 5:14-16[/BIBLEDRB]

Notice that the elders, or priests (same Greek root word), are the only ones who can perform the anointing. If anyone could do it there’d be no need to call for the elders, you’d just get the olive oil out of the closet and splatter it on.

If interpreting Scripture is in fact an exacting science then there must be an exact result, not 33,000+ different results. Practice what you preach.

If what you implied is true, then the man that is able to forgive sins should forgive the sins of the world shouldn’t he? You see even in the text you selected, the forgiveness comes from above, not from man. Do not twist the Words of God for your own sake.

 

[A_Gift]

No not “only” one mediator. “One” mediator. The "only’ drifts in there because mentally it helps support a non Catholic view. I walked around for years with the outlook that I’m Christian and belong to no specific denomination. But when the interpretation of a passage was necessary I got 5 different answers from the many denominations. What practices were taught before the bible was compiled. Sacrad tradition.

Of course you get a multitude of interpretations; most people who profess to know God are not known by God or another way of saying it is “they honor Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me”.

The Bible teaches that interpretation is not from man and the implication is that it is from God, which of course it is from the Holy Spirit as He teaches throughout Scripture. In addition as one grows in the knowledge and wisdom of Christ through His word; he is given more - therefore each true Christian is at a different level of understanding and the more faithful one is in knowing AND doing the will of the Father, the more is given to that person.

Traditions of men that are contrary to Scripture gets in the way of true knowledge more than anything other than not being a Christian at all in my opinion. This is true in all Christianity and the problem is growing worse, but that is the judgment of God.

 

[pablope]

Of course you get a multitude of interpretations; most people who profess to know God are not known by God or another way of saying it is “they honor Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me”.

The Bible teaches that interpretation is not from man and the implication is that it is from God, which of course it is from the Holy Spirit as He teaches throughout Scripture. In addition as one grows in the knowledge and wisdom of Christ through His word; he is given more - therefore each true Christian is at a different level of understanding and the more faithful one is in knowing AND doing the will of the Father, the more is given to that person.

Traditions of men that are contrary to Scripture gets in the way of true knowledge more than anything other than not being a Christian at all in my opinion. This is true in all Christianity and the problem is growing worse, but that is the judgment of God.

On the contrary…the Bible gives a way to know what if from God and what is not from God…

First, from Luke…Luke 10:16 (Douay Rheims)
16 He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.

Romans 10:
14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?** And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent?** As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”[g]

So…let me ask you…the person you are getting and your interpretation from…how do you know he was “sent”…who sent him?

Then from 1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Question 2: How do you apply this verse today? Did God leave us to be orphans?

Based on the verses above…here are quotes from those whom the apostles trained themselves…

Clement of Rome writes this in his Epistle to Corinth…in accordance with the passages above…

57:1 Do ye, therefore, that have laid the foundation of the sedition submit yourselves to the presbyters, and be chastised to repentance, bending the knees of your hearts.

57:2 Learn to submit yourselves, laying aside the vain and haughty self-will of your tongues; for it is better that you should be small and approved in the flock of Christ, rather than that, seeming to be superior to others, ye should be cast out of his hope

59:1 But if some should be disobedient to the things spoken by him through us, let them know that they will entangle themselves in no small transgression and danger,

And St. Ignatius of Antioch… (d. 107 AD) wrote:

As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do ye anything without the bishop and presbyters. Neither endeavor that anything appear reasonable and proper to yourselves apart; but being come together into the same place, let there be one prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope, in love and in

So…do you think Clement and Ignatuis understood the passages correctly or not?

Here is something from Ireneus…writing against the heresy of the Gnostics…

St. Irenaeus explains how the Apostolic Tradition was to be found, to whom it was entrusted, and how it was preserved:

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

Do you think Irenaeus made up the following words he wrote above? Do you think he was misunderstanding the words on Luke, in Romans and in 1John?

 

[inkaneer]

Hello all! Just a quick background…I was raised very very Protestant…Sola Scriptura all the way! I will be welcomed into the Catholic Church on Easter Vigil! That being said…I’m having trouble explaining to a friend how Christ passed his authority to his disciples, and how that authority has been passed down in an unbroken line to the Catholic Church today. My friend’s point being that he feels that that authority was passed down to all of us? How do I politely point out that what he’s saying is not correct? I think he’s referring to the Protestant belief in the “Priesthood of all believers”.? Thanks so much!

Very simply. How many disciples did Jesus have and how many apostles? We know Jesus had eleven apostles that He gave the Great Commission to before he ascended to heaven but when those eleven apostles returned to the upper room to begin the first novena there were over 120 disciples there. The eleven apostles received authority but not the 120 disciples. Then in Acts 8 we read that the deacon Phillip went to Samaria and converted the people there. There then follows this:

“14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Sama’ria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit; 16 for it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.” [Acts 8:14-17] [RSV]

Obviously Phillip did not have the authority to lay hands on them so they could receive the Holy Spirit. But how do we know this was the deacon Phillip and not the apostle Phillip? Because scripture tells us that after the death of the deacon Stephen that all the christians scattered EXCEPT the apostles who stayed in Jerusalem. So Phillip the apostle remained in Jerusalem while Phillip the deacon went to Samaria.

“… a great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the region of Judea and Sama’ria, except the apostles. 2 Devout men buried Stephen, and made great lamentation over him. 3 But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison.” [Acts 8:1-3][RSV]

So there it is in scripture. That is sufficient to prove your friend is in error.

 

[Abu]

A Gift #28
The Bible teaches that interpretation is not from man and the implication is that it is from God, which of course it is from the Holy Spirit as He teaches throughout Scripture
In addition as one grows in the knowledge and wisdom of Christ through His word; he is given more - therefore each true Christian is at a different level of understanding and the more faithful one is in knowing AND doing the will of the Father, the more is given to that person.

The fantasy that each is inspired by the Holy Spirit to interpret for themselves is exploded by the 40,000 differing sects that subjectively follow what they choose – this demonstrates the reality of the inanity.

1. The first error is to feel that Christ gave us the Sacred Scriptures. He wrote nothing but by establishing His Church with His authority, He gave Her the power to define what writings from the OT, and those written by Catholics form the NT, which form the Sacred Scriptures, without which no one would have any Bible.
2. The second error is to deny Christ when He established His Church and no other.
3. The third error is to ignore history.

The second error is demeaning Christ in disregarding the mandate of Jesus, the Son of God, in installing Peter as His Supreme Vicar:
All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

The third error is in disregarding history.
Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

The third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1). This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].

 

[A_Gift]

All of us understand that principle perfectly. The question is not whether only God can forgive sin, it is how He goes about doing it, and through whom. Look at James 5 again:

[BIBLEDRB]James 5:14-16[/BIBLEDRB]

Notice that the elders, or priests (same Greek root word), are the only ones who can perform the anointing. If anyone could do it there’d be no need to call for the elders, you’d just get the olive oil out of the closet and splatter it on.

If interpreting Scripture is in fact an exacting science then there must be an exact result, not 33,000+ different results. Practice what you preach.

I can’t argue with you because you do not understand the passage; therefore we have no place to begin. Priest and elder is NOT the same Greek word and that is so basic I have no way to begin to discuss the meaning of Scripture with you - sorry.

 

[A_Gift]

On the contrary…the Bible gives a way to know what if from God and what is not from God…

First, from Luke…Luke 10:16 (Douay Rheims)
16 He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.

Romans 10:
14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?** And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent?** As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”[g]

So…let me ask you…the person you are getting and your interpretation from…how do you know he was “sent”…who sent him?

Then from 1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Question 2: How do you apply this verse today? Did God leave us to be orphans?

Based on the verses above…here are quotes from those whom the apostles trained themselves…

Clement of Rome writes this in his Epistle to Corinth…in accordance with the passages above…

57:1 Do ye, therefore, that have laid the foundation of the sedition submit yourselves to the presbyters, and be chastised to repentance, bending the knees of your hearts.

57:2 Learn to submit yourselves, laying aside the vain and haughty self-will of your tongues; for it is better that you should be small and approved in the flock of Christ, rather than that, seeming to be superior to others, ye should be cast out of his hope

59:1 But if some should be disobedient to the things spoken by him through us, let them know that they will entangle themselves in no small transgression and danger,

And St. Ignatius of Antioch… (d. 107 AD) wrote:

As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do ye anything without the bishop and presbyters. Neither endeavor that anything appear reasonable and proper to yourselves apart; but being come together into the same place, let there be one prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope, in love and in

So…do you think Clement and Ignatuis understood the passages correctly or not?

Here is something from Ireneus…writing against the heresy of the Gnostics…

St. Irenaeus explains how the Apostolic Tradition was to be found, to whom it was entrusted, and how it was preserved:

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

Do you think Irenaeus made up the following words he wrote above? Do you think he was misunderstanding the words on Luke, in Romans and in 1John?

I’m sorry you had to spend so many words on this because you missed my point, which is the natural man cannot understand nor is he able and that appears to be the vast majority of Christianity which is why you can ask a “Christian” you get a multitude of different answers and basic truths/doctrines. On more complex truths/doctrines you can expect some disagreement, but that is not the context of our discussion here.

God bless you.

 

[A_Gift]

The fantasy that each is inspired by the Holy Spirit to interpret for themselves is exploded by the 40,000 differing sects that subjectively follow what they choose – this demonstrates the reality of the inanity.

1. The first error is to feel that Christ gave us the Sacred Scriptures. He wrote nothing but by establishing His Church with His authority, He gave Her the power to define what writings from the OT, and those written by Catholics form the NT, which form the Sacred Scriptures, without which no one would have any Bible.
2. The second error is to deny Christ when He established His Church and no other.
3. The third error is to ignore history.

The second error is demeaning Christ in disregarding the mandate of Jesus, the Son of God, in installing Peter as His Supreme Vicar:
All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

The third error is in disregarding history.
Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

The third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1). This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].

That is a poor argument if we can call it an argument. Jesus predicted that MANY false teachers would infiltrate and distort and mislead many; so bringing into the picture what Jesus has already stated adds nothing.

As for the rest; imposing your views onto Scripture in no way changes the truth of Scripture it only proves you have imposed on Scripture. I like the supreme vicar part concerning Peter the best, but in a very sad way. You would really have to impose onto Scripture to come up with that. God speaks plainly; men twist what God says to fit their theology or other agenda’s-usually a twisting of theology to to reach a specific agenda. It it what the devil did in the garden and what he tried to do to Jesus in the wilderness - nothing new, the church has always had to fight against such errors and still does to this day and will till the Lord’s second coming, which I hope is very soon.

My advice would be to pray and ask God for wisdom, which He promises to those who are His own - good luck and may God bless you.

 

[inkaneer]

That is a poor argument if we can call it an argument. Jesus predicted that MANY false teachers would infiltrate and distort and mislead many; so bringing into the picture what Jesus has already stated adds nothing.

As for the rest; imposing your views onto Scripture in no way changes the truth of Scripture it only proves you have imposed on Scripture. I like the supreme vicar part concerning Peter the best, but in a very sad way. You would really have to impose onto Scripture to come up with that. God speaks plainly; men twist what God says to fit their theology or other agenda’s-usually a twisting of theology to to reach a specific agenda. It it what the devil did in the garden and what he tried to do to Jesus in the wilderness - nothing new, the church has always had to fight against such errors and still does to this day and will till the Lord’s second coming, which I hope is very soon.

My advice would be to pray and ask God for wisdom, which He promises to those who are His own - good luck and may God bless you.

Well you do not know your scripture very well. God has always had an earthy leader for His people Call him Abraham or Moses or David or the Davidic kings or any of the prophets or call him Peter. The fact is scripture is resplendid with examples of an earthly leader for the church whether it be Old Testament or New. So who is doing the twisting here? Maybe you should be the one praying for wisdom.

Two more things about those Davidic kings. Did you know that to aid them in ruling the Jewish people they chose twelve ‘stewards’, one for every tribe of Israel [See Nu 1:44 and 1 Kings 4:7]. Of those twelve stewards, one was made chief steward and he was given the keys to the kingdom so that what he would shut no one could open and what he opened no one could shut [see Isaiah 22:22]. The chief steward acted in the name of [authority of] the king. Fast forward to the New Testament and Matthew 16 18-19. Here we see Jesus , a Davidic king with His twelve stewards. To one [Peter] He give the keys to the kingdom and says that what Peter binds on earth will be bound in heaven and what he looses on earth will be loosed in heaven. The parallel with the OT is obvious and requires no imposing at all. Like you say, "God speaks plainly; men twist what God says to fit their theology or other agenda’s-usually a twisting of theology to to reach a specific agenda.’ So what is your agenda?

The second thing about those Davidic Kings. Do you know who their queen was? Solomon set the precedent. Go to 1 Kings 2 and start with verse 12 and go to verse 20. Solomons queen was his mother. and she sat at his right hand and whatever she requested solomon would not refuse her. Does that ring any bells with you in the New Testament? How about the wedding feast at Cana? Jesus does not refuse Mary even though He painly speaks, “My hour has not yet come.” [John 2:4] or how about when the mother of James and John requests her sons sit on Jesus’ left and right in the Kingdom? Jesus says to her two sons, “…to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” [Matthew 20:23]. Now in the Davidic kingdom of the new Testament who is queen of the kingdom [heaven]? It is the mother of the king and that is Mary. Ever wonder why Catholics call Mary queen of heaven? And notice the queen’s request is not refused by the king. Ever wonder why Catholics ask Mary to intercede for them? This is scripture understood plainly with no imposition of agenda. The early church new this long before there were non Catholic christians. Read the early church writers for their testimony on what they believed. You will find that it is not what you believe. So who has the agenda here? Who is it that the devil has ensnared in error here? Who should take their own advice and pray for some wisdom?

 

[Abu]

A Gift #9
I am considered protestant, but Christian is what I am.
#18
Huge issues within the church today are too many unqualified and too many still preaching who are disqualified according to God, but theirs will be a worse condemnation sadly.

The foolish arrogance displayed here is typical of this poster, who cannot even understand, although shown, that without Christ’s Catholic Church there would not even be a Bible, yet claims infallibility in a myopic world of fantasy.

#19
only God can forgive sins. Until you understand that basic principal you will not understand anything past that.

True, and He does that because He gave His Apostles and their successors His personal assurance and command as explicitly clear in Her Bible when He breathed on them the Holy Spirit: “Whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven; whose sins you shall retain they are retained” (Jn 20:21-23) in the Sacrament of Forgiveness.
By denying His Church, you deny Christ that power to forgive through His priests in His Sacrament.

#28
The Bible teaches that interpretation is not from man and the implication is that it is from God,
Traditions of men that are contrary to Scripture gets in the way of true knowledge more than anything other than not being a Christian at all in my opinion.

Precisely the “I” trouble with your “opinion” that you have which has been expressly condemned by God the Son:
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them” (Mt 7:15, 16).

“Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them.” (Mt 7:19-20).

#33
natural man cannot understand nor is he able and that appears to be the vast majority of Christianity which is why you can ask a “Christian” you get a multitude of different answers and basic truths/doctrines.

Precisely, just your problem:
“Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” (1 Jn 4:1).

“I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of my mouth.” (Rev 3:16).

 

[A_Gift]

Well you do not know your scripture very well. God has always had an earthy leader for His people Call him Abraham or Moses or David or the Davidic kings or any of the prophets or call him Peter. The fact is scripture is resplendid with examples of an earthly leader for the church whether it be Old Testament or New. So who is doing the twisting here? Maybe you should be the one praying for wisdom.

Two more things about those Davidic kings. Did you know that to aid them in ruling the Jewish people they chose twelve ‘stewards’, one for every tribe of Israel [See Nu 1:44 and 1 Kings 4:7]. Of those twelve stewards, one was made chief steward and he was given the keys to the kingdom so that what he would shut no one could open and what he opened no one could shut [see Isaiah 22:22]. The chief steward acted in the name of [authority of] the king. Fast forward to the New Testament and Matthew 16 18-19. Here we see Jesus , a Davidic king with His twelve stewards. To one [Peter] He give the keys to the kingdom and says that what Peter binds on earth will be bound in heaven and what he looses on earth will be loosed in heaven. The parallel with the OT is obvious and requires no imposing at all. Like you say, "God speaks plainly; men twist what God says to fit their theology or other agenda’s-usually a twisting of theology to to reach a specific agenda.’ So what is your agenda?

CUT Jesus says to her two sons, “…to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” [Matthew 20:23]. Now in the Davidic kingdom of the new Testament who is queen of the kingdom [heaven]? It is the mother of the king and that is Mary. Ever wonder why Catholics call Mary queen of heaven? And notice the queen’s request is not refused by the king. Ever wonder why Catholics ask Mary to intercede for them? This is scripture understood plainly with no imposition of agenda. The early church new this long before there were non Catholic christians. Read the early church writers for their testimony on what they believed. You will find that it is not what you believe. So who has the agenda here? Who is it that the devil has ensnared in error here? Who should take their own advice and pray for some wisdom?

You must be be confused with OT Israel as a theocracy and NT preaching of the gospel as to commingled the two in a way that hardly makes any argument to an Apostolic succession coming from Peter or any other of the apostles and use a lot of words to do so. It also shows a lack of what the church is and what it is not.

There is an apostolic succession in the Bible; not spelled out directly per se, but rather indirectly as the Apostles and other apostles(Barnabas, Silas and Timothy as examples) that were sent to appoint Elders, not Priests, but Elders to oversee the new churches which were springing up everywhere the gospel was being preached as GOD added to their number.

Now one day, and I hope very soon, the Father will send the Son to gather His church, the one Jesus said He would build/is building (Matt 16:18) on the Gospel, which is what Peter, by the power of the Holy Spirit, stated in Matthew and Luke’s account.

The head of the church is building, which is Christ according the Holy Spirit through the pen of the Apostle Paul in Ephesians 1:22 and Colossians 1:18. The Lord Jesus made the same claim in Matthew 21:42, which He quoted from Psalm 118:22 and/or Isaiah 28:16. So even as far back as the OT; the head of the church, which was hidden in the OT was prophesied and the head-Master is none other than the Son of God Himself.

To further prove the point that Christ is the head, we can see Luke 20:17 and Acts 4:11 and Peter himself adds to the clear teaching in 1Peter 2:6-7. All quote from the OT writers, but the pen is that of the Holy Spirit.

There are no GREAT-men of God; there are only men used greatly by God.

To make it abundantly clear, as the Bible was written for Christians and written so the simple can be made wise (Psalm 19); Romans 8:16-26 makes it crystal clear as to who we are taught by as Christians and that the church which Jesus is building has yet to be revealed. So any claims to be “the true church” by any religion is nullified by the Holy Spirit who explicitly states that His church has yet to be unveiled.

But one must be first saved by the power of the Gospel before one can be taught by the Holy Spirit to understand and actually believe the Bible, which most people do not believe the authority of Scripture to their own destruction. It certainly explains why we have so many “so-called” Christians coming with a multitude of interpretations when only a few are actually saved and can understand according to Jesus. Matthew 7 (verses 13-14 particularly) and also Luke 13 (verses 23-25). So who are the few being saved?

Finally - 1 Corinthians 2:14 explains exactly what I am stating here. “But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.” then the contrast in verses 15 & 16 “But he who is spiritual {the saved in Christ} appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. (WHY?) For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we *{the Christian} *have the mind of Christ.”

God bless - wish I had more time to spend here with you all, but I will pray for all of you that you may be blessed of my Father. Lord willing; I will talk to you soon as time allows.

 

[A_Gift]

The foolish arrogance displayed here is typical of this poster, who cannot even understand, although shown, that without Christ’s Catholic Church there would not even be a Bible, yet claims infallibility in a myopic world of fantasy.
True, and He does that because He gave His Apostles and their successors His personal assurance and command as explicitly clear in Her Bible when He breathed on them the Holy Spirit: “Whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven; whose sins you shall retain they are retained” (Jn 20:21-23) in the Sacrament of Forgiveness.
By denying His Church, you deny Christ that power to forgive through His priests in His Sacrament.
Precisely the “I” trouble with your “opinion” that you have which has been expressly condemned by God the Son:
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them” (Mt 7:15, 16).

“Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them.” (Mt 7:19-20).
Precisely, just your problem:
“Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” (1 Jn 4:1).

“I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of my mouth.” (Rev 3:16).

Abu - I will not be uncharitable or as unloving as your post demonstrates, which is not of Gods children. However; I do want you to know that I take no offense because you speak out of ignorance. When one is born from above and begins to read more and more of the Scripture; God, in His generosity gives much understanding and keeps His promises concerning godly wisdom when one prays in earnest for it.

May God bless you for you are made in His image.

 

[Abu]

A Gift #38
I will not be uncharitable or as unloving as your post demonstrates, which is not of Gods children. However; I do want you to know that I take no offense because you speak out of ignorance.

It is only by trying to be Christ-like – by following His teaching and His Church – so clearly given to us by His St Peter, His Supreme Vicar, and His Apostles and their legitimate successors that we can help others to the fullness of His truth, expressing His true love and caring. The added result of vaunted error is the misleading of others.

Until and unless you listen to Christ through His Church you may be in the same boat as His Apostles in earlier days, so listen to Christ:
Christ personally chose His Apostles and this is how He chose to bring them to their senses: to His own Apostles, “whom He loved to the end” Jesus exclaimed: “Have you no sense, no wits, are your hearts dulled, can’t you see, your ears hear, don’t you remember?” (Mk 8:17-18). (Frank Sheed, Christ In Eclipse, Sheed & Ward 1978, p 42). "With individuals He was very much the doctor with a duty not only to tell them what was wrong with them, but to make sure they realized it.” (Ibid. p 40-41).

Thus, some people really make their own trouble, and seem to deserve Christ’s admonition to His Apostles.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Well you do not know your scripture very well. God has always had an earthy leader for His people Call him Abraham or Moses or David or the Davidic kings or any of the prophets or call him Peter. The fact is scripture is resplendid with examples of an earthly leader for the church whether it be Old Testament or New. So who is doing the twisting here? Maybe you should be the one praying for wisdom.

You must be be confused with OT Israel as a theocracy and NT preaching of the gospel as to commingled the two in a way that hardly makes any argument to an Apostolic succession coming from Peter or any other of the apostles and use a lot of words to do so. It also shows a lack of what the church is and what it is not.

There is an apostolic succession in the Bible; not spelled out directly per se, but rather indirectly as the Apostles and other apostles(Barnabas, Silas and Timothy as examples) that were sent to appoint Elders, not Priests, but Elders to oversee the new churches which were springing up everywhere the gospel was being preached as GOD added to their number.

QUOTE]

You missed it, a complete swing and a miss. Therefore I will spell it out for you. Have you ever heard that the OT is a foreshadowing of the NT and the NT is a perfection of the OT??? Do they teach these things in your church? God’s church in the OT was His chosen people, Israel. Israel worshipped God and God gave to Israel earthy rulers. Abraham, Moses David and the Davidic kings of which Jesus is one. So why should it be different in the NT. If anything it should be perfected in the NT. And so it is. Peter is given the keys of authority Mt 16:18-19 and Peter is told to rule the flock John 21:16 . Once again you missed it on APostolic succession. It is spelled out directly in Acts 1 starting with verse 15. Peter calls for someone to succeed to Judas’ office and Matthias becomes the first bishop. And those elders were priests. Look up the etymology of the word priest and you will find it comes from the Latin word presbyter which is derived from the Greek presbyteros.