Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
Peter The Rock
- Thread starter Mungo
- Start date
Acts 15:7
Spiritual blindness falls upon all those who reject Christ!
This extends to and includes His church and His revelation!
The Jews rejected (killed) Christ and are in spiritual blindness!
Saul went down to Damascus a Jew and came back a Christian!
He went down in pride and came back in humility!
He went down thinking he was acting righteously and doing the will of God and came back in true righteousness and doing God’s will!
He went down a spiritual tyrant and came back a servant!
He went down in rebellion as a Protestant opposing Christ and His holy church and came back an obedient, faithful, Christian!
Who do you suppose he met on his way down to Damascus?
Martin Luther?
This extends to and includes His church and His revelation!
The Jews rejected (killed) Christ and are in spiritual blindness!
Saul went down to Damascus a Jew and came back a Christian!
He went down in pride and came back in humility!
He went down thinking he was acting righteously and doing the will of God and came back in true righteousness and doing God’s will!
He went down a spiritual tyrant and came back a servant!
He went down in rebellion as a Protestant opposing Christ and His holy church and came back an obedient, faithful, Christian!
Who do you suppose he met on his way down to Damascus?
Martin Luther?
the reason Catholic traditions are called traditions are because they aren't found in scripture...the Catholic Church has added to scripture and has insisted that those additions are to be believed. Nothing that you have provided suggests that those additions are divinely inspired.
Martin Luther was at least trying to follow the person Saul/Paul met (and hoped to reform a very corrupt church)...Also, please note that Saul/Paul didn't meet any Catholic popes either (and a number of them were much more interested in wine, women, power and wealth than in following Jesus). Luther was far from perfect and no where near infallible, but he was a much better successor to the apostles than many of your popes and no more fallible than any one of them..
Iconoclast
Member
Of course you are correct. Jesus is the only Rock we need.
Iconoclast
Member
Yes...this is tragic. Many are deceived by these fabricated traditions. They remain in the dark.
(The Lord) is Yahwah, our Father, the Holy Spirit.
Yahshua is the STONE that the builder rejected.
Stone
Zechariah 3:9
See, the stone I have set in front of Joshua! There are seven eyes on that one stone, and I will engrave an inscription on it,' says the LORD Almighty, 'and I will remove the sin of this land in a single day.
Matthew 21:42
Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: " 'The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone ; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes' ?
Matthew 21:44
He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed."
Mark 12:10
Haven't you read this scripture: " 'The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone ;
Luke 20:17
Jesus looked directly at them and asked, "Then what is the meaning of that which is written: " 'The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone ' ?
Luke 20:18
Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed."
Acts 4:11
He is " 'the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone. '
Romans 9:33
As it is written: "See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a stone that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."
1 Peter 2:4
[ The Living Stone and a Chosen People ] As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him—
1 Peter 2:6
For in Scripture it says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."
1 Peter 2:7
Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone, "
1 Peter 2:8
and, "A stone that causes men to stumble and a stone that makes them fall." They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.
Daniel 2:34
While you were watching, a stone was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and smashed them.
This comment in 1 Corinthians 10:4 is not found in Old Testament scriptures.
1 Corinthians 10:4
and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that Rock was Christ.
WYC
and all drank the same spiritual drink; and they drank of the spiritual stone following them [forsooth they drank of the spiritual stone following them]; and the stone was Christ.
Stone is formed from rock
A rock is large and a stone is small. Stone is formed from a rock. There is one bible that uses stone. Also the Old Testament says that Yahwah is The Rock.
Mungo
Member
Nothing from the early church history?
The following is from the first two centuries.
The Didache, possibly as early as 70AD:
"Elect for yourselves, therefore, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, humble men and not lovers of money, truthful and proven; for they also serve you in the ministry of the prophets and teachers. Do not, therefore, despise them for they are honorable men." (15:1 [A.D. 140, possibly as early at A.D. 70]).
Pope Clement writing to the Corinthians in about AD 80:
"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."
Ignatius of Antioch
"Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me." (Epistle to the Magnesians 6:1 [A.D. 110]).
Ignatius of Antioch
"Take care, therefore, to be confirmed in the decrees of the Lord and of the apostles, in order that in everything you do, you may prosper in body and soul, in faith and love, in Son and in Father and in Spirit, in beginning and in end, together with your most reverend bishop; and with that fittingly woven spiritual crown, the presbytery; and with the deacons, men of God. Be subject to the bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ was subject to the Father, and the apostles were subject to Christ and to the Father, so that there may be unity in both body and spirit" (Epistle to the Magnesians 13:1-2 [A.D. 110]).
Irenaeus
"It is necessary to obey those who are the presbyters in the Church, those who, as we have shown, have succession from the apostles; those who have received, with the succession of the episcopate, the sure charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. But the rest, who have no part in the primitive succession and assemble wheresoever they will, must be held in suspicion" (Against Heresies 4:26 [A.D. 180]).
Here is another good quote from Irenaeus in Against Heresies. Note particularly where I have emboldened the text.
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2
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…..To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. (Against Heresies 3:3:3[A.D. 189])
Mungo
Member
There is a difference between Sacred Tradition, shortened to Tradition with a capital "T", and tradition with a small "t". When Catholics refer to Tradition (with a capital "T") they do not mean those human customs and practices that arise and may change or disappear over time but to that apostolic teaching which has been passed on orally.
Protestants tend to regard Tradition as some dubious add on to the Bible. But as all teaching was initially oral it is more correct to see the Bible as a product of Tradition.
Paul wrote "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth [Tradition] or by letter [Scripture]." (2Thess 2:15).
Thank you for your response. Please remember that when Sullivan is considering the form of apostolic succession advanced by Catholicism, he is talking about a simplistic form that possesses these 2 main features:
- A succession of monarchical bishops
- That go all the way back to an apostle (Peter in the case of the bishop of Rome)
having the assembly elect overseers and deacons for itself is something that a Protestant congregation could do and does not need to involve apostolic succession in any way. Also, “bishops” is in the plural.
You list this as being from “Pope” Clement, but it is now understood that Clement probably served as a sort of secretary for the Roman church. See the Shepherd of Hermas (8.3 = vis. 2.4.3) There a Clement is mentioned who has the job of a secretary. Further, when the Church of Rome sent this Epistle (1st Clement) to Corinth, the letter described the church at Corinth as being governed by a group of presbyters. There is no suggestion at all that Rome was any different…the author (Clement) never spoke for himself but wrote on behalf of the entire church at Rome. As such, it appears that Clement wasn’t a pope, but was one of several presbyters who acted as the leaders of that church. The author of the epistle never claims anything approaching papal authority.
Finally, Clement uses 4 terms to describe the leaders of a church…all in the plural every time. As such, although 1st Clement contemplates a succession of church leaders from the apostles, the successors for a church would be a group of presbyters and not a monarchical bishop. Main feature #1 (above) is therefore missing from 1st Clement.
It is clear that Ignatius was very concerned about stressing the importance of obedience to the bishop. Two things regarding that: First, Ignatius never once urges obedience on the basis that the bishop was the successor of the apostles, even though such a basis would be extremely useful for his purpose. Second, he never stresses obedience to the bishop in the letter to the Romans even though obedience to the bishop of Rome would be of even greater importance, if that bishop was, in fact, also the pope. So in Ignatius, although one can find the first feature (monarchical bishop) one does not find the idea that the bishop derived his authority via apostolic succession. Rather the bishop received his authority directly from God (Sullivan p. 125)
So then, Clement is missing the first feature and Ignatius is missing the second feature, but by the time of Irenaeus both features are present. That the concept is present around 185 AD, however, is not sufficient to establish apostolic succession as 'an unbroken line of episcopal ordination from Christ through the apostles down through the centuries to the bishops of today.'
Mungo
Member
Interesting but I'm not going to pursue this any further here for two reasons:
1. This thread is about Peter the Rock not apostolic succession or a monarchical Papacy. I should have stopped this earlier. Taking off into different topics is why threads go on and on, sometimes to hundreds of posts.
2. There are really two distinct topics here - apostolic succession in general (including that of bishops) and the monarchical Papacy.
I would be happy to discuss them, particularly the latter, in separate threads. Doing that would also alert others who may wish to enter the discussion.
thanks, I will watch for you to initiate a thread
Really an excommunicated heretic and Rosicrucian occultist?
Mungo
Member