Final and Only Authority

Yes, but both the Orthodox in 1054 AD and the Protestants 500 years ago rejected the idea that a Roman Catholic Pope is the Vicar of Christ, right? And it does not help that Pope Francis has set about to destroy the legacy of Pope John Paul II, who was friendlier with the USA. But then Pope Francis is a Peronist, or an Argentine admirer of Mussolini and has not been critical of the suffering caused by communist and socialist governments in Latin America but has been very friendly with the leaders of those countries and quite outspoken in his unfriendly criticisms of the USA, which is not a Roman Catholic country. I find that very conservative Catholics are friendly with Protestants and very liberal Catholics are unfriendly with Protestants.

 

Admittedly there is a benefit in having an indisputable final authority such the Holy See of the Catholic Church.
Add to that the fact that the Pope at any time necessary can issue a papal Bull or speak infallibly in ex cathedra to resolve issues.

Of course all the elements and their claims mentioned above must be accepted by faith.

Even at that, my cradle Catholic Italian family (especially on the patriarchal side being well educated) have occasional disputes concerning all things Catholic.

e.g. The impact of Vatican II and the change from the Latin Mass - and many other issues.

HankD

 

Is Francis the Peronist a pope or antipope? Vatican II has birthed even more conjecture regarding who the real vicar might be. The eastern orthodox still do not bow to the bishopric/primacy of Peter. What is that about?

Jesus is The Vicar. Now what?

If one is baptized by a priest who is later defrocked, is the baptism still valid? How does one know for sure?

Who is in control of the Vatican these days--liberals, conservatives, charismatic, or ultra-traditional? The curia?

Even, so come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

problem: many ecclesiastic entities make the same claim as the Roman Catholic Church - "We are the true church" and have a sound logical apologetic to prove it.

e.g. the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints.

In summary they admit that the "True Church" existed in the Early Days until the 3rd or 4th century or thereabouts but went into the state of apostasy thereafter until Joseph Smith received a direct revelation from God and the Book of Mormon and he was given the task of reestablishing the church on earth in the Later Days.

They have an ecclesiastic structure very similar to the Catholic Church with different titles of course - the president = the Pope. There is the office of The 12 apostles, Bishops etc...

The point: Folks choose what they want to believe for foundational truth and there are several church entities which provide a strong hierarchical structure of authority.

Baptist however believe the Scripture to be the final and only authority in matters pertaining to God - by faith of course.
This is not to say this is better in and of itself.

Why therefore challenge our faith? I have no doubt concerning yours in your own personal venue.

Discussion of differences and even healthy debate thereof is better than 24/7 destructive confrontations.


HankD

 

Ohoh! I never had a Bible of my own until I enlisted in the US Air Force and was issued a NT in boot camp.

It sat in my locker for 2 years until I felt a strong urge to start reading it.

HankD

 

Jesus was and is the Son of God and He provided mankind with the 2nd and FINAL covenant to restore our relationship to God lost by Adam and Eve's sin. The 1st covenant with the Jewish people was imperfect and not intended to be the perfect lasting covenant under Christ and Grace. So yes, Jesus did change aspects of the first covenant to be consistent with His everlasting one. He did refute some laws in the Old Testament. The one you refer to is of course his commands on how to deal with people that have wronged you.
[Exo 21:23-24 KJV] 23 And if [any] mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
[Mat 5:38-39 KJV] 38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
It's not a valid argument to say that because the Son of God can provide a new way to God and refute the old one that a mere man can do the same thing.
We are living under the guidance and instruction of the entire Bible not just the Old Testament and specifically under the new covenant given to us by the Lord Jesus Christ.
Can God still give us answers to our prayers and insights into our concerns? Of course. Can He still work miracles? I believe that He can. After all, He is the Lord God Almighty and is omnipotent. Can a minister or the Pope do any of these things? NO. They like us are poor sinners saved by Grace through faith.
The Bible warns against adding or talking away any part of the Holy Scriptures.
[Rev 22:18-19 KJV] 18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.
Ultimate truth and ultimate reality can only be found in God not in any man. But this truth must be applied to our everyday experiences by all of us and in the appropriate areas supplemented by science and experience. The Bible does not tell us how to build a car. We've discovered that through science and experience. In the same way, the Bible does not tell you whether the car is white or blue. That decision is given to us to be made using the insights of the Bible supplemented by our worldly knowledge learned through using the God-given intellect He gave man.

 

The Rev. 22:18-19 is a death blow to the traditions of men being added to The Word of God. See also: Mt. 15:1-12.

Re: Baptist mini pontiffs. A true Baptist Church has no central authority. No dioceses, archdioceses, archbishops, archdeacons, cardinals and pontiffs, etc. etc. That sort of apostasy is strictly from the pagan Roman Empire, pontifex maximus, Constantine the Great, his mother, Helena and others who foisted some apostate so-called Christians to an unholy marriage of church and state in the 4th century. The offspring still reside in the Vatican in Rome and still have a remarkable control over billions of people. Formerly known as: Holy Roman Empire.

True Baptists are not a denomination of the so-called Protestant Reformation of Catholicism. True Baptists have never been a part of Rome, in fact always persecuted by them. True Baptists have always regarded Papacy as Antichrist.

There is nothing universal about a True Baptist Congregation. They are congregational, the majority rules, a theocracy, following the scripture with the guidance of The Spirit, The Holy, Who immersed the First Congregation on the day of pentecost. He continues to lead, guide and direct them--without a holy see, never having been a part of Rome. Amazing.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

What other source of authority did Jesus Himself ever cite then, apart from the Scriptures themselves?
And the Church of Rome departs from scripture teachings on many points, so that is the ONLY reason it has to validate traditions of men equal to scriptures of God!

 

Mat_4:4 But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

Mat_4:10 Then Jesus said to him, “Be gone, Satan! For it is written, “‘You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.’”

Mat_26:24 The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”

This disdain for "ink and paper" is not of God. Jesus consistently referred to "ink and paper" during his ministry.

 

Utilyan: thank you for your patience. For sure there is much pontification going on in the wonderful world of ecumenism.

Re: Your strawman argument about show me the verse--did you want that in Greek or Latin? Douay or KJV, 1611?

The word "Trinity" is not found in the copies of originals. Trinity is certainly a teaching of scripture. Now what?

Have you seriously considered: Mt. 15:8-9,Douay Rheims, 1899, AmEd.(DRA)?

"This people honoreth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. And in vain they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men." Who might these folks be?

Why do modern popes apologize for the Holy See?

Peace.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

So your Final Authority on the Church having the Final Authority is the Scripture. Correct?

 

Actually, no. No one told me who was writing on behalf of God. The Holy Spirit led me to believe the 66 books of the bible were Scripture. After reading each one and having the Holy Spirit guide me I concluded they were legit, not because any pastor or church said so. When I read other gospels and other letters I can immediately through the Holy Spirit see they are not up to par. No, we did not need any RCC to tell us which writings are of God. Your church may have come to the same conclusions early on before all the corruption plagued your church, but it was the Holy Spirit who pointed to who was Scripture.

Maybe it wasn't bound into a bible, but the Scriptures always existed with God's people.

 

This from a man who says one can reject Jesus Christ and be justified by their works. Talk about butchering John chapter three.

 

You haven't proven your church is the Final Authority. You point to the Final Authority to prove your church is the Final Authority. How ironic.