Pope Francis gives church hundreds of new saints...

[kfinks]

...Before you try to lecture me on church history from your biased Romanist perspective, go out and get a doctorate in church history and theology as I have...

I am curious about your doctorate which you have mentioned several times. Is it a Th.D,. D. Min., Ph.D, or other? Which college/university awarded it? Did you publish your dissertation via UMI?

Thanks

 

[WestminsterMan]

Because of the length of your erroneous blather, I have given my first answers in blue within your quoted blather.

Before you try to lecture me on church history from your biased Romanist perspective, go out and get a doctorate in church history and theology as I have.

Well, I might not have a doctorate in church history, but I know enough to turn you inside out - as is evident from your anger here. Ohhh Yeeeahhhhh!

And thanks for proving that you have no case by quoting fathers from the late second century and later. I know that you can't base your views on scripture, so you have to use secondary, uninspired men.

Well then... quote some that go back further than that who make your case and you might have a point. You cannot so you do not. Ka - Ching!

Scripture blows the "Catholic" view of apostolic succession out of the water because there were no monarchial bishops as a third order of ministry in scripture. I have proven that many times. Romanist error cannot be proven by scripture. In fact, scripture refutes it, so people such as you have to resort to quotes 200 years and more removed from the time of the apostles to try and prove your vain traditions of men.

I don't need to prove it from scripture because I have presented you with history that proves it. Yet, all you can do is whine about how ... ohhhhh all you can do is quote Church Fathers from the late second century and later... which in an itellectually honest world means absolutely nothing. You know, if I put my ear to my computer screen I can actually hear a breeze blowing - and it's your gums flapping.

I'll tell you what brother, if you've got a PhD in theology or history, then you would know better than to stand up here an act all puffy when we all recognize that as nothing more than a weak tactic in an attempt to hide the fact that you cannot refute the history that I provided, so that you can change the subject and then start crying about scripture.

snip...Only a fool trusts in fables.

And only an intellectual coward must resort to name calling (I.e. Romanist). Brother, you got nothin'.

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

WM

i understood what you said exactly, but it was mistaken....

the one true church has never assembled yet.....it will assemble on the last day.

here is what you said;



The one assembly..assembles on the last day....until that time there are plural churches as shown....built upon ;


20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Yet Jesus prayed that we could all be one. Hmmmm...

WM

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Not a SOLID Foundation...

Perhaps you missed what Jesus said (and that was the context of my statement) "Upon the rock I will build my CHURCH..." If you had read what I said - really understood what I wrote - then you could have saved yourself a lot copy work. But thanks for posting none-the-less. AND, those were all part of the Catholic Church. Unlike the situation today where everytime someone gets irked at the pastor, they just move down the road and open up another.

Hmmm...

WM

WM....if you and the rest of the catholics are saying that Christ declared that he was establishing and building HIS church using or upon Peter as His foundation then that automatically guarantees that it would be a false church ( that would indict the Son of God as a heretic) in that it is founded on a SINFUL MAN who was just as much in need of salvation as the rest of us. Not a very solid foundation. Peter was no "pope"...he was a sinful man in need of a Saviour just like the rest of us.(actually...that's the same shape Mary is in as well).

Christ Himself is the ONLY solid rock and foundation of His Church....not the apostle Peter or any other fallible man. Papal infallibility is a heresy and an invention of fallible men who have been and are seeking to secure their "authority" over other sinful men. I am one "baptist" who is very cautious about the matter of ANY man wielding too much "authority" over any other man within the local church. There are baptist "pastors" today who think they can "rule" over "their" congregations (which aren't "theirs" at all). THAT makes them just as bad as the "catholics" ever even thought about being! They are just as wrong and heretical as some Catholic "pope", "priest", "bishop", or "cardinal" (unbiblical "offices" all) doing the same thing. All of the above mentioned "offices" are occupied by sinful, fallible men who are in the same need as ANY other man, woman, or child ever born on this planet since the days of Genesis 3:6.
Christ Himself is the ONLY true head of the true Church...and it is made up of ALL the individual men and women, boys and girls, of all times who have come to the knowledge of the Truth (Jesus Christ) and exercised saving faith in Him. It is our Lord's desire that those believers assemble themselves in local churches/assemblies and worship, fellowship, and serve Him in Spirit and in Truth...according to the teaching of the Holy Spirit through the Holy Scriptures....ONLY. The so-called "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" places as much or more credence or "authority" behind its traditions, dogmas and papal edicts than it does in the only TRUE authority...the Word of God as recorded and finalized in the 66 book canon of scripture. God esteems and "magnifies" His own Word above His name (Psalm 138:2). We should do the same if we are to be true to Him. I am a member of a local assembly of (mostly) like-minded believers in Christ AND a Blood-bought, Blood-washed member of the invisible (until the time of Christ's soon return) universal Church of the living God which is made up of all the saved of all time. It is NOT an earthly "institution" as is the local church and it has NOTHING to do with any man-made divisions or denominations. The local church is the organization here on earth that God employes to do the work of spreading His Gospel in this dispensation known as the "church age". The "pope" has no authority on earth or in hell (and there is no such place or thing as "purgatory"). Like all of the inhabitants of this earth...he will wind up in one place or the other. If (and I believe he is) teaching "another Gospel" than the one that Christ preached...then that does not bode well for him....or anybody who follows his "lead". My advise to all...Don't be a MAN follower!

In addition and for the record....I'm no scholar and I labor under no illusion that the words that I post here will do anything to change your (or the other catholics here)minds. That is not my job. As a child of God I am simply to obey Christ and "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3) and declare the truth. We will all be judged in the end by the truth of the Word of God and the faithful testimony of the same that we have heard. That is God's business. We will ALL also be held accountable for those acts we commit and the words we speak....some of us (the unsaved)for the matter of judgement in the end....or some (the saved)as a matter of reward (or not) at the Judgement Seat of Christ (for true believers ONLY). We all need to be careful what we believe and what we say.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[DHK]

No Catholic has any valid historical proof that Peter was ever in Rome except for his martyrdom, and even that is based on tradition.

 

[WestminsterMan]

No Catholic has any valid historical proof that Peter was ever in Rome except for his martyrdom, and even that is based on tradition.

Well, I just gave valid proof - you just refuse to accept it. That's certainly your choice... to stumble around in life with blinders on I mean.

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

WM....if you and the rest of the catholics are saying that Christ declared that he was establishing and building HIS church using or upon Peter as His foundation then that automatically guarantees that it would be a false church ( that would indict the Son of God as a heretic) in that it is founded on a SINFUL MAN who was just as much in need of salvation as the rest of us. snip...

Bro.Greg:saint:

I have no idea how you can conclude that because Christ said he would build His church upon Peter (and that's precisely what He did), that somehow indicts that Son of God as a Heritic. But hey, if that's what you want to scratch out of scripture, then that certainly explains a great deal to me.

Just sayin...

WM

 

[Walter]

Because of the length of your erroneous blather, I have given my first answers in blue within your quoted blather.

Before you try to lecture me on church history from your biased Romanist perspective, go out and get a doctorate in church history and theology as I have.

And thanks for proving that you have no case by quoting fathers from the late second century and later. I know that you can't base your views on scripture, so you have to use secondary, uninspired men.

Scripture blows the "Catholic" view of apostolic succession out of the water because there were no monarchial bishops as a third order of ministry in scripture. I have proven that many times. Romanist error cannot be proven by scripture. In fact, scripture refutes it, so people such as you have to resort to quotes 200 years and more removed from the time of the apostles to try and prove your vain traditions of men.

The truth is that the monarchial episcopate was a historical development which was not the general rule everywhere until the late second century. Anglicans, who hold to apostolic succession, admit as much. So, the line of such bishops can only be traced back to that time. And every such line is corrupt anyway, since it contains corrupt and ungodly bishops who were not even Christians.

The only way the RCC can maintain its traditions is to place them above scripture. In scripture, bishop/presbyter/elder/pastor/overseer were synonyms for one and the same office. So, the teaching of a line of monarchial bishops back to the apostles is patently false and nothing more than a fable.

Only a fool trusts in fables.

Brother, maybe some Anglicans would agree with you claim, but I read a book by Bonnell Spencer, OHC (Anglican) titled Ýe Are The Body' which disputes your late second century assertion. However, I do believe there is biblical evidence for the historic episcopate and Apostolic Succession. Paul appears to be passing his office along to Timothy (1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:6, 13-14, 2:1-2, 4:1-6).
Then look at 2 Timothy 2:1-2 Ýou then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.'

Here is why I don't see the Baptists position valid. Baptists do believe in a kind of Apostolic Succession because when Jesus gives His disciples command to do certain things, it is seen by Baptists, as commands to their successors as well -maybe not Apostolic Succession per se, but at least succession as believers in Jesus-right? And when Jesus tells His disciples to preach the gospel or to baptize, Baptists think that this applies to all Christians through the history of Christianity. But when Jesus tells the same disciples to "bind and loose" (Matt 18:18; Jn 20:23; also to Peter individually in Matt 16:19), somehow that is not seen as a thing that is relevant through history, and is relegated to their time only. Why is that?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No Catholic has any valid historical proof that Peter was ever in Rome except for his martyrdom, and even that is based on tradition.

His bones are there in Rome they found his sepulcher. That should be evidence enough. If Catholics are right about Peter being Martyred in Rome then it stands to reason they are right about him teaching in Rome as well. However, there is documentation stating that Peter was there in Rome. You have more evidence to prove Peter's time in Rome than you do to prove Homer existed.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Christ is the ONLY Rock!

I have no idea how you can conclude that because Christ said he would build His church upon Peter (and that's precisely what He did), that somehow indicts that Son of God as a Heritic. But hey, if that's what you want to scratch out of scripture, then that certainly explains a great deal to me.

Just sayin...

WM

WM (and all the other "catholics" here)...I'm not "scratching" anything out of scripture...just reading and believing it in context and rightly dividing it in respect to the rest of the testimonies contained therein....it is YOU who have embraced a misinterpretation of the Scriptures in Matthew 16:16-20. Christ was referring to HIMSELF as being the Rock upon which the Church would be established. He was simply confirming to Peter that it was God (Himself) that had revealed that to him. Peter himself later confirmed this very truth in 1 Peter 2:3-10 but you plainly have to have the Holy Spirit living within you to help you verify and "rightly divide" that very truth if you are to be able to learn it. Go read the Bible instead of the dogmas of your church and you may learn something. God may be merciful and by His grace and His Spirit teach you something. The Word of God is the instrument by which His Holy Spirit gives instruction.

Psalm 119:130 says:
130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.(KJV)

My advise...reject the word of man...cling to the Word of God!

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

WM (and all the other "catholics" here)...I'm not "scratching" anything out of scripture...just reading and believing it in context and rightly dividing it in respect to the rest of the testimonies contained therein....it is YOU who have embraced a misinterpretation of the Scriptures in Matthew 16:16-20. Christ was referring to HIMSELF as being the Rock upon which the Church would be established. He was simply confirming to Peter that it was God (Himself) that had revealed that to him. Peter himself later confirmed this very truth in 1 Peter 2:3-10 but you plainly have to have the Holy Spirit living within you to help you verify and "rightly divide" that very truth if you are to be able to learn it. Go read the Bible instead of the dogmas of your church and you may learn something. God may be merciful and by His grace and His Spirit teach you something. The Word of God is the instrument by which His Holy Spirit gives instruction.

Psalm 119:130 says:
130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.(KJV)

My advise...reject the word of man...cling to the Word of God!

Bro.Greg:saint:

Kind of hard to buy that when Jesus said

And I tell you, you are Peter

We know at this point Jesus is speaking Aramaic and not Greek therefore Jesus called Peter Kephas at this point because Paul in Galatians 2 refers to Peter not as Petros but

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned

Because it was with this Aramaic name that Jesus had given Peter saying You are Peter (Kephas/Rock) which continuing his discourse Jesus continues

and on this rock I will build my church

and

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed[d] in heaven

at no point does Jesus change the subject. You are rock. I will build my church on this rock. You will bind and loose. It flows. What you suggest is a disjointed discourse you are rock, I will build on rock meaning me not you and you will bind and loose but I don't really mean it. The text is clear. Peter is the rock which Jesus was speaking of.

 

[DHK]

Well, I just gave valid proof - you just refuse to accept it. That's certainly your choice... to stumble around in life with blinders on I mean.

WM

What valid proof?

 

[Iconoclast]

Yet Jesus prayed that we could all be one. Hmmmm...

WM

Yes...and that will happen on the last day.....many who think they are going there are not going to make the trip;
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

 

[DHK]

His bones are there in Rome they found his sepulcher. That should be evidence enough. If Catholics are right about Peter being Martyred in Rome then it stands to reason they are right about him teaching in Rome as well. However, there is documentation stating that Peter was there in Rome. You have more evidence to prove Peter's time in Rome than you do to prove Homer existed.

Of course his bones are there. I said that he was martyred there. That is the only time that he was there. There is no evidence that he was in Rome for any extended period of time whatsoever.
Paul is completely ignorant of his existence if he was there. There is no greeting or mention of him in his letter to the Romans. In fact the only mention of Peter in all of Paul's writings was to rebuke him, and that is found in the epistle to the Galatians. In Acts 15 we know that he is in Jerusalem. Nowhere is there any evidence that he is in Rome, except to by martyred by the Roman government, as Paul was.

 

[BobRyan]

A church must hold to apostolic doctrine? I agree but who are you to determine what that apostolic doctrine is - are you in the line of succession back to the apostles who imparted apostolic doctrine to the Church? No, and to make such sweeping statements borders of laughable and is patently absurd. :laugh:

If one wants to read biased opinion, then your posts are well worth the time. Facts, on the other hand...

Look... you claim that history shows all christian churches were deliniated by the little "c" and that the RCC isn't apostolic but in the end, it makes no difference and here's why - you're wrong.

First, like it or not (and I'm sure that you don't) everyone was either Catholic, Muslim, or Buddhist before the Reformation - and that's a fact.

Second, Church history does show with perfect clarity that line of apostolic succession from whence aposoltic doctrine comes, that you so "bloviatingly" deny - in other words, that big 'ol "C":..

WM

Here are the problems with that.

1. In Acts 20 Paul says that error coming in hard on his heels - it is not waiting for 1700 years.

Acts 20
"28 Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;
30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.
31 Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears."


And 2 - you assume that if there is any history at all - any bishops at all that show Christendom going back to the first century then they all must have been Catholic. But history does not bear that out. Even RCC historians point to many changes in doctrine evolving over time.

And the RCC itself admits to "exterminating" many groups all along the way that were Christians in opposition to the doctrinal errors and practices of their day.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

. I will build my church on this rock. You will bind and loose. It flows. What you suggest is a disjointed discourse you are rock, I will build on rock meaning me not you and you will bind and loose but I don't really mean it. The text is clear. Peter is the rock which Jesus was speaking of.

Christ calls Peter "petros" - pebble in Matt 16 - but refers to Himself as the "Petra" foundation-stone of Matt 7.

In 1Cor 3 - Paul says that "this PETRA" is Christ - and NTHER foundation can be laid but that one PETRA.

In 1Cor 10 Paul says "That PETRA is Christ".

What wonderful place for him to have said "That PETRA is Christ and Peter" had that been the actual teaching of the church.

Notice that there is no place in all of the NT where Peter is called "The head of the church" and no place in all of scripture where Peter is said to the vicar of Christ, nor the vicar of the Son of God - not even once in all of scripture. Nor is there any mention at all about John being Peter's successor after Peter dies - nor of any other person being Peter's successor - even though John outlives Peter.

Does that not seem odd given that the Catholic church claims this is what they were teaching in the first century??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Christ calls Peter "petros" - pebble in Matt 16 - but refers to Himself as the "Petra" foundation-stone of Matt 7.

In 1Cor 3 - Paul says that "this PETRA" is Christ - and NTHER foundation can be laid but that one PETRA.

In 1Cor 10 Paul says "That PETRA is Christ".

What wonderful place for him to have said "That PETRA is Christ and Peter" had that been the actual teaching of the church.

Notice that there is no place in all of the NT where Peter is called "The head of the church" and no place in all of scripture where Peter is said to the vicar of Christ, nor the vicar of the Son of God - not even once in all of scripture. Nor is there any mention at all about John being Peter's successor after Peter dies - nor of any other person being Peter's successor - even though John outlives Peter.

Does that not seem odd given that the Catholic church claims this is what they were teaching in the first century??

in Christ,

Bob

First of all we know Jesus called Simon bar Jonah Kephas because that is how Paul refers to Peter in Galatians and as you know Kephas means rock just like in english. Matthew is in Greek which uses Masculine and feminine identifiers. So in Greek the writer of Matthew uses the Greek Masculine Petros for peter as he could not use the feminine. Because of translation rather of Aramaic into Greek we see an error in assuming the Greek word little rock or Petros was meant as Rock in General was used in Aramaic by Jesus to Peter. Now there is no conflict with Jesus being the corner stone or the rock in another book in another context. but in Matthew it is clear Jesus is speaking specifically to Peter. Though you say nowhere in scripture that Peter is called the Head of the Church. That is because he is not. He is first among apostles and given the responsibility over the apostles. Ask yourself why is Peter mentioned first in every list of the Apostles because it certainly isn't ordered alphabetically. Note Judas is always mentioned last thus giving a primary place for Peter and a last place for Judas. Jesus told Peter to encourage the apostles. Certainly there is deference for Peter in the NT over the other apostles.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Of course his bones are there. I said that he was martyred there. That is the only time that he was there. There is no evidence that he was in Rome for any extended period of time whatsoever.
Paul is completely ignorant of his existence if he was there. There is no greeting or mention of him in his letter to the Romans. In fact the only mention of Peter in all of Paul's writings was to rebuke him, and that is found in the epistle to the Galatians. In Acts 15 we know that he is in Jerusalem. Nowhere is there any evidence that he is in Rome, except to by martyred by the Roman government, as Paul was.

There is evidence. Many historical documents point to him being there. I find it funny that you will accept the Catholic word for one thing but not another therefore one can only assume that that its not the source which is the determining factor but what you want to believe.

 

[Walter]

First of all we know Jesus called Simon bar Jonah Kephas because that is how Paul refers to Peter in Galatians and as you know Kephas means rock just like in english. Matthew is in Greek which uses Masculine and feminine identifiers. So in Greek the writer of Matthew uses the Greek Masculine Petros for peter as he could not use the feminine. Because of translation rather of Aramaic into Greek we see an error in assuming the Greek word little rock or Petros was meant as Rock in General was used in Aramaic by Jesus to Peter. Now there is no conflict with Jesus being the corner stone or the rock in another book in another context. but in Matthew it is clear Jesus is speaking specifically to Peter. Though you say nowhere in scripture that Peter is called the Head of the Church. That is because he is not. He is first among apostles and given the responsibility over the apostles. Ask yourself why is Peter mentioned first in every list of the Apostles because it certainly isn't ordered alphabetically. Note Judas is always mentioned last thus giving a primary place for Peter and a last place for Judas. Jesus told Peter to encourage the apostles. Certainly there is deference for Peter in the NT over the other apostles.

EXCELLENT, TS!! Slam Dunk!!

Although the New Testament does refer to Christ as Rock, Jesus never applied the image to himself. Instead, he consistently used the language of Daniel 7:13, "son of man".

Now, who else in the bible was called 'Rock'? Only Yahweh had been called rock except for Abraham, the Patriarch. Now, Baptists may not see that as anything significant. But for the Jews that is a phrase of great dignity-to be called a Rock.

 

[Iconoclast]

EXCELLENT, TS!! Slam Dunk!!

Although the New Testament does refer to Christ as Rock, Jesus never applied the image to himself. Instead, he consistently used the language of Daniel 7:13, "son of man".

Now, who else in the bible was called 'Rock'? Only Yahweh had been called rock except for Abraham, the Patriarch. Now, Baptists may not see that as anything significant. But for the Jews that is a phrase of great dignity-to be called a Rock.

4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

35 And they remembered that God was their rock, and the high God their redeemer.

4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

This is the "slam dunk" .....and that Rock was Christ.