Universal Jursidiction

[Robert_Joseph60]

So was Judas when the Apostles elected Matthias to replace him.

So, Robert, who replaced Peter?

The apostolic age is over, it was a special anointing to establish the church, and do you see anybody being healed by crossing a person’s shadow, no? There are many fake Apostles today, but they don’t fool me.

 

[JRKH]

I think the topic for this thread is Justification.

Read the title again - it says “Universal Jurisdiction” - not justification…

Peace
James

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy, you’re interpretation of scripture has serious problems, the fact the Peter is dead disanal’s all your previous teachings.

Nope. :nope:

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with some relevant passages of scripture, but since you are a Biblicist, you will love learning this.

First, the KJV of the Bible describes the election of Matthias this way:

Acts 1:20
20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

Since it is clear that the office continued even when the man was dead, there is an obvious parallel for the chief of the Apostles, Peter, to be replaced when he died, also.

But scripture tells us much, much more about the office held by Peter in particular.

Peter – The Royal Steward

Jesus gave Peter the “keys of the kingdom of heaven”. In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command (known as the royal steward or prime minister) who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. The prophet Isaiah confirms this:

"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Isaiah 22:22)

In the passage above, God is speaking, and He confirms the existence of the office, the key, and the continuation of the office despite the change of office holder. In other words, the office of the royal steward continued even when the man who held the office died or was replaced by someone else. God Himself passes the key from one steward to the next.

In the New Testament, we learn that Jesus inherits the throne of his father, David.

Luke 1:31–33
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.

We also read the following:

Matthew 16:13-19
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

The passage quoted above from Matthew tells us that Jesus named Peter as His royal steward and gave him the “keys to the kingdom of heaven" as the symbol of his authority to speak in His name. Since Jesus is an eternal king, the office of royal steward in His kingdom will never. Peter died as a martyr as Jesus foretold, and the successors of Peter have taken his place in the eternal office that Jesus established in His royal court.

In addition to the reference to a key or keys, note the following parallels:

"What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Is. 22:22)
"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mt. 16:19)

Jesus specifically referenced the passage from Isaiah when He appointed Peter. Peter has received authority from Jesus to speak in His name. To do so faithfully, Peter must not teach error; therefore, Peter (and his successors who hold the office) are protected by God through the charism of infallibility.

 

[JRKH]

Sorry I’ll post it for you then.

Originally Posted by Robert Joseph60
The RCC teaches the opposite of what you’re signature says, take a close look at you’re own official Roman source.

•“We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will. In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere ‘to the end’ and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God’s eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ,” (CCC, par. 1821).
•“Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification,” (CCC, par. 2010).

That’s salvation by works, which is a false gospel.

Is it??

James 2:14-18
14 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. 18 But some one will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.

Faith without works is dead and can a dead faith save???
By our works we show our faith.

The argument trying to separate faith from works is a false one. Both are necessary and both are dependent on the grace of God. Scripture says so…

As for the use of the term “merit”…read the whole thing…by our actions we merit (are worthy of) God’s grace (blessing) which we need for salvation…
It does not say that we merit salvation - but merit grace…

Peace
James

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think the topic for this thread is Justification.

I understand that you cannot answer the question.

You see, you were making the argument for sola scriptura, but one simple question from me demonstrates why sola scriptura fails.

Lots of biblicists claim that the Bible is the sole rule of faith for the believer, but then they cannot agree amongst themselves what scripture actually means.

Fortunately, Jesus did not give us a book, He built a Church. The Book came later.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The apostolic age is over, it was a special anointing to establish the church, and do you see anybody being healed by crossing a person’s shadow, no? There are many fake Apostles today, but they don’t fool me. 

The apostolic age is over, and there are not going to be any more apostles. Upon this we are agreed. :clapping:

However, the Apostle Paul taught clearly what would happen next. Would you like to know?

I thought you might!

Apostolic Succession Proved from Scripture and History

Many people deny that the modern Catholic Church is the one Church Jesus promised to build (cf. Mt. 16:18-19) claiming that the doctrine of Apostolic Succession is not found in the Bible. Is this argument valid?

Let’s begin by examining the evidence contained in scripture as well as the non-scriptural writings of the earliest Christians for evidence of Apostolic Succession. The Bible contains clear indications that the Apostle Paul taught Apostolic Succession to his disciples and fellow workers, Timothy, Titus and Clement. Here are the relevant passages:

2 Timothy 2:1-2
You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

In the passage above, there are four generations of believers contained in this one passage: 1. Paul himself, 2. Timothy, who was Paul’s disciple, 3. Those whom Timothy would disciple, and 4. Those to whom Timothy’s disciples would preach. Paul commanded Timothy to hand on the gospel to reliable men and further to ensure that those men would also hand on the gospel reliably.

Titus 1:5
The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.

In the passage above, we see that Paul was concerned with the appointing of capable leaders in the Cretan church. So in addition to his concern for the content of the message, he is concerned with the succession of the leadership, as well.

Philippians 4:3
Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow, help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

In the passage from Philippians, Paul mentions one of his fellow workers, Clement, who was ordained by the Apostle Peter and later became the fourth Bishop of Rome (after Peter, Linus, and Anacletus). Like Paul, who addressed to epistles to the Church of Corinth, Clement wrote his own letter to the Corinthians around 80 AD. In that letter, he stated:

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

“We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. (ibid.)

From these two passages, we can see that Clement had witnessed his mentors, the Apostles Peter and Paul, naming men to the office of Bishop and had received instructions from them that other men should succeed those Bishops appointed by the Apostles in the event that these first Bishops should die. Thus, history records that both the Apostles and their disciples such as Clement, Timothy and Titus understood and followed the practice of appointing successors to the Apostles in the Church.

While many seem to believe that anyone with a Bible may become a “pastor” by simply gathering around himself a group of fellow believers to form a church, the Bible itself teaches that true leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ must be ordained by those who were ordained before them. This process, known as Apostolic Succession, maintains an unbroken chain of continuity from Jesus, Peter and the Apostles to the leaders of the early Church.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I see your point, although I don’t agree that it was wrong to dogmatize the Marian Dogmas. I’m guessing if we wanted to dig through all of the Canons from all of the Ecumenical Councils you accept, we might find one with an anathema attached to it that you feel the same way about (as you do about the Marian Dogmas)? No need to belabor the point though.

Here is a side question. What are Lutheran thoughts on the Ecumenical Councils and when do they make a “cut off” (like I am guessing you object to Trent obviously) Thanks.

–Nick

I don’t think there was a real cut off. The first 7 or 8 councils are unique only in that they represented a wider consensus within the church, being the later councils were entirely western and developed distinctive Catholic doctrines (not all of which I disagree with). The earlier councils also discussed issues more central to Christian truth, like the two natures in Christ and the Trinity. But heck, there are even canons in Trent I can agree with (like the repudiation of double predestination).

 

[Randy_Carson]

I don’t think there was a real cut off. The first 7 or 8 councils are unique only in that they represented a wider consensus within the church, being the later councils were entirely western and developed distinctive Catholic doctrines (not all of which I disagree with). The earlier councils also discussed issues more central to Christian truth, like the two natures in Christ and the Trinity. But heck, there are even canons in Trent I can agree with (like the repudiation of double predestination).

Both Orthodox and Protestants sent observers at the invitation of the Vatican.

I think Lutherans had two observers present.

Y’all are welcome to participate more fully any time!

 

[steido01]

I don’t think there was a real cut off. The first 7 or 8 councils are unique only in that they represented a wider consensus within the church, being the later councils were entirely western and developed distinctive Catholic doctrines (not all of which I disagree with). The earlier councils also discussed issues more central to Christian truth, like the two natures in Christ and the Trinity. But heck, there are even canons in Trent I can agree with (like the repudiation of double predestination).

I’d like to echo this viewpoint. Just as Vatican II recognized a “ray of the Truth” in other Christian bodies, Lutherans have always recognized that Roman Catholicism also holds the truth - albeit a *very-slightly-obscured *vision of it in the Lutheran view. This is why Lutherans don’t mark Roman Catholicism as having fallen to some mythical ‘great apostasy’ at some specific point; Wittenberg can -and does- still find much agreement with Rome.

 

[JonNC]

**Let’s see some scriptures to back up you’re mouth. **Scripture nowhere teaches that Mary’s body was taken up like Elija the Prophet.

If you last that long around here, you’ll find that rinnie does not deserve in any way this kind of response.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I don’t think there was a real cut off. The first 7 or 8 councils are unique only in that they represented a wider consensus within the church, being the later councils were entirely western and developed distinctive Catholic doctrines (not all of which I disagree with). The earlier councils also discussed issues more central to Christian truth, like the two natures in Christ and the Trinity. But heck, there are even canons in Trent I can agree with (like the repudiation of double predestination).

I think the generally accepted councils within Lutheranism are the first seven, which sort of echoes the East, as well. Obviously, as we are western Christians, there are parts of later councils which we do accept, notably the Filioque.

Jon

 

[Church_Militant]

Sorry I’ll post it for you then.

Originally Posted by Robert Joseph60
The RCC teaches the opposite of what you’re signature says, take a close look at you’re own official Roman source.

•“We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will. In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere ‘to the end’ and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God’s eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ,” (CCC, par. 1821).
•“Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification,” (CCC, par. 2010).

That’s salvation by works, which is a false gospel.

Speaking of false gospels, maybe you can resolve the following factual Bible study article on my blog.
Who REALLY Preaches “A Different Gospel”?

Take your time studying it, since it looks like you have a little.

 

[Fevronia]

I am not referring to the canons. I am referring to how the Church operated with respect to the various Sees. Rome was shown a great deal of respect, its primacy of honor was never questioned. What is questioned is whether that translates into the powers Rome claimed for itself later. It is a gross oversimplification to say Rome “bailed us out.”

Well how else would you want to say it? Rome had always been unwavering in its orthodoxy and never had to rely on others to bail them out of heresy, yes? So how is it not common sense to side with Rome in the case of a disagreement?

As for “this is not how the Church operated before”, that is a tautology. Obviously if the office was not yet defined, then the Church does not fully operate as such. The Church used to have married Bishops. No one says the Orthodox are heretics for not allowing Bishops to marry now, do they?

It cannot apply? You say so, but we assert it does apply.

Pope Honorius was condemned as a Heretic, and then there is the Filoque…not exactly a shining example as Rome was against it before she was for it…

Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic for not acting against the Heresy. NOT for actually spreading heresy. The Pope at the time sent a letter to the Council that him and his predecessors were always unwavering in Orthodoxy which the Council accepted. So that means even Pope Honorius gets counted as siding with orthodoxy in his beliefs.

So if anything, the case of Pope Honorius has something tied to it that puts the Orthodox position in suspicion i.e. that the entire Council acknowledge the letter of the Pope with the claim that he and his predecessors must be orthodox.

As for the Filioque, that is a Catch 22 situation. If Rome is right, there is no issue. Don’t you find it interesting that this issue with the Filioque only began to rise up as a big issue much later in history but not during the schism?

 

[Fevronia]

God speaks to us all directly though His word. I have never been blessed to knowingly hear His voice, but I have a life-time of His word in my hand.

That is all very nice but every single word you said is a faith statement. That means every single on of your words are not worthy of belief unless you are a valid authority.

I am sure you will admit, you are not. So you yourself included should not believe a single word you said.

Again, we have His word.

For myself, how I came to be a Christian is a long story, but reason did pay a large part of it, though in the end is was His faith given to me.

Are you sure it was “his” faith that was given to you or someone else’s interpretation of it? That is what we are discussing here.

We follow God, not Luther. We have respect for the man, but blot his name from history and our church would remain unchanged.

Your Church will still hold the un-authoritative statements of Luther and then his successors. You follow God according to Luther. That is inescapable fact. You cannot do otherwise because none of you can say with authority that you have a direct line to God. Do you see the problem?

This is not university or a “gig.”

Luther and other Catholics like Erasmus and Eck took these issues very seriously, and while I can be flippant to the point of annoyance, I do take the issue of schism very seriously.

The University freshman who goes and starts his own University also takes him self seriously. The error is that this student thought himself authoritative enough to start his own Church. That is a problem.

If I was a University freshman, the best I can do is point to teaching of the Professors and show how their ACTIONS contradict or encourage the opposite of it. Even then, after someone higher up has taken a look, they will pass the judgement and I will have to accept it because I cannot know better. That is called OBEDIENCE. I cannot go out of the Church and pass judgement on the teachings themselves. But that is what Luther did and his followers do to this day.

No Lutheran has preached Lutheranism to me. They have preached the Law and the Gospel.

There is no such thing as preaching the Law and the Gospel unless it has already been interpreted. So either Lutherans preached their own understanding or you just picked the Lutheran interpretation out of countless others.

We didn’t leave the church - we are a valid continuation of the western church and I pray for the day when our profession of the belief in the OHCAC becomes visible.

You are certainly NOT a valid continuation of the Church by any understanding of the word “continuation”. Almost every doctrine that existed at the time when Luther left the Catholic Church was contradicted or taught against by Luther and then his followers. So no, there is no continuation at all.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Both Orthodox and Protestants sent observers at the invitation of the Vatican.

I think Lutherans had two observers present.

Y’all are welcome to participate more fully any time!

I participate at the Catholic parishes when they have beer at the Lenten fish fries. Does that count?

 

[Randy_Carson]

The University freshman who goes and starts his own University also takes him self seriously. The error is that this student thought himself authoritative enough to start his own Church. That is a problem.

You know this is actually a very interesting analogy.

Anyone interested in starting his own university would have to demonstrate his academic credentials not only to those students who might consider studying under him, but also to the larger academic community through the process of accreditation.

Others would want to know who he studied under, what his own level of accomplishment was, what papers he had published in peer-reviewed journals and what standards his students would be held to, etc. Only when their investigation was concluded when Newbie U. be allowed to open its doors and confer degrees that carry any weight in the larger public square.

I’m not sure that Luther met ANY of those requirements. He simply opened up a storefront church, put a sign in the window and started preaching. (Well, okay, it was a little more complicated that that. )

By what authority did he do this? I can point to the scriptures wherein Jesus conferred his authority on the Twelve and I can show how they did the same thing with those that came after them, but where did Luther get authority from God to simply walk out of the Church built by Jesus and start another?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I participate at the Catholic parishes when they have beer at the Lenten fish fries. Does that count?

It’s a start, Per Crucem, it’s a start.

 

[benjohnson]

That is all very nice but every single word you said is a faith statement. That means every single on of your words are not worthy of belief unless you are a valid authority.

I’m sorry if I mislead you into reading my words as Gospel. Feel free to hear the Gospel proclaimed by your good priest as you should.

Are you sure it was “his” faith that was given to you or someone else’s interpretation of it? That is what we are discussing here.

I’m not sure I follow, but I do my best to face the Cross. You are, of course, free to disagree are tell me otherwise.

Your Church will still hold the un-authoritative statements of Luther and then his successors. You follow God according to Luther. That is inescapable fact. You cannot do otherwise because none of you can say with authority that you have a direct line to God. Do you see the problem?

If you wait a few posts, I’ll say something inane and you can pounce on that, but I ask you to wait for it rather than put words into my mouth.

What you are saying makes no sense from the Lutheran standpoint.

The University …]

I’ll wait till you debate facts (and ideas) plainly and not some university of the mind.

There is no such thing as preaching the Law and the Gospel unless it has already been interpreted. So either Lutherans preached their own understanding or you just picked the Lutheran interpretation out of countless others.

Lutherans, of course, interpret - but they should do the least ‘interpreting’ as possible while proclaiming the Gospel from the pulpit.

You are certainly NOT a valid continuation of the Church

You, as a good Catholic, as I understand it, are obliged to think this.

 

[Randy_Carson]

No Lutheran has preached Lutheranism to me. They have preached the Law and the Gospel.

Do you believe that the pope is the head of the universal Church? No?

Then they preached more than just the Gospel.

 

[Peter_J]

Wow. Not having visited this thread for a few days, I was pretty amazed to see that almost 200 new posts have been added.

By I digress.

Originally Posted by Misplaced_Book View Post
“I’ve always suspected that there are Orthodox who glory in the wound created by their schism. Now I know.”

Is what you posted or the quote I just posted (or your post #368) an example of Christian Charity?

First, I changed my signature just this morning to reflect some thoughts I have been having about interactions with non-Catholics. I think you can see why.

That said, I stand by post #368 without reservation.

Second, I’m not 100% sure that my statement is incorrect. But see my signature for future reference.

Fwiw, which may not be very much, I thought much the same as Misplaced_Book did when I read the quote in question (i.e. “I’ve always suspected that there are Orthodox who glory in the wound created by their schism. Now I know.”) The reason I didn’t get into a whole thing about it is that I just kinda said to myself “Well, we’ll never be able to clean up all the garbage on the internet.”