amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
Let every man , woman and child flee the CC .
Now let all that has breath praise the glorious LORD .
Now let all that has breath praise the glorious LORD .
Church councils?
- Thread starter theefaith
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
If you refuse to accept God's promises He would preserve His church until the end of time, how does your Catholic bashing obsession "praise the glorious Lord??? Paul wrote much about the end time persecution, but he never said His church would be overcome by evil. The Bible rules that out. You don't believe the Bible.
Matt. 16:18 – Jesus promises the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church. This requires that the Church teach infallibly. If the Church did not have the gift of infallibility, the gates of Hades and error would prevail. Also, since the Catholic Church was the only Church that existed up until the Reformation, those who follow the Protestant reformers call Christ a liar by saying that Hades did prevail.
The Biblical Church - Scripture CatholicRead more: https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/misc/a150-reasons-why-i-am-catholic-by-dave-armstrong/
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
Flee and go where? To your privatized relativistic individualized version of "church"? Why don't you tell us exactly where Catholics should flee to, that isn't a fundie ghetto? You have no church, no pastor, and no bishop, just another angry internet troll.
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
Flee and return to CHRIST and biblical sound doctrine . But FLEE that place and never once look back . I will continue to pray for you .
Youll find no such universal organization in the NT nor authority of anyone to bind anything on anyone, or things that aren't bound on Christians by the word of God. Church congregations are autonomous and self governing in accordance with the scriptures, abd the outline prescribed thereby, or at least they should be.
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
Independent Evangelical churches follow the Baptist Successionist idea that the early church was de-centralized. They like to imagine that the early Christians met in their homes for Bible study and prayer, and that in this pure form they existed independently of any central authority. It is easy to imagine that long ago in the ancient world transportation and communication was rare and difficult and that no form of centralized church authority could have existed even if it was desirable.
The most straightforward reading of the Acts of the Apostles shows this to be untrue, and a further reading of early church documents shows this to be no more than a back-projected invention. In the Acts of the Apostles what we find is a church that is immediately centralized in Jerusalem. When Peter has his disturbing vision in which God directs him to admit the Gentiles to the Church, he references back at once to the apostolic leadership in Jerusalem.(Acts 11:2)
The mission of the infant church was directed from Jerusalem, with Barnabas and Agabus being sent to Antioch (Acts 11:22,27) The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) was convened to decide on the Gentile decision and a letter of instruction was sent to the new churches in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. (Acts 15:23) We see Philip, John Mark, Barnabas and Paul traveling to and from Jerusalem and providing a teaching and disciplinary link from the new churches back to the centralized church in Jerusalem.
After the martyrdom of James the leadership shifts to Peter and Paul. The authority is not centered on Jerusalem, but through their epistles to the various churches, we see a centralized authority that is vested in Peter and Paul as apostles. This central authority was very soon focused on Rome, so that St Ignatius, a bishop of the church in Antioch would write to the Romans in the year 108 affirming that their church was the one that had the “superior place in love among the churches.’”
Historian Eamon Duffy suggests that the earliest leadership in the Roman church may have been more conciliar than monarchical because in his letter to the Corinthians, Clement of Rome doesn’t write as the Bishop of Rome, but even if this is so Duffy confirms that the early church believed Clement was the fourth Bishop of Rome and read Clement’s letter as support for centralized Roman authority. He also concedes that by the time of Irenaeus in the mid second century the centralizing role of the Bishop of Rome was already well established. From then on, citation after citation from the apostolic Fathers can be compiled to show that the whole church from Gaul to North Africa and from Syria to Spain affirm the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter and Paul.
The acceptance of this centralized authority was a sign of belonging to the one true church so that St Jerome could write to Pope Damasus in the mid 300s,
“I think it is my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul… My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!”
Was the Early Church Local and Congregational?
We find no evidence of a network of independent, local churches ruled democratically by individual congregations. Instead, from the beginning we find the churches ruled by elders (bishops) So in the New Testament we find the apostles appointing elders in the churches. (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5) The elders kept in touch with the apostles and with the elders of the other churches through travel and communication by epistle. (I Pt.1:1; 5:1) Anne Rice, the author of the Christ the Lord series of novels, points out how excellent and rapid the lines of communication and travel were in the Roman Empire.
In the early church we do not find independent congregations meeting on their own and determining their own affairs by reading the Bible. We have to remember that in the first two centuries there was no Bible as such for the canon of the New Testament had not yet been decided. Instead, from the earliest time we find churches ruled by the bishops and clergy whose authenticity is validated by their succession from the apostles. So Clement of Rome writes,
“Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on the question of the bishop’s office. Therefore for this reason… they appointed the aforesaid persons and later made further provision that if they should fall asleep other tested men should succeed to their ministry.”
Ignatius of Antioch in Syria writes letters to six different churches and instructs the Romans, “be submissive to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was to the Father and the Apostles to Christ…that there may be unity.”
This apostolic ministry was present in each city, but centralized in Rome. The idea of a church being independent, local and congregational is rejected. Thus, by the late second century Irenaeus writes,
“Those who wish to see the truth can observe in every church the tradition of the Apostles made manifest in the whole world…therefore we refute those who hold unauthorized assemblies…by pointing to the greatest and oldest church, a church known to all men, which was founded and established at Rome by the most renowned Apostles Peter and Paul…for this Church has the position of leadership and authority, and therefore every church, that is, the faithful everywhere must needs agree with the church at Rome for in her the apostolic tradition has ever been preserved by the faithful from all parts of the world.”
The Early Papacy - 2 - Fr. Dwight Longenecker
The reference to Isaiah 22 shows that the structure of Jesus’ kingdom was modeled on King David’s dynastic court. In Luke 1.32-33 Jesus’ birth is
www.patheos.com
Hebrews 13:1
17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.
Read full chapterHebrews 13:17 in all English translations
This verse does not have an expiry date.
Last edited:
There was in fact a council at Jerusalem because it was the only church and first church established but it had no power or authority over other congregations established elsewhere.
And the only early church writings that have any validity are the scriptures of the bible.
And you are contradicting yourself regarding local congregations. Elders/bishops whuch ate one in the same, are and were established to lead the local congregations. Your point makes no sense.
You can believe the secondary and tertiary writings if you like, but it's wise to believe and abide by the actual scriptures which do not support the idea of a church ruled by done central head.
There was nor is there a scriptural basis for a papacy and Peter was absolutely not the first so-called called pope that ruled over everyone. That's total nonsense and unscriptural. See my previous post on the subject of Peter not being the first pope.
And the only early church writings that have any validity are the scriptures of the bible.
And you are contradicting yourself regarding local congregations. Elders/bishops whuch ate one in the same, are and were established to lead the local congregations. Your point makes no sense.
You can believe the secondary and tertiary writings if you like, but it's wise to believe and abide by the actual scriptures which do not support the idea of a church ruled by done central head.
There was nor is there a scriptural basis for a papacy and Peter was absolutely not the first so-called called pope that ruled over everyone. That's total nonsense and unscriptural. See my previous post on the subject of Peter not being the first pope.
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
Then why did the Council send letters of its findings to Antioch? This is a denial of Acts 15.
22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.
Yes, and the validity of scriptures had to be proven, not just assumed. Scriptures have always been the primary source for doctrine. Your problem is trying to reconstruct early church history based on the Bible alone. It can't be done.
"a local congregation" independent from the institutional Church, is a fantasy, a back peddled invention, demolished with scriptural proof texts, in post #168 that you ignored. You claim the bishops had no unity in belief and practice. Without the unity of bishops, that you unbiblically claim did not exist, the church would have collapsed into an obscure cult and a mere footnote in the backwaters of history. You make no sense.
The Catholic doctrine of the papacy is biblically based, and is derived from the evident primacy of St. Peter among the apostles. Like all Christian doctrines, it has undergone development through the centuries, but it hasn’t departed from the essential components already existing in the leadership and prerogatives of St. Peter. These were given to him by our Lord Jesus Christ, acknowledged by his contemporaries, and accepted by the early Church. The biblical Petrine data is quite strong and convincing, by virtue of its cumulative weight, especially for those who are not hostile to the notion of the papacy from the outset. This is especially made clear with the assistance of biblical commentaries. The evidence of Holy Scripture (RSV) follows:
50 New Testament Proofs For Peter's Primacy & The Papacy
The papacy is derived from Peter's primacy among the apostles. It's essential components are revealed in the apostolic leadership of St. Peter.
www.patheos.com
Last edited:
The early church was a fledgling body and had to share documents and information as noted in letters of the NT whereby they were to be shared and read. Why? Because the scriptures as we know them today dud not exist, not that there was some central body set up to govern all. No different than why the miraculous gifts were manifested then but are no longer today. There was a need to grow and edify the early body of Christ.Then why did the Council send letters of its findings to all the churches? This is a denial of Acts 15.
22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.
Yes, and the validity of scriptures had to be proven, not just assumed. Scriptures have always been the primary source for doctrine. Your problem is trying to reconstruct early church history based on the Bible alone. It can't be done.
"a local congregation" independent from the institutional Church, is a fantasy, a back peddled projection, demolished with scriptural proof texts, in post #168 that you ignored. You claim the bishops had no unity in belief and practice. Without the unity of bishops, that you unbiblically claim did not exist, the church would have collapsed into an obscure cult and a mere footnote in the backwaters of history. You make no sense.
The Catholic doctrine of the papacy is biblically based, and is derived from the evident primacy of St. Peter among the apostles. Like all Christian doctrines, it has undergone development through the centuries, but it hasn’t departed from the essential components already existing in the leadership and prerogatives of St. Peter. These were given to him by our Lord Jesus Christ, acknowledged by his contemporaries, and accepted by the early Church. The biblical Petrine data is quite strong and convincing, by virtue of its cumulative weight, especially for those who are not hostile to the notion of the papacy from the outset. This is especially made clear with the assistance of biblical commentaries. The evidence of Holy Scripture (RSV) follows:
50 New Testament Proofs For Peter's Primacy & The Papacy
The papacy is derived from Peter's primacy among the apostles. It's essential components are revealed in the apostolic leadership of St. Peter.
And yes, Peter responded to the council of Jerusalem and did not rule over them as the head or so called pope.
The bible is the only guide with sufficient warnings in it in regards to adding to it or taking away from it. To follow documents that are not of the bible as you're suggesting must be done is doing exactly that: adding to or taking away from the word of God.
Space_Karen
Well-Known Member
Marymog
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,946
- 1,795
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Notice how much weight James places on Peter’s judgment in his ruling: “Brethren, listen to me. Symeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name” (Acts 15:13-14). James then cites Amos 9:11-12 in vv. 15-18 as verification of Peter’s decision:
The early church was only an universal organization, one church with the mindset of serving oneanother.
25 Bible verses about The Church Universal
A topical Bible which shows the most relevant Bible verse for each topic
bible.knowing-jesus.com
"DEFINITION
The universal church is a heavenly and eschatological assembly of everyone—past, present, and future—who belongs to Christ’s new covenant and kingdom. A local church is a mutually-affirming group of new covenant members and kingdom citizens, identified by regularly gathering together in Jesus’ name through preaching the gospel and celebrating the ordinances.
SUMMARY
The New Testament word translated into English as “church” (ekklesia) means assembly, and the New Testament envisions two kinds of assemblies: one in heaven and many on earth. These two kinds are the universal and local church, respectively. To become a Christian is to become a member of the universal church, whereby God raises us up with Christ and seats us in the heavenly place. Yet membership in the heavenly assembly must “show up” on earth, which Christians do by gathering together in the name of Christ through the preaching of the gospel and mutually affirming one another as belonging to him through the ordinances. The heavenly universal church, in other words, creates earthly local churches, which in turn display the universal church. Christians throughout history have sometimes emphasized the local or the universal church to the neglect of the other, but a biblical posture emphasizes both. Such a posture entails pursuing one’s individual discipleship in a local church, but a local church that partners with other churches."
The Church: Universal and Local - The Gospel Coalition
The universal church is a heavenly and eschatological assembly of everyone—past, present, and future—who belongs to Christ’s new covenant and kingdom.
www.thegospelcoalition.org
In short, Universal Church is the Body of Christ.
Link has popups where one can not read the text.Independent Evangelical churches follow the Baptist Successionist idea that the early church was de-centralized. They like to imagine that the early Christians met in their homes for Bible study and prayer, and that in this pure form they existed independently of any central authority. It is easy to imagine that long ago in the ancient world transportation and communication was rare and difficult and that no form of centralized church authority could have existed even if it was desirable.
The most straightforward reading of the Acts of the Apostles shows this to be untrue, and a further reading of early church documents shows this to be no more than a back-projected invention. In the Acts of the Apostles what we find is a church that is immediately centralized in Jerusalem. When Peter has his disturbing vision in which God directs him to admit the Gentiles to the Church, he references back at once to the apostolic leadership in Jerusalem.(Acts 11:2)
The mission of the infant church was directed from Jerusalem, with Barnabas and Agabus being sent to Antioch (Acts 11:22,27) The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) was convened to decide on the Gentile decision and a letter of instruction was sent to the new churches in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. (Acts 15:23) We see Philip, John Mark, Barnabas and Paul traveling to and from Jerusalem and providing a teaching and disciplinary link from the new churches back to the centralized church in Jerusalem.
After the martyrdom of James the leadership shifts to Peter and Paul. The authority is not centered on Jerusalem, but through their epistles to the various churches, we see a centralized authority that is vested in Peter and Paul as apostles. This central authority was very soon focused on Rome, so that St Ignatius, a bishop of the church in Antioch would write to the Romans in the year 108 affirming that their church was the one that had the “superior place in love among the churches.’”
Historian Eamon Duffy suggests that the earliest leadership in the Roman church may have been more conciliar than monarchical because in his letter to the Corinthians, Clement of Rome doesn’t write as the Bishop of Rome, but even if this is so Duffy confirms that the early church believed Clement was the fourth Bishop of Rome and read Clement’s letter as support for centralized Roman authority. He also concedes that by the time of Irenaeus in the mid second century the centralizing role of the Bishop of Rome was already well established. From then on, citation after citation from the apostolic Fathers can be compiled to show that the whole church from Gaul to North Africa and from Syria to Spain affirm the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter and Paul.
The acceptance of this centralized authority was a sign of belonging to the one true church so that St Jerome could write to Pope Damasus in the mid 300s,
“I think it is my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul… My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!”
Was the Early Church Local and Congregational?
We find no evidence of a network of independent, local churches ruled democratically by individual congregations. Instead, from the beginning we find the churches ruled by elders (bishops) So in the New Testament we find the apostles appointing elders in the churches. (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5) The elders kept in touch with the apostles and with the elders of the other churches through travel and communication by epistle. (I Pt.1:1; 5:1) Anne Rice, the author of the Christ the Lord series of novels, points out how excellent and rapid the lines of communication and travel were in the Roman Empire.
In the early church we do not find independent congregations meeting on their own and determining their own affairs by reading the Bible. We have to remember that in the first two centuries there was no Bible as such for the canon of the New Testament had not yet been decided. Instead, from the earliest time we find churches ruled by the bishops and clergy whose authenticity is validated by their succession from the apostles. So Clement of Rome writes,
“Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on the question of the bishop’s office. Therefore for this reason… they appointed the aforesaid persons and later made further provision that if they should fall asleep other tested men should succeed to their ministry.”Ignatius of Antioch in Syria writes letters to six different churches and instructs the Romans,
“be submissive to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was to the Father and the Apostles to Christ…that there may be unity.”
This apostolic ministry was present in each city, but centralized in Rome. The idea of a church being independent, local and congregational is rejected. Thus, by the late second century Irenaeus writes,
“Those who wish to see the truth can observe in every church the tradition of the Apostles made manifest in the whole world…therefore we refute those who hold unauthorized assemblies…by pointing to the greatest and oldest church, a church known to all men, which was founded and established at Rome by the most renowned Apostles Peter and Paul…for this Church has the position of leadership and authority, and therefore every church, that is, the faithful everywhere must needs agree with the church at Rome for in her the apostolic tradition has ever been preserved by the faithful from all parts of the world.”The Early Papacy - 2 - Fr. Dwight Longenecker
The reference to Isaiah 22 shows that the structure of Jesus’ kingdom was modeled on King David’s dynastic court. In Luke 1.32-33 Jesus’ birth isHebrews 13:1
17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.
Read full chapter
Hebrews 13:17 in all English translations
This verse does not have an expiry date.
Isaiah 22
A Warning to Shebna
15 The Sovereign Lord Almighty told me to go to Shebna, the manager of the royal household, and say to him, 16 “Who do you think you are? What right do you have to carve a tomb for yourself out of the rocky hillside? 17 You may be important, but the Lord will pick you up and throw you away. 18 He will pick you up like a ball and throw you into a much larger country. You will die there beside the chariots you were so proud of. You are a disgrace to your master's household. 19 The Lord will remove you from office and bring you down from your high position.”
20 The Lord said to Shebna, “When that happens, I will send for my servant Eliakim son of Hilkiah. 21 I will put your official robe and belt on him and give him all the authority you have had. He will be like a father to the people of Jerusalem and Judah. 22 I will give him complete authority under the king, the descendant of David. He will have the keys of office; what he opens, no one will shut, and what he shuts, no one will open. 23 I will fasten him firmly in place like a peg, and he will be a source of honor to his whole family.
24 “But all his relatives and dependents will become a burden to him. They will hang on him like pots and bowls hanging from a peg! 25 When that happens, the peg that was firmly fastened will pull loose and fall. And that will be the end of everything that was hanging on it.” The Lord has spoken.
Since the Catholic Church still exists today, this text does not apply to the Papacy.
Acts 15
The Letter to the Gentile Believers
22 Then the apostles and the elders, together with the whole church, decided to choose some men from the group and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose two men who were highly respected by the believers, Judas, called Barsabbas, and Silas, 23 and they sent the following letter by them:
“We, the apostles and the elders, your brothers, send greetings to all our brothers of Gentile birth who live in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. 24 We have heard that some who went from our group have troubled and upset you by what they said; they had not, however, received any instruction from us. 25 And so we have met together and have all agreed to choose some messengers and send them to you. They will go with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul, 26 who have risked their lives in the service of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We send you, then, Judas and Silas, who will tell you in person the same things we are writing. 28 The Holy Spirit and we have agreed not to put any other burden on you besides these necessary rules: 29 eat no food that has been offered to idols; eat no blood; eat no animal that has been strangled; and keep yourselves from sexual immorality. You will do well if you take care not to do these things. With our best wishes.”
30 The messengers were sent off and went to Antioch, where they gathered the whole group of believers and gave them the letter. 31 When the people read it, they were filled with joy by the message of encouragement. 32 Judas and Silas, who were themselves prophets, spoke a long time with them, giving them courage and strength. 33 After spending some time there, they were sent off in peace by the believers and went back to those who had sent them. 34 [a]
35 Paul and Barnabas spent some time in Antioch, and together with many others they taught and preached the word of the Lord.
To me, this sounds like a council having authority over other churches. The Churches in the area of Antioch meet together as a group to hear the letter read. Note: I am a historical Christian, not a Catholic.
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
And how has that been working so far???
(1) Miracles are defined as: instances where events happen in such close temporal proximity and in logical connection to religious evocation, such as prayer; said events stand out from what we understand to be the set course of nature; said events cannot be explained through any known natural agency; said events create religious affections in the lives of those connected with them.
(2) Miracles are perceived to be interventions or influences of Supernature upon the lower sphere of nature.
(3) Thousands of such examples have been documented in modern times.
(4) When and if such occurrences affect the life of a believer, the believer is then justified in assuming that some supernatural effect has occurred
(5) If a supernatural effect happens, it is assumed that God works such an effect
(6) Such effects have occurred, therefore, the believer is justified in such a belief.
(7) A justified belief in the action of God is a justification for a rational belief in God. Therefore, the real first hand experience of this type of event, or the credible confidence in such documented cases justifies a rational warrant for belief.
Which of the following is taken directly from Scripture?
"...when James stood up, all fell silent..."
"...when Peter stood up, all fell silent..."
That's absurd. Historical documents of the early church were never considered to be on par with the word of God. That's a straw man fallacy. It's not that you are dishonest, it's because you have been trained to think such fallacies.
Many prominent Protestant scholars and historians agree that, for the early Church, Scripture and Tradition freely coexisted and were not in the least mutually exclusive. (0) While the early Church Fathers constantly assert the supreme authority of the Bible, they do not oppose the Scriptures to the Church, which had for them a necessary practical priority. In this way they are much nearer in spirit to the continuous Catholic view than to the classic Protestant outlook. Protestant polemicists tend to impose upon the early Church categories of thought which have only been prevalent from the 16th century to the present time. This is a common error, since everyone has their preconceived notions which they would like to see substantiated.
In the late first century, the Didache speaks of Tradition as something "received," reflecting the biblical language of St. Paul. (1)
In the second century St. Polycarp (2) and St. Irenaeus (3) reiterate this teaching more explicitly, and speak of apostolic succession.
Tertullian (4) and St. Hippolytus (5) expand upon this understanding in the early third century. And Origen states,
That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and Apostolic Tradition. (6)
In the fourth century, St. Basil the Great, (7) St. Gregory of Nyssa, (8) and St. Epiphanius inform us that dogmas of the Church are received both from written and oral sources, or the "tradition of the Apostles," and that, as in St. Epiphanius' words, "not everything can be gotten from Sacred Scripture." (9)
In the early fifth century, St. John Chrysostom, whom many consider the greatest preacher who ever lived, cites 2 Thessalonians 2:15 (examined above) and concludes from it that,
. . . there was much also that was not written. Like that which is written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the Tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. (10)
In the same period, St. Augustine - the greatest of all the Fathers and highly regarded by Luther, Calvin and most Protestants - clearly teaches that there exists a Tradition of the Church which is extrascriptural (11) and, in some cases, not even yet dealt with in ecumenical Councils. (12) For example, he mentions the rebaptism of heretics and schismatics as a practice which is contrary to apostolic Tradition, even though the matter had not been written about.
He opposes rebaptism (over against the Donatist heresy) because it is not in accordance with the practice "kept by the whole Church everywhere and handed down by the Apostles themselves." (13) Thus, for St. Augustine, the authority of the Church, derived from apostolic Tradition, is normative and final. This is exactly the opposite of the Protestant view, which regards Scripture as somehow the final arbiter (even though it still has to be interpreted by someone authoritatively).
Read more: https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/church-fathers/the-witness-of-the-church-fathers-with-regard-to-catholic-distinctives/
You will have to demonstrate where exactly the consensus of the ECF violates or contradicts scripture. You can't because that would require study. Pontification is easy, research is hard.
Last edited:
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
The cc has you all decieved . Even pual had to rebuke peter . THERE was no one man who sat over them all .
Each apostle was an equal . JUST LIKE JESUS said . Ye shall not rule over , lord over , OOPS the CC seems to have forgot that one
as it has for centuries had folks kissing rings of popes and giving flattering tiltes such as MOST HOLY REVERAND , MOST HOLY FATHER
Pard , LEARN JESUS . cause titles like that BELONG ONLY TO GOD , NOT MAN . These dopes fooled folks into
serving THEM . PETER rebuked cornelious for trying to kneel before him
but yalls popes would have said HOLD ON TILL I PUT ON MY RING AND SIT IN A CHAIR THEN KISS MY RING AND CALL ME MOST REVERAND . That place has sucked the life out of so many souls its truly countless .
But i have come to do all to point to CHRIST . My desire is good for you , LIFE for you , so i beg you to flee that hole and fast .
Its deadly and dangerous .
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
Then why did the Council send letters of its findings to all the churches? This is a denial of Acts 15.
22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.
Yes, and the validity of scriptures had to be proven, not just assumed. Scriptures have always been the primary source for doctrine. Your problem is trying to reconstruct early church history based on the Bible alone. It can't be done.
"a local congregation" independent from the institutional Church, is a fantasy, a back peddled projection, demolished with scriptural proof texts, in post #168 that you ignored. You claim the bishops had no unity in belief and practice. Without the unity of bishops, that you unbiblically claim did not exist, the church would have collapsed into an obscure cult and a mere footnote in the backwaters of history. You make no sense.
The Catholic doctrine of the papacy is biblically based, and is derived from the evident primacy of St. Peter among the apostles. Like all Christian doctrines, it has undergone development through the centuries, but it hasn’t departed from the essential components already existing in the leadership and prerogatives of St. Peter. These were given to him by our Lord Jesus Christ, acknowledged by his contemporaries, and accepted by the early Church. The biblical Petrine data is quite strong and convincing, by virtue of its cumulative weight, especially for those who are not hostile to the notion of the papacy from the outset. This is especially made clear with the assistance of biblical commentaries. The evidence of Holy Scripture (RSV) follows:
50 NEW TESTAMENT PROOFS FOR PAPACY by Dave Armstrong - THE SPLENDOR OF THE CHURCH
thesplendorofthechurch.com
He first and foremost doesn't understand Mat 16:18. These are not proofs or validity. Read my previous detailed posting on this very subject of Peter, Mat 16. etc.. here is my response to his skewed view of this subject. This is a repost of an OP of mine posted here and elsewhere, so it may be familiar to some who may have previously seen a d read it.
Peter NOT the 1st pope: Analysis Matthew 16 - Peter and the keys of the kingdom
Matthew 16 analysis - Peter being the first so-called pope and provided with the keys of the kingdom
Matthew 16:15-19 - Catholics erroneously use these verses, and primarily verse 19, as rationale and justification for claiming Peter was established thereby as the first pope. However, when you read and study these scriptures closely along with others related thereto, you clearly find that is not the case nor is the logic sound.
When linked with Matthew 18:18, Acts 2, Acts 10, and Acts 11, you get the complete and true understanding of the aforementioned Matthew 16 verses. Note Matthew 16:15-19 below:
15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Establishment of the church, the earthly kingdom - First of all in the above scripture, notice it says "keys of the kingdom of heaven" and not "to the kingdom of heaven" which is of significance and often glossed-over by most, with "to" being superimposed for “of”. The word "of" means, 'origin', 'connected to', 'belonging to', from' or "pertaining to', whereas 'to' infers 'direction', 'going toward' or 'entry into'; "to" therefore would imply entry into the kingdom whereas "of" would imply the keys are not for entry, but rather, originating from, for, or emanating and/or coming from the kingdom; the origin of the keys being the kingdom of heaven.
Peter was entrusted with the "keys of the kingdom of heaven”, not 'keys to’ the kingdom of heaven or simply for the means of entry into it, and was empowered or sanctioned by heaven as confirmed by the Holy Ghost (Acts 2 and 10), with authority to bind his actions as well. The same words almost verbatim are used in Matthew 18:18-19, providing all of the Lord's disciples with authority likewise to bind on earth, however the reasons were different for this authority which excluded the "keys of the kingdom", and the authority was provided to all the disciples (ye, in the original Greek) as opposed to just Peter (thee per the original Greek) in Matthew 16.
When you consider or link Matthew 16 as relates to Peter and "the keys of the kingdom" with the book of Acts, you find that Peter was the one responsible for establishing the church, the earthly kingdom, first amongst the Jews at Jerusalem (Acts2), and then amongst the Gentiles commencing with the conversion of Cornelius (Acts 10), which action he then defended to the council at Jerusalem in Acts 11. Peter being the one that established the early church, is therefore validation of Matthew 16 and the Lord’s unique statement to him, creating the setting and providing him with the opportunity, wherewithal, and confirmation by heaven via the Holy Ghost to do so (collectively, “the keys”). Note too, that the Holy Ghost falling on individuals uniquely as it did on both occasions, were the only times recorded in the bible for such happening in the manner it did. Both events, that of Acts 2 and Acts 10, were done with heavenly power and authority as noted above, since in both cases, the Holy Ghost demonstrated said power and authority by its physical presence, falling on individuals in both cases as a sign to those present, giving validity to, and substantiation from heaven of Peter’s actions, consistent with the use of the word “of” in Matthew 16:19.
The rock - In Matthew 16:18, it's obvious that Peter isn't the rock but rather Christ is, since he is recognized as being the chief cornerstone and/or foundation per the scriptures (Ephesians 2:20, Psalm 118:22-23, Isaiah 28:16, Matthew 21:42-44, 1Cor 3:11, Acts 4:11). Also, Peter in Greek is 'Petros' Πέτρος or Cephas, [masculine gender in the Greek meaning a stone or boulder (Strong's), or rock, individual stone, more insecure or moveable], and the “rock” in Matthew 16:18 is “petra”, πέτρα (feminine gender in the Greek), being rock, cliff, solid formation, solid foundation, bedrock, large rock formation, immoveable and enduring. Also, the church is referred to as being the “bride”, “chaste virgin”, “her” (feminine), etc., and Christ being the bridegroom, which further substantiates the use of “petra” rather than “petros”. If Christ's intent was to build his church upon Peter, why wouldn't he have said "and upon you I will build my church", or “upon petros, or you, Petros I will build my church” and not "upon this rock" (petra)? Also note that if Peter was established as the so-called first pope and head of the church (as erroneously claimed by Catholics), 1. Why did the Lord say “get thee behind me Satan” to him in Matthew 16:23? and 2. Why did the disciples quarrel amongst themselves (Luke 9:46) as to who would be the greatest among them, which occurred AFTER Peter’s statement as to who Jesus was (Luke 9:20 and parallel verse Mat 16:16)? and 3. Why was there contention between Peter and Paul as recorded in Acts 15:2 and Gal 2:11-14 if Peter was the head of the church? and 4. Why did the council at Jerusalem send Peter and John to Samaria (Acts8:14) if Peter was the head of the church, yet taking direction from the council at Jerusalem? Also note that no man (in a religious sense, Mat 23:8-9), is to be called father on earth, yet the pope is commonly referred to as the “Holy Father”. And too, Christ is the head of the church which is his body, not Peter (Eph 5:23, Col 1:18)
Peter NOT the 1st pope: Analysis Matthew 16 - Peter and the keys of the kingdom
Matthew 16 analysis - Peter being the first so-called pope and provided with the keys of the kingdom
Matthew 16:15-19 - Catholics erroneously use these verses, and primarily verse 19, as rationale and justification for claiming Peter was established thereby as the first pope. However, when you read and study these scriptures closely along with others related thereto, you clearly find that is not the case nor is the logic sound.
When linked with Matthew 18:18, Acts 2, Acts 10, and Acts 11, you get the complete and true understanding of the aforementioned Matthew 16 verses. Note Matthew 16:15-19 below:
15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Establishment of the church, the earthly kingdom - First of all in the above scripture, notice it says "keys of the kingdom of heaven" and not "to the kingdom of heaven" which is of significance and often glossed-over by most, with "to" being superimposed for “of”. The word "of" means, 'origin', 'connected to', 'belonging to', from' or "pertaining to', whereas 'to' infers 'direction', 'going toward' or 'entry into'; "to" therefore would imply entry into the kingdom whereas "of" would imply the keys are not for entry, but rather, originating from, for, or emanating and/or coming from the kingdom; the origin of the keys being the kingdom of heaven.
Peter was entrusted with the "keys of the kingdom of heaven”, not 'keys to’ the kingdom of heaven or simply for the means of entry into it, and was empowered or sanctioned by heaven as confirmed by the Holy Ghost (Acts 2 and 10), with authority to bind his actions as well. The same words almost verbatim are used in Matthew 18:18-19, providing all of the Lord's disciples with authority likewise to bind on earth, however the reasons were different for this authority which excluded the "keys of the kingdom", and the authority was provided to all the disciples (ye, in the original Greek) as opposed to just Peter (thee per the original Greek) in Matthew 16.
When you consider or link Matthew 16 as relates to Peter and "the keys of the kingdom" with the book of Acts, you find that Peter was the one responsible for establishing the church, the earthly kingdom, first amongst the Jews at Jerusalem (Acts2), and then amongst the Gentiles commencing with the conversion of Cornelius (Acts 10), which action he then defended to the council at Jerusalem in Acts 11. Peter being the one that established the early church, is therefore validation of Matthew 16 and the Lord’s unique statement to him, creating the setting and providing him with the opportunity, wherewithal, and confirmation by heaven via the Holy Ghost to do so (collectively, “the keys”). Note too, that the Holy Ghost falling on individuals uniquely as it did on both occasions, were the only times recorded in the bible for such happening in the manner it did. Both events, that of Acts 2 and Acts 10, were done with heavenly power and authority as noted above, since in both cases, the Holy Ghost demonstrated said power and authority by its physical presence, falling on individuals in both cases as a sign to those present, giving validity to, and substantiation from heaven of Peter’s actions, consistent with the use of the word “of” in Matthew 16:19.
The rock - In Matthew 16:18, it's obvious that Peter isn't the rock but rather Christ is, since he is recognized as being the chief cornerstone and/or foundation per the scriptures (Ephesians 2:20, Psalm 118:22-23, Isaiah 28:16, Matthew 21:42-44, 1Cor 3:11, Acts 4:11). Also, Peter in Greek is 'Petros' Πέτρος or Cephas, [masculine gender in the Greek meaning a stone or boulder (Strong's), or rock, individual stone, more insecure or moveable], and the “rock” in Matthew 16:18 is “petra”, πέτρα (feminine gender in the Greek), being rock, cliff, solid formation, solid foundation, bedrock, large rock formation, immoveable and enduring. Also, the church is referred to as being the “bride”, “chaste virgin”, “her” (feminine), etc., and Christ being the bridegroom, which further substantiates the use of “petra” rather than “petros”. If Christ's intent was to build his church upon Peter, why wouldn't he have said "and upon you I will build my church", or “upon petros, or you, Petros I will build my church” and not "upon this rock" (petra)? Also note that if Peter was established as the so-called first pope and head of the church (as erroneously claimed by Catholics), 1. Why did the Lord say “get thee behind me Satan” to him in Matthew 16:23? and 2. Why did the disciples quarrel amongst themselves (Luke 9:46) as to who would be the greatest among them, which occurred AFTER Peter’s statement as to who Jesus was (Luke 9:20 and parallel verse Mat 16:16)? and 3. Why was there contention between Peter and Paul as recorded in Acts 15:2 and Gal 2:11-14 if Peter was the head of the church? and 4. Why did the council at Jerusalem send Peter and John to Samaria (Acts8:14) if Peter was the head of the church, yet taking direction from the council at Jerusalem? Also note that no man (in a religious sense, Mat 23:8-9), is to be called father on earth, yet the pope is commonly referred to as the “Holy Father”. And too, Christ is the head of the church which is his body, not Peter (Eph 5:23, Col 1:18)
