Are the Reformation churches drifting into ecumenical extinction.

[Adonia]

You imagine God as passive and uncaring

No I don't, you are simply wrong again in your estimation. He offers the ultimate in mercy when one comes calling to him in true repentance.

Instead, I state that God drove you to the hopelessness you experienced. He hounded you to break your rebellious heart and remove your heart of stone and give you a new heart and a new spirit within you.

Sorry, but I put myself where I was in contravention of God's way and commands to live a holy life. He waited for me to make MY decision of how to continue on with my life. I will agree that he indeed gave me a new heart and a better spirit.

 

[Particular]

No I don't, you are simply wrong again in your estimation. He offers the ultimate in mercy when one comes calling to him in true repentance.



Sorry, but I put myself where I was in contravention of God's way and commands to live a holy life. He waited for me to make MY decision of how to continue on with my life. I will agree that he indeed gave me a new heart and a better spirit.

Adonia, no matter how hard you try twisting this, you are preaching a weak God who has to wait for you to make up your mind. Moreso, it logically means that you can change your mind at any time and God is powerless to stop you.

Your entire premise is man-centered, which I personally find appalling.

 

[Yeshua1]

No I don't, you are simply wrong again in your estimation. He offers the ultimate in mercy when one comes calling to him in true repentance.



Sorry, but I put myself where I was in contravention of God's way and commands to live a holy life. He waited for me to make MY decision of how to continue on with my life. I will agree that he indeed gave me a new heart and a better spirit.

The ;problem is that none will seek God, will accept Jesus as lord apart from grace of God !

 

[Drifter]

Ephesians 2:20. '.....Having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone.' When do you put in the foundation of a building? Right at the start. How many foundations does a building need? Just the one.
That is really enough to clinch the matter,

I disagree, Martin. Perhaps there is more than one way of thinking about what it means for something to be a foundation of something else? Foundations and their buildings, while distinct, form one composite thing, do they not? One way in which the Apostles might continue to function as a foundation of the Church might be through the continuation of the ministry. Clement (and our mutual friend Augustine) seems to have thought this. So, as I suggested before, I don’t think the matter can be clinched and victory declared by the use of the word “foundation” in Ephesians 2:20.

but in addition, the qualifications for an apostles, as given in Acts of the Apostles 1:21-22, were that they should have been with the Lord Jesus and seen the risen Christ (2 Peter 1:16; 1 John 1:1-3; 1 Corinthians 9:1; Galatians 1:11-12). And Paul describes himself as the last apostle (1 Corinthians 15:8).

I think your understanding of “qualifications” here needs to be interrogated a little bit. As I understand it, your view appears to rest mainly on Acts 1:21-22. That is, that Matthias was qualified because he had travelled with and seen the Risen Lord. Thus, as that generation of eyewitnesses has passed, the ministry must also have passed. Is that right? My objection would be that it’s not clear that this passage is laying down qualifications in the absolute sense. Wouldn’t it disqualify Paul who was not one who “…companied with us all the time…” ? So, while I think this passage tells us how and why the nascent Church chose Matthias, I don’t think that the passage can be used against the continuation of the ministry in the post-Apostolic age.

I also don’t think that the other verses: 2 Peter 1:16, 1 John 1:1-3, 1 Corinthians 9:1, 1 Corinthians 15:8 Galatians 1:11-12 can be easily recruited into your argument either. I agree that John, Peter and Paul saw the Risen Lord! I agree that Paul was an Apostle! No argument here! But I don’t think that these verses really address the matter under discussion, which is whether the ministry can continue on without the original gang. I think that using any one of them as indirect proofs for the cessation of the Apostolic ministry only works if we assume in advance that the Apostolic ministry cannot continue without the successor being a first-century Christian. So it looks to me like you are begging the question here.

To clarify my view, which you might have already guessed, I do not think that it is necessary for one to be a captial A Apostle and yet genuinely continue the ministry.

 

[Adonia]

I disagree, Martin. Perhaps there is more than one way of thinking about what it means for something to be a foundation of something else? Foundations and their buildings, while distinct, form one composite thing, do they not? One way in which the Apostles might continue to function as a foundation of the Church might be through the continuation of the ministry. Clement (and our mutual friend Augustine) seems to have thought this. So, as I suggested before, I don’t think the matter can be clinched and victory declared by the use of the word “foundation” in Ephesians 2:20.



I think your understanding of “qualifications” here needs to be interrogated a little bit. As I understand it, your view appears to rest mainly on Acts 1:21-22. That is, that Matthias was qualified because he had travelled with and seen the Risen Lord. Thus, as that generation of eyewitnesses has passed, the ministry must also have passed. Is that right? My objection would be that it’s not clear that this passage is laying down qualifications in the absolute sense. Wouldn’t it disqualify Paul who was not one who “…companied with us all the time…” ? So, while I think this passage tells us how and why the nascent Church chose Matthias, I don’t think that the passage can be used against the continuation of the ministry in the post-Apostolic age.

I also don’t think that the other verses: 2 Peter 1:16, 1 John 1:1-3, 1 Corinthians 9:1, 1 Corinthians 15:8 Galatians 1:11-12 can be easily recruited into your argument either. I agree that John, Peter and Paul saw the Risen Lord! I agree that Paul was an Apostle! No argument here! But I don’t think that these verses really address the matter under discussion, which is whether the ministry can continue on without the original gang. I think that using any one of them as indirect proofs for the cessation of the Apostolic ministry only works if we assume in advance that the Apostolic ministry cannot continue without the successor being a first-century Christian. So it looks to me like you are begging the question here.

To clarify my view, which you might have already guessed, I do not think that it is necessary for one to be a captial A Apostle and yet genuinely continue the ministry.

The Apostolic ministry was indeed passed on, at least that is what the historical record indicates. They simply gave the ecclesiastical power which they received from the Lord Jesus himself and passed it forward through ordination, or as they called it back then the "laying on of hands".

 

[Yeshua1]

I disagree, Martin. Perhaps there is more than one way of thinking about what it means for something to be a foundation of something else? Foundations and their buildings, while distinct, form one composite thing, do they not? One way in which the Apostles might continue to function as a foundation of the Church might be through the continuation of the ministry. Clement (and our mutual friend Augustine) seems to have thought this. So, as I suggested before, I don’t think the matter can be clinched and victory declared by the use of the word “foundation” in Ephesians 2:20.



I think your understanding of “qualifications” here needs to be interrogated a little bit. As I understand it, your view appears to rest mainly on Acts 1:21-22. That is, that Matthias was qualified because he had travelled with and seen the Risen Lord. Thus, as that generation of eyewitnesses has passed, the ministry must also have passed. Is that right? My objection would be that it’s not clear that this passage is laying down qualifications in the absolute sense. Wouldn’t it disqualify Paul who was not one who “…companied with us all the time…” ? So, while I think this passage tells us how and why the nascent Church chose Matthias, I don’t think that the passage can be used against the continuation of the ministry in the post-Apostolic age.

I also don’t think that the other verses: 2 Peter 1:16, 1 John 1:1-3, 1 Corinthians 9:1, 1 Corinthians 15:8 Galatians 1:11-12 can be easily recruited into your argument either. I agree that John, Peter and Paul saw the Risen Lord! I agree that Paul was an Apostle! No argument here! But I don’t think that these verses really address the matter under discussion, which is whether the ministry can continue on without the original gang. I think that using any one of them as indirect proofs for the cessation of the Apostolic ministry only works if we assume in advance that the Apostolic ministry cannot continue without the successor being a first-century Christian. So it looks to me like you are begging the question here.

To clarify my view, which you might have already guessed, I do not think that it is necessary for one to be a captial A Apostle and yet genuinely continue the ministry.

One can be a modern apostle in the sense of being a missionary, but not in the sense Rome gives to it!

 

[Particular]

The Apostolic ministry was indeed passed on, at least that is what the historical record indicates. They simply gave the ecclesiastical power which they received from the Lord Jesus himself and passed it forward through ordination, or as they called it back then the "laying on of hands".

This is your church denomination tradition talking. There is no teaching in scripture about Apostolic succession. If, however, you want to follow this...please show the direct succession from Thomas's ministry in the East as he went through Persia and into India. Show all the other Apostles, not named Peter, and their succession.
You see, your church at Rome created just another legalistic tradition that binds the member to leadership if they want to hope for salvation. "Do what we tell you and you may have salvation at your deathbed. If you fail to comply, you will spend eternity in hell or eons in purgatory. Follow our rules or suffer the consequences."
What a graceless religion your church preaches. Legalism and works as the means of salvation. Only those that the inner sanctum picks as leaders can guide you. You must bow to the elite few or suffer the grave consequences.
Graceless, yet you promote it as "the way, the truth and the life." Jesus weeps over your church just as he wept over Jerusalem.

 

[Yeshua1]

This is your church denomination tradition talking. There is no teaching in scripture about Apostolic succession. If, however, you want to follow this...please show the direct succession from Thomas's ministry in the East as he went through Persia and into India. Show all the other Apostles, not named Peter, and their succession.
You see, your church at Rome created just another legalistic tradition that binds the member to leadership if they want to hope for salvation. "Do what we tell you and you may have salvation at your deathbed. If you fail to comply, you will spend eternity in hell or eons in purgatory. Follow our rules or suffer the consequences."
What a graceless religion your church preaches. Legalism and works as the means of salvation. Only those that the inner sanctum picks as leaders can guide you. You must bow to the elite few or suffer the grave consequences.
Graceless, yet you promote it as "the way, the truth and the life." Jesus weeps over your church just as he wept over Jerusalem.

Catholics must heed and obey the teachings of the Church leadership, exactly as JW, Mormons, and Sda must!

 

[Adonia]

Catholics must heed and obey the teachings of the Church leadership, exactly as JW, Mormons, and Sda must!

You are correct as regards Catholics, we heed and obey those whom God has placed in ecclesiastical authority over us, just like the scriptures say. You on the other hand have complete chaos where the individual makes things up to suit him/herself, an idea that came about because of one man. How many sects are within the Baptist sect again?

 

[Adonia]

Jesus weeps over your church

Jesus weeps over you and the complete chaos that you have placed yourself in. You follow the lead of one man who had left the Anglican communion, rejecting all that had come before the nonsense he started spouting. No matter how hard you try, you just cannot erase the historical record concerning the Christian experience on this earth as it has existed from the beginning. You can make charge after charge against us, but in the main you are in no position to talk about anyone else.

 

[Particular]

You are correct as regards Catholics, we heed and obey those whom God has placed in ecclesiastical authority over us, just like the scriptures say. You on the other hand have complete chaos where the individual makes things up to suit him/herself, an idea that came about because of one man. How many sects are within the Baptist sect again?

No different than the Jewish system where the Sadducees and Pharisees controlled the Sanhedrin and ran a corrupt temple system that required temple money and evil money changers. Yep, your system does rule over you. But, like the Jewish system, God has rejected the Roman Church as apostate.

 

[Particular]

Jesus weeps over you and the complete chaos that you have placed yourself in. You follow the lead of one man who had left the Anglican communion, rejecting all that had come before the nonsense he started spouting. No matter how hard you try, you just cannot erase the historical record concerning the Christian experience on this earth as it has existed from the beginning. You can make charge after charge against us, but in the main you are in no position to talk about anyone else.

I am in Christ Jesus. How is being made alive with Christ and found in Christ ever complete chaos?

I follow the lead of God's word and the saints who also are lead by God's word. When tradition is not scripturally sound and goes contrary to God's word, I discern it is from hell and reject it as such.

Stop placing your faith and hope in your man-made traditions. Put your faith and hope in God as He has revealed Himself in scripture.

 

[Adonia]

God has rejected the Roman Church as apostate.

So now you claim you know what God has done as regards the Latin Rite of Christianity? What a joke! Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is just a bunch of poppycock. God has not entrusted you (or your little sect) with the sole responsibility of speaking for Him, of determining how He feels about something one way or the other. Nope, you certainly are not the be all and end all of biblical interpretational authority.

 

[Adonia]

I follow the lead of God's word and the saints who also are lead by God's word.

No you don't. As a Baptist you follow the lead of one man, your Grand Poobah John Smythe, who was a dissenter of orthodox Christian belief's and teachings that stood the test of time for way over 1500 years.

Stop placing your faith and hope in your man-made traditions.

As you should do. Stop following the lead of one man named John Smythe.

Put your faith and hope in God as He has revealed Himself in scripture.

I do, I just don't put my faith and hope in YOUR interpretation of scripture. In the end that is all you got, one particular interpretation of the Holy Scriptures among the many that exist out there. Your take on the Holy Writ is about as good as the SDA folks or the JW's - you are all in the same category as far as I am concerned. The SDA people take their lead from Ellen White; the JW's do the same with Charles Taze Russell; and you slide along with John Smythe. See what I mean?

 

[Particular]

So now you claim you know what God has done as regards the Latin Rite of Christianity? What a joke! Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is just a bunch of poppycock. God has not entrusted you (or your little sect) with the sole responsibility of speaking for Him, of determining how He feels about something one way or the other. Nope, you certainly are not the be all and end all of biblical interpretational authority.

Where does God invoke the "Latin Rite?" The joke is that you have a tradition that is void of God's word. The burst bubble is your system of works that poses as Christian faith, but actually preaches chains filled with works that cannot save a soul.

 

[Yeshua1]

You are correct as regards Catholics, we heed and obey those whom God has placed in ecclesiastical authority over us, just like the scriptures say. You on the other hand have complete chaos where the individual makes things up to suit him/herself, an idea that came about because of one man. How many sects are within the Baptist sect again?

God gave to us the Holy Spirit as the great teacher, not the Church ! Mormons, Sda, JW and Rome all claim to have infallible teachings authority, whose right?

 

[Particular]

No you don't. As a Baptist you follow the lead of one man, your Grand Poobah John Smythe, who was a dissenter of orthodox Christian belief's and teachings that stood the test of time for way over 1500 years.



As you should do. Stop following the lead of one man named John Smythe.



I do, I just don't put my faith and hope in YOUR interpretation of scripture. In the end that is all you got, one particular interpretation of the Holy Scriptures among the many that exist out there. Your take on the Holy Writ is about as good as the SDA folks or the JW's - you are all in the same category as far as I am concerned. The SDA people take their lead from Ellen White; the JW's do the same with Charles Taze Russell; and you slide along with John Smythe. See what I mean?

John who?
Adonia, it seems you cannot comprehend that God saves individuals without the need for any other human. God's word is the two edged sword that teaches and guides. A person can walk in perfect step with the Holy Spirit and never be tied to a tradition.
It would be great if you lifted up God's word and questioned every tradition your church has ever created. If the tradition has no connection in scripture and creates legalism...get rid of it. It becomes a sin that easily entangles you.

 

[Yeshua1]

John who?
Adonia, it seems you cannot comprehend that God saves individuals without the need for any other human. God's word is the two edged sword that teaches and guides. A person can walk in perfect step with the Holy Spirit and never be tied to a tradition.
It would be great if you lifted up God's word and questioned every tradition your church has ever created. If the tradition has no connection in scripture and creates legalism...get rid of it. It becomes a sin that easily entangles you.

Jesus promised to us that the Holy Spirit would come and indwell and teach us the scriptures, not any Churvch leadership group!

 

[Hobie]

The Apostolic ministry was indeed passed on, at least that is what the historical record indicates. They simply gave the ecclesiastical power which they received from the Lord Jesus himself and passed it forward through ordination, or as they called it back then the "laying on of hands".

Nothing was given to the bishop of Rome, no authority, no temporal power, no right to burn at the stake, torture or persecute other Christians, no right to declare himself infallible, or declare anyone a goddess.