What Divides Catholics and Protestants?

danpat1_2000 »

Thu May 07, 2009 12:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"Again, if two men of goodwill and faith disagree upon a fundamental doctrinal teaching with both of them appealing to scripture and the Holy Spiritâ

danpat1_2000 »

Thu May 07, 2009 11:17 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

A book cannot by itself be infallible. The Protestant acceptance of Sola Scriptura is what leads people to confusion. If everyone comes up with their own interpretation of scripture (as you can see on this site) it defies a first principle of logic...two opposites cannot be true at the same time, and the Holy Spirit knows all so he is not that dumb. Notice how Protestants throw out Bible verses each to their own interpretation and see what confusion it leads to. There is one person on this site who (read in a different area) who is honest and says (paraphrase) "how does he ever know his interpretation is correct (exactly--he doesn't) A Rabbi theologian knows that each scripture verse may be interpreted 6 different ways [ask one].

danpat1_2000 »

Thu May 07, 2009 11:08 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

mysticalguy188 You must have just turned Catholic because you miss so much. Sex scandals: Found in all Churches to the same degree they are in society (about 4.7%, gays, pedophiles, etc)and not approved by any Church so your logic is wrong; this is called "sin." You may go to church and go home but good Catholics don't. You need to go to daily Mass and Communion. There were 250 at the Mass I attended last Tuesday. It all starts with you, teach CCD and make it better. This site will show you that Protestants are well-meaning but lack knowledge about Catholic faith so they repeat bunk fed to them ...like your example..."worshiping Mary." They don't know the difference between adoration and veneration. Baptists are returning home to the faith of their Fathers (Catholicism) are are great in their new faith. God Bless. (learn more about your faith - join Catholic Answers or Catholics returning home on inet. Thanks for bumping in.

mysticalguy188 »

Sat Jan 10, 2009 8:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Hey all! I just registed. You can call my Mystic. I'm Catholic and I serve a the Sacristan of my parish, an altar server, usher, and Eucharistic Minister. :-)

I noticed a discussion so I thought I might jump in.

Some things I don't like about the Church:
- the sex scandals, although I feel that they are highly exaggerated
- lack of education and motivation (Protestants spend the whole day at their church, whereas, Catholics go to Mass and go home. Also, CCD is terrible in the area I live)
- Don't do anything about Cultural Catholics

What I dislike about Protestant churches:
- I often meet Prods who use the Bible more like a rifle than a preaching tool. By shooting a verse at me only tells you your personal interpretation, then, I shoot a verse back that defends my point. It goes no where.
- I've met Protestants who think that clerical celibacy causes sex scandals. However, I think the sex scandals are an all-around Christian problem, not just a Catholic one.
- Many Prod clergy teach wrongly of the Church, especially when they say that the Church teaches to "worship" Mary.

There's a bit about me. I try to be equal and open-minded. Meaning, I never like to say, "I dislike this about the Methodist Church" unless I say something I dislike about my own church. :D

So, how is everyone? :D

thelordismylight »

Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:42 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Online,

Peter was the steward you say? I'm not sure I agree with this, but I'm pretty sure you're admitting that he has supremecy over the other apostles. :O

Online4Him »

Sun May 11, 2008 11:38 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works – 2Timothy 3:15-17.

Online4Him »

Sun May 11, 2008 11:38 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Irenaeus,


R.T. France is a liberal Anglican theologian who subscribes to “higher criticism” as a lens to read the scriptures. Donald Guthrie says, “Is the rock therefore to be identified with Peter? It is incredible for Jesus to imply that the future success of Him mission depended upon one man. Peter merely the spokesman for the rest. “This rock” therefore had a wider basis than Peter alone; it referred to Peter as the representative confessor of the true nature of Jesus, without which there could be no church” – END QUOTE (Jesus the Messiah: An Illustrated Life of Christ; section – Testimony and Transfiguration 169).


George Buttrick was a liberal who was in clear violation of his ordination vows; that is rejecting the Bible to be the only infallible rule of faith and practice and also rejecting his church’s Westminster Confession. Craig S. Keener primarily focuses on the social-historical and rhetorical features of the Gospel rather than the texts themselves. He also is in the higher criticism camp which uses extra biblical literature to interpret scripture. Joachim Jeremias was a neo-orthodox German Lutheran who used liberal methods to interpret the Bible; that is he retained a mostly liberal view of the Bible as subject to error. Also, R. T. France’s exposition of Matthew 24, at least through verse 34, is almost exclusively seen as a prophetic depiction of what will happen to “this generation,” that is, the generation to whom Jesus was speaking. He subscribes to the preterist interpretation of prophecy; that is he sees the fulfillment of these and most prophetic events leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.


These scholars are from the liberal and higher criticism camp which in theory, the intent of Biblical Criticism is to enhance the appreciation of the Bible through fuller understanding of its literary history and message. In practice, however, Biblical Criticism destroys any confidence in the divine origin of the message of the Bible because it presupposes its writings to be merely a human literary production, error-ridden, and entirely conditioned by the culture of the time. The negative impact of Biblical Criticism can be seen in the increasing number of Bible scholars, preachers, and lay-Christians who have lost their confidence in the trustworthiness of the Bible. This seems to be a precursor to the great “falling away” spoken of in 2Thessalonians 2.


I personally cannot entertain scholars who contradict the clear teachings of scripture and directly or indirectly undermine its divine authority. They have done this by elevating their own philosophy as the ultimate authority instead of God’s Word. Finally, when the law of non contradiction is applied to statements made by the church’s hierarchy and the scriptures themselves; only the scriptures maintain an unblemished and consistent testimony.

irenaeus »

Wed May 07, 2008 10:17 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

O4H,

“My point is; making a connection between these two passages still does not support your supposition.”

I respectfully disagree. King Hezekiah is a Davidic king and a type of the Messiah. Eliakim is the chief steward and is entrusted with the keys of the house of David; i.e., delegated authority over the kingdom. Matt 16:19 is an allusion to Is 22. Jesus is a Davidic king and the Messiah. Peter is the chief steward (chief, or protos, apostle) and is given the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

irenaeus »

Wed May 07, 2008 9:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

O4H,

“There are numerous instances to show that in biblical and later Jewish usage handing over the keys implies full authorization. He who has the keys has full authority. Thus, when Eliakim is given the keys of the palace he is appointed the royal steward (Is. 22:22, cf 15). When Jesus is said to hold the keys of Death and Hades (Rev 1:18) or the key of David (3:7), this means that He is, not the doorkeeper, but the Lord of the world of the dead and the palace of God…
"Hence handing over the keys implies appointment to full authority. He who has the keys has on the one side contol, e.g., over the council chamber or treasury, cf. Mt. 13:52, and on the other the power to allow or forbid entry, cf. Rev. 3:7.
“Mt. 23:13 [‘ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men’] leads us a step further. This passage is particularly important for an understanding of Mt. 16:19 because it is the only one in the NT which presupposes an image not found elsewhere, namely, that of the keys of the kingdom (royal dominion) of God.” --J. Jeremias, "Kleis," in Gerhard Kittel, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. and ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 3, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 749-750

irenaeus »

Wed May 07, 2008 9:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

O4H,

"What is suspect and problematic is trying to establish a dogma that Scripture does not teach. As far as these references, I will have to look into them and consider what they actually have stated. "

I will give you a couple of these, and then you can study these more at your leisure.

R.T. France says; “these terms (binding and loosing) thus refer to a teaching function, and more specifically one of making halakhic pronouncements (i.e. relative to laws not written down in Jewish Scriptures but based on an oral interpretation of them) which are binding on the people of God. In that case, Peter’s ‘power of the keys’ declared in (Matt) 16:19 is not so much that of a doorkeeper, who decides who may or may not be admitted, BUT THAT OF THE STEWARD whose keys of office enable him to regulate the affairs of the household.” (Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, 1989. 247)
R.T. France, in another place says; “’Shall be bound & shall be loosed’ (as stated in Matt 16:16-19) are literally future perfects (i.e. shall have been bound, shall have been loosed), and as future perfect sounds as stilted in Greek as in English, the tense is apparently deliberate. In that case, it is not heaven that will ratify Peter’s independent decisions, but that Peter will pass on decisions that have already been made in heaven.” (The Gospel according to Matthew, an introduction and commentary).

Online4Him »

Wed May 07, 2008 1:05 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Irenaeus,


“I never claimed that Matthew Henry or John Calvin believed that these passages support the papacy. Of course they believe they don’t, else they would have become Catholic. I merely stated that they made the connection between the two passages as if Jesus was alluding to the Isaiah passage in Matt. 16:19”


My point is; making a connection between these two passages still does not support your supposition.


“These passages support the doctrine of the Trinity and the unity of the human and divine natures in the single divine person of Christ, but these passages do not prove it.”


I respectfully disagree; the Scriptures sufficiently describe who Christ is and his nature.


“So let’s assume everybody is suspect in their scholarship if they believe that Matt 16:19 is alluding to Is 22:22. So do you have a problem with D. Guthrie, too, who makes the connection in his New Bible Commentary? Or George Buttrick The Interpreter’s Bible; Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament; J. Jeremias Theological Dictionary of the New Testament; Keil & Delitzsch, Isaiah; R.T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher; Lawrence O. Richards, The Revell Bible Dictionary; Barclay, Gospel of Matthew?”


What is suspect and problematic is trying to establish a dogma that Scripture does not teach. As far as these references, I will have to look into them and consider what they actually have stated.

irenaeus »

Wed May 07, 2008 12:00 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

O4H,

"As far as the other references; C.S. Mann was a textual critic, W.F. Albright was predominately an archeologist/textual critic more than a biblical scholar, he also was not a biblical literalist who claims in his book – Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan – that religion of the Israelites evolved from polytheism, F.F. Bruce was also a textual critic who said the book of Daniel had been written AFTER the events written therein took place..."

So let’s assume everybody is suspect in their scholarship if they believe that Matt 16:19 is alluding to Is 22:22. So do you have a problem with D. Guthrie, too, who makes the connection in his New Bible Commentary? Or George Buttrick The Interpreter’s Bible; Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament; J. Jeremias Theological Dictionary of the New Testament; Keil & Delitzsch, Isaiah; R.T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher; Lawrence O. Richards, The Revell Bible Dictionary; Barclay, Gospel of Matthew?

irenaeus »

Tue May 06, 2008 11:11 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

O4H,

I never claimed that Matthew Henry or John Calvin believed that these passages support the papacy. Of course they believe they don’t, else they would have become Catholic. I merely stated that they made the connection between the two passages as if Jesus was alluding to the Isaiah passage in Matt. 16:19, and this is noted in numerous Protestant translations via footnotes and cross-references. This is what you originally took exception to; that these passages are not related. I even found Matt 16:19 cross-referenced in a KJV family bible dating from the late 1800’s.

“To say that the Scriptures do not give a precise identity of Christ is an inaccurate statement; you may want to re-read those passages that I previously posted again.”

These passages support the doctrine of the Trinity and the unity of the human and divine natures in the single divine person of Christ, but these passages do not prove it.

Online4Him »

Sun May 04, 2008 5:20 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

To say that the Scriptures do not give a precise identity of Christ is an inaccurate statement; you may want to re-read those passages that I previously posted again.

Online4Him »

Sun May 04, 2008 5:18 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

Irenaeus,

Sorry for getting back so late; I had a busy weekend.


“In the very quote you provided from John Calvin’s commentary on Isaiah that you found on the internet, he references Matt. 16:19. Matthew Henry’s commentary on Matthew (not Isaiah) discusses the connection between the two passages albeit with the caveat that this does NOT refer to the papacy – but he still makes the connection. With regard to other commentaries or footnotes or crossreferences, The Anchor Bible: Matthew by W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann; The Hard Sayings of Jesus by F.F. Bruce; the NIV Study Bible; the Schofield Reference Bible; etc.”


If you re-read John Calvin’s quote again, he says. . . “For the same reason Christ calls the office of teaching the Word, (Matt.16:19,) “the keys of the kingdom of heaven”. . . “The reason is that ministers, by the preaching of the Word, open the entrance into heaven, and lead to Christ, who alone is “the way” – END OF QUOTE. He then closes by talking about Eliakim and his charge; there is no mention of PETER . . . no mention of a papal charge . . . no mention that Matt.16 pertains to a universal head within the church other than “Christ, who ALONE is “the way”.


Matthew Henry specifically says in his commentary on Matthew 16, “So that this is far from being a proof of such primacy and superiority of Peter above the rest of the apostles, as the Church of Rome ascribes to him. They will needs advance him to be a judge, when the utmost they can make of him, is, that he was but foreman of the jury, to speak for the rest, and that only pro hac vice – for this once; not the perpetual dictator or speaker of the house, only chairman upon this occasion” – END OF QUOTE.


As far as the other references; C.S. Mann was a textual critic, W.F. Albright was predominately an archeologist/textual critic more than a biblical scholar, he also was not a biblical literalist who claims in his book – Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan – that religion of the Israelites evolved from polytheism, F.F. Bruce was also a textual critic who said the book of Daniel had been written AFTER the events written therein took place, and I have already commented on the NIV (paraphrase) notes along with Schofield’s notes as being unreliable.


“All the heterodox views I presented do not deny the divinity of Christ at the complete expense of his humanity nor the other way around. Don’t get me wrong – I completely agree with you with respect to the divinity and humanity of Christ, but scripture is not precise on this matter.”

irenaeus »

Thu May 01, 2008 9:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

O4H,

“You can go back and re-read my posts and see that you chose to comment on certain quotations from the church fathers and others you did not…”

I can’t possibly address ever quote you cite, so not addressing a quote is not dismissing. I simply chose certain ones out of several for the sake of brevity, not evasion. If there’s one in particular, then please focus on that one.

“… but the most important issue at hand is Isaiah 22. I pasted Matthew Henry’s and John Calvin’s comments regarding this chapter and they say absolutely nothing about its connection with Matthew 16. The “footnotes” and “commentary” which you are referring to cannot be verified since you gave no specific quotation and reference.”

In the very quote you provided from John Calvin’s commentary on Isaiah that you found on the internet, he references Matt. 16:19. Matthew Henry’s commentary on Matthew (not Isaiah) discusses the connection between the two passages albeit with the caveat that this does NOT refer to the papacy – but he still makes the connection. With regard to other commentaries or footnotes or crossreferences, The Anchor Bible: Matthew by W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann; The Hard Sayings of Jesus by F.F. Bruce; the NIV Study Bible; the Schofield Reference Bible; etc.

“On the contrary; the scriptures “clearly” speak about the divinity of Christ and his human nature; the very title “Son of Man” is used repeatedly and soundly establishes his human nature and his divinity (Daniel 7:13); here are a “few” samples –…”

All the heterodox views I presented do not deny the divinity of Christ at the complete expense of his humanity nor the other way around. Don’t get me wrong – I completely agree with you with respect to the divinity and humanity of Christ, but scripture is not precise on this matter.

Online4Him »

Thu May 01, 2008 8:17 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Irenaeus,

“You responded by saying that you do recall me dismissing a number of your quotes; please provide an example rather than merely saying, “I do.”


You can go back and re-read my posts and see that you chose to comment on certain quotations from the church fathers and others you did not but the most important issue at hand is Isaiah 22. I pasted Matthew Henry’s and John Calvin’s comments regarding this chapter and they say absolutely nothing about its connection with Matthew 16. The “footnotes” and “commentary” which you are referring to cannot be verified since you gave no specific quotation and reference.


“Scripture does not provide precise definitions in order to determine whether Jesus is fully God and fully man (the orthodox view) . . .”


On the contrary; the scriptures “clearly” speak about the divinity of Christ and his human nature; the very title “Son of Man” is used repeatedly and soundly establishes his human nature and his divinity (Daniel 7:13); here are a “few” samples –


“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory” – 1Timothy 3:16.

See also Isaiah 9:6, John 1:1, 14, Hebrews 1:8, Colossian 1:15, 19, etc.


“Okay, you still have not answered the question. What if both men have claimed to have done this; namely, examine the canonical context of the entire Bible, the context of the entire book, the context of related paragraphs, and section context of the immediate passage, and still come to opposing positions?”


That is a good question; there are a couple of factors that determine how one understands and interprets scripture. Everyone has preunderstandings and presuppositions that they bring when studying the bible. These include parental influences, culture, family tradition, education, and experience, to mention a few. As Christians, we need to return to the source of absolute truth – the Word of God. So, how does one “objectively” interpret God’s Word? Allowing scriptural passages to speak for themselves without pouring our preconceived suppositions into the text is the best way to come to a sound conclusion. This can be challenging but an important aspect of answering your question is the law of non-contradiction. The Word of God does not and cannot contradict itself, so any attempt to manipulate or misinterpret a text can be reviewed and refuted by simply comparing it with the rest of scripture.


Another key for coming to a sound conclusion is simply doing what God himself has asked us not to do. That is not “ADDING” or “TAKING AWAY” from his Word – Proverbs 30:6, Deuteronomy 4:2, and Revelation 22:18, 19.


Now, the questions have to be asked; have the church fathers and statements by popes throughout history ever contradicted themselves or the scriptures? I say yes

irenaeus »

Wed Apr 30, 2008 5:18 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

O4H,

"Matthew Henry did not mention anything which connected Isaiah 22 with a papal system nor did John Calvin."

I never claimed that Matthew Henry or John Calvin supported the Catholic Church's teaching on the papacy using any scripture. What I said was that many non-Catholic Christians (especially those who have no sympathy for the papacy) make the connection that Jesus' statement in Matt 16:19-20 was an allusion to Is 22:22, and that this connection is not lost on many conservative Protestant scholars as noted in numerous Protestant commentaries and footnotes.

irenaeus »

Wed Apr 30, 2008 5:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

O4H,

You responded by saying that you do recall me dismissing a number of your quotes; please provide an example rather than merely saying, “I do.”

"There are many passages that 'CLEARLY' expound the doctrines of the Godhead and the 'divine and human nature of Christ.' "

Typically, they only appear to be “clear” when you come to read them after you have already been formed into that thinking, which is why the early church had to continually be more precise in its definitions on the identity of Christ. Although Scripture certainly teaches the truth regarding the Trune God, Scripture does not provide precise definitions in order to determine whether Jesus is fully God and fully man (the orthodox view), or that Jesus is fully God who merely appeared to be a man, or that Jesus is fully man who had God indwelling in him, or that God functions in one place as the Father and in another place as the Son, or various other formulae that have been proposed that appear to agree with scriptures.

“Good will/good intentions are not enough; as in someone can be sincere but sincerely wrong and having faith is only as good as the object in which it is placed – faith in what? Scripture must be read in its “CONTEXT” – that is – don’t isolate a passage from what comes before or after it in the text.

Instead, get the whole picture. To do this you will need to acquaint yourself with the context, the entire body of text surrounding the passage, which sheds light on its meaning. Example, Canonical context of the entire Bible, Context of the Entire Book, Section Context of related paragraphs, and section context of the immediate passage. You cannot isolate one passage and ignore the rest of scripture to build a case.”

Okay, you still have not answered the question. What if both men have claimed to have done this; namely, examine the canonical context of the entire Bible, the context of the entire book, the context of related paragraphs, and section context of the immediate passage, and still come to opposing positions?

Online4Him »

Wed Apr 30, 2008 1:19 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Irenaeus,

“Nope… don’t recall dismissing any of these.”

I do.

“So you then are not comfortable in your belief in the Trinity, the hypostatic union of the human and divine natures of Christ, or the incarnation of the Second Person of the Triune Godhead?”

As my previous post already mentioned; “Allowing the passages to speak in their “CONTEXT” has nothing to do with western culture. We cannot read “INTO” the text our own preconceived notions. “Do not get “hung up” whether the explicit word or phrase is not present; sorry, I am not comfortable with establishing a doctrine that scripture does not “CLEARLY” support. We are not to “ADD or TAKE AWAY” from the scriptures – Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:6, and Revelation 22:18, 19.”

There are many passages that “CLEARLY” expound the doctrines of the Godhead and the “divine and human nature of Christ.”

“I would say that justification, sanctification, and glorification are much more than merely connected with the gospel. They all pertain to salvation.”

Your original statement was “defining” the gospel not what is connected to it.

“You tell me? Again, if two men of goodwill and faith disagree upon a fundamental doctrinal teaching with both of them appealing to scripture and the Holy Spirit’s guidance to help them arrive at their opposing conclusions, which one, if any, is correct, and how do you know?”

Good will/good intentions are not enough; as in someone can be sincere but sincerely wrong and having faith is only as good as the object in which it is placed – faith in what? Scripture must be read in its “CONTEXT” – that is – don’t isolate a passage from what comes before or after it in the text.

Instead, get the whole picture. To do this you will need to acquaint yourself with the context, the entire body of text surrounding the passage, which sheds light on its meaning. Example, Canonical context of the entire Bible, Context of the Entire Book, Section Context of related paragraphs, and section context of the immediate passage. You cannot isolate one passage and ignore the rest of scripture to build a case.

Matthew Henry did not mention anything which connected Isaiah 22 with a papal system nor did John Calvin.

irenaeus »

Tue Apr 29, 2008 9:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

O4H,

“So, the Holy Spirit is not an “AUTHORTATIVE LEADER” - Interesting?”

Never said that.

“Can the Holy Spirit “TEACH” and “GUIDE” someone into truth?”

You tell me? Again, if two men of goodwill and faith disagree upon a fundamental doctrinal teaching with both of them appealing to scripture and the Holy Spirit’s guidance to help them arrive at their opposing conclusions, which one, if any, is correct, and how do you know?

irenaeus »

Tue Apr 29, 2008 9:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

O4H,

“I have use quotes from Gregory, Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger – the most renowned Roman Catholic historian, and some of the church fathers.”

Nope… don’t recall dismissing any of these.

“Allowing the passages to speak in their “CONTEXT” has nothing to do with western culture. We cannot read “INTO” the text our own preconceived notions. “Do not get “hung up” whether the explicit word or phrase is not present; sorry, I am not comfortable with establishing a doctrine that scripture does not clearly support. We are not to “ADD or TAKE AWAY” from the scriptures – Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:6, and Revelation 22:18, 19.”

So you then are not comfortable in your belief in the Trinity, the hypostatic union of the human and divine natures of Christ, or the incarnation of the Second Person of the Triune Godhead?

“We are discussing – what is the “gospel” as scripture defines it – justification, sanctification, and glorification are definitely connected but when we actually define the word itself in a nutshell, it is - glad tidings concerning salvation and the kingdom of God as announced to the world by Christ.”

I would say that justification, sanctification, and glorification are much more than merely connected with the gospel. They all pertain to salvation.

Online4Him »

Tue Apr 29, 2008 10:34 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

We are discussing – what is the “gospel” as scripture defines it – justification, sanctification, and glorification are definitely connected but when we actually define the word itself in a nutshell, it is - glad tidings concerning salvation and the kingdom of God as announced to the world by Christ. Reread Paul’s definition of the gospel –

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: - 1Corinthians 15:1-3.

“On the contrary, the scripture asserts the need for authoritative leadership also – not just me. Also, I do understand the role of the Holy Spirit? Perhaps it is you who does not. Again, if two men of goodwill and faith disagree upon a fundamental doctrinal teaching with both of them appealing to scripture and the Holy Spirit’s guidance to help them arrive at their conclusion, which one, if any, is correct?”

So, the Holy Spirit is not an “AUTHORTATIVE LEADER” - Interesting? Can the Holy Spirit “TEACH” and “GUIDE” someone into truth?

“What are you talking about? Of course they were (are) all different. Certainly, there is some overlap, but they are certainly differences – often time very different. In fact, if you are correct, then we only need one of them – not 13; after all, you speak as if the epistles that were acquired were of no difference in content from the others. This is demonstrably untrue.”

The gospel message itself is presented in all of the epistles; that is my point. The “office” for a “universal – slash, slash, slash” is not supported by the NT.

Does the NT not teach the “priesthood of all believers’?

Online4Him »

Tue Apr 29, 2008 10:34 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

The key is put in the singular number for keys. Though "keys" are usually carried in the hands, yet he says that they are laid on the shoulders, because he is describing an important charge. Yet nothing more is meant than that the charge and the whole government of the house are committed to him, that he may regulate everything according to his pleasure; and we know that the delivering of keys is commonly regarded as a token of possession.

Some commentators have viewed this passage as referring to Christ, but improperly; for the Prophet draws a comparison between two men, Shebna and Eliakim. Shebna shall be deprived of his office, and Eliakim shall succeed him. What has this to do with Christ? For Eliakim was not a type of Christ, and the Prophet does not here describe any hidden mystery, but borrows a comparison from the ordinary practice of men, as if the keys were delivered to one who has been appointed to be steward, as has been already said. For the same reason Christ calls the office of teaching the word, (Matthew 16:19,) "the keys of the kingdom of heaven; " so that it is idle and foolish to spend much time in endeavoring to find a hidden reason, when the matter is plain, and needs no ingenuity. The reason is, that ministers, by the preaching of the word, open the entrance into heaven, and lead to Christ, who alone is "the way." (John 14:6.) By the keys, therefore, he means here the government of the king's house, because the principal charge of it would be delivered to Eliakim at the proper time – END OF QUOTE.


“The person and position are mentioned in Matt 16:19 – again, remove the 2000-years removed western culture mindset and think as a first century Jew. The title may not be mentioned for similar reasons as Jesus is not referred to as King Jesus, Son of David, or ruler over the house of Jacob in this passage. The concept is clearly there; do not get hung up on whether the explicit word or phrase is present or not. The terms ‘Trinity’, ‘hypostasis’, or ‘incarnation’ are nowhere to be found either, but the concepts are.”

Allowing the passages to speak in their “CONTEXT” has nothing to do with western culture. We cannot read “INTO” the text our own preconceived notions. “Do not get “hung up” whether the explicit word or phrase is not present; sorry, I am not comfortable with establishing a doctrine that scripture does not clearly support. We are not to “ADD or TAKE AWAY” from the scriptures – Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:6, and Revelation 22:18, 19.

“You said the “gospel” is so much more; really? – “Jesus died for us, and if we believe in Him, we can be saved” – that is the gospel.”

Online4Him »

Tue Apr 29, 2008 10:33 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Irenaeus,

“I don’t recall dismissing any authoritative Catholic source, and certainly a source coming from an ex-catholic is not a ‘catholic’ source.”

I have use quotes from Gregory, Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger – the most renowned Roman Catholic historian, and some of the church fathers.

Matthew Henry –

Eliakim's advancement is further described by the laying of the key of the house of David upon his shoulders, Isa_22:22. Probably he carried a golden key upon his shoulder as a badge of his office, or had one embroidered upon his cloak or robe, to which this alludes. Being over the house, and having the key delivered to him, as the seals are to the lord-keeper, he shall open and none shall shut, shut and none shall open. He had access to the house of the precious things, the silver, and the gold, and the spices; and to the house of the armour and the treasures (Isa_39:2), and disposed of the stores there as he thought fit for the public service – END OF QUOTE.

Note: I have Matthew Henry’s Commentaries and nothing in his comments suggest that Isaiah 22:22 is a preview or basis for the papacy. I do not have Calvin’s Commentaries in my possession, so I relied upon the internet to post his thoughts on Isaiah 22 below.

John Calvin –

And the key of the house of David. - This expression is metaphorical, and we need not spend much time, as some do, in drawing from it an allegorical meaning; for it is taken from an ordinary custom of men. The keys of the house are delivered to those who are appointed to be stewards, that they may have the full power of opening and shutting according to their own pleasure. By "the house of David" is meant "the royal house." This mode of expression was customary among the people, because it had been promised to David that his kingdom would be for ever. (2 Samuel 7:13; Psalm 132:11, 12.) That is the reason why the kingdom was commonly called "the house of David."

irenaeus »

Mon Apr 28, 2008 9:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

O4H,

Matthew Henry makes the connection between Is 22:22 and Matt 16:19-20.

irenaeus »

Mon Apr 28, 2008 9:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

O4H,

“It is interesting to me that throughout our discussions you have continually asserted the need for a “bishop” or “head priest” to interpret and expound scripture; however, you clearly do not understand the role and purpose of the Holy Spirit.”

On the contrary, the scripture asserts the need for authoritative leadership also – not just me. Also, I do understand the role of the Holy Spirit? Perhaps it is you who does not. Again, if two men of goodwill and faith disagree upon a fundamental doctrinal teaching with both of them appealing to scripture and the Holy Spirit’s guidance to help them arrive at their conclusion, which one, if any, is correct?

“No; you speak as if the epistles that were acquired were any different in content from the rest.”

What are you talking about? Of course they were (are) all different. Certainly, there is some overlap, but they are certainly differences – often time very different. In fact, if you are correct, then we only need one of them – not 13; after all, you speak as if the epistles that were acquired were of no difference in content from the others. This is demonstrably untrue.

irenaeus »

Mon Apr 28, 2008 9:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

O4H,

“You said the “gospel” is so much more; really? – “Jesus died for us, and if we believe in Him, we can be saved” – that is the gospel.”

Not all of it. What about the creation of the new man as part of the gospel? What about our adoptions a sons with our spirit crying out to God, “Abba!” The good news is not merely the remission of our sins. It’s much more than that; it’s our sanctification, justification, and ultimate glorification. It’s being transformed by the renewing of our minds. It’s much more than our acquittal before a judge; it’s our being brought into the family of God through adoption. It’s much more than what we are saved from; it’s also what we are saved for. None of these truths are taught in Jn 3:16.

irenaeus »

Mon Apr 28, 2008 9:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

O4H,

“Making a parallel comparison between Eliakim and Peter to support the supposition of a “universal priest/bishop/steward/prime minister/office” is lacking; where is this title/position/person mentioned in the New Testament?”

The person and position are mentioned in Matt 16:19 – again, remove the 2000-years removed western culture mindset and think as a first century Jew. The title may not be mentioned for similar reasons as Jesus is not referred to as King Jesus, Son of David, or ruler over the house of Jacob in this passage. The concept is clearly there; do not get hung up on whether the explicit word or phrase is present or not. The terms ‘Trinity’, ‘hypostasis’, or ‘incarnation’ are nowhere to be found either, but the concepts are.

irenaeus »

Mon Apr 28, 2008 9:22 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

O4H,

“The multiple independent sources themselves also need to be evaluated; for example, there have been instances where I have quoted catholic sources during our discussions and you dismissed their comments as unreliable for various reasons, specifically mentioning on one occasion that so and so was an ex-catholic.”

I don’t recall dismissing any authoritative Catholic source, and certainly a source coming from an ex-catholic is not a ‘catholic’ source.

“So, I too can likewise dismiss certain sources such as Schofield who held to aberrant doctrinal positions in my opinion and I can also dismiss various non-Catholic Bibles for similar reasons. I guess the topic of Bible translations can be discussed at another time, my point is that “ALL” independent sources cannot be accepted at face value.”

The point is very different here. I told you that I DID evaluate the sources, which is precisely why I knew that I did not just stumble upon some aberrant idea or an isolated incident. I am talking about renowned theologians who make the connection between Matt 16:19-20 and Is 22:22, such as F.F. Bruce, W.F. Albright, C.S. Mann, etc. Even John Calvin made the connection in his commentary on Isaiah (who incidentally spoke explicitly that Eliakim was not a type of Christ in this same commentary).

Online4Him »

Mon Apr 28, 2008 1:38 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

The argument of when the epistles actually reached all the churches and needing a “bishop” in order understand them are two separate discussions.

One’s sound understanding of scripture can be attributed to a careful analysis of reading them in their “CONTEXT” and by the continual guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Online4Him »

Mon Apr 28, 2008 1:38 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

And there ran a young man, and told Moses, and said, Eldad and Medad do prophesy in the camp.

And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Moses, one of his young men, answered and said, My lord Moses, forbid them.

And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the LORD'S people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them! – Numbers 11:25-29.

The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit – John 3:8.


But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him – 1John 1:27.

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his – Romans 8:9.

If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself – John 7:17.

“But wait, wouldn’t they need them ALL for the sake of sufficiency?”

No; you speak as if the epistles that were acquired were any different in content from the rest. The same Holy Spirit that delivered the former also delivered the same message in those that followed. There was NO gap in their authoritative teaching as you assert; to say the church was not “NECESSASRILY” receiving nor reading the epistles is most presumptuous. The epistles that followed were compared to the overall message contained in the OT, along with the ones already in possession.

Online4Him »

Mon Apr 28, 2008 1:38 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

You said the “gospel” is so much more; really? – “Jesus died for us, and if we believe in Him, we can be saved” – that is the gospel! I know that the scriptures declare much more but the “gospel” is exactly what you declared, give me another “BIBLICAL” definition of the “gospel/good news.” Let’s see how Paul defined the gospel –

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: - 1Corinthians 15:1-3.

Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed – verse 11.

As far as expounding the scriptures:

It is interesting to me that throughout our discussions you have continually asserted the need for a “bishop” or “head priest” to interpret and expound scripture; however, you clearly do not understand the role and purpose of the Holy Spirit. It is “HE” that truly moves through the “PRIESTHOOD” of “ALL” believers. It is “HE” who Jesus said would come and teach us all things; Have you not read the following passages?

And the LORD came down in a cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy elders: and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease.

But there remained two of the men in the camp, the name of the one was Eldad, and the name of the other Medad: and the spirit rested upon them; and they were of them that were written, but went not out unto the tabernacle: and they prophesied in the camp.

Online4Him »

Mon Apr 28, 2008 1:37 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Irenaeus,

“I was not arguing for the accuracy and trustworthiness of the NIV as a translation. I was referring to the study notes provided in my various non-Catholic Bibles. And I agree that the study notes should be read with a grain of salt, but when multiple independent sources make the same cross-reference, then I would call into question your posturing to dismiss it so readily.”

The multiple independent sources themselves also need to be evaluated; for example, there have been instances where I have quoted catholic sources during our discussions and you dismissed their comments as unreliable for various reasons, specifically mentioning on one occasion that so and so was an ex-catholic. So, I too can likewise dismiss certain sources such as Schofield who held to aberrant doctrinal positions in my opinion and I can also dismiss various non-Catholic Bibles for similar reasons. I guess the topic of Bible translations can be discussed at another time, my point is that “ALL” independent sources cannot be accepted at face value.

“It says in Isaiah that authority was given over to Eliakim, that he is to be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah, that the key of the house of David is laid upon his shoulders… How many people under the Davidic king ever held this position simultaneously? Was the king not king of his kingdom? Would not the authority delegated to his prime minister be to his delegate alone? Who else fathered the people and held the keys of authority?”

Making a parallel comparison between Eliakim and Peter to support the supposition of a “universal priest/bishop/steward/prime minister/office” is lacking; where is this title/position/person mentioned in the New Testament? As I mentioned earlier, Paul who wrote 13 of the 27 books of the NT and says absolutely nothing of this office, John who wrote 5 books of the NT and says absolutely nothing of this office and Peter’s own 2 epistles say absolutely nothing. You cannot take one passage of scripture and build an entire papal system which is not even mentioned throughout the NT.

“But the scriptures need to be expounded, explained, interpreted correctly in order to be properly understood and applied for faith and practice. Two men of goodwill and faith who come to opposing views on some doctrinal point necessitates that at least one, if not both, is incorrect in his teaching. The gospel is so much more than that Jesus died for us, and if we believe in Him, we can be saved – as great and important as that is. If that were all that were needed for the sake of ‘sufficiency,’ then Jn 3:16 would be the totality of the gospel, and all the other thousands of NT verses would be unnecessary.”

irenaeus »

Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 4

O4H,

“Sorry, using Eliakim to support a “universal priest” in the New Testament is again, highly ingenious, but the connection cannot be made.”

First, I never said anything about a "universal priest." Chief steward or prime minister is more accurate. Listen, Matt 16:19 tells us that Jesus delegated the keys to Peter. Now this verse strongly parallels Is 22:19-22 and denotes a couple of things: first, keys symbolize AUTHORITY given to the chief steward (prime minister, vizier, etc) and second, the office implies dynastic succession since one is being vacated from the office and another to take his place. Note Is 22:19-22 where the keys of the Davidic kingdom are being delegated to the chief steward. The chief steward is to act in the authority of the king in the king’s absence until he returns. The king never relinquishes his authority; he merely delegates it to another in his absence. In the same way, Jesus (being a King of the line of David) delegated his authority to Peter to act as chief steward in His absence. Jesus never relinquishes His authority; He merely delegates it to another (Peter) in His absence until He returns. Secondly, the office of prime minister, or chief steward, was a successive office and would REMAIN SO as long as the Davidic Kingdom continued. Therefore, Peter’s office, that of being chief steward or prime minister, would be one of succession. The kings office was successive BY VIRTUE OF LINEAGE; the prime minister’s office was successive BY APPOINTMENT. Since Jesus resumes the kingship of the Davidic kingdom, then Jesus is allowed to delegate authority to a prime minister in his absence (as was the prerogative of the Davidic kings).

irenaeus »

Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

O4H,

“With that being said, that is why for me, the scriptures are sufficient in themselves to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

But the scriptures need to be expounded, explained, interpreted correctly in order to be properly understood and applied for faith and practice. Two men of goodwill and faith who come to opposing views on some doctrinal point necessitates that at least one, if not both, is incorrect in his teaching. The gospel is so much more than that Jesus died for us, and if we believe in Him, we can be saved – as great and important as that is. If that were all that were needed for the sake of ‘sufficiency,’ then Jn 3:16 would be the totality of the gospel, and all the other thousands of NT verses would be unnecessary.

“To say that the New Testament epistles were not circulating when the apostles were still alive is presumptuous.”

But wait, wouldn’t they need them ALL for the sake of sufficiency? Otherwise, there would be a gap in their authoritative teaching that they received? To say that ALL the New Testament epistles were circulating when the apostles were still alive is more presumptuous. Certainly, early on the epistles were not necessarily treated as circular letters, so the other churches were not even receiving, much less reading, these other letters. And specifically with your reference to Thessalonians, these were among Paul’s earliest letters, so had ALL the other epistles of Paul been treated as circular letters would be irrelevant to the Thessalonians at the time of Paul writing to them since these otheres were not even yet written.

irenaeus »

Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

O4H,

“Study notes must always be read with a grain of salt, they do not supersede the scriptures themselves. The NIV is not even a translation – word for word; it is intended to give a thought for thought paraphrase of what is being said – it is a poor one at that.”

I was not arguing for the accuracy and trustworthiness of the NIV as a translation. I was referring to the study notes provided in my various non-Catholic Bibles. And I agree that the study notes should be read with a grain of salt, but when multiple independent sources make the same cross-reference, then I would call into question your posturing to dismiss it so readily.

“Sorry, using Eliakim to support a “universal priest” in the New Testament is again, highly ingenious, but the connection cannot be made.”

It says in Isaiah that authority was given over to Eliakim, that he is to be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah, that the key of the house of David is laid upon his shoulders… How many people under the Davidic king ever held this position simultaneously? Was the king not king of his kingdom? Would not the authority delegated to his prime minister be to his delegate alone? Who else fathered the people and held the keys of authority?

irenaeus »

Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 4

leapfrog,

“You make it sound like their authority was Peter already as the Pope. I always took it as the people like Paul who would travel to them and give them the good news. Surely they would have written down the things that Paul said to them. Ultimately though Jesus Himself would be their authority as He is ours.”

Yes, Peter, and the Twelve, as well as the other leaders that were already in place were the authority. And Paul, too. Yes, Jesus was the ultimate authority, but His authority had been delegated to the apostles, who in turn had appointed other leaders. But look, they were trusting that all these men in authority were teaching in communion with one another. And when there arose a dispute and confusion over some teaching, such as with the Judaizers for example requiring Gentile converts to Christianity be circumcised, they didn’t merely go to the scriptures to determine what was the truth. They took it to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. In fact, it is not even recorded that the apostles and elders ever appealed to the scriptures when ultimately resolving the issue.

Online4Him »

Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:01 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 0

The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit – John 3:8.

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him – 1John 1:27.

“AMEN! I agree. So what was Paul’s solution since these churches at the time of Paul’s writings did not have the NT scriptures. What was to be their authority?”

To say that the New Testament epistles were not circulating when the apostles were still alive is presumptuous. Paul specifically told the Thessalonians not to be trouble by any word or LETTER that they had supposedly received – 2Thessalonians 2:2. Do a word such on the word “letter or letters” and you will see that they were being circulated – 2Corinthians 7:8, 10:9, 10, 11, Galatians 6:11, Hebrews 13:22, etc.

Paul continually “commended” believers to the “Word” and to the “Lord” – Acts 20:32, 1Thessalonians 2:13, & -

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works – 2Timothy 3:15-17.

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart – Hebrews 4:12.

Online4Him »

Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:00 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 0

Irenaeus,

“Equating Isaiah 22 with Matthew 16 is highly ingenious but theologically and biblically inaccurate - According to who? O4H?”

Of course not, but through the entire testimony of the scriptures themselves; see – Isaiah 8:20, 28:10, John 10:35.

Study notes must always be read with a grain of salt, they do not supersede the scriptures themselves. The NIV is not even a translation – word for word; it is intended to give a thought for thought paraphrase of what is being said – it is a poor one at that. The NIV has many deficiencies in that it “omits” many passages from the original texts. As for the Schofield reference bible, well, he was one of many who accepted and promulgated the newly eschatological view of futurism. Not a good reference source for me.

Sorry, using Eliakim to support a “universal priest” in the New Testament is again, highly ingenious, but the connection cannot be made.

“No one ever claimed that they were "apostles" in the proper sense nor that they were infallible.”

With that being said, that is why for me, the scriptures are sufficient in themselves to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ.

“The same way the church does now. The bishops teaching in communion with the bishop of Rome is one way it is ensured.”

No, it is ensured by the only person that is explicitly named - the Holy Spirit; who is the one that Jesus said would come in his name to “teach” and “guide” believers.

Wilderness1 »

Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:42 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH is a Visible Church --a society existing among men and instituted by God, and worshipping Him with external observances which have been developed into a complex ritual. (The Visible Church by Rev. John F. Sullivan, D.D.)

Let us reason out of the scriptures, as was Paul’s manner (Acts 17:2).

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. John 4:24

But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 2Co 11:3

leapfrog »

Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:58 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

Irenaeus,

You make it sound like their authority was Peter already as the Pope. I always took it as the people like Paul who would travel to them and give them the good news. Surely they would have written down the things that Paul said to them. Ultimately though Jesus Himself would be their authority as He is ours.

irenaeus »

Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:56 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 3

O4H,

“With that said, not only can apostasy take place, it is prophesied to take place -

Paul actually warned the early church of men who would “arise” from the “bishops or elders” of the church and draw away disciples after them. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified – Acts 20:29-32.”

AMEN! I agree. So what was Paul’s solution since these churches at the time of Paul’s writings did not have the NT scriptures. What was to be their authority?

irenaeus »

Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:55 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

O4H,

“[I]t is one thing to say that the Apostles made PROVISION for leadership in the churches once they were gone and quite another to say that those so commissioned were to function AS IF they THEMSELVES were APOSTLES, that the successors of the Apostles would possess the same infallible doctrinal AUTHORITY as did the Apostles themselves.”

No one ever claimed that they were "apostles" in the proper sense nor that they were infallible.

“Given the fact that heretical teachers can and have risen within the Church, from within the very hierarchical eldership, how can Rome honestly maintain that her hierarchical succession is somehow proof that her doctrines are apostolic in origin?”

The same way the church does now. The bishops teaching in communion with the bishop of Rome is one way it is ensured. When a bishop teaches something that is not in concert with catholic and apostolic teaching, it is pointed out that he has departed from this teaching. We have a reference point from which to measure; scripture and apostolic tradition. If a bishop wants to proclaim that Jesus is not God Incarnate, he is not correct merely by virtue of him being a bishop.

irenaeus »

Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:54 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

O4H,

“Equating Isaiah 22 with Matthew 16 is highly ingenious but theologically and biblically inaccurate.”

According to who? O4H? Many Biblical scholars make the connection between Matt 16:19 and Is 22:22 – even many non-Catholic Christian scholars. Several of my KJV and NIV study bibles make this connection in the footnotes and cross-references; even my Schofield Reference Bible makes this cross-reference.

“The phrase is rather figurative for sustaining the government on one’s shoulders. Eliakim, as his name implies, is here plainly a type of the God-man Christ, the son of “David,” of whom Isaiah (Isaiah 9:6) uses the same language as the former clause of this verse. In Rev. 3:7, the same language as the latter clause is found (compare Job 12:14).”

King Hezekiah was the son of David; Eliakim was his chief steward or prime minister. King Hezekiah possessed the keys of the kingdom and the government were upon his shoulders; this is precisely the reason why he had the authority to delegate them to Eliakim. They belong to Hezekiah by right and virtue of his kingship; they ONLY belong to Eliakim by virtue of delegation. Similarly, the keys belong to Jesus by right and virtue of his kingship; they ONLY belong to Peter by virtue of delegation.

Online4Him »

Sat Apr 26, 2008 1:58 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

With that said, not only can apostasy take place, it is prophesied to take place -

Paul actually warned the early church of men who would “arise” from the “bishops or elders” of the church and draw away disciples after them. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.


Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified – Acts 20:29-32.

Paul also gives a similar warning in 2Thessalonians 2:2-12.

The only sure depository of absolute truth can found in the scriptures alone – God’s Word. So, since the New Testament is absolutely silent regarding the office of an absolute “universal bishop” – it should not be accepted.

Jesus said, “Scripture cannot be broken” – John 10:35.

Online4Him »

Sat Apr 26, 2008 1:58 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

“. . . NOT necessarily the first episcopos of Rome.”

Clement: “How then, some men ask, can Clement in his, letter to James say that Peter passed over to him his position as a church-teacher? The explanation of this point, as I understand, is as follows. LINUS AND CLETUS WERE, NO DOUBT, “BISHOPS IN THE CITY OF ROME BEFORE CLEMENT, BUT THIS WAS IN PETER’S LIFE-TIME.” (St. Clement, Addressed to Bishop Baudentis, from the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol lll. Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series: Volume III)

Now, it is beyond question that the Fathers believed that there was a succession of teachers from the apostles--that the apostles commissioned men to lead the churches in their stead. Nevertheless, it is one thing to say that the Apostles made PROVISION for leadership in the churches once they were gone and quite another to say that those so commissioned were to function AS IF they THEMSELVES were APOSTLES, that the successors of the Apostles would possess the same infallible doctrinal AUTHORITY as did the Apostles themselves.”

NOTE: My intentions of quoting the church fathers in NOT promote their writings nor do I believe everything they wrote but to demonstrate that they have not ALL agreed with one another on various topics and thereby excluding themselves as the final source authority.

There is a statement by Irenaeus’ in his - Against Heresies – which we you should consider:

“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.”

Given the fact that heretical teachers can and have risen within the Church, from within the very hierarchical eldership, how can Rome honestly maintain that her hierarchical succession is somehow proof that her doctrines are apostolic in origin?

Online4Him »

Sat Apr 26, 2008 1:57 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

Irenaeus,

“So tell me, as a Protestant, why can you accept this arrangement within the Davidic Kingdom of the OT as demonstrated in Is 22, but not accept this arrangement of the reconstituted kingdom of David in the NT?”

Equating Isaiah 22 with Matthew 16 is highly ingenious but theologically and biblically inaccurate. Isaiah 22 is referring to Shebna whose irreligious faction disregarded the prophet’s (Isaiah’s) warnings and was replaced by Eliakim.

Isaiah 22:22 – “And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; So he shall open, and none shall shut; And he shall shut, and none shall open.”

Key — emblem of his office over the house; to “open” or “shut”; access rested with him. The phrase is rather figurative for sustaining the government on one’s shoulders. Eliakim, as his name implies, is here plainly a type of the God-man Christ, the son of “David,” of whom Isaiah (Isaiah 9:6) uses the same language as the former clause of this verse. In Rev. 3:7, the same language as the latter clause is found (compare Job 12:14).

To equate these two chapters to establish a reconstituted kingdom of David in the papacy is wishful thinking. Jesus explicitly says that the “Comforter which is the Holy Ghost” was to come in his name –

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you – John 14:26.

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you – John 16:7.

He also said;

And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you – Luke 17:20, 21.

irenaeus »

Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:26 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

O4H,

Again, Linus was the first successor to the episcopacy of Rome, not necessarily the first bishop as if he were not the successor of Peter.

"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Irenaeus - Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

"Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]" (Eusebius of Caesarea - Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).

irenaeus »

Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:19 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

O4H,

“Iraeneus: “The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric . . . . . (Source: Iraeneus Against Heresies, Volume I, Book III, Para 3).”

Notice that INTO THE HANDS OF LINUS WAS COMMITTED THE OFFICE OF THE EPISCOPATE. You are missing that Linus was the first SUCCESSOR to the episcopate of Rome, NOT necessarily the first episcopos of Rome. It is stated that the episcopate was handed over to Linus. Was it at that point that the office was created, or if it existed prior who occupied it before Linus? The office of ‘pope’ is tied to the successor of Peter who happened to be the bishop of Rome. Of course, Catholics would profess that Peter was still the first pope while he was bishop of Antioch. It could be that your confusion is with the term ‘bishop,’ since it could be argued that Linus was the first bishop, not that Peter was not a bishop, but that Peter was an apostle (and Linus was not).

“So, how could Linus be bishop of Rome while Peter was still alive if Peter was the first bishop of Rome? Papal succession occurs after a pope’s death right? Also, if Linus was bishop of Rome while Peter was alive, that would mean that Linus, not even an apostle, had Papal supremacy over both Peter and Paul – two living apostles.”

Linus was ordained to succeed Peter, AFTER Peter dies. Clement makes mention of this in general regarding all the early leaders of the church when he states, “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]).