What's Your Authority?

[adf417]

The Council of Nicaea was called by Constantine. He was confused by all the different teachings about the nature of Jesus and how He fits in the Trinity. At this time there was not yet much Tradition and the Pope didn’t just say here’s how it is. Athanasius had to fight it out against Arius mainly on Biblical grounds.

Sounds like a wast of time and resources calling a council if Athanasius single handedly proof text his way to changing the faith of many - something we all agree only the Holy Spirit can do. What would have been the responsibilities of the other bishops?

Hmm, Why didn’t they just go to the Pope for the answer?

I wonder what that would look like:
Arius and Athanasius go see the pope and ask him to solve a dispute - is Jesus God?
Pope - yes! Of course!
Athanasius - see, I told you so
Arius - yep, I should have listen to ya.

If the pope had the power some people misunderstand him to have , there wouldn’t be Catholics believing in same sex marriage.

Peace!!!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Then you offer me Is.22:22, about this man Eliakim in which a prophesy states, “I will commit thy government into his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah”. This is a prophesy that can only be reasonably fulfilled by Christ and not Peter.

A bit more on this subject…

The word “Pope” is derived from the Greek word, “pappas,” which means, “father” (Latinized as “papa”). In Isaiah 22, verses 19-24, we see God telling Shebna, who was the chief minister of the House of David, that he will be replaced in his office by Eliakim, and that Eliakim will have authority and will be a “father” [papa; pope] to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the House of Judah.

Also in this passage, God says that Eliakim will have the key of the House of David and that he “shall open and none shall shut; and he shall shut and none shall open.”

This passage from Isaiah was obviously on the Lord’s mind when he said to Peter, in Matthew 16:18-19, “And I tell you, you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church…I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.”

Eliakim was the chief minister in the House of David. What is the new House of David? The Church. Who is the chief minister in the Church? Peter, and his successors - the Popes. Eliakim was given the key of the kingdom. Peter is given the keys of the kingdom. Eliakim had the authority to shut and to open. Peter had the authority to bind and loose. Eliakim was a father to the those in the House of David, just so Peter is a father to those in the new House of David - the Church.

So, since Peter is a “father” to those in the Church, just as Eliakim was a “father” to those in the House of David; and the word “Pope” means “father;” then we can say that the underlying meaning of the word “Pope” is actually found in the Bible - right there in Isaiah 22. And, we can further say, that Catholic belief regarding the role of the Pope is also found right there in Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16, as well as in other parts of Scripture.

 

[Erich]

Oh, those poor Bereans…always being misrepresented by Bible Only folks.

If one group could be tagged as believers in sola scriptura, who would it be, the Thessalonians or the Bereans? The Thessalonians, obviously.

From this link:

…
You know, I keep hearing about these Berean Jews from Acts 17, and every time I hear about them, someone is using them to “prove” Sola Scriptura…to prove that one should go by the Bible alone. They argue that the example of the Bereans proves Sola Scriptura because the Bereans were searching Scripture to see if what Paul was saying was true. That’s it, that’s their entire “proof.” Well, there are a few problems with this “proof” of theirs. The first problem is that nowhere does this verse actually say the Bereans went by the Bible alone. It doesn’t even imply it, as I’ll show in a moment. In fact, it is well known that Jews, whether in Berea or elsewhere, did not go by the Bible alone…they did not practice Sola Scriptura…they believed in authoritative Scripture and authoritative tradition. Which means Jesus, being a good Jew, didn’t believe in Sola Scriptura. And, as I’ve already mentioned, neither did the early Christians.

What was apparently going on here with the Bereans in Acts 17 was this: Paul was preaching to them about Jesus being the Messiah. And Paul, in his preaching, would quote Scripture verses - from the Old Testament - that he would say had their fulfillment in Jesus, or some such thing. Paul would say something along the lines of what he says elsewhere when he is quoting Scripture, “It has been testified somewhere…,” [put in references here] and the Bereans would then simply open up their Scriptures to verify what Paul was saying. They were not searching the Scriptures to settle doctrinal disputes, they were searching the Scriptures to see if what Paul told them was actually in the Scriptures!

And simply searching the Scriptures doesn’t make one a believer in Sola Scriptura. If I were to tell you that somewhere in Ezekiel it says that the righteous can fall away from their righteousness, which “proves” the doctrine of eternal security (to be discussed in a later chapter) is false, and you went searching the Scriptures to confirm what I said, would that necessarily mean that you believed in Sola Scriptura? Of course not! It would mean you weren’t familiar enough with the Bible to know if what I was saying was true or not, so you had to go look for yourself.

The Bereans had to do the same, which strongly suggests they didn’t know their Scriptures well enough to know if what Paul was telling them was even in their Bibles or not! They had to “search” the Scriptures to see if what Paul was telling them was even in the Bible! Not a very good evidence that these folks believed in Sola Scriptura.

Another thing: If this verse is a “proof” of Sola Scriptura then you have a little bit of a problem in that the Bereans were Jews, and the only Scriptures they had were the Old Testament Scriptures. So, if Acts 17:11 “proves” Sola Scriptura, then it would be proving Sola “Old Testament” Scriptura. It would be proving that the Old Testament alone is all we need as Christians in order to come to salvation in Christ. But no Sola Scriptura believer would admit to that.

One other problem for Sola Scriptura enthusiasts in regard to this passage, a problem which is utterly devastating to their argument, is the fact that the Bereans obviously did not understand the true meaning of the Scriptures until Paul explained it to them. Think about that. One of the corollaries to a belief in Sola Scriptura is the belief in individual interpretation of Scripture. That each individual, guided by the Holy Spirit, has the ability to read the Bible for themselves - without answering to any outside authority - in order to come to a correct understanding of the truths necessary for salvation.

Yet, the example of the Bereans shows us that this obviously isn’t the case. The Bereans needed Paul to explain the Scriptures to them. The Bereans, left alone with the Scriptures - just me and my Bible - obviously had not come to a correct understanding of the truths necessary for salvation. I mean, if they had, they wouldn’t have still been Jews, right?. No, they needed a guide - Paul - to help them correctly interpret Scripture. Which means the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, with its corollary of individual interpretation of Scripture, obviously is not supported by this passage from Acts 17 about the Bereans. In fact, the example of the Bereans actually testifies against a belief in Sola Scriptura.
…

 

[simspt]

Thanks for acknowledging that Jesus is the Good Shepherd!
You tell me that it should be “clear” that Peter is not just another apostle. Maybe for you, if you take only certain verses and put them in a Catholic bubble. You cite Lk22:32 for support as if it means “when thou art converted,take charge over thy subordinates”, rather than “strengthen thy brethren” meaning to care for your brothers, not assume the rule over them. As further evidence, Peter introduces himself in his first letter only as “an apostle of Jesus Christ”. Again in ch.5, he addresses the elders while describing himself as “also an elder”. Then you offer me Is.22:22, about this man Eliakim in which a prophesy states, “I will commit thy government into his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah”. This is a prophesy that can only be reasonably fulfilled by Christ and not Peter.
Can you get a little feeling of how UNCLEAR your evidence is to me? I need to consider the whole of scripture, because that’s all I have. I can know nothing more and I must prove all things by scripture. (as the example of the Bereans in Acts). You see all things through Tradition, and you are welcome to all the Tradition you want. But it doesn’t work to convince a Pentecostal. I was not always Pentecostal. I used to think it was weird and unbiblical, but gradually God broke me out of my Baptist box. I need to be willing to change because God is always doing a new thing. I believe the latter reign will be greater than the former.

Hope you had a profitable day in the house of the Lord.

A good ecumenical book on Peter in the NT if you haven’t read it. It touches on “trajectories or lines of development” within the NT. Both Protestant and Catholics acknowledge the unique role Peter played among the twelve.
amazon.com/Peter-New-Testament-Raymond-Brown/dp/0225660369/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

 

[eazyduzit]

Greetings easy and a blessed day to you.

Why do you not feel the same about what “our shepherd demanded” in 325? You do not believe this Catholic doctrine to be silly like the majority of the church did at the time, right?

Peace!!!

From this link:

Wow, the poor Bereans took quite a beating on this thread! Shall we demand that Paul take back his comment that they were “more noble”?

 

[eazyduzit]

R.T. France

Not only is Peter to have a leading role, but this role involves a daunting degree of authority (though not an authority which he alone carries, as may be seen from the repetition of the latter part of the verse in 18:18 with reference to the disciple group as a whole). The image of ‘keys’ (plural) perhaps suggests not so much the porter, who controls admission to the house, as the steward, who regulates its administration (cf. Is 22:22, in conjunction with 22:15). The issue then is not that of admission to the church . . . , but an authority derived from a ‘delegation’ of God’s sovereignty. (R.T. France; in Morris, Leon, Gen. ed., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, vol. 1: Matthew, 256)

Oscar Cullman

Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord puts the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so does Jesus hand over to Peter the keys of the house of the kingdom of heaven and by the same stroke establishes him as his superintendent. There is a connection between the house of the Church, the construction of which has just been mentioned and of which Peter is the foundation, and the celestial house of which he receives the keys. The connection between these two images is the notion of God’s people. (Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestle, 1952 French ed., 183-184)

Raymond Brown, Karl Donfried and John Reumann

The prime minister, more literally ‘major-domo,’ was the man called in Hebrew ‘the one who is over the house,’ a term borrowed from the Egyptian designation of the chief palace functionary . . .

The power of the key of the Davidic kingdom is the power to open and to shut, i.e., the prime minister’s power to allow or refuse entrance to the palace, which involves access to the king . . . Peter might be portrayed as a type of prime minister in the kingdom that Jesus has come to proclaim . . . What else might this broader power of the keys include? It might include one or more of the following: baptismal discipline; post-baptismal or penitential discipline; excommunication; exclusion from the eucharist; the communication or refusal of knowledge; legislative powers; and the power of governing. (Peter in the New Testament, Brown, Raymond E., Karl P. Donfried and John Reumann, editors, Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House/New York: Paulist Press, 1973, 96-97. Common statement by a panel of eleven Catholic and Lutheran scholars)

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

In biblical and Judaic usage handing over the keys does not mean appointment as a porter but carries the thought of full authorization (cf. Mt. 13:52; Rev. 3:7) . . . The implication is that Jesus takes away this authority from the scribes and grants it to Peter. (J. Jeremias, in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel, abridgement of Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985, 440)

All these New Testament pictures and usages go back to a picture in Isaiah (Is 22:22) . . . Now the duty of Eliakim was to be the faithful steward of the house . . . So then what Jesus is saying to Peter is that in the days to come, he will be the steward of the Kingdom. (William Barclay, Gospel of Matthew, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975, vol. 2, 144-145)

Isa 22:15 ff. undoubtedly lies behind this saying . . . The keys are the symbol of authority . . . the same authority as that vested in the vizier, the master of the house, the chamberlain, of the royal household in ancient Israel. Eliakim is described as having the same authority in Isaiah. (William F. Albright and C.S. Mann, Anchor Bible: Matthew, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971, 196)

And what about the “keys of the kingdom”? . . . About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim . . . (Isa. 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward. (F.F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus, Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1983, 143-144)

I am very impressed with your research Randy. I just have never liked some of the liberal dudes like F.F. Bruce. There are also plenty of conservative commentaries that take the other side. Here is what Matthew Henry says: “Eliakim’s advancement is described. Our Lord Jesus describes His own power as mediator, Rev. 3:7,that he has the key of David. His powerin the Kingdom of heaven is aabsolute… Eliakim was compared to a nail in a sure place; all his family are said to depend upon him. In eastern houses rows of large spikes were built up in the walls. Upon these the utensils and moveables were hung. Our Lord Jesus is a nail in a sure place. That soul cannot perish…He will set before the believer an open door, which no man can shut a d bring both body and soul to eternal glory. But those who neglect so great salvation will find that when he shutteth, none can open, weather it be shutting out from heaven or shutting up in hell for ever”.

Let me add that I find no example of Peter ever using his unique authority. It would seem that the bible should give us an example of how to use this authority if it is to be of ultimate importantance in church governance. Paul did not neglect to tell us a great deal about bishops and deacons because of their importance in the body.

 

[Erich]

Let me add that I find no example of Peter ever using his unique authority. It would seem that the bible should give us an example of how to use this authority if it is to be of ultimate importantance in church governance.

Acts 15:1-11 describes a Jerusalem council that dealt with the question of circumcision. In verses 7-11, Peter spoke… and in verse 12, “the whole assembly fell silent”. In other words, debate over.

Acts 15:13-35 describes a Jerusalem decree dealing mainly with Gentile observance of dietary laws (the same one Paul describes in Galatians 2:1-10). The Apostle James renders his judgement beginning in verse 19.

In rabbinical debates to this day, all listen as one person speaks, then another in turn. Finally, when the debate is finished, those who are to judge announce their individual decisions in inverse order of rank.

That is, the junior rabbi announces his decision first, using the ritual words “It is my decision.” The next senior then announces his decision, and so on. The final decision is pronounced by the senior rabbi, after hearing the decisions of those junior to him.

For James to speak first shows he was junior to the Apostles present. For his decision to be accepted without any further pronouncements shows that his words were fully accepted by those senior to him.

James, by the way, was a Pharasee – and the issue (strict adherence to the outward trappings of the Law) was a Pharasitical issue, so his pronouncement decided the issue, since he set aside all the outward trappings.

 

[adf417]

Wow, the poor Bereans took quite a beating on this thread! Shall we demand that Paul take back his comment that they were “more noble”?

Can you splane what this has to do with what I wrote please?

Peace!!!

 

[eazyduzit]

Actually, I try to see all things through Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church.

You, due to Luther’s weaknesses, are left with sola scriptura.

And I used to be a Charismatic. I know all about Azusa Street and the Welsh Revival. I’ve been to Toronto and done carpet time there. I’vees read David DuPlessis, Watchman Nee, and Smith Wigglesworth. And Jessie Penn-Lewis and T. Austin-Sparks. I owned every Vineyard Music CD at one point, and I had a subscription to Charisma and New Covenant magazines for more than a decade. Are you hearing me?

My point will be this…it’s great that you were open to the change that you have made so far. Just don’t get too comfortable, because you aren’t all the way home yet.

Every day in the house of the Lord is profitable.

Very true, I have barely begun to walk with God yet. He has by His mercy revealed some things He has prepared for me to do.I do not only have “sola scriptura” as you think but also the Holy Spirit to lead and also that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God". (1Cor.2:12) This is more than enough. But God still gives more. He gives us prophets to reveal His mind. That is why Paul says"desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy, But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification and exhortation, and comfort.

Do you no longer believe this is for today? Or have you been told it is not for you?
I am perplexed that you have given up the riches of the Spirit to go back to religion. Something that is about observing holy days and times and seasons. Paul says “But now after ye have known God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months and times and years.”(Gal.4:9,10)

Wigglesworth is a great hero for me. Who has demonstrated a more unmovable faith? He never let the devil back him down. He was unschooled, his wife taught him to read, and he would never read anything but the bible. Yet, whoever led a more victorious life? Another huge inspiration is John G. Lake . He had incredible stern determination.

So have you now come to believe that Azuza Street was a work of the devil? And that these men of God were frauds? I really don’t understand.

 

[Abu]

eazyduzit #302
Let me add that I find no example of Peter ever using his unique authority. It would seem that the bible should give us an example of how to use this authority if it is to be of ultimate importantance in church governance

Yet another example of gross error which has been exposed by Erich in #303.

Yes, 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). And further, Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

But this was already clearly shown in post #13 against eazyduzit – but some never seem to want the truth, just their own errors and opinions.

 

[Ron_Obvious]

Very true, I have barely begun to walk with God yet. He has by His mercy revealed some things He has prepared for me to do.I do not only have “sola scriptura” as you think but also the Holy Spirit to lead and also that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God". (1Cor.2:12) This is more than enough. But God still gives more. He gives us prophets to reveal His mind. That is why Paul says"desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy, But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification and exhortation, and comfort.

Do you no longer believe this is for today? Or have you been told it is not for you?
**I am perplexed that you have given up the riches of the Spirit to go back to religion. **Something that is about observing holy days and times and seasons. Paul says “But now after ye have known God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months and times and years.”(Gal.4:9,10)

Wigglesworth is a great hero for me. Who has demonstrated a more unmovable faith? He never let the devil back him down. He was unschooled, his wife taught him to read, and he would never read anything but the bible. Yet, whoever led a more victorious life? Another huge inspiration is John G. Lake . He had incredible stern determination.

So have you now come to believe that Azuza Street was a work of the devil? And that these men of God were frauds? I really don’t understand.

Are you trying to imply that the Catholic Church, the only Church Jesus established, doesn’t have “the riches of the spirit?” Do you really think that leaving that same Church and joining the Pentecostal sect, started by man some 1800+ years after Christ built His Church, one will find that “riches of spirit”? Nonsense. The sacraments, which are the greatest manifestation of the spirit on this side of heaven, are far more real than the emotionalism that comes from a revival.

Jesus built one Church, the Catholic Church. Seymour and Wigglesworth may have been good men who lived holy lives, but they were not in full unity with the one, true church. Therefore, their teachings are not in any way authoritative.

 

[yateanieys]

Are you trying to imply that the Catholic Church, the only Church Jesus established, doesn’t have “the riches of the spirit?” Do you really think that leaving that same Church and joining the Pentecostal sect, started by man some 1800+ years after Christ built His Church, one will find that “riches of spirit”? Nonsense. The sacraments, which are the greatest manifestation of the spirit on this side of heaven, are far more real than the emotionalism that comes from a revival.

I think easyduzit was just implying that the Catholic Church isn’t the only body that’s blessed with riches of the Spirit. Also, I wouldn’t use the “started by man some 1800 years after” argument to make a point in this case. It took 1500 years to establish an official canon (which, I’m sure you’d agree, was compiled by men). As for the rest of your post, it sounds to me like you’ve been deprived. If you had personally experienced revival on any scale and felt no reserve about it, then you wouldn’t dare say that.

And, I won’t say that no one has selfish motives when it comes to “shopping for a church,” but not everyone who “leaves” is that way. First, people don’t leave the Church until they deny Christ’s sacrificial atonement. Contrary to what you infer, it has nothing to do with a Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox labeling system. Second, most people don’t leave the Church to “protest” anymore; that majority of that happened 500 years ago. People follow what God puts on their hearts now. Some people are simply more attracted to experiencing God in a different way than you; it makes neither experience more legit than the other.

But, by all means, let’s keep this thing goin’

 

[Ron_Obvious]

I think easyduzit was just implying that the Catholic Church isn’t the only body that’s blessed with riches of the Spirit. Also, I wouldn’t use the “started by man some 1800 years after” argument to make a point in this case. It took 1500 years to establish an official canon (which, I’m sure you’d agree, was compiled by men). As for the rest of your post, it sounds to me like you’ve been deprived. If you had personally experienced revival on any scale and felt no reserve about it, then you wouldn’t dare say that.

And, I won’t say that no one has selfish motives when it comes to “shopping for a church,” but not everyone who “leaves” is that way. First, people don’t leave the Church until they deny Christ’s sacrificial atonement. Contrary to what you infer, it has nothing to do with a Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox labeling system. Second, most people don’t leave the Church to “protest” anymore; that majority of that happened 500 years ago. People follow what God puts on their hearts now. Some people are simply more attracted to experiencing God in a different way than you; it makes neither experience more legit than the other.
But, by all means, let’s keep this thing goin’

Sorry, but I have not been deprived in any way. In Christ’s Church, we have all seven sacraments. When I go to Mass and receive His body and blood, there is nothing on this side of heaven that surpasses that. If some people are more attracted to experiencing God in another way, it is they who are truly deprived.

As to the Pentecostal sect being started 1800+ years later, you may not want to hear it, but its a fact. I’m not trying to say God is not present there, for He is, but the fullness of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. And it doesn’t change the fact that outside of the one, true church, there is no real authority when it comes to the interpretation of sacred scripture.

 

[yateanieys]

Difference between a Catholic and a Protestant

…it sounds to me like you’ve been deprived.

…it is they who are truly deprived.

I’m staying away from the apples and oranges cliché (even though your argument forced itself into that category rather quickly). I do believe that the sacraments are a manifestation of the Spirit and I have experienced them for myself and I completely agree that they are worthy of note, just not for the same reasons you do. Still, they aren’t the only manifestation of the Spirit and the way you talk about them comes off like you think they are—like the Spirit is prejudice toward non-Catholics.

In any case, I tried the Catholic thing for a bit, so now I’m entitled to a justified expression of opinion. However, you obviously have never taken part in revival, so I’d stop being a smart aleck by forming opinions on something you’ve never experienced. You are deprived (obviously, by dictionary definition); else, again, you wouldn’t have said what you did. Trust me.

And a fair warning to anyone who believes that the Pentecostal “customs” of revival, speaking in tongues, and being slain in the Spirit are emotionally driven and not invoked by the Spirit Himself: be very cautious what or who you attribute these works to, because in the event that it is the work of the Spirit and you are utterly wrong,

“…the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men.”

But this was already clearly shown in post #13 against eazyduzit – but some never seem to want the truth, just their own errors and opinions.

“Ask, and it will be given you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you. For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be opened. Is there anyone among you who, if your child asks for bread, will give a stone? Or if the child asks for a fish, will give a snake? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!”

That sounds very much like a guarantee to me. I asked of the Lord to reveal His truth to me and I believe with all my heart that I have received. Years ago, I was in need; I had a void that needed to be filled. Without even realizing how weak I truly was and when looking to psychology and self-medication had left me with more questions than answers, I fell to the ground in submission and opened my heart to Him. I cried out for His hand in the night; my soul was pent-up and restless, and for the first time in my life, I consciously believed that God heard my prayer!

It wasn’t until I came here that people started implying that some of the “truth” that the Lord placed upon my heart was either a lie or simply withheld. So, I ask, why would the Lord tell me the partial truth when I faithfully asked like the Bible said only to tell me several years later that the truth He originally gave me in my time of absolute need wasn’t the actual truth truth and that He left a few things out in His answer? I’m certain that the Lord isn’t the type to play games like that. When you knock, it is opened—not partially, not closed after you get a decent glimpse of the other side—OPENED.

The fact that this is the only place anyone has ever both indirectly and directly invalidated my convictions and suggested that the truth I received when I cried out to God in my darkest hour wasn’t completely legitimate should speak volumes to the most casual of observers.

Well, God answered my prayer and I stand today as a changed man. I have that truth in me now and I do my best to share not what I think is proper doctrine or who has authority in dictating what God wants, but sharing both the wonders that the Lord has done in my life and the faith I have that His infinite mercy will prevail. I’ll let my faith speak for itself.

In fact, I think I’m done with this forum. The majority of what I’ve found is people seemingly looking for a reason to bicker and judge their brothers and sisters. That is not why I came here. I had my expectations, and a decent handful of people here have far exceeded those expectations. However, there are certain Catholic personalities on this forum who have outright judged me to the point of losing my temper while coaxing those select few decent and respectful debaters to jump on the lynchwagon. I’m not having that anymore.

I first believed that God sent me here for a reason, I was only confused as to what it was at the time. Well, now I know He brought me here for something, and I just realized as I was typing the previous paragraph that I am now in receipt of that something. Praise the LORD!

May God bless every single one of you for years to come!

yateanieys.signOff();

 

[Ron_Obvious]

Difference between a Catholic and a Protestant

Still, they aren’t the only manifestation of the Spirit and the way you talk about them comes off like you think they are—like the Spirit is prejudice toward non-Catholics.

I never said this. Those are your words, not mine. I said the sacraments are the strongest manifestation of the spirit this side of heaven, which I believe to be true. Don’t put words in my mouth.

In any case, I tried the Catholic thing for a bit, so now I’m entitled to a justified expression of opinion. However, you obviously have never taken part in revival, so I’d stop being a smart aleck by forming opinions on something you’ve never experienced. You are deprived (obviously, by dictionary definition); else, again, you wouldn’t have said what you did. Trust me.

I have no desire to take “part in revival”, because to do so would suggest something is missing from the Church. Christ’s presence in this world is no stronger than in the Mass when we celebrate the Eucharist. There is no stronger presence of our Lord in this world. Nor is there any theological truth to be found in a sect that will not also be found in the Catholic Church, therefore I am not deprived, no matter how much you would love to convince us otherwise. That’s not being smart aleck, that’s being honest.

In fact, I think I’m done with this forum. The majority of what I’ve found is people seemingly looking for a reason to bicker and judge their brothers and sisters. That is not why I came here. I had my expectations, and a decent handful of people here have far exceeded those expectations. However, there are certain Catholic personalities on this forum who have outright judged me to the point of losing my temper while coaxing those select few decent and respectful debaters to jump on the lynchwagon. I’m not having that anymore.

I’m sorry you feel this way. I’m not sure why you came here, I’m not even sure why I first came here. Nobody is judging you. You shouldn’t be so defensive.

May God bless every single one of you for years to come!

May He bless you as well.
yateanieys.signOff();

 

[Abu]

yateanieys #310
It wasn’t until I came here that people started implying that some of the “truth” that the Lord placed upon my heart was either a lie or simply withheld.

Such a notion of a presumed individual revelation that, against all of the truth of Christ forming His Church and guaranteeing Her His personal presence until the end of time which was quoted from the Sacred Scriptures, is clearly unrealistic.

The majority of what I’ve found is people seemingly looking for a reason to bicker and judge their brothers and sisters.

No. It is the presentation of Christ’s Truths through the Catholic Church which He founded, and judgment is as explained clearly in post #255:
“It is very important NOT to judge a person’s guilt before God as commanded (Mt 7:1-5). We are commanded not to judge others regarding their motives, intentions, and guilt before God (a judgment reserved to God).

“But it is vital to follow the command to judge all actions, speech writing against truth and in this way we can help others by offering truth.”

We can only conclude with the Christ: “The truth shall set you free.” [Jn 8:32]. That is the truth which He entrusted to His Catholic Church, and no one else.

 

[eazyduzit]

Such a notion of a presumed individual revelation that, against all of the truth of Christ forming His Church and guaranteeing Her His personal presence until the end of time which was quoted from the Sacred Scriptures, is clearly unrealistic.
No. It is the presentation of Christ’s Truths through the Catholic Church which He founded, and judgment is as explained clearly in post #255:
“It is very important NOT to judge a person’s guilt before God as commanded (Mt 7:1-5). We are commanded not to judge others regarding their motives, intentions, and guilt before God (a judgment reserved to God).

“But it is vital to follow the command to judge all actions, speech writing against truth and in this way we can help others by offering truth.”

We can only conclude with the Christ: “The truth shall set you free.” [Jn 8:32]. That is the truth which He entrusted to His Catholic Church, and no one else.

Sorry, but having the truth and freedom is not dependent upon any church according to this passage. Rather, Jesus said it depends on “continuing in My WORD”. No mention of church here.

 

[eazyduzit]

Difference between a Catholic and a Protestant

I’m staying away from the apples and oranges cliché (even though your argument forced itself into that category rather quickly). I do believe that the sacraments are a manifestation of the Spirit and I have experienced them for myself and I completely agree that they are worthy of note, just not for the same reasons you do. Still, they aren’t the only manifestation of the Spirit and the way you talk about them comes off like you think they are—like the Spirit is prejudice toward non-Catholics.

In any case, I tried the Catholic thing for a bit, so now I’m entitled to a justified expression of opinion. However, you obviously have never taken part in revival, so I’d stop being a smart aleck by forming opinions on something you’ve never experienced. You are deprived (obviously, by dictionary definition); else, again, you wouldn’t have said what you did. Trust me.

And a fair warning to anyone who believes that the Pentecostal “customs” of revival, speaking in tongues, and being slain in the Spirit are emotionally driven and not invoked by the Spirit Himself: be very cautious what or who you attribute these works to, because in the event that it is the work of the Spirit and you are utterly wrong,

“…the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men.”

“Ask, and it will be given you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you. For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be opened. Is there anyone among you who, if your child asks for bread, will give a stone? Or if the child asks for a fish, will give a snake? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!”

That sounds very much like a guarantee to me. I asked of the Lord to reveal His truth to me and I believe with all my heart that I have received. Years ago, I was in need; I had a void that needed to be filled. Without even realizing how weak I truly was and when looking to psychology and self-medication had left me with more questions than answers, I fell to the ground in submission and opened my heart to Him. I cried out for His hand in the night; my soul was pent-up and restless, and for the first time in my life, I consciously believed that God heard my prayer!

It wasn’t until I came here that people started implying that some of the “truth” that the Lord placed upon my heart was either a lie or simply withheld. So, I ask, why would the Lord tell me the partial truth when I faithfully asked like the Bible said only to tell me several years later that the truth He originally gave me in my time of absolute need wasn’t the actual truth truth and that He left a few things out in His answer? I’m certain that the Lord isn’t the type to play games like that. When you knock, it is opened—not partially, not closed after you get a decent glimpse of the other side—OPENED.

The fact that this is the only place anyone has ever both indirectly and directly invalidated my convictions and suggested that the truth I received when I cried out to God in my darkest hour wasn’t completely legitimate should speak volumes to the most casual of observers.

Well, God answered my prayer and I stand today as a changed man. I have that truth in me now and I do my best to share not what I think is proper doctrine or who has authority in dictating what God wants, but sharing both the wonders that the Lord has done in my life and the faith I have that His infinite mercy will prevail. I’ll let my faith speak for itself.

In fact, I think I’m done with this forum. The majority of what I’ve found is people seemingly looking for a reason to bicker and judge their brothers and sisters. That is not why I came here. I had my expectations, and a decent handful of people here have far exceeded those expectations. However, there are certain Catholic personalities on this forum who have outright judged me to the point of losing my temper while coaxing those select few decent and respectful debaters to jump on the lynchwagon. I’m not having that anymore.

I first believed that God sent me here for a reason, I was only confused as to what it was at the time. Well, now I know He brought me here for something, and I just realized as I was typing the previous paragraph that I am now in receipt of that something. Praise the LORD!

May God bless every single one of you for years to come!

yateanieys.signOff();

I have enjoyed your posting yateanieys. You will be missed.

 

[eazyduzit]

False.

Thus you are still quite unable to reasonably explain why the Protestant sects have rejected Christ’s command to “listen to the Church”, those whom He then describes as “like the heathen and the publican”, and don’t have:

1. The priesthood, the Eucharist (Holy Mass), Christ’s seven sacraments, the primacy and infallibility of His Pope, Her Tradition and all of Her Sacred Scriptures, such as:
2. The doctrine of Purgatory in 2 Maccabees 12:46: “It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins.”
3. Are hopelessly confused over the gravity of indulging in many sinful activities such as abortion, contraception, euthanasia etc.
   False, as the Sacred Scriptures which Christ’s Catholic Church has given us clearly tell us:
   It is very important NOT to judge a person’s guilt before God as commanded (Mt 7:1-5). We are commanded not to judge others regarding their motives, intentions, and guilt before God (a judgment reserved to God).

But it is vital to follow the command to judge all actions, speech writing against truth and in this way we can help others by offering truth.

Christ and His Church’s Scriptures tell us:

“Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly.” (Jn 7:24).

“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).

“Test everything: retain what is good.” (1Thess 5:21).

“The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgment by anyone.” (1 Cor 2:15).

“I, for my part, although absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as if present, pronounced judgment on the one who has committed this deed…” (1 Cor 5:3; read 1-13).

“I am speaking as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I am saying.” (1 Cor 10:15).

“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).

We can’t judge according to truth by being mesmerized by others and giving them adulation, but according to the teaching of Christ’s Church, Her Tradition and Her Scriptures.
From God Himself: “If he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17). Who has the authority to deny Christ? How could God contradict Himself?

#1. The priesthood
A separate priesthood was never God’s original intention. He wanted all of Israel to be priests before Him. What spoiled it was sin.

#2. Purgatory
This doctrine only serves the pride of man. True humility is admitting that Jesus paid it all.

#3. I see the Catholic politicians as possibly more confused on these issues.

Sorry, but Jesus calls the scriptures “My word” at least 16 times in the gospels. They will be His for eternity and He personally guarantees them for ever.They are not the possession of the Church.

The passage from Mt18 is only concerned with a dispute between two brothers. It has nothing to do with the general authority of a church.

 

[eazyduzit]

Are you trying to imply that the Catholic Church, the only Church Jesus established, doesn’t have “the riches of the spirit?” Do you really think that leaving that same Church and joining the Pentecostal sect, started by man some 1800+ years after Christ built His Church, one will find that “riches of spirit”? Nonsense. The sacraments, which are the greatest manifestation of the spirit on this side of heaven, are far more real than the emotionalism that comes from a revival.

Jesus built one Church, the Catholic Church. Seymour and Wigglesworth may have been good men who lived holy lives, but they were not in full unity with the one, true church. Therefore, their teachings are not in any way authoritative.

God’s word says that “To each person has been given the ability to manifest the Spirit for the common good”(1Cor.12:7) ISV
Jesus said “He that hath My commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me:…and I will love him, and will manifest Myself to him”. The bible makes no connection between sacraments and manifestation of the Spirit.

It was not Seymour’s or anyone’s intention to start a new church. All they intended to do is humble themselves before God. Everything else was up to the Holy Spirit.

Who has raised more people from the dead than Wigglesworth? If you want to believe him an heretic then that is your judgement.