Mary Ann Collins (A Former Catholic Nun)

Hi John,

How Can you imitator Christ but though the pages of His word the Bible?

Christ continues to live in his saints as he santifies his Bride, and saints become living images of Jesus Christ.

It come though God Word Not a man made system like the RC system.

If Jesus is God and if Jesus formed the 12 apostles at his side during his public ministry, then it wasn't a mere man who reconstituted and renewed Israel by building the Church upon the apostles who were given Jesus' authority.

We have something better We have God's word The Bible which pre-dates the RC system.

The Church pre-dates the New Testament. The Church was alive and running for more than two decades before a drop of ink was spilt to pen one page of the New Testament.

Salvation though completed work of God's Son Jesus Christ.

That, my brother, is Catholic dogma.

 

Hi John,

Jesus disclose to us that God is our Father. Children have direct access to their fathers. They don't need to approach them through intermediaries. Our Heavenly Father listen our prayers because He loves us and because we are His children.

I couldn't agree with you more on every point you just made.

The Bible does not speak about a special classification of especially holy people who are called saints. In the New Testament every Christian believer is called a saint. The Catholic Church has a special group of people which it calls saints. This is wrong for several reasons.

The Church, in canonizing saints (Christians), is pointing out our older brothers and sisters in the faith who have run the race successfully. Catholics certainly recognize that we are saints here on Earth.

Only God has the right, wisdom and the knowledge to properly judge people.

You are correct, yet we can tell from a particular individual's fruit whether or not they are in Heaven. If you read Chapter 11 of Hebrews, you will discover that what is a problem for you wasn't a problem for the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

The Bible says that God does not have special favorites. He listens to the prayers of everybody who loves Him.

I agree.

And, the Bible tells us "The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects" (James 5:16).

Those who are in heaven are completely righteous. They have been made completely holy. They no longer sin. Their will is completely conformed to the divine will.

You never find the RC system or the Pope in the Bible.

Oh yes you do! Jesus Christ came to restore the Davidic Kingdom as the Davidic King, and he established the office of prime minister to his kingdom in Matthew 16:16-19.

I encourage you to read the Biblical exposition I wrote at http://carson.boerne.com/catholic/kingdom_ecclesiology.html that shows how the RC System and the Pope are in the Bible!

You do not see it in history till the 3rd century.

Then you haven't read early Church historians, nor have you read the primary sources.

The Bishop and Theologian Irenaeus of Lyons wrote in his famous work against the Gnostics, Adversus Haereses in the 2nd century:

"True knowledge is that which consists in the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor suffering curtailment in the truths which she believes; and it consists in reading the word of God without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and above all, it consists in the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts of God" (4:33:8).

We find that God has thoroughly furnished us with all we need to do his work in the Bible. We don't need the RC system.

Where do you think you got the Bible from? Why do you accept Hebrews, 2 Peter, and the Book of Revelation as Scripture when these texts were rejected as non-canonical, uninspired, and not apostolic by many churches in Early Christianity? Why do you reject the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Apocalypse of Peter, when these texts were accepted as canonical, inspired, and apostolic by many churches in Early Christianity?

Why, then, do you follow Pope Damasus I's decision at the Council of Rome in 382 to accept the former 3 texts and reject the latter 3 texts from the Bible?

Everytime you quote from the New Testament, you rely upon the authority and work of the RC System, whether you acknowledge it or not, and this presents an inherent problem for you.

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

And Paul was referring explicitly to the Old Testament in this passage, so if you are to say that no more revelation was given to the Apostles by which we are to follow than what Paul mentions here (advocating Sola Scriptura), then you are asking to have your cake and eat it too.. for you must then reject the New Testament, which wasn't in the purview of Paul when he wrote this passage. He is referring to those Scriptures that Timothy knew from his childhood. Read the passage in context.

Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

If you do an in-depth and comprehensive study of the Book of Romans (as I have done a number of times), you will see that Paul is presenting a carefully laid-out case against the Judaizers in showing that the ergon nomon ("works of law"; see Rom 3:28; a standard expression for those ceremonial rites that distinguished Jew from Gentile) do not justify but rather, living a life of faithfulness justifies, and this is applicable to both Jew and Gentile. This is the "obedience of faith" that begins and closes Romans (See Romans 1:5; 16:26).

By quoting Romans 4:5, you have shot your own argument in the foot because it presupposes Romans 4:3, which quotes Genesis 15:6. If Abraham was justified only once in time due to an act of faith in Genesis 15:6, then you must admit that Abraham was not justified between Genesis 12:1-15:5.

But, Scripture tells us that "By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to reeive as an inheritance; he went out, not knowing where he was to go." (Hebrews 11:8).

Paul's point, in Romans 4, is not that one act of faith precludes a life of filial obedience to the Father. Far from it! Rather, Paul is demonstrating that Abraham's righteous standing before God was not due to the ceremonial rite of circumcision under the Mosaic Law (Look at Romans 4:10: "Under what circumstances was it credited? Was he circumcised or not? He was not circumcised, but uncircumcised.") but rather to a living faith in the living God.

 

Is it God who saves us and takes us to Heaven or an ecclesiastical system of religion?

It is belief alone that saves the soul and prepares it for everlasting life. [John 3:16] When you truly believe 'good works' must follow faith in Jesus, but living the Christian life correctly at all times does not insure our final salvation. In this case, it is something that we do that keeps us in His graces. No human being contributes to his or her final salvation and Heaven. God does all the work; we cannot even lift up one foot toward Heaven that will secure a home in Heaven. We must trust in Jesus alone and for all things connected with eternal life.

 

Hi John,

I read your paper. Way too many errors to deal with at one time. But very well written.

I'm glad that you read my term paper for Theological Foundations. Thank you for the compliment.

I hope you don't mind if I deal with you one topic at a time.

No, I do not, and please do not be offended if I take a while to respond at any point. My workload is large and my free time is scarce.

The topic of Brother Peter. When he was given the key to the kingdom of heaven (I hope to go over at a later date what those keys where) You do not find in a single spot in the Bible someone would get the keys after him.

Your argument is based upon the premise that if we do not see someone getting the keys after Peter in the pages of the canonical New Testament then Peter's office as Prime Minister does not continue. This premise is invalid.

It is invalid for two main reasons. First, the office of vizier automatically implies succession of office. For a first-century Palestinian Jew, when Matthew writes of Peter confessing that Jesus is King (that's what Christos means as "anointed" and the prerogative of "son of God" was the Davidic King's in the OT; See 2 Sam 7; Pss 2 & 89) and then the King then declares that individual to be the vizier of his kingdom by using the metaphor of the keys of the kingdom, succession is wholly involved because Jesus is establishing an office, and early Church history confirms this as we see the successors of St. Peter carefully enumerated by the early Christians.

The same Irenaeus as above records in Book 3, Chapter 3, Article 3 of the same work:

"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. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. 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. Sorer 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."

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

Second, the historical timeline of the Gospels and Luke's Acts of the Apostles does not extend past Peter's death, so we necessarily have to look outside the canon of Scripture as the timeline of salvation history continues in the life of the Church to see what indeed did happen.

As a matter of fact after his death you see Christ come back and talk to Brother John in revelations and deal with the seven churches and never goes though Rome.

The title of John's text is not "revelations" (plural). It's "revelation" (singular) from the Greek word apocalypsis, which literally means "unveiling" as a bride was unveiled at a Jewish marriage celebration. Scholars have seen this title as implying that John is describing the nuptual wedding banquet of the lamb when he consummates the marriage with his Bride, the Church, in eternity.

And I don't see how your quote below supports a pope system.

It witnesses to the fact that in 180 A.D., the Catholic Church was 1. universal - i.e., throughout the world, 2. distinguished by the apostolic succession of each bishop from the original twelve apostles and 3. unified in doctrine.

Your novel, particularized, and sectarian churches in the Corpus Christi area hardly resemble the early Christian Church that Jesus Christ established. They aren't catholic; they aren't apostolic; and they are sectarian. In fact, they're not even churches. They're orphanages that house the lost sheep that have been stolen from the care of the Lord's appointed shepherds.

 

Not being familiar with the term "vizier", I did a search on Encarta and found it curious that the term applies to Egyptian, Muslim and Oriental societies of the time. I couldn't find a single application of the office in the Jewish society.

Why would Christ use a governmental form in his own kindgom that emulated the heathens around them?

 

Carson by stating this then you are basically saying that Paul of his own will and knowledge
wrote the portions of scripture that are credited to him. I understand your calling for context but I personally believe that the Holy Spirit led Paul's writings, Peter also declares this to be true so I am sure you will listen to him. If we can accept that the spirit is the true author and not merely a man then we also must accept that when Paul said all scripture what the spirit actually meant was All Scripture, meaning all scripture as we have it today. As has been preserved for our benefit by God Himself. Paul I am sure did not realize he was writing scripture but I hope that you can agree that the Holy Ghost knew exactly what He was doing.
Murph

 

2 Peter 3:1-2 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

Here Peter tells his readers to be mindful of the words that not only the prophets of the Old Testament spoke, but also of the Apostles and of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Whose words are authoritative and inspired? The prophets, the Apostles, and those of Christ. The words of the Apostles in the New Testament were held in just as great esteem as the word of the prophets that were already found in the Old Testament.
The Apostles knew by this time what many of the books were. Peter refers to the inspired Scriptures of Paul:

2 Peter 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Peter was very much aware of the epistles of Paul, and accounted them as Scripture. He seemed to know which ones were inspired and which ones were not, for Paul had written many epistles. It was the Holy Spirit of God directing the hands of the Apostles as they wrote the inspired words of God.
DHK

 

JustAsIAm,

You wrote, "the term [vizier] applies to Egyptian, Muslim and Oriental societies of the time. I couldn't find a single application of the office in the Jewish society. Why would Christ use a governmental form in his own kindgom that emulated the heathens around them?"

That is an excellent question. Vizier was the equivalent - in all practical terms - as a Prime Minister. Shebna' and Eliakim (See Isaiah 22:15-22) held this office under the Davidic King.

In the course of Salvation History, God writes history as men write words. He so directs the course of historical events so that those persons, places, events, and things of the Old Covenant serve as shadows or types of the realities in the New Covenant.

This event in Matthew 16 surrounding the discourse between Jesus and Peter, when placed against two particular Old Testament events, seems quite familiar. As Mark Twain said, history doesn't repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme.

The first event is that of Pharoah who appointed Joseph over his entire house (an idiom for dynasty) as chief vizier after Joseph was given a special revelation by God and revealed it to the King:

"So Pharaoh said to Joseph, 'Since God has shown you all this, there is none so discreet and wise as you are; You shall be over my house, and all my people shall order themselves as you command; only as regards the throne will I be greater than you.' And Pharaoh said to Joseph, 'Behold, I have set you over all the land of Egypt.'" (Gn 41:39-41).

The second event is that of when King Nebuchadnez'zar appointed Daniel as chief vizier over his Bablylonian empire after God had given a special revelation to Daniel and Daniel had revealed this to the King:

"The king said to Daniel, 'Truly, your God is God of gods and Lord of kings, and a revealer of mysteries, for you have been able to reveal this mystery.' Then the king gave Daniel high honors and many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief prefect over all the wise men of Babylon" (Dan 2:47-48).

With Jesus and Peter, the foretypes of Pharoah, Joseph, Nebuchadnez'zar and Daniel are fulfilled.

Jesus, the Davidic King, appoints Peter as the vizier over the Davidic Kingdom, the Church, after God reveals the mystery of Jesus' heavenly kingship to Peter and Peter reveals this mystery to the King in public.

In order for us to grasp the full meaning of the New Testament, we must be thoroughly schooled and well-read in the Old Testament. Without this knowledge of the Old, we cannot allow the New to be what it is.. to speak to us in full force as the New Testament authors meant for Scripture to do. We must become Semites in mind and heart by studying the Hebrew Scriptures in-depth in order to grasp the full import of Christian revelation.

 

Pastor Murphy,

It's good to see you on the board.

You wrote, "Carson by stating this then you are basically saying that Paul of his own will and knowledge wrote the portions of scripture that are credited to him."

Yes, you are correct. I do believe that Paul, of his own will and knowledge, wrote Scripture. And, while Paul was the instrumental author, the Holy Spirit was the primary author. I hold to dual authorship whereby there is no obstruction of the instrumentality of the human author as the Divine author writes inspired, inerrant Scripture. The human author truly writes in his own thoughts with his own style for his own purposes, and simultaneously, these actions are bound up with divine authorship. This is a mystery that we cannot comprehend; we can only submit our intellects in adoration of this great mystery wrought by God.

I do believe that Paul's statement is applicable to all Scripture, but not because Paul said it. I believe it due to the teaching of the Apostles that is not in Scripture. You see, Pastor Murphy, 2 Peter speaks of Paul's epistles as Scripture, but how do you know that 2 Peter is apostolic? Numerous churches throughout Early Christianity specifically excluded 2 Peter from their Bibles because it was considered uninspired, not apostolic, and spurious. The only way that we know that 2 Peter, much less any of the other NT writings are inspired Scripture is due to 1. the Apostlic Tradition of the Church as 2. canonized by the bishops who have such authority because they succeed the apostles in office. The canon you accept freely from the Catholic Church was decided at Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus I, and if this decision was without error, if our Bible doesn't include unspired texts and only inspired texts, then you must admit that the decision of the canon involved a decision under the charismatic gift of infallibility that the Holy Spirit gave to mere men centuries after Christ's ascension into heaven.

 

Carson,

Thanks for the info! You've given me additional insight into that scripture.

 

Hi JustAsIAm,

You're very welcome.

If you're interested in more information on this particular topic, I suggest this text:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0898707234/qid=1074699389/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-0623465-4555066?v=glance&s=books

 

Thanks Carson,

I'll take a look at that when I'm done grading papers! (I homeschool)

A Baptist and a Catholic being nice to each other! Better be careful, we could get banned from the board!

 

It's authentic ecumenism.

 

Hi John,

You wrote, "The first problem with that argument is that you never see Peter with the below office."

I refer you to my post above where I show that both Joseph and Daniel held the office of vizier and the direct parallels between their offices and that of Peter. Also, in the Davidic Kingdom, the parallel office to that of the vizier is the Prime Minister.
 
Second, it says in Revelation 3:7 that Christ has the key back at the time Revelation is written.

To have a key is a sign of authority, and when Jesus gives Peter the keys, he in no way relinquishes the keys himself. Rather, it is a share in Christ's authority, which remains sovereign. Jesus never stops being the King.
 
You would need to prove by God's word a succession to Peter.

And I've shown 1. that this is implied by the OT background to Jesus' words in Matthew 16:16-19 and 2. that the narrative of Acts does not go beyond Peter's death. When one of the apostles does die (Judas Iscariot), his bishoprick is empty and must be replaced (Acts 1:20).

Also, the gesture of the imposition of the hands was sued in the Old Testament to signify the transmission of authirty from Moses to Joshua (Nm 27:18-23; Dt 34:9). The early Christian community used it as a symbol of installment into an office: the Seven (Acts 6:6) and Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:3). See 1 Tim 5:14 - "Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate ... Attend to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in both tasks, for by doing so you will save both yourself and those who listen to you."

Notice that Timothy never wrote a word of Scripture and the only Scripture Timothy had at his hands - according to Paul - were those that Timothy knew from infancy (2 Tim 3:15), which is the Old Testament. Paul, after Timothy was ordained by the imposition of the hands, instructs the bishop Timothy to "guard what has been entrusted to you" (1 Tim 6:20).

In Scripture, we witness apostolic succession in the bishops and the transmission of the deposit of divine revelation through the teaching of these same bishops who were to guard this deposit of faith. The idea of sola Scriptura void of any apostolic teaching authority kept in existence through the laying on of the hands was foreign to Paul.

All you showed from your quotes from Irenaeus is that in 177 AD it was believed by the church at Rome that there was a line of pastors starting with Peter.

Irenaeus wasn't a pastor in Rome; he was a pastor in Gaul, and since Rome was the apostolic See that held primacy due to Peter and Paul's work there, he lists the line of successors at that particular bishoprick, though he claims that the apostolic succession could be traced in any part of the Church in his day, as it was a fundamental component of the Christian Church's very existence and orthodoxy.

It was not till about 170 A.D. that people began to teach that Peter had even been in Rome at all.

This is an Anti-Catholic myth that is easily dispelled.

The greeting at the end of the first epistle of Peter states: "The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God's election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet 5:13). Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way six times in the last book of the Bible and in extra-biblical works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that "It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon." Peter's being in Rome is in the New Testament.

Also, in his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.

The actual tomb of Peter has been identified conclusively, his remains were present, and in the vicinity of his tomb were inscriptions identifying the place as Peter’s burial site, meaning early Christians knew that the prince of the apostles was there. The story of how all this was determined, with scientific accuracy, is too long to recount here. It is discussed in detail in John Evangelist Walsh’s book, The Bones of St. Peter. It is enough to say that the historical and scientific evidence is such that no one willing to look at the facts with an open mind can doubt that Peter was in Rome. To deny that fact is to let prejudice override reason.