Do Guarding Angels exist?

[JonC]

We all accept that the Bible has Authority, but it cannot be the only Authority, because it is at the point of interpretation in truth that the Bible expresses its full Authority or it is nullified by wrongful interpretations.

I disagree. There were many practices and interpretations that differed in the Apostilic churches. They did not hold the same doctrines. This is especially clear if you look at the churches of Jerusalem, Corinth and Rome.

But interpretation was not an issue because they were united in Christ and the differences were not about foundational doctrines.

We do not need to interpret most passages, as they speak for themselves. The problem is reading one's philosophy or worldview into Scripture.

That, BTW, is how the Catholic Church came to be, centuries after the New Testament Church had been established. When Rome mandated Christianity as their official religion Romans carried their paganism into the faith. Catholicism today is an amalgamation of Christianity and paganism.

We can see this in how they view the Lord's Supper. There are differences within Protestant denominations but no difference that divorces itself from Scripture (I do not mean Transubstantiation but the role of the rememberance). We certainly see this in its idolatry, and praying to people who have passed on.

But God's words are His words. They need application more than interpretation.

 

[Cathode]

I can appreciate this and in such a spirit, we may continue to have reasonable and substantive dialogue.

According to Catholic rationale, Luther was a priest ordained through apostolic succession was he not? Not that I believe this but according to my understanding, this is the core basis of Roman Catholic ecclesiology.

Korah was a priest as well, but he broke unity from Moses disputing God’s word against God’s chosen authority the same as Luther. The new covenant mimics the old.

In fact many at the time remarked that this was the new rebellion of Korah played out in the new covenant church.

The incredible similarities between the rebellion of Korah and Dathan and Luther and Calvin is truly amazing, even down to their words and reasoning.
There truly is nothing new under the sun.

Korah and Dathan were the Protestants of the Old Covenant, they used God’s word to attack God’s chosen Authority, Moses.
They accused Moses of lording it over them and that they could all worship in their own way.
The Chair of Peter suffered the same unjust attack as the Chair of Moses.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

Korah was a priest as well, but he broke unity from Moses disputing God’s word against God’s chosen authority the same as Luther. The new covenant mimics the old.

In fact many at the time remarked that this was the new rebellion of Korah played out in the new covenant church.

The incredible similarities between the rebellion of Korah and Dathan and Luther and Calvin is truly amazing, even down to their words and reasoning.
There truly is nothing new under the sun.

Korah and Dathan were the Protestants of the Old Covenant, they used God’s word to attack God’s chosen Authority, Moses.
They accused Moses of lording it over them and that they could all worship in their own way.
The Chair of Peter suffered the same unjust attack as the Chair of Moses.

I guess we see this from differing perspectives. Korah, Dathan, and Abiram were tyrants usurping the authority of Moses. Perhaps if they were not dealt with in the manner which they were, they would've risen up showing themselves to be such tyrants as did the later scribes, pharisees, and other religious leaders of Jesus's day and such serves as the perfect illustration as to what the Roman Catholic Church had become in Luther's day.

The Roman Catholic Magestirium has been usurping their authority over the true authority laid down by the apostles and prophets: the authority and sufficiency of the Scriptures! As JonC has stated, the scriptures generally need no "interpretation" unless perhaps you are trying them to make them say something else aside from what has been said. No one gets to do this and Martin Luther himself warned explicitly against such "Private Interpretations."

The scriptures belong to the church and the church is the pillar and ground of the truth. What we must do though is properly define who and what is the church. The church is the "ekklesia," the "called out body of the faithful of Jesus Christ" and it is to them of whom the scriptures have been given and its is to them of which God has given the indwelling Holy Spirit which teaches all things.

 

[Ben1445]

Korah was a priest as well, but he broke unity from Moses disputing God’s word against God’s chosen authority the same as Luther. The new covenant mimics the old.

In fact many at the time remarked that this was the new rebellion of Korah played out in the new covenant church.

The incredible similarities between the rebellion of Korah and Dathan and Luther and Calvin is truly amazing, even down to their words and reasoning.
There truly is nothing new under the sun.

Korah and Dathan were the Protestants of the Old Covenant, they used God’s word to attack God’s chosen Authority, Moses.
They accused Moses of lording it over them and that they could all worship in their own way.
The Chair of Peter suffered the same unjust attack as the Chair of Moses.

And consequently, Peter is still waiting outside the gate for losing his temper in the garden. Viewed the promised land from cloud Pisgah and was doomed to keep the gate without getting in. The parallels are remarkable.

 

[Cathode]

That Peter was a leader among the apostles is undeniable. What is clear though is that he was never an "Overseer" over the other apostles and Jesus made this quite clear right after he charged Peter to "Feed his sheep."

Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. (Jn 21:20-22)

At the very most, he was a "First among equals" and a frequent "spokesperson" during the early apostolic era.

There is scant evidence that Peter was the one who founded the Church of Rome or even that he spent any significant time to be their "Bishop" but that is neither here nor there. This is of little consequence to me but means EVERYTHING to someone trying to make the case that the Roman Catholic Church is the "One True Church" that Jesus founded in Mt 16.

The bishop of Rome was regarded by other bishops (Patriarchates) as being "First among equals" based upon a traditional understanding that Peter was ultimately the bishop of Rome as well as the fact that the bishop of Rome was closes to the political power and center of the Roman Empire. When the Roman Empire was divided and Constantinople became the political center, the Bishop of Rome rose in prominence to fill this political vacuum and this was pretty much where the modern papacy emerged. The Bishop of Constantinople requested of Pope Gregory that the two would be considered as equals but Gregory refused and insisted upon the primacy of the bishop of Rome which, among other things, led to the great schism of 1054. The primacy of the pope has never been universally accepted by the church and papal infallibility was purely a Roman Catholic invention later on.

These are cold, hard facts. Check your history.

False. Look at what the heads of Constantinople said long before 1054.


“If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God ...Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692). Maximus the Confessor Constantinople 650 Ad


“And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren ...and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, 'How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,' this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world. (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii) John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387)


John VI, Patriarch of Constantinople (715)

The Pope of Rome, the head of the Christian priesthood, whom in Peter, the Lord commanded to confirm his brethren. (John VI, Epist. ad Constantin. Pap. ad. Combefis, Auctuar. Bibl. P.P. Graec.tom. ii. p. 211, seq.)

St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828)

Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usuage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles. (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).

St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826)

Writing to Pope Leo III:
Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven. (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

I did check my history, I quote the patriarchs of Constantinople themselves and it’s greatest scholars long before 1054 and surprise surprise they all refer to the Apostolic See of Peter in Rome as supreme Head of all the Churches.

 

[Cathode]

And consequently, Peter is still waiting outside the gate for losing his temper in the garden. Viewed the promised land from cloud Pisgah and was doomed to keep the gate without getting in. The parallels are remarkable.

In the early Church the Chair of Peter was seen as the Covenantal succession of the Chair of Moses.

St. Macarius of Egypt (371)

The Chief, Peter. (Macarius, De Patientia, n. 3, p. 180)

Moses was succeeded by Peter, who had committed to his hands the new Church of Christ, and the true priesthood. (Macarius, Hom. xxvi. n. 23, p. 101)

The Seat of Moses was a governing Office as the Seat of Peter was a governing Office.

Just as matters were resolved with Moses has spoken, in the old covenant. In the new covenant it was resolved with, Peter has spoken.

Not only could Councils not be called without the consent of the Chair of Peter, no Council was concluded without the review and ruling of the Chair of Peter. All the Churches waited for rescripts from the Apostolic See in Rome.

So God appointed a supreme Head to Govern Israel in the Old Testament Moses. God appointed a Supreme Head to Govern His Church in the New Testament, Peter.

“And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.” Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256)

 

[Cathode]

Korah and Luther’s rebellion was the same rebellion in different Covenants.

The sacerdotal unity remained in Moses as the sacerdotal unity remained in Peter.

Both sneered and decried the headship of Moses and Peter.
We don’t need Moses lording it over us, God said we are all a holy people a nation of priests, we can make our own offerings and worship.

We don’t need a pope of Rome lording it over us, we have Gods word, we are all a priesthood of believers and can worship how we want.

Both raged against God’s appointed Authority citing God’s word and both worshipped as they decided.
Both painted their rebellions as holy virtue.

 

[Ben1445]

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;


O one between God and each man, except Christ. Not popes. Not angels. Not sleeping saints. Not living saints.

 

[Cathode]

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;


O one between God and each man, except Christ. Not popes. Not angels. Not sleeping saints. Not living saints.

There was one mediator on the Cross, this is what is being referred to.
Jesus established His mediatorship in His Apostles.

“ He who listens to you, listens to me “

“ He who rejects you, rejects me “

“ Whose sins you forgive are forgiven “

“ Whose sins you retain are retained “

“ What you bind on earth, will be bound in heaven “

“ What you loose on earth, shall be loosed in Heaven “

Jesus sent the Apostles with all the Authority the Father sent Him with.

“ As the Father sent me, so am I now sending you “

The Apostles and their successors are the government of Christ on earth.

 

[Cathode]

I don’t know what steaming piles of prejudice you guys dug into for your narratives, but it’s not church history.

I’m quoting a small sample, and that’s just from some of Constantinoples patriarchs and scholars, there is far more from many other patriarchates and bishoprics.

 

[Cathode]

Anyway, the patriarch of Constantinople Michael I, defied not only the Pope, but all preceding bishops and scholars of Constantinople.

As Maximus the Confessor stated it very clearly hundreds of years earlier in 650 Ad

“the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world.”